$4.45

JUNE 2010

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION

INSIDE

A DARK CLOUD IN
THE CONCILIAR SKY
Dr. White on Dante PART 2
REBIRTH OF A MONASTERY

ST. FRANCIS DE SALES:

Patron of Writers and Journalists

The Society of St. Pius X

40 Years

3-Day Conference in Kansas City

“ The Defense of Tradition

“

October 15 - 17, 2010
Friday to Sunday Event

as transmitted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

With Guest Speakers
His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay
Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara
Fr. Cyprian, OSB
Fr. Kenneth Novak
Fr. Michael McMahon
Fr. Scott Gardner
Dr. Andrew Childs
Mr. John Vennari

Hilton Kansas City Airport
Kansas City, Missouri
(816) 753-3150

Share a formal dinner
with Bishop Fellay!

The

“Instaurare omnia in Christo — To restore all things in Christ.”

ngelus
Volume XXXIII, Number 6

JUNE 2010

English-language Editor and Publisher
for the International Society of Saint Pius X
PUBLISHER

Fr. Arnaud Rostand
EDITOR

Fr. Markus Heggenberger
ASSISTANT EDITOR

Mr. James Vogel

OPERATIONS MANAGER

Mr. Michael Sestak

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Miss Anne Stinnett

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Mr. Simon Townshend

Contents
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

2 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Fr. Markus Heggenberger, FSSPX

3 EUROPEAN ROOTS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM CONCLUSION
Norbert Clasen

7 REBIRTH OF A MONASTERY
A Benedictine Monk

10 DANTE: WHY SHOULD

CATHOLICS STUDY LITERATURE?
Dr. David Allen White

COMPTROLLER

Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA
CUSTOMER SERVICE

Mr. John Rydholm
Miss Rebecca Heatwole
Miss Anne Craig

SHIPPING AND HANDLING

Mr. Jon Rydholm

“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

14 TELEVISION: THE SOUL AT RISK CONCLUSION
Isabelle Doré

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The Catechetical Teachings of St. Pius X

27 THE LORD’S PRAYER PART 2
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX

30 CHURCH AND WORLD

“Liturgy” during
the Archdiocese of
Los Angeles liturgy
conference.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES
US

Foreign Countries
(inc. Canada & Mexico)

1 year 2 years 3 years
$35.00 $65.00 $100.00
$55.00 $105.00 $160.00

All payments must be in US funds only.

ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS

The Reichenstein
Castle in the
Eifel region
of Germany,
becomes a
Benedictine
Monastery!

34 A DARK CLOUD IN THE CONCILIAR SKY
Côme de Prévigny

37 THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II QUESTIONED PART 6
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

$15.00/year (the online edition is available
around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe
visit: www.angelusonline.org.

40 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Register for free to access back issues 14 months
and older plus many other site features.

43 THE LAST WORD

Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX
Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly
under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen
of Angels. Publication office is located at 2915
Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. PH (816) 7533150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
©2010 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts will be used
at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends
address changes to the address above.

ON OUR COVER: Monument of St. Francis de Sales, Visitation Basilica, Annecy, France, located in
the Basilica’s museum.

2

Letter
from
the
Editor

The Angelus is a monthly review and is thus limited
in bringing news to the attention of the reader. The
chief importance of “news,” however, often resides in
the fact that The Angelus makes known to the reader
what the SSPX thinks about events, especially things
related to the Church.
In this sense, it has been appreciated by many
that a column “Church and World” was introduced,
which tries to link events in the Catholic Church with
commentary by the SSPX. The mere fact that an
event is reported therein indicates that it is of a certain
importance…
For the same reason, we introduce in this issue a
new column, “The Last Word,” which basically fulfills
the function of a commentary on some important
subject especially related to Tradition. We will see how
it goes. In this issue the topic is, not surprisingly, the
upheaval of the media against the Pope. It will usually
be a commentary written by a priest of the SSPX. This
month it is by Fr. Alain Lorans, the French SSPX priest
who directs DICI, the press agency of the general
office.
Another effort of The Angelus is to create a column
of spirituality. For the moment this is done by the series
about the Pater Noster, written by a priest of the SSPX.
We will start another after this series. It can be anything
from a commentary of the Sunday Gospels to a series
of spiritual conferences…
One word should be said about the question of
clarity. One of the proofs of the quality of an article
is that it is clear. This practically means that it can be
understood by most of the readers without difficulty. I
realize this is a high standard and a somewhat idealistic
requirement, but it is a necessary one. Allow me to give
an example from philosophy. Many philosophers are
difficult to understand because their language is rather
obscure. Many people suppose that this is an indication
of a profound intellect, but others think they are
hiding a lack of clarity behind the obscurity of words.
Examples include Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel.
They are exponents of philosophical idealism, which
is incompatible with the clarity of St. Thomas. There
are other philosophers in modern times who have
non-Catholic ideas, such as the English philosophers
George Berkeley or John Locke or the French writer
and philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But the award
for being the most obscure belongs to Hegel and
Kant rather than to the others, even though Rousseau
was directly instrumental in preparing the French
Revolution. Perhaps his impact on his contemporaries
was partly due to his talent as a writer, which allowed
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

him to exercise a profound influence on his readers and
his time although his ideas were revolutionary. Simply
put: He was wrong but brilliant.
If we look at the great examples of Catholic
writers, we should name St. Peter Canisius, one of the
first Jesuits in German-speaking regions (born in the
Netherlands, died in Switzerland) and who became
famous for his Catechism. About this book we can read
in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The catechism of Canisius
is remarkable for its ecclesiastically correct teachings,
its clear, positive sentences, its mild and dignified
form. It is today recognized as a masterpiece even by
non-Catholics…” The expression “clear” is mentioned
and should truly be an ideal which a Catholic writer
strives for.
The second writer to mention here is St. Francis de
Sales, proclaimed a patron of writers and journalists by
Pius XI. Pius IX declared him a Doctor of the Church
and called him “The Master and Restorer of Sacred
Eloquence.”
I would also like to mention letters to the editor. The
Angelus does not print them regularly, but sometimes it
is worthwhile to read them. I make the distinction of
those letters which try to contribute and those which
are written in an attempt to influence the editor. This
latter case particularly involves theological opinions
which some try to project on The Angelus, as if the
editor needs other help beyond his fellow priests and
superiors. Everyone has the right to ask explanations
required by circumstances, but anyone who does not
like the line of Angelus Press or the SSPX may try to
discuss matters with a competent priest; one should
not expect the editor to waste his time with fruitless
discussions.
Finally, you might have noticed that Angelus Press
tries to establish a connection between the magazine
and the books we publish in the sense that some books
are a result of a series of articles in the magazine.
As an example, soon there will be a book about the
traditional religious orders and a book version of the
Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, a result of serialized
articles which were recently published in The Angelus.
I would like to thank all our faithful readers in
addition to those who started to subscribe to The
Angelus recently. After the March issue we received 100
new subscriptions. We thank you for this encouraging
support.
Instaurare Omnia in Christo,
Fr. Markus Heggenberger

3

CONCLUSION
n o r b e r t

c l a s e n

European
Roots of
National
Socialism:
A contribution to the reflection
on the Year of Darwin
From Imperialist Colonial Wars
to Racial-Biological War of
Extermination
In Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-2) with Martin
Bormann and others, Hitler often compared the
German war on the Eastern Front with the colonial
wars. “What India was for England,” Hitler said
shortly after the start of the offensive against the
Soviet Union, “the eastern area will be for us.”1
Toward the middle of October 1941, Hitler
presented his ideas of a German conquest of Eastern
Europe, which recall the African fantasies of William
Reades: “In twenty years, the territory of Ukraine
will include twenty million people. After three
hundred years it will be a flourishing landscape park
of unusual beauty.” His people would be forced to
their knees by destructive methods, such as had
been used in former times by other empires. “We

will select them (the natives). There is only one task:
Germanization by moving in Germans and regarding
the natives as Indians.” The “natives” should not be
Germanized, but reduced to the condition of slaves.
Hitler proposed to teach them a “gesture language,”
to outlaw literature, and to prohibit education. The
radio would be sufficient for the general public as a
means of entertainment. Of course, the colonization
of the Slavic world would include the elimination of
the intellectual and political elites.2
The Nazis were the first in Central Europe to
have led a policy of conquest which also included the
destruction of ethnic groups from the ancient world.
With that they crossed another threshold: Classical
imperialism occupied territories in order to plunder
them, to get raw materials and new markets in order
to “expand the civilization.” The primary goal of the
National Socialist policy of conquest, however, was
the biological and racial extension of German rule.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

4
It was not just a question of conquering new lands,
but above all, of Germanizing them. Therefore, for
the Nazis, racism and eugenics were far more than
an ideological cover or justification for the policy of
conquest; they were their engine. At the center of it
was racial and biological anti-Semitism.3
As Goebbels said in July 1941, the soldiers of the
Third Reich should be mainly “saviors of European
culture and civilization,” which was threatened by a
“political undermining following the lead of greedy
state capitalists.” Unlike the imperialist assessment
of the colonial peoples, the Nazis saw in the Jews not
a backward, savage people who could not survive
the march of progress, but the enemy of mankind.
Their extermination was therefore not instrumental
in nature but took the dimension of a struggle for the
salvation and renewal of mankind itself. Thus, the
destruction of Judaism was planned and organized
as a crusade or war of liberation. Eastern Europe
was, according to the Nazis, the “Lebensraum”
(Living Space) that they wanted to colonize, but
this implied the conquest and the destruction of the
Soviet Union and of Bolshevism, which was seen
by the Nazis as a product of “Jewish intelligence”
and “the Slavic, subhuman race.” The Red Army
embodied that threatening alliance. To erase it, very
different resources from those that had been used
in the colonial expeditions of the 19th century were
needed: It took a total war in the middle of Europe.
This total war was also a war of conquest, a “race
war” and a colonial war. The murder of the Jews was
a part of it.

Biological Anti-Semitism
In May, 1920 the London Times published
an article entitled “The Jewish Peril.” Winston
Churchill called Marx, Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa
Luxembourg and others a part of a “worldwide
conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization.” “Now
this band of extraordinary personalities from
the underworld of the great cities of Europe and
America gripped the Russian people by the collar
and has practically become the undisputed ruler
of a mighty empire.” The Bolsheviks were in his
eyes “enemies of mankind,” “vampires who suck
the blood of their victims,” “terrible baboons in the
middle of cities in ruins and mountains of corpses”,
at the head of Lenin, “a dog’s monster on a pyramid
of skulls.”4
The novelty of the Nazis’ anti-Bolshevism and
anti-Semitism was the combination of extreme
biological theories and “racial hygiene.” The
vocabulary of the pesticides and images from
medical pathology were used to characterize the
Jews in particular: “the Jew is a deadly cancer
that destroys without prejudice to the national
body.”5 The destruction of these abnormal cells
would therefore be for the Nazis one of the central
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

concerns of their health policy: racial hygiene.
Alfred Rosenberg, one of the main authors of key
Nazi ideological creeds, writes in “The Myth of
the 20th Century” that the takeover of Lenin and
Trotsky had only “been possible in the middle of a
racially and mentally ill body politic, which could
practice nothing more than bloodless love.” Even
Hitler speaks in Mein Kampf of the “tragedies that
Germany could have prevented if it had sent the
Jews to the gas.”6

Eugenic Practices and Models
The first step of destruction on biological
and racial grounds (for cleansing the “hereditary
disposition”) happened with Operation T4, the
euthanasia of brainsick and other disabled people,
which began in January 1940.
Euthanasia, as a means of social prophylaxis,
was specific to the politics of the Nazis; there is
nothing comparable in the history of the 20th
century. The roots of this practice, however, are
found in the Western world. Racial anthropology
and eugenics were subjects that, since the end of
the 19th century, were taught in every Western
university. The term “eugenics” was first coined in
1883 by a cousin of Darwin, Francis Galton, who
summed up his hopes for mankind in the sentence:
“If it is possible to breed by a careful selection
of dogs or horses with specific properties, then it
should be possible to create a highly gifted race of
men.”7
Eugenics had a great influence from 19051940, in which it officially became the policy of a
number of countries. The sterilization of inmates
of asylums and prisons was practiced. In the US
there were, by the year 1958, thirty states with
legislation about such practices, and nearly 61,000
persons had been sterilized against their will. By the
year 1932, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Denmark and two Canadian provinces had adopted
sterilization laws.8
A little later, Hitler issued his infamous
sterilization program.
The Nazis especially admired the work of
the American eugenicist Madison Grant. They
published a German edition of his book The Passing
of the Great Race (1916) in 1925. The 1910 Encyclopedia
Britannica claimed, in the article “Civilization,”
that the future of mankind would likely bring “the
biological improvement of the breed, thanks to
the application of inheritance laws.” This article,
which was removed only after 1945, shows both
the legitimacy which eugenic theories enjoyed in
the scientific community, as well as its distribution
in public opinion. In Italy and France, where the
Catholic Church was against forced sterilization,
the theories of eugenics had nevertheless found a
widespread distribution. In 1924, the first Italian

5
Congress for “social
eugenics” was held. Five
hundred physicians there
discussed the “biological
improvement of the
breed.” In France the main
propagandist of eugenics
was Georges Vacher de
Lapouge, who championed,
in the 1890s, a campaign
of mass sterilization
in order “to prevent
chaos and barbarism in
democratic societies.” In
Selections Sociales (1896),
he sketched the outlines of
his project of producing a
more elevated humanity
by artificial insemination.
This would be the
replacement of spontaneous
animal reproduction by
“zootechnical and scientific
reproduction.”9
The theory of eugenics
fell on fertile ground in
Germany. Since the end of
the 19th century, several
anthropologists such as
Ernst Haeckel proposed
euthanasia as a social therapy, a kind of synthesis
between eugenics and Nordic racism. In 1905 the
physician Alfred Ploetz founded the Society for
Racial Hygiene in Berlin. In the Weimar Republic,
eugenics caused strong economic growth through
the creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, which
planned the first projects for the sterilization of
mentally ill people, criminals, and “morally”
retarded individuals. The Rockefeller Foundation
made substantial funds available and recognized
the scientific value of the Institute. Initially less
ideologically oriented, the Institute after 1930
increasingly began to implement a synthesis of
theories of eugenics and racial thought; some of its
employees were openly racist.
For most of Western public opinion, the
German race policy was moving along the lines
of a widespread positivist logic until the end of
the thirties. It is noteworthy that eugenics was
widespread and well received especially in countries
with a Protestant tradition, while the predominantly
Catholic countries were less enthusiastic. In fact, in
the Catholic countries of Europe, there was, under
fascism, virtually no eugenics.10
One of the few formal condemnations of
eugenics in all its forms was by Pope Pius XI in his
encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930. The fact is that

eugenics and “racial hygiene” were widespread in
the West and had found enthusiastic supporters.
From this “tradition,” National Socialism, moreover,
drew its “scientific” language, through which it
formulated its “biological” new anti-Semitism: Now,
the Jews were a “virus” that caused “disease” and its
“eradication” a measure of purge or “hygiene.”
The condemnation of the eugenic theories
which were partly at the root of the crimes of the
Nazis happened only after the discovery of Nazi
crimes: Until the war, the eugenics of the Nazis
were not considered to be inhumane or insane or
an obstacle to international research, in spite of
the mass emigration of Jewish scientists. Only the
unanimous condemnation of the Nazis after 1945
overshadowed these good relations. Mengele had
indeed no counterpart in any other country, but
his practices were only the radical culmination of
a eugenic ideology which was widespread in the
West. Thus several German doctors did not miss the
chance, at the Nuremberg trials in 1945, to refer to
similar experiments that other democratic countries
had done before them.

The War as a Means
of Salvation and Hygiene
Together with Social Darwinism, eugenics was
ultimately the justification for the war. Thus Hitler
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

6
emphasized, in his secret speech before the “junior
military leaders” of May 30, 1942:
A deeply serious saying of a great military philosopher
is that struggle and war is the father of all things. The
whole universe seems to be dominated by this one
idea that there exists an eternal selection, in which the
stronger survives at the end and the weaker dies....This
struggle consequently leads to an incessant selection
of the better and harder ones. We therefore see in this
fight an element of all living and of life in general....
We know that this battle will always remove the weak
and will strengthen and make harder the strong, and
that therefore the individual organisms themselves are
enabled to undergo a development of progress.11

This ideological consideration of war was not
specific to National Socialism. Around 1900, the
German eugenicist Otto Ammon taught that war
would assure “the higher and more intelligent
peoples of the superiority which they deserve.”
Three years earlier, in 1897, Field Marshal Lord
Wolseley opened a congress of the Philosophical
Society of London with a speech on “War and
Civilisation” which presented war as a tool for
identifying the best from mankind.12
And in 1911, on the eve of World War I, the
British military specialist Sir Reginald Clare Hart
developed a biological theory of war in which he
considered war as an instrument of progress and
renewal of the human race. In his conclusion Hart
calls even for a relentless war to destroy lower
people and nations.13
Shortly before the outbreak of World War I the
renowned British weekly Nineteenth Century printed
an article of the well-known journalist Herold F.
Wyatt, with the title “War as a Test of God.” In some
passages it recalls Hitler’s secret speech of 1942
(above):
If you now dream of short-sighted and superficial
sentimentalists–if war on earth could be made
impossible–then one would destroy the mechanism
which punishes the corruption of a nation and rewards
national virtue. The better ones would no longer replace
the inferior, and the process of human evolution would
come to a halt....Victory is the crown of moral quality,
and therefore, as long as nations fight each other, the
survival of the fittest is the survival of the physically
best....The real judgement, the only judgement which
decides in questions of nations, is the decision of God,
and that judgement is war.14

That Wyatt’s declarations are not an extreme
example can be proved by a number of similar
statements in popular newspapers and magazines,
especially in the period between 1880 and 1914. War
was referred to as “a religious crusade to destroy the
evil which threatens the welfare of humanity and
which is an obstacle to the march of the kingdom to
salvation” (Hans Kohn, 1939).15

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

The Warning of History
National Socialism and its crimes was, without
any doubt, an event without historical precedent.
However, its ideology and its inhuman crimes did
not simply fall from the blue; they have substantial
roots in the cultural and scientific landscape of
the West in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus,
the idea that civilization makes necessary the
conquest and destruction of “inferior” or “bad”
breeds or the biological anti-Semitism of the Nazis
were not invented. Almost all the basic elements
of Nazi ideology, such as biological racism, antihuman social Darwinism, eugenics, anti-Semitism,
colonial conquest and destruction, including war
as an instrument of selection and progress, could
be found in the context of Western Civilization at
the time of imperialism and colonialism and in the
context of the First World War and its revolutionary
upheavals. The French historian André Pichot goes
probably too far when he says: “Hitler did not
invent much. Most of the time he did simply collect
ideas that were in the air and put them into action.”
National Socialism was indeed something unique.
Its singularity lay above all in its ability to meld
those elements and ideas into a unique synthesis
that was so terribly radical and new, that for most
of his contemporaries it was inconceivable and
incomprehensible.
This article originally appeared in the November 2009 issue of Kirchliche
Umschau. Translated by Angelus Press. Norbert Clasen is president of Initiativkreis Eichstätt, a group dedicated to promoting the traditional Latin Mass.
Enzo Traverso, Modernity and Violence (Cologne, 2003), pp. 69-78.
Ibid.
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 105f.
5
Eberhard Jackel, Hitlers Weltanschauung (Stuttgart, 1973), p. 69.
6
Traverso, Modernity and Violence, p. 108.
7
Ibid., p. 124.
8
Jean-Claude Guillebaud, The Principle, p. 38-39 E.
9
Traverso, Ibid. 125-127.
10
Guillebaud, Ibid. 306.
11
Hitler’s Table Talk at the Driver’s Head-quarters, ed. Henry Picker, Stuttgart
Third Edition 1973, p. 464f.
12
Koch, Ibid.109.
13
Traverso, Ibid. 126.
14
Koch, Ibid. 104f.
15
Traverso, Ibid. 147.
1
2
3

7

Rebirth of a
Monastery
A

B e n e d i c t i n e

M o n k

The Reichenstein Castle, in the Eifel region of Germany,
becomes a Benedictine Monastery!
This historic monastery on the Belgian border
was established in the 12th century as a priory
of the Premonstratensians (better known as the
Norbertines or White Canons). For 600 years
the Canons of Reichenstein were the apostles
of the region of Monschau in western Germany
until they were expelled in 1803 in the process of
secularization. Now, 200 years later, Reichenstein
will again become a place of monastic spirituality
due to a foundation which follows the original rule
of St. Benedict and offers a liturgy which reflects the
2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.
A promising future can be seen where past and
present merge: that is why the transmission of the
values of the Christian West to the next generation
is the best service that can be done by a young
congregation to modern society.
During a time of cultural upheaval, in which
more and more churches are closed or used for
other purposes, the revival of a church–and even of
an entire monastery–is a real adventure. The monks
from the Monastery of Our Lady of Bellaigue (near
Virlet, France) were encouraged in this venture by
the strong performance of our French monastery in
the past ten years–thanks be to God! We started in
2001 with four monks but today our community has
25 members, German vocations among them.
Fortunately, this puts us in a position in the
foreseeable future to comply with a demand which

was again and again asked of us: Please found a
monastery in one of the German-speaking countries,
like in France, according to the original Rule of
St. Benedict and with a liturgy that reflects the
2,000-year-old Tradition of the Church.
With the acquisition of the medieval monastery
estate of Reichenstein near the triangular border
between Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands,
the decision about the location has been made. We
have seen it as a special sign of Divine Providence
that our project has been welcomed very positively
and supported on all administrative levels from the
beginning.
The “Rheinische Amt für Denkmalpflege”
(conservation office) confirmed in a report from
March 2009: “The planned use [as a Benedictine
monastery] is an ideal case for the conservation of
a historical monument.” But it was noted by the
Authority as well: “Measures of conservation are of
great urgency.”

