Part Four
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Some hard-core defenders of all things to do with the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have been singing the old songs that I used to sing to excuse their hero.
Yes, I used to sing the old songs to excuse Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges, blaming the "bad men" who surrounded the "pope" to keep him from doing what I believed he wanted to do to "restore" the Catholic Church.
Let me remind you of what I wrote about five years ago now:
To wit, all of my own former efforts to project Catholicity into the
mind and the heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II were founded
in looking at bits and pieces of the puzzle, refusing to admit that the
false "pontiff" expressed most publicly a belief in various condemned
propositions (including false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology,
inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and
State, praising false religions for the "good" that they do and how they
can contribute to "world peace," etc.). Undeterred by these
inconvenient little facts, I sang "the old songs" to defend Wojtyla/John
Paul II for far too long. This is how the "old songs" went:
1. It was within a week of his election on October
16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in
their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's
traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.
2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae
3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of
1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in
Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history.
See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.
4. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II whacked the American bishops over
the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of
America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters
against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own
documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic
University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those
educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians
to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said
this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father
Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was
sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. (See Lecture during the visit to the Catholic University of America in
Washington, October 7, 1979. It was
later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the
very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass,"
saying in a most stirring manner, " Human life is precious because it is the gift of a God whose love is
infinite; and when God gives life, it is for ever!" (Mass at the Capitol Mall in Washington, October 7, 1979.)
5. Two months thereafter, on December 15, 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology
at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other
arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I
told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that
day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll." (See Declaration
regarding certain aspects of the theological doctrine of Professor Hans Küng.)
6. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:
As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask
forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and
dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever
reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and
also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application
of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal
and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the
veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that
in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred
mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of
reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)
See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient"
conciliar priests for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that
there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and
ever-changable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time,
of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't
the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.
7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a
"Perpetual Adoration" Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest
of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn
Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He
used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to
see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes
of the world.
8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied on July 25, 1986, the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions (see Letter
regarding the suspension of Father Carlo Curran from the teaching of Theology)
and Father
Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by
John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and
dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992 for his New Age
"creation spirituality" beliefs.
9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum)
visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the
Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's
parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the
recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's
answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said,
"Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on
Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of
1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York
Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their
faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their
ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with
you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are
responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly
to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having
difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have," I said
when learning of this from Roman contacts.
10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the
Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via
della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first
"indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the
Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back!
We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained
that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had
to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that
it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return.
Yet it is that I was fooling myself--and others--all the while, something that I came to realize over the course of time. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II lost the Holy Faith in his youth as a teenager (see "Connecting" with Betrayal). How ironic it has been that some of those who lambasted me quite rightly for my foolishness as a longtime defender of "all things John Paul II" have been insisting regular and with great intensity that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is surrounded by "bad men," wicked advisers who have kept him from "restoring" what they believe to be the Catholic Church.
I can't be too hard on such delusional beliefs as I was guilty of them for a long time. It is, though, amazing that many who mocked and treated with dripping sarcasm those of us who used the same positivism to defend Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II as they are using at present to defend their own poor, suffering "pope", Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
What is even more amazing is that the contention that the conciliar "popes" have been "manipulated" into doing and saying various things contrary to their own best judgments and convictions is really nothing new. Modernists aplenty tried sung the same old songs to try disparage the encyclicals and administrative decisions of Pope Saint Pius X:
[Cardinal] Merry del Val's double promotion aroused jealousies. Soon the Secretary of State was target of new criticisms from other quarters. The Modernists and those who were critical of the pontificate linked his name with those of two order cardinals--De Lai and Vives y Tuto--and called them the Pope's "dark soul," i.e., those who incited him to adopt an intransigent attitude and exercised a disproportionate influence over him. The rumor was so persistent that, towards the end of his pontificate, Pius X thought it necessary contradict it in the severest terms: words fail me to describe all those who keep saying that there are three cardinals who give the orders' there have always been such people in the Church; trying to avoid giving their due submission, they endeavor to persuade themselves that they are not obliged in conscience because it is not the Pope who is commanding." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 137.)
