Piracy, Conciliar Style

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although I have not closely followed the news reports of the pirates from Somalia who seized the captain and nineteen crew members from the United States-flagged merchant named Maersk Alabama, I have read that the captain, Richard Phillips, who offered himself as a hostage in exchange for the release of his crew members, was rescued on Easter Sunday as snipers from the United States Navy Seals fired three shots from the U.S.S. Bainbridge, killing three of the four Somali pirates who were holding him hostage in a tiny life boat. Undeterred, however, other pirates, according to a report in yesterday's online edition of The New York Times (Rescued Captain Back on Wednesday), are now holding a total of seventeen ships near the Horn of Africa.

The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been engaged in a form of spiritual piracy for most of the past fifty years, holding all but a very, very small handful of Catholics worldwide hostage to their blasphemies and sacrileges and apostasies and other falsehoods. These conciliar pirates wear cassocks and surplices. They have appropriated Catholic titles (popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons) as they hold physical custody of the buildings of the Vatican and those of diocesan chancery offices and formerly Catholic parishes and schools and other institutions.

The conciliar pirates are a fun-loving lot, at least amongst themselves. They love to tell jokes from the pulpit during what they purport to be offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They make sure that special honors are accorded to non-Catholics, especially to those who adhere to the blasphemous Talmud and who promote one social evil under cover of the civil law after another (see Honors Aplenty for Devils Galore). These pirates make light of sin, especially sins against the First Commandment, thereby making possible the breaking of each of God's nine other Commandments, and wallow in naturalism and sentimentality as they disparage the ability of the graces won for us by the Divine Redeemer on the wood of the Holy Cross to help human beings bear their crosses for love of God and in reparation for sins.

Not all of the conciliar pirates are alike. Some are more aggressive than others. Without any exception, however, each conciliar pirate subscribes to the basic ethos of conciliarism, and ethos that has become an absolute "article of conciliar faith" that is beyond question. Indeed, to question the conciliar ethos is to be forced to "walk the plank" aboard the pirated ships that once belonged--and will in the future belong--to the Catholic Church. Conciliar pirates take no prisoners when it comes to anyone questioning the heterodox nature of their false religion in comparison with the Catholic Faith, the one and only true religion.

Just look at how quickly the long knives came out for Father Michael Oswalt after he sent letters to the conciliar clergy of the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois, to explain the counterfeit nature of the conciliar religion, contrasting the swiftness the action against him with how indulgent the conciliar pirates have been of the likes of Richard P. McBrien (Hartford's Mark of Apostasy) and Hans Kung and Richard Rohr and Edward Schillebeeckx despite their multiple defections from the Catholic Faith. Then again, how can pirates who are themselves defectors from the Faith make anyone other than believing Catholics who hold to everything taught by the Catholic Church walk the plank?

One of the chief pirates these days is Joseph Ratzinger's hand-picked successor as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, William "Cardinal" Levada, a protege of Ratzinger's and a fellow seminarian of the nefarious troika of Roger Mahony, Tod Brown and George Niederauer. A total Modernist creature of his mentor, Ratzinger, Levada has been quite open about his embrace of the Modernist/Hegelian notion of truth, something that I critiqued twenty-five months ago in Anathematized by His Own Words:

William "Cardinal" Levada, the conciliar Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, could not stated the Modernist position concerning the Deposit of Faith more clearly and succinctly than he did in an interview with the Whispers in the Loggia website:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". . . .

 

This is not the first time that William Levada has shown himself to be a Modernist. Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, compiled a thorough report on Levada's Modernist tendencies, published in the June, 2005, edition of Catholic Family News, Invincible or Inculpable. This reported included the following exchange between Levada, the conciliar archbishop of Portland, Oregon, the late Father Eugene Heidt:

Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly “suspended” Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the “suspension”, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and that “we don’t use it any more”.

This is a mockery to the infallible Council of Trent, that committed the Church to this precise scholastic definition, hallowed by long usage. Even Pope Paul VI’s 1965 Mysterium Fidei reiterated that the parish priest is duty-bound to speak of “Transubstantiation.” (#54) Levada’s approach is also an insult to “modern man” to whom post-Conciliar churchmen constantly claim to be appealing. It implies that modern man is too stupid to comprehend a term that 2nd grade Catholic school children grasped only fifty years ago.

 

As is the case with the man who appointed him, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, William Levada, who went to Saint John's Seminary in Camarillo, California, with fellow Modernists Roger Mahony and George Niederauer and Tod Brown, does not believe that he is bound to accept past dogmatic definitions as these are subject to different interpretations "in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges." By his own words, however, William Levada has anathematized himself, thereby showing himself as having defected from the Catholic Faith. The Vatican Council (1870) rejected the position enunciated by Levada in his Whispers in the Loggia interview:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.

"Let him be anathema." Catholics are not "free," as William Levada contended in his Whispers in the Loggia interview, to investigate "different hypotheses" as though they could by their research "deepen" our understanding of the Deposit of Faith in light of the needs of "modern" man, a quintessential tenet of Americanism, one of the many species of Modernism, as was stated in no uncertain terms by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

 

One must give the the conciliarists credit for their boldness for promoting the very beliefs anathematized by the Vatican Council and condemned by pope after pope prior to the advent of their false religion. William Levada's bold contention that the Apostles believed that that Deposit of Faith they were handing on to us had to be interpreted  in "new circumstances and in the light of new challenges" is simply a projection back onto the Apostles of their own Modernist notions. Indeed, Levada's bold contention is contradicted not only by the the Vatican Council but by the very Oath Against Modernism that he had to take prior to his ordination as a priest of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on December 29, 1961:

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

 

The Oath Against Modernism not only condemns the tailoring of dogma "according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age" but also condemns "the liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents" that was also spoken of favorably by William Levada in his Whispers in the Loggia interview ("The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation. . . .").  William Levada is not bound by the words of a sacred oath, "in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way or word in in writing."

William Levada's beliefs, including his use of the "living tradition" slogan popularized by conciliarists and apologists, stand condemned as Modernism by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. Pope Saint Pius X describes the Modernist view of dogma in these telling passages:

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."

 

This is a complete and unequivocal condemnation of William Levada of the man who appointed him, Joseph Ratzinger, who has said the following about the ability of doctrinal truths and papal pronouncements to "change" over time:

The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Pope Saint Pius X presented some discomfiting censures for the likes of William Levada and Joseph Ratzinger for their daring to disparage the Catholic Church's condemnation of Modernist principles. Pope Saint Pius X amplified his points in Pascendi Dominici Gregis just two months after he issued it, using Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, to impose the penalty of excommunication on anyone who dared to contradict any of the points in his encyclical letter or who endorsed any of the propositions contained in Lamentabili Sane, July3, 1907

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

 

Lest anyone contend that "older" encyclical letters lose their "force" in the light of the "needs" of "modern" man, it is important to quote once again from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in 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"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

The conciliarists are counting on the fact that most Catholics are ignorant of these encyclical letters and the condemnations of their propositions contained therein. The conciliarists can also count on the ready support of quislings who bend over backwards to do all manner of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to convince others that the tenets of conciliarism pose no problem at all and are perfectly defensible. The truth of the matter is otherwise as can be seen from the Vatican Council and from the papal pronouncements above, none of which lose their binding force or become "obsolete."

 

Still with me? Good. Thanks for bearing with this review of oft-quoted material. However, it is necessary to review this material once again as the "grand inquisitor" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, William Levada, is a complete and total Modernist, who has helped the chief of the conciliar pirates, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, to hijack the perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church by freeing "dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers."

William Levada has, like Ratzinger before him and with him, embraced an anathematized proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth.

William Levada dismissed the term Transubstantiation in the presence of the late Father Eugene Heidt.

William Levada presided over the International Theological Commission's The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, which made short work of Limbo and contained a false notion concerning the nature of Original Sin (see Orthodox Heterodoxy).

And it is William Levada who is laying down the conciliar law to the Society of Saint Pius X, insisting that its bishops accept the "Second" Vatican Council and every article contained in the conciliarists' Catechism of the Catholic Church. Levada is making it clear that the Modernist agenda is not negotiable and must be accepted en toto:

When the Pope lifted the excommunication of four ultra-conservative Roman Catholic bishops earlier this year, he was plunged into one of the worst controversies of his pontificate. Since then, the Vatican has been trying — not always with success — to explain that the group isn't fully back in Rome's embrace at all.

The man tapped by Pope Benedict XVI to lead Vatican negotiations with the Lefebvrite movement says the controversial group remains in schism with the Catholic Church and that only its acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and obedience to the Pope can bring it fully back into the fold. In his first public comments since Benedict lifted the excommunication of the four bishops in January, Vatican doctrinal chief

Cardinal William Levada tells TIME that important, and potentially insurmountable, differences still separate the Vatican and the group known as the Society of St. Pius X. Pointing to the Pope's letter last month to the world's bishops that addressed the controversy, Levada says the removal of the excommunication was a "gesture of mercy ... [and] invitation to a dialogue." But as matters currently stand, Levada says, "the Society lacks canonical status to exercise ministry in the Church."

Founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to oppose the 1960s reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the Society became a breakaway movement when four bishops were ordained in 1988 in defiance of Pope John Paul II, and Lefebvre and his four new bishops were promptly excommunicated. The already thorny decision in January to lift the surviving bishops' excommunication became one of the lowest moments in Benedict's papacy when it coincided with a shocking television interview with one of the bishops. Questioned on his views of the Holocaust, British-born Bishop Richard Williamson told a Swedish TV reporter that no one was killed in Nazi gas chambers and that no more than 300,000 Jews died in concentration camps, rather than the widely accepted figure of 6 million Jews exterminated.

Levada says he still has not met with the Society's top officials but expects that a dialogue will go forward with its bishops and top theological advisers. Unless Bishop Williamson fully recants his position denying the Holocaust, he cannot take part in the negotiations, says Levada, the U.S.-born head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the job the current Pope used to hold.

Benedict's decision in 2007 to allow wider access to the traditional Tridentine Mass — said in Latin with the priest facing the altar rather than his flock — means that liturgical disputes with the Lefebvre followers have basically been resolved. "What remain are doctrinal questions that can only be clarified through further patient dialogue," Levada says.

To give a sense of just how much "patience" might be needed, Levada compares the gesture toward the four bishops with the mutual decision in 1965 by Pope Paul VI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras to lift their 900-year-old reciprocal excommunications between leaders of Christianity's two oldest churches. "We rejoiced at this gesture aimed at Christian unity," Levada says during a 45-min. interview in his Vatican office. "But the removal of these excommunications did not end the schism that continues to exist between Catholicism and Orthodoxy."

The outstanding points of contention with the Lefebvre followers center on what Levada calls "obedience to the magisterium," or teaching authority, of the Pope, and specific decrees of the Second Vatican Council. "The Council is vast, and not all decrees are on the same level," Levada says. "The decree on religious liberty is one of the key issues that the Society has problems with." Lefebvre always opposed the reforms aimed at reaching out to other faiths. Levada insists there is much ground to cover in order to find out if the breakaway group is ready to rejoin the fold. "We will want to review the entire catechism of the Church with them," Levada adds, referring to the far-reaching document approved under the reign of Pope John Paul II that outlines fundamental Catholic teaching.