“We want a future
based on roots!”
The German Foundation for Monuments,
presided by German Federal President Horst
Köhler, has agreed to help with the renovation. On
the occasion of the millenary of the Mainz Cathedral
on October 11, 2009, the President admirably
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

8
expressed the larger context in which a commitment
to cultural and religious monuments has to be
classified. We follow his assessment:
If we bear in mind how much time was needed to build
such a house of God, when we realize that the generation
that made the plans and laid the foundation stone usually
did not experience the completion on the construction:
then we realize what it means to take a long breath. We
need again the sense and the courage to think about more
than our present time, to think of a future that belongs to
future generations! To conserve a cultural heritage does not
only mean the preservation of stones. It is important that
the spirit and the attitude from which the old works arose
remain alive.

And Dr. Kohler added: “If one asks whether it is
worth it to invest a lot of money and power in such

an old building, then we can answer: Whoever does
not invest in memory, harms the future. But we want
to win the future, a future orientation inspired by the
past.”

“We promote a work that is
larger than ourselves!”
We may be allowed to apply the words of
the President to the historic monastic building at
Reichenstein because it is the oldest building in the
Monschauer countryside. For over 600 years it was
a stronghold of Christian culture and education–and
should become that again.

Reichenstein: History of the New Fo
March 2005
A family living in Kalterherberg draws the attention of our
congregation to the old monastery at Reichenstein.

February 5-10, 2007
Dom Angel, our Prior, visited the historic estate for a few days.
He makes his decision of founding a religious community at
Reichenstein. Negotiations for the purchase begin.

November 27, 2007
Reichenstein Castle

A purchase agreement is signed between the owners, the
Handschumacher family, and the (for taking legal actions)
newly founded Association of St. Benedict.

March 9, 2008
Dom Angel dies of cancer. Shortly before his death, he
exhorted the brothers gathered around him a last time: “My
sons, love one another!” He offers up his life for the Holy
Father, Pope Benedict XVI.
Handing over of the keys of Reichenstein

Summer 2008
Our newly ordained priest, Father Bernard (ordained on the
Feast of SS. Peter and Paul) celebrates Mass in several places
in Germany and Belgium, visited the pilgrimage place at
Banneux, Belgium, and communities who are friends with us.

September 19, 2008
The formal handing over of the keys of Reichenstein by
the Handschumacher family to our community. Several
hundred guests meet in the church buildings which are not yet
consecrated.

January 2009
Monastery chapel, Bellaigue

Father Bernard, Father Anselm, and Brother Joseph spend a
week at Reichenstein.

9
We promote a work that is larger than ourselves; we want
to restore Reichenstein to its ancient purpose. That includes
the establishment of 20 cells for monks, about 15 guests cells,
as well as a refectory and various workshops. Add to this the
establishment of a crypt and a cloister. Agricultural activity of an
ecological orientation, but also forest work, will be a part of the
future life of the monks.
The extensive historical preservation measures that are
necessary for the restoration of a medieval monastery can
nowadays no longer be done without the sense of community.
But we are optimistic, not to hope in vain for help, as more and
more groups see with us the urgent need to take action in order
to maintain the values of the Christian West and to pass them on
to future generations.

Foundation
January 24, 2009

October 2009

Our Prior, Dom Matthew, consecrated the future
foundation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Helfta, the
place where St. Gertrude received her revelations
from the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Father Bernard, our Cellerar, Brother Marcel,
and Brother Michael live almost two weeks in
Reichenstein in compliance with the monastic way
of life; they are doing wood work. They give two
conferences on our monasteries in Brussels and in the
Netherlands.

February 2009
The church receives provisional installations. The
most important piece is a Gothic altar, which the
Sisters of the Precious Blood from Niedaltadorf
donated to us. The final equipment will be added
later, once the foundation is realized.

October 24, 2009
The Eifel Association visited Reichenstein with 600
hikers. A small exhibition draws attention to the future
monastery.

March 2009

November 9, 2009

The Rheinische Amt für Denkmalpflege writes a report:
“The planned use [as a Benedictine monastery] is
an ideal case for the conservation of a historical
monument, because the old use of the building as a
monastery, discontinued at the beginning of the 19th
century, shall be re-established.”

Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell. Dom Angel–
with his great sense of salvation history–did not
randomly choose Germany for a first foundation.
Dom Angel saw in the apparitions of Fatima, in 1917,
in which the Blessed Virgin called us to prayer and
penance and warned the world against the errors of
Russia, a special call on Germany to return to God
and His commandments.

May 16, 2009
Dedication of the future church of Reichstein under
its ancient patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the Apostle St. Bartholomew, and St. Lawrence. The
patronage date is to become August 15th. Our newly
ordained priest, Father Anselm, celebrates a Mass on the
occasion of this great day. The church is packed to the
last seat. The local television has the event on the news.

Mid-June 2009
On every third Saturday of the month from now on,
in the monastery church at Reichenstein, prayers for
priestly and religious vocations are offered, in addition
to a quick foundation of a monastery on this location.

December 2009
The City Council of Monschau gives us an
authorization for the new construction of a cloister
near the church.

January 2010
Father Matthew and Father Bernard visit several
parishes in southern Germany in order to give a
presentation of the future monastery. On January 20th
and 21st the first plans are finalized with the architects
for the year 2010.

10

“Dante and Shakespeare
divide the world between
them; there is no third.”
–T.S. Eliot

DANTE

Why should Catholics study literature?

PART 2

D r .

D a v i d

One cannot understand the proper role of
literature without understanding, more broadly, the
purpose of art itself. The term “art” does not only
refer to paintings or sculptures; it also is used to
refer to the larger body of created expressions such
as music and literature. Thus, art is really a large
and diverse category.
Art has always existed as a manifestation of the
human spirit. As Catholics, however, we also know
that art has also served as an extension of the glories
of the Faith. I insist on reminding you that those
beautiful creations that we know as the glories of
Western art grow out of the Mass. This is as true of
the architecture of the great cathedrals as it is of the
great paintings. When Western art dawns after the
classical age, it dawns with magnificent paintings.
Music takes on a life of its own after it begins to
grow out of Gregorian Chant. Even drama itself,
after the Greeks, grows largely out of the liturgy.
The Catholic Church is, then, in some way the
source of art. The reason is because art is one of the
ways in which man is allowed to worship his Creator
and to imitate His glory by also being, in a smaller
way, a creator. Obviously, we are here on earth
to save our souls and be humble servants, created
beings, creatures of God. But we have been given
certain blessings. One of these blessings is the ability
to create things ourselves.
The greatest gift that our Creator gave us is the
ability to propagate or extend this creation. Think
of the command to “go forth and multiply.” Adam
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

A l l e n

W h i t e

and Eve were told to create new human life. This
is the most important act of creation that mankind
participates in.
At the same time, there are other ways in which
mankind has always created. Consider here the
craftsman. Tables and chairs and dishes and clothes
are all designed by someone and made by someone.
All of these crafts have certain rules: if someone
tried to make a chair with one leg or a cup with a
hole in the bottom or a shirt with one arm, it would
not be able to fulfill its purpose. Thus, there are
rules of crafting, and craftsmen need to know these
rules so that they can build correctly so that the
object is useful.
But beyond a normal sturdy chair, there are
occasionally artists who do something special with
a craft. Thomas Chippendale, for instance, was
known for making exceptionally beautiful chairs,
usually now named for him, “Chippendale chairs.”
They are worth a lot of money, even if they fulfill
the same function. The chair’s value comes from
its exceptional beauty, not merely its utility. This is
when craft is transcended and becomes art. Thus, we
can move beyond craftsmanship to artistry.
Artistry always has, at its core, the reflection of a
high beauty, something higher than us. It is reflected
in the created object. This is true in all art, literature,
and music. Any artist giving expression to this is, on
one level, a maker, and another level, a craftsman.
But the higher the level of craftsmanship, the greater
the inspiration (a word that comes from the Latin

?

11
term meaning “to breath into”), and thus we can say
that the greater the artist, the more we can say the
divine has been breathed into that artist.
There is a certain connection between the great
artist and the divine vision, reflecting that which
is good, true, and beautiful. The greatest art, in
reflecting divinity, is reflecting these attributes of the
Godhead. Thus, created objects which manifest and
reflect these qualities draw souls to God like a kind
of magnet. Great art can do this in many different
ways.
Yet art is not religion. Art is that which artists
make; a painter paints and a musician composes.
They are concerned with their craft. But if they do
it to the top of their form, they are given another
dimension, something often timeless, which speaks
across boundaries, to all people. Thus, there is
something of universality in great art. As a result,
there are certain attributes which transcend this
mundane world.
Here we are concerned with literature.
Literature is unique; it is different from the other
arts. In fact, every kind of art is a separate thing.
I have a book written in 1928 on this topic by
Brother Leo, a Christian Brother. It provides a
good introduction to this question. I will briefly
summarize a section called “Why We Read
Literature.”
His first argument: “To vitalize our knowledge.”
This means to infuse life into what we know. If we
go all the way back to the Greeks, to the Romans,
through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and even the
best modern writers (such as Evelyn Waugh), you
find artists saying similar things. There are two basic
things that all this literature does. First, it educates.
Literature exists to tell us something. Educare, in
Latin, means “to lead.” Every piece of literature
leads us, takes us somewhere we have not been
before. The second thing literature does is delight.
There is an enjoyment factor here. We enjoy the
process of the story and the act of story-telling.
Thus, these two separate functions of literature
are always present: in fact, you could say that one of
the reasons that literature is such a powerful tool for
education is because it is so delightful. A good story
interests us; further, it is easier to remember what
a story tells us if it is a delightful story. Literature is
conducive to memory.
There are those who consider literature to be
less than serious, or unnecessary. I give to you the
thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew.
This is the Parable of the Sower and the Seed.
Christ here teaches us about the seed which falls on
different kinds of ground. It is here that the disciples
ask our Lord: “Why speakest thou in parables?”
It is a genuine question and a fair question, one
which we still ask today in various ways. “Why do
I need to read all these books? What’s the point of

writing stories?” In the Gospel, our Lord responds:
“Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven. But to them, it is not given.”
Most people cannot know or understand things
directly. Our Lord continues:
For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall
abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken
away that also which he hath. Therefore do I speak
to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and
hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And
the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By
hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and
seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart
of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they
have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut:
lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be
converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your
eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.
For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men
have desired to see the things that you see, and have
not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and
have not heard them.

Before you can understand, the eyes have to be
opened slowly. The ears have to be opened slowly.
Thus, things must be given in a way that is pleasant,
that delights, that introduces us to knowledge. We
cannot get it directly. How much truer is this for us
today. I would actually argue that we need stories
now more than ever. I would also say that God,
in His wisdom, prepared this time, prepared the
human race for the coming of His Son who would
speak in parables, by imparting to us a desire to
listen to stories. It is innate to us.
One of the things which defines man from
the dawn of time is storytelling. Og the caveman,
after he killed an animal and took it home to eat,
probably painted it on the wall and told his family
and friends about the hunt. We enjoy making up
stories. Anyone who has spent time around children
realizes this. “Tell me a story.” “Tell me a story you
told me last night.” We need to hear the same stories
over and over. This implies that the repeated story
sinks deeper.
This is why our Lord uses parables. It was
necessary for Him to use these to give the Good
News. He told stories; story-telling then has a very
honorable imprimatur. Those of us who teach
literature can thus be proud of doing so, even
if what we teach is not on the same level as the
parables. Nevertheless, the story itself is honorable.
Back to Brother Leo. He says that we read
literature “to vitalize our knowledge.” But he goes
one step further; literature is not there just to give us
knowledge. He says:
To know is one thing. To realize is another. Realization
implies vitalized knowledge. I may know, for instance,
that Assisi is a town somewhere in Italy and that St.
Francis lived there and founded the Friars Minor. I
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

12

may know several of the events from his life and know
many of the legends about the first Franciscans. I might
be able to cite the dates of St. Francis’ birth, death, and
canonization. I might even be able to tell you how many
Franciscans there currently are in the world. This is
all knowledge. Then let us suppose that one day I find
myself in Umbria and climb the hill on which Assisi is
built. I walk the same streets down which the Saint used
to trip, singing in the days of his youth. I kneel at his
tomb in the great church raised in his honor and gaze
upon his life as depicted by the artist Giotto. Then I
walk down the olive-clad hill and across the fields to visit
the noble basilica which encloses the tiny 700-year-old
chapel of the Portiuncula. Let us finally suppose that
in the moonlight I sit and ponder the spirit of love,
simplicity, and holy gladness which the “little poor man”
enkindled in this very place so long ago and which still
burns mightily throughout the world. Thinking thus, I
resolve to make the Franciscan spirit a part of my own
life and to shed love and joy about me everywhere. At
this point, I do not merely know; I realize the significance
of Assisi and its saint. My knowledge is alive and vital. In
other words, knowledge confined to the intellect is dead.
It comes to life when it is realized, that is, when it arouses
an emotional response and stirs the will to action.

This is why it is possible to be a walking
encyclopedia, filled with facts, and still not hold
real wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge vitalized that
reaches the heart as well as the head and causes the
will to act. This is what literature does. It gives us
information, but because of the emotional power
of the literary artifact, it turns that knowledge into
something lived, experienced, and then reinforced
in the world.
Brother Leo’s second reason for studying
literature is “to live more deeply and richly.” Here
is the recognition we all live our own lives, full of
unique incidents and events. But we can also live in
another way. I had a dear friend, a neighbor, who
never slept out of her home on any night from the
day she was married at eighteen years of age until
her death at eighty-nine; she didn’t want to. She
used to say: “I don’t need to go anywhere; God
gave me the ability to read books.” She also had a
capacity to memorize; she could sit and recite poetry
for hours on end. Much of it was learned in school.
She had a rich interior life, which is what literature
provides.
When you read Hamlet, you are experiencing
a range of events which you will personally never
know. They will not be a part of your lived life
externally in the sense of action. You will never be
Prince of Denmark. Your uncle probably won’t kill
your father. It’s even more unlikely your mother will
marry your uncle. I hope I’ll never stab someone
blindly without knowing who it is. I hope I’ll never
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Giotto. Legend of St. Francis. Confirmation of the Rule.

drive my beloved mad by ill-treating her. These are
all events which take place in that play, all of which
you are wiser for knowing. They are things you need
to know. Having experienced them through Hamlet,
and living deeply and richly–the good and troubling
things alike—wisdom can come to you without you
having to live it personally.
This will be especially striking when we enter
the pits of Hell in the Inferno. By encountering all the
sinners in Hell, Dante gains necessary information
without having to commit all those sins. When we
read Dante, and spiral down through the Inferno,
we are gaining knowledge vicariously, we are living
deeply and richly, gaining insights we need to have,
experiencing emotions and torments which aid us in
living. Fortunately, we don’t have to go through it
directly.
Part of this is the interior life which literature
can provide. As Brother Leo says:
The soul, the mind, needs food and exercise just as
the body does. But the food of the mind is not bread
and its exercise is not games. It feeds on visions of
truth and beauty as supplied by the master word artists
in literature. Its exercise is to wrestle with ideas as
enshrined in noble books, even as Jacob wrestled all the
night with the angel. Its reward is like Jacob’s: to receive
a joyful blessing at the dawn.

There it is; you have to feed the soul and
the mind. St. Thomas also says the soul needs
refreshment just as the body needs rest. There
is a class of literature which is not serious, deep,
or scholarly, and tends to the enjoyment factor:
delightful pleasure in a story well told. The soul and
mind need this refreshment. Other times, they need

13

training. Indeed, if you are only giving dessert to the
brain and soul, it will grow fat. As Brother Leo says:
A man, physically ill, has no appetite for beefsteak
and onions, and no desire to take part in a football
game or marathon race. Often a reader gets no benefit
from reading a masterpiece of literature simply because
he does not give himself to the work with vim, vigor,
and enthusiasm. He must take an active, not a passive,
attitude towards the great writer and the great book. He
must read creatively. Reading is a form of living.

People often complain of literature being boring;
I reply that the problem lies in us, not the book.
Take Dante, for example: for 700 years, the finest
minds have found him one of the greatest sources of
enlightenment concerning what life is about and the
overall design of the universe. Now, we think it is
boring? It is clear where the problem lies–not in the
book but in ourselves.
Brother Leo points out a reality which is hard:
some people can’t handle good literature. If you
give someone cotton candy for 18 years, and then
offer them a steak, they won’t be able to chew it.
This in spite of the fact that he is getting real food
for the first time! If the teeth have rotted away from
all the sugar, the meat cannot be eaten. The mind
that encounters great literature and says “I don’t
understand this” is the man with no teeth, gumming
a beefsteak.
Brother Leo provides a third reason for studying
literature: “to acquire culture.” Culture is a dirty
word these days, especially in universities. Culture
represents the past. Brother Leo tells us:
Through religion and art, music and literature, the
man of culture comes into vital contact with ideas of
truth, beauty, and goodness. The emotions aroused in
him, because of these refining influences, are noble and
elevated. It follows that his habits of thinking and feeling
are formed under the influence of the best and finest
ideals. Such a man has the dignity and simplicity, the
ease and self-control, the poise and independence, the
strength and gentility which are the external indications
of inner culture.

