april 2005 $4.45 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition In the name of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, His Excellency Bishop Fellay, Superior General, welcomes the accession of Card.Joseph Ratzinger to the Sovereign Pontificate. He sees there a gleam of hope that we may find a way out of the profound crisis which is shaking the Catholic Church,... Español Belloc Favorites 62 Razones: ¿Por Que la Misa Tradicional en Latin? Economics for Helen This classic introduction to the basics of economic defines terms and introduces key concepts without using special jargon or complex theories. The fundamental questions about why the economy fluctuates and how small farmers, small business people, families, consumers, and innovators are affected by these fluctuations are considered. Serious Catholic alternatives are explained. (62 Reasons: Why the Traditional Latin Mass) Sixty-two reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known as the Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as the Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St. Pius V, Mass of All Time). 17x11, double-sided, full color, STK# 8111. $0.50 ea., 10+ $0.40 ea. El Texto de la Doctrina Cristiana ew i v e r k o See bopp.3 8-4 0 on An Essay on the Restoration of Property Belloc’s Distributist masterpiece wherein he outlines what a Distributist society looks like, how it may be brought about under modern conditions, and what it takes to maintain it. (Catechism of Christian Doctrine) Fr. Jerónimo Ripalda, S.J . This catechism is the most famous ever published. It was well know in countries around the world and was eventually translated into 47 languages. Padre Ripalda was a personal friend of St. Teresa of Avila, and for two years was the saint’s confessor. 104pp, softcover, STK# 7069. $8.95 The Servile State Explains that capitalism (liberalism applied to economics) is inherently unstable and that the two “remedies” proposed by the world (Marxist collectivism and the Servile State) are worse than the disease! Shows how capitalism tends towards its twin brother Marxism because both undermine the Catholic ideal of a broad distribution of property. The real solution: Distributism (Catholicism applied to economics). 64pp, softcover, STK# 8106. $3.95 Una Colección Pequeña de Oraciones y Devociones Basicas (Small Collection of Basic Prayers & Devotions) 0-pack 5 h s i n Spa vailable! a 170pp, softcover, STK# 7024 $12.95  Como Rezar el Rosario (How to Say the Rosary)  La Medalla Milagrosa (The Miraculous Medal)  El Escapulario Verde (The Green Scapular)  Déle Mucha Importancia a Su Escapulario (The Great Importance of Your Brown Scapular)  El Cielo Abierto por la practica de las Tres Avemarias (Heaven Opened by the Practice of the Three Hail Marys)  5 Primeros Sabados de Reparacion al Inmaculado Corazon de Maria (5 First Saturdays of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary) 6 great pamphlets, one low price. In convenient resealable plastic bag. STK# 8113. Single: $0.95. STK# 8113X  Pack of 50: $44.95 207pp, softcover, STK# 7026. $10.00 Essays of a Catholic Belloc turns his powerful mind and robust Catholic Faith to a host of topics, including the New Paganism, Usury, the Schools, the Revival of Latin, the Catholic Church and the Modern State, Industrial Capitalism and more. 245pp, softcover, STK# 8097. $15.00 The un-Ordinary Magisterium: Encyclicals with a Twist! People often find Papal encyclicals to be daunting and difficult reading...or just plain boring. We are dead set on changing that view with these three FASCINATING encyclicals that Catholic should find interesting. “Try them; you’ll like them!” On St. Benedict W NE Pope Pius XII writes on the life, times and the message of the great Father of Western Monasticism: St. Benedict. Pius XII explains and insists on the relevancy of the Rule of St. Benedict to the modern world. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” 23pp, softcover, STK# 8117 $2.95 On St. Boniface Pope Pius XII tells the riveting story of the life of the English Benedictine, St. Boniface, who became the apostle of Germany and the true “Father of the German people” by giving them life in W E Christ–incorporating N them into His mystical body–all the while demonstrating a steadfast obedience to the Bishop of Rome. A martyr, he is buried in Fulda, Germany, where, to this day, the German bishops continue to hold their conferences. 26pp, softcover, STK# 8116 $2.95 On the Promotion of the Spiritual Exercises Pope Pius XI reminds us who live in a world inundated with materialism and external activity, that we must turn our hearts and minds towards God in W silent contemplation, NE enabling us to better know, love, and serve Him. A must read for every retreat-master and excellent for all retreatants as well. Briefly covers the history of the Spiritual Exercises. 23pp, softcover, STK# 8118 $2.95 “Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.” Motto of Pope St. Pius X The ngelus A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION 2915 Forest Avenue “To publish Catholic journals and place them in the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to spread them as far as possible that they may be read by all, and especially by those whom Christian charity demands we should tear away from the poisonous sources of evil literature.” —Pope St. Pius X April 2005 Volume XXVIII, Number 4 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X PUBLISHER Fr. John Fullerton EDITOR Fr. Kenneth Novak ASSISTANT EDITOR Mr. James Vogel OPERATIONS AND MARKETING Mr. Christopher McCann SECRETARIES Miss Anne Stinnett Miss Lindsey Carroll CIRCULATION MANAGER Mr. Jason Greene DESIGN AND LAYOUT Mr. Simon Townshend SHIPPING AND HANDLING Mr. Nick Landholt Mr. Jon Rydholm PROOFREADING Miss Anne Stinnett Miss Lindsey Carroll POPE BENEDICT XVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Hugh Hewitt Interview (Dr. David Allen White & Dwight Rabuse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A First Look at Pope Benedict XVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 John Vennari Pray for the Holy Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Fr. Nicholas Marie, C.SS.R. $ THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT BOOK REVIEW: The Ecumenism Trap . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fr. Peter Scott The Cult of Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Ed Willock Why Money Is Sick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 John Sharpe Economic War on the Family and the Federal Reserve Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 John F. McManus The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication offices are located at 2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64109, (816) 753-3150, FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, Missouri. Copyright © 2005 by Angelus Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Manuscripts are welcome. They must be double-spaced and deal with the Roman Catholic Church, its history, doctrine, or present crisis. Unsolicited manuscripts will be used at the discretion of the Editorial Staff. Unused manuscripts cannot be returned unless sent with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: The Angelus, Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109-1529. BOOK REVIEW of Economics for Helen by Hilaire Belloc . . . . . . . . .38 Dr. Peter Chojnowski ON OUR COVER: An early version of the papal crest of Pope Benedict XVI. For a brief explanation of its symbolism, see p.13. For the conclusion of H.E. Bishop Bernard Fellay’s communique publicly recognizing the election of Pope Benedict XVI, see p.2. THE ANGELUS SUBSCRIPTION RATES US, Canada, & Mexico Other Foreign Countries All payments must be in US funds only. 1 YEAR 2 YEARS $34.95 $52.45 $62.90 $94.50 2 (continued from front cover) ...of which some aspects have been spoken of by the former Head for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and quite recently so in his preaching on the occasion of the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday. His Excellency Bishop Fellay implores Our Lord Jesus Christ, Head of the Mystical Body, that the two-thousandyear-old Tradition of the Church, forgotten and mistreated during the last forty years, may regain its place during this Pontificate, and that the Traditional Holy Mass may be re-established in all its rights, without restrictions. Finally, the Superior General assures the Successor of Peter, Benedict XVI, of his prayers and those of all the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X for the considerable task which awaits him in order to restore all things in Christ. April 19, 2005 +Bernard Fellay, Superior General Society of Saint Pius X THE ANGELUS • April 2005 PO BE XV POPE BENEDICT XVI > > > pp.4-10 pp.11-13 pp.14-16 THE ANGELUS • April 2005 (Pool/Getty Images News) Getty Images. THE HEWITT INTERVIEW A FIRST LOOK AT POPE BENEDICT XVI PRAY FOR THE HOLY FATHER 3 4 THE HEWITT RABUSE HEWITT WHITE THE ANGELUS • April 2005 5 AFTER THE PAPAL ELECTION, HUGH HEWITT INVITED ON HIS RADIO SHOW TWO ARTICULATE CATHOLICS: DWIGHT RABUSE, ATTORNEY AND TALK SHOW HOST; AND DR. DAVID ALLEN WHITE, US NAVAL ACADEMY ENGLISH LITERATURE PROFESSOR, “AMERICA’S PROFESSOR” ON SHAKESPEARE AND CLASSICAL MUSIC. T INTERVIEW Hugh Hewitt: David Allen White, your thoughts on the elevation of Pope Benedict XVI. David Allen White: Quite surprising, Hugh, surprises on a number of different levels. It was a very short conclave; I’m not sure anybody expected it would be that quick. Secondly, it’s very rare that the leading candidate goes into the conclave and comes out pope. Usually, there’s a surprise, or someone that was unexpected. Cardinal Ratzinger had been named as the leading candidate, and indeed he wound up as pope. And for me, the biggest surprise, and I think a very hopeful sign, is the name he took, Pope Benedict XVI. He is reaching back to an earlier time in the Church. He clearly is a man of the Second Vatican Council, but it may indeed be a gesture of looking for a continuity and a kind of unity with something that had gone before it. It’s hopeful, it’s very promising, and I look forward with anticipation to this pontificate. HH: Dwight Rabuse, your reactions? Dwight Rabuse: Well, first of all, I’m pleased that my friend David shares my enthusiasm about the selection of Benedict XVI. Later in the show, perhaps we can find out whether David and his friends can repack the truck and come back completely. HH: We’re going to get there. DR: I’m sure we will. No, I think this is an election which is a gesture on the part of the Church to confirm the legacy of Pope John Paul II, and, obviously, a huge disappointment [to those] who think that somehow the selection of popes is somehow akin to the presidency of the United States. The quickness of this selection, I think, confirms for the world that the College of Cardinals is on board with the Ratzinger vision of Catholicism, which is the John Paul vision, which is the eternal vision of the Church. HH: Now, Dwight, when he stepped up, were you surprised when he came from behind the curtain? DR: No, no. If you think back a week and a half, you asked me who my picks would be, and I said it would be either Ratzinger or Cardinal Arinze. So I was neither surprised nor disappointed by the selection. HH: Now, David Allen White, the pope’s got many, many jobs. One of them is the selection of cardinals. Forty-eight of the 117 who are eligible to vote for the pope this time are 74 years and older, meaning that if this pope stays on the throne of Peter for six years, they’ll be gone and replaced. He has a huge opportunity to remake the Church in his own image. Would it be very different from John Paul II’s image, do you think? DAW: Well, what’s interesting, Hugh. There are certain things it’s very clear he’s going to continue. I think the most promising thing, and the greatest consolation to a great number of devout Catholics, THE ANGELUS • April 2005 6 is that we will see no changing at all of the social teachings of the Church. And to me, that is the high water mark of John Paul II’s papacy; he stood firm on all of the Church’s social teachings, and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, will do very much the same. What will happen in other areas? We don’t know. It’s not clear. I think there were certain areas of disagreement between Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II. I will say this. Pope John Paul II had a very clear geopolitical view. He traveled the world, he was out there with the people. I suspect we’re going to have more of a stay-at-home pope who’s going to spend more time with the internal workings of the Vatican, seeing and arranging what’s going on there, which means if there are new appointments or changes, it may be a different kind of cleric who’s going to oversee the managing of the Church and keep things running again with the kind of continuity. HH: Now Dwight, it won’t be long, I haven’t seen it yet, but it won’t be long until he will be compared to Brezhnev’s Andropov, that he will be the transitional figure on the way to the great liberalization. I haven’t seen Andrew Sullivan come up with this yet, but I go back to the fact that if he even makes ten appointments to the College of Cardinals, it will be a significantly different body than when he began. Do you think he will end up appointing even more conservative bishops than John Paul did? DR: No, I don’t, Hugh, because I think the idea that there is a significant split within the cardinals, between what popular commentators would characterize as liberal and conservatives, is untrue. After all, as you pointed out, Ratzinger is one of three voting cardinals not appointed by Pope John Paul himself, so the entirety of the College of Cardinals reflects very much the thinking of the late pope, which again is very much the thinking of Benedict XVI. So in the spirit of continuity, I think you can look for this pope to make appointments to the various empty bishoprics around the world and to the College of Cardinals very much in the spirit of his predecessor. HH: Now David, you are of course a member of the Society of Pius X. DAW: Oh no, Hugh, I am not. I am fond of them, but it’s a priestly society. HH: Oh, I’m sorry. DAW: So, I’m not a priest, but I’m a supporter of theirs. HH: A supporter of the Society of Pius X, very conservative Catholics. Do you see hope for the healing of the divide there through this elevation of Benedict? DAW: We don’t know. Again, the new Pontiff is very much a man of the Second Vatican Council. He served as a peritus there to Cardinal Frings THE ANGELUS • April 2005 of Cologne. So he was there, and, in fact, had some major influence on some of the documents, particularly Lumen Gentium. So he’s a man of the Council. He’s very much, I think, supportive of the change that has taken place in the Church, but I also do think he has a sense of the divisions, and that there have been some unfortunate gulfs that have opened up. And I think it’s entirely possible he might reach out. We don’t know. Only time will tell. The other thing I would say, though, and I think this is very important, with the granting of the papal crown have got to come very special graces from God, so that what this Pontiff may do during his pontificate could surprise everyone. We don’t know, we don’t know. HH: Dwight Rabuse, much of the secular press is full of, well they’re calling him the inquisitor. They’re...honestly, I’ve seen that in a few places. DR: Oh, sure. Sure. HH: And the tough guy, and all this other stuff. They really don’t get it, do they? DR: No, it’s hysterical to watch, especially watching these self-professed Catholics like Chris Matthews, who must have been away from the Church for so long, they’ve completely lost touch and gone native with secular culture. The reign, for lack of a better word, of Cardinal Ratzinger atop the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while continuing the traditional teachings of the Church in all areas, has been noted for the moderation and gentleness of the man in dealing with dissenters throughout the Church. You know, someone who has been called to heal only 78 theologians, while holding that job for some 24 years, can hardly be characterized as a bomb-thrower or a gavel-pounder. People who know this Cardinal, and know this pope, you know, characterize him as an incredibly selfeffacing, gentle man and a gentleman to boot. And I think as the press comes to know that personality, you’ll see a softening of their characterizations as well. HH: David, he chose Benedict as his name. The significance in your eyes? DAW: Again, it’s a reaching back in time. Benedict XV followed a pope who, again, made an enormous mark, and that was Pope St. Pius X, the last pope to be sainted, who had a fairly short reign, from 1903 to 1914. So again, it may partially be the sense that you have a man who in some humility is following an enormous figure in Church history. And it may be a mark of the humility that he spoke of when he made his first public statement to the faithful. But I’d have say, Hugh, [that I have] a slight disagreement with Dwight. I wish he had been tougher in that office. I’ve said for a long time there’s nothing wrong with the Church that a good inquisition wouldn’t take care of. So I’m hoping that maybe he’ll actually toughen up a bit now that he’s 7 pope. And I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see, but again, I’m hopeful. HH: The monastic tradition, begun by Benedict, Dwight Rabuse, much in the news today. Does he... DR: Yes, and Hugh, I think an earlier caller to your program had noted as much, that perhaps you were commenting on one of the blogs. While there are echoes in the spirit of Benedict XV, I think, in choosing this name, I think more accurately, this pope is going back to St. Benedict, the founder of the Monastic tradition. And if you look at this pope’s thinking of the world, and try to contrast it with that of John Paul II, I think the difference of temperament is that Ratzinger is somewhat less optimistic that a dialogue with the entire world is necessarily to the benefit of the Church. DAW: I agree with that, Hugh. DR: And he’s very much, I think, of the school that this is a time for the Church to coalesce around spiritual truth, to purify itself. And he’s talked very openly about a future of the Church, which may show reduced numbers globally, but an increase of spirituality. HH: Do you agree with that, David? DAW: I do indeed. HH: And you think that’s a good thing? DAW: It’s a very good thing, and I hope that’s the case. HH: Before I get to the calls, your reaction, gentlemen, to the homily that he preached as a Cardinal yesterday, that was a very forceful condemnation of the dictatorship of relativism. David Allen White? DAW: Oh, it was magnificent, Hugh, absolutely magnificent. I’m very glad you posted it. I’ve been printing it out and giving it to people. What’s interesting, and I do find this a very hopeful sign, the new pope has a clear vision of what’s happened across Europe. I mean the faith is disappearing rapidly in Europe. He’s very concerned about it. There is word he was extremely upset that the new European Constitution will not even mention the Christian faith or the Christian heritage of Europe. Although part of the problem, of course, is that in the last 40 years, in France for example, Mass attendance has plummeted from 90% in 1965, to under 5% now. I mean there’s just...the tradition is being lost. He is aware of that, he’s aware of the problem, and to make that homily before the conclave meant he very well may have lost the position, if he had enemies there. It seems indeed to have been the fact that perhaps that’s part of what generated the enthusiasm for him. HH: That’s right. I think it was a very bold statement. Don’t vote for me for pope under false pretenses, Dwight Rabuse. I think anyone who can say they elected him with the expectation of anything other than having just heard a rip-roaring, barn-burning declaration when they marched in... DR: Well, that’s exactly right, Hugh, and it shows how disconnected the mainstream media is with where the Church is at today. In the wake of Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily yesterday, there was no shortage of commentaries saying, “Oh my goodness, he’s blown his chance to be pope, because he’s so doctrinaire. He’s so conservative.” This went on for a number of hours on all the major outlets, until finally late last night I heard an analyst say, “Well, look. Wake up to the fact that 88-90% of the Cardinals sitting in that room, listening to that homily said, ‘Yup, that’s exactly right.’” HH: David Allen White, what do you make of the idea that the pope is in for a rough go? DAW: I think he’s in for a very rough go, but understand this. It’s always been said that the sixth mark of the Church is persecution. The fifth mark of the Church is persecution. And if he’s persecuted, then that’s a good sign. It means he’s doing Christ’s work in the world. HH: Dwight, you agree with the idea that he’s coming in with a lot of baggage? DR: Well, I agree he’s coming in with a history, but I think it’s a wonderful history. And I think it presents an important moment for the Church. There are any number of Catholics, or