As the man in charge of Church orthodoxy, Levada will take over the reins of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which has for nearly two decades been responsible for dealing with the Lefebvre followers. The Cardinal says the process will benefit from his congregation's body of some 30 theological advisers as well as from regular consultations with other key Vatican offices.

Levada will replace Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had spearheaded the talks that led to the lifting of the excommunications. Castrillon has been criticized by many inside and outside Rome, including Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, who said the Colombian Cardinal should have known about Bishop Williamson's troubling views on the Holocaust. Levada does not take sides in the dispute but concedes that the Vatican was "a human structure, with its limitations and possibilities for improvement." Levada is quick to add that his own congregation, which was run for 24 years by the future Pope, was functioning like clockwork when he took over. (Schism with Lefebvrites Not Healed Yet, Says Vatican - TIME)

 

Those who as of yet have not accepted the simple truth that the Society of Saint Pius X has a false, condemned ecclesiology that is but a variant of the Gallicanism condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, must consider the simple fact that William Levada, appointed by and a close adviser to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has said in no uncertain terms that "the Society lacks canonical status to exercise ministry in the Church." This is true. Will the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X obey Levada, who has the full approval of the "pope" whose name they mention in the Canon of the Mass? No, clinging to their false, condemned ecclesiology, the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will continue to corrupt the truth concerning the doctrines of the Catholic Church concerning ecclesiology and Papal Infallibility by arrogating unto itself the "right" to act as they see fit, continuing to defy the conciliar "pope" and his curial appointees when it suits them to do so while complying with those orders that they find "reasonable" and "acceptable."

For all of his theological piracy, you see, William Levada has put the problem posed by the Society of Saint Pius X in a nutshell: obey the "pope" or you will remain in schism. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI must be obeyed completely--and not selectively--if he is indeed the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth (please see the appendix in Story Time in Econe and the major errors of the Society of Pius X as summarized by Michael Creighton as I reproduced them in an appendix in Shell Games With Souls and in the body of Pots and Kettles). That he has long believed in things contrary to the Catholic Faith and has indeed used his false "pontificate" to give a "papal" imprimatur, if you will, to these false beliefs is proof that he is, as the late, murdered Father Eldred Leslie noted to a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X in South Africa before Christmas Day last year, "no more the pope than Cleopatra."

The conciliar pirates have put the Society of Saint Pius X in quite a box. It is clear that the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will continue to administer the sacraments in defiance of the views expressed by the "pope's" own appointees about the Society's canonical status in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is also clear that the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, is very desirous of showing "good faith" to the conciliar pirates by continuing the Society's long and morally corrupt heritage of casting its priests into the outer darkness on a thoroughly arbitrary basis if they do not adhere to the "Society's" policies completely.

The courageous Father Basilio Meramo, the Prior of the Society of Saint Pius X Orizaba, Vera Cruz, Mexico, was expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X on Tuesday in Holy Week, April 7, 2009, for having the courage to point out the intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty of Bishop Fellay and his dealings with the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Father Meramo's courage speaks for itself:

Our Lord does not want us to be men of little faith or cowards, for cowardice comes from a lack of virility, be it natural or supernatural. Lack of faith is typical of a coward. It is proper for virtue to grow in difficult times and not to diminish, become fearful or retreat. The brave soldier goes to war to win or die, not to retreat – this is betrayal.

This is also happing inside the Church: there are very few men who are truly men in the Church! Men were lacking at Vatican Council II. If only one cardinal had stood up and strongly indicted the heresies and errors of Vatican II, declaring them publicly to be such, he would have made the world tremble. But that man was not there. There are many people who see and know, but who dares to oppose the powers that be? Here is the difficulty: the lack of virility and faith. And because of this, things are happening, beloved brethren, in the Church and, unfortunately, also in Traditionalism, and unfortunately also in the Society.

This letter that I wrote (1) can cost me my skin (…) but I cannot accept that, instead of seeing things as they are, (…) a person would say that this [accord] was made thanks to the blessing of the Most Holy Virgin Mary. And if Bishop Fellay dares to say this, I summon him before God to be chastised by the Most Holy Virgin Mary for using her holy name in such a falsehood. If I am mistaken, I ask that chastisement to fall on me. I cannot be clearer. Bread is bread and wine is wine. Here there is one selling out the Church, selling out the Society, selling out me and you, but I won’t allow anyone to sell me out or to buy me. (…)

This problem is taking place with the General Superior (of the Society of St. Pius X) (…) who is selling out the Society by allying himself with the Vatican, which has not stepped back in anything. Where does Benedict XVI go? He goes to the Synagogue, he goes to the United Nations, and now he goes to the Society (SSPX) – another concubine in the pantheon of false religions.

This is not admissible. This is a tactic of Rome. I want you to know, dear brethren, that Rome of the Roman Empire was able to dominate the world by means of religious compromises. This is why Rome had a pantheon with all the principal gods of the important peoples who were subjugated by it. Since religious alliances were established and Rome had the same gods of the enemies, then there were no mutual attacks. Rome accepted the same gods of the Greeks in order to dominate the Greeks; Rome adopted the same gods of this or that people in order to dominate them. This was its tactic to govern.

This same tactic continues today in that Rome, which St. Peter - the first Pope of the Church - called Babylon. He was not in the Middle East; he was in Rome and he called it Babylon because it was the Babylon of the religions. He didn’t spare words, because it had an altar to every god. All known religions had their representatives there. (…) A Pope quoted in the Breviary – whose name I don't remember at this moment – said that at the end [of history] Rome will again have, as in the beginning, all the religions. It will return to its ancient paganism, rejoicing in hosting all religions. It will return to its old religious prostitution. (A Bold Show of Dissatisfaction in the SSPX Ranks;  please read Father Meramo's remarks in their entirety; the Tradition in Action website has also published and English translation of Father Meramo's January 26, 2009, "open letter" to Bishop Fellay, Fellay’s Decision to Merge Confronted by Intellectual Priest. These letters have been censored by the Society of Saint Pius X hierarchy. Please circulate them widely to your friends who are as of yet attached to the conciliar structures by means of the falsehoods propagated by the Society of Saint Pius X about the nature of the Church and her infallibility.)

 

Father Meramo has been expelled by Bishop Fellay for his "disloyalty" to the Society and, it appears, to the "pope" while Bishop Fellay feels free to ignore the "pope's" lieutenants by continuing to exercise a sacramental ministry that even the "pope" himself has said the Society does not have the "right" to exercise within the ranks of the conciliar church. Does anyone see a little incongruity here? Just a little bit? By what stretch of Catholic theology do the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (well, that is, those bishops who do not publicly contradict the conciliar church's "dogma" on the numbers of Talmudic victims of the agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich) seek to discipline "wayward" priests in its own ranks, without even giving them due process according to the conciliar code of canon law, while arrogating unto itself the right to reject "papal" orders they deem to be not binding upon them? 

Indeed, Father Meramo's frank discussion of the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that Bishop Fellay evidently finds so discomfiting at the moment is nothing out of the ordinary. Many posts on various websites associated with the Society of Saint Pius X have contained similar analyses of the Modernist mind of Ratzinger/Benedict (as have books, each of which I have and refer to frequently to assure myself that people I once knew did indeed write almost the exact same things about Ratzinger's theology as have been presented on this site, published by renowned authors in the "resist and recognize" movement not formally associated with the Society of Saint Pius X). Father Meramo's "crime," such as it is in the eyes of Bishop Fellay, is to have given public voice to these analyses at a time when he, Fellay, is on the verge of negotiations with William Levada on matters of doctrine that are never subject to debate or negotiation (see Nothing to Negotiate).

Those old analyses of the apostasies of conciliarism are going to come back to "bite" Bishop Fellay and the two other "acceptable" bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X in their "negotiations" with William Levada and other agents of the false church of conciliarism. Levada made it clear that he is going to review the entirety of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church with the Society's representatives so as to make sure that there is complete adherence to the conciliar ethos without any deviation at all. And it just so happens that a website of the Society of Saint Pius X has a withering critique of that so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church that I have taken the time to paste as an appendix (replete, of course, with the "hot link" as this site, unlike some others that cannibalize stories from other sites without once providing any "hot links," endeavors to provide readers with the primary sources from which material used hereon is extracted) in the event that the critique "disappears" into the Orwellian memory hole as "negotiations" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar Vatican commence.

Here are just one excerpt, taken from a section dealing with the theology of one Joseph Ratzinger, from that withering critique of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church found on a Society of Saint Pius X website:

He [Joseph Ratzinger] was the president of the commission and of the committee of redaction during six months in order to develop this Catechism. He is then well placed to speak to us of it. He made a presentation concerning it in the press room which was published in L’Osservatore Romano (French language edition) of December 15, 1992, on page 6. Let us briefly analyze this text. First of all, he teaches us that the French edition was presented first on November 16 in Paris. Then, between this date and December 7, the Italian and Spanish versions were published.

The official text in Latin will be published later; it will be able to take into account what the experience of the translations has made to appear or what it can still suggest.

It seems that the Roman Church, or at least its "governing board" is not very sure of its faith; it has need of a "trial run." What is the fundamental question treated by the Catechism?

After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day." As an accessory, they will speak also of God. "The Catechism speaks of the human being, but with the conviction that the question concerning man cannot be separated from the question concerning God. One does not speak correctly of man if one doesn’t speak also of God.

Whence will come the response to this problem concerning man and "also" concerning God?

The Catechism formulates the response which comes from the great communitarian experience of the Church throughout the centuries.

It’s always the same modernist tactic: the profession of the Faith is the expression of the interior experience of believers. And what will be the response to this question?

The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated: man is created in the image and likeness of God. Everything that is said on the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective.

It is here that, according to us, resides the fundamental ambiguity of the Catechism. Indeed, this passage from Genesis can receive two different meanings. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam. Indeed, all men after him will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. Still, one can be more precise and say that the image is deformed by the aftermath of original sin. One can also interpret the words "image" and "likeness" as two synonyms. In this case, one can apply this phrase of Genesis to every man to signify that every man receives from God a spiritual soul. But then one abstracts from sanctifying grace. We will not be able to deduce then the true dignity of man since this consists in participating in the Divine Nature. Man does not truly possess dignity because he is a man (sinner), but because he has become a son of God by grace. As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, there is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian. And this Christian will possess all the more dignity the more he is a friend of God. Our Lord does not have the same dignity as any other man, and the Most Holy Virgin shall have a supereminent dignity, etc. In not making these elementary distinctions between nature and grace, the cardinal, and the Catechism in its turn, are going to draw from this phrase from Genesis many errors. Now the cardinal takes care to warn us himself:

Everything which is said concerning the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective (namely, man is created in the image and likeness of God). Upon this are founded human rights...Upon the likeness of God is founded also human dignity, which remains intangible in each man precisely because he is a man.

Let us cite some examples given by the cardinal himself: "Every human being has an equal dignity." This is false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint.

The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man —the necessity of happiness and of love. Here it becomes visible what exactly "likeness" to God signifies: the human being is like unto God from the fact that he can love and because he is capable of truth. This is why moral behavior is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a behavior measured by creation.

All this is false and follows from this grave confusion between nature and grace. Indeed, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God. The human being can only love God (as he should) by charity, and he is only capable of (complete) truth by Faith. But all this does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to "require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous.

The cardinal specifies that the behavior according to nature of which the Catechism speaks, is a: behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man.

This is perhaps poetic, but it is also always false. Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition; in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is obviously very grave. (The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?)