The whole point of exposing ourselves to these
great things is to be elevated. When an entire
body or populace jointly decides these things are
of value, focuses on them, and gets to know them,
you have culture. Everything is then elevated.
Consider the etymology of “culture.” Agriculture
means to grow crops. A cultured society consists
of a people growing, ennobling, and elevating
themselves. If I simply throw rocks and pebbles
into some dirt, no corn will grow. It would be my
fault. Similarly, year after year of bad movies and
lousy television and sappy novels will leave only

a barren field: nothing will grow. Then you will
be starving. Then barbarism will ensue: violence,
drugs, suicide. Religion, art, music, and literature are
not equivalent. Each one is different, but they are all
necessary.
Brother Leo gives one final reason for studying
literature: “To learn the art of self-expression.”
T. S. Eliot wrote an essay called Tradition and the
Individual Talent. In it, he points out that we can’t
do anything on our own, cut away from a tradition,
purely as an individual. Whatever you accomplish
must be part of a tradition. Before building a
house, this foundation is essential. This foundation
is represented by all the great artists and writers
before you. Eliot, wanting to be a poet, spent years
profoundly studying the poetic tradition of the
West. It’s much easier to ignore the past and write
whatever you want, however you want to write
it; the result, however, will be as shallow as your
preparation has been.
If you really want to develop ideas, you must
consult the giants of the past. Only in that way
will you have the possibility of lifting yourself up
to stand on their shoulders. And even if you don’t
do that, you will certainly develop and master the
art of expressing yourself with greater clarity and
conviction.
We are creatures of language. We were given the
gift of language with which to express, understand,
and become creatures of reason. It is part of what
makes us human. We need to master it. It takes
work. Just like riding a bicycle, it is worth learning,
but the learning process demands that we fall over,
struggle back on and maybe use training wheels.
Eventually the activity becomes second nature to us.
There is a basic degree of competence necessary.
Human speech is part of the music we make. Poetry
is human speech as music: it is where literature and
music converge.
This is just a basic overview of what literature
does for us. Beyond these considerations, I would
say that time is limited: why waste your time reading
modern spy novels or romance fiction when you
could have the best? Turn to tradition. We know
who the greatest books are written by: Homer,
Sophocles, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc. In this
series, we will only consider Dante.
(To be continued.)
Dr. David Allen White taught World Literature at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, for the better part of three decades. He gave many seminars at
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, including one on which
this article is based. He is the author of The Mouth of the Lion and The Horn
of the Unicorn. Illustration on p.10 by Gustave Doré.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

14

TELEvISIoN

The Soul aT RiSk

CONCLUSION

This is the
seventh
and last
installment
of a series on
television.
It was
originally
published as a
book by Clovis
in France
(Clovis is
the publishing
house of the
French district
of the SSPX).

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

I s a b e l l e

D o r é

ChariTY Towards
our neighbor
To what extent does television constitute an obstacle to fraternal
charity? The Church teaches us that charity towards one’s neighbor has two
aspects: patience and service. Patience consists chiefly in bearing with one’s
neighbor–his weaknesses, faults, and infirmities; service consists in putting
one’s time, money, and person at the service of one’s neighbor.
Telephobic Catholics are often reproached with being uninterested in
others and of being withdrawn. Do they lack charity towards their neighbor
by deliberately choosing to ignore the necessarily dramatic televised news?
No, for a vague and fleeting compassion experienced at these times rarely
results in true charity. At the most one gives the alms of a few prayers or
some spare change when the catastrophe was really spectacular and widely
reported. To be interested in distant events shown on television under
pretense of taking an interest in others is ultimately a caricature of charity:
in most cases there is no patience and no service.
This interest may even be an easy justification for being uninterested in
one’s actual neighbor, the one who lives with us, whose faults and failings
one must bear and whom one must serve actively, otherwise than with
some spare change. Let us take the case of parents who install their child in
front of the television, declaring: “Now I have peace; I don’t need to look
after him.” Such parents are refusing both aspects of charity: patience–“I
have peace”; and service–“I don’t need to be looking after him.”
Over time, these parents may feel a slight sense of guilt about their
child “glued” to the television, so they attempt to maintain some contact,
some bond of affection: they awkwardly try to do something, that is, to
serve their child in some easy way that reassures them in their role as
parents and keeps the child dependent on them. The service rendered
consists in doing the child’s chores, bringing him his meals and drinks in
front of the television, preparing a tray so that he can watch a program
alone in his room.
I recently heard the following statement: “You’re lucky that your
children help you. My children don’t do anything. When they come home
from school [or college] they sit down in front of the television, and if I tell
them to do something, they don’t want to. They never set the table, never

n

k

15

make their bed, never tidy their room, and make me
do three washes a day and iron their things! I have to
do it or else no one will.”
For the author of this statement, any thought of
suppressing television is out of the question because
the children like it. Since this mother of a family
makes no connection between their addiction to
television and their poor academic performances,
their inability to care for the common good of the
family or to set their hand to a task, their great
immaturity, it is unlikely that things will improve.
“Stolen Childhoods”
These parents are lacking in charity in another
manner: they deprive their children of a normal
childhood. The dedication of the book by Liliane
Lurçat, Les Enfances volées [Stolen Childhoods] is
addressed “to the children without a childhood,
whose only memories will be of television series....”
For “the children’s free time was annexed by
television: it was prison time. And their childhood
passed too often without the projects and events that
make a childhood from which one will later draw
one’s most precious memories.” Moreover, by the
time spent before the little screen and by the content
of the programs, the child is victim of a triple and
even a fourfold abandonment:
The physical abandonment of the child seated or lying too close to the set in a receptive attitude masks other
forms of abandonment. He is abandoned morally, since
he is entrusted to the seducers of childhood whose task
is to retain his attention as much as it is to entertain him
and so many other children. He is abandoned emotionally: he is afraid sometimes, left alone with the villains
he is shown, and tells no one; he may not even be able to
express his fear. He is abandoned intellectually: between
what is unreal and what is incomprehensible, how can
he understand, how can he account for what he sees?
If no one is there to accompany him, to tell him to
stay far enough away from the screen, to choose with
him, to diffuse the drama if need be when fright overcomes him, to give him an understanding of what he
is watching; if no one is there to speak to him, to listen
to him, to suggest something else to him–then he will
become accustomed to his solitude. He will adapt to it,
and soon he will no longer want the other relationships
his parents would like. He will change; he will become
progressively someone else, perhaps one of these too
numerous children who have acquired the hazardous
freedom that street children used to have, confronted by
multiple dangers and leaving childhood too soon.

Books, comic books, and magazines can also
play a negative role, and parents can abandon their
children to bad reading, but the deplorable aspect
is less evident, less seductive, and less constant: one

is more unwilling to dive into an absurd book; the
special effects are not there to compensate for the
absurdity or cruelty of the story. One more readily
gives up a book that is frightening. How many
children have watched a nightmarish film (Planet of
the Apes) with their family just so they could be with
their parents, while they would never have begun to
read such an absurd and frightening story?
Charity towards Our Children
Do parents who watch television habitually lack
charity towards their neighbor? Yes, because they
show that their children hold a reduced place in
their hearts. Numerous are the families in which the
conversation at dinner is limited to, “Keep quiet,
I’m watching TV.” For the child, this means that
his person, his cares, his problems, do not amount
to much in comparison with the silly soaps, the B
films, the sitcoms, the incessantly repeated news. It is
enough to make one doubt parental love.
A responsible father or mother of a family is
constantly confronted with the various facets of his
duty of state: one must incessantly organize, prepare,
address, intervene, check, answer, correct, support,
explain, listen, speak, reflect, and so on. One cannot
at the same time slouch in front of the television
several hours a day, devoting to it one’s thoughts and
dreams, extinguishing one’s mind and will, and have
the promptness, diligence, and attention to others
which makes one apt to organize, support, listen, or
answer.
In so doing, one places many obstacles in the
way of the graces that could wake us up or keep us
alert.
In the eyes of children, a parent who habitually
watches television is a bit like a parent who takes
drugs or drinks. If the parent is incapable of
sacrificing his favorite series or sitcom to spend time
with the children, if he is dependent to the point
of having no self-restraint in the matter, he gives a
very bad example: he shows himself to be a passive,
pleasure-seeking, selfish being, little likely to inspire
respect and love.
This also holds true for priests, those who should
take care of our souls. Some justify their time spent
in front of the little screen: “You have to know
what everyone is watching; you have to live in the
same world as they do in order to be on the same
wavelength.”
Haven’t they something better to do, these priests
who prefer to watch the world rather than look at
God and His saints? Is it by polluting his mind, his
heart, and his soul that he can bring unbelievers to
God?
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

(

T

16

Television
and Evil
The first argument given by telephobes is often
that television programming is too violent, morbid,
and immoral; the proposed models often call in
question or ridicule family models. Inversely, the
violence and the morbid images do not seem to
trouble other families, some of which even go so far
as to justify them as being a part of life. Television
violence, it would seem, has a cathartic effect.
Catharsis
About the cathartic effect of violence and
morbid images, everything has been said for and
against. Usually, people endowed with common
sense wonder whether it is a good thing for
children to be watching all this violence, while the
“intellectuals” assert that watching violence helps
viewers to dissipate their aggressive impulses. If it
is true that violent, morbid spectacles do not always
have tragic or spectacular consequences, one can
nevertheless observe that violence overall has not
diminished in society. Ergo, the alleged cathartic
effect has not occurred.
Causal Connection
It has been said that this need for violence is an
effect and not a cause. That may be, but it is never
good to feast one’s eyes on horror and violence.
In the United States and Canada, there are groups
organized against televised violence; in these
countries serious studies on the connection between
media violence and aggressive behavior have been
conducted. The American Academy of Pediatrics
officially considers that repeated exposure to media
violence increases violent tendencies and passivity
in its presence. One recent study conducted by
the University of Illinois concluded that the best
indicator of violent behavior in children over ten
years old is, not the goodness of their parents nor
their social rank or economic status, but simply
the content of the television programming viewed
around their eighth year.
Do violence and the sight of morbid spectacles
really make up a part of life? Yes and no. Of course
violence has existed since original sin. Anger,
hatred, and envy lurk in the heart of man. The
unleashing of the forces of nature, blunders and
human error still cause innumerable violent deaths.
However, the parents of previous generations for
the most part carefully shielded young children
from violent scenes, since the little ones lacked the
maturity or the capacity to be useful at the sites of
these dramas.

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

For example, in the novel by Elizabeth Goudge,
Island Magic, published in the 1930’s, a mother tries
to protect her children from the sight of victims of
drowning. In antiquity, violence was not present
24/7 for days and days. During the Hundred Years’
War, scenes of violence and pillaging certainly were
not lacking, but they did not occur day in and day
out, and people derived no pleasure in beholding
them.
In real life, when someone comes upon a scene
of violence, he is in a certain sense protected from
it: one flees, one intervenes, one is caught up in
the action, one does not really comprehend what is
happening; perhaps one even receives graces to be
blind to the nature and scope of the act. It is only
on television and at the movies that the viewer has
a right to full view of the particularly unbearable
scenes. In real life, one is half anesthetized.
The author of these lines took down the
testimony of the victim of crime, a boy of
twelve, just minutes afterward. The child had
not understood what had happened: someone
threatened him with a gun, dragged him into a dark
courtyard, disrobed; he was frightened, he fought,
but he did not understand what was done to him.
The witness did not understand any better.
It is effrontery to pretend that media violence
heals aggressive tendencies and diffuses violent
behavior. Of course, viewing violent films does not
transform all spectators into murderers, fortunately,
but it can brutalize them. It is unhealthy to get
used to watching difficult situations be resolved
by violence. In action movies, patience, goodness,
abnegation, and prayer have little place, or else
these virtues are treated as naïvete.
One certain effect of media violence is a greater
tolerance towards violence in viewers, what the
University of Illinois study terms desensitization and
indifference towards real-life violence. And then,
this violence can frighten, destabilize, and drive
to despair. It gives the impression that we live in a
terrible, hopeless world in which we are constantly
delivered over to evil forces: killers, space aliens,
ghosts, monsters, deadly bacteria…
Schadenfreude
What is most unwholesome in this violence is
the attitude of the viewer who takes pleasure in the
sometimes fictitious but sometimes real suffering
of individuals. St. Augustine already made this
comment about the theater:
Stage-plays also drew me away….Why does man
like to be made sad when viewing doleful and tragical
scenes, which yet he himself would by no means suffer?
And yet he wishes, as a spectator, to experience from
them a sense of grief, and in this very grief his pleasure
consists. What is this but wretched insanity? (Confessions, Book III, ch. ii)

17
their image: politicians–and they are not the only
In a violent scene, there is necessarily suffering.
ones–learn to sell themselves. They forget their
Of course, a viewer may watch this suffering in
convictions for the sake of the image they seek to
order to understand, to compassionate, or to act,
convey, for political expedience, for vanity. People
and not to enjoy the spectacle of suffering itself.
want to have a place in the “star system.” They
But a habitual television viewer watches suffering
let themselves be formatted by an impresario or
for amusement, like the theater-goers vilified by St.
public relations adviser to please and to seduce,
Augustine.
whether cultivating a conformist or a non-conformist
And what would St. Augustine say about
style. People are led to be more concerned about
voyeuristic reality TV? The viewer enjoys real
appearances than about being true in their thoughts
suffering staged for his viewing pleasure. A guinea
and words.
pig is placed in a difficult, unusual, dangerous
This cult of appearance and show
situation and his reactions are filmed.
ends by affecting the whole of
The film is uninteresting if all
society in varying degrees. The
goes well. For the film to be
humble virtues are despised:
appealing, there has to be
This cult of appearance
reserve, silence, solitary
drama: cries, tears, scenes of
reflection, and lowly toil
hysteria and suffering.
and show ends by
are no longer appreciated.
One day, a French TV
affecting the whole of
Gratuitous and disinterested
station broadcaster invited
action is disesteemed: of what
us to participate in filming
society in varying degrees.
use is it if it does not earn
for a reality TV show
The humble virtues are
money or glory or power?
called Live My Life. It would
Not only does television
have involved filming our
despised: reserve, silence,
cultivate this primacy of
homeschooling family life,
appearance over content by
but with the involvement
solitary reflection, and
showing us actors, singers,
of someone hostile to
lowly toil are no longer
and spokespersons chosen for
homeschooling who would
their advantageous physical
take the place of the mother
appreciated. Gratuitous
appearance–their beauty,
of the family in daily life.
and disinterested action is
their shape, their harmonious
The proposal was presented
features (moreover, their
with reassuring arguments:
disesteemed: of what use is
physique often takes the place
“It involves the confrontation
it if it does not earn money
of talent), but these seductive
of two points of view: that
personalities often perform in
of someone in favor of
or glory or power?
sentimental stories in which the
homeschooling, and that of
sixth and ninth commandments
someone opposed.”
are scoffed and love is always
After having consulted several
selfish, acquisitive, and narcissistic.
friends who own television sets and
St. John Chrysostom tried in his day
knowing by hear-say about this type of
to fight against the love of theater: “The husband
program, we formed this opinion: “People who
returns dreaming of the pretty waiting-maid and no
are interested in homeschooling do not watch this
longer finds any charm in his faded wife.” Bossuet
kind of program, and people who watch this kind
preached likewise:
of program are not interested in homeschooling.”
We understood that the purpose was not to inform
Do not love worldly spectacles in which they strive
or to debate, but to enter into a game over which
to draw you into other people’s passions and to interest
we would have no control. It would be our children
you in their revenges and mad affairs. Do not attend the
theater, for everything there, as in the world of which
who would bear the brunt of the experience:
it is the image, is either the concupiscence of the flesh,
the goal of the broadcast was not to show wellor the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life.
behaved, studious children peacefully learning the
The passions are made delectable, and all the pleasure
multiplication tables or doing spelling exercises, but
consists in arousing them….It is untrue that the Fathers
to provoke situations of conflict that would elicit
found blameworthy in the spectacles only idolatry and
extreme reactions for the greater enjoyment of the
blatant indecency. They blamed the uselessness, the
TV viewers.
dissipation, the mental turmoil, the desire to see and be
A School of Vanity
Another effect inherent in the audiovisual is the
encouragement of vanity, the need to appear, to
make oneself stand out. People are worried about

seen, the decent things surrounding the evil, the play of
the passions and the contagious portrayal of vice. (Traité
de la concupiscence)

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

18
It would seem that good literature is not
made of good sentiments. Obviously, in movies
and melodramas, bad sentiments are preferred to
good ones. It is undoubtedly a matter of marketing,
although sometimes, quite unexpectedly, a
worthwhile film meets with an unforeseen success,
like The March of the Penguins, Microcosmos: The Grass
People, or Winged Migration.
It is true that merely watching a film portraying
all manner of turpitude is not enough to elicit our
consent or for us to start practicing like turpitude.
However, as with violence, telephiles have been
observed to have a passive acceptance of all the
vices, a greater tolerance, as if by dint of having
their eyes fixed on television they finally lose their
moral discernment.

ConClusion

It is wiser not to have a television set at home.
Certainly, we all know elderly people who make a
very limited and reasonable use of one (for instance,
to watch a knowledge-based game for mental
stimulation), but no one is beyond temptation
from a guest who would like to watch his favorite
programs or a neighbor whose set is broken and
invites himself over to watch his series. If one really
must see something important or useful to one’s
work or apostolate, one can always arrange an
invitation from an obliging telephile who, thanks to
us, will have a chance to watch a program critically.
This type of necessity does not arise often and does
not really justify the purchase of a television set.
We should not think that the absence of
a television set will eliminate all educational
problems: evil can slip in in other ways, and
addictive behaviors can take other forms. Replacing
television with comic books or video games is not
the solution. The absence of television from the
home will not protect completely against its sway:
sometimes it just takes a stay in the hospital, where

television may be watched by the patient sharing
your room. Parents’ opposition to television may
be interpreted as abuse! Children may be initiated
into the use of television when visiting friends or
while the parents shop at a department store. It
is not always possible to get the set turned off, in
which case one should not hesitate to criticize and to
express one’s judgment of what has been seen and
to make the idols fall from their pedestals: the story
was stupid, improbable; the actors performed badly;
the producer falsified the subject. We should help
the children think about what they have seen so that
they at least profit by something.
If one owns DVD’s, strict rules must be
imposed, as for comic books, according to the family
and the children’s ages. It may be a half an hour
per week or once every month or fortnight. It must
not be allowed to become a drug, an occupation, or
an obsession. It is indispensable to be vigilant over
content and frequency. Most of the time, children
are not interested in DVD’s about the art of flower
arranging, the maintenance of farming equipment,
or the mayor’s powers. The danger does not lie
there.
It is important to make them understand that
being deprived of television is not a punishment–it is
a gift, an opportunity, which few children enjoy.
Translated from La Télévision, ou le péril de l’esprit (copyright Clovis, 2009)

Bibliography
Berrou, Luc. Les méfaits de la télévision sur nos enfants. Avenire de la Culture, 1994.
Blindet, René and Michel Pool. La télévision buissonnière. Ed. Jouvence, 1995.
Keraly, Hugues. Les Médias, le monde et nous. Cercle de la Renaissance française, 1977.
Legrais, Michelle. Neurones en danger. Ed. Transmettre, n.d.
Lemieux, Michel. L�Affreuse Télévision. Guérin, 1990.
Lurçat, Liliane. Le temps prisonnier: Des enfances volées par la télévision. Desclée de
Brower, 1995.
Winn, Marie. The Plug-In Drug: Television, Children, and the Family. The viking Press,
1977.

“if one owns DVD’s, strict rules must be imposed, as for comic books,
according to the family and the children’s ages. it may be a half an hour per
week or once every month or fortnight. it must not be allowed to become
a drug, an occupation, or an obsession. it is indispensable to be vigilant
over content and frequency. Most of the time, children are not interested
in DVD’s about the art of flower arranging, the maintenance of farming
equipment, or the mayor’s powers.The danger does not lie there.”

