$4.45

june 2005

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

die 27 junii

a Perpetuo Succursu

A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

Beatae Mariae Virginis

ngelus Press announces the publication of the
first totally retypeset, 1962 Latin-English daily
missal for the laity since Vatican II. This is the
most complete missal ever produced in the English
language. We have included everything in a missal that
is affordable while being of the highest durability. The
Roman Catholic Daily Missal will become your life-long
liturgical companion—at Church, at home, and on the
road.
 All new typesetting—not a photographic reproduction.
Clear and crisp type.  According to the 1962 juxta
typica edition of the Missale Romanum  1,980 pages
 All liturgical texts in Latin and English (both Propers
and Ordinary)  All readings in English (DouayRheims) and Latin  All music in Gregorian notation
 Ordinary with rubrics in red  Gilt edges  5 liturgically-colored ribbons
 Smythe Sewn, rounded back binding with durable, leather-like Skivertex polymer
gold-embossed flexible cover  Rounded corners on pages and cover
 Reinforced 80 lb. resin-impregnated endsheets for extreme durability (which will
not tear like printed paper endsheets)  Fully and thoroughly Indexed
 Printed and bound in the USA  The finest ivory Bible paper (imported from
France–Bolloré Primalux)

A

E
E
FR ase of

rch al
u
p
s
with he Mis
t


1 free copy of From
the Rose Garden of
Our Lady with each
copy of The Missal
purchased–no limit!
(Offer expires August
31, 2005)

1980pp, sewn binding, gold-embossed skivertex cover, STK# 8043 $59.95

ents rs)
m
a
r
e
Ord
Sac
All t Holy in
ep
ete
(exc compl nglish
E
n&
Lati

Why is this the most complete missal ever?
 All the Masses of the Liturgical Year according to the Roman Calendar of 1962—Temporal and
Sanctoral Cycles and accompanyin g rites (Blessing of Ashes, Blessing of Palms, Chrism Mass, and
the Blessing of Holy Oils, etc.)  Complete Holy Week Liturgy of 1962  Supplements containing the
additional Masses for the United States and Canada  Feasts of particular Religious Congregations
 Liturgical Calendar  Table of Movable Feasts updated to 2050 AD  Masses for the Dead
(including infants), Complete Burial Service, Prayers for the Dead  Marriage Service  Special
Commemorations  39 Votive Collects  17 Votive Masses  Common Masses of the Saints
and the Blessed Virgin  Conclusions of Collects  Rite of Baptism  The Churching of Women
 Rite of Confirmation  Rite of Extreme Unction  Various Blessings  Vespers for Sundays and
Feasts  Compline for Sundays  Office of Tenebrae  The Itinerary or Office before a Journey
 Various Devotions and Prayers including favorite Litanies, the Way of the Cross, prayers of the
Rosary and others  Morning and Evening Prayers  Devotions for Confession  Litany of the
Saints  Devotions for Communion  Anthems to the Blessed Virgin  Hymns in honor of Our Lord
and Our Lady  An explanation of “The Liturgy or Public Worship of the Catholic and Roman Church”
 A Summary of Christian Doctrine  Kyriale with Tones for the Most Common sets of Masses (I Lux
et Origo, II Kyrie Fons Bonitatis, IV Cunctipotens Genitor Deus, VIII De Angelis, IX Cum Jubilo, XI Orbis
Factor, XVII Sundays of Advent & Lent, XVIII Deus Genitor Alme)  Tones for Asperges and Vidi Aquam
 Tones for three of the most common Credos—I, III, IV  Te Deum  and much much more.

From the Rose Garden of Our Lady
A Book of Rosary Meditations

Each mystery has a beautiful illustration, several paragraphs from the Gospels (or a Father of the Church),
ten mini-meditations–one for each Hail Mary. Stop
SAYING the Rosary and start PRAYING the Rosary!
95pp, pocket-sized, softcover,
illustrated, STK# 8012Q $5.95

www.angeluspress.org
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

“Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.”
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

The

ngelus
A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION

2915 Forest Avenue

“To publish Catholic journals and place them in
the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to
spread them as far as possible that they may be read by
all, and especially by those whom Christian charity
demands we should tear away from the poisonous
sources of evil literature.”
—Pope St. Pius X

June 2005
Volume XXVIII, Number 6

• Kansas City, Missouri 64109

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

Fr. John Fullerton
EDITOR

Fr. Kenneth Novak
ASSISTANT EDITOR

OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fr. Nicholas Pinaud

THE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS DAY
MAGISTRAL LESSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
H.E. Bishop Bernard Fellay

Mr. James Vogel
OPERATIONS AND MARKETING

Mr. Christopher McCann
SECRETARIES

Miss Anne Stinnett
Miss Lindsey Carroll
CIRCULATION MANAGER

Mr. Jason Greene
DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Mr. Simon Townshend
SHIPPING AND HANDLING

Mr. Nick Landholt
Mr. Jon Rydholm
PROOFREADING

Miss Anne Stinnett
TRANSCRIPTIONS

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The “Dogma” of Ecumenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fr. Peter Scott

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Phillip Gerard Johnson

CANONIZATION IN TODAY’S
PAPAL MAGISTERIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fr. Alvaro Calderon

Miss Miriam Werick

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published
monthly under the patronage of
St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels.
Publication offices are located at
2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri,
64109, (816) 753-3150, FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas
City, Missouri. Copyright © 2005 by Angelus
Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Manuscripts
are welcome. They must be double-spaced
and deal with the Roman Catholic Church, its
history, doctrine, or present crisis. Unsolicited
manuscripts will be used at the discretion of
the Editorial Staff.
Unused manuscripts
cannot be returned unless sent
with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:
The Angelus, Angelus Press,
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, MO 64109-1529.

ON OUR COVER: Icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. See the article of the same
name which appears in this issue of The Angelus (pp.2-10).

THE ANGELUS SUBSCRIPTION RATES

US, Canada, & Mexico
Other Foreign Countries
All payments must be in US funds only.

1 YEAR

2 YEARS

$34.95
$52.45

$62.90
$94.50

2
F r .

N i c o l a s

P i n a u d

Our Lady of Perp

On December 11,
1865, Pope Pius IX
entrusted the holy
image of Our Lady of
Perpetual Help to the
Redemptorists. “Make
it known to the whole
world,” he commanded
them. In honor of her
June Feastday, The
Angelus discusses the
symbolism of the image
and its history.

3

rpetual Help
Feastday

june 27

s in the holy Shroud we can contemplate the face of Our Lord, so in the image of Our Lady of Perpetual
Help, copy of the painting by St. Luke, can we discover the true face of Mary. The image [see magazine
cover] is a painting on wood approximately 20" x 16". On a rather brilliant gold background several
personages appear. The Virgin Mary, carrying on her left arm the Child Jesus, holds the central place.
The gold, still brilliant, symbolizes the uncreated light, heaven. Mary, who occupies the most important place
against this heavenly backdrop, reminds us that she is the gate of heaven, Janua Coeli.
The Virgin is cloaked in royal purple: her dress is red, and her mantle, draped over her head as a veil, is blue.
The folds of mantle and veil are streaked with gold. The Old Testament only knew one shade of blue: violet. The
fabric which covered the arc of the covenant was of this hue (Num. 4,6,12). Now, is not Mary the veritable Ark of
the Covenant? The high priest, called by his functions to communicate directly with God, also wore garments of
this color. Mary is not a priest, but she gives us the priest par excellence: since our Lord became priest by the very
act of the Incarnation, it must be said that the first priestly ordination was celebrated in the virginal womb of Mary,
that the ordination was only accomplished with the consent of Mary, and that the subject of the ordination was
furnished by Mary.
On the veil shines a star–Stella Maris–the star that shows the way, which was followed by the Magi, of which St.
Bernard sings in praise:
Mary is that splendid star that rises above the vastness of the sea, brilliant by her merits, shining by her examples. O you who
feel yourself to be far from land, swept away by the currents of the world in the midst of storms and tempests, take not your
eyes off the light of this star if you do not wish to sink. If the wind of temptations blows, if the reef of tribulations threatens the
way, look at the star, call on Mary. If you are tossed by the waves of pride, ambition, detraction, or jealousy, look at the star,
call on Mary. If anger, avarice, or impure desires buffet the vessel of your soul, look at Mary. If, troubled by the enormity of
your crimes, shamed by the turpitudes on your conscience, frightened by the dread of judgment you begin to slide into sadness
or slip into despair, think of Mary. In perils, in anguish, in doubts, think of Mary, invoke Mary.1

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

4
The star is also the symbol of virginity. On the
veil of the icon of the Virgin of the Passion, we see
three, since Mary is Virgin before, during, and after
childbirth. The wide halo that encircles her head
is artistically embellished. Above the Madonna’s
head read four letters in Greek: MP-ΘU, beginning
and ending initials which mean “Mother of God,”
(M[HTH]P Θ[EO]U).
The divine Child is seated on His Mother’s left
arm; he is not clothed as a child, but as a man. He
wears a green tunic secured by a red sash and partly
covered by a deep yellow cloak. His head is also
encircled by a halo, a little less wide and ornate than
that of the Madonna, but marked by a cross. Above
His left shoulder, at His eye level, we read these letters:
IC-XC, that is, “Jesus Christ” (I[HΣOU]Σ X[PIΣTO]Σ).
The Child does not look at His Mother, but looks
back and turns His eyes towards a vision that fixes His
gaze and impresses on his gentle features a look of
fright. What is the vision? Two angels, one on the right,
St. Gabriel, who presents Him with the cross and four
nails; the other, on the left, St. Michael, who carries
in a sacred vessel the instruments of the Passion: the
lance which will pierce Jesus’ side, and the reed.
The image is not just a representation, but a
liturgical celebration. We can identify the two angels,
because each one bears the Greek inscription of
his name above his head: on the right, O APΓ for
“Archangel Gabriel” (O AP[AΓΓEEΛOΓ] Γ[ABPIHΛ],
whose name means “God is my strength”), and, on the
left, O APM for “Archangel Michael” (O AP[AΓΓEΛOΣ]
M[IXAHA], whose name means “Who is like unto
God?). The entire history of salvation is summed up
by the presence of these two celestial spirits: Gabriel,
the angel of the Incarnation, and Michael, angel of the
victory over the Dragon.
At the extremities of the arc of the covenant
were two cherubim facing each other, dominating
the propitiatory, a sort of great plate in gold on
which the high priest, once a year, poured the blood
of the victim. Here it is the Archangels Gabriel and

Michael who flank the ark of the new covenant, the
Theotokos (Mother of God), bearing the instruments for
immolation of the victim. Jesus turns His face toward
the new propitiatory, the cross, on which the Lamb of
God will be immolated as propitiatory sacrifice.
At the sight of these instruments of death, the
Child seeks the protection of His Mother and seizes
her right hand, symbol of strength. The two little hands
clasping the thumb of Mary’s hand are in the center
of the icon: the most important place. Jesus asks His
Mother to lend Him “a strong hand” and we know that
she will do that to the bitter end, standing at the foot of
the Cross.
This majestic hand holding the two little hands of
the Child indicates Mary’s universal mediation, but her
attitude–her head inclined toward her Son and her
right hand pointing to Him–reminds us that Jesus is
our salvation. It is a wonderful representation of the
Auxílium Christianorum, of her who is the perpetual
help of Christians.
But what especially characterizes this image is
the Madonna’s expression, which perfectly reflects
the scene we have just described. In the look Mary
directs to onlookers, as in her entire countenance, one
perceives an indefinable, sweet sadness mixed with
tender compassion, a perfect commentary on the word
of the old man Simeon: “A sword will pierce your
heart” (Lk. 2:35). It is the face of the Co-redemptrix, Our
Lady of Seven Sorrows.
She also has seen the cross presented to her Son:
her heart suffers, but with what calm, what serenity,
what celestial resignation! It seems that the terror of
the Divine Child in the presence of the instruments of
torture which are shown to Him have reminded Mary
of her other children on earth, painfully making their
way in sorrow and tears, and too often alarmed by the
sight of their cross.
Under the impression of the pity she feels,
her mouth remains closed, for the Fiat has been
pronounced. She remains silent, but by squeezing the

HISTORY
OF THE
PICTURE

5
little left hand, that of the heart, she seems to confirm
her accord and say to us:
I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge,
and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the
truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to
me….He that hearkeneth to me shall not be confounded,
and they that work by me shall not sin.2

There remains one odd but meaningful detail
to mention: the Child is losing the sandal of His left
foot! Some commentators explain it as an effect of the
Child’s fright. At the sight of the instruments of the
Passion, scared, He would have thrown Himself into
His mother’s arms, breaking the strap of His sandal in
His haste. But a child who is afraid turns his eyes away.
Here Jesus, faced with the Passion offered to Him
by His Father through the tokens presented by the
celestial messengers, consents.
Now, we know that there was a Jewish custom
that consisted of taking off one’s shoe and giving it
to the neighbor in order to symbolize the transfer of
ownership by inheritance or by sale. Thus, when Booz
prepared to buy a parcel sold by Noemi, the kinsman
who yielded his right of purchase to Booz removed his
sandal as a testimony of cession of right (Ruth 4:7). In
other words, Jesus seems to declare here: “I remove
my sandal and give it to you to signify that you no
longer owe me anything! I pay the price needed to
redeem you, to be loved by you.”
This gesture also occurs in the Levitical law
expressed in Deuteronomy 25:5: “When brethren
dwell together, and one of them dieth without children,
the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another:
but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his
brother.” If the brother-in-law refuses his right,…the
widow “shall come to him before the ancients, and
shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his
face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will
not build up his brother’s house” (Deut. 25:9). In His
Passion, Jesus no longer has His sandals, they spit on
Him and mock Him.