 

Apologists for the Society of Saint Pius X will doubtlessly note that The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? was never an "official" statement of the Society's, that it was based on the "provisional" French-language edition of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, that the official Latin version contains a few corrections here and there. Such contentions would be specious as the major problems cited by The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? remain in the "official" Latin text as they existed original, provisional version issued in the French-language edition in 1992.

Additionally, of course, a contention that The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? was never an "official" publication of the Society of Saint Pius X would be a mirror image of others in the "resist and recognize" movement who contend that such things as The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised and the Balamand Statement and The Ravenna Document are not "official" documents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and therefore "bind" no one and thus do not represent any "official" apostasies necessitating a serious examination of the possibility that See of Peter is indeed vacant by virtue of the fact that the its putative conciliar "holder" responsible for such documents had expelled himself from the Catholic Church decades ago by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law by holding beliefs contrary to the Faith that put him outside of the Church (as per Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Number 9). The closer one gets to the "inner sanctum" of the pirates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the closer one gets to speaking and acting like those pirates.

William Levada means what he says. He believes that the the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, as well as the Church's own dogmatic decrees, must be viewed in light of the "Second" Vatican Council and the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the daughter of a former friend of ours in the Houston, Texas, area told us in October of 2003 that she had been taught at Christendom College just this, that the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church had to be "read" in "light" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, an actual inversion of reality as that which is taught at a later date by the Catholic Church must be viewed in light of the perennial teaching that has preceded it and with which it, the later teaching, cannot be in contradiction in the slightest.

The pirates who have seized control of the institutions of the Catholic Church will lose as surely as the Somali pirates lost three days ago. The conciliar pirates will be vanquished not by bullets to the head fired by trained snipers but by the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our own prayers and sacrifices and mortifications, yes, even in this season of Easter rejoicing, will help to plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the full restoration of the Ship of Peter as the pirates who have hijacked her at the present time are converted and/or sent packing.

We may not live to see the results of the seeds that we attempt to plant as we make reparation for our sins to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We just have to remain faithful to the Catholic Faith by refusing to have anything to do with any bishop or any priest who is in the least accepts the nonexistent "legitimacy" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a  Successor of Saint Peter, cleaving exclusively to those true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions whatsoever to conciliarism or its false shepherds.

Every Rosary we pray well will help to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the world. May we always trust that Our Lady will help us to remain faithful to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church as use the shield of her Brown Scapular and the weapon of her Most Holy Rosary to ward off the attacks of the devil in our own personal lives and thus to more recognize to recognize and to reject him in the person of the conciliar pirates who have offended God so greatly and so wantonly as they have devastated so many millions upon millions of souls.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix: The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?

INTRODUCTION

"After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law ... this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council."  Pope John Paul II on page 1 of the New Catechism.

The reading and study of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are baffling for a classic or Thomistic spirit. One rarely finds here simple definitions and clear distinctions. This Catechism resembles a mystical poem, a symphony where all is harmonized, the classic and the modern, elements of the old Catechism and the teachings of the Conciliar Church, in order to chant with enthusiasm the splendor of God and of man. Among the happy reminders, one can note: the fact of creation, the existence of the Angels, the reality of Adam and Eve, original sin as well as personal sin, Hell and Purgatory, the ten commandments, the impossibility of women’s ordinations and the marriage of divorcees, the criminal character of abortion and of euthanasia, the possibility of the death penalty, etc. But along side of that, one finds silences, things forgotten, contradictions and a certain number of "recurring themes" foreign to the Catholic Church, and which we are going to analyze here. From this mixture results an impression of confusion which steers the spirit off course. In brief, a reading capable of "seducing even the elect themselves." 1 However, before giving ourselves over to the analysis of certain themes of this symphony, we begin by giving certain authentic interpretations of the Catechism.

The "authentic interpretations" declared by Pope John Paul II The New Catechism is "the ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching."

Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by means of the apostolic constitution, Fidei Depositum 2, of October 11, 1992. One reads there the following: After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law of the Latin Church and the canons of the oriental Catholics, this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council. (p.1) For myself, who had the grace of participating there and of actively collaborating in its unfolding, Vatican II has always been, and particularly so during these years of my pontificate, the constant point of reference of all my pastoral action, in a conscious effort of translating its directives by a concrete and faithful application, to the level of each Church and of all the Church. One must without ceasing return to this source (p.1). We are then advised that this Catechism is a putting into application of Vatican II. One must take count of the explanations of doctrine that the Holy Spirit has suggested to the Church in the course of the centuries. (p.2) It will include then things new and old. (Ibid) What is old is above all, "The traditional order already followed by the Catechism of St. Pius V," (Ibid) whereas "the content is often expressed in a new fashion." (Ibid) In other words, "a new wine in old wineskins," contrary to the counsel of Our Lord (Mt.9:17). The ecumenical aim of the Catechism is also clearly explained by the pope: "It wishes to provide a support to ecumenical efforts animated by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians" (p.3). The pope declares also that this Catechism is the fruit of a broad collaboration and "reflects thus the collegial nature of the episcopate." Finally, as for its doctrinal value, the pope presents it as "an authorized and worthwhile instrument in the service of ecclesial communion and as a sure norm for the teaching of the Faith." (p.2) But it "is not destined to replace the local Catechisms composed by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan bishops and the episcopal conference, above all when they have received the approbation of the Apostolic See." (p.3) One cannot use it then to demand the suppression of bad Catechisms, even if they have not received the approbation of Rome. The pope presented the Catechism on the morning of December 7, 1992. On this occasion, he insisted on the value and the significance of the Catechism. It is, he says, "an event of great richness and of an incomparable importance." 3 "The publication of the text should be placed, without any doubt, among the major events in the recent history of the Church." The pope confirms that this Catechism wishes to conform itself "to the teachings of Vatican Council II." "In this authorized text, the Church presents to her children, with a renewed self-awareness thanks to the light of the Spirit, the mystery of Christ where the splendor of the Father is reflected." "This Catechism constitutes above all a ‘veracious’ gift, to know a gift which presents the Truth revealed by God in Christ and which He confided to His Church. The Catechism expresses this truth in the light of the Second Vatican Council, such as it is believed, 4 celebrated, lived, and prayed by the Church." Before, we were asked to accept the council in the light of Tradition. Today, the method is reversed. One finds the same expression again in the Catechism at paragraph 11. We point out also at this occasion that for the pope, the truth is first of all believed and lived before being expressed. This is a typically modernist method, since modernism thinks that the Faith comes from the subconscious and from the interior experience of each person. But that is contrary to the thought of St. Paul, for whom the Faith is ex auditu (Rom.10:17), that is to say, from preaching. The pope also confirms the ecumenical intent of the Catechism: In defining the lines of Catholic doctrinal identity, the Catechism can constitute an affectionate call for all those who not equally form part of the Catholic community. May they understand that this instrument does not reduce, but broadens the scope of a multiform unity, in offering a new impulse on the path towards this fullness of communion which reflects and in a certain manner anticipates the total unity of the heavenly city, "where truth reigns, where charity is the law, and where the extension is eternity" (St. Augustine, Epistle 138, 3). Men, both today and always, need Christ. Through many, and sometimes incomprehensible paths, they seek him with insistence, invoke him constantly and desire him ardently. We find in this last phrase an analogy with the new theology of Karl Rahner, for whom every man is an anonymous Christian.5 The next day, December 8, 1992, the pope "presided at the Holy Mass in the basilica of St. Mary Major." 6 In the course of the homily, he returned to the question of the Catechism. He insisted anew on the bond between the Catechism and the council: With the Mother of God, we give thanks today for the gift of the council...7 The community of believers gives thanks today for the post-conciliar Catechism... It constitutes the ripest and the most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching, which is presented in the rich framework of all the ecclesial Tradition. The ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching. This expression renders the thought of the pope so well that L’Osservatore Romano did not hesitate to make of it the title of this sermon. O Mary... thou who wast present on the day of Pentecost as Mother of the Church, welcome this fruit which is the labor of the entire Church. All together we place the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is at the same time the gift of the Word revealed to humanity and the fruit of the labor of bishops and theologians —between the hands of she who... The pope himself uses the expression of the "new" Catechism. Let us point out in the passage this expression, "the fruit of labor," which reminds us of the new Offertory, and also the allusion to Pentecost. We continue to live, since the Council, a new revelation which the bishops and the theologians must express for the service of the ecclesial community.

Cardinal Ratzinger "After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day."

He was the president of the commission and of the committee of redaction during six months in order to develop this Catechism. He is then well placed to speak to us of it. He made a presentation concerning it in the press room which was published in L’Osservatore Romano (French language edition) of December 15, 1992, on page 6. Let us briefly analyze this text. First of all, he teaches us that the French edition was presented first on November 16 in Paris. Then, between this date and December 7, the Italian and Spanish versions were published. The official text in Latin will be published later; it will be able to take into account what the experience of the translations 8 has made to appear or what it can still suggest. It seems that the Roman Church, or at least its "governing board" is not very sure of its faith; it has need of a "trial run." What is the fundamental question treated by the Catechism? After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day." As an accessory, they will speak also of God. "The Catechism speaks of the human being, but with the conviction that the question concerning man cannot be separated from the question concerning God. One does not speak correctly of man if one doesn’t speak also of God. Whence will come the response to this problem concerning man and "also" concerning God? The Catechism formulates the response which comes from the great communitarian experience of the Church throughout the centuries. It’s always the same modernist tactic: the profession of the Faith is the expression of the interior experience of believers. And what will be the response to this question? The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated: 9 man is created in the image and likeness of God. Everything that is said on the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective. It is here that, according to us, resides the fundamental ambiguity of the Catechism. Indeed, this passage from Genesis can receive two different meanings. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam. Indeed, all men after him will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. Still, one can be more precise and say that the image is deformed by the aftermath of original sin. One can also interpret the words "image" and "likeness" as two synonyms. In this case, one can apply this phrase of Genesis to every man to signify that every man receives from God a spiritual soul. But then one abstracts from sanctifying grace. We will not be able to deduce then the true dignity of man since this consists in participating in the Divine Nature. Man does not truly possess dignity because he is a man (sinner), but because he has become a son of God by grace. As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, there is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian. And this Christian will possess all the more dignity the more he is a friend of God. Our Lord does not have the same dignity as any other man, and the Most Holy Virgin shall have a supereminent dignity, etc. In not making these elementary distinctions between nature and grace, the cardinal, and the Catechism in its turn, are going to draw from this phrase from Genesis many errors. Now the cardinal takes care to warn us himself: Everything which is said concerning the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective (namely, man is created in the image and likeness of God). Upon this are founded human rights...Upon the likeness of God is founded also human dignity, which remains intangible in each man precisely because he is a man. Let us cite some examples given by the cardinal himself: "Every human being has an equal dignity." This is false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint. The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man —the necessity of happiness and of love. Here it becomes visible what exactly "likeness" to God signifies: the human being is like unto God from the fact that he can love and because he is capable of truth. This is why moral behavior is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a behavior measured by creation. All this is false and follows from this grave confusion between nature and grace. Indeed, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God. The human being can only love God (as he should) by charity, and he is only capable of (complete) truth by Faith. But all this does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to "require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous. The cardinal specifies that the behavior according to nature of which the Catechism speaks, is a: behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man. This is perhaps poetic, but it is also always false. Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition; in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is obviously very grave.

