September 1981 Print

I HAVE NOT THE ELOQUENCE of a Bossuet, I have not the knowledge of a Saint Thomas, so you must forgive me. I am only a missionary, but if my words lack eloquence, I hope the conviction of my faith will be sufficiently apparent so that your and my faith in the Holy Catholic Church may grow, that our faith in Our Lord may persevere and that we may be more determined than ever to maintain that faith, the most precious gift that we have in our souls. For it was indeed our priests who, one day, asked our godfathers and godmothers when they carried us to the Baptismal Font: "What does faith give you? Eternal Life." And if there is one thing which we need, one thing for which we hope, one thing which we await, it is indeed eternal life. Hence we are not here concerned with words of little importance. The question is that of life eternal, of the salvation of our souls. It concerns the salvation of the souls of those about us and entrusted to us, the souls of your children.

For what is the real danger in the situation in which the Church is engaged today, in the battle which she is fighting and in which she is deeply implicated and wounded? What is it all about? It is our faith. And it seems to me that it is on that plane that all that is happening now must be considered. Simply to consider the liturgy, the difficulties of the priesthood, the attacks on the Christian family, including that of the Catholic school, is not enough. It is a question of considering all these spheres in which the Church today finds herself in some way wounded in the matter of our faith. Moreover, I believe it may be rightly stated that throughout the history of the Church it has always been through lack of faith that heresies and schisms have been born; that whole families have been cut off from the Church by forsaking the Faith. Once again it is under this aspect that today's crisis must be considered if it is to be rightly understood.

I hope my words will not scandalize you. I hope you will not think my attitude too hard and fast and my words too lacking in the finer shades! One thing I would say, before touching the heart of the matter, is that I have no intention of criticizing individuals. If you prefer, I will adopt the position taken by the Holy Office, the position it has always taken when bound in duty to consider the condemnation of books and putting them on the Index. The Holy Office did not consider persons, only their works. It has been criticized for condemning books, supposedly without hearing persons. To be accurate, however, it was not persons whom it condemned. It condemned on the evidence—the works. It said: "This book contains passages which are not in conformity with the traditional teaching of the Church." One point, that is all! The author is of little importance; the poison is there. The Church detected it, she condemned. It was her duty and that is what the Church has already done. Alas, she does it less today. Hence I shall consider the events through which we are living; the things we are seeing and hearing, the things put into our hands, in that same way, without concerning myself with persons. You will tell me that I must go further back, to the people who wrote these things or who gave them to us. I do not know and I do not want to know, because I am incapable of knowing the responsibility, still less the degree of guilt of those who may have written or given us a particular document. One thing is certain, however. If today we are experiencing a tragic and dramatic situation in the Church, there are causes which we must study and look into. We cannot close our eyes to a situation as grave as that through which we are living today.

If you wish, then, I will give you a brief description of such themes and phenomena as seem of major importance in this crisis, the phenomena which seem to us most serious. We will then seek their causes so that we may be forewarned and know what we must do. We shall then end with practical conclusions—what is to be done in the face of this crisis which constitutes an attack on the Church's every sphere?

We might concentrate mainly on the present crisis of the Church regarding her Teaching and Magisterium. One of the first domains to come under serious attack is university teaching, since if there is one thing important to the Church, it is Catholic universities. The Church has always considered the university chairs of Theology, Canon Law, Liturgy and Ecclesiastical Law as the organs of its authentic magisterium or at least preaching. It is now an established fact that in all, or nearly all, Catholic universities, at least those not behind the Iron Curtain, the orthodox Catholic Faith is no longer taught in its entirety. So far as I am aware, whether in free Europe or in the United States, or in South America, there is not a single Catholic university which teaches the Catholic Faith in its entirety. There are always some professors who, under the guise of theological research, allow themselves to express opinions contrary to our Faith, not merely in a few secondary aspects, but against its very principles.