Lastly, on June 23, 1867, Msgr. Louis AnticiMattei, Archbishop of Constantinople, solemnly
crowned the image with a golden diadem offered by
the chapter of the Vatican basilica. Ever since, the
Popes have not ceased to personally honor it and to
enrich the devotion to Our Lady of Perpetual Help:
Pope Pius IX, as we have seen, came and
prostrated himself before the miraculous image. The
Redemptorists offered him a copy, which he placed
in his private oratory and ordered that a candle burn
before it continuously. When the Russians of Zotomir
asked him to send them the most venerated Madonna
of Rome, Pius IX sent them an image of Our Lady
of Perpetual Help. Pope Leo XIII had it ever before
his eyes because he kept in his office a little image
of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. When Pope St. Pius
X received the extraordinary visit of Menelik II,
Emperor of Ethiopia on October 7, 1907, he offered
his wife, the Empress Taitou, a reproduction of Our
Lady of Perpetual Help. He attached an indulgence
of 300 days to the invocation: “Mother of Perpetual
Help, pray for us.” Pope Benedict XV had a copy of
Our Lady of Perpetual Help above his throne and
allowed the Redemptorists to add to the Litanies of
Loreto after “Mother of Good Counsel” “Mother of
Perpetual Help, pray for us.” Pope Pius XI approved
the novena in honor of Our Lady of Perpetual Help:
it involves honoring Our Lady of Perpetual Help on
nine consecutive Saturdays. Pope Pius XII allowed
the transfer of this novena of nine Saturdays to the
following Sundays. After the ceremony of canonization
of St. Maria Goretti, Pius XII offered the mother,
present at her daughter’s canonization, a precious
icon in silver representing Our Lady of Perpetual
Help. Pope Paul VI allowed the transfer of the
nine consecutive Saturdays to any weekday for nine
consecutive weeks.
“Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray that the Names
of Jesus and Mary be the breath of my soul!”

I

n a leaflet by a certain Fr. Segalen, which at least has
the merit of being well-illustrated, he asserts:

Many believed in centuries past that it was a portrait of
the Blessed Virgin Mary painted by the hand of St. Luke. It
is for this reason that they called this icon “The Virgin of St.
Luke.” We know that that is a legend, but a legend that rests
on a fact: the Gospel according to St. Luke offers us the most
beautiful portrait of the Virgin Mary.

We would like to know how Fr. Segalen knows
that it was not St. Luke who originally painted this
image. Today, what man can neither explain nor verify
he qualifies as “legend,” using this word not with its
original meaning of “that which must be read,” but as
meaning a fable.
St. Luke, a doctor by training, was a cultivated
man. He did not know our Lord, but he was closely
acquainted with the Mother of God, which allowed him
to reveal to us in his Gospel the secrets of which only
Mary had been witness.

A very serious, if not absolutely certain, tradition
teaches us that St. Luke was also a painter. From his
intimate relationship with Mary undoubtedly was
born his desire to transmit to the faithful not only a
glimpse of the soul of the most holy Virgin, but also
the traits of her countenance. Which is what he did.
Tradition relates that the Blessed Virgin, on seeing
the portrait, attached to it this blessing: “Gratia mea
eam comitabitur–My favor will always accompany this
image.” This story is recounted notably by Fr. Henze,
the author who has most carefully studied the entire
history of this miraculous painting.3
Another portrait attributed to St. Luke is
venerated in a side chapel of the Church of St. Mary
Major at Rome under the title Salus Populi Romani. A
number of similarities exist between the two icons.
Two recent facts would uphold the tradition which
recognizes in this painting a portrait of the Blessed
Virgin. When this icon was shown to St. Bernadette,
she recognized in it the traits of the Lady who had
appeared at the grotto of Massabielle: “Bernadette
was shown a collection of engravings all of which
portrayed the Blessed Virgin. When shown the Virgin
of St. Luke,” writes Fr. Cros, “Bernadette pointed to it,
saying, ‘There is something there!...’ As for the other
images, she only looked on them indifferently.”4
And Sister Lucy responded similarly to Fr.
McGlynn, who asked her what the Virgin looked like:
“Her face is the same as that of Our Lady of Perpetual
Help.”5
This image was venerated at Jerusalem for nearly
four centuries. The first document which testifies
to the existence of the painting of the Virgin by St.
Luke dates from 444. It was at this epoch that it was
offered to the Empress Eudoxia, wife of Theodosius
II, a very pious emperor who reigned from 408
to 450 over the eastern Roman Empire. Eudoxia
entrusted this precious treasure to the emperor’s
sister, St. Pulcheria. The latter had a church built at
Constantinople and deposited in it the precious relic,
which was the object of a very great veneration. Every
Tuesday, a procession left the sanctuary and the holy
image was carried throughout the city. The people
multiplied their homage, and Mary, faithful to her
promise, multiplied her favors. “My favor will always
accompany this image.”
Until the reign of Baldwin II, Count of Flanders,
Emperor of the East (1240-73), and beyond, the holy
image was involved in the most important events in
the history of Catholicism in the East. The Virgin had
received the Greek name of Hodigitria, which means
guide.
Alas! dark days fell upon Constantinople. On
May 30, 1453, the Turks seized Constantinople, and
Mohammed II destroyed with his own hand the
precious image, which perished forever. Fortunately,
numerous copies had been made, among which was
one by the monk St. Lazarus, who died in 860. This
religious, who lived at the time of the Iconoclast
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

Salus Populi Romani

6

emperor Theophilus had his hands burned for having
painted this image of the Virgin.6
The work of St. Lazarus differs from the original
portrait by the addition of two angels on either side
of Mary’s face presenting the instruments of the
Passion, which won for it the title of “Virgin with
Two Archangels” or “Virgin of the Passion,” the
most widely used name in the Orient, principally in
Russia where one of the copies of the Constantinople
painting was venerated at Moscow. This imitation,
which is the work of the artist Gregory, was the
object of miracles. In 1641, by order of Czar Alexis
Mikhaïlovitch, it was transported to Moscow, and at
the spot where it was received, near the Tver gate,
a church was built in its honor, then a monastery.
Its name “Virgin of the Passion” came from the
placement of two angels, one to the left and one to the
right of the Virgin’s head, holding the instruments of
the Savior’s Passion. The common inspiration of the
icons of Our Lady of Perpetual Help and the Virgin
of the Passion is obvious, as we can see from the
illustrations.
But let us leave this imitation from the East
to return to that of the monk Lazarus, which can
legitimately be considered as the natural inheritor
of the Virgin’s benediction: the miraculous image of
Our Lady of Perpetual Help, the name dictated by
the Virgin herself in an apparition of which we shall
speak below.
The ancient painting of St. Luke, which
was venerated first at Jerusalem and then at
Constantinople where it was shamefully destroyed,
survived in the famous copy which we all know and
which is venerated today at Rome in St. Alphonsus

7
Church, Via Merulana, between St. Mary Major and
St. John Lateran, as the Blessed Virgin requested.

From Constantinople
to the isle of Crete
According to the tradition, Pope Nicholas I having
expressed the desire to possess at Rome a copy of the
famous image, St. Lazarus left his monastery in order
to fulfill the Pope’s wish, but he did not complete his
voyage. He was constrained, perhaps by storm or
sickness, to stop over at the island of Crete, where he
died. The Cretans received with great piety the image,
which they venerated for six centuries in a church
which they erected for this purpose. Pope Nicholas’s
wish had not been fulfilled in his life time, but Rome
was indeed the destination which heaven had fixed
for this image, as subsequent events amply prove.

From Crete to Rome
A manuscript from 1499, discovered in St.
Matthew’s Church at Rome where the painting was
the object of a very popular devotion recounts very
precisely the story of its translation from the isle of
Crete to Rome. This document disappeared in 1799
together with the church during the invasion of Rome
by the French, but three distinct copies survived the
disaster; today they all belong to the Vatican Library.
It is the principal source of this study.

The Voyage

Kept in Secret
Unpacking the effects of the deceased, our
Roman friend easily found the magnificent painting
and planned to execute his promise without delay.
Unfortunately, it happened that his wife, captivated
by the beauty and the value of the image, opposed
her husband’s will. “A miraculous painting in our
hands?” she told him, “Why, it is a gift from heaven! I
will never consent to part with it.”
“This painting does not belong to us,” her
husband replied, “we must allow other Christians to
venerate it.” But his wife was not short of reasons:
“If we offer it to a Roman parish, the others will be
jealous! Let’s keep it here and we shall pray every day
to the Virgin for all Romans…”
Finally, instead of taking it to a church, the
treasure was hung in the bedroom where, for nine
months, it was kept secret without incident. But,
one day, the Blessed Virgin appeared to the Roman
and enjoined him to execute the last will of his
deceased friend and the sacred promise he himself
had made at the bedside of the dying man. This
injunction did not succeed in convincing the man. A
second warning remained equally ineffective. Mary
intervened yet a third time with the rebel, this time
concluding her visit with a threat: “If you do not obey
my instructions, you will shortly die.” He was finally
going to obey, but, once more, he felt powerless
before his wife’s urging.

Virgin of the Passion

Towards 1496, a merchant of Crete, pushed by the
spirit of lucre, stole the image from the church where
it was displayed for veneration, with the intention of
selling the painting to a church in Italy. He embarked,
but during the voyage, a storm so fierce assailed
the ship that the passengers believed that their
last hour was at hand. More dead than alive, they
recommended themselves to the holy Virgin, without
suspecting–the document explicitly mentions this–the
presence on board of the stolen miraculous Virgin.
Did the thief, struck with holy fear and
repentance, perhaps suggest, without further
explanation, that they invoke her whose image he had
stolen? Nothing indicates it. Finally, the ship reached
an unnamed Italian port safe and sound, thanks to
Mary, who was there “clandestinely.”
Then, though not all his steps can be retraced,
it is known that our man arrived at Rome, still in
possession of his treasure which he intended to sell to
a church. But sickness overtook him in the city, and
he had to take to bed at a friend’s house. Contrite, he
summoned his faithful friend and begged him to do
him one last favor. At his acquiescence, he disclosed
his sacrilegious theft and asked him to offer the
painting to the church of his choice, the one which
would seem to him the most suitable.

The friend agreed, and the Cretan merchant,
undoubtedly well disposed by Our Lady of Perpetual
Help, rendered his soul to God. The adventure was
supposed to stop there, but that was not to be.

8
That was the final straw! One last time, the Virgin
appeared to the Roman, not to threaten him again,
but to announce the impending chastisement: “I
warned you,” she said severely to the weak-willed
spouse. “You would not obey willingly, so you will
leave here first… Then it will be my turn to leave
this house, and I shall choose for myself a worthier
dwelling!” Indeed, not long after, our man left the
house…in a coffin.
The Blessed Virgin, who could not entrust
herself to the guilty wife, first appeared to the sixyear-old daughter, and gave her an important
message–the most important, because it revealed
to us the Madonna’s name: “Tell your mother and
grandfather,” she said, “that Holy Mary of Perpetual
Help wants to be exposed to the veneration of the
faithful in a Roman church.”

Deliverance
In the last warning of the Blessed Virgin, the
grandfather was named, probably because he had
seconded the opposition of the wife, his daughter. Be
that as it may, by experience, the widow had learned
that the Madonna did not make empty threats.
Besides this mysterious message which, coupled with
a vision that she had seen personally, and frightened
by the perspective of a like punishment, she prepared
to part with the precious painting and offer it to a
church according to the will of her whom it portrayed.
Unable to carry out her plan in silence, she spoke
to a neighbor. Weeping, she revealed her husband’s
resistance, and accused herself bitterly of having been
the cause of her husband’s death because of her own
insubordination, and confided in her neighbor her
resolve to place the precious image in a church as
soon as possible.
The neighbor could not believe this providential
intervention, and reassured the poor woman. “You
are letting yourself be deceived; the Virgin Mary is
in heaven, she is not interested at all in our painted
images. If you were to cast her portrait in the fire,
it would burn like any other, believe me. And if
you are too afraid, give it to me: I’ll take care of it.”
But a sudden illness overcame her! By day’s end
the neighbor was seriously ill. But this blow from
heaven revived her faith, she understood her fault,
asked forgiveness, and even made a vow to the holy
image which delivered her instantaneously from her
sickness.
At last, the painting was going to be restored to
public veneration. But in which church should it be
deposited? The Virgin herself returned to manifest
her intention, and revealed it to the daughter in a
new apparition, the seventh and last of this tale: “Tell
your mother that she must deposit the image between
St. Mary Major and St. John Lateran, in a church
dedicated to St. Matthew.” The designated church
belonged to the Augustinian Fathers.
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

In the first century of the Church, on the Esquiline
hill, in the present enclosure of the Redemptorists’
property, there stood the paternal house of St. Cletus,
third Roman Pontiff, who received the gospel truths
from the mouth of the Prince of the Apostles. Having
become Pope, he consecrated his dwelling to public
worship and made it into a church, which became one
of the first sanctuaries of Christendom. It was given
the title of St. Matthew. It was restored in the 12th
century and was consecrated at that time by Paschal
II.