at least selfdescribed Catholics, who for years have been saying John Paul’s a great, personable guy, but we’re going to wait him out, because the next pope is somehow going to be more liberal as American politics defines that. I think this shows that ain’t going to happen. There’s not going to be a pope who reverses any fundamental teaching of the Church. DAW: There cannot be. I agree totally, Dwight. DR: And as Pope Benedict XVI has been teaching for years, you’ve got to make a decision. If you do not like the teachings of the Catholic Church, well and good. Don’t be a Catholic. Go somewhere else. HH: (Reacting to caller’s theory on name selection) I’m not going to buy that, Dwight. I think it is far more likely that he was thinking of the first Benedict. DR: I think he’s thinking of the first Benedict, too. Although, if you look back to Benedict XV, with all due respect to my friend David Allen White, Benedict XV followed a legendary, saintly pope, and used his period of the papacy as a time of consolidation, and I think, to a great degree, that is THE ANGELUS • April 2005 8 what Ratzinger sees, too. He’s following an historic pope, and I think he sees his pontificate as almost necessarily shorter in time, and a period in which the work of a great predecessor can be consolidated. So they’re both attributes in the selection of the name. HH: Now, David, I want to ask you an offthe-wall question. If he’s uniquely German in any way–setting aside, though it is impossible to do so, the disfigurement of the German character that Hitler worked–what does that mean to be German? DAW: Well, a couple of things. It’s clearminded, single-visioned; and the other thing that the Germans are very well known for their organizational skills. And I go back to my earlier point, that the word is that there are internal, just organizational troubles in the Vatican, that many of the offices need to be set in order, and who better than a German to make sure that things are organized very thoroughly once again. The other glorious thing is, being German, he’s a great lover of music. In fact, he’s a master musician. HH: Oh, is he? DAW: A very accomplished pianist, and apparently of close to professional status. And his favorite composer is Mozart, which again is a very good sign. HH: Well, you know, that’s so old world, though. DAW: It is old world, and that’s a very good thing. Here’s another curiosity, Hugh. You know, the St. Malachy prophecy for this pope was the Glory of the Olive. HH: Yes. DAW: And for a long while, people had said that they thought that might mean that this pope would come from the Benedictine Order, because the olive has been long connected with the Benedictine Order. It simply might refer to the fact that he took the name of Benedict, and may be looking back to St. Benedict. So it may be that that prophecy has already been fulfilled. HH: Yes, very well put. HH: Gentlemen, here’s a little commentary from a Catholic commentator at “Catholic Commentary” [a Catholic website–Ed.]: It is interesting the Holy Spirit chose a man baptized Joseph, and that he, Joseph Ratzinger, chose Benedict as his pontifical name. Mr. and Mrs. Ratzinger, having no idea that their newborn son would one day be called THE ANGELUS • April 2005 to run the Catholic Church, decided to name their baby after St. Joseph. Surely, Providence inspired their choice. St. Joseph, among his many other titles, is knows as the Terror of Demons. Beside the very reality of the meaning of that phrase (evil spiritual forces fear the intercession of St. Joseph), this title reflects the grave responsibility Joseph took upon his shoulders to protect our Lady and their son, Jesus. It also reflects St. Joseph’s purity, and his willingness to order his will toward whatever was best for his family. Spiritual bad guys can’t abide the light of holiness and purity, and no man born to original sin was holier and more pure of heart than Joseph. Furthermore, St. Joseph’s primary title is Patron (Father) of the Universal Church. His is first place among the saints. St. Benedict, who lived in the 6th century, was the founder of the Benedictines (the very fi rst religious congregation), is also famously known for his power to intercede against the forces of spiritual evil. The St. Benedict medal, perhaps the most popular Catholic medal after the Miraculous Medal of the Immaculate Conception, is considered lead-pipe-lock insurance against the forces of evil for those who wear it. The medal itself, designed by St. Benedict, contains the first letters of Latin words which make up phrases that castigate and even humiliate spiritual beings. One of our favorites among them is directed to the head bad guy himself, Lucifer: “Go bark at the moon!” St. Benedict is the Bruce Willis of Catholic saints: “Yippie Kai Yay!” Many scholars honor St. Benedict with another title. As a result of his history-making deeds and the legacy of the founding of religious congregations, which provided the social, educational, and organizing basis for Christendom to slowly rise from the chaotic remains of the Roman Empire, St. Benedict is also known as the Father of Western Civilization. St. Joseph is a holy father. St. Benedict is a holy father. Joseph Ratzinger, now His Holiness Benedict XVI, is our Holy Father. We have a man named Joseph. We have a Pope named Benedict. Bad guys on earth and under the earth, you’re in for a scrap. Expect the world, the flesh, and the devil to commence their attacks upon Joseph-Benedict in short order. Expect them to fail. Your reaction to that, David Allen White. DAW: Oh, amen. I’m wearing a St. Benedict medal as we speak. HH: You are? DAW: I wouldn’t be caught without it. HH: I’ve never heard of that. DAW: Others won’t leave home without their American Express Card; I won’t leave home or do anything without my St. Benedict medal. HH: I have never heard of a St. Benedict medal until this very moment. DR: Where does that leave us with names like Dwight and Hugh? HH: I don’t know. Well, Hugh of Lincoln was quite good. I don’t know about Dwight. DAW: Listen, that’s a glorious summary. There it is. And I do think the attacks are going to be 9 A complete explanation of the medal and cross of St. Benedict can be found in the book: The Medal or Cross of St. Benedict: Origin, Meaning & Privileges, by Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB (Available from Angelus Press. Price: $11.95 unbelievable. You posted something this morning that showed up in this morning’s Washington Post. They were already after him ahead of time, and that is just going to intensify. But the fact of the matter is, the teachings of the Catholic Church are eternal truths. They cannot change. So all this yelping and screaming, at no point will contraception be allowed. It can’t happen. At no point will abortion be permitted. It cannot happen. This is not...as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. It’s God’s truth. HH: Dwight? DR: Yes, well how stupid are these people? At some point, I just beat my head into the wall trying to figure out those who think that somehow things that have been taught for 2,000 years are going to get flipped 180 degrees because you elect a pope from some Franciscan monastery in South America or something. It ain’t going to happen. HH: Well, they think it’s like the United States Supreme Court. DR: They do, and you know, if we could draw some analogy to that and the kind of papacy we’re looking at, Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI is a man, I think, who, in applying Church doctrine, is an original interpretation kind of guy. DAW: Although Dwight, let me say this. They were encouraged by the changes that followed the Council. If the sacraments of the Church can be changed, then why not teaching in the social order? And it opened a door, it opened a door and let them run crazy. And they’re running crazy now because they had high expectations that went far beyond anything that was possible, but one of the fruits of the Council were these exaggerated hopes that the Church was going to change completely and become at one with the modern world. DR: And I think that, David, that’s where you and I probably depart about the history of the thing. My own perspective is, in the 1960’s, the United States and the world being what they were, a whole lot of people in the Church were going to go crazy with or without Vatican II. And quite clearly, under John Paul II, with a great deal of help from Cardinal Ratzinger, there was a real serious and somewhat successful effort to return to the Church, to what Vatican II was intended to accomplish, not what some screwball thought it happened to mean. DAW: Except I go back to the statistics: 90% of Frenchmen attending Mass in 1965, fewer than 5% today. In 1965, there were 48,000 seminarians in the United States, there are now 4,700. HH: David, two things. He’s written a bevy of books: what does that tell you about the likelihood of his thought being other than which is predictable. And two, he does seem to have quite an interest in the supernatural, as one would expect from the pope, which modernity really isn’t used to. DAW: There is no sense of the supernatural. In fact, the supernatural was disposed of so long ago, we’re busy disposing of nature right now. But that’s another question. Let me say this. He’s written a number of books. What I heard today from a lot of the mainstream media talked about the intellect of the man, the brilliant intellect of the man. I have a number of quarrels with him, in terms of certain things he said in some of his books, statements he’s made. I’m not going into those tonight; it’s not the time or place to do it. But I would say this. He went and studied philosophy in the modern German university as a young man. For a bright mind, the modern university is not the place to go. What I find much more interesting about him, and the real link to the supernatural, is that I think he has a Catholic heart. He was raised by devout parents in Bavaria. I think that Catholic upbringing, and what he learned during those years, stays with him. And as those of us who are Catholics know, there’s no real devotion to the Sacred Brain of Jesus: it’s the Sacred Heart of our Lord. And that burning, sacrificial love is what really makes a devoted Catholic. And I’m hoping that God will use the heart of this man much more than necessarily the intellect. HH: Dwight Rabuse? DR: Well, he’s a fascinating combination. While he’s written prolifically, and stands as one of the great theologians of the 20th century, whether or not the critics may agree with him, those who know this man’s spirituality see him as somebody who is just transparently open to God. His writings reflect THE ANGELUS • April 2005 10 an intense focus on the Eucharist. And I think central to Catholic theology, and something that this pope will dedicate himself to rediscovering, is the power of the sacramental life of the Church, focused particularly in the holy Eucharist. So, you heard so much last week about the Cardinals saying they wanted to go to the conclave and elect somebody who was the holiest man there. I think they may have succeeded in doing that, separate and apart from his intellectual credentials. HH: (reacting to military caller originally from Belize) Dwight Rabuse, I don’t know if you heard that, because I had to go back and forth. DR: I did hear that, Hugh, and reflecting on the recent conversation, I was recalling a moment from a couple of years ago where John Paul was asked to reflect on whatever failings he may have had as pope, and he commented that by temperament, he was not the kind of guy who could, you know, crack heads and take names, and discipline people the way, perhaps, he should. And that was the limitation of his personality. I think we may now have a pope who by temperament is not as reluctant to bring the discipline of the Church to bear, as it may be needed. HH: David Allen White? DAW: I agree with that; I hope it’s the case. HH: Gentlemen, I want to give you a couple of minutes each to kind of sum up your feelings about where the Church finds itself with this new leader. David, why don’t you lead off. DAW: Well, you know, I found it interesting, the reference that the new Pope Benedict XVI made in his first address to the faithful, that he was a humble laborer in the vineyard. A little curious. There’s a very, very great German philosopher-theologian of the 20th century named Dietrich von Hildebrand who wrote a book about the Second Vatican Council and what it had done to the Church, called The Devastated Vineyard. I’m sure that the new pope has read it, and knows it. If he’s laboring in the vineyard, we all hope that he will begin a real restoration and repair the damage that’s been done in the Church. He’s going to receive great graces from above, but more importantly, he needs the prayers of the faithful, and I would just ask all the Catholic faithful to get out your rosaries and kneel down and say some prayers for this pope. HH: Dwight Rabuse? THE ANGELUS • April 2005 DR: Well, amen to that sentiment. I’ll certainly be praying for the Holy Father tonight. A couple of observations on where this papacy might go. Number one, I think that John Paul II irrevocably changed how one does being a pope. And despite the fact that Benedict XVI is a theologian and a scholar and an academic, he must travel the world. He must go visit Catholics around the globe. And I think the first surprise for the media will be when this pope announces very quickly that he’s going on the road, probably to Latin America or Africa, to continue the missionary spirit of John Paul II. He really doesn’t have any alternative to that, especially since over the last several years, John Paul’s health prevented him from traveling. Second observation is, I think the decision to make Ratzinger pope indicates the Church is not prepared to give up on Europe. At least not quite yet. With all respect to David Allen White, while the legacy of Vatican II, as that has been misinterpreted, has certainly had a toll in Western Europe–and all Christian churches are declining in Western Europe–there has been a tremendous growth in the Catholic Church in the third world. And I think that growth is at least partly attributable to the reforms of Vatican II, which, after all, Karol Wojtyla and Ratzinger were behind. So I think he’ll be traveling, I think he’ll be continuing the legacy of his predecessor in being a globalizing, evangelizing pope. He’ll consolidate the doctrinal teachings of the last 26 years, and he’ll make a real effort to try to revive the kernel of Catholicism and Christianity in Western Europe, even if it’s only in the sense of being a sub-culture, monastic kind of Church which can provide the seeds for future growth. HH: Very quickly, David Allen White, you expect him to travel quickly? DAW: I expect him to stay home. And again, it shows there’s a range of opinion in the Catholic Church. HH: There always is. Edited transcript of the Hugh Hewitt Show broadcast of April 19, 2005, transcribed by the show’s producer, Duane Patterson. Used with permission by Duane Patterson. Hugh Hewitt, Esq., is a law professor at Chapman University Law School in southern California. He has had an afternoon radio talk show since 2001, which is now syndicated and broadcast on 75 stations nationwide. To find out whether the Hugh Hewitt Show is broadcast in your area, you may contact the Salem Radio Network on-line at srnonline.com, or telephone the affiliations department at (949) 857-0439. Attorney Dwight Rabuse, Esq., practices law in Minnesota. He is a member of the Federalist Society, and writes and lectures on legal issues. He hosts a radio talk show called “Rabuse on the Right,” broadcast weekly on WWTC AM1280 in the Twin Cities area. Dr. David Allen White has been for 24 years a professor of Literature at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He is a twice-monthly guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show speaking on Shakespeare and classical music. A convert to the Catholic Church, Dr. White has been often a guest speaker at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (Winona, Minnesota). He is the author of The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and the Last Catholic Diocese (available from Angelus Press. Price: $14.95), and an upcoming popular biography of Archbishop Lefebvre (to be published by Angelus Press, Winter 2005). J o h n V e n n a r i 11 A FIRST LOOK AT POPE BENEDICT XVI On April 19, 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the former Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was elected the 265th successor of Saint Peter. He chose the name Benedict XVI. The two-day conclave was one of the shortest in history, and Cardinal Ratzinger was the favorite going in. At age 78, he is the oldest pope to be elected since Clement XII in 1730. The Message of Fatima adjures us to “pray a great deal for the Holy Father.” Catholics must support the new pope with their prayers, for his good, and for the good of the Church. St. Alphonsus Liguori, with the stark realism of a saint, observed prior to the election of Pius VI, that if a pope “does not have the glory of God as his sole purpose, the Lord will not help him greatly, and things from the present condition will go from bad to worse.” He went on to counsel that prayer can remedy many things. What Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy will bring remains to be seen. Forecasting a new pope’s actions is a precarious art, even when one believes he has sufficient facts. Will his pontificate be one of restoration of Tradition, or will it be yet another postConciliar papacy of the New Theology? His track record up to now would indicate the latter. Numerous traditional Catholics believe that Benedict XVI will be favorable to the widespread use for the Tridentine Mass. In recent years, Cardinal Ratzinger himself has celebrated the old Latin Mass on a few occasions. It would be a blessing if he were finally the first pope since the Council to publicly admit the truth, that the Tridentine Mass has never been forbidden, and that all priests are free to celebrate it without the need for special permission from their bishops. Whatever overtures the new pope makes towards traditional Catholics–if any–as well as what will be the precise nature of those overtures is anyone’s guess. It is said that Cardinal Ratzinger, when Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, disapproved of the transformation of the Mass “into spectacles that require directors of genius and talented actors.” These harsh words, according to Italian journalist Sandro Magister, were directed even at Pope John II’s tumultuous mass liturgies. Cardinal Ratzinger did not go to the first panreligious meeting at Assisi in 1986, though he attended the second one in 2002. He disapproved of Pope John Paul II’s mea culpas. Magister writes: Many other cardinals disagreed with these (mea culpas), but said nothing in public, with the sole exception of the Archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Biffi, who set down his objections in black and white in a pastoral letter to the faithful of his diocese. Ratzinger voiced his criticism in a different way, in a theological document that responded point by point to the objections that he had raised, but in which the objections were all elaborately developed, while the replies appeared tenuous and shaky. It would not be surprising if Pope Benedict XVI restores some outward dignity to papal office. He seems to have neither the persona nor temperament of the actor-on-the-world-stage, as did his predecessor. He doesn’t appear to be the pep-rally type. His tastes in liturgy seem more reserved. THE ANGELUS • April 2005 12 In this respect, it will be interesting to watch how much leeway he allows Archbishop Piero Marini, the Bugnini protégé and papal Master of Ceremonies. It was Marini who, with the papal approval, designed John Paul II’s riotous ceremonies, the most notable being the rock’n’roll World Youth Day liturgies and Masses with pagan inculturation and Hindu rituals, as was exemplified in the beatification Mass of Mother Teresa. Time will tell whether or not we have finally seen the last of these raucous extravaganzas, papal or otherwise. Nonetheless, at his first Mass as Pope, Benedict XVI gave Communion in the hand to two Cardinals, says eye-witness Michael Matt. This does not bode well. We can only pray that he halts the widespread profanation of Communion in the hand and lay “Eucharistic Ministers.” If he does not, these worldwide sacrileges will be laid at his soul, and this is a frightening thought. It is one of the many reasons he must be supported by our prayers. He also needs our prayers because he is before all else a man of Vatican II. In the early 1980’s, an editorial appeared in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, in which Fr. Kenneth Baker quoted a bishop who made a shrewd observation. The bishop, who wished to remain anonymous, said that we will probably not arrive at a true appraisal of the Second Vatican Council until every bishop who was at the Council is dead. The bishop’s words equally apply to the priests and theologians who were at the Council. The majority of those who participated at Vatican II consider it the “greatest grace of their lives.” The Council is, so to speak, their baby, and they will love, promote and defend it come what may. Never mind that the Council has been a disaster for the Church and the world. For these bishops, priests and theologians, the Council is the center of their universe. They have staked their entire ecclesiastical careers on Vatican II. They seem incapable of thinking any other way. There is no turning back. It is probable, then, that we will not receive a true assessment of the Council under Pope Benedict XVI. Young Fr. Ratzinger was a liberal peritus at Vatican II, and has said repeatedly that he has not changed since then. His track record verifies this, even though he has made some fine statements about the present ruinous state of the liturgy, the Church and the world. Whenever he makes such observations, however, his solution is never to return to Tradition, to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, to the anti-Modernism of Saint Pius X. Rather, he sees the solution as a return to a rediscovery of the true teaching of the Vatican II, the revolutionary Council that sparked the chaos in the first place. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who rejoiced that certain aspects of Vatican II are a “counter-Syllabus” and that there can be “no return to the Syllabus” of THE ANGELUS • April 2005 Blessed Pope Pius IX, which firmly denounced the major errors of the day. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who said he agrees with the Modernist Hans Urs von Balthasar who wrote, “The urgency of the moment is to raze the bastions of the Faith,” that is, to demolish the very defenses of the Faith itself. It was a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger who rejoiced in 1966 that the “intellectual position of anti-Modernism” which he calumniated as “the old policy of exclusiveness, condemnation and defense leading to an almost neurotic denial of all that was new” was discarded at Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger thus celebrated Vatican II as a counter-syllabus, as a dismantling of the bastions of the Faith, as anti-anti-Modernist. These are the ideas of a progressivist, not of another Pope Pius XII. The news media that mislabels him a staunch conservative reveals itself ignorant of this truth. Now it is true that in a sense, Cardinal Ratzinger no longer exists. He is now Pope Benedict XVI with the unique graces of his papal office. Various Catholic writers suggest that he could undergo a conversion as did Blessed Pope Pius IX. Reportedly a liberal when elected, Pius IX underwent a change of heart and emerged an anti-liberal champion of the Faith. It would be a stupendous grace for the Catholic Church if Pope Benedict XVI underwent such a conversion. Yet it is not wise to bank on it happening, nor to believe that this conversion has taken place already, but we just can’t see it. The ordinary course of events is a better basis for our outlook. Recent history shows that the cardinal who was elected pope ended up, in effect, to be the same man who lived out his days in the papal office. There was virtually no change. Cardinal Angelo Roncalli was liberal before elected, and maintained his liberalism throughout his pontificate. Ecumenism and Vatican II were his legacy. Cardinal Montini was a progressivist before his papal election. He did not change afterwards. As Pope Paul VI, he presided over the initial reforms of the Second Vatican Council and the auto-demolition of the Church. Even when he realized “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church,” he remained constant to the post-Conciliar reforms. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was likewise a progressivist before his elevation to the Papal Throne. Once elected, he did not convert to Tradition, but blazed his progressivism to the world, mixed with some old-fashioned Catholic piety. Many Catholics prayed continually for a Pius IX-style conversion that never happened. The same may be the case with Pope Benedict XVI. Always a progressivist, always pledging first allegiance to Vatican II, he is likely to continue to be the Cardinal Ratzinger we always knew. Catholics must not forsake prayers for his return to full Catholic Tradition, but they should not factor in this THE PAPAL COAT OF ARMS On April 28, L’Osservatore Romano released the papal coat of arms for the new Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. A glance at the picture alone does nothing to explain the rich symbolism of the images on the shield, nor does it immediately betray any novelty or innovation. The tradition of a family or office bearing a coat of arms goes back for centuries, beginning with the need for soldiers to identify themselves during battle in the Middle Ages. Beginning at the top, one notices a silver miter with three gold horizontal stripes connected by a single gold vertical stripe. Until Benedict XVI, the top of the papal coat of arms was graced by the triple-tiered tiara, an external symbol of the Holy Father’s authority, jurisdiction, and power of Orders. (The papal tiara, or triregnum, is first mentioned in the 8th century, and continued to be used until the papacy of Pope Paul VI.) Now the tiara is gone from the papal coat of arms as well, although the triple attributes of the Holy Father are still represented by the horizontal gold lines, connected by the vertical line to demonstrate the unity of these characteristics. The shield is divided into three sections, showing on the left the “Moor of Freising,” the “Bear of Corbinian” on the right, and the shell of a scallop in the middle. The Moor of Freising is a tradition which stems from the areas of Freising and Munich in Germany, where the Holy Father served as Archbishop from 1977 to 1981. It appears on the coat of arms in this area as early as the 14th century. The Bear of Corbinian is a symbol of a bishop of that name who preached in Bavaria in the 8th century and is venerated as one of the patrons of the diocese. Legend has it that Corbinian traveled to Rome using a bear who obeyed him as a pack-animal. The pack on the crest has another meaning as well, referring to the burden of the office of the Holy Father. Finally, the scallop’s shell, according to the Holy Father himself, symbolizes not only pilgrimage, an allusion to the “pilgrim people of God,” but also, from an incident in his life, St. Augustine and his theology, about which Fr. Joseph Ratzinger wrote his doctoral dissertation. At the bottom there is one further innovation, which is the introduction of the pallium into the papal coat of arms. The pallium represents in a special manner the authority of the Holy Father, the “plentitude of pontifical power.” (It is also sometimes bestowed on bishops, but the significance is obviously not the same.) Whereas the loss of the papal tiara is lamentable, the introduction of the pallium is not necessarily so. Perhaps it is an indication that Benedict XVI plans to use his authority in a way his predecessors chose to ignore.–Ed. 13 conversion when they attempt a realistic forecast of his pontificate. It is probable that Pope Benedict XVI will attempt to forge a new synthesis between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, and when a conflict arises between the two, he will favor the Council every time. In his first papal homily, Benedict XVI said, Therefore, in preparing myself also for the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, I wish to affirm strongly my determination to continue the commitment to implement the Second Vatican Council, in the footsteps of my Predecessors and in faithful continuity with the tradition of the Church. He pledged to continue the ecumenical dialogue championed by Pope John Paul II. How the details of Benedict’s policies will compare or contrast with John Paul II’s remains an open question. He may eventually calm some of the more riotous aspects of Pope John Paul II’s legacy, and will probably be a more stay-at-home governor. He may also be strong on certain moral issues. His Vatican already denounced in sharp words the new homosexual-union laws in Spain. He is likely to try to reign in unwieldy bishops who have run unbridled during 40 years of lax leadership. He may be equally stern against Traditional Catholics. To grant widespread use of the Tridentine Mass is one thing, to make peace with blocks of Catholics who resist Vatican II’s new teaching is quite another. In 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger said of Traditional Catholics, “It is inadmissible; one cannot accept that there be in the Church groups of Catholics who do not follow the general way of thinking of the bishops of the world.” Yet, Catholics are bound to adhere to the truth of all time, not to the trends of the moment. Today, the “general way of thinking of the bishops of the world” defies the general way of thinking of all Popes, Saints, Doctors, and millions of ordinary Catholics prior to Vatican II. How Pope Benedict XVI deals with this dilemma may reveal who the man truly is. As we await this revelation, we can do no better than to heed Our Lord’s words: “Watch and pray.” John Vennari, who is a native of Philadelphia, spent 14 years at Holy Family Monastery where he wrote the regular Crying in the Wilderness newsletter. He is editor of the traditional monthly newspaper, Catholic Family News, where this article first appeared and which has been used with permission. THE ANGELUS • April 2005 14 F r . N i c h o l a s M a r y , C . S S . R . “PRAY MUCH FOR THE HOLY FATHER” It is difficult to pray for any pope after all that has been said and done to confuse the faithful and favor the enemies of the Church. “A Christian who does not pray for the pope is like a child who does not pray for his father.” These are the emphatic words of the great Redemptorist Apostle of Vienna, St. Clement Mary Hofbauer. Is the Holy Father not in need of prayer, then? If your father were urgently in need of your prayers and you refused them, what kind of a child would you be? The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains that we honor our father and mother first of all by “the spontaneous offering of sincere and dutiful love.” We also owe to our parents, it continues “other duties of respect, such as to supplicate God in their behalf,” to submit “to their wishes and inclinations,” to imitate “their good example…when we not only ask, but follow their advice” and to “relieve their necessities.” Thus, We are bound to honor not only our natural parents, but also others who are called fathers, such as bishops and priests, kings, princes and magis trates, tutors, guardians and masters, teachers, aged persons and the like, all of whom are entitled, some in a greater, some in a lesser degree, to share our love, our obedience, and our assistance.1 Clearly, we cannot obey the pope when he departs from the path of his predecessors, nor THE ANGELUS • April 2005 when submission to his “wishes and inclinations” would entail displeasing God. “No authority,” wrote Archbishop Lefebvre in his famous Declaration of 1974, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s magisterium for 19 centuries.” Such lawful disobedience, as we know, does not infringe on the prerogatives of papal infallibility, but we should reflect more on the fact that it does not diminish our obligation to love and assist the pope as much as we are able. We do this first and foremost, as the same declaration made clear, precisely inasmuch as we hold fast to Tradition, doing so “without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment…in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations,” and so making sure of “remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church [and] to all the successors of St. Peter.” But that is only the starting point: the goal is to obtain from heaven the pope’s conversion through the prayers of the innocent children whom he has seemingly abandoned. To these prayers his due share in our love and assistance entitles him. 15 But recent popes have abandoned us as a father…. Why should we pray for him as faithful children? It is true that the popes since Vatican II do not yet seem to realize that not only are we not errant sheep, but we are in the very “heart of the Church,” in the beautiful words of the Little Flower. We are his truest sons and daughters. But if, like Shakespeare’s King Lear, he rejects or abandons us, the reverse cannot be said, and that is why we unite our prayers with those of the priest at Holy Mass as he prays for the Sovereign Pontiff in the Canon; the fact that we pray to God for “our Pope” shows that we refuse to regard ourselves as being in schism with him, no matter what his attitude to us may be. In reading the life of Blessed Elizabeth CanoriMora (1774-1825), an Italian Trinitarian Tertiary who was simultaneously an abused wife, an exemplary mother and a highly-favored mystic, one cannot help being struck by the relevance of her story for our own days. Her example should not only inspire spouses in conjugal difficulties to seek her intercession; rather, the example of her fidelity and perseverance are of universal significance, and particularly to faithful Catholics in their stand for Tradition. After her unworthy husband Christopher had abandoned her and their two young daughters to live in open adultery, Elizabeth continued unceasingly to pray and offer sacrifices for his conversion and that of his partner in sin. She made sure that he realized that he was still the head of their family, and welcome to return at any time to them in the humble lodgings and penury to which his wanton spending had reduced them. When well-meaning friends tried to persuade her to seek a legal separation from him she refused the suggestion energetically, and lived by her example the holy doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian marriage which she inculcated upon others by her counsel. When Christopher sought to divorce her, she would not consent, though in every other regard she tried to obey him as far as her conscience would permit. A portrait of Christopher hung in a prominent position in their apartment, in order to remind her daughters–and herself–that this was his home, and that he had abandoned them and not they him. Her perseverance in penance and prayer finally obtained the conversion of her husband, and, as she had further prophesied, Christopher went on to become a Franciscan priest after her early death. She was beatified in 1994, the International Year of the Family. The post-conciliar popes may have largely neglected the true needs of the sole Bride of Christ, the Church, in order to please various other purely human groups and institutions, but the time will come when the Holy Father or one of his successors will experience the affliction and regret which marked the conversion of Christopher CanoriMora, and realize that, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, “It has been Satan’s masterstroke to introduce disobedience to all Tradition in the name of obedience.” That moment of grace, however, must be won through prayer: our prayer. After all, how many “modernists” or “sedevacantists” are praying for him!? How can we love and revere someone who seems to be doing so much harm, as previous popes have done? As to the true charity which we should have for the pope, and which should move us to pray for him, Our Lord’s own command should suffice us: But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you, that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven.2 How much more should we love the pope, who can hardly be said to hate, persecute and calumniate us! And as to reverence, we are not speaking of that blind “papolatry” of certain conservatives which ignores the common good, but rather of that respect which is owing to the pope through his office, and which is independent of the manner in which he exercises it. St. Catherine of Siena, who revered the papacy as the rock upon which Our Lord had built His Church, was at the same time in no way under the modern illusion that infallibility, or freedom from error under certain clearly defined conditions, is accompanied by impeccability or freedom from sin! St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of the virtue of Observance–whereby “we pay...honor to those who excel in some kind of dignity”–points out that even a wicked superior is honored for the excellence, not of his virtue but of his dignity, as being God’s minister, and because the honor paid to him is paid to the whole community over which he presides.3 If even a wicked king or ruler is honored as being in some way God’s minister, then how much more should we he careful in the way we speak of the Vicar of Christ, who is surely not wicked, but merely misguided! A truly wicked ruler, enemy of the Church and persecutor of Catholics was surely the unhappy Queen Elizabeth I of England. And yet St. Edmund Campion spoke for all English Catholics when he told her and her government: Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those English students, whose posterity shall never die, which beyond seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over, but either to win you heaven, or to die upon your pikes. And touching our Society, be it known to you that we have made a league–all the Jesuits in the world, whose succes sion and multitude must overreach all the practice of England–cheerfully to carry THE ANGELUS • April 2005 16 the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair of your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God; it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted: So it must be restored. If these my offers be refused, and my endeavors can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigor, I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us his grace, and see us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in heaven, when all injuries shall be forgotten.4 We are far from refusing to pray for the pope; on the contrary, we redouble our prayers and petitions that the Holy Ghost might give him light and power in the strengthening and in the defense of the Faith....The Truth must be confirmed in Rome more than in any other place. It belongs to God, who will make it triumph.6 And in the momentous year of 1988 [i.e., the year of his consecration of four bishops without the direct permission of the Holy Father–Ed.] he stated categorically: Only the pope can bring the Church back to Tradition. Only he has the power, only he has the responsibility, and if he too has sadly allowed himself to be drawn into the errors of Vatican II, then this is nevertheless not a sufficient reason to separate ourselves from him. On the contrary, we must make every effort to bring him to reflect upon the seriousness of the situation, to move him to return to Tradition, and to require of him that he lead the Church back along her path of 2,000 years. Perhaps you will answer me along with those who have left us on this account: “It’s useless, you are wasting your time!” They think like that because they have no confidence in God. God can do all things! Humanly speaking they are right, because the situation is discouraging. But God can do all things, and prayer can obtain all things. And that is why we must pray for the pope, pray twice as much for the pope, that God might enlighten him that he might at last open his eyes and see the debacle in the Church....7 If the Catholics of England could pray for their Queen–as they still do–then shall faithful Catholics the world over do less for their common Father? May their “innocent hands” be “lifted up to Heaven daily” until Almighty God deigns to hear their prayer! Can it be pleasing to God to pray for the success of some ecumenical meeting, or, for that matter, that the Catholics of Tradition give up their fight? Your interpretation of what the subjective intentions of this particular pope might be is perhaps correct, but besides the point. When we pray “for the intentions of our Holy Father the Pope” we are praying for something objective, something determined by the Church and laid down long ago: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The exaltation of the Catholic Church, The propagation of the Catholic Faith, The extirpation of heresy, The conversion of sinners, Concord between Catholic princes, The further welfare of the Catholic people. These are the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff for which we pray as a necessary condition for gaining plenary indulgences. But the popes never seem to change! Those who reason thus forget that the gates of hell will never prevail against the One, True Church. They forget that there will be an end to this terrible crisis. They forget that it will be a pope–whether the present one or one of his successors, we do not know–who will bring about this change. They forget that no prayer which is according to God’s Holy Will is ever in vain. And they would do well to consider how Archbishop Lefebvre viewed the matter. Shortly after the Council he wrote: The destruction of the Church is progressing at a rapid pace….The Pope has made himself powerless. And yet only the successor of Peter–and he alone–can save the Church.5 He reminded his seminarians a decade later: THE ANGELUS • April 2005 Fr. Franz Schmidberger [who was at the time the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X–Ed.] once preached a stirring sermon in which he noted: When St. Peter was thrown into prison by Herod and bound with chains, the Church prayed without ceasing for him: today Peter is in chains anew; in chains which he has in part forged himself....It is for us to beseech God on our knees unceasingly until he sends an angel, as he did before, who will lead Peter forth from his prison.8 Whether God will send an angel to help the successor of St. Peter out of his predicament or perhaps only to accept the offering of the martyrdom depicted in the terrible vision of the Third Secret of Fatima, our own duty is clearly expressed in these words of Blessed Jacinta to her companions: “Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him!” Originally authored by Rev. Fr. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. (Catholic, March 2002) of the Transalpine Redemptorists, Papa Stronsay, Orkney Islands. Edited by Fr. Kenneth Novak. For subscription information: Golgotha Monastery Island, Papa Stronsey, KW17 2AR, Orkney Island, Scotland, Great Britain. Explanation of the Fourth Commandment. Mt. 5:44-45. 3 Campion’s “Brag,” viii-ix; see Catholic, Sept. 2001, for full text. 4 Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.103, Art.2, ad 2. 5 Letter to Cardinal Ottaviani (Nov. 20, 1966). 6 Guidelines to Ecône seminarians (Nov. 8, 1979). 7 Sermon at Ecône (April 23, 1988). 8 Sermon (1987), Amt und Person des Simon Petrus (cf. Acts 12:5). 1 2 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Let your speech be, “Yes, yes,” “No, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37) ● April 2005 Reprint #63 conclusion A new book by Fr. George May “THE ECUMENISM TRAP” In acts of unparalleled blindness and mindlessness, the standards of conduct regarding contact with those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church have been discarded to the great harm of the Church’s life. Declaring it a matter of survival for the Catholic Church, Fr. George May desperately sounds the alarm in The Ecumenism Trap to return to sound practices of dealing with non-Catholics. This is the second part of the review which was begun in the February 2005 issue of The Angelus English-Language Edition. 17 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT DOCTRINES OF HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS ILLUSTRATED THE PSEUDOCATEGORIES OF THE ECUMENISTS The search for ecumenical “unity” obviously finds a difficult obstacle in the doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics. To get around them elaborate figures of speech, such as the so-called “differentiated consensus,” have been contrived ad hoc in order to reach doctrinal accords based on respect for mutual differences. Fr. May shows that these locutions are untenable. He writes: Consensus is agreement resulting from the sense of the will (its content) and the express intention of two contracting parties. To distinguish means to divide and separate. A differentiated consensus is the cohabitation of agreement and discord on one and the same thing, in this case on points of doctrine.” [This expression signifies] agreement on the fundamental elements of a contested doctrine, joined to contextual explanation of the reasons why doctrinal differences that still remain are permissible in light of everything that is established in common.1 Such a conception, however, “presupposes that it is possible to distinguish in revealed truth between doctrines that must be recognized for salvation and doctrines that need not be recognized without prejudice to our salvation” (ibid.). This distinction is false; it is a Lutheran approach, and has already been condemned by the Church on the grounds that revealed truth comes entirely from God, and therefore is necessary for our salvation in its entirety and in the same manner (pp.25-26). Furthermore, on a purely logical level, matters of disagreement negate the validity of matters of agreement, rendering “differentiated consensus” an internal contradictory concept (p.26). Equally contradictory is the notion of “conciliated difference,” another way of expressing the idea of “unity in difference.” This term is dear 18 to Cardinal Kasper, who uses it often (ibid.), echoing the Lutherans, who hold that ecumenism should look to the realization of “an ecclesial community in conciliated difference” (pp.26-27). But conciliation, Fr. May notes, is an anthropological category: it concerns human relationships, not ideas. This means that human beings can be reconciled, but doctrinal positions cannot. Well-developed opposing positions cannot be leveled down….Differences of faith that express radical contradictions can never be reconciled because truth and error cannot be conciliated. “Conciliated difference” is nothing more than the addition of opposites.… [p.27] Distinguished Protestant theologians likewise reject this conceptual category (ibid.). It is futile to found one’s position on illusions. As Pius XI recalled in Mortalium Animos, the Catholic Faith is an indivisible whole, to be accepted or rejected as a whole (p.28). “Conciliated difference” does not and cannot exist, just as no such unity can exist between Catholics and Protestants, between faiths that profess opposing truths. Furthermore, the positions that Protestants so proudly oppose to Catholics are actually errors, negations of revealed truth, heresies (pp.28-29). DIFFERENCES WITH PROTESTANTS AND ORTHODOX In order to give the most complete possible image of the insurmountable differences that divide us Catholics from the heretics and schismatics, we offer the reader a brief summary–an anthology, as it were–of the detailed picture Fr. May sets forth in this regard. It amounts to an analysis “of the grave deficiencies of Protestantism as a religious system,” an analysis that re-establishes fundamental truths which these days are too often obscured. It goes without saying that this analysis reflects no hostility towards individual Protestants, who may be pious and devout, perhaps more so than some contemporary Catholics (p.66). The same applies for the Orthodox taken as individual persons. Protestants Luther From the outset Fr. May rejects the ongoing attempt of the ecumenists to reappraise Luther, as though he had heretofore not been well understood THE ANGELUS April 2005 or interpreted: “There are pious and exemplary men in Lutheranism, although the same cannot be said of its founder.” His moral and intellectual deficiencies are well known: a monk who broke his vows, and gave in to sensuality, pride, anger, and hatred. Luther idolized himself. [An astute and aggressive personality, he was a violent and supremely skillful polemicist and, at the same time, subtle and impudent in his hermeneutical sophisms– Ed.]. He incited the masses to hatred of the pope and Catholics with his rabble-rousing libels. Luther cannot justly be considered a “reformer.” He was a destroyer of the Faith, of the Church, a sower of discord: a true Attila. He made use of the evils which in his time afflicted the Church militant as an alibi to reject sound doctrine, substituting his personal interpretation of Scripture [an interpretation that tried to square the circle, or to conciliate salvation with the liberty of a subject wanting to continue following the impulses of the flesh and of pride–Ed.] (pp. 66-69). Protestantism Imposed Its False Doctrine by Force Protestantism has not placed its own, equally legitimate tradition next to the legitimate tradition of the Church; on the contrary, it has rejected the legitimate tradition of the Church as illegitimate, in order to substitute for it another, taken as legitimate. The Protestants did not try to purify the institutions of the Church of their time, but merely put them aside.…They preached a changed doctrine, adapted to the weaknesses of the flesh. [p. 69] This is the true reason for their success. It represented not the rediscovery of the true Gospel, of authentic Christianity, on which the masses eager for truth eagerly threw themselves, but rather the success of an elite in the corrupt climate of their time (p. 70). The “reformers” preached the spirit of the world, as national prejudices or politically or culturally dominant classes would have it [absolute freedom of conscience, construction of a personal credo, the push towards a national religion.–Ed.] (p.71). Decisive for the effective dominance of Lutheranism was the intervention of civil authorities in its favor (territorial lords, free cities of the empire), all eager to appropriate the lands and possessions of the Catholic Church. In their territories these authorities persecuted Catholics with oppression and terror, annihilating them or driving them off (pp.7173). [The same happened in England, where the Catholic majority was dissipated by the monarchy, which sought at all costs to impose first schism, then heresies.–Ed.].2 Another legend is that Protestantism brought with it “freedom of religion” (p.73). On the contrary, it constantly repressed Catholicism. It relied constantly on state powers [as Orthodoxy also did–Ed.] to strike at Catholics for its own profit. Protestantism has often invoked freedom of conscience and religion, but only for itself (ibid.). Even today Protestantism relies on the powerful of this world, whether the media, political parties, or the dominant trends of the time, the State. In various nations with a Protestant majority still today freedom of religion is not guaranteed. The constitution of Norway declares Lutheranism the state religion. Its adherents are obliged to educate their children in this religion; the king must be a Lutheran; more than half of the members of parliament must be Lutheran. [p.74] Similar prerogatives exist in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Great Britain (where neither the king nor the prime minister can be Catholics, nor can Catholic clergy be elected to the lower chamber) (ibid.). Fr. May concludes: “The proclamation of religious liberty on the part of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council evidently found no echo in Protestantism” (ibid.). Doctrinal Differences Have Remained Unchanged and Irreconcilable The ecumenists “hide them and minimize them,” but they are still there. Nothing has changed. While Pope John Paul II may assert that, since the Council, “dividing barriers” between Catholics and Lutherans have been knocked down (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 7, 1999, p.7), he can offer no proof for what he says. Protestant theologians continue to attack Catholic dogmas as before. The Catholic side makes no response (p.75). Let us examine these differences in a broad summary. The Word of God This is for Protestants the decisive instrument of grace. Its personal acceptance is paramount. By comparison with the Word, sacraments are secondary. The Word is always free and new every time it is proclaimed. It does not solidify into a norm. Thus the very concept of dogma is untenable for Protestants. Dogma is constituted by the contents of Revelation as set forth by the Church: thus arose the articles of Faith. For Protestantism, by contrast, only free and momentary proclamations of the Word have importance. Their consolidation in professions of THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS April 2005 19 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT contradictions, have practically destroyed the authority of the sacred text (pp.78-79). confessional faith is nothing more than a human deed and can be revised. [p.76] Protestants reject Tradition as constitutive for dogma, present from the beginning of the Church, accepting only Scripture. All the same they cultivate their own traditionalism, which consists in applying the principles of Protestant tradition to the interpretation of the Bible: “The Catholic who reads Protestant commentaries on the Bible is not infrequently surprised to find references to the works of Luther” (p.77), used in fact as an interpretative canon. This not withstanding the Lutheran belief in free individual interpretation of texts without notes of explanation, with only the assistance of the Holy Ghost! Furthermore, Catholics and Protestants do not have the same Bible (how many Catholics are aware of this?). Luther eliminated the so-called deutero-canonical works of the Old Testament. In the New Testament he considered uncanonical the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James (which teaches the necessary relation of works to salvation), the Second Letter of Peter and the Book of Revelation (ibid.)! Since for the Catholic Church all sacred texts have God as their author, there is a unity amongst them and one text cannot be set against another. Their inerrancy is absolute and contains neither contradictions nor truths of primary or secondary importance–they all enjoy the same authority. In Protestantism, by contrast, a series of qualitative distinctions amongst the sacred texts is at work. There is in effect a canon within the canon, different levels of authority within the Bible. In this way passages of Sacred Scripture can be set one against the other, and the interpreter acts as judge of Revelation. Luther recognized in Sacred Scripture only “what Christ revealed,” as he put it. He gave pride of place to the Letters to the Romans and the Galatians, since he thought he found in them confirmation of his doctrine of justification. [p.78] The Catholic Church possesses a higher court that authoritatively interprets Sacred Scripture: the Magisterium of the Church. Protestantism lacks any such authority. It affirms that “Scripture interprets itself.” The falsehood of this claim is shown by the great accumulation of contradictory interpretations characteristic of the sectarians. It should be noted that the different criteria for interpreting the Bible are actually contained in the professions of faith of the different sects. Over the last two centuries Protestant theologians, with a methodology that rejects the principle of authority and looks for 20 Justification and Grace For Catholics and Protestants, the conceptions of justification and grace irremediably opposed: Grace is for Catholicism every supernatural gift God grants to man so that he might attain eternal life. The two essential types of grace are actual and sanctifying grace. The latter is a supernatural reality, infused by God in the soul, inhering in the soul as a quality of its very essence. The Protestant conception is altogether different: Grace is nothing other than benevolence, the merciful disposition of God. It is not a supernatural principle of our life which sanctifies it by an interior transformation. [For Protestants,] man is corrupted by original sin in such a way that on his own he is capable only of evil. Therefore there can be no preparation for or collaboration in justification on the part of man through the mediation of grace. God does everything on His own, man can do nothing. Against these errors the Catholic Church, anchored in Tradition and Sacred Scripture, teaches that human nature has indeed been wounded by original sin, but nevertheless remains capable of cooperating with divine grace for justification. The subjective principle of justification is the faith. [p.80] The faith, however, is understood by Protestantism as merely the individual’s confident trust in divine mercy. [Luther maintains that one must believe that the sacrifice of Christ, an act of divine mercy, is like a cloak that covers all our sins; this belief alone is necessary for salvation, since man is incapable of change. It is not possible to sanctify oneself in the daily struggle of the spiritual life by seeking the help of grace. Luther’s is a dark faith, based on the anxious sense of one’s own misery, while it is also poisoned with pride because in expecting everything of God it demands nothing of man, who pretends to be saved while remaining unchanged, burdened with passions and vices.–Ed.] For Catholicism, however, “faith is personal submission to God and at the same time free adhesion of the intellect to Truth as revealed by God” (ibid.). For the Church faith is inseparable from free will. Thus the manner in which justification is accomplished through grace is profoundly different: The mercy of Christ, which adopts the sinner through faith [thus making him a son of God by adoption–Ed.], is for the Protestants limited to covering over the sinfulness of man (in effect a diminution of the mercy or “justice” of Christ). His inner sinfulness remains unchanged even in the justified man (simul iustus et peccator). For Catholic doctrine, by contrast, justification involves a true inner sanctification. [pp.80-81] THE ANGELUS April 2005 Fr. George May The Concept of the “Church” (See SiSiNoNo [The Angelus English-Language edition], February 2005, pp.21-23.) The Sacraments The Protestants have preserved only “baptism” and the “Eucharist.” What do they make of the other five sacraments? With the possible exception of the Anglicans, confirmation is an “empty and superstitious ceremony.” Confession “is not a sacrament but only a recommended practice, as also extreme unction. Holy orders is considered a manifestation of pride, an error dangerous for souls. Marriage is only a contract, always subject to dissolution. Recently, as is well known, various Protestant circles have signaled openness to ‘homosexual marriage’” (p.82). Protestantism thus denies that the sacraments can be effective ex opere operato. The only means of salvation is the Word: it follows that the sacraments procure grace not through their action, but only through the faith of the recipient (ibid., p.83). Baptism What then to say of baptism, the sacrament so often paraded by the ecumenists as a secure common possession of Catholics and Protestants? Also on this point most Catholic faithful have not been well informed. In fact, for many Protestants baptism is merely a symbol, which does not act upon the soul of the baptized. In any case, it is not understood as a cause of grace produced by God in the soul, but rather as a simple sign. The Protestant understanding of faith and its belief in the unique salvific power of the Word do not afford baptism any specific sacramental efficacy. Those Protestants who admit that grace is conferred in baptism also maintain that it derives from faith alone. Few Protestants believe that THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS April 2005 21 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT baptism procures grace. More and more Protestants now deny the necessity of baptism for salvation. Only faith (understood as trust) is necessary. Salvation is connected to faith, not to baptism, which is not even required for admittance into what they call the church. The synod of the Reformed Church of France (May 25-27, 2001) pronounced itself in favor of the general admittance of the non-baptized to the Eucharist.” [p.83] The Eucharist Protestantism violently rejects the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Mass, as dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent (p.84): It denies the essential connection between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass. The cult of the Eucharist of the Lord is merely a memorial of the sacrifice of the Cross, and involves no offering of immolation. The role of the Eucharist in the rituals of Protestant sects cannot be compared with the high honor reserved for holy Mass in the Catholic Church. Most Sundays Protestants do not celebrate the Eucharist, contenting themselves with a liturgy of the Word. As religious observances, sermons and the Eucharist have the same value for Protestants: the individual can freely choose between them. There is no obligation to attend services. Nor is there any obligation to prepare oneself for the Eucharist by confession if mortal sin has been committed. For Protestants the administration of the Eucharist produces the pardon of sins; this means that, in certain respects, it takes the place of the sacrament of penance, which they have abolished. This is their current practice. The Eucharist is celebrated without being preceded by any confession, and the non-baptized can also partake. All Protestant confessions decisively reject the dogma of transubstantiation. They recognize no priestly consecration of the bread and wine. Regarding the Real Presence they manifest striking insecurity and contradictions. At the least they deny it…[and thus] the species are not venerated. [pp.84-85] In conclusion, “the Eucharist does not unite Catholics and Protestants, on the contrary it shows their insuperable divisions” (p.85). Sacrament of Orders Protestantism does not recognize the figure of the priest, who speaks and acts in persona Christi. They combat this belief as erroneous and reprehend it because, in their opinion, a hierarchical priesthood would introduce into the Church a division into two classes, which would contradict the will of Christ.