Here beneath my eyes, I have the text of a lecture on the Eucharist given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg: "Contemporary Thought and the Expression of Eucharistic Faith." This lecture, from the first line to the last, is heretical. There is no longer any question of the Real Presence of Our Lord. The Real Presence, for the one who is Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg, is comparable to the presence of a composer of a piece of music, who shows himself in his piece when it is played. It is thus that Our Lord would be held present in the Holy Eucharist. Incredible, unimaginable! And he speaks of what the celebration of the Eucharist will be in a few years. For him, the Novus Ordo is no longer in question; it is already outdated: the world evolves so swiftly that such things are soon relegated to times past and consequently, we must look forward to a Eucharist emanating from the group itself. In what will it consist? The Dean himself is not sure. But by meeting together, groups will create the Eucharist, will create the sense of this communion with Christ, who will, as they say, be present in the midst of them; but in no way present under the species of bread and wine. He smiles at that Eucharist which is called an "efficacious sign," which is the definition of the Sacrament, of all sacraments. He says: "That is utterly ridiculous; such terms cannot be used today. In our day they are meaningless." What this Dean says is grave indeed. As a result, the young students who hear these things from their professor, from the very Dean of the Faculty, young seminarians still in residence, are gradually steeped in error, marked by it; they receive a training which is no longer Catholic. It is the same with those who are now at Fribourg and who hear from the famous Dominican, Professor Pfuertner, that premarital relations are both natural and desirable. Such was the scandal created throughout Switzerland that the laity themselves took the matter up. Imagine fathers of families learning that the Faculty professor, the professor of Ethics, was teaching such things! It was flabbergasting. So violent and so vehement was the reaction among Catholic and Christian parents that the Bishops were made aware of the existence of a real danger. Now, despite the comments made to him, despite the coming of the Superior-General of the Dominicans to Fribourg, despite the Bishop's journey to Rome to consider the measures to be taken in the matter of this professor, this Dominican Father is still attached to the University of Fribourg, where he continues his teaching. He has simply agreed to take three months' leave, and he proposes to return to his Chair for the second term of the year, saying that those three months will give him the opportunity for discussion with the Bishops.

These are minor examples. But they show that even in such universities as Fribourg, hitherto regarded as a sound and traditional university, the doctrine of the Church will not be taught from now on.

 

IT IS THE SAME WITH THE LITURGY. Father Baumgartner, also a Dominican, has taught some of my own seminarians at Fribourg. They themselves have told me the way of composing new Canons. He said to them: "It is not very difficult to make new Canons; here are a few principles you can easily adopt on becoming priests." Yet, so far as I know, he has never been the object of any comment or criticism. Examples could be multiplied. And when one reflects that even in the Universities of Rome, including the Gregorian, there are freely put forward, in the guise of theological research, utterly incredible theories on the relations of Church and State, on divorce, etc.! Assuredly, the very fact of having achieved a transformation of the Holy Office—always considered by the Church as the Tribunal of the Faith—is significant and of great consequence. Anyone—layman, priest, and more especially bishop, might submit to the Holy Office a book, a review, an article and ask for the ruling of the Church on its conformity to Catholic doctrine. A month, six weeks afterwards, the Holy Office would answer, "This is right, this is wrong, a distinction should be drawn here, part is true, part is false." In short, it was thoroughly examined and judgment passed. It was the Tribunal of Faith. The Holy Office has now defined itself for the future as the "Office for Theological Research." The difference is clear to see. I remember asking Cardinal Browne, the former Superior-General of the Dominicans: "Eminence, do you regard this change in the Holy Office as radical change or merely superficial and accidental?" "Oh no!" he replied, "the change is essential." The Holy Office, then, is no longer the Holy Office of the past. That is why we must not be surprised if there are no more condemnations, if the Tribunal for the Faith of the Church no longer acts, or carries out its functions where theologians and all who write on the Faith of the Church are concerned. We must not be surprised if errors grow everywhere widespread and that theologians, theologians in name only, find themselves free to publish errors and profess them publicly without fear of intervention. Thus the poison of heresy ends by spreading through the whole Church. The Magisterium of the Church is subjected to a grave crisis.