Thus it is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is solely responsible for what he has said, done and authorized since his "election" as the successor to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II no matter how vehemently his defenders protest that he has been "coerced" into doing things against his will.
Joseph Ratzinger has been the same as "Pope" John Paul II that he has been throughout his nearly sixty-two years of priestly apostasy.
Ratzinger/Benedict has told us that he has never changed:
If someone
were to cast doubt upon Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's affiliation to the
progressivist current, he could find the Prelate's own admittance of
such in an interview with journalist Vittorio Messori, who calls him a
"balanced progressivist."
Messori points to Ratzinger as "one of the founders of the magazine Concilium, a meeting place for the progressivist wing of theology."
"'Was it a sin of youth, Your Eminence, this engagement with Concilium?' I asked him, joshing.
"'Absolutely not,' he answered. 'I did not change; they changed.'"
(Rapporto sulla Fede - Vittorio Messori a coloquio con Joseph Ratzinger, Rome:Paoline, 1985, p. 14). (Card. Ratzinger: I Did Not Change.)
... Ratzinger has always been for an advanced position and openness.
I have known him for a long time, since he was a professor, and I can assure you that he did not change.
Everyone says the opposite, that there are two Ratzingers: one before he came to Rome, and a different one later.
To the contrary, he has always remained the same!
(Hans Urs von Balthasar, "Viaggio nel Postconcilio", interview with Angelo Scola, 30 Giorni, November 1985, p. 16. (Hans Urs von Balthasar: Ratzinger Did Not Change.)
O Estado de Sao Paulo - What are the more significant differences between the Ratzinger of
Vatican II and the Ratzinger of today? Who changed more: you or the
Church?
Cardinal Ratzinger – I do not see a real, profound difference between
my work at Vatican Council II and my present day work. While preparing
this course for Bishops, I went to review a course of ecclesiology that I
taught for the first time in 1956. Naturally, I found elements that
needed to be updated. But as for the fundamental vision, I found a
profound similarity. What I proposed to the Bishops in Rio de Janeiro
(in this trip) was the same fundamental vision that I set out (then).
(Interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger by Walter Falceta, Jr, 'Acao pastoral requer espiritualidade' in O Estado de S. Paulo, July 29, 1990) (No Difference between My Work at Vatican II and Now.)
I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and
in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the
successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and
situations and even people influence you because you take on different
responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic
vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio)
Ah, it should be noted at this point that Ratzinger/Benedict's mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, gave his interview in 1985 to Angelo Scola, who has been the conciliar "archbishop" of Milan since June 28, 2011, has long been a prime force in the "Communion and Liberation" movement that has been instrumental in helping to evangelize in behalf of the "conciliar ecclesiology" of the "Church as Communion." Scola worked with several other revolutionaries, including the aforementioned Hegelian, Von Blaster, and the likes of Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger. Although I am not "handicapping" the results of the next conclave of conciliar "cardinals," which could meet as early as March 10, 2013, Angelo Scola, although seventy-one years of age, could be a strong contender to replace his colleague as a usurper of the Papal Throne.
Yes, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has been the same now and he has been throughout his life. He is to blame for his rotten "pontificate," not anyone else.
To wit, Joseph Ratzinger's longtime commitment to "religious liberty" was on display four days ago in his valedictory address to the "bishops" and clergy of the Diocese of Rome:
Now, with these issues, the Rhine alliance - so to speak - had done its work: the second part of the Council is much broader. Now the themes of "the world today", "the modern era" and the Church emerged with greater urgency, and with them, the themes of responsibility for building of this world, society’s responsibility for the future of this world and eschatological hope, the ethical responsibility of Christians, where they find their guides and then religious freedom, progress and all that, and relations with other religions.