Public Cultus
Informed of events so favorable to them, one can
surmise the promptness with which the Augustinians
presented themselves as the new custodians of
the heavenly treasure. They organized a solemn
procession; and on March 27, 1499, during the
pontificate of Alexander VI, the Wednesday of Holy
Week, they carried the miraculous painting to their
church.
The Blessed Virgin did not intend to ascend her
throne without placing her signature to the contract
signed with her children. Scarcely had the painting
crossed the threshold of the new sanctuary, when a
cripple, whose arm and right side were paralyzed,
dragged himself to the altar to implore his cure,
begging God and the Virgin to restore his limbs.
Suddenly, his blood began to circulate, and the
paralytic was healed.
This miracle, the first of a multitude, marked the
inauguration of a glorious cultus in favor of Our Lady
of Perpetual Help. For three centuries, in the Church
of St. Matthew, crowds of the faithful and numerous
noteworthy visitors, like St. Alphonsus Liguori, came
to pay homage to the holy image dominating the
main altar under the marble baldachin.
A century later and constantly thereafter, the
chroniclers who wrote about the city of Rome could
not silence the glory of the Madonna. Panciroli, in
1600, and Herrera, in 1644, mention the painting,
calling it “miraculous”; Totti, in 1638, qualified it
as “absolutely (valde) miraculous”; Lupardus, in
1618, and Martineli, in 1653, declare it “illustrious
by its miracles”; Cancelotti, in 1661: “famous for its
prodigies”; Brutius, circa 1670: “very miraculous”;
and Cardinal Nerli, in 1687: “resplendent far and
wide by the glory of its miracles.” These testimonies,
among others, are culled from the remarkable work of
Fr. Henze.

From St. Matthew’s
to St. Eusebius’
In February 1798, French troops under the
command of Berthier invaded Rome. Massena,
succeeding Berthier, destroyed some thirty churches,
among which was St. Matthew’s, which was razed

9
on June 3, as we learn from a bull of Pius VII dated
December 23, 1801.
The Augustinians of the monastery, Irish for the
most part, almost all returned to their land of origin.
A few of them sought refuge in the neighboring
church dedicated to St. Eusebius and at the time
completely abandoned because of the extinction of its
former occupants, the Celestine Fathers.
In their flight, one can well imagine, the
Augustinians carefully transported from St. Matthew’s
to St. Eusebius’ the much venerated painting of Our
Lady of Perpetual Help. Where did they depose
it: in the church itself or in the monastery? That
is unknown. All that can be affirmed is that it was
kept there until 1819, about 21 years. At that date,
the Jesuits, re-established by Pius VII, received
the Church of St. Eusebius as their own, and the
Augustinians were once against transferred, this
time to the little church of St. Mary’s in Posterulana.
Obviously, the painting of Our Lady of Perpetual
Help accompanied them in this new migration.
Nevertheless, it was not placed in the church,
already dedicated to the Virgin under another title,
Our Lady of Grace, but placed in a secret little
oratory within the cloister. And there, little by little, it
fell into complete oblivion, or almost, for the people
no longer had access to it, and on the other hand, few
of the monks could remember the solemnities of St.
Matthew’s.
One very old Italian Brother coadjutor, Augustine
Orsetti, remained deeply attached to this Madonna,
for alone he enjoyed first-hand information about the
cultus formerly offered to Our Lady of Perpetual Help
in the Church of St. Matthew. It was there, it turns
out, that while still an adolescent, he had donned
the holy religious habit and had spent more than
ten years of his religious life. Having become an old
man, he frequently repeated, quite emphatically, to a
young man in his service for more than twelve years,
one Michael Marchi: “My dear Michael, this painting
is that of St. Mary of Perpetual Help, venerated for a
long time at St. Matthew’s. It is a miraculous painting,
don’t forget; the fact is absolutely certain.” Moreover,
the young man had already heard certain relations
of miraculous events attributed to the Madonna of
Perpetual Help.
The old Brother passed away at the advanced age
of 86 and the young man left the monastery where he
had served. Without quite forgetting the old Brother’s
statements about the miraculous portrait, he no longer
had the opportunity to revive his remembrance,
nor to speak frequently about the subject. The poor
painting was buried in forgetfulness and dust for
almost 70 years (1798-1866). Later, Michael Marchi
would relate that, in his childhood, he had often
contemplated the painting in the little oratory of the
convent at St. Mary’s in Posterulana. While serving
Mass, he observed that the picture received no special
marks of veneration: not a single candle was lit, not

the least bit of ornamentation adorned its place;
it was covered with dust. Though quite young, his
admiration for the painting never waned. His mission
was not over yet!
Once again, Our Lady was enveloped in mystery
and silence: three quarters of a century passed.
Undoubtedly, individuals must have possessed little
images of the Virgin and had recourse privately
to Mary’s perpetual help, but the processions and
grandiose ceremonies were over, or so it seemed…

In Redemptorist Hands
In 1855, in order to obey the insistent invitations
of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Congregation of the Most
Holy Redeemer founded by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
moved to Rome. The purchase of a property and
monastery was not without complications: so many
negotiations came to naught. Finally, though not
without new difficulties, they settled on the Esquiline
hill, and, note well, on the very site of the former
St. Matthew’s. But by this date, no one suspected
anything. Moreover, by an odd coincidence, this
very year, Michael Marchi, former servant and
young confidant of the old Brother Augustine Orsetti,
entered in religion…with the Redemptorists!
That is not all. A little later, the monastery
archivist informed the community of a most
interesting find: In an old book, he had discovered
a revealing document: a church dedicated to St.
Matthew had once stood on the community’s
property, in the present-day garden, and there they
venerated a miraculous painting of the Virgin.
Fr. Marchi, on this occasion, reminisced about
St. Mary of Perpetual Help, of which, at one time or
other, he had already spoken to his confreres. All, you
can imagine, were keenly interested in the affair.
But one day, they received one more piece of
information. It was in 1863. A Jesuit, Fr. Francis Blosi,
was preaching at the Gésu at Rome on the different
Madonnas venerated in the Eternal City. One
evening, he prefaced his sermon with this remark:
“I would like to speak to you today about an image
once very famous because of the prodigies that it
worked. For 70 years, it has not be spoken of, no
doubt because it is hidden in some private house.”
Then the preacher, taking his inspiration from a
sermon that had been preached in the same church
in 1715 and printed as a leaflet in 1729, described the
features of our glorious painting. He concluded his
allocution with this ardent appeal: “If, in this vast
audience, someone knows the whereabouts of this
famous image, I adjure him to reveal it and to restore
it to public veneration in the very place chosen by the
Blessed Virgin: between St. Mary Major and St. John
Lateran.”
The echo of this historic discourse, this
providential speech, came to the Redemptorists’
ears. They learned from it a supremely important
detail of which they had not the slightest inkling: The
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

10
Virgin of Crete herself had chosen the spot where she
wants to receive our homage, in the church situated
between St. Mary Major and St. John Lateran. Now,
the church which actually fit the description was
the Redemptorists’ church dedicated to the Holy
Redeemer and to St. Alphonsus.
One can easily guess what desire and what hope
of possessing this painting were kindled in the hearts
of the sons of St. Alphonsus. Did they not possess,
moreover, in their own ranks a witness of the highest
worth?
Fr. Mauron, Superior General, asked Fr. Marchi to
draft in good and due form a document on the hidden
painting, about which his heart had faithfully kept the
secret. Armed with this writing, signed on the Feast
of the Immaculate Conception, the superior general
of the Redemptorists obtained an audience with Pius
IX on December 11, 1865. He recounted to him the
facts, clarified the desired information, furnished
the required documents, and, then and there, the
Sovereign Pontiff affixed his signature to an official act
by which he enjoined “the microscopic institute of the
Augustinians of St. Mary in Posterulana” to cede the
miraculous image to the Redemptorists, in order to
assure to the Madonna a solemn public cultus.
The following January 19th, the image was
handed over to the Redemptorists. They immediately
undertook the restoration of the somewhat
deteriorated painting, then reinaugurated the devotion
by a procession through the streets of Rome on the
Thursday evening of April 26, 1866, Feast of Our
Lady of Good Counsel. It was also the feast of St.
Cletus!
“The sons of St. Alphonsus de Liguori (16961787),” the Benedictines of Paris observed, “had
formed from the outset a congregation specially
devoted to the Blessed Virgin. It had adopted as
emblem of this devotion the image of Our Lady of
Good Counsel. But she was also in a place of special
honor among the hermits of St. Augustine. In 1866,
the Virgin confided to the Redemptorists the treasure
of one of her miraculous images: Our Lady of
Perpetual Help.”
The Augustinians, constrained to cede the
miraculous image of Our Lady of Perpetual Help,
recovered in some way the undivided proprietorship
of Our Lady of Good Counsel: is not this what was
signified by the providential inauguration of Our
Lady of Perpetual Help on the feast day of Our Lady
of Good Counsel?
Miracles took place just as they had during the
previous enthronement four centuries before in the
Church of St. Matthew. Let us note one or two of our
Lady’s extraordinary interventions.
A child of four, burning with fever and tortured
by unbearable headaches which threw it into
convulsions typical of meningitis, seemed to be on the
brink of death. As the miraculous picture of Our Lady
of Perpetual Help was passing by, the mother grabbed
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

the child, opened the window and presented it to the
Virgin with this confident prayer: “O good Mother,
heal my boy, or take him with you to Paradise!”
The mother’s confidence was not in vain. The
child immediately enjoyed a humanly inexplicable
improvement, and a few days later was found to be in
perfect health.
A few houses down, another mother held in her
arms her little eight-year-old girl who had lost the
use of her legs a few years before. The heart of Mary
heard her pleas as well, but the child, though she lost
the stiffness, still could not remain standing. A few
days later, the mother, encouraged by the unexpected
amelioration of her daughter’s condition, took her to
the Church of St. Alphonsus and set her down in front
of the painting, saying, “O Mary, finish what you have
begun!” At that instant, the girl arose and began to
walk.
Ever since that day, the miraculous image has
been exposed to the veneration of the faithful at St.
Alphonsus Church, Via Merulana, between St. Mary
Major and St. John Lateran, where she does not cease
to lavish her favors on the crowds she draws: “My
favor will always accompany this image.”
Pope Pius IX was not long in coming in person.
On May 5, 1866, he prostrated himself before the
miraculous image: “I have learned that this Virgin
grants marvelous graces. She should use her power in
favor of the poor pope.” he said, and he commanded
the Redemptorists to “make her known to the whole
world.”
As St. Alphonsus, their founder, wrote, “Mary will
never fail to help us, if we do not fail to invoke her
help.”
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press by Miss Anne Stinnett. This story first
appeared in Le Donjon, the chapel bulletin of the Society of St. Pius X for the
Basque region, No. 50, 2000, and then was republished in the Sel de la Terre,
Summer 2002. Fr. Nicolas Pinaud was ordained for the Society of St. Pius
X in 1993. He is currently headmaster of the Society’s school at Domezain,
France, École Saint Michel Garicoïts.
St. Bernard, Sermons in Praise of the Mother of God, on the Missus est (2nd
Sermon, §17).
2
Epistle of the Mass for the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, June 27,
taken from the Book of Ecclesiasticus 24:23-31.
3
Dr. Clement M. Henze, C.SS.R., in Ausführliche Geschichte des Muttergottesbildes von der Immerwaehrenden Hilfe (1939), cites in favor of the tradition which attributes to St. Luke the painted image of the Blessed Virgin: 1)
the testimony of Theodorus Lector, lecturer at St. Sophia of Constantinople
circa 520; 2) a Greek sermon given in the 10th century at Constantinople
and published in 1899 by Dobschutz; 3) a writing of the Synod of Jerusalem
of 836 to the Emperor Theophilus the Iconoclast signed by three patriarchs,
185 bishops, 17 superiors of monasteries, and 1153 monks. These 1358
signatures reflect the common belief of the Orient. Historical criticism has
no decisive proof to overturn this well-established tradition.–Ed.
4
His Histoire de Notre-Dame de Lourdes, I, 109.
5
Le Perpétuel Secours, April 1956.
6
The iconoclast Emperor Theophilus decided to make all work impossible for
the artist’s hands: he ordered the holy monk’s hands to be burned on red-hot
plates. Lazarus prayed to the Virgin for whom he had been thus tortured in
his flesh, and the Madonna healed him: he set himself to painting Madonnas
with even more love; the Virgin triumphed over the iconoclasts. (See Joseph
Boon, C.SS.R., Notre Dame du Perpétuel Secours [Louvain, 1947].–Ed.)
1

11
I dedicated much thought to the subject of this little talk, and
I would like to speak about the present importance of Pius XI’s
encyclical on education: Divini Illius Magistri.1 We are not going to
look at all the aspects of this magisterial encyclical, which essentially
gives the outlines and directives of what a Catholic school should be.
We will emphasize certain points which with time have become even
more and more important.
This encyclical gives first the definition of education, which, of
course, gives the understanding, the reason, and the meaning of the
Catholic school. The Pope says that it is necessary to have a clear
and definite idea of Christian education, its essential aspects. So what
is education?
Since education consists essentially in preparing man for what he must
be and for what he must do here below [that is, on earth], in order to attain
the sublime end for which he was created, it is clear that there can be no
true education which is not wholly directed to man’s last end, and that in
the present order of Providence, since God has revealed Himself to us in
the Person of His Only Begotten Son, Who alone is “the way, the truth, and
the life,” there can be no ideally perfect education which is not Christian
education [that is, which does not or would not lead us to Christ]. [p.8]

THE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS DAY

MAGISTRAL
LESSON
Given by
H.E. Bishop
Bernard
Fellay at
St. Mary’s
College and
Academy,
St. Mary’s
Kansas
(March 7,
2005)