First Conclusion This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism.

Before even studying the Catechism we can draw several teachings from this examination of these "authentic interpretations." First of all, the importance of the new Catechism. The pope himself insists upon the importance and the authority of this Catechism. This importance is confirmed by the success of the publisher. Certainly there was a vast publicity which no other Catechism had ever known. But this doesn’t suffice, without doubt, to explain the sale of more than 500,000 copies in several weeks. One must also take into account that the faithful have been deprived of doctrinal teaching for the last thirty years. There was the council; but despite its desire of being a pastoral council, Vatican II is not in the reach of every Catholic, and the majority are not taken up in the study of these numerous texts. As far as the catechisms and other "Living Stones" [a modernist catechism in France], the least that one can say concerning them is that their doctrinal content is weak, if not inconsistent. The faithful have had to live according to the practices imposed upon them in the name of obedience. Now the possibility has finally been given to them to know the principles which have guided these reforms. One can understand their desire to learn, for it is satisfying to a person to know why he acts. Unfortunately the New Catechism will not cause the tenets of the Faith, which they were living badly or with difficulty, to penetrate their souls: Rather, it is to be feared that they will only adhere more completely to the "new truths" which they have been in the habit of living for the past 30 years. Moreover, as we have noticed, the pope insists also on the fact that this Catechism is the logical consequence of the council, "the ripest and most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching." This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism. The pope insists above all upon the authority of the Catechism and its importance in applying Vatican Council II. Cardinal Ratzinger puts the accent more on its content and indicates to us its fundamental error which is at the root of the errors of ecumenism and religious liberty: a pseudo-supernatural naturalism. Human nature is not only capable of grace, but it requires it for the happiness of man; the redemption is universal; the world is full of grace. But let us not look at the content in greater detail. We will distinguish four principal themes in the Catechism: the dignity of man, his character of friend and Son of God, the nature of the Church, and the principles of morality. For each of these, we shall cite the Catechism, to clearly show the readers that it is not we who are attributing to it our thoughts. However, we shall not cite everything, not wanting to tax the patience of the readers nor risking that we be condemned for having recopied integrally a Catechism protected by copyright (!).

I.  THE DIGNITY OF MAN "The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him..."

There are forty references to the word "dignity" in the index, of which several indicate a fairly long passage. Let us cite first what Cardinal Ratzinger quoted above as:  the fundamental knowledge concerning man: To know the unity and the true dignity of all men: all are made in the image and likeness of God10 (§ 225)*. * This and all following references to the New Catechism are indicated by the symbol § (meaning paragraph) and the paragraph number. We have already explained the error of this new theory. Man, marked by original sin, is born without the grace of God. Therefore, he does not have his true dignity, that of being a son of God. This he receives at Baptism. This fundamental error concerning the dignity of man brings along with it others, for example, saying that the dignity of man cannot be lost. A criminal does not lose his dignity, since this consists in having a spiritual soul; taking this to its limit, the damned in hell (if there are any) will still have their dignity. Man and woman have a dignity which cannot be lost, which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.11  Man and woman are, with the same dignity, in the image of God. In their "being man" and "being woman" they reflect the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator (§ 369). Another false consequence: all men have the same dignity. A saint will not be any more worthy than a sinner; the Blessed Virgin will not be more worthy than any other woman. Amongst all the faithful of Christ, by the fact of their regeneration in Christ, there exists, insofar as dignity and activity, a true equality, in virtue of which all co-operate in the building up of the Body of Christ, each according to his condition and proper function12 (§ 872). Although this paragraph founds the dignity of the Christian upon its true foundation, "the regeneration in Christ," it is just the same erroneous since it draws from this a false conclusion, which is that all Christians are equal. This is contrary to the Scriptures, which warns us that there are all sorts of gifts of grace and that the members of the Church are complementary, but unequal (the foot is not the eye, says St. Paul). Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as much as they are human persons on one hand, and on the other hand, in their respective being of man and woman. "Being man" and "being woman" is a reality both good and willed by God (§ 369).  As to this equality between man and woman, it exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman. Another erroneous consequence: all men will have an equal dignity, and all discrimination will be unjust. Equality between men lies essentially with their personal dignity and the rights which flow from it: "every form of discrimination touching the fundamental rights of the person, whether it be founded on sex, race, color of skin, social condition, language, or religion, must be gotten beyond, as contrary to the design of God" 13 (§ 1935). There also exists wicked inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction with the Gospel: ‘"The equal dignity of persons requires that one reaches conditions of life more just and more human. The economic and excessive social inequalities between the members or peoples of the one human family create a scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace." 14 (§ 1938). Dignity is liberty. We have seen that the Catechism makes the dignity of man consist in the fact of having been made in the image and likeness of God. For St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all of Tradition, man is in the image of God because his soul is a spiritual substance endowed with intelligence and will, and thus he resembles the Holy Trinity. But for the New Catechism, that which characterizes the image of God before all else is liberty: In virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intelligence and will, man is endowed with liberty, "the privileged sign of the Divine image." 15  Are we convinced that "we know not what to ask so as to pray as we ought?" 16 Let us ask God for "suitable goods." Our Father knows well what we need before we ask Him,17 but He awaits our prayer because the dignity of His children is in their liberty. Now one must pray with one’s spirit of liberty in order to be able to know in truth his desire.18 (§ 2736) God has created man as reasonable in conferring upon him the dignity of a person endowed with the initiative and the mastery of his acts. ‘"God has left man to his own counsel’" (Sirach 15:14) so that he can seek by himself his Creator, and in adhering freely to him, reach full and blessed perfection" 19: ‘"Man is reasonable, and by that very fact, like unto God; he was created free, to be master of his acts" 20 (§ 1730). We remark in passing that the citation from St. Irenaeus expresses rather that the resemblance of man with God consists in his reason, liberty being only a consequence. This doesn’t keep the authors of the Catechism from choosing this citation in order to affirm that the dignity of man consists in his liberty. Since the dignity of man consists in his liberty, man will evidently have an inalienable right to liberty: Liberty is exercised in the relationships between human beings. Each human person, created in the image of God has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible person. All owe to each person this duty of respect. The right to exercise one’s liberty is an inseparable exigency from the dignity of the human person, notably in moral and religious matters.21  This right must be recognized by civil law and protected within the limits of the common good and public order 22 (§ 1782). Thus, liberty must be favored under all its forms and every inequality or constraint is an offense against the dignity of man: Man has the right to act according to his conscience and freely in order to take personal responsibility for his moral decisions. "Man must not be constrained to act against his conscience. What’s more, he must not be impeded from acting according to his conscience, above all in religious matters" 23 (§ 1782). Charity always goes through respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: In speaking against the brethren or in wounding their conscience ...it is against Christ that you sin.24  That which is good is to abstain ...from all that makes thy brother to stumble or to fall or to weaken25 (§ 1789). If one looks at the citations of St. Paul in their context, one sees that he tries to avoid acts which are indifferent in themselves so as not to scandalize someone who might misinterpret them and make of them an occasion of sin. It is not a question of respecting his conscience in the modern sense employed by the Catechism, that is to say, not impeding his sinning. This solicitation of a scriptural text is quite characteristic and proves that the modern theory of the liberty of conscience has no foundation in revelation. Thus, the role of the Church in the political realm, which hitherto consisted in making it respect the law of God and recalling to the heads of state their duty to help in the salvation of souls, now consists only in recalling this doctrine of the rights of man founded upon the dignity/liberty of the human person: Social justice can only be obtained by respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: ‘"The defense and promotion of human dignity has been confided to us by the Creator. In all the circumstances of history, men and women are rigorously responsible and debtors to it." 26 (§ 1929). "Respect for human dignity implies those rights which flow from his dignity as creature. These rights are anterior to society and impose themselves on it. They constitute the moral legitimacy of all authority. By heckling them or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.27  Without such a respect, an authority can only support itself by force in order to obtain the obedience of its subjects. It comes back to the Church to recall these rights to the memory of men of good will, and to distinguish them from abusive or false claims (§ 2246). It appertains to the mission of the Church to "bring a moral judgement, even in those matters which touch the political domain, when the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it, in using all the means, and those only, which are conformed to the Gospel and are in harmony with the good of all, according to the diversity of times and of situations" 28 (§ 2246). Let us note that in this last paragraph, the defense of the rights of man comes before preoccupation for the salvation of souls. Another way to say the same thing: the Church is charged to defend the transcendence of the human person, this transcendence consisting precisely in its dignity / liberty: The Church, because of its mission and its competence, is not confused in any manner with the political community, and is at the same time the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and promotes political liberty and the responsibility of the citizens" 29 (§ 2245). Among the rights of man that the Church must defend, there is evidently the right to religious liberty, founded as the others upon the dignity/liberty of man. "In religious matters, let none be forced to act against his conscience, nor to be hindered from so acting, within just limits, following his conscience in private as in public, alone or associated with others." 30 This right is founded upon the nature itself of the human person of which its dignity makes it to adhere freely to divine truth which transcends the temporal order. This is why it "persists even in those who do not satisfy their obligation to search for the truth and to adhere to it" 31 If, because of the particular circumstances in which peoples find themselves, a special civil recognition is accorded in the juridical order of the city to a given religious society, it is necessary that at the same time, for all the citizens and all the religious communities, the right to liberty in religious matters be recognized and respected32 (§ 1930). The right to religious liberty is neither the moral permission to adhere to error,33 nor a supposed right to error,34 but a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, that is to say, to immunity from exterior constraint, within just limits, in religious matters on the part of the political power. This natural right must be recognized in the juridical order of society in such a manner that it constitutes a civil right35 (§ 2108). Behold the citation of Pius XII which the note makes mention of: That which does not correspond to the truth or the moral law has not any right, objectively, to existence, nor to propagation, nor to action. Pius XII does not condemn only "a supposed right to error," as the Catechism says, but also a right to propagate it and the action of error and of evil. Now to recognize a "natural right to immunity from constraint" for a false religion, isn’t this precisely to recognize for them a right of action and of propagation? The right to religious liberty cannot be of itself either unlimited,36 or limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.37  The "just limits" which are inherent must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the exigencies of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority according to "juridical rules conformed to the objective moral order" 38 (§ 2109). One senses in this last paragraph and in the references to Pius VI and Pius IX an attempt to justify the conciliar doctrine on religious liberty in the face of the accusations of traditionalists. To make this new doctrine in conformity with the traditional doctrine, the "just limits" would have to be respect for the moral law in a pagan country and respect for the Christian law in a Christian country. But this is contrary to the conciliar teaching such as it is interpreted by Rome itself.39

I.  EVERY MAN IS A FRIEND & SON OF GOD The Covenant with Noah ...the Catechism leave[s] one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah...