Now all the players in the Council really entered into discussions, not only the Americas-United States with a strong interest in religious freedom. In the third period they told the Pope: "We can not go home without bringing with us a declaration on religious freedom passed by the Council." The Pope, however, had firmness and decision, the patience to delay the text until the fourth period to reach a maturation and a fairly complete consensus among the Fathers of the Council. (Blame the Media, Not the Council, Not Me or My Apostate Views.)
We must remember that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI dedicated the entirety of 2011 to promote "religious liberty" in preparation for his hideous Assisi III meeting on October 27, 2011.
Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the
human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to
God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are
fully understood. To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to
foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public
role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it
fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.
For this reason, I implore all men and women of
good will to renew their commitment to building a world where all are
free to profess their religion or faith, and to express their love of
God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind
(cf. Mt 22:37). This is the sentiment which inspires and directs this Message for the XLIV World Day of Peace, devoted to the theme: Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.
A sacred right to life and to a spiritual life
2. The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person, whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27). For this reason each person is endowed with the sacred right to
a full life, also from a spiritual standpoint. Without the
acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the
transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find
answers to the heart’s deepest questions about life’s meaning, fails to
appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to
experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.
Sacred Scripture, in harmony with our own
experience, reveals the profound value of human dignity: “When I look at
your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which
you have established, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the
son of man, that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less
than God, and crowned him with glory and honour. You have given him
dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his
feet” (Ps 8:3-6).
Contemplating the sublime reality of human nature,
we can experience the same amazement felt by the Psalmist. Our nature
appears as openness to the Mystery, a capacity to ask deep questions
about ourselves and the origin of the universe, and a profound echo of
the supreme Love of God, the beginning and end of all things, of every
person and people. The transcendent dignity of the person is an essential
value of Judeo-Christian wisdom, yet thanks to the use of reason, it
can be recognized by all. This dignity, understood as a capacity to
transcend one’s own materiality and to seek truth, must be acknowledged
as a universal good, indispensable for the building of a
society directed to human fulfilment. Respect for essential elements of
human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious
freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and
legal norm. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)
Religious freedom expresses
what is unique about the human person? What is unique about the human
being is that he has a rational, immortal soul created in the very image
and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity. God has created man to know,
love and to serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively
through His Catholic Church. Catholicism and it alone is the only
foundation of peace among men, whose immortal souls must be at peace
with God by means of persisting in a state of Sanctifying Grace.
Judeo-Christian norms? What about the binding
precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have
been entrusted by Christ the King solely to His Catholic Church for
their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication? Religious freedom
is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm? I
know that many of my former colleagues in the resist and recognize
movement have airbrushed their past criticisms of the former Joseph
"Cardinal" Ratzinger. However, a review of their own past articles and
books indicates that they savaged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for making
such clearly apostate comments time and time again during the disaster
that was his 9,666 days of his "reign" that began on Monday, October 16,
1978, and Saturday, April 2, 2005 (if we accept the conciliar Vatican's
official line that he died on Saturday, April 2, 2005, and not the day
before when seventeen conciliar "bishops" were appointed even though the
"pontiff" was comatose and near death, if not already dead).
This is what Pope Pius VI called "religious freedom,"
a heresy that cannot but lead to the triumph of blasphemy and religious
indifferentism despite the fact that the currently governing false
"pontiff" cannot recognize or accept as being so:
"The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by
the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the
obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a
right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the
right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full
license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes
on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a
monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from
equality and the natural liberties of all men.
"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality
and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most
precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from
animals?
"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God
threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and
evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish
limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby
incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses?
And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and
evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could
save him “if he would observe them”? …
"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the
Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is
this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to
whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact
that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his
neighbor? …
"Man should use his reason first of all to
recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and
submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should
be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be
governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to
their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated
equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is
born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").
Human dignity? What about the sacred rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King?
The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God.
That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of
religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion
towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which,
please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier
times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by
the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and
voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer
those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in
mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also
suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all
races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii.,
32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Ratzinger/Benedict never speaks about the rights of Christ the King. He has spoken incessantly of "human dignity" of of "religious liberty" being a "fundamental right" of the "human person, a part of his very "human dignity." Yet it is that Pope Pius VII termed it a heresy in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI termed it "insanity" in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and Pope Pius IX said in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, that it was the cause of "injurious babbling" (see appendix below).
