The Tide Begins to Turn
Pope John Paul II Against the Modernists
Michael Davies
The November 1979 issue of THE ANGELUS carried an article of mine entitled "Hope at Last?" in which I expressed the opinion that the pontificate of Pope John Paul II gave traditionalists some cause for optimism. My principal reason for this was that the many orthodox statements he had made during his visit to the U.S.A. had provoked the fury of Liberals and that what infuriated them should make us rejoice. I stated unequivocally that under no circumstances should traditionalists compromise their stand on the Mass but that we are also concerned with other vital aspects of our Faith under attack from the Modernists, and that on most of these, the Pope shared our viewpoint. I also cited a comment which had been made to me by a very fine American traditionalist priest that unless the Pope took steps to implement his words they would achieve little. "Talk is no good at all," he wrote, "there must be firm action." Well, firm action there has been and plenty of it. And the Liberals' mutterings of discontent have now risen to a shrill crescendo. The purpose of this article is to note some of the Pope's actions in defense of orthodoxy, the Liberal or progressive reaction, the reaction of some traditionalists, and then to draw some conclusions.
Here, then, are some actions of the Pope which should give us some encouragement:
(1) The appointment of Cardinal Silvio Oddi to replace the deceased Cardinal Wright as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Cardinal Oddi is regarded as infamous in Liberal circles and was totally without influence under Pope Paul VI. He is considered at Ecône to be sympathetic to the Archbishop and so the importance of his appointment to such an influential position is obvious.
(2) The effective lifting of the "ban" against cardinals over eighty years old which Pope Paul VI had imposed. Not only were they given full rights at the recent conclave (4-9 November 1979), but the 86-year-old Cardinal Canfolonieri was one of the three Presidents.
(3) Cardinal Baggio has been severely rebuked for allowing the appointment of weak and Modernist bishops in many countries. (Unfortunately, such bishops are still being appointed on the advice of Liberal Apostolic Delegates who obtained their posts under Pope Paul VI. Weeding out men like Archbishop Jadot is an urgent priority.)
(4) The Pope showed great courage in going to the Puebla Conference, a veritable hornet's nest, and unequivocally condemning Liberation Theology. He also made a strong stand in favor of social justice and basic human rights. It is to be hoped that these are two, issues upon which he would receive the support of every traditional Catholic. The most effective method of promoting Communism is a refusal to implement elementary norms of social justice which the Popes have long advocated.
(5) All episcopal appointments in Brazil since Puebla have been of conservatives opposed to Liberation Theology. These appointments have been made out any reference to the opinions of leftist Brazilian prelates who are said to be most unhappy with the turn of events. The Pope will probably visit Brazil this year.
(6) A very strong public rebuke has been delivered to Father Pedro Arrupe, General of the Jesuit Order, who has been instructed to take immediate steps to restore orthodoxy to the Order.
(7) The appointment of the very strong and very tough Archbishop Felici to the crucial and sensitive position of Nuncio to France.
(8) The manner in which the Pope tackled, head-on, every issue which the Liberals in the U.S.A. consider to be important. He could have confined his addresses to platitudes but re-affirmed traditional teaching in every case.
(9) The investigation into the theology of Fathers Pohier, Schillebeeckx, and Küng. Effective action has already been taken against two of them and it is to be hoped that Father Schillebeeckx will receive the same treatment. However, it must be noted that he is a more learned theologian than Küng; that he agreed to appear at the Vatican to argue his case while Küng refused; and that he may agree to affirm belief in certain essential teachings which Küng refused to do. In this way he may manage to evade condemnation. Other theologians are at present under investigation including, probably and hopefully, Charles Curran. In confronting these theologians head-on the Pope certainly knew that he was, as I believe Americans say, opening a can of worms. If I had been asked what single action the Pope could take to prove to the world that he was determined to oppose Modernism I would certainly have replied: "Condemn Küng." Nor can I be accused of being wise after the event. In my book The Order of Melchisedech1 which was published in April 1979, I stated that it was scandalous that "Hans Küng was still functioning as an accredited teacher of Catholic doctrine ... at a time when severe sanctions are being applied to Archbishop Lefebvre whose life is dedicated to defending and perpetuating the traditional priesthood" (p. 20). Obviously, we must now pray that sanctions will be removed from the Archbishop; it is very significant that he has not been attacked by the Vatican during the present pontificate. To return to the subject of Küng, in my book Pope John's Council, I selected him as the star and the symbol of the post-conciliar Church. In his article in the March issue of THE ANGELUS, Father Hector Bolduc noted correctly that " Küng's downfall has shaken the very core of the evil existing within the Church and against which we have waged a tireless battle." Father Bolduc cites Küng as the theologian of the Council, and where the media and public opinion are concerned this judgment is correct, as I showed in my discussion of the " Küng Cult" on page 270 of Pope John's Council. Where the actual drafting of the Council documents is concerned, Küng 's influence was much less than that of such theologians as Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, and John Courtney Murray. But Küng is definitely the popular symbol of the Council for the adepts of the Conciliar Church and in condemning him the Pope was, as Time magazine noted, going for the "big ones." This judgment was confirmed by the reaction of the Liberal establishment which will be examined later.