…[F]or them, every baptized person can do that which, for the Catholic Church, belongs specifically to priests, bishops, and the pope. The office of preaching belongs to all the faithful. If only 22 some are chosen as “servants of the Word” it is only for reasons of order and administration. The German Protestant churches recently confirmed in the starkest terms that ordination “is not a consecration…that would confer a particular faculty in relation to the Eucharist and its elements. Every Christian can preside at the liturgy and pronounce the words of consecration.” This means that “the priestly office is merely a function, not a sacrament.” [In this regard one should remember that Vatican II introduced the notion of the ministerial priesthood as a function of the people of God and seems to have placed priestly ministry and the priesthood of the believers on the same level: cf. Lumen Gentium §§10, 13; decr. Presbyterorum Ordinis §§2, 4.–Ed.] Nevertheless, for reasons of competition and prestige, Protestantism maneuvers to hide from the eyes of the public the ontological difference between the Catholic priesthood and the Protestant ministry. It is enough to recall the use of the stole by Protestant clergy, giving the impression that the holders of priestly office in the two religions are on the same plane and exert the same functions. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of apostolic succession. This means that there is no validly consecrated bishop whose ecclesiastical genealogical tree cannot be traced, directly or indirectly, to an apostle. This secure connection places the existence of an uninterrupted transmission of episcopal power beyond discussion. For Protestants, however, the point is eminently discussable. For them it is enough to stay firm in the apostolic Faith, which they claim as their own. The succession of the Gospel prevails over that of the episcopacy. For some time Catholic ecumenists have been aligned with the Protestant position, ready to renounce the succession of the imposition of hands for an indemonstrable “continuity in Faith and doctrine with the Church of the Apostles” [most striking here is the desire to exclude from this “continuity” its expression by the episcopate over centuries; this real continuity is replaced by the “doctrine” of the Apostles or the “primitive Church,” as recomposed by heretics beginning with Luther, the same Luther who discarded Scripture (e.g. the Epistle of James) and patristic interpretations, when he could not by some artifice make them agree with his own interpretation–Ed.]. One Catholic dogma entails the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. This dogma does not exist for Protestantism: the different sects have no difficulty in naming women ministers. The number of women bishops in their ranks continues to increase.… Sex is of no importance for being a minister. Even transsexuals have been put in charge of Protestant churches. [pp.85-87] THE ANGELUS April 2005 The Most Blessed Virgin Protestants reject the cult of Our Lady. The dogma of the Assumption (1950) provoked furious protests in its time. Virtually all Protestants deny the virginity of our Lady after the birth of our Lord. To believe that they honor the Madonna is a pious illusion. This may be true of individuals or groups, but it in no way applies to Protestantism as a whole. Prayer to Mary and above all her mediation of all graces is categorically rejected (pp.87-88). Protestant Ethics Here a profound abyss separates Catholics from Protestants: Kantian formalism dominates large parts of Protestant ethics. According to the principle of Kantian autonomy, the individual can act in accordance with his personal experience of the faith. The result is that morality is placed at the interior disposition of the individual, and the objective value of exterior comportment is lost along the way. It suffices to recall two canons of Protestant ethics. 1) There is no law that applies without exceptions, but only rules of moral comportment, which admit of exception according to the circumstances. With a just motive, anyone can excuse himself from observing any given commandment. For example: Protestantism condemns lies, but permits them in cases of necessity. 2) It does not recognize some actions as intrinsically wicked, and thus always and in all circumstance forbidden. Such actions may be perpetrated if a good motive exists [and thus the individual conscience, unshackled by the law, decides in each case–Ed.]. On the moral plane, Protestantism is the religion of concessions. This applies especially to sexual morality. The voluntary prevention of conception through chemical and mechanical means is not a moral problem for Protestants. Sexual relations outside of marriage can be practiced, if justified by valid motives. In the presence of just cause divorce is not only permitted, but may even be perceived as necessary. There is no moral obstacle to the remarriage of the divorced. Two thousand years after the appearance of the Logos, Lutherans are still not sure whether homosexuality should be considered a sin. This vice finds adhesion and recognition in Protestantism. In many Protestant “churches” homosexual unions are officially celebrated. Protestant ethics shows its true face in the matter of abortion. Naturally, it declares that abortion as such is inadmissible. But in certain circumstances it is permitted. The synod of German Protestant churches has declared that in some cases it may be morally blameworthy to impede an abortion. [pp.88-89] the body to be judged by God, deciding its salvation or perdition. Souls insufficiently pure to appear before God must pass through the fires of purgatory. In many sectors of Protestantism the hypothesis of total death is maintained, holding that the whole man disappears at death, and there is no further life of the soul. Those who do admit the existence of the soul are convinced that it goes right away to beatitude in heaven. Purgatory is left out of account. Thus there is no need for prayer, intercessions, Masses for the dead, indulgences. [pp.8990] Is not this troubled understanding of the Last Things widely diffused among Catholics today? And has not ecumenism played a role in this trend? We could continue at length but this brief survey seems sufficient for our purpose. Faced with the concealment of the true nature of Protestantism by the dominant false ecumenism, Fr. May very opportunely brings the attention of Catholics to the true nature of Protestantism (p.109). The Orthodox Let us now consider doctrinal differences with the Orthodox. Paul VI and John Paul II have repeatedly emphasized our supposed commonality of faith with the Oriental Churches. It is striking that these declarations have found no resonance from the Orthodox Churches. In fact this commonality does not exist. Walter Kasper is mistaken to claim that “the only true theological controversy with the Orthodox” concerns papal primacy. The idyllic image he proposes of relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is a deceptive one. There is no truth of the Faith that the Orthodox do not understand in a different way from the Catholic Church, even in the details. For them fidelity to tradition has become a rigid traditionalism. At the same time, many aspects of their doctrine are not clearly established or clarified, are matters of controversy or considered out of date. It should not be forgotten that Orthodoxy has drunk deeply from the well of Protestantism. Here are some examples of the differences. It is apparent that their understanding of the Church does not coincide with the Catholic one [see Si Si No No, Feb. 2005, p.21]. The Orthodox communities are national churches, strictly linked to state power.3 Local churches, from the Orthodox perspective, are not particular churches: every local church is a Catholic Church, complete in itself. The universal Church is merely the collection of the local churches. The primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is unanimously rejected by the Orthodox. Furthermore, The Last Things The Catholic Church has always firmly maintained the doctrine whereby at death the soul is separated from THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS April 2005 23 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT the Orthodox maintain that the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity proceeds only from the Father, not from the Father and the Son as the dogma of the Catholic Church holds. On the problem of original sin, they approach the Protestants in inferring from it the total corruption of man. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin finds powerful opposition in Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox consider baptism administered by heretics to be invalid. Catholics and Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy are rebaptized [unconditionally–Ed.]. The same holds for confirmation in some circumstances. Transubstantiation (when it is accepted) is ascribed not to the words of consecration but to the subsequent invocation of the Holy Ghost (epiclesis). Eucharistic adoration does not exist. The doctrine of indulgences has no place. The sacred oil is administered not only to the sick but also to the healthy. There is notable uncertainty about the possibility of women becoming deaconesses or priests. The minister of the sacrament of marriage is the priest, not the spouses. Divorce is permitted for just cause. The divorced can remarry up to a third time in a sacramental marriage [!]. Orthodoxy has no objection to impediments to conception. In relation to homosexuality an “opening” is apparent. Some uncertainties are apparent in the doctrine of the last things. Purgatory is denied by most of their theologians. From these few indications it can be understood that there are grave doctrinal contradictions between Catholics and Orthodox. John Paul II’s hope that dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox might clarify nearly all points of controversy is unfounded in reality. The Council’s affirmation that the spiritual and theological patrimony of the Orthodox “belongs to the full catholicity and apostolicity of the Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio §17) is at the very least misleading.4 If the statement means that this patrimony, insofar as it is authentic, belongs in reality to the Catholic Church, it is correct. If however it means that this patrimony is absent from the Catholic Church, it is mistaken. It must be reaffirmed, against the express opinion of the Council (UR §15), that communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox is neither “possible” nor “advisable.” Furthermore, the Orthodox themselves do not entertain the possibility of shared communion with Catholics, whom they consider heretics. [pp.120-122] Their participation in the ecumenical initiatives promoted by Rome is merely a matter of convenience. Speculator Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from SiSiNoNo, Vol.30, No.21, (Dec. 15, 2004) with editing by Fr. Kenneth Novak. Fr. George May was born in 1926 and studied philosophy and theology at the Universities of Breslau, Fulda, Munich, and Neuzelle. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1951, from which time he was engaged with pastoral duties and teaching at the Erfurt Seminary. At the University of Munich he received a doctorate in theology in 1955 and a licentiate in canon law in 1956. From 1960 to 24 1994 he was Professor of Canon Law, the Law of Church-State Relations, and the History of Canon Law at the University of Mainz. In addition to publications in his fields of specialization, Dr. May has written prolifically on developments in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. 1 George May, Die Ökumenismusfalle (Stuttgart: Sarto Verlag, 2004), p.25. [Subsequent page references in the text are to this book.] 2 On Pentecost Sunday of 1549, three years after the death of Henry VIII, the introduction by law of a new Mass in the vernacular (a rite in which Catholic and Protestant elements were cleverly mixed) provoked the quick revolt of all western England (the Western Rebellion.) The rebels sought the restoration of the old religion, beginning with the holy Mass. They were rapidly banished by German and Italian mercenaries, which at the time constituted the only ground troops of the English crown. 3 Recall that the return of the Oriental schismatics to the bosom of the Catholic Church, on whose terms the respective religious authorities had already formally agreed, was on two occasions broken off, especially through the fatal intervention of political powers that did not want to lose control over the church. The Russian case is one example. From the tenth century Russia belonged to the patriarchate of Constantinople (it later became autocephalous). Patriarch Isidore, a Greek, attended the ecumenical councils of Ferrara and Florence. At the latter was concluded a celebrated agreement for the return of the Orthodox to Catholicism. In 1441 Isidore returned to Russia as a cardinal and apostolic legate for Russia, where he prayed for the pope at holy mass and read the decree of union with Rome. Prince Vasily II, who was governing the principate of Moscow (still at that time a vassal state of the Mongols), interrupted the celebration by violence and expelled the patriarch from the church, arresting him and confining him to a monastery. Afterwards a synod of the Russian bishops declared the metropolitan deposed and “rejected the proposed union with Rome in the name of the Russian people” (N. BrianChaninov, Storia di Russia, Ital. ed. [Milan: Garzanti, 1940], pp.92-96). It was an unprecedented scandal. 4 Recall that the Orthodox, after more than six centuries of accord with the Roman Church on the ecclesiastical celibacy, implicitly recommended by Sacred Scripture, arrested the development of celibate discipline at the Council of Trullo (692), which marked the first skirmishes of antagonism that would later break out into schism. This council recognized the obligation of celibacy only for bishops and priests who were not married at the time of ordination, finding fault with the different and more austere usage of the Roman Church which, by contrast, has fully developed the apostolic thinking with regard to priestly celibacy as apparent in Sacred Scripture. $1.95 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify. SHIPPING & HANDLING US/Canada Foreign $.01 to $10.00 $3.95 $10.01 to $25.00 $5.95 $25.01 to $50.00 $6.95 $50.01 to $100.00 $8.95 Over $100.00 9% of order $7.95 $9.95 $12.95 $14.95 12% of order AIRMAIL surcharge (in addition to above) Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal. Available from: ANGELUS PRESS 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, MO 64109, USA Phone: 1-800-966-7337 WWW.ANGELUSPRESS.ORG THE ANGELUS February 2005 F R . Is it correct to speak of our “Judeo-Christian” heritage? p e t e r The term “Judeo-Christian” is not a recent invention of the ecumenical age, as it would first seem. It is a very ancient term, dating from the beginning of Christianity. The Judeo-Christians were originally converts to the Faith from Judaism, but who still practiced circumcision and observed the Mosaic law, and attempted to impose this upon the converts from amongst the Gentiles. They were first condemned by the Council of Jerusalem in the year 49, as told in Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles. Thereafter two groups of Judeo-Christians emerged. There were those who simply kept the Mosaic law themselves, but who did not attempt to impose it upon other Christians, and who were not heretical. They were called Nazarenes, and rapidly disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. The other group of Judeo-Christians were also called Ebionites. They were truly heretical, considered the Mosaic law obligatory, and denied the divinity of Christ, the Virgin birth, and the work and writings of St. Paul. They also gave rise to various Gnostic sects. It is for this reason that the title “Judeo-Christian” is a pejorative one, opposed to doctrinal orthodoxy. The attempt to describe one’s morality or principles as “Judeo-Christian” is consequently not at all traditional. It could theoretically be used to describe one’s attachment to the moral principles of the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, as being the principles of all moral life, and which the Church received from the Israelites. However, there are a couple of problems. The first one is that the Jews themselves in the time of Our Lord, did not keep the moral principles of the Old Law, as Our Lord did not cease reiterating. How could one possibly use the title of “Judeo-Christian heritage” to express one’s attachment to these principles, when the Jews themselves practiced polygamy and divorce; when the Jews did not hesitate to undermine the first and great commandment of the love of God and neighbor, by teaching the exact opposite: “love your neighbor and hate your enemy” (Mt. 5:43), or “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Mt. 5:38)? How could we possibly use this title when the vast majority of Jews have no problem with euthanasia, abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, and even the elimination of God, and love towards our neighbor from public life, politics, education and the courts? What could this title “JudeoChristian heritage” consequently really mean? If it is used to indicate those who observe the Ten Commandments, and keep them as the foundation of all morality, then let that be said explicitly: our heritage is the Ten Commandments. Let there be no ambiguity. However, it is not Jewish. It is our Catholic heritage. The Catholic Church has in fact succeeded the Israel of the Old Testament, as being the true people of God. Present-day Jews are not a part of this heritage, nor are they our older brothers in the Faith, as the Pope has, alas, stated. They do not have the true Faith, the Faith of R . 25 s c o t t the Catholic Church, for they explicitly reject and refuse to believe in Christ, the Son of God made man, despite the fact that He fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament. By refusing to believe in the Holy Trinity, they refuse to believe in God as He has revealed Himself. They consequently have not had the faith of Abraham, who believed everything that God revealed to him, since Christ revealed this mystery of the Trinity. The existence in the Church of a modern, liberal, ecumenical concept of a Judeo-Christian heritage dates back to the Vatican II document on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate. This declaration mentions twice that “Christians and Jews have a common spiritual heritage” (§4), without explaining what that is. If by this is meant that we share that part of sacred Scripture that we call the Old Testament, it is partly right (the Jews reject seven inspired books of the Old Testament). If, however, by this is meant that there is something common with respect to our spiritual life, Faith and moral principles, then it is entirely wrong, for present-day Judaism is based upon the denial of the most basic truths of the Catholic Faith. Consequently, this politically correct term “JudeoChristian heritage” must be regarded as vague, deliberately ambiguous, liberal, favoring indifferentism and ecumenism, and not at all orthodox. Q Whom did the children of Adam and Eve marry? Adam and Eve handed on to their children the obligations of the natural law. The natural law does indeed forbid the marrying of brothers and sisters as the crime of incest and one repugnant to all peoples. However, we know it as an article of our Faith that all human beings are descended from our first parents according to the flesh, from whom we inherited original sin. Consequently, the children of Adam and Eve had no choice but to marry close relatives, either brother, sister, nephew or niece. The theologians explain this by making a distinction between the primary and the secondary precepts of the natural law. The secondary precepts are not so necessary nor so well known as the primary precepts. Consequently, on occasions in the Old Testament God gave dispensations from these secondary precepts for special reasons. Thus it was that He permitted divorce under certain conditions, on account of the Jews’ hardness of heart, that he permitted polygamy for the rapid growth of the Israelites, and that for the short period that it was necessary He permitted intermarriage between close relatives. It must be born in mind, however, that the genetics of the human race were much purer and stronger at that time. Of course, this temporary permission did not continue, and could never exist under the New Law. The Church recognizes that close consanguinity is an impediment to marriage, and will never dispense in cases of brother or sister or uncle or aunt. With a proportionate reason, she will dispense in the case of first cousins. A THE ANGELUS • April 2005 26 The cult of money is the greatest all idolatries. From the beggar with his pennies to the usurer with his millions, its sweet poison produces spiritual paralysis in all strata of society. With those who are classed as wage-slaves is treasured this vision: that some morning at 10:30 the angel of wealth will appear beside their desk (computer, typewriter, calculator, etc.) and, breaking their chains, will lead them out into that paradise of pleasure seen so often in the movies. Right by the boss and the time clock they would go, into a world peopled with voluptuaries who all look like movie stars. Never again would they ride among the rabble or eat among the publicans of the automat! Of course they would be democratic! They would speak kindly with everyone, even with those less fortunate than themselves. Yes, it would be nice to come back for a visit. All this they will have–when they get the money! It has been pointed out to us that money is the life blood of the economic system. By analogy, sanctifying grace is the Life Blood of the Mystical Body of Christ. It logically follows, therefore, in a society (traditionally Catholic) which has made Economics of primary importance, that money would come to be confused with grace. Having money would be considered as being in the state of grace. Having a dollar is a foretaste of the beatific state of possessing a million dollars. This is not exaggerated simile. It is the only explanation of the current magic of money. The relation between wealth and work, too, has become extremely distorted. Wealth is supposed to be the result of labor, yet one does not find callouses on the hands of the newly rich. 27 THE CULT OF MONEY . . . P.26 WHY MONEY IS SICK . . . P.28 ECONOMIC WAR ON THE FAMILY . . . P.30 BELLOC’S BOOK . . . P.38 Are these the men with the toil-worn faces? Must they be continually urged to rest, get out in the air more, get a little recreation? Hardly. Any child of this generation could set you right on that score. They will tell you, “There’s no money in working for a living. Get yourself a racket! That’s the thing to do.” This same philosophy phrased with less precision has been adopted, with but rare exception, by our schools. Even the curriculum of our Catholic schools, by contrast with those of a more Christian age, concerns itself more with the thing of mammon (trade and commerce) than with the thing of the guild (the manual arts). Institutions of learning which praise the One True God and at the same time arrange their course of studies to satisfy the demands of mammon have but little time left to consolidate their loyalties. Our God, I am told, is a jealous God. Then again, the maintenance of one’s “station in life” has been used as an excuse for preserving the false class-standards of the bank account. Being engaged in trade or the professions (so-called) does not imply a right to luxuries apparently unbecoming in the poor. Justification for such selfishness is to be found in the cult of money, not in the Gospels. The Catholic Faith demands in such times as these, times of awful impoverishment, that wealth, excessive comfort, or luxury, should hold but small consolation and but little hope. The time has come when voluntary poverty in relation to one’s TRUE station in society is the only technique which can mitigate the effects of chaos.