Even many of the council fathers at the "Second" Vatican Council understood the text of Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1964, to be a wholesale revolution against the Catholic Faith, something that a Protestant "observer" at the council, Douglas Horton, a Presbyterian minister, noted in his diary on the proceedings of the "Second" Vatican Council. Mr. Horton reveled in the defeat of the "conservatives" and saw quite
clearly that this was a "reconciliation" of what he believed to be the
Catholic Church with "progress:"
Yesterday after church Al Outler told us that he had
heard that the schema on religious liberty was in trouble and that the
presidents of the council, in response to a petition by over a hundred
bishops, had decided to postpone the voting upon it--and this morning
the newspapers seemed to support this doleful prognostication. This
would mean that the delaying tactics of the last two years would again
be applied, and possibly again succeed. So today we waited with bated
breath for an undesired announcement.
But no such announcement came.
The debate went on, and is likely to be carried on
for a day or two more; and in view of the tenseness of emotions it is
surely the part of a wise moderatorship to allow the minority to have
its say to the last man. As the day has advanced, indeed, I have grown
more and more skeptical about the truth of the rumor. Direct word from
one peritus who occupies a high seat indicates that the presidents have
not acceded to the request of the conservatives, and indirect word from
another discloses that the form of the vote on religious liberty is
already being considered--I think the ship is still on course in spite
of inclement seas--or perhaps I should say sees.
Before the business meeting began this morning
[September 20, 1965], the Secretary General read a letter prepared in
behalf of the council to be sent to the Holy Father. It expressed warm
thanks to His Holiness for establishing the synod of bishops. "It now
becomes our concern to obey and cooperate." It also thanked the Pope for
his encyclical on the Eucharist, promised prayers for the success of
his prospective trip to New York, and asked his blessing. The clapping
hands of the fathers signified their approval. An account of the
felicities of Felici should not omit his appeal to the fathers who had
forgotten to bring with them the text of the schema on divine
revelation. Said the Secretary General, "Unfortunately, there are no
more available, so borrow a copy if you can--or at least get hold of one
in the most honest manner possible."
The array of speakers for the affirmative this
morning made it clear that the forces of progress are not lacking either
in men or materiel. Of the nine cardinals who made their witness, only
one was shadowed by negativism--Cardinal Browne of the Roman curia. Out
of the caves of the past he drew the troglodyte theology that in a
Catholic state the spreading of another religion is a violation of
public morality.
In what contrast were the others! I cite, for
instance the Archbishop of Baltimore [Lawrence Sheehan], who made his
maiden speech as a cardinal. In a historical address which showed in a
most satisfying way the steady evolution of the definition of religious
freedom in the church from the time of Leo XIII to the present day, he
cannot but have been convincing to the more thoughtful of the fathers.
Cardinal Beran, Archbishop of Prague, who had just
stepped out of prison, to which his championing of religious freedom had
condemned him, needed hardly to say a word to be convincing. The marks
and memories of his incarceration were his eloquence. The council cannot
have been impervious to his plea to approve the document as its stands,
without dilution.
Equally telling was the testimony of Cardinal
Cardijn--who had recently been elevated to his high office from the
ranks of the priesthood, without ever having been a bishop, this because
of his surpassing saintliness and his founding and developing of the
worldwide organization of Young Christian Workers. His sixty years of
experience with youth spoke for him when he said, "If this schema is not approved, the hope of tomorrow will be destroyed."
Of the four bishops who spoke this morning, only
one condemned the declaration. Two Lefebvres were participants in the
debate. The one, the cardinal, the Archbishop of Bourges, had spoken
with complete clarity in meeting the several major objections of the
conservatives, but now Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre proved himself
a cousin so distant as hardly to belong to the same family. He argued
that the schema really came from the pens of such eighteenth-century
philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and that it paid more
attention to the human conscience than it did to the church. He wanted
none of it. He is the Superior General of the Congregation of
the Holy Spirit; one of my neighbor observers, in a not exactly neutral
frame of mind, expressed the wish that the Holy Spirit might be admitted
to the order.