Once the unity of the human race was divided by sin, God sought first of all to save humanity by passing by each one of its parts. The covenant with Noah after the flood40 expresses the principle of the divine economy towards the "nations," that is to say, towards the men regrouped according to their countries, each according to his language, and according to their clans41 (§ 56). We learn then that "God sought to save man by passing by each of its parts," which leaves us supposing that God has accorded to each part of humanity a religion which continues this covenant with Noah. The sign of the covenant with Noah having been the rainbow, one is not astonished that this symbol was widely used by the Conciliar Church in order to express its ecumenism, for example at the time of the inter-religious meeting at Brussels in September, 1992. Up to Vatican II, Catholics rather believed that which St. Paul said, that the pagans before the Incarnation had to observe the natural law in order to be saved. The only true past covenant between God and men with a view to constituting a religion for a part of mankind was the covenant of Sinai. And since the Incarnation, Jews and pagans must embrace the Christian religion in order to be saved. The covenant with Noah is in vigor for as long as the time of the nations42 endures, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. The Bible venerates several great figures from the "nations," such as "Abel the just," the king-priest Melchisedech,43 figure of Christ,44 or the just "Noah, Daniel, and Job" (Ezek. 14:14). Thus, the Scriptures express what heights of sanctity those can attain who live according to the covenant of Noah in the expectation that Christ "gather into unity all the scattered children of God" 45 (§ 58). Not only does the Catechism leave one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah, but it lets one now clearly think that this covenant has not been suppressed since it remains valid until the universal proclamation of the Gospel and until "Christ gathers together in unity all the scattered children of God," which isn’t realized as long as ecumenism hasn’t yet come to an end. Thus, it seems that even today "those who live according to the covenant of Noah can attain [a great] height of sanctity."

The Old Covenant "...the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant..."

If pagans can claim to be friends of God thanks to the covenant with Noah, it is even clearer for the Jews, since the "Old Covenant has never been revoked": The Old Testament is an inadmisible part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and preserve a permanent value46 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked (§ 121). The relation of the Church with the Jewish people, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers, in scrutinizing its own mystery, its bond with the Jewish People,47 "to whom God has first spoken."  48 Unlike the other non-Christian religions, the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant. It is to the Jewish People that "belong the adoption of sons, the glory, the covenants, the law, the cult, the promises and the patriarchs, and he who was born according to the flesh, the Christ" (Rom. 9:4-5), for the "gifts and the call of God are without repentance" 49 (§ 839).

Christ has died for all "He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive."

It is true that Christ has offered His life for all men and that His death, offered with love, is capable of saving all sinners. However, it is necessary to apply to each one this redemption. This application is made by Baptism, Penance, and the other sacraments which take their power from the passion of Christ.50  It is also by Faith that the passion of Christ is applied to us in order that we harvest the fruits of it.51 Consequently, even if Christ has offered His life for all, all shall not be saved, for all do not profit from His death by the Faith and the Sacraments. The Catechism is, at best, ambiguous on this question: This love is without exclusion. Jesus has recalled this at the end of the parable of the lost sheep: "So your Father who is in heaven does not will that even one of his sheep be lost" (Matt.18:14). He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive. It opposes the mass of humanity to the unique person of the Redeemer who delivers Himself up to save it.52  The Church, following the apostles,53 teaches that Christ has died for all men without exception. "There is not, neither has there been, nor shall there be, any man for whom Christ has not suffered" 54 (§ 605). This translation of the Latin pro multis is faulty when one specifies that this term "is not restrictive." This term is beautiful and quite restrictive. "It is the ‘love even to the end’ (Jn. 13:1) which confers its value of redemption and of reparation, of expiation and of satisfaction to the sacrifice of Christ. He has known and loved all of us in offering up his life.55 "The love of Christ presses us, to the thought that if one also died for all, then all have died" (II Cor. 5:14). No man, be he the most holy, was in the position to take upon himself the sins of all men and offering himself in sacrifice for all. The existence of the divine person of the Son in Christ, which goes beyond and at the same time embraces all human persons, and which constitutes him Head of all humanity, renders possible his redemptive sacrifice for all (§ 616). In assuming an human nature, Jesus Christ has not assumed all our persons. He has assumed the human nature of His own divine person, but not that of each of our persons. He died for all, but He only applies the salvific virtue of His blood for the souls who come to Him with humility, faith and love.

Limbo? "All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism"

Limbo is denied in practice, and that agrees completely with what we are going to see. Since it is not necessary any more that the virtue of the passion of Christ be applied to us by faith and the sacraments, there is no more reason to close the door of heaven to the little children who have died without Baptism: Concerning the infants who have died without Baptism, the Church can only confide them to the mercy of God, as she does in the rite of funeral for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God which desires that all men be saved,56 and the tenderness of Jesus towards the children who made Him say, "Suffer the little children to come to me, and hinder them not" (Mk. 10:4), permits us to hope that there was a path of salvation for the children who died without Baptism. All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism (§ 1261). This negation of Limbo is very grave. The Catholic doctrine on Limbo is not defined, but it is certain. Let us recall it briefly. The punishment for original sin is the privation of the vision of God.57  Those who die with original sin go to Limbo where they will remain for all eternity.58  In Limbo, they enjoy a natural happiness, without hatred of God or pain of sense.59  These three affirmations are not defined, but they are taught as certain.

The death of the Christian "It is by the Eucharist ... [that the faithful] learns to live in communion with he who has ‘fallen asleep in the Lord,’ in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him"

Reflection upon death has always been for Christians the occasion for a salutary fear. The Christian draws from it the lesson that he must above all avoid every mortal sin (for there is no greater misfortune than to die in the state of mortal sin), that one must make an effort to avoid venial sin, and also to seek to do penance so as to avoid purgatory. But for the Catechism, there is nothing to fear from death. Only look at what the rite of Christian burial says. First of all, it describes thus the meaning of death:   The Christian meaning of death is revealed in the light of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, in whom reposes our only hope. The Christian who dies in Christ Jesus "quits the body to go to remain next to the Lord" 60 (§1681). The day of death inaugurates for the Christian, at the end of his sacramental life, the fulfillment of his new birth begun at Baptism, the definitive "resemblance" to the "image of the Son" conferred by the unction of the Holy Ghost and the participation in the banquet of the kingdom which was anticipated in the Eucharist, even if some last purifications are still necessary in order to put on the nuptial robe" (§ 1682). The Church, which as a mother, has borne the Christian sacramentally in her bosom during his earthly pilgrimage, accompanies him at the close of his journeying in order to deliver him "into the hands of the Father." She offers to the Father, in Christ, the child of her grace, and she deposits in the earth, in hope, the seed of the body which shall rise again into glory.58 This offering is celebrated fully by the Eucharistic Sacrifice; the blessings which precede and follow are sacramentals (§ 1683).   One sees by this how little the Catechism is pastoral. For if there is an occasion to make Christians reflect, it is certainly the occasion of the death of a loved one. One must do it with charity, of course, but one must not confuse charity with an anesthesia of consciences. Even on the occasion of a suicide, the Catechism seeks to the greatest degree to reassure consciences: One must not despair of the eternal salvation of those persons who have taken their own lives. God can provide them, by ways which He alone knows, with the occasion of a salutary repentance. The Church prays for the persons who have taken their own lives (§ 2283). We are far from the "pre-conciliar" pastoral which refused a Christian burial to suicides, when they hadn’t given any signs of contrition. Moreover, it is this attitude which corresponds to true charity. By this refusal, the Church showed the gravity of suicide and greatly contributed to diminish the temptation for Christians to commit it, aiding them thus to save their souls. After having reflected on the meaning of death, the Catechism gives several indications on the celebration of funerals. We retain this one: It is by the Eucharist thus celebrated in common that the community of the faithful, especially the family of the deceased, learns to live in communion with he who has "fallen asleep in the Lord," in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him (§ 1689). The Catechism encourages then all the assistants to communicate at the Mass of Christian burial, without saying anything about the dispositions required to do so. When one knows that at the occasion of funerals there are many people coming who ordinarily do not set foot in the church, one measures the number of sacrileges that the Catechism encourages.

III:  THE CHURCH IS HUMANITY ...the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church...

The Catechism proclaims the dogma of the Church: Outside of the Church there is no salvation; but it empties its content according to the typically modernist manner: How must one understand this affirmation often repeated by the Fathers of the Church? Formulated in a positive fashion, it signifies that all salvation comes from Christ the Head by means of the Church which is His Body; ‘"Based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that this Church working upon the earth is necessary for salvation. Christ alone, indeed, is the Mediator and Way of salvation. Now He becomes present in His Body which is the Church; and in teaching us expressly the necessity of the faith and baptism, it is the necessity of the Church itself, in which men enter by the gate of baptism, that He has confirmed at the same time. This is why those who would refuse either to enter into the Catholic Church or to persevere there, whereas they would know that God founded it by Jesus Christ as necessary, those would not be able to be saved"1 (§ 846). This affirmation does not concern those who without any fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: "Indeed, those who without fault on their part, do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but nonetheless seek God with a sincere heart and strive under the influence of His grace to act in such a fashion as to accomplish His will such as their conscience has revealed to them and has dictated to them, these can reach eternal salvation" 2 (§ 847). Certainly, the Church has always admitted the possibility of those who do not know the Church through no fault of their own to be saved. They can then obtain the grace of God by a baptism of desire.3  But the Church formerly had a clearer manner of expressing this under Pius XII, in the letter addressed by the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing on August 8, 1949: Neither must one think that any sort of desire whatsoever to enter into the Church suffices to be saved. For it is necessary that the desires ordain someone to the Church be animated by perfect charity. The implicit desire can only have an effect if the man has supernatural faith. "He who cometh to God must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6) and to arrive to partake of the lot of His children." But other passages of the Catechism are clearer still in their undermining of this dogma "Outside of the Church, no salvation." Alas, it’s meaning is emptied of all which might be the least bit limiting. Let us see, for example, the passage which answers the question: "Who belongs to the Catholic Church?" "To the Catholic unity of the People of God... all men are called; to this unity, they belong or are ordained, both the Catholic faithful and those who, furthermore, have faith in Christ, and finally all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" 4 (§ 836). Those are incorporated fully to the society which is the Church who having the Spirit of Christ accept integrally its organization and all the means of salvation instituted in it, and who moreover, thanks to the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical government and communion, are united in the visible assembly of the Church, with Christ who directs it by the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops. Incorporation into the Church does not assure salvation for those who for lack of perseverance in charity, remain indeed bodily in the bosom of the Church, but not in their heart5 (§ 837). With those who, being baptized bear the fair name of Christians without, however, professing integrally the faith of preserving the unity of communion with the successor of Peter, the Church recognizes being united for many reasons.6 Those who believe in Christ and who have validly received baptism, find themselves in a certain communion, although imperfect, with the Catholic Church.7 With the orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that very little is lacking for it to attain the plenitude authorizing a common celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord" 8 (§ 838). Finally, there is not therefore any disquietude for those who belong to other religions than the Catholic Religion since the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church. The sole disquietude expressed by the Catechism is for those who, amongst Catholics, are of the body in the bosom of the Church, but not of the heart. These affirmations seem quite close to the propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus:9 Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion (proposition 15). Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion (proposition 16). One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ (proposition 17). Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church (proposition 18).

All the Religions are Good "...The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

We are going to see that the Catechism thinks that all men are more or less part of the Church. Another manner of saying the same thing is to affirm that all religions contain a part of the truth. Thus all religions are "means of salvation":

Moreover, "many elements of sanctification and of truth"10 exist outside of the visible limits of the Catholic Church: "the written word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity. Both the interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements."11 The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, the force of which comes from the plenitude of grace and truth that Christ confided to the Catholic Church. All these goods come from Christ and lead to Him 12 and in themselves call for the perfection of "Catholic unity." 13 Propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors Proposition 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion. Proposition 16. Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion. Proposition 17. One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ. Proposition 18. Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church.