It is a teaching which appears in our catechisms also—you certainly know something about that! You could see for yourselves the catechisms put into your children's hands and found in Catholic schools today. I have here some copies of a particularly "with it" catechism. They are Canadian catechisms. All these catechisms, whether French, Canadian, German, or Italian, what have you, derive more or less from the mother-catechism, if we may call it so, of Holland. Now, you are well aware that the Dutch Catechism has been condemned, if not by the Holy Father directly, at least by the Commission named by him and made up of cardinals. Ten points dealing with ten fundamental points of the doctrine of the Church have been condemned or their authors have been asked at least to re-state them and thus change the text of the work in question; they were asked to issue a new edition of the catechism, changing the text—well, the text never has been changed. Some editions, in which these ten points were added at the end of the book, have been published, but the text has never been changed. Finally, the addition of the points disappeared. They are no longer to be found in recent editions. These same catechisms are now the source of all catechisms throughout the world.

Look at this one, for instance, where you will see: "Sexuality and Daily Life." I regret that it cannot be passed around. You would yourselves see the horrors it contains, including even illustrations aimed at giving children an obsession. I assure you, it is an abomination. There is nothing but that in the book and always in large headlines. Sexuality! Open the book at any page and you will find it everywhere—sexuality lived in the Faith, sexual promotion. The illustrations themselves are absolutely revolting—sexual promotion, sexual union, there is nothing else. The child who has these pictures to look at and these texts to attract his interest will end by believing that there is nothing else in life and that it is a reality which cannot be ignored. In a thousand forms sexuality invades the inner and outer universe of every man and woman as if nothing else existed. It is to give the child the desire and the obsession of sex!

It is this publication which is put into the hands of children in Canada. Christian parents, many Christian parents have protested, but alas! there is nothing to be done. Why? It is enough to look at the last page. It shows that these catechisms have the approval of the Committee on the Catechism. "Nihil obstat, Gerard-Marie Coderre, President of the Episcopal Commission for Religious Education in Quebec." Here is another, still on the same subject ... "The Power of Meetings." You may imagine what that can mean—the power of meetings. Here is a third catechism: "Direction on the Journey" ... reflections on breaking away. Yet again you can see immediately what this may mean. The child is invited to break with everything—with his parents, with tradition, with the bonds of society in order to rediscover his personality, in order that he may free himself of the complexes bred in him by society or the family. It is the break-away! And it is claimed that through experience of these breaks, Christ reveals to us what it means to be the Son of God. It is thus Our Lord who has experienced such severances and who desires them.

When this is compared with what I was saying to you recently about the Faith, we see, if we go into this domain, that it is the exact contrary of what we should be doing—we should seek bonds, above all with God. We should be the slaves of God, we should be the servants of God; and so, instead of forever speaking of severance, we should speak of ties, of those which make up our life—the love of God. What is the love of God if not a link with God, obedience to God and to His Commandments? The bond with parents, love for our parents, these are the bonds of life, not of death. And these are presented to the child as ties which constrain and hem him in, bonds which diminish his personality and of which he must rid himself. There then, is a catechism approved by Mgr. Coderre and the Canadian Episcopate.

 

SOMETHING, THEN, IS GOING ON in the Church, and it is something abnormal. These are facts. I do not judge Mgr. Coderre, I do not judge the Canadian Episcopate. But the catechisms are there, they have been put into the hands of children. The lecture was given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg. The facts are beyond dispute. I heard of them by chance. But, faced with such happenings, actual events, which provide evidence that something is wrong, we have no right to shut our eyes, to say: "That has been given us, that is from above, so let us close our eyes, accept and obey." No and yet again No! St. Thomas himself asks, in the questions he poses on fraternal correction, whether fraternal correction can exist with regard to superiors. That may seem a bold question on the part of St. Thomas, but he never avoids a problem, he is not afraid of them. So he asks the question: "May one exercise fraternal correction towards one's superiors?" After consideration of all necessary and useful distinctions, he replies: "Fraternal correction may be exercised in the case of superiors where the Faith is concerned." He is altogether right. It is not by virtue of being a superior that any may impose on us the loss of our faith, that he may command a diminution of faith. That is the whole problem. We have no right to run the risk of losing the faith; it is the most precious gift we have and, were we stronger in our faith, we should avoid slipping gently into heresy. What will become of those children who have studied these new catechisms for years? For those of us who are no longer young and were brought up in the true Faith through the true catechism, the danger is extremely slight. What, however, will become of the children and young seminarians brought up in such a milieu become? That was the question put to me by the Superior-General of the Franciscans, whom I met recently in Rome. He said: "Monseigneur, it is not so much for us that this is a grave crisis, but the young seminarians now in the universities. What will they know of dogmatic and moral theology? From now on, nothing!" Moreover, since they no longer want to study these sciences, they take up experimental psychology and sociology. They no longer study dogmatic or moral theology, or Canon Law or the History of the Church. All that no longer interests them. Well? Those will be the priests of tomorrow. Bishops even! What is to become of your children's faith then, of the faith of those alive at that time? We have no right to wash our hands of the matter.