12
When we say this and when we look at the
way the common man here on earth in the world
understands education, we see that we are already
in two worlds with almost an infinite abyss between
them, because modern man has forgotten his end.
They don’t believe. The modern man does not want
to accept that there is a God, a Creator, and starting
there he cannot accept that he is made for God. He
cannot accept that God is his end; that God is the
supreme good; that the first law which governs all our
actions–and whatever we do here on earth–is to be
finally united with God.
You know that our Lord gave one law which is
the summary of all laws. There is one commandment
which is the sum of all the commandments. And it
is this commandment which obliges us to love God
with all our strength, with all our soul, all our spirit,
and all our heart; that is, whatever capacity of action
we have, we have to direct and use this to love God,
to seek to be more deeply united with God. Because
at the end, for what have we been created? To be
with God. And that’s why, very simply said, every
morning when you rise you are advised to make this
morning prayer where you offer to God your whole
day, all your actions, because in such a way you are
going to direct all your deeds, all your thoughts, all
your aspirations, desires, to God, even if–and it is
perfectly understandable that during the day you will
not think every minute, every second about God–but
having put by your morning offering everything in
that direction, so long as you don’t commit an act
which goes against this intention, whatever you do is
done indeed for God.
Once again, look at modern man. Look how
these words which I have just given to you look
strange; we are in another world. And so if and when
we speak of education, we must never forget this very
first principle: the end of the human being. Where is
the perfection of the human being? It is in God. All
education, then, must work for this end.
Pius XI asked himself who is to give this
education. He has a very deep and interesting
reflection, telling us that education will never be
something private; it will always be something
social, which means it will involve the whole social
community. We will never be able to educate
ourselves by ourselves. We need somebody else,
we need our parents, we need teachers, and as the
matters of education are so broad, there is hardly
one family which is able by itself to give this whole
education. Even if and when we speak of home
schooling, you see very well that the parents who are
doing home schooling, if they don’t dig in their own
knowledge what they will give to the children, they
will look in books which have been written by others.
They will maybe receive instructions from others. It
is a social work. It’s a work that involves the whole
human society.
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

The Church Takes Precedence
We have three persons who have to deal with
education, and the first is the Church. Why? Because
with baptism we are children of the Church; the
Church is our mother. The Church has received this
mission from God Himself, from our Lord: “Teach ye
all nations.” This order to teach, of course, involves
not only giving knowledge, but giving all education.
In the words of Pius XI: “The extent of the Church’s
mission in the field of education is such as to embrace
every nation without exception.” We would have
the tendency to say fine, we have an understanding
that the Catholic Church would request the right to
educate Catholic children, and in the various nations
where we have Catholics we would understand that
the Church would say “Here, I have my rights.” Pius
XI goes much, much further. I repeat:
The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of
education is such as to embrace every nation, without
exception, according to the commandment of Christ:
“Teach ye all nations,” and there is no power on earth
that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the
first place, it extends over all the faithful, of whom she
has anxious care as a tender mother. For these she has
throughout the centuries created an immense number of
schools and institutions in every branch of learning. [p.16]

Of course, we understand her first care is for the
Catholics, but the real care of the Church in the field
of education is extended to the whole of mankind,
to all nations. Take a Buddhist country, take a
Communist country: the Church will say “I have a
strict right to teach you because I have been sent by
your Creator, God, our Lord.”

Education Starts in the Crib
Briefly, in this encyclical, Pius XI describes
the titles, rights, and also the work which has been
realized by the Church in education. Then he
considers the family. Children come into the world,
according to God’s law and God’s disposition, in a
family. And in this place they will receive the first
elements of education. It is more than prudent, and
the Church insists a lot on this point: education does
not start when you are seven; it starts in the crib. And
the very, very first years determine much in all your
life. Thus, parents have a very, very strict and serious
duty to take care of this duty of education from the
very first days of the children’s life. When you are
seven years old, your main tendencies are already
there, and it will be a life-long struggle to kick out
all the deviations which you will have acquired in
your very first years. These bad inclinations, the fruit
of original sin, will have already sunk their roots
in these very first years. What an error in Catholic
parents who just think that their little boys and girls,
their very little babies, are so kind and nice and
sweet. That is a part of it, of course, but there is also
original sin.

13
This right [of the Church over education]: why
does the Pope speak of this? Because in the modern
world there has been a very important inclination,
especially since the [French] Revolution, to
emphasize the role of the State. In the modern world,
too many things are entrusted to the State, the State
which is taking the place of other bodies which have
been more or less destroyed. And so we speak of the
Welfare State: that means the State is playing the role
of God, and the role of Divine Providence. It is true
that the State has a certain role to play in education.
Because human beings will be part of human society,
it is perfectly understandable that the rulers of human
society will have something to say about education,
but the role will be much more the role of controlling
whether this education is happening correctly rather
than giving this education by itself. We see, however,
that if this has been done, especially since liberalism
or, we may say, Masonry–and we see it even more
clearly in the socialistic and communistic countries–
it’s because these ideologies know that if they want
to last they must go to the youth, and the best way
to control the youth, to instill in fresh hearts their
ideologies and their errors, is to take them from the
very first years of school. Since then, you have this
great danger of a great influence of the State over
many levels and domains of education. Once again,
it is not denied that the State has a role to play, but it
must stay in its place.
After having spoken of who must give the
education, we go to the subject of education, and
here, we may say, is the most important place where
we want to make our comments. The Pope deals with
some very dangerous errors in modern education
which very seriously and dangerously may have as a
result that souls, instead of going to heaven, will go
to hell. Education plays a part which happens at the
beginning of life. In this beginning of life, education
is going to form our soul in such a way that we will
receive all that we need in order to lead our life, in
order to get to perfection, and finally, as I said, to
God. It is like the ramp of a rocket: if, at the very
start, the ramp for the rocket is aiming correctly to
the end, you have a great chance that the rocket will
hit its target. But if you place the ramp completely
wrong, pointing way to the side, there is a very great
chance that the rocket will miss its target. And it’s the
same in education. Little errors in the beginning will
be very disastrous in the end.
The point I would like to emphasize here is that
there are two major errors in the modern world, in
modern education, and these errors may be found
also in our schools if we don’t pay attention to it,
because it belongs to human nature that we forget
that we come into the world with original sin.

Original Sin Must
Be Kept In Mind
Forgetfulness of original sin is the first error.
What does original sin mean? It does not only mean
that we come into the world in a state that is not
a very happy state; we come into the world like
somebody who is in debt. We start with a minus.
God’s plan was such that Adam and Eve, living in
the state of grace, would have communicated to their
children, not only human life, but also supernatural
life. God’s first plan was that, coming into the world
we would have been immediately in the state of
grace, friends of God, having God’s life in us. But
there was the first trial of our first parents, and they
failed. They lost this tremendous good of sanctifying
grace, not only for themselves, but rather like parents
who lose their fortune for the children. If parents
lose by accident or by any kind of happening the
goods they have–the house or their fortune–it is very
understandable that, if it is lost, it is lost also for the
children.
So Adam, as the father of all mankind, and
Eve lost the fortune of sanctifying grace for the
whole human race in such a way that even if then,
in generations, you will have people in the state of
grace, their children nevertheless come into the world
with the debt of Adam and Eve. That is what we call
original sin.
Now, this sin has caused in us a tremendous
devastation: four wounds. Even baptism, which gives
us back the state of grace, does not heal the wounds.
So even with baptism we remain wounded, and this
absolute truth, looking at Christian education, is
totally forgotten in the modern world, even amongst
us at times. We ourselves easily forget that we are
wounded.
There are four wounds, each one touching
different areas of human activity: the first, we call
ignorance, which affects our reason. When we say
ignorance, it does not only mean that we don’t know
things when we start. It means rather that since this
original sin, it is hard to get to the truth. We easily fall
into error; we have an inclination which pushes us
off the tracks of the truth, and consequently we must
pay attention. When we want to learn something, we
constantly must look at the reality and confront what
we say, what we think, with the reality to be certain
that we stay in the truth. (And you know, there is one
object where we are especially in error: it is when
we judge ourselves. Look how easily we are capable,
more or less correctly, of judging others. But when it
comes to ourselves, we would like to be much better
than what we are, and so we cheat ourselves many,
many times. So if you want to really know what you
are, just listen to what the others say about you. Their
judgment is much more accurate than ours.)
There is another aspect which you may have
experienced, when you see how these defects, these
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

14
wounds, work: it is how easily we learn and keep in
our memory the silly things and the stupid things.
These we have no problem retaining. But the things
which are more important are also more difficult to
keep. I remember an experience by a young mother
who had to go with her children to another country
and another language, and what she saw horrified
her, because she saw that the first words her children
learned from playing with other children in this other
country and other language were bad words. That’s
the fruit of this wound of ignorance. It is hard; we
must make some effort to learn. It does not mean that
we cannot learn, no; but it requires some effort.
The second wound touches the will, and we call
it malice. Malice comes from the Latin malum, evil.
God has made the will for the good. In itself, our will
wants the good, but since original sin, this tendency
is no longer directed toward the real good. We once
again, many times, cheat ourselves, and we color evil
things, labeling them good. You want an example?
Look at the little children in the supermarket, two or
three years old. They will see some sweets, and with
their little hand they will try to grab them: they don’t
care about justice, about to whom it belongs; they
just want it to be theirs. This is a typical example of
malice.
And I may say, the advertising industry knows
this very, very well. Once again, just go into
the supermarket, and you will see that there are
tremendous studies done in order to sell better. They
will even choose the right music for that. We may
say, by experience, they use this wound of the will;
they misuse it.
And if you want to know, dear children, modern
music does exactly the same. The artists who started
rock music knew all these things. They made studies,
and they used their knowledge in order to make
music with words and habits and tendencies which
would demolish the Christian soul. That is what is
behind modern music. It is impressive to see and
to read what the first artists said about their music.
I speak of the Beatles and all the others. They used
these wounds, and instead of healing them, they
make them worse.
There are two other wounds which touch the
sensitive faculties. The first two touch the spiritual
faculties: the intelligence and the will; the other
two touch the affective element which we call the
passions. Life is hard; some goods are hard to get.
That means that we must put a lot of energy to get
them. We need strength. And this strength of our
affections has also been wounded by the wound of
weakness. We are lazy; we don’t want to make too
many efforts; we want to get everything the easy
way. This is a consequence of original sin. And for
the things easy to get, there we also have a wound,
which we call concupiscence, which makes us forget
everything else: we just want that. Here we have a
very interesting expression in human life, which is,
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

“Love makes you blind.” When you love somebody,
you want to forget everything that would go against
this love. You will forget every bad aspect; you will,
so to say, condone, forgive, all things which in other
cases would tell you: “Be prudent!” We see that
many times amongst those who want to marry. You
see the parents who say, “Watch out, don’t do that.”
But those who love each other don’t want to care,
because this affection, this concupiscence, blinds.

The Problem of “Freedom”
Now all these [wounds], which are determining
for human life, have been forgotten in modern
education, which emphasizes freedom. Man is free,
which is true, so let us exercise this freedom without
putting any kind of constraint. Man has reason, man
can have good initiatives, so let him have initiatives.
And all this will be put into practice in modern
education to the point where the teacher has almost
nothing to say any more, even in what the children
will learn! You have schools where you have a
committee of the students in the classroom who will
tell the professor what they want to learn. This is
totally upside down. It demolishes the soul.
The consequences are tremendous: First, once
again, when we look at heaven, if we let all these
defects in us, if we give them freedom, of course,
we are going to kill our soul. We are going to jump
into sin, so we are going to miss heaven. But even
here on earth, it will not work. Look at this modern
world: the modern world is turning into hell on earth,
with unbelievable violence, crime, and everybody
cheating the others. There’s no truth any more;
nobody cares for the truth; they lie everywhere in
such a way that you almost have to doubt whatever
is told you, even the television, even the news.
We are living in a whole world of lies, because the
fundamental values are just not cared for. And then
when you speak of virtue, the consequence is that
virtue will only be a façade. That means that, in front
of the others, you still must give a certain appearance
so that the others will appreciate you, but it is only a
make-up; the real man is totally different, so it is total
hypocrisy. This modern world in which we live is
such a world.
Clearly, modern society ends up in violence
and in tyranny. It pretends to be freedom–that’s the
big word you hear: freedom. Man is free, let him
be free. But those who say so forget that freedom,
which is the principle of liberalism–total freedom
in the world–has caused socialism and communism.
All the atrocities in these ideologies have their start
in liberalism, in freedom. The highest tyranny you
find in these communistic countries, yes, but the root
comes from freedom, a wrongly understood human
freedom. They have made of freedom the highest
good, which it is not.

15
When we say freedom, you all understand, it
is the right to choose, and the capacity to choose,
to determine ourselves, to do something. We can
choose an end and then choose the means. And the
Catholic Church is going to tell us: Watch out! There
are things we are not free to choose. God has made
us, and He has made us men, girls, boys. We are not
free to choose whether we are boy or girl. We are not
free to choose on which date we have our birthday;
it is above us. And so we do not have the right to
choose what is a human being. We have no right to
choose what is human perfection. God has put in us
this desire to be good. All of you have this desire to
become better. It is God’s love for us which has put
in us this desire to become better.
[When we reach for something that is bad], we
know that it is silly because we have a conscience.
This conscience tells us, “Listen, what you are
doing now is not right.” We may just at the moment
understand that now I am doing something against
God’s commandment, but it is very deep, you
know. Even those who don’t know that Jesus exists,
who don’t know about the true religion, have this
conscience. They know what is good and what is bad,
because it is written by God in the heart. God wants
everybody to acquire greater perfection through
action. So we are not free to choose that.
Freedom must be exercised in the choice of the
means towards this end. That is, we have the right
to choose how we are going to lead our life to get to
that end. We want to go to heaven. Some will reflect
and say, “So I want to become a religious to get to
heaven.” Others will say, “No, I will be a father,” “I
will be a mother, I will have children.” Others will
say, “No, I will be a priest.” These are different ways,
different choices where we have freedom, but not
about the end.
Here is another example where we cannot
choose: I can choose not to eat. I can make that
choice, but it will not last very long, because my
body is made in such a way that to go on, I need to
put something in it: I need to eat. You see, sometimes
the idea which the modern world wants to give about
freedom is something like the freedom of the car:
If you have a car, you can move it in such a way
that you can drive more or less everywhere. Now, if
you say, “I have a free car, and I want to prove that
I have a free car so I will drive off the road.” But
there is a tree there. “Now I am going to prove that
I’m free by going straight into the tree.” It would
be a tremendous demonstration of your freedom,
of course. But what about the car? The car will be
broken, and you would not drive any farther with
that car, and with the freedom of the car.
It is the same thing we do with ourselves:
whenever we hit one of God’s commandments, we
demolish our car. Sometimes we only lose a wheel.
But if it is a serious sin, we just break down the car.
You see with these simple examples that this modern

understanding of freedom which tells you that you
can do whatever you want, is wrong. There must be
an education of the will, of freedom.