(10) Halting laicizations.
(11) The Dutch Synod. The importance of this Synod certainly equals if it does not exceed that of the action taken against Hans Küng. Time magazine (11 February) rightly headlined its report on the Synod: "DUTCH DEFEAT." It stated that:
At the closing Mass in the Sistine Chapel, John Paul said he took clearer satisfaction in the bishops' "clearer awareness" of the universal Church. Translation: the Vatican had won on each of its eight major complaints. The handling of priestly celibacy was typical. Though Rome closed the question long ago, two liberal Dutch bishops have permitted open discussion of allowing married priests, and another bishop has said publicly that he would welcome such a change. In one of the more dramatic moments around the synod table, archtraditionalist Silvio Cardinal Oddi of the Vatican pointed a finger at each bishop in turn and asked: "Do you believe in priestly celibacy?" Each said yes.
Perhaps the most important stipulation of the Synod is that all future Dutch priests must be trained in a seminary. One of the most dramatic manifestations of the Dutch "renewal" was that every seminary in the country closed and ordinations dwindled to almost zero rate while the existing clergy suffered a continual decline from deaths and defections. The few ordinations which did take place were of students who had studied in the theology faculties of state-subsidized universities. Meanwhile, lay "pastoral workers," frequently trained in the same faculties, were encroaching to an alarming degree upon tasks normally undertaken by priests. However, in September 1974 the two conservative members of the Dutch hierarchy, Bishops Gijsen and Simonis, in the face of considerable hostility from the five Liberal bishops, opened a seminary at Rolduc near the German border. This seminary is run on traditional lines and by the end of 1979, had 70 students. The courage of these two fine bishops was rewarded when their five colleagues who had opposed their venture so fiercely were forced to capitulate to the Gijsen/Simonis line and accept that in future all Dutch priests must receive a proper seminary formation (paras. 25-26 of the final declaration). As if to rub salt into the Liberals' wounds, special mention was made of the seminary at Rolduc.
The example of these bishops is a useful reminder that not only traditionalists are devoted to the Church. In their own way, Bishops Simonis and Gijsen—or Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge—have displayed courage and zeal for orthodoxy comparable to that of Mgr. Lefebvre. Where they differ is on the manner in which the fight must be waged. Mgr. Lefebvre believes that it is best done upholding the traditional liturgy, doctrine, and discipline outside the structures of the Conciliar Church. These bishops think it best to salvage what they can within it—which, in some ways, makes their lives even more difficult than that of the Archbishop. I have been told on reliable authority that Bishop Sullivan is treated as an outcast by many of his colleagues in the American episcopate. As traditionalists, we rightly resent the injustices which we suffer. We should be especially careful about passing unjust judgments on others.
A Campaign of Hate
On 7th February in L'Aurore, Michel de Saint-Pierre, one of France's best-known Catholic writers, and a long-standing opponent of Modernism, spoke out against the campaign of hatred now being organized against the Holy Father. He wrote:
Alas! Little by little the fight against him is being prepared—hate is being organized because he wants the whole Church to work with him under his guidance, and for this the many-headed Modernism will never forgive him. Moreover it is within the Church herself that weapons are being prepared to resist the Pope.
The Abbe René Cousseran in his book Situation de Catholique d'aujourd'hui analyzes extremely well this "interior perversion protected by a deceptive exterior": the cult of man, relativism, doctrinal subjectivism, alteration of the face of God, deviation of religion towards politics—all this in order to culminate in what Father Bruckberger, in his thunderous voice, announced in this very paper. "French Catholics," he wrote, "are becoming Protestants without being aware of it."
The so-called Catholic press is, of course, involved in it; so, too, are the various religious reporters who haunt Councils, Synods, and pilgrimages. The general theme is to emphasize—and with what hatred—that Pope Paul VI never condemned; he confined himself to reiterating the official teaching of the Church. And they immediately add bitingly "John Paul II does not appear to be acting in the same way. This needs consideration."