–Ed Willock, Ye Gods–(Sheed and Ward, 1948); illustrated by the author. 28 J o h n S h a r p e WHYMONEY IS SICK “America has no better than a 10% chance of avoiding economic Armageddon.”– Stephen Roach, chief economist at banking giant Morgan Stanley Common sense reveals the silliness of what today’s economy is about. Is it necessary that basic tools and consumables be manufactured thousands of miles from where they will be used and consumed? Should it be that for Americans to become home “owners” they must pay money back to a lender two, three, or four times over, when the lender did no work and sacrificed no capital to loan the money into existence? Is it the case (using G.K. Chesterton’s example) that milk should come out of a “clean shop” and not a “dirty cow” and that the average American dinner should travel 1500 miles before being consumed? Are things “normal” in the “world’s breadbasket” when we’ve lost five million family farms since 1930, only 1% of Americans still live on a farm (compared to 50% a half-century ago), 62% of our agricultural output is produced by just 3% of our farms, 42% of produce is retailed by only five different concerns, 71% of government subsidies to keep the system running went (over the last seven years) to only 10%, of the farms, and farmers are only getting nine cents worth of every dollar spent on food, while the rest goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen, and marketers? The insanity doesn’t stop here. All of the above is the result of what Bob Precher, writing recently for The Daily Reckoning, has termed the “credit-bubble” that has been “70 years in the making.” The bulletin’s editors note the rise of consumer-credit capitalism [in which] people switched their attention from assets to cash flow...from balance sheets to monthly operating statements...from longterm wealth building to paycheck-to-paycheck financing... from saving to spending...and from “just in case” to “just in time.” Many sneered at Hilaire Belloc’s prediction that capitalism would break down of its own accord, but these observations in fact imply that, absent the creation of huge volumes of credit, the breakdown would have occurred long ago....Let’s consider here. First, there is US Government debt. Two years ago, Uncle Sam was in $6.12 trillion of debt [see “How Big Is a Trillion?” on p.35–Ed.]. America’s treasurers left that limit in the dust on November 18, 2004, passing a limit-increase to $8.18 trillion. Morgan Stanley’s chief THE ANGELUS • April 2005 economist, Stephen S. Roach, said that this “openended license for fiscal irresponsibility is a recipe for disaster.” Second is mortgage debt. In the last two years mortgage debt has risen $2 trillion. This “funny money,” rather than savings and real wealth, is what’s keeping the economy running. As Richard Benson, President of the Specialty Finance Group, noted recently, the “increase in mortgage debt represents the spending that the Bush Administration needed to keep a $12 trillion economy moving forward.” There’s a bright spot: home “ownership” rose 2% to an all time record of 67.2%. Benson says: The bad news is what had to be done to get it there while the labor force participation rate has dropped two percent!...[E]asy credit and record low interest rates have boosted home sales. In previous economic cycles, the boost...came from rising incomes and more jobs! The home-sale fantasy doesn’t end there. The engines that drive housing finance, that is, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are both under investigation for accounting irregularities that might impact earnings and losses by several billion dollars. Third is corporate debt. Corporations being “in the hole” is not news; what is, though, is their increasing inability just to stay afloat. Beyond their total debt of some $7 trillion, major corporations can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as participants in the Servile State. Committed to caring for employees, cradle-to-grave, automakers and airlines find it impossible to meet their pension commitments. Doing so puts them further in debt, until the “realists” admit the process is unsustainable. Thus US Airways refused to continue making pension-plan payments, declaring at a recent bankruptcy filing: “It would be ‘irrational’ to make pension contributions (reported by Jim Jubak in MSN Money) because it provides no benefit to the estate.” The alternative, Jubak explained, is for “senior pilots [to file] for early retirement by the hundreds and then [take] their pension in a lump-sum payout.” He summarized the upshot thus: Welcome to the bankruptcy economy, where companies and governments walk away from long-standing promises to workers, and where workers scramble to collect as much 29 as they can now in fear that even less will be available tomorrow. Bankruptcy, either formally declared in the case of troubled companies or informal in the case of cities or the U.S. government, will restructure the entire economy in coming decades. Fourth: consumer debt. In 2003 it was $1.98 trillion. Americans consume more than they can pay for. The assessment from Tamara Draut, a director at a public policy institute that looked into credit card debt recently, is not pretty. Too many Americans are drowning in credit card debt as a way to deal with the rise in the cost of living as their incomes have stagnated or dropped. It’s...the band-aid holding the family budget together.... With savings at their lowest level since 1959, credit cards must pick up the slack. As Marshal Auerback’s International Perspective reported, “the savings rate has averaged below 1% for the first nine months of 2004–the first time this has happened in seven decades.” How else, then, to keep consumption going than by credit? Fifth and finally: deficits. Continuously adding to much of our debt, the deficits in America’s budget and current account reflect another denial of reality: they presume a limitless ability to get more than we can pay for. While the budget was balanced until President George W. Bush unbalanced it by nearly $500 billion, the current account–reflecting trade and other financial flows across American borders– remains in the red by $660 billion. A remarkable paper by Nouriel Roubini and Brad Sester calls this deficit “the defining feature of the global economy right now,” pointing out that the US, “the world’s largest economy–and the world’s pre-eminent military and geo-strategic power–is also the world’s largest debtor.” This deficit also “looks set to expand significantly in 2005 and 2006,” for our massive consumption of Asian-produced goods is not poised to decrease any time soon. With money flowing overseas and goods coming in, it’s not American manufacturers, businesses, and laborers who are being remunerated. As James Gipson, manager of the ClipperFund, wrote in his shareholder letter: “A slowly and likely growing share of our output of goods and services will go to provide comfortable retirements for the residents of Tokyo, not Topeka.” To make up for money leaving the US, the Treasury must sell its debt paper to the tune of some $4.5 billion dollars per month. Jim Sinclair, a veteran commodities and foreign currency trader, noted how precarious this is: It is not necessary for major nations to sell US debt in order to un-float the boat of the US dollar...not buying as significantly as before will do the exact same thing. As the inflow to the US falls below $46 billion per month, the need per month rises, and so begins the process of drowning in debt (emphasis mine). China’s recent announcement “that it is considering the sale of US dollar-denominated Federal Debt,” coming on the heels of “Russia’s decision to consider doing the same thing [to shift] to Euro-based items,” means that the system could unravel sooner than many think. Fantasy finance is thus a “virtue” covering a multitude of sins. Critics forget this when saying Belloc erred in predicting capitalism’s demise. With total debt over 400% of the Gross Domestic Product [i.e., the GDP, the total value of products made in the country where the factory or mine is located whether that value stays in the country or not.–Ed.], $48 trillion dollars worth (four times the GDP) of the economic wealth in our nation still has to be paid for. What use is the capitalist wealth-creation engine if it only loans things to us at compound interest? Though a few can make great sums of money with unreal financial tools that postpone the inevitable, it’s of no use for those aspiring to be owners of more than just debt. Finance exists to facilitate production, and production to meet the material needs of man; it’s that simple. Submission to that principle would initiate a “return to the real,” opposing the profound unreality of credit and money-breeding, so characteristic of modern economic life. Economics for Helen offers a true and simple sketch of economic principles to help our minds to return to reality. Then we can disconnect in practice from the unreality of modern economic life, to recover the contact with nature and real property that was once mankind’s “natural state.” Being productive will then mean not conducting on-line stock trades, but growing vegetables, learning a craft or trade, and mastering the basics of economic reality: food, shelter, clothing. Where two or three families unite to pursue this end, as many already have, there’s no limit to what can be achieved. The gadgets of our “comfortable” lives have profound social costs and, if we want to escape the unreal world of wage slavery, mass production, and debt speculation, must be sacrificed. There are rough times ahead for credit-andfinance capitalism. Pundits are now predicting de-flation from an inevitable interest-rate hike as the Asians lose interest in bankrolling the dollar; this means “depression.” Belloc said that “things will not get right again...until society becomes as simple as it used to be,” and on that way back to reality there will no doubt be suffering: “We shall have to go through a pretty bad time before we get back to that.” However, if the future brings suffering, it will also bring wisdom, even about things economic. This is the Preface to Economics for Helen, the book reviewed starting on p.38 in this issue, published by IHS Press. Its author, John Sharpe, is founder and editor of IHS Press, based in Virginia. He and his wife Randa and their two children attend the Latin Mass at St. Athanasius Catholic Church in Vienna, Virginia. THE ANGELUS • April 2005 30 THE ECONOMIC WA ON THE FA AND THE THE FEDER Let me begin by stating that the basic unit of society is the family, not the individual. Let us never forget that Jesus Christ Himself chose to come into the world via a family, thereby showing the importance of this institution. Without denigrating those who have chosen to live a single life, either in the world or in religious life, I want to stress the ongoing attack on the immediate family. Even though the extended family–that includes older parents, siblings and close relatives, etc.–suffers the same fate, the entire thing is under attack. The family is facing an onslaught from a variety of attackers. Certainly, the very institution of the immediate family, in which I include a man and a woman, united in marriage, and the children that are produced in that marriage–that institution is being attacked by the prevalence and even endorsement of governments and corporations of same-sex unions. The family is also threatened by the prevalence of easy divorce and almost as easy annulments. Family life is further undermined by a variety of immoral or at least culturally disastrous forms of entertainment directed at young people, and by the widespread distribution of both printed and electronic pornography. I contend that pornography is as much a reason for widespread divorce as anything. THE ANGELUS • April 2005 And perhaps the greatest harm being done to families is the widespread leaving of the home by mothers who enter the workplace. I can’t tell you how many mothers I know who are working and would love to be at home raising their children. The greatest reason for this situation is that we live at a time almost unheard-of 40 years ago, where one spouse must work to earn the family’s needs and the other must have an income to pay an accumulation of taxes. The toll on children and on family life generally is enormous. And it’s this last threat to family life that I’ll focus on: the economic aspect of the attack on the family. I’ll begin with some wisdom about this topic given by St. Thomas Aquinas. At one spot, he talks about the need for material goods. He says that for a man to live a virtuous life, two things are required. The chief requisite is virtuous action, for virtue is that by which one leads a good life. The other requisite, which is secondary and quasi-instrumental in character, is a sufficiency of material goods, the use of which is necessary for virtuous action. He then goes on to talk about money and the need for stability of value. He says that as a measure used for estimating the value of things, money must keep the same value. This is because the value of all things must be expressed in terms of money. Thus, exchanges can readily take place, and, as a 31 WAR E FAMILY J o h n F . M C M a n u s ERAL RESERVE BANK consequence, communications between men are facilitated. But who has the responsibility to make sure that money has this stability of value? St. Thomas says the State must establish this stability, both in the measure of weight, length and value. It is true that it is the same with money as with other things, namely, that one does not always get what one wants for it because it is not often endowed with the same purchasing power. That is, it is not always endowed with the same value. Nevertheless, according to St. Thomas, matters should be so arranged by the State that it should be steadier in value than other things. As a measure used for estimating the value of other things, money must keep the same value since the value of all things must be expressed in terms of money. Before considering the subject of the Federal Reserve, it is worth noting a quote from St. Pius X. In 1906, he wrote a letter to the bishop of Madrid in which he says, All must remember that nobody has the right to remain indifferent when religion or the public welfare are in danger. Those who strive to destroy religion and civil society aim above all at getting control, as far as possible, of the direction of public affairs and of having themselves chosen legislators. It is therefore necessary that Catholics should strive with all their might to avert that danger. Pope St. Pius X is telling us that we who are in the world have responsibilities in the world. We even have responsibilities in what is often called “the dirty business” of politics. Instead of the term “politics,” however, I prefer the terms “right and wrong,” “morality” and so on. The subject of money, however, deserves our special attention. Perhaps most Catholics never consider this issue, but it’s something that people need to know. What is money? It’s a commodity used for exchange. The important word, however, is not exchange. The important word is commodity. A commodity is something that has a value in and of itself. Over the course of history, there were many items used for money. They actually used tobacco at one time for money. Cattle, seashells, and nails were used for money, the latter even in the time of the rise of our nation before the breakaway from England. Even salt was used for money at one point, which is the origin of our word salary. All of these substances, however, had a common problem. Tobacco rotted; something more durable was needed. Cattle were inefficient for small transactions and you had to feed the money! Seashells worked until someone found a new beach full of seashells and then flooded the market, driving down their value. After a time, nails and salt became imported more frequently, thus becoming THE ANGELUS • April 2005 32 less valuable. Money, then, to be useful and to be a commodity used for exchange, must be valuable, divisible, durable, and most importantly, scarce. All throughout the course of history, people have decided that the best substance to use as money is gold. Why gold? It’s attractive, useful (even in today’s electronic industry), divisible (it can be made into bars, coins, dust, etc.), durable (inert) and scarce. Where it exists in nature it is difficult to extract from the earth, takes a lot of effort and therefore cannot be diluted in value like so many other things. Gold gives money stability and a measure of worth. This is important and is exactly what St. Thomas talks about. Thus, when gold is the money of a nation, that nation has sound money. And sound money allows for a diversity of labor. There are not too many people who have considered what a diversity of labor means. It means that there are people who can not be producers (and grow their own food, for example), but what they do can be something that can earn them money so that they can buy food. This category includes artists, writers, clergymen, doctors and so forth. Sound money, therefore, is not a product of an advancing civilization; it is the stimulus of an advancing civilization. We once had sound money in our country, although we don’t anymore. We now have paper currency backed by…nothing. How did paper currency ever come to be? Consider the old story of the warehouse. There was once a place with gold currency, but a lot of people who possessed this gold didn’t want to leave it in their homes for fear of burglary or abuse. Thus, some enterprising individual in the community opened up a warehouse. He announced that everyone could store their gold in his warehouse for a small fee and that he would give a receipt for it. These receipts were given in ounces and people began to store their gold in his warehouse. Soon, however, the manager of the warehouse realized that much of the gold was not going in and out, but was remaining in the warehouse. Then he heard that when people wanted to make purchases, they were not coming to get their gold, but were simply using the warehouse receipts, i.e., paper. So the very devious fellow who ran the warehouse came up with a scheme to print extra warehouse receipts and spend them. In a small amount of time, he acquired a great amount of the wealth of the community. But word eventually spread that there might not be enough gold in the warehouse for all of the receipts. This caused a run on the warehouse with those who arrived first receiving their gold. Eventually, however, there were people with receipts but no more gold left in the warehouse. Thus, the manager was then tried, convicted and executed. This was the beginning of paper money. It is worth considering in detail various kinds of currency that have been used in the US in the last century. You can see what has happened by observing THE ANGELUS • April 2005 the change over the years. First, look at a 1922 US Treasury Gold Certificate. There is a small note on the bill which reads, “This certifies that there have been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America fifty dollars in gold coin payable to the bearer on demand.” This is absolutely sound money. But it’s gone. In 1933, President Roosevelt took us off the gold standard and said it was illegal for people in the US to own gold. Everybody was to turn in their gold for paper and patriotic citizens all across America did just that. Some people who were a little bit more savvy, however, did not. We next see the Silver Certificate, which is still a US Treasury Note, not a Federal Reserve Note. This is 1935. The Silver Certificate reads likewise, “This certifies that there has been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America one dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand.” Silver is still good money, although not as good as gold. Silver, after all, is more plentiful and rusts. But this also is gone now. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. We didn’t go off the gold standard for 20 more years. In the interim period, Federal Reserve Notes began to be distributed. If you look at a 1928 Federal Reserve Note, it says “Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.” This circulated alongside US Treasury Gold Certificates. The general attitude of the populace was “Federal Reserve? US Treasury? They’re both fine. Either one is as good as the other.” And the Federal Reserve took off. By 1934, there was another kind of Federal Reserve Note. This one reads, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank.” Consider the story of a gentleman who had a $50 bill that said this. He walked into a bank, put his bill on the counter, and asked the teller, “I would like some lawful money for my $50 bill.” The teller was confused and thought he wanted his money in different denominations of bills. The gentleman responded quite logically that all of these bills say that they are redeemable in lawful money and that they cannot be lawful money themselves if they say this. The gentleman thus reiterated his demand for lawful money and the teller called the manager of the bank. The manager asked what was considered lawful money, and the gentleman replied, “Gold or silver perhaps.” Of course, the manager had none to give. In the end, the gentleman walked away with his $50 bill, but he had made his point. Stories like this probably reached Washington D.C., the Federal Reserve and New York (where the real decision-making is done for the Fed). Thus we see that the next currency that came out simply said, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Redeemable in…nothing. This is where we 33 1922 US TREASURY GOLD CERTIFICATE This certifies that there have been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America Fifty Dollars In Gold Coin payable to the bearer on demand 1935 US TREASURY SILVER CERTIFICATE This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States of America One Dollar In Silver payable to the bearer on demand 1928 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank 1934 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and Is Redeemable In Lawful Money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank 1996 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private THE ANGELUS • April 2005 34 are still at today. The amount of this currency and therefore the value of it and the interest rates upon it and for it are set by the Federal Reserve. We often hear about the “Federal Reserve Bank.” The paradox is that it’s not federal, there are no reserves, and it’s not a bank. It is a private organization. If you go to Washington D.C. and look in a telephone directory at the thick section which lists federal agencies, you will look in vain for the Federal Reserve. So we have valueless currency, the amount and value of which are set by a private organization. Consider another story, that of a fellow who goes to a gas station one Sunday and puts $20 of gas in his truck. He goes to the cash register and asks the cashier, “Will you accept a non-redeemable note on a private bank?” At first she said “No,” but it was the only money the gentleman had. The cashier called the manager, who gave the exact same response. So the man pulled out a $20 bill and asked, “Are you sure you won’t take this?” The girl promptly replied, “Oh, I can take that.” “Young lady, this is a nonredeemable note on a private bank.” Are we at a point in the United States of America where our currency could become valueless? In other words, no value? Has it ever happened? It happened in Germany in the 1920’s. After World War I, the Versailles Treaty put such heavy, heavy burdens on the Germans for reparations that the German government simply printed Marks and paid the debt. But in the process, the ordinary German citizen lost everything. The money became worthless. There is a story of a German fellow at this time who had a wheelbarrow full of German currency. He took the wheelbarrow to the store to buy groceries for his family, and left it outside while he shopped. When he came to get the money to purchase the groceries, he found that someone had dumped the money on the ground and stolen the wheelbarrow! What happened in Germany as a result of this was tremendous bitterness. Then a fellow named Hitler came along and promised to help restore German pride and dig Germans out of the mess that had been created. The German people, by and large, went for it. The rest of the story is known. What happened in Germany was inflation. We are told unceasingly every day or at least every week in newspapers and magazines, on televisions and radios, that inflation is simply rising prices. This, however, is one of the greatest lies of our time. The truth is that inflation is an increase in the quantity of currency which lowers the value of currency. Therefore, merchants and businessmen and service providers want more of it in return for their goods and services. To say that inflation is rising prices is equivalent to saying that wet streets cause rain. If you look at a dictionary 50, 60, or even 100 years ago, you will find a good definition of inflation. If you go to a dictionary today, you will not. This means that unfortunately not THE ANGELUS • April 2005 even a dictionary can be relied upon these days for an accurate definition. If inflation is an increase in the quantity of currency which lowers its value, it is impossible to have inflation if gold is used as money. In 1940, you could buy a home for $10,000. Today, you can’t even make a down payment on a home for $10,000. When I was a boy, my mother would send me to the store for a loaf of bread with a dime. Today, my wife sends me out for the same loaf of bread, but it costs over two dollars. But the bread is still the same bread. The dollar today is worth less than what a nickel was worth when I was a boy. How did that happen? Was it magic? Often, New Agers and occultists refer to “Magick,” which is what the Federal Reserve is. In Roman times, when Christ walked the earth, a one ounce gold coin would buy you a fancy toga, a nice belt, and a pair of sandals. Today, if you had a one ounce gold coin, you could buy a nice suit, a belt and a pair of shoes. There were still gold coins when I was born called “twenty-dollar gold pieces.” A $20 gold piece today costs over $300. If you tell a nine-year-old that a $20 gold piece costs over $300, he will look at you as if you’ve lost your mind. Why does $20 cost $300? Wouldn’t it be nice if those nine-year-olds were our nation’s economists? We have seen the definition of money. We have seen the definition of inflation. There have been many people over the years who were aware of these definitions, but they are usually the very people who used the power of inflation to destroy a nation. John Maynard Keynes, the British socialist who was invited to the US by President Roosevelt to come and reshape the American economic system said we could “spend ourselves into prosperity.” Keynes is as responsible for the practice of “deficit spending” as anyone else. In 1920, Keynes wrote a book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace in which he discusses the Versailles Treaty. He says in this book that by a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate secretly and unobserved an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, they confiscate arbitrarily. While the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. This process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and is done in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose. He was right about that, but there are far more than one in a million today who can diagnose what is being done to us. We all need to understand this as well, that inflation is grand theft. Inflation is the taking of the wealth of the people by a consortium of a private institution and government. Therefore, the taking of the wealth in this manner is a tax. Inflation is a tax. Everybody should realize that we get less for our money in a supermarket today than we did last year, and the year before that. A $10 bill used to fill 35 a wagon full of food. Now you would need well over $100 to do that. Every once in a while an individual comes along and tries to help people find an explanation for what is going on. Occasionally, this comes from an unlikely source like National Geographic magazine. In the January 1993 issue of National Geographic, there is an article entitled “The Power of Money” by Peter T. White. He discusses the various circumstances of money, the history of it, contemporary monies across the globe, etc. Finally he ended up at the Federal Reserve. While he was there, he discovered that the Federal Reserve had recently purchased $100,000,000 worth of US Treasury bills. This caused him to ask some further questions. He asked a Fed official where the Federal Reserve got this money in the first place. “We created it” was the reply. What he means is that every time the Central Bank writes a check, it creates money. “It’s money that didn’t exist before” says the official. Imagine the consequences of this capability. Mr. White further asked the Fed official, “Is there any limit on that?” His reply was that “There is no limit beyond the good judgment and conscience of the responsible Federal Reserve people.” Sleep well. We can all sleep well knowing that, my friends. But where did the Fed get this vast authority? It was delegated to them in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, based on the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Although the Constitution does state this, it does not mean the Federal Reserve has the right to do what it is doing. What does this mean, then? It means simply that Congress should set up a mint where people could bring their gold or silver and have it made into coins of a fixed size, weight and purity. This is coin money, which is impossible with paper. This was the only authority given to the US Congress regarding money. Later in the Constitution, we see that the government is prohibited from admitting “bills of credit.” “Bills of credit” in that time period was the term used for paper money. The framers of the Constitution had experience with the Continental currency under the Continental Congress before the breakaway from England. Continental currency at that time was being printed at an exorbitant HOW BIG IS A TRILLION? That’s 12 zeroes to the left of the decimal point. A trillion is a million million, or a thousand US billions. The Empire State Building is 1,250 feet tall or 416.6 yards. It would take about 33 Empire State Buildings stacked on top of each other for one trillion dollar bills. If you laid one dollar bills end-to-end, you could make a chain that stretches from earth to the moon and back 200 times. A trillion credit cards laid end-to-end would reach 22,000 times round the Earth; 13,000 times the length of the Amazon River (nearly 4,000 miles long); 938,000,000 football fields; and 14,000 times the length of the Great Wall of China (4,200 miles long). One trillion dollars would stretch nearly from the earth to the sun. It would take a military jet flying at the speed of sound, reeling out a roll of dollar bills behind it, 14 years before it reeled out one trillion dollar bills. One trillion dollar bills fills an eightmile high room measuring 76 sq. yd. THE ANGELUS • April 2005 36 rate. This gave rise to the phrase, “It’s not worth a continental.” Thus, the Constitution forbade paper money and a central bank, stating further that the only responsibility the government had was the coining of money and the establishment of the value thereof. Also, consider that the US Constitution was put together by representatives of States who were very concerned about States’ rights and State authority and who wanted a federal government with very few powers, desiring most powers to remain at State level. Even here, the States willingly gave up their power to coin money. Article I, Section X states, “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, confederation, grant letters of mark or reply, coin money, emit bills of credit,” etc. So we see that it was all there, but it has all been violated since. It has been violated at other times in our history, but especially when the Federal Reserve came into existence. How did this happen? I contend that there were contrived economic panics, e.g., in 1907. People were concerned about economic panics, and some banks were truly failing. The solution thus presented to having banks fail here or there was to put all the power into one bank so that it could fail and thus everybody could suffer. This is the true accomplishment of the Federal Reserve Bank. In 1910, a secret meeting was held at a plush resort on Jekyll Island in Georgia. Present at the meeting was the then Assistant Secretary of the Treasury named Andrew, Senator Nelson Aldridge of Rhode Island–who is the man for whom Nelson Aldridge Rockefeller was named–and the key man, a Warburg from Germany. Their view was to establish a central bank, thereby taking control of the economic life of the US. They plotted the meeting in 1910, had it introduced into Congress by some of their people, and finally in 1913 it was passed. When it was passed at first, it was rather weak and ineffectual. The attitude, however, was simply to get something on the books and then “fix” it later. “Fixing” it later was exactly what they did. We have now reached a point where a former head of the House Banking Committee in the 1960’s, Wright Patman of Texas, could say, “In the US today, we have in effect two governments; we have the duly constituted government and then an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve system operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress in the Constitution.” He is absolutely right. The Federal Reserve has a lock-tight grip on the economic life of the United States of America. It can create a boom by expanding the currency; it can create a bust by contracting the currency. The boom, of course, is only short-lived because the value of the currency goes down. Could the Federal Reserve condition the American people to vote for or against THE ANGELUS • April 2005 a candidate by its economic activity of raising or lowering? The answer is an unqualified yes. In fact, it was stated quite openly by a writer in the U.S. News and World Report in 1988, Monroe Carmann. He wrote, In short, the central bank wants to strike a pose of neutrality for the contest between George Bush and Michael Dukakis. The Fed will neither plunge the economy into a recession as Fed chairman Paul Volcker did in 1980 to sabotage Jimmy Carter’s chances for re-election, nor open up the money as wide as Fed chairman Arthur Burns did in 1972 to help Richard Nixon win another term. There is the admission. They contracted the currency to hurt Carter, and they boosted the currency to help Nixon. Boom and bust–it continues to go on to this day. It is often objected that although the Federal Reserve may not be a great institution, still, “someone has to manage the money.” This is an immense fallacy. If money is considered a commodity, then it is no different than peas or basketballs or sneakers or chairs, none of which have to be managed; they manage themselves. Nobody should manage money, and we are far away from this being generally recognized. Most economic graduates from prestigious colleges have never even heard of most of the above, which is a good indication of the amount of money wasted in the brainwashing factories quaintly called “universities.” Our Fed chairman today, Mr. Alan Greenspan, has raised interest rates six times in the last ten months. He has expanded the currency at a rate that has never been seen before in recent times. If you read the newspapers to see and comprehend what Alan Greenspan is saying, you can determine that he hates a booming economy. You can determine that he hates low unemployment. If the economy heats up, the Fed has to act. If employment levels are “too low,” the Fed has to act. He says these things explicitly and the Congress of the US replies, “Yes, Mr. Greenspan,” “Thank you, Mr. Greenspan. Go right ahead and do whatever you think you have to do. We have no control over you.” And they don’t. And he loves that kind of control. We are being robbed blind and in the process, we are being set up for something even worse than a Federal Reserve System in the US. We are being set up for a World Federal Reserve. Consider some of the following quotations. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Trilateral Commission, said in 1970, “More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.” He was then made Presidential Advisor to Jimmy Carter in the White House. Richard Nixon, in 1972, said “There must be a thorough-going reform of the world’s monetary system.” Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter 37 on this issue. Richard N. Gardner wrote an article in 1974 [“The Hard Road to World Order,” Foreign Affairs, April 1974] saying, “We must perform an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” This is abject treason already, but he further said that he would like to see “a revitalization of the International Monetary Fund which would have unprecedented powers to create new international reserves and to influence national decisions on exchange rates and domestic fiscal policies.” Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman in 1979 said, “The standard of living of the average American has to decline. I don’t think you can escape that.” Fred Bergson, another economic guru in Washington said, “The world’s economy is in trouble unless there is some central steering mechanism.” But who steers in that scenario? Even the New York Times ran an article in 1998 entitled, “Needed: A Fed for the World.” What does this do to families? It sends the women out of the house. It makes it virtually impossible for some people to own a home without mortgaging their future to such a degree that not only does the woman have to go out of the house, but the man has to have two jobs. If Alan Greenspan raises the interest rates even 1.5%, for many young families it is the difference between a bigger house and not being able to move. Let us return to St. Thomas Aquinas and his teaching. According to the Angelic Doctor, money has to have stability of value. As a measure used for estimating the value of things, money must be kept at the same value. This is because the value of all things is expressed in money. Is the value of our money stable? Is it staying the same? The answer is a resounding no. We are tempted to blame the merchant, the supermarket owner, and so on. But none of these people have destroyed the value of the currency. The Federal Reserve System has destroyed it and the government of the US has allowed it. Our representatives have allowed it. A gentleman once asked me, after hearing a talk I gave on the Federal Reserve, how many members of Congress were aware of the contents of this article. My answer is that there are very few. Some understand and continue what they do deliberately, and there are a few who understand and are fighting it. The vast majority of the members of the US Congress, however, simply have no idea what is going on. It’s time for everyone to realize that the people we send to Washington should not be people who simply “go with the flow.” We need people who understand the difference between right and wrong, and that what the Federal Reserve is doing is wrong. What the US Congress is allowing is wrong. It is not wrong because of my own opinion; it is morally wrong and it is destroying families in the process. Remember that St. Thomas says that for a man to live a virtuous life, two things are required: virtuous action primarily, and secondarily a requisite of material goods which are necessary for virtuous action. We are being led by the nose. The Federal Reserve should be understood by many more people than it currently is. Where did the idea come from? If you read both the Constitution of the United States of America and The Communist Manifesto, it is evident that the latter is what is being followed, not the former. In The Communist Manifesto, there is an attack on family and marriage. There is an attack on home schooling, patriotism, and morality. There are the famous “Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto,” the second of which is a heavy progressive income tax, which was instituted here in the same year as the Federal Reserve, 1913. Another objective outlined is the abolition of property and land, as was seen in President Carter’s federalization of enormous amounts of land. Also mentioned is the abolition of the rights of inheritance. The fifth plank is the centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Here we see the Federal Reserve, with the only difference that it is not in the hands of the State, but rather a private organization. If you look at the rest of the planks of The Communist Manifesto, you will notice the tenth, which is free education for all children in public schools. These things are all mentioned explicitly in The Communist Manifesto, and we see why today.... The problem we have in America is too much government. I will include in that statement the Federal Reserve, even though it’s not part of the government. The government, on the other hand, could stop it. If the Constitution of the US were enforced, there would be no Fed and the federal government would be 20% its size and 20% its cost. Wouldn’t that be nice? And if that were the case, how many young women would then have to go out and leave their children in day-care centers? Again, the attack on the family comes from many sources. It certainly comes from the economic realm, and it has to be understood by more people, especially Catholics. America could be made Catholic yet, and although we have a long way to go, the information needed to correct modern ills is more readily available now than ever. Good people must become informed and help others do the same. Never forget the power of a dedicated few in theology or economics or anything else. With God’s help, we will spread the Faith and convert our country. Transcribed by Angelus Press from the cassette tape “The Federal Reserve and the Economic War on the Family,” by Mr. John McManus. Mr. McManus is a native of Brooklyn, New York, and a graduate of Holy Cross College. He has been involved in civic activism for over four decades. Writer, editor, radio and television spokesman, and public speaker, he is the author of five books, including Financial Terrorism, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment, and The Insiders (now in its fifth edition). THE ANGELUS • April 2005 38 BOOK REVIEW TITLE: Economics for Helen (available from Angelus Press. Price: $12.95) AUTHOR: Hilaire Belloc PUBLISHER: IHS Press REVIEWER: Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski This is the book that tells us as much as we need to know to be convinced that Catholics must rethink their “comfort zones” and really change the way they live. Otherwise, genuine Catholic life is impossible. “Economics” is the name which people have come to give to the study of Wealth. It is the study by which we learn how Wealth is produced, how it is consumed, how it is distributed among people, and so on. It is a very important kind of study, because it often depends upon our being right or wrong in Economics whether we make the whole State poorer or richer, and whether we make the people living in the State happier or not.1 By giving us a title such as Economics for Helen (apparently dedicated to Belloc’s adolescent niece), Hilaire Belloc, in 1923, was emphasizing something that many others at the time, such as the Solidarist THE ANGELUS • April 2005 Heinrich Pesch, were also emphasizing. Economics is a human science about the very basic functioning of human society. It was a discipline that was not something abstract and unintelligible to the average man; rather that economics, as the study of the production, use, and distribution of wealth, was, in its basic concepts, accessible to all. With this conviction in mind, Belloc sets about defining and indicating the relationships between the basic concepts employed in the science of economics, such as wealth, land, the means of production, and capital. For example, one could not hope to even understand the scope of economics if one did not 39 know that “wealth,” which is the proper object of the science of economics, was properly defined, not as something possessed by someone, but as “those values attaching to material objects through the action of man, which values can be exchanged for other values.”2 With this essential definition, we can understand “wealth” to be something necessarily social and civic in its very nature. With the social and civic dimension, we also enter into the moral dimension of human existence on account of the concern for justice that is part of man’s inherent conception of his life lived among other men. Even though Belloc understands clearly this necessary and essential link between the economic and the moral, in Economics for Helen he specifically indicates that the operation of economic laws and the demands of the moral law are two distinct things. Likewise, he further identifies the parameters of economic science by stating that, The Science of Economics does not deal with true happiness nor even with well-being in material things. It deals with a strictly limited field of what is called “Economic Wealth,” and if it goes outside its own boundaries it goes wrong.3 There are several aspects of this text, which open up new vistas for those seeking an alternative to the materialistic determinism of both the Marxists and the Economic Liberals. All of these insights, on the part of Belloc, into the very fiber of the economic life of man, point to the fact that economics is grounded in two realities, both of which the Capitalists and the Socialists have overlooked: the divinely ordained goal-orientation of human nature and the freedom of choice originating in the spiritual principle of man, which is his soul. What these two facts indicate is that economics is grounded in the psychological, spiritual, and intellectual life of man to such an extent that the orientations and demands of this life create economic facts and laws that cannot be circumvented. One mentioned by Belloc is the idea of “subsistence.” According to Belloc, “subsistence” is “the worth while of labor.” By this, he means that if a certain standard of living were not provided to the worker, on account of his work, labor itself would no longer be thought to be worthwhile and, hence, would not be engaged in. Belloc identifies this as an economic law, rather than a moral law. Here we see the advancing of a concrete example of an “economic law” which all nations and economic concerns must adhere to if they are to maintain a healthy economic life. Moreover, Belloc implicitly refutes his accusers who charge him with collapsing economic law into moral law. If a nation does not provide its people, in their generality and in their individuality, with work that can sustain a man and his family at levels acceptable within the context of the national culture, men will not work and the nation will not prosper. Of course, it is the obligation of the State to ensure that companies and enterprises uninterested in providing subsistence wages do not simply locate their factories in foreign countries and export their products to the “job-free zones” of the “developed” countries. The economic laws governing national economies also affect the outlay of capital. In this regard, Belloc affirms that “capital,” or “alreadymade wealth which man uses with the object of producing further wealth,” does not merely exist in capitalist countries. Just as “property,” or “lawful control over a piece of wealth,” continues to exist in communist countries. The only relevant question here is “who owns or controls the capital and property present in a nation?” Upon the answers to these questions rides the determination of the economic system under which the people of a nation live. Having spent the first part of Economics for Helen delineating, in logical sequence, the various concepts that make up the science of economics, starting with wealth, moving through a consideration of the three elements necessary for the production of wealth, and arriving at the three parts into which produced wealth naturally divides (i.e., rent, interest, and THE ANGELUS • April 2005 40 subsistence), Belloc devotes chapters to two topics that render the definitional aspects of the earlier pages more immediately relevant and politically charged. Those two topics are money and banking. In regard to money (i.e., currency) and banking, it is important to mention here that Belloc shows himself to be a perfect economic realist when he clearly states that both currency and some type of banking are the sine qua non of a complicated and advanced national economy. When money or currency is simply a medium of exchange, which is used to facilitate transactions between individuals with heterogeneous goods within the context of an economy based upon a highly specific division of labor, it serves as a useful human tool. When the currency becomes mere fiat money or, as Belloc calls it, “wretched bits of paper” (i.e., money to which the government or the “currency markets” assign a value consonant with their own needs but based upon no objective and regular standard of worth, like gold) then the nation with such a currency will see the greatest instability and social manipulation brought about by inflation and price fluctuation. It is, however, the consideration of modern banking, as this began to flourish in England and Holland during the 17th century, which provides the incentive for Belloc to consider those economic systems (i.e., the Servile “slave,” the Capitalist, the Socialist, and the Distributist), which would struggle for supremacy in the last three quarters of the 20th century. Again, as in his consideration of paper currency, Belloc states that the origins of the modern banking enterprise were innocent and obvious enough. Men who have capital to save look for those who have the means to guard deposited wealth. Those who control the deposits of others agree to return the money deposited to the depositors when that money is demanded. However, the bankers soon find that only a small percentage of the deposited savings are demanded at any one time, hence, rather than allowing large amounts of wealth to lie “unused,” they “invest” the money to make more money. As this lucrative enterprise gains momentum, “partial reserve banking” (i.e., the system in which only a portion of deposited funds are actually “on hand” in the bank for the depositor to withdraw–the rest having been “invested”) and usury (i.e., the taking of interest on non-productive loans) become more and more the order of the day. It is by these means that the bankers gradually gain a stranglehold on the financial resources of the nation. This clout even outweighs that of the capitalist who owns the means of production (e.g., factories, machinery, land, tools), since it is to the banker that the capitalist must go if he is to launch into any new enterprise, always, in THE ANGELUS • April 2005 current circumstances, being “short” of capital. This situation continues to the point where [t]he bankers can decide, of two competitors, which shall survive. As the great majority of enterprises lie in debt to the banks–any one of two competing industries can be killed by the bankers saying: “I will no longer lend you this money”….This power makes the banks the masters of the greater part of modern industry.4 The part of this text that might aid those unfamiliar with Belloc’s Distributist thought is the section of the text on the “political implications” of his economic analysis. Here we find Belloc giving succinct definitions of the major systems which have, throughout the history of mankind, ordered the distribution and control of property, property being, of course, a necessary part of human society. Without some specific entity (e.g., corporations, guilds, governments, or private individuals) controlling every single item and piece of property in the world, those unowned items would eventually cease to be of any use to man, and “rot.” The question that makes for the division between the various economic systems is, “Who controls the process of production in any particular society?” It is advisable that those who see Belloc as a “closet Communist” read carefully his portrayal of the socialist economic system. He both views it as unworkable and states that it is totally contrary to his own wishes and intentions. Whereas Belloc wishes men to become masters of their own fate by possessing the property necessary to direct and sustain a life of fulfilling and efficacious work, Socialism, and its extreme form–Communism– would take such power and property out of the hands of the family man and put it into the hands of bureaucrats. In Belloc’s own words, such a system would involve “complete surrender of personal honour and freedom and appetite.” If we, in the nascent 21st century, wish to sustain our honor, freedom, and happiness, Helen must not be the only one reading this text. Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski has an undergraduate degree in Political Science and another in Philosophy from Christendom College. He also received his master’s degree and doctorate in Philosophy from Fordham University. He and his wife Kathleen are the parents of six children. He teaches at Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, and for the Society of Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy, Post Falls, ID. 1 Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen (Liss, Hampshire, England: The Saint George Educational Trust, n.d.), p.6. [It has been reprinted by IHS Press and is currently available from Angelus Press ($12.95). 2 Ibid., p.8. 3 Ibid., p.9. 4 Ibid., p.96. The New Regulations on Indulgences E e of E R F as Rev. Winfrid Herbst, S.D.S. Outlines the nature and value of indulgences and the new regulations governing them. Lists 27 prayers and good works to which plenary indulgences are attached, plus gives 46 different ways to gain a partial indulgence. The book also includes a questionand-answer section covering the most common questions people ask about indulgences. rch lta u p o with Racc The  The Raccolta This official collection (raccolta) of the Church’s prayers and devotions was published in English in 1957. It includes a timely supplement of additional prayers for many urgent needs all of which were composed under Pope Pius XII. Many of the prayers and devotions are followed by the Latin text. These 800 prayers touch practically every spiritual and physical need, and every personal and societal hope. They are the confidently suppliant voice of the Catholic Church 752pp, bonded leather softcover, STK# 6765 $39.95 47pp, softcover, STK# 8072 $3.00  1 free copy of New Regulations on Indulgences with each copy of The Raccolta purchased–no limit! (Offer expires June 30, 2005) N EW I NGFor the first time on video, witness the E R interview of a woman who suffered 26 years O FF of imprisonment for her Catholic Faith in China. Mrs. Rose Hu, B.Ed., was imprisoned in Shanghai shortly after her baptism at the age of 15. She relates her story–and the stories of the sufferings and martyrdom of many heroic Chinese Catholic bishops, priests, and faithful. These accounts, with striking photos, show the tragic reality of Dr. Karen Lee (left) interviews Mrs. Rose Hu, Communism in China, and the unwavering B.Ed. (middle), longtime prisoner in China. Fr. Trevor Burfitt, SSPX, explains the role hope of those who have suffered. Following this account is a detailed analysis of the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church based upon the Church’s documents and Our Lady of Fatima’s warning in 1917. Fr. Trevor Burfitt, of the Society of Saint Pius X, explains the dangerous thread of Communist ideas existing in the liturgical “reforms” of Vatican II, especially in the Novus Ordo Mass. “The Catholic bastions must be destroyed...” so said “Catholic theologian” Hans Urs von Balthasar. Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it. In this booklet, Fr. Franz Schmidberger explains how the Second Vatican Council brought about this destruction of Catholic bastions by:  not clearly defining Catholic Truth  failing to definitively reject error  adopting ambig­uous, contradictory language  establishing teachings very close to here­sy W E N The Church After 1945  Prophets of Gloom  A Reform of the Church  Opening Speech of Vatican II Two Modern Errors Vatican II  Decree on Ecumenism: (Unitatis Redintegratio)  No Salvation Outside the Church  Ecumenical Practices  Who is to Blame?  Decree on the Church: (Lumen Gentium)  Decree on Non‑Christian Religions: (Nostra Aetate)  Hinduism  Buddhism  Islam  The Jews  Spirit of Indifferentism  Declaration on Religious Liberty: (Dignitatis ­Humanae)  Decree on the Church in the Modern World: (Gaudium et Spes)  False Solution  True Solution  “Keep the Faith”–Pray of Communism in the present crisis of the Catholic Church. Length: 45 minutes DVD: STK# 8122D, $20.00 VHS: STK# 8122V $18.00 (VHS is in NTSC only) We printed 100,000 copies. Why? So we can sell them dirt cheap and you can afford to give them away (to friends, relatives, co-workers, etc.) like there is no tomorrow! We know of no better booklet to give to Catholics to help them understand that the doctrinal roots of the crisis lie in five key Council documents. Short and easy to understand. Once a man understands this, he will quickly embrace Tradition. 32pp, color softcover, pocket-sized, blank area on back for stamping STK# 8104 $0.25. Pack of 50. STK# 8104X $11.95 Over 19,000 sold in three months! ngelus Press announces the publication of the first totally retypeset, 1962 Latin-English daily missal for the laity since Vatican II. This is the most complete missal ever produced in the English language. We have included everything in a missal that is affordable while being of the highest durability. The Roman Catholic Daily Missal will become your lifelong liturgical companion—at Church, at home, and on the road.  All new typesetting—not a photographic reproduction. Clear and crisp type.  According to the 1962 juxta typica edition of the Missale Romanum  1,980 pages  All liturgical texts in Latin and English (both Propers and Ordinary)  All readings in English (Douay-Rheims) and Latin  All music in Gregorian notation  Ordinary with rubrics in red  Gilt edges  5 liturgically-colored ribbons  Smythe Sewn, rounded back binding with durable, leather-like Skivertex polymer gold-embossed flexible cover  Rounded corners on pages and cover  Reinforced 80 lb. resinimpregnated endsheets for extreme durability (which will not tear like printed paper endsheets)  Fully and thoroughly Indexed  Printed and bound in the USA  The finest ivory Bible paper (imported from France–Bolloré Primalux) A 1980pp, sewn binding, gold-embossed skivertex cover, STK# 8043 $59.95 ents rs) m a r e Ord Sac All t Holy in ep ete (exc compl nglish E n& Lati Why is this the most complete missal ever?  All the Masses of the Liturgical Year according to the Roman Calendar of 1962—Temporal and Sanctoral Cycles and accompanyin g rites (Blessing of Ashes, Blessing of Palms, Chrism Mass, and the Blessing of Holy Oils, etc.)  Complete Holy Week Liturgy of 1962  Supplements containing the additional Masses for the United States and Canada  Feasts of particular Religious Congregations  Liturgical Calendar  Table of Movable Feasts updated to 2050 AD  Masses for the Dead (including infants), Complete Burial Service, Prayers for the Dead  Marriage Service  Special Commemorations  39 Votive Collects  17 Votive Masses  Common Masses of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin  Conclusions of Collects  Rite of Baptism  The Churching of Women  Rite of Confirmation  Rite of Extreme Unction  Various Blessings  Vespers for Sundays and Feasts  Compline for Sundays  Office of Tenebrae  The Itinerary or Office before a Journey  Various Devotions and Prayers including favorite Litanies, the Way of the Cross, prayers of the Rosary and others  Morning and Evening Prayers  Devotions for Confession  Litany of the Saints  Devotions for Communion  Anthems to the Blessed Virgin  Hymns in honor of Our Lord and Our Lady  An explanation of “The Liturgy or Public Worship of the Catholic and Roman Church”  A Summary of Christian Doctrine  Kyriale with Tones for the Most Common sets of Masses (I Lux et Origo, II Kyrie Fons Bonitatis, IV Cunctipotens Genitor Deus, VIII De Angelis, IX Cum Jubilo, XI Orbis Factor, XVII Sundays of Advent & Lent, XVIII Deus Genitor Alme)  Tones for Asperges and Vidi Aquam  Tones for three of the most common Credos—I, III, IV  Te Deum  and much much more. Shipping & Handling US/Canada Foreign $.01 to $10.00 $3.95 $7.95 $10.01 to $25.00 $5.95 $9.95 $25.01 to $50.00 $6.95 $12.95 $50.01 to $100.00 $8.95 $14.95 Over $100.00 9% of order 12% of order Airmail surcharge (in addition to above) Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal. angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64109 1-800-96ORDER 1-800-966-7337 www.angeluspress.org Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.