Just as this crisis of faith is manifesting itself in teaching and the Magisterium, it is becoming equally apparent in the Priesthood and the Liturgy. The concept of the Priesthood and of the Priest which the Faith gives us has gone. Definitions are being gradually changed. Within Holy Church the priest has always been looked upon as one having a "character" given by the Sacrament of Order in preparation for the Holy Sacrifice, of the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice, not the Supper, not any kind of communion, not the breaking of bread of charity, or the bread of the Community. He was ordained for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross on the altar, for the shedding, on the altar, of the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for bringing to the altar, by words of Consecration, Him Who is King and Prince of the Universe, the Creator of all things, the Savior, the Redeemer. It is for this that the Priest has the sacredotal "character" and that he is a priest. That is what a priest is; that is what we were always taught. Hence, during our years in the seminary, we had but one desire, to mount the steps of the altar. Oh! for the day when I should celebrate my first Mass! My tonsure was the first step on the way, then Minor Orders, then the Sub-Diaconate, my promise of chastity, and then the Diaconate; and, at last, the ascent to the altar to speak the words of Consecration, the Sacrificial act, which is not a mere recital as it is today; it is not the story of the Passion! It is a true act and a true Sacrifice which takes place at that moment, and it is of faith that "Soli sacerdotes sunt ministri sacrificii—Priests alone are ministers of the Sacrifice." And today we are told, "It is the whole assembly which makes the Sacrifice." The assembly indeed participates in the Sacrifice, but does not offer the Sacrifice and it is not the minister of the Sacrifice. The Priest alone is the minister of the Sacrifice. It is in this that the priest's dignity lies. It is because of this that the priest cannot become an ordinary being. He cannot put himself on the same footing as the unconsecrated, as those who have not this sacerdotal "character." Any such attempt would be vain. Before the Angels, before God, for all eternity, the priest is a priest. In vain would he put on a red or multi-colored pullover, he is still a priest. And if he seeks to hide his sacerdotal character, he betrays his mission. Yes, he is a traitor to his mission.

 