. . . the significance of the present outburst has not yet been fully realized. From now on it represents rebellion against John Paul II and against the action taken against the heresiarchs by Rome on orders from him. To take but the least important: when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had decided that Father Pohier—who attacked especially the Infallibility of the Church, the Real Presence, and the Divinity of Christ—"would no longer have the right to celebrate Mass in public, to teach, to organize public meetings" the snarls of the Modernist pack echoed from end to end of the West. One after the other there were violent protests and howls of anger against Rome: three hundred Catholics here, twenty theologians there, journalists (as though Leftist by accident) French and foreign, Dominicans, Protestants, communities with more or less sophisticated names, and who knows what more? A number of religious reporters added their outbursts of fury or bitterness to the cries of this mixed bag, alleging among other arguments that "such disciplinary sanctions had never been taken since the Vatican Council." One would have thought that sanctions had been definitely rejected.
Yes! This is the crunch! And the Abbé Sulment, Parish Priest of Domqueur was able to write in his irreplaceable Parish Magazine:
"The bishops of Vatican II were taken for a ride by two different kind of guides: on the one hand the experts who had been condemned before the Council and had re-surfaced; on the other hand, experts who ought to have been condemned after the Council and who sank deeper into their errors—such as Hans Küng, and there will be more to follow. One can say what one likes, but if the most prominent advisers are people who have been condemned, or are yet to be condemned, the inspiration of this famous Council, inspired by the Holy Ghost will take a good slap in the eye."
The Ecumenical Connection
Michel de Saint Pierre mentioned the participation of Protestants in the campaign against the Pope. Some traditionalists are understandably disturbed because, from time to time, the Pope makes approving references to the ecumenical movement. Those who follow his writing and actions carefully will note that his principal ecumenical concern is to achieve reunion with the Orthodox Church, which is an excellent omen from the doctrinal standpoint. Whatever favorable words he might say concerning ecumenism with the various Protestant sects, there is no doubt that these sects look upon his actions with dismay. Under Pope Paul VI, ecumenism consisted of concession after concession to Protestantism with no reciprocation. While this state of affairs continued the Roman Pontiff was honored with approving comments and the occasional pat-on-the-back from spokesmen for a hundred and one sects. But the ecumenical honeymoon is over. In an editorial on 11 January 1980, England's leading Anglican journal, The Church Times, stated that: "The question now troubling many Christians is whether the Pope is going to turn out to be the Ayatollah of the West." It adds that it is taking the disciplining of Küng as a warning of what might happen to Anglicans if they subjected themselves to Rome.
The Canadian Churchman, another Anglican paper, states that: "The Velvet Glove is off and the Iron Fist revealed." It considers recent statements of the Pope raise "an insurmountable barrier to reconciliation ... we must not delude ourselves that rapprochement with Rome is possible for the foreseeable future."
The Anglican Archbishop of York (England) considers that Küng and Schillebeeckx are great theologians who "have put the whole Christian world in their debt" and that the Vatican condemnation "cannot but be a cause of sadness for those of us outside the Roman Communion ..." Newsweek's Kenneth Woodward, a senior member of the Liberal media hierarchy, felt that the Pope "set the ecumenical movement back a hundred years." Mark Reuver, Secretary General of IDOC,2 says: "I think the whole ecumenical movement will be stopped." In Switzerland 2,000 demonstrators rallied in support of Küng carrying such banners as: "AFTER THE VATICAN COUNCIL—THE ICE AGE." The World Council of Churches clearly believes that the Pope is not entitled to take important decisions without its approval: "The Pope's decision could not be regarded as an internal affair of the Catholic Church since it had immediate ecumenical repercussions." Seventy American and Canadian Catholic theologians proclaimed: "We publicly affirm our recognition that Professor Küng is indeed a Catholic theologian." Leading the opposition to the Pope in the U.S.A. is Charles Curran. Clearly, he fears it is his turn next.
I already have a collection of cuttings of attacks upon the Pope by Liberals, both Catholic and Protestant, from various countries which could fill several pages of THE ANGELUS but I have quoted sufficient to prove my point.
In the November 1979 issue I said that words were not enough and asked for action. Common justice demands that I acknowledge and pay tribute to the fact that action is being taken of a far more radical and effective nature than I had even dared to pray for when I wrote that last article.