Rome must surely see that
Rome will be the chief sufferer if the declaration on religious liberty
is finally defeated. The cock has crowed twice--in the second and third
sessions. I remember Papini's description of Peter after the cock crew
for the last time: "Then in the dim light of dawn the last stars saw a
man staggering along like a drunkard, his head hidden in his cloak, his
shoulders shaken by the sobs of a depressing lament." I do not think
that Peter will take that course again today. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 33-35.)
The great apostle of Christ
the King, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was at his best when defending Our
King in the midst of the lion's den of the revolutionaries, being
mocked without his knowledge by an effete Protestant observer.
Major players in the council's debate on the schema that would lead to Dignitatis Humanae were,
of course, Americanists such as Francis Cardinal Spellman, the
Archbishop of New York, and Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of
Boston, and the aforementioned Lawrence Cardinal Sheehan of Baltimore.
Behind the scenes, of course, Father John Courtney Murray was busy
pushing a teaching that even he himself recognized would be hard to
reconcile with what had gone before it. Nevertheless, Father Murray was
eager to explain to the Protestant observers the importance of stressing
the "dignity of the human person," a phrase quite similar to the
"dignity of man" that was promoted by the Sillon, whose revolutionary
ideas were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.
Douglas Horton related Father Murray's September 17,
1965, talk to the Protestant observers in the offices of the Secretariat
for Promoting Christian Unity, then directed by Bishop Jan Willebrands:
Fr. John Courtney Murray introduced the schema on
religious liberty in a way that revealed his knowledge not only of the
document itself but also of the whole area of Christian ethics in which
the subject of religious liberty lies. In answer to certain critics he
pointed out that the document is based not on the passing social
situation of today but upon the eternal truth of the dignity of the
human person. He hope the schema would open the way to full dialogue
with the World Council of Churches and men of goodwill everywhere. As
late as the nineteenth century the church regarded the state as being,
as it were, within it, part of itself. Then came the great
revolutions, which the church did not understand. Only today the church
is coming to see the state as secular, but in a good sense--not hostile
or indifferent to religion, but concerned only for the good of the human
person, justice, charity, freedom.
In the course of the discussion it became evident that most of the suggestions made by the observers had already been considered by the Secretariat during the now long period of gestation of the schema. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 27-28.)
So much for Pope Saint Pius X's writing in Vehementer Nos,
February 11, 1906, that the separation of Church and State was a thesis
absolutely false, and that the civil state has an obligation to aid man
in the salvation of his immortal soul. Douglas Horton noted that the
Protestant "observers" made contributions that complemented the beliefs
of various Modernists. Indeed, one can see in the comments of a
Professor van Holk, as reported by Horton, a view of the nature of truth
that is identical with the one that has been advanced by Joseph
Ratzinger throughout the course of his priesthood, as has been
demonstrated on this site time and time again:
Professor van Holk, who has long kept the Remonstrant flag flying at the
University of Leiden, saved us from wandering too far into stuffy
theologistics (an extremity to which even biblical theology may succumb)
by the very tone of his remarks. He asked that the document speak with
unmistakable clarity against the misuse by the state, in dealing with
minorities, of the argument from "public interest." He also
spoke as a modern man against conceiving truth and error as static and
independent rather than as dynamic and developing entities in dialectic
with each other. I thought of the Latin saying Virescit vulnere virtus and the schoolboy howler which translated it "Virtue is vulnerable but
when vulned, she is always invigorated." Truth is indeed vulnerable to
error, but its tension with error keeps it strong and alive. Father
Murray agreed with Dr. van Holk and Bishop Willebrands observed that
many bishops are not really in touch with the thought that enriches the
life of today, makes it different from yesterday, and gives it great
promise. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 29-30.)