The Reality of Grace
There is another topic which Pius XI in his
encyclical speaks about, another great danger, and
that is to forget the world of grace. When we say
grace, we mean the life of God in us. This life is also
called supernatural; it is above nature. Since it is
above, we cannot touch it. We cannot feel it, yet we
like to be able to touch things, yet we are not able to
see, measure, or feel this life of God in us. Sometimes
when we go to Communion, we may have some
feelings, we may feel good, but sometimes we have
no such feelings and we nevertheless receive our
Lord. All these things are above nature, and that is
the problem. Because it is above, we may forget its
reality. In education, the consequence of forgetting
this point is very clear: it means to miss the end. An
education that forgets that our end is heaven cannot
be the true education. It will be a failure.
I would like to end this little talk with a great
concern. Looking at the youth, looking year after
year at how the youth develop, we see that there is
more and more a specific disease which is spreading
around, which is a defect of the will. To console you,
a cardinal in the 1850’s already spoke about this
problem, so it is not a new problem. But this problem
is increasing. We are more and more debilitated in
the will. The intelligence, that is, the understanding,
is working more or less; that is, we still can learn
something without too great difficulty. It is true that
when we look at teaching throughout the years, we
see that our parents or even our grandparents in
fewer years learned much more than we do now. But
once again, that is not yet a big problem. The big
problem is in the will and in the affections. We are
weak.
There are two aspects in the will, that is, when we
do something, especially the hard things, not the easy
things. When something is easily done, like eating
sweets, it is not too difficult; you have no problem
in eating sweets. When it comes to making an effort,
if the effort is short, it still works. We call it in Latin
the aggredi: that is, when we attack a work, we start a
work. We can do that still with great energy. That is
not the problem. The problem we see comes when
it requires a long-term effort; in Latin: sustinere, to
support. For example, to endure or to bear a long
sickness, or when we have to support or to bear with
something we don’t like—it can be a defect—or once
again, we have to make an effort for a long time.
Here, there is absolutely no doubt that the young are
weaker and weaker. And when I say so, I say it is not
the fault of the young.
It is a very serious and major concern for me.
Why? Because there is a law, and I may say a
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

16
fundamental law, when we speak about the education
of the will. We cannot get anything in life without
effort. That is true everywhere. When you need
something valuable, when you want to get something
valuable, you must make efforts. If you want to learn
something, you have to make an effort. If you want
to climb a mountain, you have to put forth effort. If
you want to be good in any field, be it music, art,
learning, or sports, you have to make some efforts. If
you don’t make these efforts, you will not progress.
This is an absolutely genuine law of psychology,
because the virtues grow in us when we do more
intense acts, and this means effort. And once again,
the modern world hates effort. And that’s a big
problem.

The Solution Is Sacrifice
Now, there is another word for effort which
Christians use, and the name is sacrifice—the spirit of
sacrifice. In fact, that is the answer. If we want our
will to be strong, if we want to be able to persevere,
we need to practice this spirit of sacrifice. Now, the
spirit of sacrifice just means the Christian spirit:
our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church represents Him
everywhere on the cross. And you remember our
Lord said to the apostles, “If somebody wants to be
my disciple, let him take up his cross every day.” He
renounces himself. If we want to be Christians and
disciples of Christ, that’s the law. And since we are in
a very deep crisis of the Church, one of the deepest
keys of the crisis of the Church is that they have
dropped that key: the spirit of sacrifice. Instead of it,
they have gone to the world.
Our Lord described that. He said that there are
two ways: one is broad, very wide, very easy, and
many people go therein, and this way leads straight
to hell. The way that leads to heaven is a narrow,
hard, stony way. Our Lord goes so far as to say, “And
few find it.” That means you must look for it, you
must make some efforts to go there. And the whole
world around us is constantly inviting us to take the
easy way. Since it is the easy way, of course it’s easier.
So the temptation to go this way is enormous and you
see the result. Just look at the state of the Church.
And there is great danger for you if you go this way.
Once again, reflecting on this, I see only one
solution: it is a tremendous effort, starting in the crib,
starting with the Christian parents and continuing
at school, everywhere, throughout the whole of life,
a tremendous effort to bring back what we call this
spirit of sacrifice. I speak of this Christian spirit, and
we must pay attention here; it cannot be artificial,
artificial meaning, “Okay, so let’s do it, let’s make a
sacrifice. One sacrifice a day, that’s nice, very kind.”
It is not sufficient. It is not enough to make only one
act here or there; it is a whole attitude of the soul,
which constantly will be in the state of renouncing its
own desires in order to choose God. When I say so,
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

it’s my greatest fear that I generate a lot of fear in you
because you see the cross as something impossible to
bear, a very difficult way. It is not true. Look at our
parents, our grandparents or our great grandparents:
their lives were much harder than ours, but they took
it. Life was fine, and they were happy.
It’s a deep choice which we have to make here,
and it is very important because we touch here a
universal principle. If we don’t want to go this way,
we will remain constantly in danger of losing heaven.
We have to pray to our Lord that He give us this
spirit of sacrifice. This does not mean that we are
going to renounce any kind of human happiness
or human joys. You see, the good Lord gives us
contradictions every day; we have things to bear.
Sometimes it’s the weather: too hot, too cold, too
windy, too rainy, everything. We encounter a lot of
things which don’t please us, and we just accept them
because there is no other way. But that’s not yet the
spirit of sacrifice.
Now if, when it is rainy, instead of complaining
and saying “Why is it raining?” or, if it is a little bit
too hot, “Why is it so hot? it’s too hot,” and so on,
just accept it with a very nice glance at our Lord,
and say, “Thank You. You know what I need, and
I accept it. I may not like it; but I accept it for the
love of You.” You can make out of these things which
you have to bear anyway a real sacrifice, and you
sanctify yourself, and you enter into this spirit which
is the Christian spirit. It is not difficult. The difficulty
is to make it present everywhere, all the time. But
if we want to survive this present, dramatic crisis in
the world and in the Church, I do not see any other
means than embracing the daily cross that God
gives us—not flying away, not escaping, not cheating
ourselves. Just accept it with a great heart. You can.
Once again, I think this is a major point of
education, which has to be treated with great care. It
is a definite fight for survival, for Tradition, and for
the Catholic Church period. So, on this Feast of St.
Thomas, let us once again count on his intercession,
on the intercession of all the saints, and of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, that they may revive, or quicken this
real Christian spirit. We have to put everything in
order again, since we have to fight the disorders of
original sin, to bring the soul back to the right order,
which happens little by little with grace. We have
to do this in all levels of our life. That’s our struggle
here; and if we accept this struggle, we will obtain the
recompense which is promised, which is the end of
our life and of education: heaven, for ever and ever.
Amen.
Transcribed for Angelus Press by Misses Miriam Werick and Anne Stinnett
from an original recording. Photography by David Kleinsmith.

1

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (Dec. 31, 1929). Available from
Angelus Press. Price: $4.25. [Page references after quotations refer to this
reprint edition.]

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 2005

Reprint #64

On the left side of the altar
at the Oct. 31, 1999, service
were four primary signers
of the Joint Declaration
on Justification between
Catholics and Lutherans.They
are (left to right), Cardinal
Edward Idris Cassidy; Rev.
Christian Krause, Lutheran
World Federation (LWF)
president and bishop of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church
in Brunswick, Germany;
Bishop Walter Kasper;
General Secretary Rev. Dr.
Ishmael Noko.

The“Dogma”
of Ecumenism
From November 11-13, 2004, at the “Better World” Center for Congresses and
Spirituality in Rocca di Papa a congress was held with the title “Forty Years after the
Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II: Retrospectives and Lasting Significance–
Development and the Current Situation–Future Prospects.” The Conference was
promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to celebrate
the 40th anniversary of the Conciliar Decree Unitatis Redintegratio. Present at the
conference were all the presidents of the ecumenical commissions of episcopal
conferences throughout the world, representatives of the dicasteries of the Roman
Curia and the pontifical universities, together with the representatives of various
“churches” and communities engaged in dialogue with the Church. None other than
His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the council in question, was there
to give his imprimatur to the proceedings.
Kasper’s intervention was published in its entirety in L’Osservatore Romano1 and
stands for us as a precious document for identifying the theological outlook of the
current ecumenical movement and its foundation in the theses of the Second Vatican

17

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Council, as amply developed and applied during the
papacy of John Paul II. In this regard one cannot fail
to appreciate the great clarity of Cardinal Kasper.
What the President of the Council for Promoting
Christian Unity fails to do–what is in fact his duty–is
to recognize the sometimes irrelevant, at other
times contrasting relationship of the positions of
the “Conciliar Church” to the universal ordinary
Magisterium of the Catholic Church. On the
contrary, as we shall see, the cardinal takes it upon
himself to conceal this contrast.

The Council’s A Priori
Before examining the content of Cardinal
Kasper’s intervention it will be helpful to outline
its structure. Cardinal Kasper insists repeatedly on
certain statements, which he presents as evident
and well-founded assumptions when they are not.
In fact, at the beginning of his speech we find the
following: “The pope has repeatedly confirmed that
the ecumenical path is irreversible (Ut Unum Sint,
§3 [hereafter referred to as UUS]).” And likewise in
closing the cardinal sums up: “The decree [Unitatis
Redintegratio; hereafter referred to as UR] gave the
impetus to an irrevocable and irreversible process,
for which no realistic alternative exists. The Decree
on Ecumenism shows the path of the 21st century.
It is the will of the Lord [sic!] that we undertake
this path....” These two peremptory assertions,
which open and close the speech, should not be
dismissed with too much haste. They constitute the
indispensable key to understanding the basis of the
current teaching: they are the alpha and omega that
illuminate the current crisis of the Church.
Let us recall the context in which the speech
was delivered: the cardinal was addressing the
principle “ecumenical agents,” Catholic and not.
And what did he tell them? We have read it: the
ecumenical path, as inaugurated by the Conciliar
decree, is irrevocable; indeed, it is irrevocable and
irreversible, which is to say that it cannot be changed
in any way, nor can the direction it has taken be
altered. In this way the cardinal would strangle at
birth any attempted reorientation from a traditional
perspective, stigmatizing it as unrealistic. The one
solution that the popes had uninterruptedly proposed
is absolutely banished and discredited: “The goal of
ecumenism cannot be conceived as a simple return
of others to the bosom of the Catholic Church.”
Kasper’s affirmation is opposed to the universal
magisterium of the Church as its contradiction:
“There is but one way in which the unity of
Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering

18

the return to the one true Church of Christ of those
who are separated from it.”2 The true “dogma”
proclaimed by the Council is this new ecumenical
path. More precisely, the new ecumenism is the
premise that undeniably underlies the teachings
proper to Vatican II and the theology of the current
pontiff. The key texts of the Council were based
on this premise. This is not our assertion: Cardinal
Kasper himself demonstrates it with the texts of
the Council and the encyclicals of John Paul II in
hand. Since the new ecumenical path–the content of
which we shall examine in a moment–is supposed
irrevocable, it has been found necessary to reexamine and restructure Catholic ecclesiology in a
non-Catholic manner. As has been observed:
This a priori determination, which has no legitimate point
of reference, is the heart of the Conciliar text that affirms that
the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church. This
is in fact the only thing that the Council teaches in a clear
manner: its ecumenical will. It is not ecumenical as an echo
of the constant and universal teaching of the Church, but
because it has established as the basis of its theories a clearly
ecumenical will that lacks any foundation and that the entire
prior Magisterium condemns.3

The key elements of this a priori determination
as inserted into the documents of Vatican II
are essentially three, in Kasper’s reckoning: the
eschatological perspective of the Church understood
as the People of God; the well-known “subsistit in”;
and the ecclesiology of communion.

Techniques of Persuasion
Before considering each of these elements
analytically, it seems important to emphasize
another point on which the cardinal repeatedly
insists in his discourse. One should keep in mind
the context in which the cardinal finds himself: it is
a lecture, that is to say, an intervention that is meant
to be heard before it is read. Therefore, probably
aware of criticisms of the ecumenism inaugurated
by the Council or, even more likely, in order to
counterbalance the manifest contradiction of his
ecumenical theses to the perennial Magisterium,
Cardinal Kasper takes it upon himself to reassure
his listeners. He does this with exhalations of nolite
timere–have no fear–which represent an attempt
at pre-rational persuasion (let us note that at the
beginning of the Congress a film was shown,
prepared by the Vatican Television Center, showing
the “triumphs” of contemporary ecumenism: from
the meeting of Pope Paul VI and Athenagoras, to
the “restitution” of the icon of the Mother of God
of Kazan in Moscow). We present in their order of
appearance Kasper’s repeated assurances that the
new ecumenism is in continuity with Tradition.
Unable to make this point by means of arguments,

THE ANGELUS
June 2005

Cardinal Kasper is constrained to resort
to persuasive techniques:
It would, however, be mistaken to ignore
this fundamental continuity and consider the
Council as a radical rupture with Tradition and
identify it with the advent of a new Church….
Nevertheless, with the Council something new
has begun: not a new Church, but a renewed
Church….The ecumenical movement did
not discard anything that up to now has been
precious or important to the Church and
its history; it remains faithful to the truth
that has been recognized and defined as such
throughout history and adds nothing new to it….
As a spiritual movement, ecumenism does not
uproot Tradition. On the contrary, it proposes
a new and more profound understanding of
Tradition....With it is being prepared...not a
new Church, but a spiritually renewed and
enriched Church. [And finally:] The Council
affirms no new doctrine, but motivates a new
attitude, it renounces triumphalism....