All men are bound to seek for the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have found it, to embrace it and to be faithful to it.14  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 15  It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the diverse religions which "often bear a ray of the truth which enlightens all men," 16 neither does it contradict the need for charity which presses Christians to "act with love, prudence, and patience, towards those who find themselves in error or in ignorance concerning the faith" 17 (§ 2104). Does not one find expressed there "this erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in this sense that they reveal and translate all equally —although in a different way —the natural and innate sentiment which carries us towards God" 18 ?

The "Subsistit in" "...It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained..."

Already, the Second Vatican Council had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Catechism continues in the line of the Council: The unique Church of Christ... is that which Our Savior, after His Resurrection, remitted to Peter that he might be the shepherd, that He confided to him and to the other apostles, to extend it and direct it... this Church as a society constituted and organized in the world is realized in ("subsistit in") the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops who are in communion with him19: The decree on ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council explains, "It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained. For it is to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that the Lord confided, according to our faith, all the riches of the New Covenant, in order to constitute upon the earth one sole Body of Christ to which it is necessary that all those who in a certain fashion appertain already to the People of God may be fully incorporated" 20 (§ 816). The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It asks them to make known the cult of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church21 (§ 2105).

Catholic Unity Vatican II had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The Catechism continues in the line of the Council

We know that the note of unity is the fundamental note of the Catholic Church, that which manifests its form.22   Let us see what the Catechism says: Which are the bonds of unity? "Above all, [it is] charity, which is the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14) (§ 815). However, until the present, the Church never separated the bond of charity from the bond of the faith which is even, in a sense, the more fundamental one: We are said to be justified by faith because the faith is the beginning of the salvation of man, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to arrive at the partaking of the lot of His children.23 The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to perpetuate the salutary work of the redemption decided to build Holy Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful would be joined by the bond of one sole faith and one sole charity.24 No society separated from the unity of the faith or from the unity of His Body can be called a part or member of the Church.25  Since charity has as its foundation a sincere and integral faith, unity of faith must be, consequently, the fundamental bond uniting the disciples of Christ.26 As for unity, "Christ granted it to His Church from the beginning. We believe that it subsists inadmissibly in the Church and we hope it will increase from day to day unto the consummation of the ages." 27 Christ always gives to His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, strengthen, and perfect the unity that Christ wishes for it. This is why Jesus Himself prayed at the hour of His passion and why He ceases not to pray to the Father for the unity of his disciples: "...that all may be one as thou Father art in Me and Me in Thee, that they may be one in us, in order that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (Jn 17:21). The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit28 (§ 820). Since the Catechism says that we must have the desire to recover unity, it is obvious that this unity is lost, at least in part. This teaching does not appear compatible with the instruction of the Holy Office to the bishops on December 20, 1949:  The Catholic doctrine must be proposed and exposed totally and integrally; one must not pass over in silence or veil by ambiguous terms what the Catholic Church teaches concerning ...the only true union by the return of the separated Christians to the one, true Church of Christ. One could without doubt tell them that in returning to the Church they shall lose of the good that by the grace of God, is realized in them even to the present, but that by their return this shall rather be completed and brought to its perfection. One will avoid speaking on this point in such a manner that, in returning to the Church, they imagine that they bring to it an essential element which it had lacked up to now.

Ecumenism Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue.

See how the Catechism says that we must respond to this desire to recover the unity of the Church: To respond adequately to this, these are required: a permanent renewal of the Church in a greater fidelity to its vocation. This renovation is the springboard of the movement towards unity29 conversion of heart "in view of living more purely according to the Gospel" 30 for it is the infidelity of the members to the gift of Christ which causes the divisions prayer in common, for "conversion of heart and sanctity of life, united to public and private prayers for the unity of Christians, must be regarded as the soul of all ecumenism and can be with reason called spiritual ecumenism" 31 reciprocal and fraternal knowledge32 the ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of the priests33 dialogue between theologians and meetings between Christians of different Churches and communities34 collaboration between Christians in the various domains of service to men35 (§ 821) Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue. In defending the capacity of the human reason to know God, the Church expresses its confidence in the possibility of speaking of God to all men and with all men. This conviction is the point of departure of its dialogue with the other religions, with philosophy and the sciences, and also with the unbelievers and atheists (§ 39). All men are bound to seek the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have known it, to embrace and to be faithful to it.36  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 37 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the different religions which "bear often a ray of the truth which enlightens every man," 38 nor the exigence of the charity which urges Christians "to act with love and prudence towards those who walk in error or in ignorance of the faith" 39 (§ 2104). The mission of the Church summons the effort towards the unity of Christians.40 Indeed, "the divisions between Christians hold the Church back from realizing the plenitude of Catholicity which is proper to it in those of her children who, it is certain, belong to it by Baptism, but who find themselves separated from full communion. Even more, for the Church itself, it becomes more difficult to express under all its aspects the plenitude of Catholicity in the reality itself of its life" 41 (§ 855). The missionary task implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not as yet accept the Gospel.42 The believers can draw profit themselves from this dialogue in learning to better know "all that is already found of truth and of grace among the nations as by a secret presence of God." 43 If they announce the good news to those who know it not, it is to consolidate, complete and lift up the truth and the good that God has scattered among men and peoples, and to purify them of error and evil "for the glory of God, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of man" 44 (§ 856). However, Our Lord did not send His Apostles to dialogue, but to teach, and the task of the Church is to continue this teaching of the truth that God has confided to it, not to dialogue with anyone. Catholic doctrine teaches us that the first duty of charity is not in the toleration of erroneous opinions, however sincere they might be, nor in theoretical or practical indifference towards error or vice when we see our brothers plunged in them, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral betterment no less than for their material well-being.45

The Hierarchy Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops?

In the paragraph on the hierarchy, after having spoken about the episcopal college, the Catechism examines the laity. Nothing in particular is said concerning the priests. The laity receive such a participation in "the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ" which the bishops possess that one does not see why there should be any need of other members of the hierarchy. Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops? The differences themselves that the Lord willed to establish between the members of His Body serve its unity and mission. For "there is in the Church a diversity of ministers but unity of mission. Christ conferred to the apostles and their successors the office to teach, sanctify, and govern in His name and by His power. But the laity, made participants in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ, assume in the Church and in the world, their part in that which is the mission of the entire people of God" 46 (§ 873). These magnificent privileges recognized for the laity are in no way recognized for the priests in the passages where things of this kind is on the way of disappearing (Cf. § 1562-1568). Sometimes one begins to ask if the laity are not superior to the priesthood since "the ordained ministry, or ministerial priesthood 47 is at the service of the baptismal priesthood" (§ 1020). Certainly, the priests exercise "a special service" in the sacramental liturgy (§ 1020). But is this service truly indispensable since "it is all the community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates"? It is the entire community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates. "The liturgical actions are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity; that is to say, the holy people brought together and organized under the authority of bishops. This is why they belong to the entire Body of the Church, but they manifest it and attest it differently; but they touch each of its members in a different fashion according to the diversity of orders, of functions and of effective participation." 48  This is also why "each time that the rites, according to the proper nature of each, include a common celebration, with the frequentation and participation of the faithful, it underlines that this ought to have the preference over their individual and quasi-private celebration" 49 (§ 1140). The assembly which celebrates is the community of the baptized who, "by the regeneration and unction of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in view of offering spiritual sacrifices." 50 This common priesthood is that of Christ, the unique Priest, participated in by all His members... (§ 1141). St. Thomas explains to us more precisely that it is by the sacramental characters of the sacraments that we can participate in the priesthood of Our Lord: "These are nothing other than certain kinds of participation in the priesthood of Christ, which flow from Christ Himself."51 But He also tells us that the character is a spiritual power, passive in the case of Baptism, active in the case of Holy Orders. The priesthood of Christ and of priests is then an active power and the common priesthood of the faithful is a passive power. This is an important distinction which unfortunately is not pointed out by the Catechism.

The Liturgy The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now."

The Catechism insists upon the harmony between the two Testaments to the point of telling us that "the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant": The Holy Spirit fulfills in the sacramental economy the figures of the Old Covenant. Since the Church of Christ was "admirably prepared in the history of the people of Israel and in the Old Covenant," 52 the liturgy of the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, in making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant: principally the reading of the Old Testament the prayer of the Psalms and above all, the memory of the saving events and significant realities which have found their fulfillment in the mystery of Christ (the promise and the covenant, the exodus and the Pasch, the Kingdom and the Temple, the Exile and the Return) (§ 1093) The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now." This expression is a bit unfortunate and it lacks the necessary precision concerning the fundamental difference between the faith of the ancient Jews and the present Jewish people: Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy. A better knowledge of the faith and the religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are lived and professed even now, can help to better understand certain aspects of the Christian liturgy. For Jews and Christians, Holy Scripture is an essential part of their liturgies: it is used in the proclamation of the Word of God, the response to this Word, the prayer of praise and of intercession for the living and the dead, and the recourse to the divine mercy. The liturgy of the Word, in its structure, takes its origin from Jewish prayer. The prayer of the Hours and other texts and liturgical formulas have parallels there, as well as the formulas of even our most venerable prayers such as the Our Father. The eucharistic prayers take their inspiration also from models of the Jewish tradition. The relation between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy, but also the difference between their contents, are particularly visible in the great feasts of the liturgical year, such as Passover. Christians and Jews both celebrate the Passover: the Passover of history, looking towards the future for the Jews; for the Christians, the fulfilled Passover in the death and resurrection of Christ, although always in wait for the definitive consummation" (§ 1096).

The Mass and the Sacraments The Catechism ... teaching remains gravely deficient on... [the] point [of the propitiatory sacrificial nature of the Mass], just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass.