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

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)

●

June 2010

Reprint #92

The Catechetical
Teachings of
Pope St. Pius X
St. Pius X is justly known for many things: his fight against Modernism,
the lowering of the age of First Communion, and the formulation of the
Code of Canon Law among them. What is perhaps less known today is
his intense catechetical work. This article, written in 1953 by Don Silvio
Riva, provides some insight into this aspect of his life and pontificate.
In the Vatican gardens on feast day afternoons
between 1903 and 1914, an uncustomary scene
would take place: the gates of the Vatican opened
to admit an ever-growing crowd desirous of seeing
and hearing the Pope, who would comment on the
Gospel and explain the catechism as he did when
he was chaplain at Tombolo and parish priest at
Salzano. Then came an “apostolic blessing.” The
act was unusual for the Vatican’s environment, but
not for him who was born “with the catechism in his
blood.”

The Catechetical Magisterium
of St. Pius X
St. Pius X was the soul that profoundly
interpreted the role of the catechism in the life of the
Church and its salvific function in the economy of
souls. It will not be without gain to follow him, even
summarily, in his catechetical vocation as it appears
when one examines the mystery of his life.

One remembers that during his childhood
he was diligent and enthusiastic at the school of
Christian Doctrine in his native village of Riese,
where he stood out among all the children his age;
and when he was a high school student, during
summer vacations he would organize “open air
catechism classes” on the plaza of the Sanctuary of
the Madonna di Cendrole, where he deftly explained
some lessons of Christian Doctrine, listened to with
pleasure and profit by the village children. The
lessons were “active,” accompanied by alternating
songs and prayers, and made lively by the intuitive
gesticulation of the young catechist.
But once ordained priest, it was during the years
of his first assignment as chaplain at Tombolo from
1858 to 1867 that he perceived the scope of the
catechetical problem for children and adults alike.
Thanks to the practical vision he acquired from
his pastoral ministry, he observed that the pulse
of the Christian community is taken by measuring
the vitality of its catechetical instruction: without
19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

catechism, one does not make genuine Christians.
It was during these years that, having instituted a
school for the poor, he came in touch with the vital
problems of education and pedagogy, for it happened
that he replaced the village’s primary school teacher.
His awareness of catechetical instruction became
more acute while he was responsibile for the parish
of Salzano (1867 to 1875), during which he saw the
urgent needs of the people.
“I beg and beseech you to come to catechism.
Miss Vespers rather than catechism!” he would tell
his flock repeatedly, certain that if they frequented
catechism, he would soon see them at Vespers, too.
He was convinced that religious ignorance is the
root of every evil. It was at Salzano that the outline
of his famous encyclical on catechesis, Acerbo Nimis,
was born in his heart; once he was Pontiff, he merely
ratified with the supreme authority of the magisterium
what had ripened during his parish ministry.
We remember the delightful “dialogue catechism”
he would give at church with the young Don
Giuseppe Menegazzi, of the neighboring village of
Noale, to which flocked not only his own faithful,
but many other eager listeners in the surrounding
area. During the lessons of the “dialogue catechism,”
the two priests would talk to each other; one played
the part of the ignorant, and the other, the teacher.
A certain jealousy naturally arose among the priests
of neighboring villages, and this strange method of
catechism was even denounced to the bishop, who
answered: “Do likewise yourselves!”
This curious catechism enthused and interested
the people, for the ignorant made himself the
intelligent and effective interpreter of the doubts and
difficulties of the audience. The catechetical zeal of Fr.
Sarto did not prevent him from becoming aware of
a pedagogical dissonance: the catechetical textbooks
did not correspond to the mental development of the
children, who were nonetheless judged by Bishop
Zinelli, in the decree of his pastoral visitation, “well
instructed in Christian Doctrine.”
On April 18, 1885, Giuseppe Sarto was elected
Bishop of Mantua. His first pastoral visitation opened
his eyes to the immediate needs of the diocese so
well that during his conversations with the priests,
with bitterness and affliction, he constantly had on
his lips the refrain he would still repeat when he
had ascended the See of Peter: “Christian Doctrine!
Christian Doctrine! Christian Doctrine!” In a pastoral
letter to the parish priests in 1885 and during the
diocesan synod held at Mantua on September
10, 1888, he anticipated the practical rules that
constellate the Encyclical Acerbo Nimis of 1905:
In every parish a school of Christian Doctrine is to be
established, and every Sunday and holy day of obligation,

20

catechism is to be taught in every church: The pastor will
explain Christian doctrine to the children, and immediately
afterward he will teach catechism to the people from the
pulpit. During Advent and Lent, special daily instruction is
to be given to the children to prepare them for confession
and Communion. Parents, guardians, and employers who
habitually prevent their children or subordinates from regular attendance at the teaching of Christian doctrine cannot
receive absolution.

This pastoral solicitude was to push him to inform
his clergy during his second pastoral visitation: “I
shall especially be pleased by the good ordering and
progress of the teaching of Christian doctrine. This
is the subject about which I spoke to you on my
arrival in the diocese. It is what I have vigorously
recommended in all the parishes during my first
pastoral visitation, and it is the subject I shall insist
upon the most during my second visitation” (Letter
No. 501).
Monsignor Sarto had a dream, and he
enthusiastically shared it with his priests: to see the
churches of the diocese transformed into great schools
of Christian doctrine for the people. He called upon
everyone’s help, declaring that “the deepest gratitude
of his heart would be earned by the aid lent him in
such an important part of his episcopal ministry.”
Thus he wrote in a letter to the clergy dated April 19,
1893. His magnificent catechetical letters constitute
a practical summary of pedagogy and pastoral
technique from the religious magisterium and, in
my opinion, they would merit being collected and
organized in a volume and published, for they are
documents of a burning relevancy for our time.
A number of episodes followed that show his
zeal and firm, fatherly intervention on behalf of the
accomplishment of this very serious pastoral duty.
Monsignor Sarto was a courageous bishop who dared
to sound the depths of the ministry and to expose it
in its least dynamic aspects. He did not hesitate to
denounce certain forms of ecclesiastical eloquence
that failed to correspond with the genuine need of
souls: “I much prefer that the Lenten conferences,
which most of the time prove to be absolutely fruitless
because the people do not understand some speeches,
be suppressed and the distinguished orator preach
in the desert, rather than the faithful remain without
Christian doctrine and the pastor’s catechism,” he
wrote in his letter to the clergy of October 12, 1885.
In response to a question about pastoral practice
posed by some of the parish priests, namely, whether
the explanation of the Gospel could replace the
catechism lesson, he bluntly replied in the letter
quoted above:
No, the explanation of the Gospel, while necessary, cannot
take the place of catechetical instruction, for these are two
quite different duties. The explanation or homily made on the
Gospel, even if it is adapted to the meager capacity of the listeners, presupposes that the faithful are already instructed in
the rudiments of the faith, for these are recalled on the fly, so

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

to speak, while catechetical instruction must propound a truth
of faith or Christian morals and explain it in all its parts.…
Preparation for teaching catechism cannot be done without
great care, to the contrary; it requires study, even more than
for the preparation of an eloquent sermon. It has been said
aright that it is easier to find a preacher than a catechist who
can give good instruction. Whatever may be the aptitude one
may think one has, one will never be able to teach catechism
fruitfully without diligent preparation. The pretext that the
people is loutish and uncouth only increases the duty to spend
more time studying than if one had to address cultivated and
instructed persons.

Need one add that the catechetical magisterium
of Pius X did not mature on the pontifical See, but
was the laborious and considered fruition of his long
pastoral experience in the world of living souls? At
every passage, obvious correspondences stand out.
Pius X is known for the drafting of his “catechism,”
which is a precise formulary of Christian doctrine.
The origin of the “uniform catechism” goes
back to September 1889, when the first National
Catechetical Congress was held at Piacenza, presided
by the outstanding bishop and catechist that was Msgr.
Giovanni Battista Scalabrini, Bishop of Piacenza.
Msgr. Sarto was occupied with his second pastoral
visitation and so was unable to participate. However,
he presented a motion and a wish for the drafting of
a catechism that would be satisfactory by its clarity
and the simplicity of its formulas, which could be
placed in the hands of the people and understood
by them. The catechism in usage in the diocese of
Mantua did not satisfy him, nor did the catechisms
of the neighboring dioceses which he had studied
attentively, for, he confided to his clergy in a letter of
April 19, 1893, “with all due respect for the councils
and methods, I have not yet found any that can be
adapted to the needs and conditions of our diocese.”
It should be related that during the preparatory
phase of the Catechetical Congress, during a
discussion to determine whether the idea of a single
catechism, which was desired by a great number,
should be included among the topics of interest to the
congress, Msgr. Scalabrini, a balanced and refined
soul, expressed fear “lest the congress encroach upon
the authority of the bishops,” who have the right
to select and impose the catechism they consider
best adapted to their diocese. But when the motion
of the Bishop of Mantua was read, which recalled
an identical wish formulated by the Fathers of the
First Vatican Council, during an executive session,
the general opinion shifted towards this practical
objective, and it was Msgr. Scalabrini who was the
first to express his affirmative opinion. Even though
he had “decided not to refer to the development of a
uniform catechism during the Congress,” he showed
himself to be forthwith very happy to speak about it
and to conclude with a petition to be addressed to
the Holy See. The Acts and Documents of the First
Catechetical Congress of Piacenza, printed by the

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

Episcopal Press of the same diocese in 1890, precisely
report the fact and reproduce the text of Msgr. Sarto’s
motion, which deserves to be known, at least in its
most interesting passages:
The undersigned Bishop of Mantua respectfully greets the
First Catechetical Congress, and makes a proposal that he
desires to see discussed by the learned ecclesiastics who will
be taking part.
Faced with the abundance of catechisms which are lacking,
especially among those published recently, not only in form
but also in dogmatic exactitude, it is desirable to have a single
text that would be adopted for instruction in the Schools of
Christian Doctrine.
In anticipation of the objection that this is not a question
that can be treated of during a local congress because the bishops, masters of the faithful entrusted to their care, have the
right to present, each one in his own diocese, the catechism
in the form they believe the most opportune.
The Congress is not being asked to deliberate, but only to
manifest its desire on this subject and to make it known to
the Apostolic See.
Indeed, just as the Holy See established the Catechismus ad
Parochos, which belongs to the Universal Church, likewise it
is desirable that there be a popular historical, dogmatic, and
moral catechism, written in short questions and answers,
which would be taught in all the Schools of Christian Doctrine
and translated in all languages, so that in this matter also, all
may be labii unius; and this would be the foundation of the
other, more numerous institutions which must be established
by the parish priest and catechist.

He supported his desire with reasons of obvious
practical urgency, such as the uniformity of a child’s
catechetical language in its family and in the parish;
the frequent emigration of the faithful from one
parish to another–an argument making allusion to the
work of Msgr. Scalabrini for immigrants–and from
one country to another; and the fact that St. Robert
Bellarmine’s Book of Christian Doctrine, even though
composed by order of Clement VIII, “proves to
be very difficult for uncultivated minds, not only of
children, but also of adults, who in this domain are
‘quasi geniti infantes.’” Msgr. Sarto does not exclude a
few difficulties, which he judges to be “negligible in
relation to the great advantages to be gained.”
He suggested the text of the resolution: “The First
Catechetical Congress addresses a prayer to the Holy
Father, that he might command the redaction of a
popular and easy Catechism of Christian Doctrine in
the form of very brief questions and answers, divided
into different parts, and that he make it obligatory
throughout the Church.”
He then added a remark of great biographical
and apostolic interest, because it is praise and indirect
recognition of what he himself, as Pius X, was to
do for the practical achievement of this very same
episcopal motion: “It would not be the least of the
glories of Your Pontificate, and the First Catechetical

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Congress of Piacenza would have the merit of having
promoted a work of immense profit for souls.”
He was to be the one to accomplish this petition,
which the Congress forwarded to the Holy See, and
this pontifical glory would be his only 14 years later
when he became Pope. The enterprise was not easy,
but Pius X did not fear to become unpopular, for in
his soul he was still Don Giuseppe Sarto, chaplain of
Tombolo and archpriest of Salzano: that is to say, a
man of God and workman of the Church.
This was at Mantua. At Venice, when he reigned
on the patriarchal see, he was to repeat vigorously
this catechetical magisterium, stigmatizing a
deplorable oratorical formality, which remained, as
he pointedly remarked, “in the lofty heights of the
pulpit, closer to the organ pipes than the people’s
hearts.” Thus he expressed himself in a letter to his
clergy of January 17, 1895.
There is a document of considerable value and of
pastoral relevance coming from Cardinal Sarto just
two months before his accession to the patriarchal
see: it is a letter burning with zeal and full of paternal
bitterness, not unworthy of authentic patristic
literature. In it one sees the notion of the primacy
of teaching in pastors of souls take precedence over
their liturgical and sacramental ministry, a theme
that he will take up with prophetic vigor in the great
encyclical that remains sovereign among pontifical
documents concerning catechesis, because it harkens
to Christ’s docete, which precedes the baptizantes. Here
it is in its essential passages:
We preach too much and teach too little. We must put aside
these florid speeches and preach piously and simply to the
people the truths of faith, the commandments of the Church,
the teachings of the Gospel, the vices and the virtues, because
it often happens that persons well instructed in profane sciences do not know or misknow the truths of faith, and know
less of the catechism than idiotic children do. Think of the
good of souls more than the impression you hope to make.
The people thirst for truth: let them be given what they need
for the salvation of their souls; and so, instructed in their own
language, touched and moved, they will weep over their
faults and approach the divine Sacraments.

These teachings of Cardinal Sarto announce the
documents of Pope Pius X: the pontificate would only
increase their authority and force.

The Catechetical Activity
of St. Pius X
The Pope of Catechesis
There is a date in the life of Pius X and
consequently in the history of the Church, which has
particular importance, for it projects the apostolic
vigor of St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. John Chrysostom

22

and St. Augustine: April 15, 1905. The Catholic world
received from Pius X an eminent gift: the Encyclical
Acerbo Nimis on teaching Christian Doctrine. Some
of his august predecessors gave exhortatory rules
for catechesis, but the task of giving it a complete
treatment in its theological, moral, legal, and pastoral
aspects devolved to him. Even now [1953], his
encyclical constitutes the code of the Catechism for the
Catholic Church, and subsequent legislation drew
upon this source, including the Code of Canon Law
redacted under his authority and promulgated by
Benedict XV.
A brief synthesis of the document will
effectively clarify the pastoral and social content
of his catechetical thought, officially expressed at a
historical moment in which Freemasonry, which had
seized political power in several Christian nations,
“had especially attacked the public schools in order
to rear up new generations not only ignorant,”
remarked Msgr. Lorenzo Pavanelli, eminent
specialist on the catechetical problems in light of the
teaching of St. Pius X, “but also resolutely opposed
to real and authentic Christianity, that is to say,
Catholicism. Even in Italy, by cunning regulations
and underhanded ploys violating the spirit and the
letter of statutory legislation, all Christian teaching
and prayer were driven in sectarian fashion out of all
the schools, even the lower grades.”
There was on the one hand a massive front hostile
to catechism at school, even elementary school, that
advanced reasons such as the incompetence of the
priests, charged with religious teaching within the
confines of the church and who should not profane
this teaching by giving it in public schools; and on
the other hand, there was a no less hostile aversion
toward the text of the catechism itself, composed
as it was according to didactic criteria inferior
to those in practice at school. Such accusations
were supported by factions in our own camp, and
perhaps even by elements of the clergy, ignorant
of the adversary’s game. In effect, the didactical
situation of the catechism–one catechism for all the
grades–seemed delicate and vulnerable. Catechesis
at school did not fit in with the didactic structure of
the other disciplines because of its insufficient and
rudimentary methodology, because the catechetical
criterion of questions and answers exclusively learned
by heart was not the most indicated for schooling at
the time. For the same reasons they even went so far
as to denounce the deficiencies of parish catechesis,
and in the Italian parliament a blasphemous voice
of condemnation and contempt was raised which
overstepped the limits of methodology and crossed
the line into doctrinal content and the Church’s
teaching power. Finally, the teaching of religion was
banished from Italian schools.
Pius X was the man placed by Providence to
hoist the destiny of the catechism, beginning with
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

the parishes and dioceses, so that it might then
be ready and able to hold a place at school with
dignity and honor. He took up the idea of a School
of Catechism based on the thought and rules of St.
Charles Borromeo, but a school in keeping with
the times, school as it was then, with its didactic
and technical rules, with its pedagogical spirit
purified and refined by the educational treasures
of the Church and its holy educators, to whom he
fervently looked for guidance. It would be difficult
to form a fair idea of the catechetical encyclical of
Pius X without keeping in mind these determining
factors set by the circumstances, and especially by
the pedagogical and apostolic acuity of this Pontiff,
who achieved the Church’s desire for perfection
in the domain of catechesis. The program of this
document is “the renewal of the Church’s teaching
mandate by developing it within the framework of
the era, with the adoption of the best pedagogical
and didactic results, thereby impressing upon
catechesis an organization that transforms the parish
into an authentic catechetical teaching authority.”
The encyclical is thus a short treatise of pastoral
catechesis, catechetical legislation, and organization,
such as was required by the exigencies of the nascent
20th century.
The encyclical begins with an analysis of the
religious decadence caused by “ignorance of things
divine,” which leads men to insensibility to good
and evil. This leads to the corruption of morals in
which every affection of man is turned to a love of
vanity and deceit, and men stray from the paths of
justice. Pius X sees “the knowledge of divine things”
as the only guide able to direct the erring will of man,
and he does to hesitate to state that “the obligation
to dissipate this most pernicious ignorance…rests
upon all who are pastors of souls,” according to
the command of Christ. The encyclical then traces
the evangelical figure of the priest as teacher and
catechist, as propagators of the doctrine of Jesus
Christ and saviors of the human family, athirst for
light and truth. Indeed, Pius X affirms with apostolic
frankness:
…for a priest there is no duty more grave or obligation
more binding than this…. If what We have just said is applicable to all priests, does it not apply with much greater force
to those who possess the title and the authority of parish
priests, and who, by virtue of their rank and in a sense by
virtue of a contract, hold the office of pastors of souls? These
are, to a certain extent, the pastors and teachers appointed
by Christ in order that the faithful might not be as “children,
tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine
devised in the wickedness of men…. (§§9, 10).