We now enter into the thick of the
issue, in the content of the discourse,
in order to verify, this time by
rational means, the rupture of today’s
“ecumenism” with Tradition. It will be
shown that it is not the development of
“seeds” present within Tradition, but
rather a “new doctrine” sic et simpliciter.

Dynamic Eschatology
of the Church as
People of God
Cardinal Kasper’s introduction
confirms our earlier reflections on
ecumenism as the a priori foundation
of the new ecclesiology of the Council:
“The Council took up the ecumenical
movement because it understood the
Church as a movement, that is to say
the People of God on a journey (Lumen
Gentium [hereafter referred to as LG] §§2;
end, 8, 9, 48-51; UR §2 end, etc.)” He
elaborates:
In other words, the Council has revalorized
the eschatological dimension of the Church,
showing that it is not a static but a dynamic
reality. It is the People of God on a journey
between the “here” and the “not yet.” The
Council integrated the ecumenical movement
in this eschatological dynamic. Thus understood,
ecumenism is the way of the Church (UUS §7).
It is not an adjunct, nor an appendix, but
an integrating part of the organic life of the
Church and its pastoral activity (UUS §20).

In 1999, the Rev. Dr. Ishmael Noko and Cardinal Walter Kasper
signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Church, recovered the eschatological dimension of the Church.
Eschatology is not here understood in the traditional sense, but as
a tension between the “already” or the “here” and the “not yet,”
as a synonym for the essentially dynamic nature of the Church.
Ecumenism is situated, however–here we underline Kasper’s
“thus understood”–in this dynamic-ecclesiological sense “as
an integrating part of the Church.” And, to make this concept
better understood, Cardinal Kasper makes a parallel between
ecumenism and mission:
Mission is an eschatological phenomenon thanks to which the Church
assumes the cultural patrimony of peoples, purifies and enriches it, thus
enriching also itself and attaining the fullness of its Catholicity (Ad Gentes
§§1, 9, etc.). In the same manner, in the ecumenical movement the Church
participates in an exchange of gifts with the separated churches (UUS §§28,
57), enriches them and at the same time makes their gifts its own and, in
so doing, fully realizes its own catholicity (UR §4).

He concludes with a very illuminating affirmation: “Mission
and ecumenism are the two forms of the eschatological path and
the eschatological dynamic of the Church.”
In what then, does the eschatological dynamic of the Church
consist for Kasper? It does not mean that the Church, although
human because of the members who make it up, is supernatural
in its origin, its means, and its purpose,4 and nevertheless will
manifest itself in all its fullness only when the Son of Man will
return and put an end to history. Nor is its dynamic nature
conceived in the sense conveyed by the Gospel parable of the
king who sends his servants out to call his subjects to the wedding
feast of his son, because those who stay outside are doomed
to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (cf. Luke 14:15-24; this
parable unequivocally indicates the necessity of conversion and

The Council, therefore, underlining
the dynamic component of the
THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
THE ANGELUS
June 2005

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

entry into the Catholic Church to escape eternal
damnation). Cardinal Kasper does not understand
the eschatological dimension of the Church in the
sense of a projection towards eternity, nor does he
see its dynamic nature as connected to its task of
proclaiming and calling all peoples to salvation. The
Church, on the contrary, is for Kasper eschatological
in the sense that it must activate that which it already
is potentially: “It is on a journey,” the cardinal
affirms, “towards fully and concretely realizing its
nature in life.” The Church is already Catholic, but
not yet fully so. It becomes concretely and fully
Catholic only by enriching itself with the cultural
patrimony of peoples (mission) and the gifts of the
“separated Churches” (ecumenism) and enriching
them in turn.
Conversion to the Catholic Church is not
in question because, for the ecumenists, all the
“churches” and separated communities and all
peoples are already in some manner in communion
with the Catholic Church. What is lacking is the
reciprocal enrichment, more or less profound, that
will emerge from dialogue, as the fulfillment of what
is already realized in a mysterious way by virtue of
the fact that the Church of Christ is already united
to every man. Missions and ecumenism have the
purpose of revealing “in a visible manner, the
hidden but radical unity that the divine Word...
has established with the men and women of this
world.”5 The ecumenical journey is thus the process
of becoming aware of a unity that already exists;
it is, at the same time, a reciprocal enrichment in
order to arrive at full unity. The expression “Church,
People of God” conveys an identity between the
Church and the human race, an identity that needs
only to become conscious, in the manner of Hegel’s
dialectic.
All this was expressed very clearly by Cardinal
Wojtyla in his theological study on Vatican II, At the
Sources of Renewal: “The mission of the divine Persons
towards humanity is not only a revelation, but
equally the salvific action that makes of the human
race the People of God.” In the same study Cardinal
Wojtyla developed the theme of the relations
between the Church as the People of God and the
human race:
God does not form his People except by choosing, calling,
bringing all men to Himself, each as an individual, in the
manner that is proper and unique to him...the reality of
the People of God is contained in the project of God and
in its realization, the origin of which, it might be said, is
common to the vocation of man as a person....Only God
knows the link that unites men in the community of his
People. Vatican II affirms that such a bond is fuller than
that of mere “ecclesial” communities....Thus is it explained,

20

how the consciousness of the Church as the People of God
can be both ad intra and ad extra. In this Vatican II admits
that there is a difference between “belonging to” and “being
ranked among” the People of God. Behold that which
indicates and determines the degrees of the communion of
God with men.6

That this was not only the personal opinion of
Cardinal Wojtyla is confirmed by the fact that, during
his pontificate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith expressed itself in even stronger terms: “In
its invisible reality, [the Church] is the communion
of each man with the Father, through Christ, in the
Holy Spirit, and with other men who participate in
the divine nature.”7
We have thus a first sphere of communion,
namely that of all men “chosen and called by
and conducted to Him,” which includes another,
composed of all the Christian “churches.” This is the
“now” which mission and ecumenism take as their
point of departure. The “not yet” is, on the contrary,
the process of becoming aware of such bonds and
of the mutual exchange of gifts, a process that has
as its purpose the full communion of everyone, a
communion that already exists if only partially. That
the aforesaid fundamental unity of all men is the
most important foundation that prevails over every
division has been openly proclaimed by Pope John
Paul II in his discourse to the cardinals and the curia
with regard to the interreligious meeting at Assisi:
In the light of this mystery [of the unity of the human race]
differences of all kinds, first of all religious differences, to
the degree that they limit the plan of God, show themselves
as in effect belonging to another order. If the order of unity
is that which leads to Creation and Redemption and if this
is therefore, in this sense, ‘divine,’ the differences and the
divergences, even the religious ones, have more to do with
a ‘human element’ and ought to be surpassed within the
progress towards the realization of the grandiose plan for
unity that presides over creation.8

To summarize:
1) Today’s ecumenism is possible only within the
context of the ecclesiology of the “People of God.”
2) The “People of God” coincide with the whole
of humanity.
3) The Church itself embraces all of humanity,
not in the sense that it is sent to humanity to call
them to conversion, but in the sense that all men
already belong to the People of God, that is, the
Church, even if in different degrees and in an
incomplete manner.
4) Ecumenism consists of two moments: first, the
Church enriches the separated “Churches” with the
gifts they lack to arrive at full communion; second,
the Church is enriched by their gifts, and in this
reciprocal exchange realizes the fullness of its own
catholicity.
5) The same may be said of the missions.

THE ANGELUS
June 2005

The annual Week of Prayer for
Christian Unity is held from January
18-25. In recent years in Rome it has
became a tradition for the Pope to
preside at an ecumenical celebration
of Vespers on the last day of this
week at the ancient Basilica of St.
Paul’s Outside the Walls, built not far
from where St. Paul was martyred
for his faith and where he is buried.
In 2005, Pope John Paul II asked
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of
the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity to represent him
at the service. (Agenzia Fides
19/1/2005–Righe 18; Parole 244)

How far this position is from the traditional
teaching of the Church is shown by the following
teaching of the Holy Office:
Catholic doctrine ought thus to be proposed and set
forth totally and in its entirety: one ought not to pass over in
silence or cover with ambiguous words what Catholic truth
teaches on the true nature and means of justification, on the
constitution of the Church, on the primacy of jurisdiction of
the Roman pontiff, on the only true union which is achieved
by the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ.
It is taught that they, by returning to the Church, do not
lose any part of the good that, by the grace of God, has up
to now been born in them, but that with their return this
good is rather completed and perfected. There is no need
to discuss this subject as though these people should believe
that by their return to the Church they should bring it some
essential element that they have lacked up to now.9

The Catholic Church has no need of receiving
anything that it has not already received from its
divine Founder. It is those who unite themselves with
or return to the Church who receive that life that
they can attain nowhere else.

The “Subsistit In”
“The eschatological and pneumatological
dynamic had need of conceptual clarification.
This clarification was provided by the Council
in its Constitution on the Church with the muchdiscussed formula ‘subsistit in’: the Church of Jesus
THE ANGELUS
June 2005

Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (LG §8)”: here
Cardinal Kasper introduces the second pretext for
contemporary ecumenism.
This amounts to further confirmation that
the “subsistit in” is not simply synonymous with
“est.”10 The official voice of the Holy See, La Civiltà
Cattolica, affirmed this clearly in an article of
December 5, 1987, by Fr. Giandomenico Mucci, S.J.:
There is no doubt that among the formulations of the
reality of the Church offered by the two documents [Mystici
Corporis of Pius XII and Lumen Gentium] there is a manifest
discrepancy. It is one thing to establish a pacific identity
between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic
Church and by a necessary corollary affirm that the Roman
Catholic Church is the unique Church of Christ; it is
something else to say that the Church of Christ subsists
in the Catholic Church. The original Vatican II schema
for Lumen Gentium redacted by Msgr. Philips (February,
1963) and then distributed to the Fathers (April-July of
the same year) still identified the one Church of Christ
with the Catholic Church, in such a way that the use of est
prevented the application of the concept and nature of the
true Church to other Christian churches....The passage from
est to subsistit happened for prevailing ecumenical reasons....
Lumen Gentium certainly renounced the formal identification
of this reality [Church of Christ and Catholic Church] in
order to explain the “numerous elements of sanctification

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

and of truth” that exist in other Christian Churches, but it
also intended to profess that only the Catholic Church fully
realizes the Church of Christ, even if not in its totality.11

Cardinal Kasper confirms this orientation of the
Council and elaborates:
The Council was able to take a notable step forward
thanks to the subsistit in. It wanted to do justice [?!] to the
fact that, outside the Catholic Church, there are not only
individual Christians but also “elements of the Church” and
even Churches and ecclesial Communities which, while not
in full communion, belong by right to the one Church and are
means of salvation for their members (LG §§8,15; UR §3; UUS
§§10-14)....As a consequence, the question of the salvation
of non-Catholics is no longer relegated to the individual
level starting from the subjective desire of an individual, as
indicated in Mystici Corporis, but is put on the institutional
level in an ecclesiologically objective way.

Rereading the two texts just cited together with
the Conciliar texts LG §8 and UR §3.2-4, certain
passages seem anything but defensible.
1) Outside the Church “salvific elements” can
be found; they are interior gifts, such as grace and
the theological virtues. Such a statement, if it means
“outside the visible confines of the Church,” agrees
with Tradition, which speaks of the possibility of a
supernatural desire (explicit or implicit), infused by
God, to belong to the Catholic Church, which desire
can be sufficient for obtaining salvation.
2) Outside the Catholic Church there are
external and visible elements common to the Catholic
Church and the schismatic churches (for example,
Sacred Scripture.) This is true if it regards simply
the material existence of these elements. It is false,
however, if by this it is alleged that such elements
cause salvation on their own.
3) Outside the Catholic Church–this is the key
point–there are churches and ecclesial communities
that possess the means of salvation. This is false
in every sense, because only the Catholic Church
possesses such means. He who separates himself
from the Church retains only the fact of being
separate; even the valid sacraments that remain
belong to the Catholic Church:
There is only one Church called Catholic, and it is she
who, in those communities separated from her unity, acts
in those things which, within these sects, remain her own
property, whatever they may be.12

The distinction between the means of salvation
which belong to the Catholic Church and salvific
effects which may extend themselves even beyond
her visible confines is the patrimony of the
traditional teaching of the Church, well expressed

22

by the letter of the Holy Office to the archbishop of
Boston:
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should
enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a
means of salvation, without which no one can enter the
kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects,
necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation
which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained
in certain circumstances [this is the point!] when those helps
are used only in desire and longing.13

4) The last point maintained by Kasper: the other
Churches and ecclesial communities, since they have
the means of salvation–a statement that we have
shown to be false–are themselves means of salvation.
The logical transition here is simply embarrassing:
“Does saying that a piece of gold has fallen into
the mud authorize one to say that this piece of gold
belongs to the mud? Or, even more, that the mud
has become gold?”14 Furthermore, even supposing
that schismatic communities possessed the means of
salvation, this does not mean that they themselves
would be means of salvation.
The expression “subistit in” was inserted in
the conciliar text to make possible such readings
as these; passages that betray Tradition in serving
the cause of ecumenism. In vain does Cardinal
Kasper affirm that “the Council does not affirm
any new doctrine, but motivates a new attitude,
renounces triumphalism and formulates the
traditional understanding of its own identity in a
realistic, historically concrete, and, one could say,
even a humble manner.” In fact the Council and
the cardinal of the Rota maintain what the Church
has never taught, but what she has emphatically
rejected in every way. If it is permitted to say so,
Cardinal Kasper hides a patent betrayal of the
Magisterium behind a false humility and an assertion
of realism that, as we have seen, is itself an a priori
supposition. And in fact Kasper himself, in note ten
of his intervention, is obliged to admit that this new
concept of “elements of the Church” outside of the
Catholic Church has as its progenitors...Calvin and
Congar!