On the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Catechism speaks of thanksgiving and praise (§. 1359), of the sacrifice which represents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, which is the memorial of it and applies the fruit of it (§ 1366). It says that the sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed. If it does not deny its propitiatory end, one would search in vain for any clear affirmation of it. Let us recall the canon of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise or of thanksgiving, of a simple commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice... let him be anathema." 53 The Catechism doesn’t go that far, but its teaching remains gravely deficient on that point, just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass. Concerning marriage, the Catechism repeats the error of the 1983 Code of Canon Law by making equal the ends of marriage (and even by putting them in inverse order since the second is placed first). However this error wasn’t able to be approved at the Council, for Cardinals Browne and Ottaviani had vigorously opposed it.54 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman constitute between themselves a lifelong community, ordained by its natural character to the good of the spouses as well as to the generation and education of children, has been elevated by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.55 (§ 1601). The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the generation of children create between the members of a family personal relations and primordial responsibilities (§ 2201). Such an inversion turns conjugal morality upside down. In particular, it permits to the spouses, without sufficient reason to make use of the conjugal right while dispensing themselves from the serious duty of procreation that it contains in itself.56 The Catechism draws itself this conclusion: A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, the spouses can desire to space the births of their children. It is up to them to insure that their desire does not depend upon egoism, but is conformed to the right generosity of a responsible paternity. Moreover, they shall regulate their comportment following the objective criteria of morality: When it treats of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of behavior does not depend solely upon the sincerity of intention or an appreciation of the motives; but it must be determined according to objective criteria, drawn form the nature itself of the person and his acts, criteria which respect, in a context of true love, the total signification of a reciprocal gift and of a procreation at the stature of man; something impossible if the virtue of conjugal chastity is not practiced by a loyal heart57 (§ 2368). We are far from the luminous teaching of Pius XII concerning the "grave motives" which can justify a (natural) regulation of births.58 Periodic continence, the methods of regulating births founded upon self-observation and recourse to infertile periods59 are conformed to the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the body of the spouses, encouraging tenderness between them and fostering the education of an authentic liberty. On the other hand, "every action, whether it be in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its unfolding, or in the development of its natural consequences, which would be proposed as the end or as a means of making procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil." 60:  "In the language which naturally expresses the mutual and total self-giving of the spouses, contraception opposes a language objectively contradictory according to which there is no longer the total gift of one to the other. What flows from this is not only the positive refusal of any openness to life, but also a falsification of the internal truth of love, called to be a gift of all the person. This anthropological and moral difference between contraception and recourse to the periodic rhythms implies two conceptions of the person and human sexuality contradictory to each other" 61 (§ 2370). Certainly, it is good to condemn artificial contraception. It nonetheless remains that the Catechism greatly distances itself from the traditional doctrine on marriage by the encouragement that it gives to "the ‘Catholic’ variant of contraception [commonly called "NFP"]." 62 The passage from the Catechism which treats of mixed marriages is also very insufficient: In numerous countries, the situation of mixed marriages (between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) presents itself rather frequently. It demands a particular attention of spouses and pastors; the case of marriages with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and one not baptized) demands a greater circumspection still (§ 1633). "The difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the marriage when they put in common what each one has received into their community, and each one learns from the other how he lives out his fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They are due to the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the drama of the disunion of Christians in the bosom of their own home. Disparity of cult can aggravate even more these difficulties. From divergences concerning the faith, the conception itself of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can constitute a source of tensions in marriage, principally regarding the education of children. A temptation can then present itself: religious indifference (§ 1634). In many regions, thanks to ecumenical dialogue, concerned Christian communities have been able to establish a common pastoral for mixed marriages. Its task is to aid these couples to live out their particular situation in the light of faith. It must also help them to overcome tensions between the obligations the spouses have towards one another and towards their ecclesial communities. It must encourage the growth of what they have in common in the faith and the respect of what separates them (§ 1636). Thus, the principal difficulty seen by the Catechism consists in the tensions which risk arriving suddenly between the spouses. And still this danger tends to disappear thanks to "ecumenical dialogue" and the "common pastoral for mixed marriages." The Catechism does not speak of the peril for the Catholic spouse of losing his or her faith due to the contact with an heretical spouse. How could it speak of that since it presents heresy to us as another form of "fidelity to Christ"?

IV:  THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY "...the human person is and must be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions..."  Vatican II

With the question of marriage, we have already come in contact a little with the domain of morality. But it is fitting to study this question separately. St. Thomas teaches that what governs morality is the "last end."  Man must orient his life towards heavenly beatitude, and, consequently, use all the means that the good Lord puts at his disposition to attain that end. This is why St. Thomas begins the second part of the Summa Theologica consecrated to morality by the treatise on the last end of man, where he shows that the true end of human life can only be the beatific vision. Consequently, man must regulate his actions in order to arrive at this end. But the Catechism so exalts the human person that it seems to become the end of human life. Man is the end and the summit of all; he must be loved more than all. Next, Christ came to reveal man to himself, which seems to make of man the end of divine revelation, the revelation of the Father being only a means of manifesting to man the sublimity of his vocation: "Christ, in the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully manifests man to himself and reveals to him the sublimity of his vocation."  65 It is in Christ, the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),66 that man has been made to "the image and likeness" of the Creator. "It is in Christ, redeemer and savior, that the divine image, altered in man by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled with the grace of God" 67 (§1701). The law of the Gospel is summed up in love for one’s neighbor: The law of the Gospel includes the decisive choice between "the two ways," 68 and the putting into practice of the words of Our Lord69; it is summed up in the golden rule: "Whatsoever you desire that others do for you, do likewise to them; this is the law and the prophets" 70 (Mt. 7:12). The entire law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus (Jn. 13:34) of loving one another as he has loved us71 (§1970). The Catechism "forgets" the first commandment of the evangelical law, which is, however, the greatest, according to Our Lord, so as to remember only the second which is like to it. And what’s more, it barely explains that the second includes priorities, and that the order of charity demands that we should love first that neighbor who is the closest: God first, then our soul, then our Christian brothers before other men, our family and our fellow citizens before foreigners, etc. The respect for the dignity of every man and the quality of our relations with others is going to become the primary and fundamental virtue, more important than the faith and the other virtues which bind us to God. We shall find more or less the vocabulary and even the order of Thomist morality, but all shall be biased by this accent placed on the dignity of man. Read, for example, the lines which introduce the first chapter consecrated to morality in the Catechism, a chapter entitled The Dignity of the Human Person: The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and the likeness of God (Article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (Article 2). It appertains to the human being to achieve this freely (Article 3). By his deliberate acts (Article 4), the human person conforms himself or not to the good promised by God and attested by his moral conscience (Article 5). Human beings build themselves up and grow from the interior; they make of all their sensible and spiritual life a matter of their growth (Article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (Article 7), avoiding sin, and, if they have committed it, returning like the prodigal son72 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (Article 8). They arrive thus to the perfection of charity (§1700). Thus the principal reason for which one must fulfill the moral law is not that man is held to obey God, or that he must work to save his soul so to glorify God, but that by this means, he attests to the dignity of the person: By his reason, man knows the voice of God, which urges him "to accomplish the good and avoid evil." 73  Each one is held to follow this law, which resounds in the conscience, and which is completed in the love of God and of one’s neighbor. The exercise of the moral life witnesses to the dignity of the person (§1706). Application of this principle: respect for the rights of man, the dignity of man, etc. We have already spoken, in the first part of our study, of the defense by the Church of the rights of man and of the dignity of man. These same themes are found again, naturally enough, when it is a question of determining what are the moral duties of Christians. Since each man is the end of everything, as we have seen, all the duties of Christians are going to consist in protecting, in one way or another, the rights or dignity of the human person: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, the human being must recognize the rights of the person, among which the inviolable right of every innocent being to life:74  "Before being fashioned in the maternal womb, I knew you. Before your leaving the womb, I have consecrated you’"(Jer. 1:5). "My bones were not hidden before you when I was made, when I was made in secret, embroidered in the depths of the earth" (Ps. 139:15) (§2270). Whatever might be the motives or the means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the life of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally inadmissible. Thus an action or an omission which, of itself or in the intention, causes death in order to suppress suffering constitutes a crime gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person, and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error in judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this criminal act, which is always proscribed and excluded (§2277). As we see in this last text, the Catechism speaks also sometimes of the respect due to God; but it is symptomatic that it places this respect after that of the dignity of the human person. Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also implies a cultural effort, for there exists an "interdependence between the development of the person and that of society itself." 76  Chastity supposes the respect of the rights of the person, particularly that of receiving the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life (§2344). Pornography consists in separating sexual acts, real or simulated, from the intimacy of the partners in order to exhibit them in a deliberate manner to third persons. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, which is an intimate gift that the spouses give to one another. It gravely endangers the dignity of those who give themselves up to it (actors, dealers, and the public), since each becomes for the other the object of a rudimentary pleasure and of illicit profit. It plunges both in the illusion of being world-makers. It is a grave fault. The civil authorities must prevent the production and the distribution of pornographic materials (§2354). "In the beginning, God confided the earth and its resources to the common management of humanity for them to take care of it, to master it by their labor and to enjoy its fruits.77  The goods of creation are destined for all the human race.  However, the earth is divided between men so as to assure the security of their life, exposed as it is to shortage and menaced by violence. The appropriation of goods is legitimate so as to guarantee the liberty and dignity of persons, to aid each one to provide for his fundamental needs and to the needs of those of whom he has charge. It must permit a mutual solidarity to be manifested between men (§2402). In economic matters, respect for human dignity demands the practice of the virtue of temperance to moderate the attachment to the goods of this world; of the virtue of justice to preserve the rights of one’s neighbor and to accord him what is due him; and of solidarity following the golden rule, and according to the liberality of the Lord who "from being rich made himself poor so as to enrich us by his poverty" (II Cor.8:9) (§2407). Prostitution endangers the dignity of the person who prostitutes herself, who is reduced to the venereal pleasure that one takes from her. He who pays sins gravely against himself; he breaks the chastity to which he is engaged by baptism, and soils his body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.78  Prostitution constitutes a social plague. It habitually concerns women, but also men, children or adolescents (in these latter two cases, the sin is doubled by that of scandal). If it is always gravely sinful to give oneself over to prostitution, misery, blackmail and social pressure can extenuate the imputability of the fault (§2355). This question of "extenuating the imputability of the fault" of prostitution merits, however, to be treated separately.

THE EXCUSING CAUSES OF SIN For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man.

The first excusing cause of sin consists for the Catechism in the "structures of sin": Thus sin makes men accessories of each other, makes concupiscence reign among them as well as violence and injustice. Sins provoke social situations and institutions contrary to divine goodness. The "structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to commit evil in their turn. In an analogical sense they constitute a "social sin" 79 (§1869). These structures of sin are, for example, those societies which do not respect the rights of man: The consequences of original sin and of all the personal sins of men confer upon the world in its entirety a sinful condition, which can be designated by the expression of St. John: "the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). By this expression is also signified the negative influence that community situations and social structures which are the fruit of the sins of men exercise over persons80 (§408). Menaces for liberty. The exercise of liberty does not imply the right to say or do everything. It is false to pretend that ‘man, subject of liberty, is sufficient to himself in having for his end the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods.81  Moreover, the conditions of the economic and social, political and cultural order required for a right exercise of liberty are too often misunderstood and violated. These situations of blindness and injustice burden the moral life and place the strong as well as the weak in temptation against charity. By turning away from the moral law, man endangers his own liberty, he cleaves to himself, breaks the fraternity of his fellow men and rebels against divine liberty (§1740). "There also exist iniquitous inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in contradiction with the Gospel: ‘The equal dignity of persons demands that we arrive at conditions of life more just and human. "The excessive economic and social inequalities between members or the peoples of the one human family are the cause of scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as to social and international peace" 82 (§1938). Certainly, it is true that social conditions can be occasions of sin. Christians experience this each day in this laicized and materialistic society in which we live. But it is an inversion to pretend that those societies which do not respect the rights of man are the "structures of sin." Rather, it is much more the societies which take as their fundamental law the rights of man that urge men to sin by inciting them to forgetfulness of God and to revolt. The inversion of means and of ends83 which ends up giving an ultimate value to what is only a means, or to consider persons as simply means in view of an end, engenders unjust structures which "make any Christian conduct arduous and practically impossible that is conformed to the commandments of the divine Legislator" 84 (§1887). It is interesting to see in this citation how the Catechism pretends that it is continuing the former doctrine of the Church when it contradicts it. The phrase cited from Pius XII does not speak of societies which observe or do not observe the rights of man, the dignity of man, equality among men, etc. Pius XII said several lines further back, "From the form given to society, in harmony or not with divine laws, depends the infiltration of good or evil into souls..." For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man. To see between these two positions an "homogeneous evolution of dogma," one would have to establish that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is another formulation of the Decalogue. The Catechism also finds an excusing cause for sin in ignorance and physical and social factors: The imputability and responsibility of an action can be diminished, even taken away altogether, by ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, habits, immoderate affections, and other psychic and social factors (§1735). The human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he acted deliberately against the latter, he would condemn himself. But it happens that the moral conscience may be in ignorance, and makes erroneous judgments upon future acts or those already accomplished (§1790). Certainly, the Catechism recalls that ignorance can be culpable, and that in this case, it does not excuse from sin: This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. It is so "when man tries little to seek the true and the good, and when the habitude of sin little by little makes the conscience blind." 85  In these cases, the person is culpable for the evil that he commits (§1791). However, in practice, the Catechism greatly extends the domain of invincible (that is, non-culpable) ignorance and the other excusing causes for sin: In so far as it rejects or refuses the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.86  The imputability of this fault can be largely diminished by virtue of one’s intentions and circumstances. In the genesis and the diffusion of atheism, "the believers can have no small part, in the measure where, by their negligence in the education of the faith, by false representations of doctrine, and also by failures in their religious, moral and social life, one can say that they violate the authentic face of God and of religion more than they reveal it" 87 (§2125). Agnosticism can sometimes contain a certain search for God, but it can equally represent an indifferentism, a flight before the ultimate question of His existence, and a laziness of the moral conscience. Agnosticism is too often equivalent to practical atheism (§2128). If it is committed with the intention of giving an example, especially for the young, suicide has the added gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Serious psychological troubles, anguish, grave fear of trial, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one who commits suicide (§2282). By masturbation is to be understood the voluntary excitation of the genital organs in order to have venereal pleasure. "In the constant line of tradition, the Magisterium of the Church as well as the moral sense of the faithful have affirmed without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered act." "Whatever might be the motive, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of normal conjugal relations contradicts the finality of that act.’ Sexual enjoyment is sought outside of ‘the sexual relation required by the moral order, that which realizes in the context of true love the integral sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation." 88  In order to form an equitable judgment on the moral responsibility of subjects, and to orient pastoral action, one should take account of emotional immaturity, of the strength of habits already formed, of the state of anguish or other psychological or social factors which lessen or extenuate moral culpability (§2352). In cauda venenum says the Latin proverb; that is, the venom is in the tail. Notice how in the last two examples, after having recalled the law, the Catechism completely waters down its strength. Certainly, the law exists; that is the thesis. In practice, in the hypothesis, it excuses so as to escape the consequences. This is a typically liberal approach.