The encyclical, in reference to the parish priests,
expounds wise rules about the catechetical
magisterium. It recalls that the teaching of
catechism comes before the explanation of the
Gospel because

The sermon on the holy Gospel is addressed to those who
should have already received knowledge of the elements of
faith. It is, so to speak, bread broken for adults. Catechetical
instruction, on the other hand, is that milk which the Apostle
Peter wished the faithful to desire in all simplicity like newborn babes. (§12)

Pius X then finds it opportune to provide the
general outline of a catechism lesson that will really
lead to amendment of life:
The task of the catechist is to take up one or other of the
truths of faith or of Christian morality and then explain it in
all its parts; and since amendment of life is the chief aim of
his instruction, the catechist must needs make a comparison
between what God commands us to do and what is our actual
conduct. After this, he will use examples appropriately taken
from the Holy Scriptures, Church history, and the lives of the
saints–thus moving his hearers and clearly pointing out to
them how they are to regulate their own conduct. He should,
in conclusion, earnestly exhort all present to dread and avoid
vice and to practice virtue. (§13)

In the clear pedagogical conception of Pius X, the
lesson comprises four parts: the first makes an appeal
to the mind by the master’s lively, oral exposition
in which he examines the particular truth in all its
parts. In this part, the teaching aspect of catechism
dominates, as distinguished from mere moralizing, in
which doctrine is absent and the mind left inactive.
The Pontiff likes simple, forceful catechesis, which
he demands be dispensed with great clarity and
simplicity. Once the truth has been expounded, its
application to practical life follows: this calls for an
interior act of reflection and verification, engaging
the understanding and facilitating assimilation
and possession of the truth. It is tantamount to
an examination of conscience injected quickly
into the catechism lesson, the efficacy of which is
incalculable. The mind that before was hesitant about
a truth of faith now seeks support and confirmation
in practical, lived examples that extend beyond
religious knowledge as such and translate into the
lives of men as it is represented in sacred literature,
or reliable historical truth which constitutes literature
for edification and encouragement. This is the appeal
to the sensibility, which receives so much emphasis
in contemporary pedagogy. The heart has its role in
catechesis, as in all teaching, and Pius X, with the
sensible balance that characterizes him, discreetly
assigns it its place so that it can fulfill its function. The
fourth part is reserved to the will, of which Pius X
shows that he has a lofty and sovereign conception,
for it is man’s backbone. The final exhortation he
desires as a conclusion to the lesson is volitional,
for once the motives for action have been exposed
and illustrated, there is nothing left but to exhort the
pupils to put them into practice. The common sense

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

and the cultured–in order that they may arrive at eternal
happiness. (§26)

of these volitional applications is worth pointing out,
for they do not end in cold, illogical exhortations;
they are grafted on the living trunk of the lesson,
in which the foundations of doctrine and hence of
motivation have been laid. Contemporary volitional
psychology rightly extols the indispensable character
of motivation that persuades the understanding and
discovers to it the beauty of truth, which becomes
lovable through the heart’s office: from there to the
will, the passage is short.
Without any display of pedagogical erudition,
Pius X summarizes the best of the Catholic
Church’s knowledge of education handed on by the
experience of the most reputable persons worthy
of the confidence of Christian schools. Even today,
almost a half a century after the promulgation of this
encyclical, it is astonishing to glimpse such freshness,
vigor, and truth, and it must be admitted that some
saints can teach every age and offer, in a nutshell, the
vital principle of what men will do afterwards.
After outlining the lesson, Pius X confirms the
oral nature of catechetical teaching: “Faith then
depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of
Christ” (Rom. 10:17, quoted in §16). It was from
this truth that an academic program for catechetical
instruction was developed and put in place by a
handful of apostolic priests who were able to adapt
the teaching of catechism to the school setting,
organized by grades in parallel to the public school
grades, with professors, a curriculum, textbooks,
registration, grades, teachers’ manuals, supplementary
instructional material; with an office, secretariat,
examinations and competitions, rewards and feasts,
celebrations and apostolate.
Finally, the encyclical establishes the norms and
directives for parish priests, concluding with a fervent
appeal to the duty of pedagogical preparation, which
even today occupies the lion’s share of catechetical
efforts:
We do not, however, wish to give the impression that this
studied simplicity in imparting instruction does not require
labor and meditation–on the contrary, it demands both more
than any other kind of preaching. It is much easier to find
a preacher capable of delivering an eloquent and elaborate
discourse than a catechist who can impart a catechetical
instruction which is praiseworthy in every detail. No matter
what natural facility a person may have in ideas and language, let him always remember that he will never be able
to teach Christian doctrine to children or to adults without
first giving himself to very careful study and preparation.
They are mistaken who think that because of inexperience
and lack of training of the people the work of catechizing can
be performed in a slipshod fashion. On the contrary, the less
educated the hearers, the more zeal and diligence must be
used to adapt the sublime truths to their untrained minds;
these truths, indeed, far surpass the natural understanding
of the people, yet must be known by all–the uneducated

24

Pius X repeats this point several times in the
encyclical, persuaded that fruitful catechesis largely
follows upon a preparation adapted to the pupils:
without wishing to, he has described himself, for Don
Giuseppe Sarto, then Bishop, Patriarch and lastly
Pope, prepared his catechism lessons at Tombolo and
Salzano, at Mantua and Venice, and even those he
gave from the Chair of Peter, in just this way.
The Pope of the Catechism
In his youth, he studied catechism in the books
of his time. As a young priest, he lamented the
inadequacy of the texts and programs ill-adapted to
the mental capacity of his pupils, but he said nothing.
As a parish priest, he highlighted this lacuna and
perhaps contented himself with talking about it to
fellow priests and calling for a sound revision. He
supplied the deficiencies of method by his words
and skillful presentation. As bishop of Mantua, he
observed the insufficiency of the diocesan catechism:
he would have liked to see the material organized
more rationally, the form and style less rhetorical
and plainer and more concrete, simpler and more
concise. We have already spoken of his motion at
the first National Catechetical Congress of Piacenza
in 1889–which remained a dead letter until 1912, the
year in which he promulgated his catechism.
[Almost a century] has elapsed since that 12th of
October on which Pius X wrote a letter to Cardinal
Pietro Respighi, his vicar general for the city of
Rome. The Letter, imbued with paternal fervor, is
as it were the synthesis of all his other writings on
catechesis. As such, it ought to be made known for
the benefit of priests and Christian educators, who
will find in its lines an abundance of doctrine and
wise rules for catechetical instruction.
From the beginning of Our Pontificate we have taken the
greatest care for the religious instruction of the Christian
people, and in particular of children, convinced that a great
part of the evils afflicting the Church arise from ignorance of
its doctrine and laws. The enemies of the Church condemn it,
blaspheming what they do not know, and very many of her
children, failing to appreciate this doctrine and its laws, live
as if they were not children of the Church. That is why we
have often insisted upon the urgent necessity of catechetical
instruction, and we have promoted it everywhere, according
to our power, by the Encyclical Letter Acerbo Nimis, and by
regulations concerning the teaching of catechism in the parishes, but also by the approbation and encouragement given
to catechetical congresses and schools of religion, and by the
introduction here at Rome of the text of the Catechism used
in some of the major ecclesiastical provinces of Italy.
However, several years having passed, because of the
new difficulties cunningly erected against any teaching of
Christian doctrine in the schools, where it had been taught
for centuries, but also by the useful anticipation, wished by
Us, of the first Holy Communion of children, and for other
motives, the desire having been expressed to Us for a suitable

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Catechism, which would be much shorter and better adapted
to today’s needs, we have consented to the abridgment of the
old Catechism into a new, concise one, which We, Ourselves,
have examined and which We wished to have examined by
many Fellow Bishops of Italy, so that they might express their
opinion in general and indicate in particular, according to
their knowledge and experience, changes to be made.
Having received from them an almost unanimous favorable appreciation, as well as a great number of precious
observations which We have ordered to be taken into
account, it seems to Us that we ought not to postpone a substitution of a text recognized to be opportune for different reasons. We are confident that this text, with the Lord’s blessing,
will prove to be much more practical and also profitable–if
not more–for souls than the former: Significantly abridged,
it will not discourage the youngest, on whom already weigh
heavy scholastic burdens, and it will permit the masters and
catechists to have it learned in its entirety. In spite of its
brevity, one finds better explained and emphasized there the
truths which today are the most combated, misunderstood,
or forgotten, to the great detriment of souls and of society.
We are even confident that adults who wish to revitalize in
their soul the fundamental knowledge upon which rests the
Christian moral and spiritual life–as they ought sometimes
in order to live better and to educate their families–will
find useful and will appreciate this short, carefully worded
compendium, in which they will find expounded with great
simplicity the chief divine truths and the most effective
Christian reflections.
This Catechism, and the rudiments we would like
excerpted without modification of the wording for the use of
young children, We approve and consequently prescribe for
the diocese and the ecclesiastical province of Rome, by the
authority of this present letter, and We forbid that henceforth
any other text be used in catechetical instruction. As for the
other dioceses of Italy, it is sufficient for Us to express the
wish that the same text, judged by Us and by numerous Ordinaries, also be adopted there, so that, among other reasons,
the detrimental confusion and inconvenience many experience today in their frequent changes of domicile, finding in
their new place of residence notably different formulas and
texts which they have difficulty learning even as they confuse
and finally forget what they already knew. It is worse for the
children, for nothing is more fatal to the success of teaching
than to pursue it with a different text from the one to which
the child is already more or less accustomed.
And as the adults may meet with some difficulties in teaching the present text, for it departs from the previous in certain
formulas, and to remedy this inconvenience, We command
that at the beginning of all the main Masses and classes of
Christian doctrine the essential prayers and main formulas be
recited aloud clearly and slowly. In this way, after some time
and without effort, all will have learned them, and an excellent habit of common prayer and instruction will have been
introduced, which is already in force in numerous dioceses
in Italy, not without edification and profit.
We firmly exhort in the Lord all the catechists, now that
the very brevity of the text facilitates their work, to endeavor
with the greatest care to explain Christian doctrine and make
it penetrate into the souls of young children, so great is the
need today for solid religious instruction because of the diffusion of impiety and immorality. Let them remember that
the fruit of catechism depends almost totally upon their zeal
and knowledge and skill at making the teaching lighter and
appealing to the pupils.

We pray God that just as today the enemies of the Faith,
ever more numerous and powerful, propagate error by every
means, so also may arise a great number of souls desirous of
zealously assisting the parish priests, instructors, and Christian parents in the teaching of catechism, as necessary as it
is noble and fruitful.

The date and the august signature, preceded
by an affectionate benediction, seal this important
pontifical document, which has lost nothing of its
urgency and practicality.
A few notes of a didactic character should be
made in the margin of this little masterpiece of
Christian catechesis which was the code of the
Faith for generations of children. The “catechism,”
as it is known, was drafted at the order of St. Pius
X by abridging the former text used in certain
Italian dioceses, which was very extensive and little
indicated for use by primary school children who,
thanks to the Decree Quam Singulari by the same Pius
X, could make their first Holy Communion sooner
than previously. A sufficient but short catechism
was needed that could easily be learned by heart, in
conformity with the august teachings of the encyclical
of 1905. Memorization made its entrance into
Catechism class as a dike to check the collapse of a
body of knowledge that was not taking sufficient root
in the child’s mind, dissipated by the onset of puberty
and still more by adolescence. Pope Pius X personally
examined the new edition.
Thus it is that we have the “Catechism of
Christian Doctrine” called, even today, the
“Catechism of St. Pius X,” a precious little book
that has educated and is still educating in the faith
entire generations of Catholics. In the didactical
organization of catechetical instruction, a formulary is
distinct from an actual text: the formulary condenses
in very brief, precise statements the essence of a
religious truth so that it can be learned entirely
by heart; the text, on the contrary, based on the
formulary, develops the truth in a simple and clear
fashion so as to reach the same formula as a logical,
theological conclusion. The Catechism of St. Pius X
is a formulary, it is not a text; as such it is useful to
both great and small, to the learned and the illiterate.
It is the orthodox synthesis of Catholic doctrine, of
dogmatic, moral, and sacramental theology, in a very
simple didactic form. It possesses all the qualities
of a synthesis: conciseness, clarity, simplicity,
integrity, and fidelity. Of course, to be understood
by the pupils, the formulas require, like the rules of
grammar, the teacher’s explanation. The formula
cannot replace the teacher’s personal instruction.
That is why as a synthesis, the formulary of Pius X is

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

the most remarkable work we could have had in the
domain of catechism to the present day.
The difficulty of the wording of some of the
formulas, hard and dry for a child’s mind, has been
noted. It is obvious that the catechism by nature
abounds in abstract terms and speculative notions,
but that is inherent in Christian doctrine, which
is revealed and which concerns the relationship
of created man with the Creator God. That the
Catechism of St. Pius X may sometimes seem
difficult to children is granted, especially in certain
particularly condensed formulas, but the division of
the subject matter into cycles, currently in vigor in
teaching texts, mitigates the asperity by dosing the
contents of the catechism according to the children’s
age. Perhaps the most widespread error is to consider
it as a text when it is simply a formulary which all
the writers of textbooks can draw upon. There is
another error, which consists in conceiving of it as a
point of departure in oral catechesis when in fact it is
the point of arrival, the conclusion of the exposition
of the lesson given by the instructor with the aids
contemporary pedagogy recommends.
Decades of experience have taught many things
about the formulary of Pius X: it has first and
foremost assured the precious unity and uniformity of
terminology which is very important in the religious
study of children and of the people, and which
was one of the holy Pontiff’s principal intentions.
Also, the remarks he made in 1912 on the frequent
migration of families from one town to another,
have been largely confirmed today by the continual
moving of families within a country. Questions of
terminology, concerning the conciseness of concepts,
can be explained by the absolute respect for doctrinal

26

$2.00 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.

SHIPPING & HANDLING
Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

5-10 days

USA

For eign

$4.00
$6.00
FREE

25% of
subtotal

Up to $50.00
$8.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $10.00
Over $100.00
$8.00

2-4 days

FLAT FEE!

($10.00 minimum)

48 Contiguous
States only.
UPS cannot
ship to
PO Boxes.

Available from:

ANGELUS PRESS

2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, Mo 64109 USA

Phone: 1-800-966-7337
www.angeluspress.org

exactness and precision. There were, in effect,
here and there some attempts at new catechetical
formularies, perhaps in the intention of replacing
that of St. Pius X. They succeeded in being clearer
and less hard, but by increasing the amount of
text, explaining in half a page what the Catechism
of St. Pius X explained in a maximum of two or
three lines. The latter still remains vivid, perennial,
incisive. It is a monument of doctrine, synthesis,
clarity, and piety, for the short catechetical formulas
are full of unction and inculcate true Christian piety.
(To be continued.)

Translated from Courrier de Rome, January 2010.

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

27
F r .
T h o m a s
J a t z k o w s k i ,
F S S P X

“THE LORD’S
PRAYER”
“Our Father, who art in heaven”
Modern man no longer needs a “father in heaven.” He is his own
master and legislator. Scientific research operates under “freedom
of values in science,” a godless “exclusion” of God. For feminists
and those of the revolutionary emancipation movements, this line
of the Our Father is either an incredible impertinence, or simply an
erroneous translation which could be amended by a new “politically
correct Bible”: “O God, who art our father and mother in heaven,”
or simply “Mater Noster.”
Similarly, a more precise determination of the word “our”
seems unfit for our era of postmodernism, with its individualism and
selfishness–not “our,” but “my” should be correct. And “heaven”
is just something for bedtime stories, more opium for the people, a
consolation for theoretical eternity. Already, the beginning of the
“Our Father” appears to be anything but natural or understandable
in the modern world view. What was so dear to the early Christians,
the address of Jesus Christ, “Abba (Dear), Father,” seems to have
now become for many an ideological issue.
The Unapproachable Yet Very Familiar God
If we have to approach outstanding public figures, we consider
very carefully the manner of address and choice of words. In the
Lord’s Prayer, it is all the more surprising that our Lord Jesus Christ
teaches us to address God simply and directly as “Father.” There is
no “holy” or “most holy” beforehand, but quite simply, “Father.” By
way of address, we show a person special respect and honor him.
When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He taught
them exactly this form of address, which expresses our love in an
almost familiar intimacy. It was the will of God that we may call Him
and pray to Him as “Father.”
The beginning of the Our Father is not abrupt as if the praying
person would right away assail God with prayers and supplications.
Before the individual exposes his requests and concerns, he must first
of all worship and praise God in an appropriate way. The “Abba,
Father” is an address from the Aramaic world, an appeal of children
to their father. It is very surprising that our Lord Jesus Christ shared
His relationship to His Father with us. After all, we ourselves would

Part 2 of 10
1) Introduction
2) Our Father
who art in heaven,
3) hallowed be
Thy name;
4) Thy kingdom come;
5) Thy will be done,
on earth as it is
in heaven!
6) Give us this day
our daily bread
7) and forgive us
our trespasses,
8) as we forgive those
who trespass
against us,
9) and lead us not into
temptation, but
deliver us from evil.
10) Amen.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

28
not incorporate every outsider without exception
into the intimacy of our closest family circle.

Mount teaches us more about the spirit of childhood
in a very impressive way.

The Paternal Qualities of God
To properly understand and pray the Lord’s
Prayer, one must be careful with the projection of
images of human fathers onto God. On the one
hand, God is also generating and providing care,
and, on the other hand, there are true differences
between the “fatherhood of God” and human
fatherhood. Our Lord Jesus Christ makes a proper
distinction between the heavenly Father and a
human father by adding the phrase “Who art in
heaven.” For example, the love of God is completely
untroubled by secondary motives; God always wants
only the best for the children of God. Almighty
God always has the possibility of realizing His best
intentions for His children.

Freedom and Responsibility
of God’s Children
Do we always live up to the responsibility and
the title of “children of God”? When we call God
our Father, we have to live as sons of God. From
the image and likeness of God and the adoption as
a child of God results the necessity to move closer
to the ideal of the child of God, meaning for us
a lifetime of effort putting off the “old man.” As
children of God we owe God worship, imitation,
obedience, and patience in trials, as St. Thomas
summarizes in his Compendium (see Comp. Theol., II,
cp. 5-8).

Adopted Children and Heirs of God
God Himself has adopted us as children of
God. Through baptism, God incorporates us into
the Mystical Body of Christ. “But as many as
received him, he gave them power to be made the
sons of God...” ( Jn. 1:12). “And if sons, heirs also;
heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ...”
(Rom. 8:17). By sanctifying grace, God has made us
partakers of the divine nature.
God as Creator and Preserver of Being
God is our Father because he created us. Not
only that, He has created us in His image (cf.
Gen. 1:26). All created being is subject to the
preservation and government of God, which is only
a continuation of the creativity of God. The divine
act of preservation is, strictly speaking, not a new
activity in addition to creation, but rather something
like a perpetual continuation.
Faith and Trust in the Spirit of Childhood
The Lord’s Prayer at the beginning already
breathes the spirit of adoption, which St. Paul
describes so well: “For you have not received
the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have
received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby
we cry: Abba (Father)” (Rom. 8:15). The spirit
of adoption speaks from every line of the Lord’s
Prayer. A genuine spirit of adoption will foster the
sentiments of childlike devotion and sincere trust.
“Childlike innocence” in this case does not mean
mere naivety, but rather an undisguised simplicity
and the certainty of being loved by the Father.
A crucial key to the success of a godly prayer is
confidence. Doubt and mistrust are poisons for
the fruitfulness of prayer. The one who prays must
have confidence above all: “But let him ask in faith,
nothing wavering” ( James 1:6). The Sermon on the
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Worship of God
A child of God owes God worship for reasons
of justice or pietas: “Est enim pietas iustitia adversus
deos–for piety (pietas) is justice towards the gods,” as
an old Latin pre-Christian saying goes. The worship
of God should be done sincerely, which necessarily
includes a Christian life and the practice of justice
towards others in everyday life.
True Imitation of the Father
of Love, Mercy, and Perfection
The imitation of our heavenly Father must
be measured in our practice of love, mercy, and
perfection. Therefore if the one who prays the
Lord’s Prayer were inhumane or cruel, his prayer
would not be honest. “You have heard that it hath
been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate
thy enemy. 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, who
maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and
raineth upon the just and the unjust” (Mt. 5:43-45).
Similarly, a child of God has to exercise mercy
because the heavenly Father forgives our sins again
and again in the sacrament of confession through
His mercy. The fifth beatitude of the Sermon on the
Mount calls for the exercise of mercy: “Blessed are
the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Mt. 5:7).
God is “the Father of mercies” (II Cor. 1:3). A true
imitation of the heavenly Father must take seriously
this verse: “Be you therefore perfect, as also your
heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48).
Submission to the Will of God
The opening words of the Lord’s Prayer already
show, even before the request “Thy will be done,”
the necessity of obedience to the will of God.