The Ecclesiology of Communion
At this point it should not be difficult
to understand the third element of the new
conciliar ecclesiology, namely the ecclesiology of
“communion.” Let us hear Cardinal Kasper:
The fundamental idea of Vatican II, and in particular
of the Decree on Ecumenism, can be summarized in one
word: communion. This term is important for correctly
understanding the question of the “elementa Ecclesiae”....
The Decree on Ecumenism considers the Church and the
separate ecclesial Communities not as entities that have

THE ANGELUS
June 2005

Thus it is not simply a matter
of noticing elements of the Catholic
Church that are also present in
schismatic communities (those elements
that we have up to now classified as
external and visible elements); it is
rather a question of re-evaluating these
communities as “integral elements,”
that is, as bodies enlivened by grace
(note that the cardinal is here speaking
of entire communities and not of
individuals) and therefore capable of
becoming instruments of salvation.
How so? Because these communities
participate
in the goods of salvation, the sancta–the
sacraments. Fundamental in all this is
baptism. This is the sacrament of the faith,
through which the baptized belong to the
one body of Christ that is the Church. NonCatholic Christians are therefore not outside
the Church but, on the contrary, already
belong to it in a fundamental way (LG §§11,
14; UR §22).

Thus communion already exists, if
only partially; this is why one should
no longer speak of an “ecumenism
of return,” as did all the popes up to
Vatican II! Those who belong to schism
should not return to the Catholic
communion, because they are already
in it (which invalidates the very word
“schism,” which indicates a separation,
just as it invalidates the concept of
“excommunication,” which asserts the
privation of communion):
The Catholic [!] understanding of
ecumenism presupposes that which already
exists, or rather the unity in the Catholic
Church and partial communion with the other
churches and ecclesial communities, in order
to achieve, starting from this incomplete
communion, a full communion (UUS §14),
which includes unity in faith, sacraments, and
ecclesiastical ministry (LG §14; UR §2). Thus,
[concludes Cardinal Kasper], the contribution
of Unitatis Redintegratio to the solution of the
ecumenical problem is not the “ecclesiology
of elements” but the distinction between full
communion and communion that is not yet
full (UR §3).

Photo by Mike Watson, The Lutheran Magazine

conserved a residual of elements, of diverse
consistency depending on the case, but as
integral elements that retain these elements
as part of their overall constitution.

Cardinal Walter Kasper (third from left), the Vatican’s senior ecumenical
officer, visited the churchwide offices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America (ELCA), Oct. 1-2, 2004. He preached at a “Solemn Evening Vespers”
service Oct. 1 at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church, Park Ridge, Illinois. Kasper
visited the ELCA in recognition of the fifth anniversary of the signing of the
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Augsburg, Germany.

already uprooted any discourse that could lead to an erroneous
“communion that is not full”: “Whosoever therefor is not united
with the Body is no member thereof, neither is he in communion
with Christ its Head.”15 There are no gradations of communion!
Communion either exists or it does not.
A further consideration may be added to these reflections on
full communion. The cardinal says that,
Unity in the sense of full communion does not mean uniformity, but unity
in diversity and diversity in unity....We can also say that the essence of unity
conceived as communion is catholicity in its original sense, which is not
confessional but qualitative. It signifies the realization of all the gifts that the
individual churches and confessions can contribute.

The mark of catholicity thus surpasses confessional unity....
Thus are legitimized not only the diversity of liturgical and spiritual
sensibilities, but also doctrinal differences! Cardinal Kasper had
already expressed this concept: “Ecumenism is not achieved
through renunciation of our own traditions of faith. No Church can
make such a renunciation.”16
Here we are at the antipodes of the traditional teaching of the
Church, well summarized by Fr. Billot, S.J.:
If indeed the baptismal character is in itself sufficient to incorporate a man
into the Catholic Church, nonetheless this effect in an adult depends on a
double condition. The first is that the social bond of unity in the faith be not
hindered by heresy, whether formal or merely material.17

This, therefore, is the true novelty
of the conciliar decree, which serves
as a foundation for all the inanities
which have followed! But Pius XI has
THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
THE ANGELUS
June 2005

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The conditio sine qua non is precisely confession of
the same integral faith excluded by Kasper.
The other condition for adults is that the bond of
communion not be hindered or undermined, a bond that
may be destroyed in two ways. The first...through schism….
The second by sentence of the ecclesiastical authority, that
is to say by excommunication, when there is full and perfect
grounds for excommunication.18

In such cases the bond of communion is
destroyed and not merely attenuated! One belongs to
the Catholic Church, however, not merely through
baptism, but also by confession of the true Faith and
recognition of the authority of the Church; otherwise
one does not belong to the Church.
The distinction between full communion and less
than full communion can claim no Catholic origin.
The source of this doctrine is the Dominican Congar:
There is perfect belonging to the Church–and thus to
Christ–when it is lived according to all the principles of
the new life and of reconciliation with God, the fullness of
which Christ has placed in the Church; there is an imperfect
belonging to the Church–and thus to Christ–when one
lives only according to one or the other principle of new
life....19

The Church has always taught that even nonCatholics can be in communion with her, if animated
by the Holy Ghost with an explicit or implicit desire
and intention to adhere to the true Faith and to enter
into the Catholic communion. But this does not
apply to separated communities as such, but only to
some members of these communities (known only to
God). The teaching of the Council in this regard is a
departure from the Magisterium.
It remains to reiterate another point that
distinguishes traditional doctrine from conciliar
teaching. Those who may belong to the Catholic
Church in voto and not in re are in a state dangerous
to their salvation. Thus Pius XII exhorted such
people
to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to
seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be
sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious
desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived
of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be
enjoyed in the Catholic Church.20

Conclusion
As Catholics we have the duty to reject these
new teachings, which would see a degree of
communion where communion has objectively
been broken. The Catholic Church is the Church of
Christ, outside of which there is no salvation; any
other teaching distances itself fearfully from Catholic

24

teaching. The warning of Pius XII addresses those
who would embark on these new paths: “Some say
they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our
Encyclical Letter [Mystici Corporis] of a few years ago,
and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches
that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman
Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”21
Lanterius
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from SìSìNoNo, January 15, 2005. All
emphasis added by the author.
Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, November 12, 2004, pp.8-9.
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, §15.
3
Fr. de La Rocque, “Le presupposé œcumenique de Lumen Gentium” in Penser
Vatican II quarante ans après: Actes du VI Congrés Théologique de sì sì no no,
Rome, January 2004 (Publications Courrier de Rome, 2004), pp.307-08.
4
Cf. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.
5
John Paul II, “The Situation of the World and the Spirit of Assisi: Address to the
Cardinals and Curia on Dec. 12, 1986,” Documentation Catholique, No. 1933,
Feb. 1, 1987, p.134, cited in the document of the FSSPX, From Ecumenism to
the Silent Apostasy (2004).
6
Karol Wojtyla, At the Sources of Renewal: Study on the Application of Vatican
II, p. 170, cited by J. Dörmann, “Vatican Council II and the Theology of John
Paul II” in Église et Contre-Église au Concile Vatican II: Actes du II Congrès
Théologique de sì sì no no, Albano Laziale, January 1996 (Publications of Courrier de Rome, 1996), p.178.
7
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic
Church on certain aspects of the Church understood as communion, cited in J.
Dörmann, op. cit., p.179.
8
John Paul II, “The situation of the world and the spirit of Assisi, discourse to the
cardinals and the curia of December 22, 1986,” cited in Fr. Pierre-Marie, “L’unité
de l’Église,” in La tentation de l’Oecuménisme: Actes du III Congrès Théologique
de sì sì no no, April 1998 (Publications of Courrier de Rome, 1999), p.22.
9
Pius XII, Instruction of the Holy Office, Dec. 20, 1949.
10
On the Protestant origins of the “subsistit in” see sì sì no no, May 15, 2001,
p.5.
11
Cited in sì sì no no, March 31, 1988, p.1.
12
St. Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, I.X.14, cited in Fr. de La Rocque,
“Le présupposé œcuménique de Lumen Gentium,” in Penser Vatican II, p.307.
13
Pius XII, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949.
14
Fr. de La Rocque, op. cit., p.303.
15
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Jan. 6, 1928, §15.
16
Documentation Catholique, No. 2220, Feb. 20, 2000.
17
L. Billot, S.J., De Ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1927), Thesis xi, p.296.
18
Ibid., Thesis xii, p.310.
19
Yves Congar, O.P., Chrétiens désunis: Principes d’un “oecumenisme” catholique,
Unam Sanctam No. 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1937), pp.283-84, cited by Fr. Pierre-Marie,
“L’unité de l’Église” in La tentation de l’oecumenisme, p.27.
20
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, §103.
21
Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, §27.
1
2

$1.95 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.
SHIPPING & HANDLING
US/Canada

Foreign

$.01 to $10.00
$3.95
$10.01 to $25.00
$5.95
$25.01 to $50.00
$6.95
$50.01 to $100.00
$8.95
Over $100.00
9% of order

$7.95
$9.95
$12.95
$14.95
12% of order

AIRMAIL surcharge (in addition to above)
Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal.

Available from:

ANGELUS PRESS

2915 Forest Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64109, USA

Phone: 1-800-966-7337

WWW.ANGELUSPRESS.ORG

THE ANGELUS
June 2005

F R .

p e t e r

Is it true to say that now
there is a “conciliar” Church?

The term “conciliar” is an adjective that has long
been used to describe those things that relate to the
Second Vatican Council, such as the documents,
commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious
Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the
objection as to whether this adjective can be used to
describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican
Council.
In order to respond to the question a clear
distinction has to be made. If by the term “church”
is understood the visible, hierarchical structure,
founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there
can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If
we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II
“conciliar” in this sense, then we would claim that
it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate
visible, hierarchical structure. However, this is
manifestly false, both because the adepts of Vatican II
have hijacked the visible hierarchical structure of the
Catholic Church, and because they profess publicly to
be Catholics.
However, there is another sense in which the
term “conciliar” can rightly be applied to the majority
of persons who profess to be Catholic, as well as to
their ideas and opinions, profoundly influenced as
they are by the Second Vatican Council. In this sense
“conciliar” refers to the persons who have embraced
and who promote the novelties of Vatican II, as well
as to the novelties themselves. There are varying
degrees of influence of the modern errors, from liberal
Catholicism through rash opposition to Tradition to
outright apostasy. The term conciliar or post-conciliar
can consequently be applied to the modernist church,
not as it is a canonical institution, but inasmuch and to
the degree that it promotes the revolutionary errors of
Vatican II.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood this reality very
clearly, and the grave danger brought about by the
infiltration of all these modernist principles within
the very bosom of the Catholic Church. He had this
to say of Rome in 1974, in his famous declaration of
November 21:

R .

s c o t t

25

Catholic Church established by Our Lord. By this he
means that its revolutionary principles of freedom at
all cost separate the clergy and faithful little by little
from Tradition and produce indifferentism for all
religions, eventually destroying the Catholic faith in
the one true Church, and bringing about a generalized
apostasy, even of those persons who outwardly appear
to still be members of the Catholic Church.
Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its
sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions
by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith
of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments
of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell
which seem to triumph. This apostasy makes its members
adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated
from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the
Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to
the Church of Our Lord. [p.54]

Q

Must we forgive injuries done to God and to others?

The obligation of forgiveness, even of our
enemies, is fundamental to the new law of charity
instituted by Our Divine Savior. We all have heard
many times of Our Lord’s response to St. Peter’s
question: “Lord, how often shall my brother offend
against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus
saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but
till seventy times seven times” (Mt. 18:21-22). We
constantly pray in the Our Father that God might
forgive us, as we forgive those who trespass against
us (Mt. 6:12). We know that regardless of the insults
directed against us, we must pray for our persecutors,
as Our Lord himself did on the Cross: “Love your
enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for
them that persecute and calumniate you” (Mt. 5:44).
However, it is not for us to forgive injuries done
against Almighty God or against others. We are not
those who have been offended, insulted, attacked,
calumniated, and it is not our honor that is in
question. It is consequently not for us to forgive, but
for God Himself, or for the persons concerned. In
such instances, of course, we have the duty to pray for
the enemies of God, that they might convert and ask
for pardon, that they might understand the gravity of
the insults directed against God and His friends, or
against the Blessed Virgin or the Church. However,
it is not in our power to forgive an injury that is not
directed against us. How frequent this situation is with
respect to God, and how great a desire of making
reparation it enkindles in our hearts! Yet only God,
who is offended, can forgive, and then only when
pardon is requested of Him.

A

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul,
to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of
the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal
Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused
to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant
tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second
Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms
which issued from it.

In his book Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre
explained how the end result of this conciliar Church
is to separate its members little by little from the true
THE ANGELUS • June 2005

26

It seems that Confederate President
Jefferson Davis would have
converted to the Catholic Faith
except for the lamentable examples
of Catholic priests he witnessed
during a visit to Spanish Cuba.
Despite his reservations, he wore
faithfully a St. Benedict Medal and
a Miraculous Medal (Catherine
Labouré was still living). Laces
over his shoulders held on his
chest and back the cloth panels of
a French scapular. Someone had
also given him the brown scapular
of the Discalced Carmelites. All
of these he wore in prison and
preserved to the end of his life.
Meditation on the Crucifixion was
a major focus of Jefferson Davis.
He carried a worn and coverless
1861 edition of The Imitation of
Christ, 360 pages, an 18th-century
translation from the Latin by
Richard Challoner, the English
Roman Catholic Bishop. Mrs. Eliza
Violett, to whom he gave his copy
in 1879, wrote in it: “Mr. Davis
told me he had used this book
continually during his imprisonment
ANGELUS • June 2005
inTHE
Fortress
Monroe.”