CONCLUSION: A NON-CATHOLIC CATECHISM Questioning, Indignation, Admiration There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person).

On the word of such favorable reports made by Catholic writers, amongst them friends of tradition, I opened with hope the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I read it ...I closed it again ...and this question which haunted the young Thomas Aquinas came to my mind: Who is God? What is God? Would I dare add that the cry of indignation which shook the heavens when Lucifer revolted failed to shake my soul: Quis ut Deus? Who is like God? And I was further tempted to take up again for myself the admiration of Jesus Christ for the dishonest steward:  Et laudavit dominus villicum iniquitatis quia prudenter fecisset, "and the master praised the dishonest steward for the prudence of his conduct." Questioning, indignation, and admiration; such are the sentiments between which my mind oscillates at the end of this reading that I wished to be made with good will. Questioning, for I didn’t find clear answers to the great questions that one can ask the Church: What is God?  What is the Church?  What is grace?  What is a sacrament?  What is the priest?  I found many descriptions, qualifications, and sometimes very beautiful and true considerations on these things, but hardly one of those good, precise definitions without ambiguity by which the Church has always loved to protect Her Faith. Not one time will you find, in order to define God, the words of St. John, "God is spirit," even though the Old Testament is abundantly cited. Of course, the other words of St. John, "God is love" are quoted. The Faith itself is presented to us firstly as "the response of man to God who reveals Himself" (§26). We must wait until paragraph 153 and following to see a more exact description, and until paragraph 1814 to have the definition of it. Indignation, not only because of the manner in which God is treated, but because of the lot reserved to His Church. There is the mortal sin of this Catechism, which makes its own and puts into a structured form the sins of the Second Vatican Council: doctrinal ecumenism, religious liberalism, collegiality, and promotion of the common priesthood of the faithful to the detriment of the ministerial priesthood of priests (§§874-933), the disappearing of the propitiatory finality of the Mass (§§1356-1381), the judaizing of the Church (among other things, compare the subtle slide from the Jewish Passover to the Sacrifice of the Cross [§§1363-64]; the memorial seems to be the same). We are beginning to ask ourselves what separates us from the Jews (§839) since we both await the same thing (§840), and since nearly all that is Catholic comes from the Jews (even the Our Father. §1096). We must even place ourselves in their school to be good Catholics (ibid.). We are more culpable than they for the death of Our Lord (§598: the Church does not hesitate to impute to the Christians the gravest responsibility for the suffering of Jesus), and above all, do not seek to know if our first martyrs were massacred by the Jews. The Protestant and like sects are ordinary means of salvation (§819). As far as the Orthodox are concerned, one could ask oneself truly if there is any problem (§839). The Moslems believe in God the Creator (and therefore the Trinity?) and even, without doubt, in Jesus Christ since they have the faith of Abraham (§841). With all of that, what above all constitutes the unity of the Church? You might think perhaps that it is the Faith? Certainly not!  It is charity! It is also faith, but in second place (§815). The Faith, even if it is affirmed as necessary for salvation (§161), is no longer considered as the beginning of salvation. It is no longer the point of departure for justification, and thus the fundamental bond of the Church. What a contrast with the magnificent decree of the Council of Trent concerning justification, so clear and precise! The Catechism teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, which is not the sole church of Christ, but only one of its manifestations (§816). Thus it can affirm that "outside the Church (understood as the church of Christ, and not the Catholic Church) there is no salvation". As for the State, in these conditions, it is clear that it must not favor any religion whatever (§§2107, 2244 ff.), especially our own, which should not pretend to be the only true one, mistress of truth. We can keep all our dogmas —and the essential is preserved except where the Church is concerned —but on condition that we admit and respect all the "elements of sanctification and of truth" contained in the other religions. Some other questions merit a mention: the ends of marriage are inverted (§1601 and §2201), the regulation of births seems conformed to this inversion, since it suffices for "just reasons" (which?) to legitimize it; the human conscience is the first of all the vicars of Christ (§1178); charity is always expressed by respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience (§1789); the human person is the principle, the subject and the end of all the social order (§§1881, 1907, 1929, and 1930); respect for his dignity and his rights is the fundamental norm which rules the entire social order, and is expressed in the ten commandments (see for example abortion, §§2270-2273).

Finally, admiration before the cleverness of the editors, specialists of the modernist method. This work is very well done, and the method is skillful and cunning. Such is the great dishonesty of this work; there are indeed very beautiful reminders that one is happy to read, but the intellectual method is false and perverts all that the Catechism contains of good. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis, September 8, 1907: ...to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist.

What is the point of departure of these reflections? Man, still more man, and always man. There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person). Equally, there is this other specialty of modernist thought: "to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist." 89 For example, there is paragraph 1698: the first and last reference of this catechesis shall be Jesus Christ. On the following page, the first question is: the dignity of the human person. Another example is paragraph 2105: the Church manifests thus the royalty of Christ over all creation and particularly over human societies. Turn the page and there is paragraph 2108: the natural right to civil liberty in religious matters.

Ultimum in executione, primum in intentione "...a Church for man..."

This Catechism illustrates the justice of this adage of St. Thomas: Ultimum in executione, primum in intentione —That which is first in the order of intention is last in the order of execution. It comes at the last, but it reveals to us the intention of the reformers who have been at work in the Church for the past thirty years (an intention laid bare and denounced since the Council by Archbishop Lefebvre): to make, beyond a conciliar Church which no one can define, a new Catholic Church where the word universal signifies collegial, world-wide and cosmic, a Church for man, for all humanity justified by the incarnation of the divine Word. To this Church of the New Age of man, all men belong, whatever their religion, if they are faithful to their conscience and respectful of the conscience of others. The role of religion, in this liberal and cosmic Church, is not to transmit a truth of which it is the depository, but to give to men, in agreement with the other religions, a minimum ethic which permits each one to live happily and peacefully with his neighbor. What is this minimum? Recognition and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person. This Catechism is the conclusion, the achievement, and the synthesis of thirty years of conciliar upheaval. It’s hour has come, as for Napoleon, to put an end to excesses —which strengthen its conservative side —and to structure in a coherent and ordered fashion the work of the Revolution. Thus, it puts within the reach of all, as a summa theologica, all that remained inaccessible to the ordinary layman, all that was diffused, confused, and dispersed in a multitude of texts, discourses, and actions. It gives to all these errors legal and obligatory force. No one can not know any longer the conciliar law. A remark: scrutinize the list of references. Amongst all the popes cited by the Catechism, for the twentieth century, only three are lacking: John Paul I (that is easily explained), Benedict XV (that is still plausible), and finally St. Pius X. This last, along with St. Pius V (who is mentioned once by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution), is never cited. Without doubt, he had nothing to teach us concerning the catechism, doctrine, the Mass, the Eucharist, or the priesthood?  Unless he had too much to teach us concerning modernism?

Bonum ex integra causa... Good only exists if the thing is entirely good...

Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu —Good only exists if the thing is entirely good, evil where there is one sole fault, the scholastic adage rightly teaches us. This is even more true, one might say, in matters of faith. See what St. Thomas says:  faith no longer remains in a man after he refuses one sole article of faith (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 3); he who refuses with pertinacity to believe one of the points contained in the faith does not have the habitus of faith, while he possesses it who does not believe all explicitly, but is disposed to believe all (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 4, ad 1); an infused habitus is lost by one sole contrary act (de Veritate, Q. 14, A. 10, ad 10). Just as the Virgin Mary would not be immaculate if she had the lightest blemish, so the Catechism is not Catholic if the faith that it teaches is not whole, total, and clearly explained. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is therefore not Catholic.  It expresses the conciliar ecstasy before the splendor of man, and can only seduce the poor Christians severed for the past thirty years from all serious doctrinal formation. It is a symphony too discordant not to grate on the Catholic faith; it is the symphony of the new world, for the New Age of man in the third millennium. The ancient or recent heresies have all been subtly danced around with such ambiguity so as to teach a new, more subtle one, and which one day shall be formally condemned as heresy; this new error bears upon the relations between the natural and supernatural order, which are theoretically distinguished but practically confused. It places in man a need for happiness in place of recognizing in him a natural desire for happiness. It confuses, moreover, this desire-need for happiness with the search for God or Jesus Christ. Its argument can be reduced to the following line of reasoning: God wants all men to be saved; now, God is good and powerful enough to save all men; therefore, he has placed in each one the need for happiness. This passage taken from the Catechism is, in some way, its self-portrait, at the same time that it depicts perfectly the baleful and mortal imposture which has invaded the Church since Vatican II: Before the coming of Christ, the Church must pass through a final trial which will shake the faith of numerous believers.90  The persecution which accompanies its pilgrimage upon earth91 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity," under the form of a religious imposture offering to men an apparent solution to their problems, at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious imposture is that of the Antichrist, that is to say, that of a pseudo-messianism where man glorifies himself in the place of God, and of His Messiah come in the flesh92 (§675). The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic Catechism, that of "a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, reuniting all men finally become brethren and comrades in ‘the Kingdom of God.’ One does not work for the Church, one works for humanity." 93

The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?