29
Patient Perseverance
In light of the cross, the sincere worshipper has
to believe the Lord’s Prayer because, “the sufferings
of this time are not worthy to be compared with the
glory to come” (Rom. 8:18) and “whom the Lord
loveth, he chastiseth” (Prov. 3:11).
That Small Word: “Our”
The word “our” shows us our special
relationship with God, but in no way expresses
possession of God. This special relationship of God’s
children to their father rather points to the affiliation
of the children to their father. Where “our” is prayed
sincerely, selfishness and individualism must give
way to the love received from God. The “our” at the
beginning of the Lord’s Prayer and “we” in the last
four petitions are not a sign of separation, but rather
of interaction and unity in the one Mystical Body of
Christ, of which all the baptized are members. We
pray with all the baptized and for all the baptized,
for all living and dead believers in Christ. The
concern of someone who prays the Lord’s Prayer
should be as open and broad-minded as the allencompassing love of God–simply endless. We have
only a right to pray this word “our” if we do not
set limits to charity, which can only then be true
Christian charity–if it proceeds from the charity of
God, which has no limits.
“Who art in heaven”–Lifting Up Your Eyes
to the Promised Fatherland
This description of God seems superfluous, if
not paradoxical. Of course God is in heaven; why
would we want to emphasize this point? Moreover,
God is everywhere, in heaven and on earth. God
even dwells in the soul of the baptized if he lives in
a state of sanctifying grace and mortal sin has not
separated him from God. The meaning of this line
must therefore be different.
With this apparently superfluous phrase, Our
Lord Jesus Christ wanted to direct our view towards
our true, eternal goal. The words “Who art in
heaven” can be a real eye-opener to the supernatural
and even for God to the prejudiced souls who live
lives of worldliness, oblivion of heaven and the
afterlife, and senselessness. The praying soul is
made to look up from our earthly exile to our true
homeland. St. John Chrysostom (+ 407), the famous
Father of the Church, interprets this description of
the Father as the intention of Jesus: “Not for God
to include him, so to speak, in heaven, but in order
to separate the worshipper from the earth, to lift
him up to higher heavenly things” (in Homily on St.
Matthew, XIX, 7).
The praying soul should be liberated from the
forgetfulness of his eternal destiny. This lifting of his
eyes up to the eternal home can be, for the praying

soul, a true remedy against his fixation on earthly
things in the wake of earthly concerns, needs,
selfishness, greed, materialism, etc.
The Longing for Heaven
The praying soul must apply the invocation
“Who art in heaven” practically in seeking what is
heavenly, as St. Paul exhorts us: “Seek the things
that are above; where Christ is sitting at the right
hand of God” (Col. 3.1). This is a lifelong task
calling for a further education in the Faith. With the
words “Who art in heaven,” the praying soul will
become aware of the ultimate goal of life: eternal
happiness. Through prayer, the yearning for heaven
is entertained. Of course, this alone is not sufficient
because it has to find its expression in everyday life.

Convent of the Pater Noster in Jerusalem

The Church of the Pater Noster in
Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives
At the site of the present church there was
a former church from the time of Emperor
Constantine, which was destroyed in 614. The spot,
which has been maintained since the Crusades,
is where Our Lord taught people how to pray
this prayer. It was acquired in 1868 by a French
Catholic. The current French Carmelite monastery
was then built. On the walls of the hall and of the
cloister, there are tiles of Majolica with the text of
the Our Father in 140 languages.
(To be continued.)
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX, was ordained in 2004, and is currently prior
of St. Teresa of Avila Priory, Hamburg, Germany.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

30

Church an

Thiberville: The Story Continues

a

ccording to the website Osservatore Vaticano,
Cardinal hummes of the
Congregation of the Clergy has
rejected the appeal filed by Fr.
Francis Michel against his sudden
dismissal from the parish of Thiberville by his bishop in January, 2010.
The letter, signed March 26, informs Fr. Michel that his appeal has been rejected
and that, canonically speaking, the parish of Thiberville no longer exists. There
are further canonical appeals possible, but the point is this: Whatever positive
developments may occur in the Church (such as the relative proliferation of
Masses under Summorum Pontificum), the general tenor remains the same.The
crisis continues. (Source: Rorate Caeli, angelus Press)

On the
Beatification of
Pope Pius XII
Reuters announced on February 17 that eighteen Catholic theologians–from the United States,
Germany, and Australia–sent the
Pope an “unusual and impassioned”
letter in which they admit they
are “troubled” by Benedict XVI’s
decision last December to recognize the heroic virtues of Pius XII.
“We implore you,” they write to
the Pope, “…to be patient with the
cause of Pius XII.” They fear in
particular that beatification of the
World War II Pope “might harm
Jewish-Catholic relations in a way
that cannot be overcome in the
foreseeable future.” Among the signatories are Fr. John Pawlikowski,
a member of the Catholic Theological Union and an historian of
Judaism and the Holocaust, and
Eugene Fisher, an expert on relations between Catholics and Jews
for the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.
According to L’Osservatore
Romano of February 16, the American foundation Pave the Way
(PTWF) has obtained the Holy
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

See’s permission to digitize and
publicize “free of charge” and “very
soon” the Acts and Documents of the
Holy See Relative to the Second World
War taken from the closed section
of the Vatican Secret Archives. It
concerns twelve volumes that were
published between 1965 and 1981
by four Jesuits, Frs. Pierre Blet,
Angelo Martini, Robert Graham,
and Burkhart Schneider, at Paul
VI’s behest in 1964. The Holy See’s
newspaper “intends to render service to historical truth” with the
posting of these documents on line.
“Ironically, the Vatican Secret
Archives [from the period prior] to
1939 were opened over two years
ago,” and they showed that “65
percent of Pacelli’s ministry has
simply been ignored by the critics
who call for the war years to be
opened,” declared Gary Krupp,
the Jewish founder and president
of the PTWF, which will be publishing online 5,125 documents
belonging to the Vatican Archives
from the period covering March
1939 to May 1945. Pave the Way
intends thereby “to show clear evidence of Pope Pius XII’s efforts to
mitigate suffering during the war
and that the ‘black legend,’ which

besmirched his name, is simply not
true.”
The documents will be available on the Pave the Way Foundation web site as well as that of
the Vatican. Founded in 2002, the
foundation describes itself as “[a
non-sectarian public foundation]
dedicated to achieving peace by
closing the gap in tolerance, education and the practical relations
between religions, through cultural, technological and intellectual
exchanges.”
Asked on February 2 4 by
L’Osservatore Romano about the contribution that the opening of the
Vatican archives on the pontificate
of Pius XII might make, Fr. Bernard
Ardura, president of the Pontifical
Committee for Historical Sciences,
confi ded that “the simple fact of
providing access to the sources is
in itself a fundamental contribution, but that does not mean there
will be surprising discoveries.” The
Premonstratensian underscored
that, even if this opening were not
“decisive,” it would be “very useful
for a knowledge of the figure and
work of Pope Pacelli, at last freed
from much too facile and worn-out
prejudices.” The French religious,
secretary of the Pontifical Council
for Culture since 1997, was named
on December 3, 2009, by Benedict
XVI to the head of the Pontifical
Committee for Historical Sciences,
which gathers some thirty researchers from the international academic
world.
After the French philosopher
Bernard-Henry Lévy, it is now the
turn of the lawyer and historian of
Rumanian extraction Serge Klarsfeld to take up the defense of the
memory of Pius XII. The Osservatore Romano of March 6, 2010,
in an article entitled “The Nazi
Hunter and Pius XII,” commented
on a dossier published in Le Point
of February 25 under the title “The

and World
Pius XII Affair.” In it Serge Klarsfeld declared: “People forget that
the Vatican, hemmed in, censured,
was dealing with a very determined
enemy–Nazism. The Jews weren’t
anybody’s priority. People are conducting an anachronistic trial of
Pius XII.”
“The Pius XII Affair” revealed
the existence of a broader and more
complex movement to which are
attached current accusations being
leveled against the Western leaders
of the time and the Red Cross. In
the same story, the Franco-Israeli
historian Saul Fridländer affirmed
that, as far as he was concerned, if
Pius XII “had spoken, even if there
had been reprisals, the grandeur
of the Church would have been
remembered.”
(Source: DICI)

Rabbi Calls Media
Coverage of
Church Abuse
Scandal Onedimensional
In an interview with the Catholic News Agency (CNA), Rabbi
Jack Bemporad commented on the
recent media onslaught concerning
the Holy Father, calling the coverage “one dimensional” and saying
that the depiction of the Church
in the media has not been given
“proper context.”
Rabbi Bemporad, director of
the New Jersey-based Center for
Interreligious Understanding, was
recently quoted as a lone voice in
an Associated Press article in which
other Jewish leaders denounced the

Liturgy Conference in Los Angeles
in March, the archdiocese of los angeles in California held a liturgy conference.
a picture says a thousand words.
in related news, Cardinal Mahony’s successor was announced recently: Jose
Gomez will succeed Cardinal Mahony in 2011. he is known to be somewhat
in favor of the old Mass.
(Source: angelus Press)

31

papal preacher, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, for his comments likening
the media depiction of the Church
to anti-Semitism.
In the AP article released on
April 2, and in a follow-up interview with CNA, Rabbi Bemporad defended the papal preacher.
Although the rabbi believes Fr.
Cantalamessa used a “poor example,” ultimately, the preacher’s
“point is correct.”
What the preacher intended to
indicate through his homily, Rabbi
Bemporad said, was that “you can’t
collectively condemn the Church
for what some priests and some
individuals in the Church may have
done.”
Addressing those who have
criticized Pope Benedict in recent
days, Rabbi Bemporad stated that
“you’ve got to have a sense of
compassion, charity, and saying
‘how can we help you do this properly?’ instead of condemning him
and saying, ‘See, you’re not doing
enough.’”
“We’re so quick to judge, we’re
so quick to condemn,” he stressed.
“There’s no charity, there’s no compassion, no sympathy, and no, by
the way, self-criticism.”
A lot of sex abuse involving
children is going on, the rabbi
noted. “It’s not simply a Catholic
problem.”
“I do think that the pope is
trying to do the best he can,” he
added.
The rabbi also took a jab at the
media coverage of the Pope, calling it “very one-dimensional” and
charging that many of the reports
have not placed Vatican actions “in
the proper context.”
“The tragedy of the media,”
Rabbi Bemporad stated, “is that it
has a capacity to educate; instead,
what it does is cater to the worst
element in human beings. The most
voyeuristic element.”
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

32

Church an

La Salette Seniors Noted in Paper

T

he News-Gazette, an illinois paper,
recently featured a story about five
students from Notre Dame de la
Salette Boys’ academy, a boarding high
school run by the SSPX. What made
these five students so unique to the paper
was their desire to pursue vocations.The
paper quotes the headmaster, Fr. McMahon, who says la Salette is “not a minor
seminary with the direct goal of preparing
men to enter the religious life. Rather, its
purpose is to form solid Catholic men,
zealous and generous.”
The paper continues:
“The fact that outside distractions–
such as video games and girls–are not

present while opportunities
to attend Mass occur daily,
makes it easier for the students to focus on long-term
plans.
“ ‘The environment is set up
to form men, plain and simple,’
Golightly said. ‘Some of the reasons
that more young men from la Salette
try the priesthood is because they are
in an environment that is conducive to
thought and prayer, which is the key to
finding God’s path for you.’
“Carlisle said that with the focus on
discipline and ‘doing the right thing as
opposed to doing what feels good or

what’s easier,’ the result is ‘to
form men of character and
principle.’
“he added: ‘While i in no
way felt “pushed” to pursue
the priesthood, the la Salette
system, which stresses doing God’s
will in all things, prepared me to make
the decision when the time came.
“ ‘as for the sacrifice involved, it is
tough giving up all the world has to offer.
one is only truly happy and at peace
when he is doing God’s will, and thus the
reward of the priesthood far outweighs
the sacrifice.’”
(Source: News-Gazette, angelus Press)

“We shouldn’t be so quick to
grab at headlines which are virulent, and in my opinion, hysterical,”
he asserted.
The New Jersey rabbi also
praised Pope Benedict for his efforts
in helping advance the relationship
between the two faiths, saying the
pontiff has “tried to be a friend”
and has done whatever he can “to
show the close relationship between
Catholics and Jews.”
“All I am asking for is charity,”
and “that we should think about
how we can help one another, not
condemn one another,” said the
rabbi.
(Source: Catholic News Agency)

developments in the Church in
2009. Here are some excerpts:
“Even today it is a difficult
undertaking to speak of the importance of the liturgy for the Church.
Twenty years ago it was almost
hopeless finding a sympathetic ear.
It was a foregone conclusion for
many clerics that the traditional,
over 1500-year-old liturgy of the
Church was decorative mumbojumbo for the nostalgic and for
aesthetes. It had the same importance for ‘emancipated Christians’
as the string quartets played on
occasions of state have for politics.
What had been true throughout the
entire history of the Latin Church
had been forgotten: that liturgy
is the visible body of the Church;
that Church and liturgy are identical. It is the mystic depiction of
the whole plenitude of revealed
truths. It is the locus of faith, where
subjective conviction and feeling
become objective contemplation
and encounter. It is this liturgy
which carried the Christian faith
through the centuries. The success
of the mission in the entire world

was owed to its sacrality in liturgical
language and chant.
“The liturgy had soared above
the deep divides of European history because it was equally removed
from every epoch into which it
entered. It is always unseasonable
and therefore always an image of
the other reality which awaits man.
This great form of the liturgy had
been softened up by Paul VI’s radical reform of the mass–an intervention unheard of in the entire history
of the Church. It splintered into a
thousand improvisations.
“But why was Archbishop
Lefebvre the only bishop in the
entire world who uncompromisingly rejected this attack against the
liturgy and thus against the Church?
With this no to a process of decomposition so highly dangerous to the
Church, Lefebvre entered ecclesiastical history. What gave him the
strength was the milieu, only found
in France, of a Catholic laity which
had acquired its world view in the
struggle against aggressive republican secularism...

Martin
Mosebach on
Pope Benedict XVI
M a r t i n Mo s e b a ch , w h o s e
famous book, The Heresy of Formlessness, has been well-received in
traditional Catholic circles in recent
years, gave his thoughts on recent
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

and World
“Must he [Pope Benedict] not,
however, have felt a sense of obligation to the SSPX; that, for all its
faults, it had become an instrument
for preserving the Holy of Holies of
the Church in a time of crisis?”
(Source: Rorate Caeli/Angelus Press)
In another interview, with The
European, he said:
“We have to ask ourselves why
there was an increase in sex crimes
by priests in the aftermath of the
Second Vatican Council. There
can be no denying that this experiment in Aggiornamento–the assimilation of the Church with the secular
world–was a colossal failure. After
the Second Vatican Council most
priests shed their priestly garments
and they stopped celebrating the
Holy Mass each day.”
(Source: Dialog International)

Rosary Crusade
UPDATE
The General House of the
Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX),
in Menzingen, has lately been
receiving from all over the world
the results of the Rosary Crusade
launched by its General Superior,
Bishop Bernard Fellay. This crusade lasted from May 1, 2009, to
March 25, 2010; its goal was to
ask for the consecration of Russia
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
by the Supreme Pontiff and all the
bishops of the Catholic world, in
accordance with the message of
Fatima in which Our Lady herself
announced the final triumph of her
Immaculate Heart.
To date we have only a provisional count, as all the results have
not yet been tallied. However, DICI
is delighted to announce to its readers, in this exclusive news report,
that the goal of 12 million rosaries,

33

which were to form a crown of 12
stars for Mary, Queen of Heaven,
has been surpassed by far, since
more than 18 million rosaries have
already been reported. Among the
districts that sent in their results, we
should note the generosity of the
United States (5,354,552), France
(2,936,890), Africa (2,816,826) and
Asia (2,583,204). Next come Canada
(717,000), Germany (680,000),
South America (536,480), Switzerland (411,000), Australia (402,000),
Mexico (332,800), Great Britain
(218,116), Italy (215,000), Ireland
(136,190)….
Once a definitive count is
obtained, this crown of rosaries
recited around the world, over the
course of nearly a year, will be
presented to the Holy Father by
Bishop Fellay. Profound thanks to
all the Rosary crusaders for their
admirable Marian fervor!
—Father Alain Lorans
(Source: DICI)

Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X
A graphical analysis
of the number of
priests in the Priestly
Society of St. Pius
X, from 1970 to
today. There are
currently 511 priests.
The figures were
published recently by
the General House in
Menzingen.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

34
C ô m e

d e

P r é v i g n y

A Dark Cloud in
the Conciliar Sky
In his bestseller, The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed
Discussion
Discussion, Msgr. Gherardini studies the question of the value of the
Council’s magisterium and its interpretation. While his approach
to the doctrinal problems differs from that of Society publications,
he practically reaches the same conclusions. Msgr. Gherardini’s
contribution has the advantage of opening the debate in the heart
of Rome and, therefore, the Church.
At the end of January, the great liberal figures of
the “Wojtylian era,” from Cardinal Martini to Msgr.
Sorrentino, sponsored the creation of a new Web site
in Italy: Viva il Concilio!–an acclamation to sing the
wonders of a “superdogma,” as if it were necessary
to close ranks to ward off an ineluctable threat:
Vatican II, during which the aula resounded with
thousands of voices nearly a half a century ago, today
sees its aura tarnished. At the same time, after three
printings in the language of Dante, one of the most
eminent theologians of the Lateran, Msgr. Brunero
Gherardini, brought out the French [and English]
edition of his latest work: The Ecumenical Vatican
Council II: A Much Needed Discussion.1

Msgr. Gherardini’s Initiative
Neither a man of power nor curial prelate, this
Tuscan professor, a native of Prato, has spent decades
training priests in ecclesiology and ecumenism.
Professor emeritus of Theology at the Pontifical
Lateran University and a canon of St. Peter’s
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Basilica, he has become an acknowledged and
consulted specialist in the Lutheran Reformation,
ecclesiology, and Mariology. The book published
by this heir of the Classical School at the age of 85
might be perceived as a synthesis of the hundreds
of publications this eminent Roman academician,
initiated in Thomist theology and quite traditional
definitions, had published during his ecclesiastical
career. Such is manifestly not the goal of its 260
pages. Rather, at the time when the doctrinal
discussions between the Holy See and the Society of
St. Pius X are underway, they appear as a response
to Pope Benedict XVI’s famous speech to the Curia
of December 22, 2005. The Pope, in what constituted
a veritable opening program for his new pontificate,
made the “hermeneutic of continuity” its key theme.
For him it was a matter of bringing to an end the
post-conciliar crisis and of placing the Council in the
wake of Tradition.
Msgr. Gherardini states his willingness to follow
this approach. Moreover, he gives us to understand

y

35
that this is the interpretation he has patiently applied
in his teaching by trying to reconcile the conciliar
documents with the antecedent magisterium. But,
without rejecting it, he shows that such a procedure
is clearly not evident. He shares the accumulated
doubts to which the application of this method
of interpretation has given rise, and with the use
of precise definitions, he underscores the real
dissonance existing between a great number of texts,
from Dignitatis Humanae 2 to Lumen Gentium,3 and
Tradition. After 50 years of teaching, he states:

gaps, and ambiguities, and by what was contrary to
the anterior Magisterium:

I must confess, however, that the following problem has
never ceased to present itself to me: namely, if in reality
the Church’s Tradition had been entirely protected in the
last Council and if, therefore, the hermeneutic of developing
continuity could be utilized and show its undeniable worth.
(p. 88)

At this point, Msgr. Gherardini launches
into a thorough study of the major documents
on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), religious
freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism (Unitatis
Redintegratio), and the definition of the Church
(Lumen Gentium). The professor does not conduct
a trial. Rather, he emphasizes what he considers
to be the essential contributions of Vatican II and
even what he considers to be the benefits (?) of
certain constitutions like Lumen Gentium. He brings
out, though, the particularly devastating role of
the experts, in the front ranks of which he names
Karl Rahner, who brought with them what he calls
the “revolutionary aspirations of Vatican II.” The
conclusion is clear: The Church cannot abide
flagrant contradiction between magisterial texts.
The pope must organize conferences and initiate
an in-depth study of the Council in order to give
it a reading in conformity with the true notion of
Tradition, which he takes the time to clarify by
making reference to the definition of St. Vincent of
Lerins.