Anyone who does not believe that the "Second" Vatican Council
represented a revolution against the nature of truth and thus the very
nature of God, aided and abetted by the revolutionary "periti" such as
Fathers Karl Rahner, S.J., and Joseph Ratzinger, among so many others,
and the Protestant "observers" is not seeing things very clearly. And
the revolutionaries from the Rhine, so celebrated by Ratzinger/Benedict four days ago now, who gathered near the Tiber between
1962 and 1965 had great assistance from the revolutionaries from the
Potomac, men who believed in the false, naturalistic, religiously
indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the modern civil state,
men who rejected the Social Reign of Christ the King and who refused to
teach about his sacred rights over men and their nations. These
revolutionaries had to make use of various Hegelian devices in order to
obviate the statements contained in this compendium proving the
perpetually binding nature of Catholic Social Teaching, The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching.
We, though, must be reminded of the truths taught by such great apostles
of Christ the King as the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal
Pie, whose writing had the support of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius
X and Benedict XV (the latter two long after Cardinal Pie's death,
having studied his writings in great depth and approving of them without
any complaint), wrote in the Nineteenth Century:
"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a
magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light
whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of
death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace,
if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political
world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of
paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a
divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is
incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed
light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at
large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and
perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires;
in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and
to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to
exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and
temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ
is not God". . . .
"To say Jesus Christ is
the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and
of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is
the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to
say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge
of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political
morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."
Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:
"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of
Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center.)
Some might protest that Cardinal Pie's "views" were "private" and that they did not express the mind of Holy Mother Church even in the late Nineteenth Century. Such a patently absurd contention flies in the face of the fact that Pope Leo XIII elevated him to the College of Cardinals shortly before Cardinal Pie's death and that Pope Saint Pius X studied the Bishop of Poitier's writing practically every single day:
Barbier, Histoire du catholicisme liberal es du catholicisme social en France, vol. IV, p. 4, observed that the motto of the pontificate and a large part of the first encyclical letter [E Supremi, October 4, 1903] were taken from the Pastoral Letter published by Msgr. Pie when he took possession of his See of Poitiers in 1849. There is nothing strange about this. We have seen that, since his time in Treviso, Msgr. Sarto was acquainted with the writings of this great French anti-Liberal bishop. If we compare the text of the Encyclical with that of the Pastoral Letter (Euvres de Msgr. l'eveque de Poitiers), there is a clear literary dependence in the first part of the Encyclical. On the other hand, the three-point program set forth by Pius X is his own. On two other occasions, at least, direct literary dependence can be seen between the writing of Msgr. Pie and a pontifical act of Pius X. (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 134n.)
"[St.] Pius X, giving audience in the French seminary, declared to have
'often read and re-read' the works of Cardinal Pie . . . . This
veneration of [St.] Pius X for the great Bishop of Poitiers is
demonstrated for us by this account found in Canon [Paul] Vigue's
'Select Pages of Cardinal Pie': "A priest from Poitiers has recalled
that one day he had the honor of having been introduced into the cabinet
of the Supreme Pontiff, [St.] Pius X, in the company of a religious who
as also from Poitiers. 'Oh! the diocese of Poitiers," the Holy Father
exclaimed, raising his hands, when he heard the name Poitiers mentioned.
"I have almost the entire works of your Cardinal,' the saintly Pontiff
continued, 'and, for years, there has hardly been a day that I have not
read some of its pages.' (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, testimonial pages.)
Ratzinger/Benedict, who is being praised by leaders of Talmudism for his sympathies for them and their false religion, a subject that has been reviewed on numerous articles on this site, including Saint Peter and Anti-Peter and Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrer, to list two of many, has made a lifelong War Against Catholicism.