THE WORLD NEEDS THE PRIEST; the world cannot do without priests, and the priest must show himself. He has no right to conceal his "character." He is a priest from morning to night; twenty-four hours a day he is a priest! At all times he may be called for confession, for extreme unction, to give counsel to lost souls. The priest must be present. Thus, to make himself profane, to lack faith in his sacerdotal character imports the end of the priest, the end of the Priesthood, and we are reaching that point. No wonder seminaries are empty. Why does the priest preserve his celibacy? There again we must appeal to faith. If we love faith in the priesthood, if we lose the idea that the priest is made for Sacrifice, that unique Sacrifice which is the Sacrifice of the Altar, which is the continuation of the Sacrifice of Our Lord, we lose altogether the meaning of celibacy. There is no longer any reason for the priest's celibacy. We shall certainly be told that the priest is so busy and so absorbed by his functions that he cannot assume the care of a family. There is no sense in this argument. The doctor, if he has a true vocation for medicine, is as busy as a priest. If he be a true doctor and is called in day and night, he must be present to treat those who beg him to come to their aid. Hence, he too should remain unmarried since he cannot have time to spend on his wife and children. It is absurd to say that a priest is so busy that he could not take on the burden of a household. The deep reason for priestly celibacy does not lie in that. The real reason for the consecrated celibacy of the priest is that same reason for which the Most Blessed Virgin has remained a Virgin, because she bore Our Lord in her womb. It was therefore both right and just that she should remain forever virgin. In the same way the priest, by the words he speaks at the Consecration, brings God to earth. Such is his nearness to God, a spiritual being, the Supreme Spirit, that it is good and right and eminently fitting that the priest should be a virgin and remain celibate. That is the fundamental reason: it is because the priest has received the "character" which allows of his speaking the words of Consecration and bringing Our Lord to earth that he may give Him to others. Therein lies the reason for virginity. "But," you will say to me, "why are there married priests in the East?" It is a matter of tolerance. Make no mistake. It is simply tolerated. Ask the Eastern priests; a bishop may not be married. None of those Eastern clergy exercising functions of any importance may be married. Marriage is merely tolerated and the concept is not one held by the Eastern clergy themselves. For they too reverence the celibacy of the priest. In any case it is absolutely certain that from the season of Pentecost, even if they have lived with their wives, the Apostles no longer "know" them. After all, to whom was Our Lord speaking when He said: "if you would be my disciples leave all things, leave your wives." Having received the Holy Spirit, how could the Apostles, the first to be filled with the light and power of the Holy Spirit, fail to obey the behest of Our Lord Himself? But, you will tell me, St. Paul did indeed say that he had no wife. True, St. Paul, had no wife who went about with him. The Apostles' wives doubtless continued to follow their husbands. However, profiting by the grace of the Holy Spirit which had descended upon their husbands, the Apostles, they understood what must be their future part; they were content to follow their husbands without "knowing" them. That is certainly the Tradition of Holy Church. And that is the reason for the celibacy of the priest. Once the definition of the priestly state is lost there can be no sound concept of what it is. Hence we are now asking: "What is a priest? What is priesthood?" So then, after two thousand years of priests in the Church, do we not yet know what a priest is? But that is lunacy! Now, it seems, the priest is said to exist for evangelization. A Cardinal said that very thing to me when I told him that my seminary was wholly centered on the Altar. From the Sacrifice one passes to the apostolate, to evangelization, since it is from Our Lord's heart that there should spring that flame which fires the priest, who then preaches Our Lord to bring souls to the Eucharist and thus to Our Lord Himself. That is the two-way action which the priest should take. He speaks of Our Lord. But, if he is created for evangelization only, I wonder evangelization of what, if it is not of Jesus Christ. It is the preaching of a so-called social justice which is neither more nor less than a real revolution. Do not be surprised then, if priests become Marxists. It is natural, all quite natural and logical. The people must be freed; that is the new aim of the Priesthood, the liberation of humanity, ruptures. That is what the priest should preach! They are turned into militant trade unionists. Then they are understood; it is a new mystique of which the priest has need, of which the young have need: That is how they find it. But they have lost the mystique of the Altar, of Sacrifice, do not be surprised that the priest, utterly bewildered, marries, that he gives up his priesthood. And there is now talk you have heard (I will name no names, but you will realize at once what I am talking about) of priests for a limited time. All this is extremely serious.

 

IT IS THE SAME WITH THE MASS, if the priest is not defined by the Sacrifice, and if the Sacrifice is not defined by the oblation of the Victim, Who is Our Lord Jesus Christ present on the altar, but if the Sacrifice is defined as an assembly coming together for a meal, the essential and most important element—the Victim has been left out. Indeed, there is no further need of victim since there is no sacrifice. It is a meal; if, then, it is simply a meal, there is no further need for the victim to be present and therefore no more need of the Real Presence of Our Lord. Obviously I could continue with the other sacraments, but I do not want to go on too long.

 

To be continued next month.

 

In Thee, O Lord, is all that I may or should desire, for Thou art my salvation and my redemption, my hope, my strength, my honor and my glory. Make me, Thy servant, today merry and glad in Thee, for I have lifted my soul to Thee. —The Imitation of Christ