Consequently, his study, marked by great
restraint and an unmatchable deference, does not
devolve into hollow praise. After four years of
Benedict XVI’s pontificate, he even gives expression
to a sense of alarm and concludes his book with
an appeal to the Holy Father. “After almost a half
century of such language, of such incense offered
with ‘three double swings,’ of such intemperate
celebrations–uncalled for and counterproductive–it
seems to me that the time has finally arrived to turn
the page” (p. 22).

A Rereading of the Council
Before methodically looking at the conciliar
documents that seem to him, in an emblematic way,
particularly problematic, Monsignor Gherardini first
takes care to dismantle the supposedly “defining”
character of Vatican II which would make of it a
third Testament. The prelate recalls the necessity
of placing the Council in its context and of bearing
in mind the intentions that Popes John XXIII and
Paul VI had assigned to it: a pastoral objective that
dispelled any desire to proclaim definitions of faith:
But when a Council presents itself, its contents, and the
very reason for its documents under the category of the
pastoral, deliberately qualifying itself as being pastoral in
character, then it excludes in this fashion any intent of a
defining nature. Therefore, it cannot demand the status of
a dogmatic Council, nor can anyone confer this status upon
it. This holds even if within it there resound some appeals to
dogmas of the past and its documents may contain certain
theological formulations. Theological is not necessarily
synonymous with dogmatic. (pp. 29-30)

From now on, it is no longer the members of the
SSPX who advance the argument of the Council’s
pastorality, but one of the most eminent deans of the
Roman faculty.
In the same way, the professor of ecclesiology
does not want to distinguish too sharply between
the Council and what followed. According to him,
the one effectively fueled the other by its omissions,

It is not by chance that the spirit of the Council was spoken
of. The Council had liberally spread this spirit by its confidence in man and his progress, by calling attention to
social-political-cultural experimentation: something which
was already taking place in much of the Church and which
exploded in an almost uncontrollable manner afterwards
through its invitation to dialogue and collaborate with
everyone for a world more suited for man, through its open
irenicism to every brewing opposition, through its imposing
silence on all bearers of bad tidings. (p. 88)

Silence about the Resistance
The work is short, but even so the dozens of
historical and theological pages relative to the
Council and the post-council never mention the
Coetus Internationalis Patrum or the Society of Saint
Pius X. The name of Archbishop Lefebvre is not
mentioned once. Someone zealous for justice might
take offense at such omissions. At one point, the
reader might almost perceive a disavowal, notably
when the author alludes to the polemical character
of certain publications of the Courrier de Rome, which
is widely known to be the work of an eminent
member of the Ecône foundation. Nevertheless, this
distance remains a posture, and the silence conceals,
it seems to me, the praise the theologian, sure that
we are defending truth rather than a particular
cause, did not want to confer publicly. His appeal
must equally reach those who would have bristled at
the mention of a valorous but officially condemned
society. An adroit allusion seems, moreover, like a
wink at the attentive reader. In the chapter on the
liturgy, one of the references the theologian cites is
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

36
by a certain “D. Bonneterre,” published by “Éditions
Fideliter” in 1980…4
For Monsignor Gherardini’s approach, if
it does not confront Vatican II directly, and if,
consequently, it is independent of that of the Society
of St. Pius X, reaches the same conclusions: faced
with a council that cannot be annulled nor easily
reduced to the level of a conciliable, it is necessary
that Rome reappropriate its doctrinal authority in
order to clarify, define, and even condemn. It is
necessary that the authority of the Church annotate
these documents with notae previae–and posteriorae as
needed–which will be like buttresses stabilizing the
disequilibrium of a vault clearly seeming to crumble.
Sure of his dismantling of the dogmatic character of
Vatican II, Msgr. Gherardini in his appeal calls for
frankness in addressing the contradictions that crop
out everywhere:
If the conclusion proves that continuity , whether in part
or on the whole, is not real, then it would be necessary to
say so with serenity and frankness in response to the need
for clarity. This need has been felt and this response desired
for nearly half a century. (p. 299)

In his preface to the book, the Most Reverend
Mario Oliveri, Bishop of Albenga-Imperia, near
Genoa, corroborates this idea:
…if it were to emerge from a Catholic, theological
hermeneutic that some passages, or some statements or
assertions of the Council, not only say things which
are nove [the same thing said in a new way], but also say
things where are nova [different things] with respect
to the perennial Tradition of the Church, one would not
be presented with a homogenous development of the
Magisterium: in such a case there would be a teaching which is not unchangeable, and certainly not
infallible. (p. 10)

that it can have no “rights”; and that State neutrality about
matters religious neither can nor should exist.

At the end of January, Monsignor Babini, the
bishop emeritus of Grosseto, did not hesitate to pay
homage to the founder of Ecône:
Monsignor Lefebvre was right in his ideological choices.
He was certainly a great and wise churchman whom I
always liked. The “Lefebvrists” are not at all schismatic.
John Paul II saw himself obliged to excommunicate them,
but he did so with tears in his eyes. But, I repeat, if only
there were in the Catholic Church, today so progressive,
serious and courageous men like the great man that was
Monsignor Lefebvre…whose memory is in the process of
being re-evaluated. It suffices to consider those who come
out of his seminaries–well-prepared, courageous priests–
while from ours, often empty, it is not always [men like
those] who come out!

The Traditionalists’ Temptation
The mere opening of doctrinal conversations
and the agreement to discuss the Council have, it
seems, loosened tongues and brightened private
opinions. The temptation occasioned by such a
discourse, as eminent as it is rare, which shatters the
taboo of a divinized council, would be for us to lay
down the cross confided to us by our Lord. Christ
Himself could have interrupted His way to Golgotha
after the first fall. But, before these positions have
been adopted by the Church’s authorities, let us
recall that they are the fruit of the exactingness of
those who have gone before us. What would be left
at present had we been satisfied with the meager
liturgical compromises the indults constituted 20
years ago?
The principle [of “Living Tradition”] is not up for debate.
It could, however, lend itself to a breaking down of the
sacred deposit of the contained truths in its Tradition. In
the context like that which reigned during and after Vatican
II where only the “new” appeared as true and where the
“new” presented itself and is presented with the aspect of
the immanentistic and fundamentally atheistic attitude of
our times, doctrine is nothing more than a great illusion.
Tradition remains mortally wounded and agonizes, that is, if
it is not already dead in consequence of positions radically
irreconcilable with its past. It is not sufficient, therefore, to
define it as living if it no longer has any life. (p. 155)

Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre
In a 1987 interview, Archbishop Lefebvre
had already called for the correction of these
contradictions and even errors. He was asked this
question:
The only solution to the Lefebvre “case” acceptable to
you would seem to be a public disavowal of Vatican II by
the Sovereign Pontiff. But can you see the pope one Sunday
morning showing up at St. Peter’s Square and announcing
to the faithful that after more than twenty years, it turns out
that the Council was mistaken and that at least two decrees
voted for by the majority of the Fathers and ratified by the
pope must be abrogated?

He answered:
Come now! At Rome, they would be able to find a more
discreet way of going about it… .The pope could assert that
a few documents of Vatican II need to be better interpreted
in light of Tradition, so that it has become necessary to
change a few sentences to render them more in conformity
with the magisterium of preceding popes. It would have
to be stated clearly that error can only be “tolerated,” but

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Msgr. Bruno Gherardini, 85, a renowned theologian of the Roman School,
resides at the Vatican as a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica. He is the secretary for
the Pontifical Academy of Theology, professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran
University, and editor of Divinitas, a respected Roman journal of theology.
The English version has also been published: The Ecumenical Vatican
Council II: A Much Needed Discussion (Casa Mariana Editrice, 2010).
Quotations of the work are from this edition.
2
The Declaration on Religious Freedom: On the Right of the Person and of
Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious, December
7, 1965.
3
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, November 21, 1964.
4
The reference is to Fr. Didier Bonneterre [FSSPX], The Liturgical Movement (1980; Angelus Press, 2002)–Ed.
1

37
a r c h b i s h o p

m a r c e l

l e f e b v r e

THE AUTHORITY OF

VATICAN
II
QUESTIONED

PART 6

Vatican II Questioned
Excerpt from the conference given at Ecône on March
25, 1976, during which Msgr. Lefebvre recounted an
interview with Msgr. Benelli, substitute for Cardinal
Villot, Pope Paul VI’s secretary of state. –Fr. Gleize

Fr. Gleize is a professor of
ecclesiology at the seminary of
the SSPX in Ecône and now
a member of the commission
involved in the doctrinal
discussions with the Holy See.
In 2006, he compiled and
organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II.
It was published by the Institute
of St. Pius X, the university run
by the SSPX in Paris, France.

The only sentence [Msgr. Benelli] picked out from my
talks was in my Declaration of November 21, 1974, which
reads: “No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy
[and you can guess what follows], can force us to abandon
or diminish our Catholic Faith, clearly laid down and
professed by the magisterium of the Church for nineteen
hundred years.” I really do not see how one can quibble
with a statement like that…
So he began: “‘No authority, not even the highest in
the hierarchy’–in other words, the Pope,” he told me.
I replied: “Obviously.”
“But it is not you who make the truth!”
But I do not make truth; I know very well that it is not
I who make the truth. But I do think that I am capable of
knowing it all the same; I hope I am capable of knowing it.
“But the pope is the judge of what is true; the pope is
the criterion of truth; the pope decides what is true.”
I said: “Well, I don’t know about that. I think that the
pope is supposed to hand on the truth; he transmits the
truth, but it is not he who makes the truth; he is not the
truth, he has to transmit it.”
“In any case, it is not you who make the truth.”
I said: “It is not I. A child going to catechism and who
knows the catechism knows the truth, and the pope cannot
be against the truth that is in the catechism and what the
popes taught for twenty centuries.” So I was supposedly
against the pope, against the Council, and against
everything that had been done after the Council.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

38

The Fight for the Faith
The Society’s attitude is not dictated by a disciplinary
question, but by questions of faith. The Society refuses
Vatican II because this council effected a rupture in
the unity of faith: from a talk given by Archbishop
Lefebvre at Ecône, June 22, 1976. –Fr. Gleize

We are the ones, on the contrary, who are
for order, the ones who are for the hierarchy, for
discipline, and so we are not trying to divide the
Church–on the contrary. We think that the principles
we profess are the true principles of the Church’s
unity. The first unity the Church must seek, and has
always sought, and in which it has always existed,
is the unity of faith. To the extent that the entire
hierarchy of the Church professes the same faith, it is
united. It is not we who invent the faith, nor do they;
it is not even the pope who invents the faith. The
faith existed before him, it existed before us, and it
existed before the hierarchy. It is known.
Open your theology books to the sources of
revelation; you will find Scripture and Tradition,
which are the two sources of revelation. The chapter
on Tradition will indicate all the sources which
constitute the norma fidei. It is not we who make
the norma fidei; it is not we who say what must be
believed, but we seek to know what the Church
tells us. The theology books will first indicate the
professions of faith, the Credos: the Nicene Creed,
the Athanasian Creed–the different creeds, then
dogmatic theology, and finally everything that

IOTA UNUM

has been solemnly and infallibly taught by the
magisterium of the Church–it is not complicated.
This is the unity to which we must be joined.
And it is precisely to the extent that this unity of
faith is shaken that the Church begins to find itself
in a terrible situation, a very difficult division, a
state of confusion. This is what prompts us to have
reservations about Vatican II, its reforms, and
everything that has followed. It is not for us simply
a matter of discipline, but it is really a question of
faith.
When the nuncio of Berne approves and accepts
that, in the name of the Council, the social reign
of our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer possible,
something is wrong. That is not in conformity
with the encyclical Quas Primas, an encyclical that
is certainly, at least in its fundamental elements,
infallible, for the pope bases himself upon Scripture,
Tradition, and the teachings of all the popes. It is a
very solemn encyclical which, in some way, defines
in a public and solemn manner the social reign
of our Lord Jesus Christ, clearly based on evident
theological truths like the divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ. So if it is true that in the name of the
Council one can affirm that the social reign of our
Lord Jesus Christ should no longer be sought, then
one is obliged to have some reservations about the
Council; it cannot be otherwise. For it is true that
in the name of the Council freedom of conscience,
freedom of thought, and freedom of worship have
been proclaimed–three freedoms which have always
been condemned and reproved, at least in the bad
sense [of those terms]. There is undoubtedly a

42. The breaking of the Council’s
legal framework, continued.

The predominantly modernizing
tendency of the council, which was
responsible for the rejection of three
years’ preparatory work carried out
under Pope John’s aegis, was apparent
even in the very first meeting on 13
October. That day, the council was due
to elect its members (sixteen out of
twenty-four) on the ten commissions
which were to examine the draft
documents drawn up by the preparatory
commission. The council secretariat had
distributed copies of the ten requisite
forms, each having blank spaces in which
to write the names chosen. It had also
published the list of the members of the
preconciliar commissions from whom
the drafts had come. This procedure was
obviously designed to favor an organic
continuity between the drafting stage and
the formulation of the final documents.
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org
This
is in accordance with traditional
practice. It also answers a very urgent

need, since nobody can better present a
document than those who have studied,
refined and finally drafted it. Nor did it
prejudice the electors’ freedom, since
they remained completely at liberty to
set aside the members of the preconciliar
commissions when choosing those who
were to form the conciliar ones. The only
objection which could be made was that
since the council had opened only three
days earlier, an election might appear
to be unduly hasty and insufficiently
considered, given that the members of
the vast and heterogeneous gathering
knew each other so little.
To a good number of Fathers, this
procedural step seemed to amount to
an attempt to force the issue, and was
resented in consequence. Cardinal Achille
Liénart, one of the nine presidents
of the council, voiced their point of
view at the opening of the session.
When he had asked the president

of the session, Cardinal Tisserant, for
permission to speak, and had been
refused in accordance with the rules on
the grounds that the session had been
called in order to proceed to a vote, not
in order to debate as to whether a vote
should be held, Cardinal Liénart seized
the microphone, thus violating due legal
process, and read a declaration amidst
the applause of many of those present:
it was impossible to proceed to a vote
without first having information about
those to be selected and without there
first being consultations among the
electors and the national conferences
of bishops. The vote did not take place,
the session was adjourned, and the
commissions subsequently formed
contained large numbers of men
who had had nothing to do with the
preconciliar work.–Romano Amerio, Iota
Unum, pp.83-84. [Available from Angelus
Press. Price: $23.95]

39
certain freedom of thought, there is a certain freedom
of conscience, and there is a certain freedom of
worship. But when freedom is understood in the
sense of license, of total liberty, in the sense that one
can think whatever one likes, that everyone may,
according to his conscience, have his own way of
conceiving things, that cannot be.

Criticism of the Council
Archbishop Lefebvre, in a press conference on August
2, 1976, presenting the first edition of A Bishop Speaks
(writings and addresses, 1963–75), recalls that the
Catholic Faith is always the criterion by which conciliar
liberalism must be judged and condemned (A Bishop
Speaks [Angelus Press, 2007], pp. 260, 261).–Fr. Gleize

The adoption of liberal theses by a Council
could not have occurred except in a non-infallible
pastoral council, and cannot be explained without
there having been a secret, detailed preparation
which the historians will eventually uncover to the
great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the
eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human
Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in
purple…
The objection is made that we make ourselves
the judge of the Catholic Faith. But is it not the
gravest duty of every Catholic to judge the faith
which is taught him by that which was taught and
believed for twenty centuries and which is inscribed
in the official catechisms, like that of Trent, of St. Pius
X, and of every pre-Vatican II catechism? How have
the true faithful always acted in the face of heresy?
They have preferred to shed their blood rather than
betray their faith.
No matter how exalted the dignity of the
spokesmen of heresy may be, the problem for the
salvation of our souls remains the same. And in
connection with this, many Catholics are seriously
ignorant about the nature and scope of the pope’s
infallibility. Very many think that every word that
comes from his mouth is infallible.

True and False Obedience:
the Faith Does Not
Belong to the Pope
During his sermon at Ecône August 22,
1976, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to the
charges of disobedience. –Fr. Gleize

“You are disobeying the Pope.” Well, I am
disobeying the Pope to the extent that the Pope is
identified with the revolution that took place during

the Council and after, because this revolution is
the Revolution of 1789, and I cannot obey the
Revolution of ’89 in the Church. I cannot obey the
goddess Reason; I shall not bow before the goddess
Reason, and that is what they would have us do.
They would suppress this seminary so that all of us
would go and adore the goddess Reason, man, the
“cult of man”! No, we shall never accept that. We
desire to be obedient to God and subject to our Lord
Jesus Christ.
We shall be submissive to the extent that those
who ought to give us the faith will also be submissive
to the faith. They have no right to sell off the faith.
The faith does not belong to them. The faith does
not belong to the Pope. It belongs to the Church;
it belongs to God; it belongs to our Lord Jesus
Christ. The Pope and the bishops are there to hand
on the faith. To the extent that they transmit it, we
kneel, we obey; we are ready to obey at once. To
the extent that they destroy our faith, we no longer
obey. We cannot allow the destruction of our faith.
We have the faith etched in our hearts till death. This
is what we must say and profess. Therefore we are
not disobedient people; we are people who obey
our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the Church has
always demanded of the faithful.
And when they tell us, “You are judging the
Pope, you are judging the bishops,” we answer that
it is not we who judge the bishops, it is our faith, it
is Tradition. It is our penny catechism. A child of
five can point out a bishop’s error. Were a bishop to
say to a child: “What they have told you about the
Blessed Trinity, that there are Three Persons in the
Holy Trinity, is not true,” the child could take his
catechism and say, “My catechism teaches me that
there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity. It’s you
who are wrong, and I’m right.” The child would
be right. He would be right because he has all of
Tradition with him, because he has all of the Faith
with him. Well, what we are doing is no different.
We are saying: Tradition condemns you. Tradition
condemns what you are doing at present. So we are
with two thousand years of the Church and not with
a dozen years of a new church, a conciliar church, as
we were told when Msgr. Benelli asked us to submit
to the “conciliar church.” I do not know this conciliar
church; I only know the Catholic Church.
(To be continued.)
Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône
and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions
with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the
university run by the SSPX in Paris, France. Although slightly edited, the spoken
style has been preserved.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

F R .

40

p e t e r

R

QUESTIONS AN

What are we to think of the Divine
Mercy devotion?

Many people have certainly received graces
from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by
St. Faustina, and her personal piety was certainly
most exemplary. However, this does not necessarily
mean that this devotion is from God. It is true that
Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it
was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted
on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a
feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo. However,
the fact that good and pious people receive graces
and that Sister Faustina was pious do not necessarily
means that it is from heaven. In fact, it was not only
not approved before Vatican II. It was condemned,
and this despite the fact that the prayers themselves
of the chaplet of Divine Mercy are orthodox.
Condemned by the Holy Office
There were two decrees from Rome on this
question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The
Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a
plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made
the following decisions:
1. The supernatural nature of the revelations
made to Sister Faustina is not evident.
2. No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.
3. It is forbidden to divulge images and
writings that propagate this devotion under
the form received by Sister Faustina.
The second decree of the Holy Office was
on March 6, 1959, in which the following was
established:
1. The diffusion of images and writings
promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy
under the form proposed by the same Sister
Faustina was forbidden.
2. The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to
the removal of the aforesaid images that are
already displayed for public honor.
What was it about this devotion that prevented
the Holy Office from acknowledging its divine
origin? The decrees do not say, but it seems that the
reason lies in the fact that there is so much emphasis
on God’s mercy as to exclude His justice. Our sins
and the gravity of the offense that they inflict on
God is pushed aside as being of little consequence.
That is why the aspect of reparation for sin is
omitted or obscured.

THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

The true image of God’s mercy is the Sacred
Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, crowned with
thorns, dripping precious blood. The Sacred Heart
calls for a devotion of reparation, as the popes have
always requested. However, this is not the case
with the Divine Mercy devotion. The image has no
heart. It is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without
reparation, without the price of our sins being
clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion
very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its
supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s
own good intentions and personal holiness. This
absence of the need for reparation for sins is
manifest in the strange promise of freedom from
all the temporal punishment due to sin for those
who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions.
How could such a devotion be more powerful and
better than a plenary indulgence, applying the
extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints?
How could it not require as a condition that we
perform a penitential work of our own? How could
it not require the detachment from even venial sin
that is necessary to obtain a plenary indulgence?
Presumption in the Writings of Sister Faustina
The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina
Kowalski (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also
indicates several reasons to seriously question the
supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of
voluminous and repeated apparitions and messages.
The characteristic of any true mystic who has
received supernatural graces is always a profound
humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and
profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility
is strangely lacking in Sister Faustina’s diary. On
October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the
“Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “Now I know
that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love me,
but because My will is dearer to you than life. That
is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately
as with no other creature.” (§707, p. 288). This gives
every appearance of being a claim of being more
united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed
Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other
saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let
alone to assert that it came from heaven!
In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the
canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled
with longing and tears that her congregation might
have its own saint. Then she affirms the following:
“And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are
that saint.” (§1650, p. 583). These are words that
most certainly no true saint would affirm, but rather
his sinfulness and unworthiness of his congregation.

e r

R .

s c o t t

AND ANSWERS

41

Q

This presumption in her writings is not isolated.
She praises herself on several occasions through the
words supposedly uttered by Jesus. Listen to this
interior locution, for example: “Beloved pearl of
My Heart, I see your love so pure, purer than that
of the angels, and all the more so because you keep
fighting. For your sake I bless the world.” (§1061, p.
400). On May 23, 1937 she describes a vision of the
Holy Trinity, after which she heard a voice saying:
“Tell the Superior General to count on you as the
most faithful daughter in the Order” (§1130, p.
417). It is consequently hardly surprising that Sister
Faustina claimed to be exempt from the Particular
and General Judgments. On February 4, 1935, she
already claimed to hear this voice in her soul: “From
today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you
will not be judged” (§374, p. 168). Add to this the
preposterous affirmation that the host three times
over jumped out of the tabernacle and placed itself
in her hands (§44, p. 23), so that she had to open up
the tabernacle herself and place it back in there, tells
the story of a presumption on God’s grace which
goes beyond all reason, let alone as the action of a
person supposedly favored with innumerable and
repeated mystical and supernatural graces.
It is perhaps not accidental that Pope John
Paul II promoted this devotion, for it is very much
in line with his encyclical Dives in Misericordia. In
fact, the Paschal Mystery theology that he taught
pushed aside all consideration of the gravity of
sin and the need for penance, for satisfaction to
divine justice, and hence of the Mass as being an
expiatory sacrifice, and likewise the need to gain
indulgences and to do works of penance. Since God
is infinitely merciful and does not count our sins,
all this is considered of no consequence. This is not
the Catholic spirit. We must make reparation for
our sins and for the sins of the whole world, as the
Sacred Heart repeatedly asked at Paray-Le-Monial.
It is the renewal of our consecration to the Sacred
Heart and frequent holy hours of reparation that
is going to bring about the conversion of sinners.
It is in this way that we can cooperate in bringing
about His Kingdom of Merciful Love, because it
is the perfect recognition of the infinite holiness of
the Divine Majesty and complete submission to His
rightful demands. Mercy only means something
when we understand the price of our Redemption.

Does Pope Benedict XVI
support the charismatic renewal?

One of the clearest indications that the Holy
Father is not supporting Tradition is contained in his
unambiguous support of the charismatic renewal,
which is the vehicle of the Protestant ideas with
which it was founded and a denial of Catholic
Tradition. The whole purpose of this movement is to
replace the sacraments and the Mass as the principal
means of grace. They are replaced by a personal
and sentimental experience, in typical modernist
fashion.
On the occasion of the 13th international
conference of the Catholic Fraternity of Covenant
Charismatic Communities and Fellowships, the Pope
reiterated his support of these charismatic groups
and gifts (Zenit.org, October 31, 2008):

A

Young ecclesial communities are a gift from God and
their contributions should be valued and welcomed with
trust.…The ecclesial communities which bloomed after
the Second Vatican Council, are a unique gift of the Lord
and a precious resource for the life of the Church.…The
movements and new communities are like an inrush
of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in contemporary
society. One of the positive elements and aspects of the
communities of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is
precisely the importance given by them to the charisms
and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and their merit lies in having
reminded the Church of the actuality (of these gifts).

This is nothing less than a profession of belief
in the evolution of the Church. For clearly if these
communities are now such a bonus to the Church,
then the Church before 1967, when they first came
into existence, could not have been what it is now,
and in fact must have been much less.
Then, On May 4, 2009, Benedict XVI sent a
telegram, though Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of
State, to 20,000 members of the Italian chapter of
the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, gathered in their
32nd national assembly in Rimini.
Far from reproaching them for the deviations of
the Charismatic Renewal, he expressed his hopes for
an abundant outpouring of the fruits of the Paraclete”
on the gathering and expressed his desire that it would
“enkindle a renewed adherence to the crucified and
risen Christ, a deep fraternal communion and a joyous
evangelical witness.” (Zenit.org)

He made no mention at all of the grave dangers
of sentimentalism and of the protestantizing
substitution of special charismatic experiences for
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments as
the ordinary means of sanctification.
The same must be said of the Pope’s final
approval of the Neocatechumenal Way. This
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

42

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

is an organization of the laity that forms small
communities of “renewal” within parishes. Founded
during Vatican II, in 1964, it considered itself a
response to the pastoral intuitions of that council for
the participation of the laity in evangelization, and
soon adopted the charismatic principles, especially
independence from the priesthood, the Mass and the
sacraments. It received its first official recognition
in 1990 by Pope John Paul II as “an itinerary of
Catholic formation valid for our society and for our
times,” and then on June 13, 2008, it received its final
approval from the Pontifical Council for the Laity.
Lip service to the discernment of ecclesiastical
authority does not change the reality that these
groups, so positively approved and encouraged, have
consistently displaced the true ordinary working
of the Holy Ghost in souls through prayer and
the sacraments, and replaced it with sentimental,
extraordinary, exterior signs, that really amount to
nothing more than group psychology and natural
enthusiasm. It is no secret that these groups, as a
general rule, have no appreciation for the sacredness
of the Church, the Mass and the sacraments, nor for
Catholic Tradition and devotion to the saints, nor for
the teaching of the catechism of Christian doctrine,
their “living” experience having replaced this rich
inheritance of true spirituality.
More recently, Cardinal Josef Cordes was
honored with a personal letter from Benedict XVI
on the occasion of his 75th birthday, the week before
Christmas, 2009. The main purpose of the letter was
to thank him for his “contribution to the genesis and
the growth of the World Youth Days” and for his
“commitment to (lay) movements in his role in the
Pontifical Council for the Laity” (Zenit of 12-22-09).
In fact, the Pope was very specific about the
charismatic and Pentecostal nature of the movements
encouraged by Cardinal Cordes, not only showing
his clear approval of them as charismatic, but going
so far as to say that the Church can no longer exist
without them:
The charismatic movement, Communion and Liberation and the Neocatechumenal Way have many reasons to
be grateful to you. While at the beginning the organizers
and planners in the Church had many reservations in
regard to the movements, you immediately sensed the life
that burst forth from them–the power of the Holy Spirit
that gives new paths and in unpredictable ways keeps the
Church young. You recognized the Pentecostal character
of these movements and you worked passionately so that
they would be welcomed by the Church’s pastor.…Here
were men who were deeply touched by the spirit of God
and that in such a way there grew new forms of authentic
Christian life and authentic ways of being Church.…They
THE ANGELUS • June 2010 www.angeluspress.org

need a guide and purification to be able to reach the form
of their true maturity. They, nevertheless, are gifts to be
grateful for. It is no longer possible to think of the life of
the Church of our time without including these gifts of
God within it.” (Ibid.)

Further confirmation was found in an address
given by the Pope on March 7, 2010, to the new
parish (since 1989) of San Giovanni della Croce in
Colle Salario, in Rome, a parish specifically open to
these new, charismatic, ecclesial movements from
its very inception, in particular the Sant’Egidio and
Caritas groups. Benedict XVI had this to say:
From the very beginning this parish was open to
the movements and to the new ecclesial communities,
thus developing a wider awareness of the Church and
experiencing new forms of evangelization. I call on you
to continue in this direction with courage.…I was happy
to hear that your community wishes to promote, in regard
to the vocations and the role of consecrated persons
and the laity, the co-responsibility of all the members
of the people of God…moving from considering them
“collaborators” of the clergy to recognizing them as truly
“co-responsible” for the being and action of the Church.
(Zenit.org of 3/11/2010)

In this address Benedict XVI is quite explicit
about the long-term result of the charismatic
movement–the undermining of the importance of
the clergy and of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no
longer considered by them as essential to the life of
the Church. Yet he gives it all the encouragement he
can!
Let no-one affirm, then, that the Pope does not
support and encourage the charismatic movement,
or that he believes in the traditional doctrine that
it is through the Mass and the sacraments, and our
traditional prayers and devotions, that the Holy
Ghost is communicated to us. He has manifestly
embraced the charismatic thesis that in this postVatican II age the spirit is given through nonstructured, non-clerical, humanistic organizations,
regardless of whether they practise traditional Marian
and sacramental devotion.
Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, US District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross
Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, he is presently Headmaster of our Lady of
Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, ontario, Canada. Those wishing answers
may please send their questions to Q & A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest
Ave., Kansas City, Mo 64109.

TheLastWord
Celibacy Revisited

Nothing, it seems, can stop
the international media campaign
launched several months ago against
the Church and the Pope. On March
20, Pope Benedict XVI addressed
a Letter to Irish Catholics about the
crimes of pedophile priests, in which
he expressed his shame and sorrow
over such actions. On April 12, the
Holy See published on its web site
a reminder of the legal procedures
to follow against these scandalous
sexual abuses. Between these dates
the Vatican Press Office, several
cardinals, and numerous bishops
throughout the world tried to clarify the facts, but in vain. Every day
the press serves up new revelations
intended to show the guilty silence
of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now
Benedict XVI, with regard to these
crimes.
Why? Because those who are
leading this campaign have not yet
reached their goal: to discredit the
Church as a whole in order to bring
about the abolition of clerical celibacy.
The simplistic reasoning which
they want to impose on public opinion in order to achieve the abrogation of consecrated celibacy can
be summarized in this way: Catholic priests are pedophiles because
they are celibate. Or, in more sensational terms: clerical celibacy is a
crime because it is responsible for
the criminal actions of the pedophile priests which the Church has
tried to silence. The pope himself is
therefore an accomplice because he
intends to keep the Catholic clergy
in this crime-provoking celibacy.
As the weeks go on, an increasing number of scandals are being
revealed in the international
press. But it is always aimed at one
and the same person: Benedict
XVI. Even if the Pope is never the
one directly accused, he is nonetheless the target of criticisms fired
from all sides. What exactly do they

reproach in him? The same thing for
which Pius XII was reproached: his
guilty silence, seeking to protect the
institution at the expense of the victims.
According to the March 25 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, “the
prevalent tendency in the media,”
the tendency to “neglect the facts”
and to “force interpretations,” has
a double objective: to create the
impression that the Catholic Church
is “the only one responsible for
sexual abuses, an image that has
nothing to do with reality,” and to
condemn the “ignoble intention of
succeeding, cost what it may, in dealing a blow to Benedict XVI and his
close collaborators.”
Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier,
in an interview published in the
Catholic weekly French paper
Famille Chrétienne on April 3, 2010,
denounced the “calumnies,” the
“perfidious” attacks against the
Pope. He especially accuses the dissenting progressivist Hans Küng,
who has made “perfectly odious
personal attacks.” More generally,
the prelate observes “much recklessness and thoughtlessness” in a
battle where “stupidity” dominates,
obscuring intelligences. According
to him, many persons are “nothing but puppets manipulated by the
forces of evil” unleashed upon the
Church.
Msgr. Rino Fisichella, president
of the Pontifical Academy for Life,
stated on the Vatican Radio on April
6 that “he had never seen, in the past,
a series of attacks so violent and of
such proportions,” due to “the dominant ideologies that wish to impose
a culture of death.” The American
intellectual George Weigel reacted
in much the same way on the same
radio station, remarking that “the
Pope is attacked because he affirms
the existence of the truth,” while the
“powerful forces of the West” deny
it. In his eyes, some see “in the inad-

43
Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX

equacies of some of the Church’s
sons the opportunity to destroy the
Church’s teachings” and to exclude
her from the public debate on crucial themes. In this attack, George
Weigel also sees the implications of
Catholic sectors that pursue a revolution “never yet realized: the diminution of the authority of the bishops, the ordination of women, the
end of celibacy.”
Will this crisis open the eyes of
those who believe that being “openminded towards the world” will shelter the Church from the criticisms of
modern society? The Italian philosopher Romano Amerio, in his monumental work Iota Unum, describes the
post-conciliar period as a time where
“the Church seems to fear that she
is rejected, which in fact she is by a
great fraction of the human race. So
she seeks to let fade the meritorious particularities that are her own
in order to emphasize the traits that
she has in common with the world.”
But the present crisis proves that the
modern world is not satisfied with
the Church’s “open-mindedness”
towards it. Modernism demands a
Church not only in the world, but
also of the world, the world that,
according to St. John in his first
Epistle, is characterized by the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of
life. St. Augustine in his Confessions
and Bossuet in his Treaty on Concupiscence offer on this subject commentaries which, though pre-conciliar, are nonetheless pertinent. The
Catholic writer Charles Péguy said
on the same subject: “Jesus, prince
of the spiritual world, has founded
a Church that will never cease to be
attacked in the spiritual and in the
temporal worlds, and that will never
cease to fight.”
Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX, is the editor of DICI, the
international news journal of the Society of Saint
Pius X.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2010

It’s not too late to order your beautiful 2010 Liturgical Calendar!
A bestseller! Our stunning 2010 Liturgical Calendar features 12 of the most famous
churches of Rome with their histories and guides to some of their most outstanding
features. From relics of the saints to artwork of the great masters, Churches of Rome
gives a fascinating insight into these magnificent churches.
New expanded 12”x12” dimension gives you plenty of room for notes and appointment reminders. All the feast days of the year according to the 1962 Roman Missal are
listed with class and liturgical color, along with reminders of days of fast and abstinence.

!
35% O F$F7.77
y
Now onl

12" x 12" Calendar STK# 8410✱

WAS $11.95. NOW $7.77

Lepanto: The Battle That Saved the West AUDIO RECORDING

Christopher Check
On October 7, 1571, the most important sea battle in history was fought near the mouth of what is today
called the Gulf of Patras, then the Gulf of Lepanto. On one side were the war galleys of the Holy League
and on the other, those of the Ottoman Turks, rowed by tens of thousands of Christian galley slaves.
Although the battle decided the future of Europe, few Europeans, and even fewer European Americans,
know the story, much less how close Western Europe came to suffering an Islamic conquest.
On October 7, 1911, English poet and theologian G. K. Chesterton honored the battle with what is
perhaps the greatest ballad of the 20th century. He wrote this extraordinary poem while the postman
impatiently waited for the copy. It was instantly popular and remained so for years. The ballad is no less
inspiring today and is more timely than ever, as the West faces the growing threat of Islam. In the brand
new CD Set Lepanto: The Battle That Saved the West, Christopher Check tells the exhilarating story of
Lepanto, first in his own words and then through the poem of G. K. Chesterton.

3 Compact Disc Set. STK# 8458 $27.95

N EW
The SSPX and Tradition:
What Makes Our Fight Unique?
What makes the Society of St. Pius X different from other groups that
offer the traditional Latin Mass? This new pamphlet provides a simple
explanation of these differences, with recommended reading for further
study. An ever more important question, especially in light of the doctrinal
discussions with the Holy See.

STK# 1016E $0.50 each. 10-Pack $4.00

The Marian Year in Song
Notre Dame de La Salette Boys Academy
This CD contains beautifully recorded hymns to Our Lady done on location at La Salette Boys’
Academy. Many of the selections highlight not only the vocal talent, but instrumental talent as
well. On a few selections, even the polyphonic harmony was composed by students. Order
your copy today and be as impressed as the following customer:
"Dear Father McMahon,
I received and thoroughly enjoyed your CD The Marian Year in Song. It far exceeded
my expectations, and the Gregorian Chant pieces were some of the finest I have ever
heard, beautifully and masterfully executed. Please send me two more of the CDs as I
want to give them as gifts to my children."

1 compact disc. STK# 8461 $15.00

H

!

us
g
e

te
e.

ARCHBISHOP
MARCEL
LEFEBVRE

Never before has the story of Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre been told on film.
Until Now!
For the first time, the epic life of our founder — one of the 20th
century’s most eminent prelates of the Church and defenders of
Catholic Tradition — will be produced on film as a documentary and
made available throughout the world.

But your help is needed.

How can you support this worthy endeavor?
(1) Your financial donations will make a difference!
The budget for this project exceeds $100,000.00. Your contribution of $25, $50, or $100 will
help us reach our goal. All donations can be made online at www.lefebvrethemovie.org or by
sending a check to: SSPX U.S. District | 11485 N. Farley Rd. | Platte City, MO 64079.
Please indicate Archbishop Movie on your check.

(2) Your personal archives of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Your pictures, letters, audio recordings, or news articles about Archbishop Lefebvre are needed
for the completion of this project. Please send copies of your archives to: SSPX U.S. District |
11485 N. Farley Rd. | Platte City, MO 64079 or call (816) 753 0073

Join Us

in this h
i
underta storic
k
make th ing to
e
the Arch life of
b
better k ishop
no
and lov wn
ed!

Make a Donation — View the Trailer — Get Updates

www.lefebvrethemovie.org
SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay fully endorses the production of this documentary.
For more information, please call 816-753-0073, or email us at info@lefebvrethemovie.org.

Sacramental Prints

Av
a

i

11 lable
" i
8" x 14 n tw
x1 " a o s
0" nd ize

s:

NEW

Sacramental Record:
Enthronement of the Sacred Heart
This beautiful print will serve as a memento of the Enthronement that will
last for generations to come. The print has an area to record the date of the
enthronement and the name of all family members.

Printed on quality, acid-free paper.
8" x 10" STK# 8460✱ $4.95
11" x 14" STK# 8459✱ $7.95

A
AVA LSO
I
See L AB LE
web
for m site
deta ore
ils

SHIPPING & HANDLING

5-10 days

2-4 days

USA

For eign

Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

$4.00
$6.00
FREE

25% of
subtotal

Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

$8.00
$10.00
$8.00

FLAT FEE!

($10.00 minimum)

48 Contiguous
States only.
UPS cannot
ship to
PO Boxes.

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.