At the root of everything he praised four days ago, including the new "conciliar orientation" to the "faith of Israel" in light of the "Shoah," is his belief in the Modernism's "evolution of dogma," which is nothing other than Hegelianism courtesy of, among others, Fathers Pierre Martin Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., and Hans Urs von Balthasar. As has been noted so many times on this site, it is this warfare against dogmatic truth that has necessitated the jettisoning of the "crystal-clear logic" of Saint Thomas Aquinas and what Ratzinger/Benedict refers to so disparagingly as "the school of his time" in favor of the principles of the "new theology" that were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
The "new theology," of course, is nothing but warmed over and repackaged Modernism.
A lay contemporary of Pope Saint Pius X, Giovanni Gentile, explained the death-knell that the sainted pontiff had delivered to Modernism's false propositions:
Catholicism will never be able to turn into the negation of itself, as [Modernists George] Tyrrel and [Alfred] Loisy wished. This truth, so distasteful to the Modernists, resounds throughout the Encyclical [Pascendi Dominci Gregis] of September 8, 1907, from beginning to end. It is a magisterial summary and magnificent critique of the philosophical, theological, apologetical, historical, critical and social demands; he can be said to have judged it from a higher point of view. As for Loisy's ripostes, they make a pitiful showing in the face of the philosophy expressed in the Encyclical..... The Modernists must learn that a Pope's encyclical cannot be judged according to the criteria of that rationalism, which, down the centuries, has always ended up in heresy. To make such a judgment would be as logical as approving a king's achievement insofar as it contributed to the proclamation of a republic. (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 211.)
With that superb observation, I think that there is nothing further to add to the madness engendered by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's resignation and the "victory laps" that he is taking in the ten days, thirteen hours, thirty minutes before his resignation becomes effective. Those who want to see the truth will do so. Others won't, although I invite the skeptics to read Gregorius's Sede Vacante 1958-2008: Reflections on a 50-Year Vacancy of the Holy See and The Chair Is Still Empty. Although I pray for his conversion to the true Faith before he dies, I will not let this poor excuse of a native of Bavaria keep me up late at nights from hereon out. Enough is enough of this madness.
Mind you, I will still write about some of the possible candidates to succeed Ratzinger/Benedict, who is demonstrating in his final addresses a perfect consistency with the views he has always expressed, views that he has sought institutionalize as the foundation for a "correct" interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council and the magisterium of the conciliar "popes." I am simply not going to spend any more time on Ratzinger/Benedict, at least not this week, especially with a pounding head and a long trip to undertake to have it examined, an examination that many of my detractors have long believed necessary. (Smile.)
We must remember that suffering is the only path to eternal triumph,
and that we are called in these days of apostasy and betrayal to suffer
all manner of humiliation and rejection not only from the world but
from our closest relatives because we, sinners who are not one whit
better than they are, refuse to compromise to "get along," refuse to go
along with diabolical slogan of trying to "make everyone happy," refuse
to relent in the face of the prevalence of sin in the world as we
recognize that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the only means of
personal salvation and sanctification and hence of all social order.
The graces we receive in the true Sacrament of
Confirmation will help us to pray and work ceaselessly for our own
salvation as Catholics and to help us to be used as instruments,
consecrated to our Divine Commander, Christ the King, through His Most
Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, to restore all things
in Him, taking to heart the words of Pope Saint Pius X in his first
encyclical letter, E Supremi, October 4, 1903:
But, Venerable Brethren, we shall never, however much
we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and
empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. "No one," the Apostle
admonishes us, "can lay other foundation than that which has been laid,
which is Jesus Christ." (I. Cor., iii., II.) It is Christ alone "whom
the Father sanctified and sent into this world" (Is. x., 36), "the
splendor of the Father and the image of His substance" (Hebr. i., 3),
true God and true man: without whom nobody can know God with the
knowledge for salvation, "neither doth anyone know the Father but the
Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him." (Matth. xi.,
27.) Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead
men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it
behoves Us to devote Our care -- to lead back mankind under the
dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God.
When We say to God We do not mean to that inert being heedless of all
things human which the dream of materialists has imagined, but to the
true and living God, one in nature, triple in person, Creator of the
world, most wise Ordainer of all things, Lawgiver most just, who
punishes the wicked and has reward in store for virtue.
Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church.
Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church
is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." ("Hom. de capto Euthropio,"
n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price
of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws,
bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces
for the sanctification and salvation of men.
You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike
upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church
human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will
then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the
goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be
rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, "
a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength,
and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii.,
10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we
must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter
disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so
characteristic of our time -- the substitution of man for God; this
done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most
holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths
taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on
the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of
property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and
lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society
according to Christian precept and custom. This is what We, in
submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose
to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to
attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by
your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for
the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in
all. (Pope Saint Pius X, E Supremi, October 4, 1903.)
This charge, given us by the
last true pope to be canonized, is as valid today as it was in 1903 as
the truths of God, Who lives outside of time and space, are as timeless
and they are immutable. We must never fear what others think about us or
the consequences that will occur for our rejecting the lies of the Novus Ordo and the ethos of conciliarism and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." It is enough for us to be faithful to the end.
For, you see, the service we spend as foot-soldiers
in the Army of Christ the King has an excellent retirement and pension
program, eternal life in the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. Let us, therefore, continue to be earnest about the
work we have been assigned to do, praying fervently that there will be,
perhaps in our own lifetimes, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the
world and of the Church Militant on earth, which is why we should be
praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits,
especially during this penitential season of Lent.
May Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, who is the Terror
of Demons, and Saint Michael the Archangel and our own Guardian Angels
help us to persevere in battle in the spiritual combat that faces us
every day of our lives as we shield ourselves in the Brown Scapular of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel and use the weapon of her Most Holy Rosary.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Simeon, pray for us.
Saint Marie-Bernarde Soubirous, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Appendix A
Papal Statements Condemning Religious Liberty
For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the
Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the
Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many
most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race
professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the
most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and
which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs
both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic,
this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be
the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws
and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very
restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more
grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow
by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two -
from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not
only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words
found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution,
but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this
liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of
"religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you,
to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion
in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all
"religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is
confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the
Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with
the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour
and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their
ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are
tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that
fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St.
Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics
proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems
incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to
that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of
conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred
and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the
greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But
the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was
wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on
the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to
evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from
which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which
locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation
of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws
-- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other.
Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for
wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil,
namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire
for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never
sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and
disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote
with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines
and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books,
pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very
great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them
over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they
contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is
sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends
religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply
because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man
who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and
even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may
be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
"But, although we have not omitted often to
proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of
the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God,
and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again
stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions,
which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false
and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested,
because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be
impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the
institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise
even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but
over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to
take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church
and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for
religious and civil interests.
"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the
best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do
not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on
the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think
and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that
"if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there
will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in
the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very
teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and
wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
"And, since where religion has been removed from
civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some,
utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and
clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of
religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?"
(Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
"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.
"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 the business of life, from the making of
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." (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Her deportment has not changed in the course
of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most
diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for
idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now
present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with
the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to
the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and
Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of
the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while
at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues
fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)
Appendix B
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani on the Modernist Methodology to Dispense with the True Social Teaching of the Catholic Church
Here the problem presents itself of how the Church
and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating
ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of
these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a
mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But
it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the
faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that
of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously
held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will
subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.
The first mistake of these people is
precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the
teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century,
and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of
encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to
Catholics on this subject.
To justify
themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in
the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and
what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular
passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second
zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles
on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form
part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.
In this matter, the pendulum theory,
elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set
forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The
Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the
world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous
of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it
when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From
this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written.
Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante
Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and
Providentissimus. In the field of Theology or Politics, the
Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo,
come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."
Now if this were to be understood in the sense
that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical
Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are
merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing
of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope
Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not
only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals
themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the
Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that
we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the
Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical
Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such
Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching
authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching
authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me"
(St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in
Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic
doctrine."
Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions
that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life
and legislation of the Church in all ages. For them is meant the
warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the
combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in
anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously
than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion.)