A Choice for Traditionalists
What, then, should the traditionalist reaction be? Every traditionalist must now decide which side to take in the present conflict. Are we to take sides with the Modernist and Protestant detractors of the Holy Father or shall we follow the example of such men as Michel de Saint-Pierre, Father Bruckberger, and Professor Salleron, whose important article appears elsewhere in this issue? All three are men who were actively campaigning against Modernism while most readers of THE ANGELUS, myself included, had not even begun to realize that a problem existed. Professor Salleron was exposing the errors of Jacques Maritain before I was born! These men, and I could cite others—such as Walter Matt and Hamish Fraser, are dedicated opponents of Modernism. It was reading Approaches that roused me from my habitual lethargy to take an active part in the fight against Modernism. Walter Matt was editing The Remnant before anyone reading this had even heard the name Marcel Lefebvre. (It is largely thanks to The Remnant that the Archbishop and his work became known in the U.S.A.) Their opinions deserve consideration and respect. The fact that they are greatly encouraged by the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II carries great weight for me. I know only too well that I am a man of very many faults but I have at least one virtue—I am prepared to learn from and take the advice of people more learned and experienced than myself. The fact that the men I have cited, and I could cite more, consider that the Pope is determined to turn the tide against Modernism is, in itself, sufficient to convince me. The "campaign of hate" to which Michel de Saint Pierre refers clinches the matter as far as I am concerned. After the disciplining of Küng and the Dutch Synod I will not be able to take seriously anyone who asserts that Pope John Paul II is not a conservative. Note well that I do not say he is a traditionalist, although he certainly has some traditionalist tendencies, eg. his refusal to give Communion in the hand, his demand for nuns to wear habits, his devotion to Our Blessed Lady and her Rosary, his opposition to laicization—there are just a few of the examples I could give.
I will go further. I consider it unworthy, in the face of what the Pope is doing, and the attacks made upon him by Modernists, for traditionalists to nit-pick through his various addresses to find something to reproach him with. At present we should be constantly praying for him that the Holy Ghost will give him the wisdom and the courage to go further along the road that he has taken. Eventually he must reach a decision regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and the Tridentine Mass—and this brings me to the question posed by Professor Marra in his embarrassingly kind review of my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, which appeared in the March issue of THE ANGELUS. He concluded his review by stating:
Let us resolve that every time we are tempted to bitterness, we rather absorb the hurt and ask God to lighten by that much the heavy burden of our beautiful Pope. I am inclined to think that Michael Davies will go along with this advice and even, perhaps, give it an enthusiastic seconding.
Clearly, I am only too willing to endorse such truly Catholic sentiments—sentiments which echo the frequently expressed opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre. However, there is one passage in Professor Marra's review with which I could not express wholehearted agreement. He suggests that we should resolve in advance to submit to whatever judgment the present Pope makes regarding the Archbishop, Ecône, and the Immemorial Mass. He is willing to do this because of the trust he places in Pope John Paul II. While I respect Professor Marra's viewpoint and his dedication to the Faith, I fear that I could not have sufficient confidence in any human being to submit myself to his decisions in advance. I would not even be willing to take such a step where Archbishop Lefebvre himself is concerned. Dr. Marra is optimistic that the decision will be in our favor. I am also hopeful. But if the Pope decides against us, I would still feel unable to accept the New Mass as an adequate expression of Catholic Eucharistic teaching or withdraw my support from Archbishop Lefebvre, the most perceptive and courageous defender of the Faith to emerge since the Council.
But, should the Pope not decide in our favor, I would still do everything in my power to support him in all his positive initiatives to uphold the Faith and combat Modernism. As it is, until such a decision is made I believe that traditional Catholics should be the most prominent supporters of all that the Pope is doing to support orthodoxy. One American traditionalist has said to me that he thinks some traditionalists feel threatened by Pope John Paul II—and he felt this fear was especially marked among some of the priests. They feel threatened precisely because the Pope is a conservative and is fighting for many of the things that they have been fighting for. Subconsciously, some of them probably fear that the positions they have built up for themselves are now threatened and that if the faithful have a Pope who defends the Faith they won't need traditionalist clergy. These traditionalists then rationalize their fears by trying to convince themselves that the Pope is not a conservative after all.
I am certain that such fears are groundless. If the Pope does start to restore orthodoxy there will be a greater need for traditional priests than ever before as the Liberal clergy will abandon the Church in their thousands! We must always keep in mind the aim for which the traditionalist movement exists—to restore orthodoxy to the entire Mystical Body and not to set up small isolated groups on a permanent basis. There could be no more mistaken view than to think of our present situation as permanent. We have been driven to form groups and set up chapels because there is, at present, no place for truly traditional Catholics within the Conciliar Church—just as there was no place for them in the official Church at the time of St. Athanasius.3 But if we believe that Our Lord will indeed remain with His Church until He comes again, then we must also believe that the time will come when the Conciliar Church will be an unhappy memory and we can take our place in our parishes once more.
1. EDITOR'S NOTE: The Order of Melchisedech is a defense of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It has been very highly praised. You may order a copy for $7.00 postpaid from The Remnant Press, 2539 Morrison Avenue, St. Paul, Minn, 55117, or, in the United Kingdom, from Augustine Publishing Company.
2. For the background to IDOC see Pope John's Council, pp. 82-83.
3. See Appendix I of Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.
Current Issue