THE CATHOL
AND THE CON
STATES OF
P H I L I P

G E R A R

Throughout its short history, the Confederate
government sought earnestly and repeatedly to gain
some kind of foreign support. The closest it ever came
was in 1863, when His Holiness Pope Pius IX sent a
letter addressed to the “Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson
Davis, President of the Confederate States of America,
Richmond,” and concluded with a hope for a union in
“perfect friendship” [see letter on p.29). Davis interpreted
this communication as a form of recognition, even
though some measure of his interpretation was subject to
false expectations. The letter was reported in Southern
newspapers with the implication that Pope Pius IX
supported the Confederacy (“Telegraphic. From Richmond,”
The Charleston Mercury, Jan. 23, 1864). The President hoped
that this letter would be the first step towards widespread
European recognition of the Confederate government, but
it proved to be the only such communication, and within
two years, the Confederacy would be dead. Still, the letter
does raise the question of why the Holy Pontiff would
express public friendship to the Confederacy and risk being
associated with a slavery-supporting government.

27

OLIC CHURCH
ONFEDERATE
F AMERICA
A R D

,”

g

J O H N S O N

When the War Between the States erupted in
America, pitting the opponents of slavery in the
North against the slave-dependent agrarian society of
the Confederacy, social, political, and even religious
organizations were forced to take sides. Two of
the country’s major churches, the Baptists and the
Methodists, divided over the issue of slavery–the Baptists
remaining separated to this day. The Catholic Church,
however, did not break in half, though its unity was
severely strained. Instead of dividing, episcopal alliances
were virtually along geographical lines. The reason for
this was that the Pope, Pius IX, saw the same kinds of
threatening tendencies in the American North that had
driven him from his papal throne in Italy in 1848. These
tendencies in both Italy and America came in the form
of progressivism towards a more centralized democracy,
economic reform, and opposition to aristocracy. They
were considered to be liberal in both Catholic and
Southern society, and were viewed as dangerous to the
spread of Catholicism. Furthermore, the Church’s own
political weakness in America severely hindered her

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

28
ability to attempt to change anything about slavery
other than the hearts of those who condoned it.
The Catholic Church considered the tendencies of
the North to be more dangerous than slavery, and
considered the conservative Southern society to be
more suitable to the spread of Catholicism than the
North.
Pope Pius IX ascended to the papacy in 1846.
After the death of Pope Gregory XVI, the College
of Cardinals faced a difficult decision in electing
the next pope. Many Cardinals in the conclave
supported Cardinal Lambruschini, whose extreme
opposition to liberalism would have kept Gregory
XVI’s conservative and prudent Church policies
alive. Others sought to elect a liberal and conciliatory
pope in order to counter Pope Gregory XVI’s
confrontational policies with the government. The
conclave chose the latter, and elected Cardinal
Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, who chose the name
Pius IX. Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti had been well-liked
by Pope Gregory XVI despite the Cardinal’s ideas in
terms of Church reform and relations with the secular
Italian government.
Pope Pius IX appeared to live up to his reputation
immediately following his election to the Chair of
St. Peter. The Papal States were dangerously close
to revolution due to Italian nationalism, and he
promised reforms and changes in order to restore
stability.1 He was responsible for the introduction of
railroads into Rome and the reformulation of tariff
laws in order to improve trade. He installed gaspowered street lighting in Rome, apportioned a share
of the papal charities for the Jews, and abolished the
law which required Jews to attend weekly Catholic
sermons. He coupled this program of economic
and social reform with political reforms of the same
magnitude. The Pope incorporated democracy into
the governance of the Papal States by appointing
laymen to the government of the Church. He allowed
exiled revolutionaries to return to the Papal States,
and even approved a new constitution that gave an
elected body of laymen the power to veto the pope.
Protestant leaders from all over Europe congratulated
Pius IX, and Italian nationalists dubbed the Pope “the
most important man in Italy.”2 The Pope seemed to
be conceding to the wishes of Italian nationalists who
cried in thanksgiving for his reforms: “Viva Italia! Viva
Pio Nono!”3 Liberal Italians expected these policies
to continue so that the secular government could
gain more power and ultimately become completely
separated from the Church. However, Pope Pius IX
considered these changes to be the completion of his
reforms. When the Pope rejected further demands,
Frank J. Coppa, “Papal Rome in 1848: From Reform to Revolution,” in the Proceedings of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe: 1750-1850, Session 2 (Athens: [n.p]
1979), p.93.
2
Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, p.222
3
Ibid., p.222.
4
Coppa, “Papal Rome in 1848: From Reform to Revolution,” p.95.
5
Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, p.222.
6
Pope Pius IX quoted in Owen Chadwick, A History of the Popes 1830-1914 (Oxford:
1

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

his popularity waned. He had excited the Italian
nationalists with his promises of reform, but he was
not prepared to fulfill all of their expectations.4 The
consequence was disappointment and bitterness.5
In 1848, revolutions erupted throughout Europe.
The Italians went to war in order to expel Austria
from Italy, but the Italians treated the war more like
a crusade than a political war. When the Italians
called for the Pope to lead their “crusade,” he gave an
address in which he explained papal policy in relation
to Italy. His new policies took a sharp turn and began
to resemble those of his conservative predecessor,
Pope Gregory XVI, causing the Italian people to feel
betrayed. In his address to the College of Cardinals,
Pius IX stated that he would have no part in this war
and that he would send no troops to Austria:
When there was revolution over Europe, I sent troops to
guard the frontiers. But when some demanded that these
troops join with other [Italian] states to war against Austria,
I must say solemnly, that I abhor the idea. I am the Vicar
of Christ, the author of peace and lover of charity, and my
office is to bestow an equal affection on all nations.6

According to one authority, this statement to the
College of Cardinals “was a douche of icy water on
the overheated enthusiasm which had surrounded his
first two years as pope.”7
Pius IX went from being one of the most loved
men in Italy to one of the most hated, and this public
resentment eventually led to exile. He lost all control
over Rome, and Pellegrino Rossi, his Prime Minister,
was murdered in November of 1848. The Pope sensed
grave danger and, disguised as an ordinary priest, fled
to Gaeta in the Neapolitan territory. As revolution
continued in Rome and an anti-clerical regime took
control, Pius IX called for the Catholic powers of the
world to reclaim Rome on his behalf and to restore
the power of his office. In July of 1849, French troops
re-conquered Rome for the Pope, and he once again
took power in April of 1850.8
On his return to Rome, Pius IX blamed
tendencies such as liberalism and centralized
democracy9 for the Italian revolution and for his
exile. As a result, he believed for the rest of his life
that conceding in good faith to the political ideals of
democracy only paved the way for revolution.10 The
revolution of 1848 caused the Pope to turn against
constitutionalism, and he also condemned many of
his past reforms which the Italian nationalists had
praised.11 By the time he had returned to power, his
“honeymoon was over.”12
Pope Pius IX subsequently issued the Syllabus of
Errors [available from Angelus Press. Price: $3.45]
in which he listed the modernist errors of his time,
Oxford University Press, 1998), p.77.
Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, p.223.
Coppa, “Papal Rome in 1848: From Reform to Revolution,” p.99.
9
In 1848, Pope Pius IX urged Italians to stay loyal to their local princes and condemned
the notion of a centralized Italian government. For more see Chadwick, A History of
the Popes 1830-1914, p.77.
10
Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, p.224.
11
Coppa, “Papal Rome in 1848: From Reform to Revolution,” p.99.
7
8

I

Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting:

We have lately received with all kindness, as was meet, the gentlemen sent by
your Excellency to present to us your letter dated on the 23d of last September.
We have received certainly no small pleasure in learning both from these
gentlemen and from your letter the feelings of gratification and of very warm
appreciation with which you, illustrious and honorable sir, were moved when
you first had knowledge written in October of the preceding year to the venerable
brethren, John [Hughes], archbishop of New York, and John [Odin],
archbishop of New Orleans, in which we again and again urged and exhorted
those venerable brethren that because of their exemplary piety and episcopal zeal
they should employ their most earnest efforts, in our name also, in order that the
fatal civil war which had arisen in the States should end, and that the people of
America might again enjoy mutual peace and concord, and love each other with
mutual charity. And it has been very gratifying to us to recognize illustrious and
honorable sir, that you and your people are animated by the same desire for peace
and tranquillity, which we had so earnestly inculcated in our aforesaid letters to
the venerable brethren above named. May it please God at the same time to make
the other peoples of America and their rulers, considering seriously how cruel
and how deplorable is this internecine war, would receive and embrace the counsels
of peace and tranquillity. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayer to
beseech God, the best and highest, and to implore Him to pour out the spirit of
Christian love and peace upon all the people of America, and to rescue them from
the great calamities with which they are afflicted. We, at the same time, beseech
the God of pity to shed abroad upon you the light of His grace, and attach you
to us by a perfect friendship.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the 3d December, 1863, in the eighteenth
year of our pontificate.
Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis
President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond.

Letter of Pope Pius IX to Jefferson Davis in Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America:
A Memoir by His Wife Varina Davis, (Baltimore: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, Inc., 1990), II, 448.

29

30
including the separation of Church and State. He also
condemned the notion that “the Roman Pontiff can,
and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms
with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”13
In addition to condemning these errors, he tightened
his reins on the government of the Church with the
definition of the dogma of papal infallibility in the
First Vatican Council. No longer would he embrace
the modernist and liberal tendencies in the world, but
he would condemn and oppose them wherever they
existed.
A decade after Pope Pius IX’s denunciation of
liberalism, the United States was being torn apart
by a similar clash of ideals. Industrialization and
technology widened the gap between the progressive
North and agrarian South to the point where the two
seemed incompatible. To some, and especially to
Pope Pius IX, the clash between these two cultures
resembled the revolution which had taken place a
decade earlier in Italy, where those who favored
democracy vied for control of one of the oldest
and most conservative institutions in Europe: the
Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, there were direct
political ties between post-revolution Italy and antebellum America in that Pope Pius IX’s reforms were
welcomed by progressives in the United States.
Sympathy and support for Pope Pius IX’s
reforms in the early years of his papacy were main
factors for America’s recognition of the Papal
States.14 Additionally, the increased Italian support
of the concepts of democracy, liberalism, and a free
Church in a free state excited secular Americans
and aligned many of them with the agenda of
the Italian nationalists.15 In a Philadelphia public
meeting addressed to Pope Pius IX, Robert Tyler, a
vice president of the meeting, offered the following
resolution concerning the changes that were taking
place in Italy:
The liberal movement now in progress in Italy under the
example and auspices of the Papal Sovereign, awakens in
the breasts of the American People, the deepest interest,
sympathy, and respect.16

In a letter addressed to this public meeting, the
Hon. Lewis Cass stated that if Pope Pius IX were
to continue with his spirit, “he will become the
man of his age.”17 Similar to the North’s approval
of the Italian reforms, the Italian nationalists also
Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, p.224.
Pope Pius IX, “The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX,” http://www.papalencyclicals. net/Pius09/p9syll.htm, 26 Apr., 2005.
14
David J. Alvarez, “American Recognition of the Papal States: A Reconsideration,”
Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia (Philadelphia:
American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, 1980), pp.49-50.
15
Samuel J. Thomas, “The American Press Response to the Death of Pope Pius IX and
the Election of Pope Leo XIII,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society
of Philadelphia (1975), Vol.86, p.43.
16
Robert Tyler, Esq. quoted in Raymond H. Schmandt, “A Philadelphia Reaction to Pope
Pius IX in 1848,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia
(1977), Vol.88, p.72.
17
Lewis Cass quoted in ibid., p.76.
18
Luca Codignola, “The Civil War: The View From Italy,” Reviews in American History,
Vol.3, No.4 (Dec., 1975), p.458.
19
“Reconstruction and Subjugation One and the Same.” The Charleston Mercury, Oct. 1,
1864. http://www.accessible.com/accessible/text/civilwar/00000103/00010360.htm.
12
13

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

sympathized with many Northern ideals. With the
exception of the Catholic clergy, nearly all of Italy
rallied behind the Union and their ideals during the
Civil War.18
Though the North often celebrated what the
Catholic Church considered to be liberalism, many
Southerners feared these tendencies. As a Charleston
newspaper of the time explained, the South believed
that a centralized, liberal democracy would destroy
their agrarian culture and way of life through rampant
industrialization and the abolition of slavery:
There can be no doubt in any sound mind that the
North and the South require a different government. The
conservative elements of Southern society would be in too
small a minority to control the aggressiveness of the wild
and wanton democracy, which is found ever and anon to
seize the reins of government at the North, under the most
propitious circumstances.19

The South believed that Northern society was
radical and in direct opposition to their conservative
and orderly society. Southerners realized that
to remain a part of the Union might mean the
destruction of the Southern way of life and a
concession to a Northern-controlled centralized
democracy: “Under the existing Union, the theory
and institutions of Southern society, or that of
Northern society, will eventually give way. For both
to exist, continue and work out their own ends, they
must be separated.”20 And separate they did.
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president
of the United States, even though he did not appear
on any Southern ballots and thus received no votes
from any state in the South. Although the presidency
was in Republican hands, the US Congress was
controlled by Democrats. This stand-off of power
was very much responsible for arrogance on both
sides. Many Southerners realized at that moment
that the North controlled the Southern society and
that the South no longer had any effective voice in
the Union. As a result of Lincoln’s election, South
Carolina formally withdrew from the Union, followed
immediately by six other states.21
Although slavery played an important role for
many Americans in deciding which side to support,
Catholics in America had to reconcile Church
teachings with their own sectional philosophies,
which often proved to be a difficult task.22 The issue
“Union With the Northern States Necessarily Destructive of Southern Liberty.” The
Charleston Mercury, Jan. 18, 1861. http://www.accessible.com/accessible/ text/civilwar/
00000001/ 00000181.htm.
21
Four other states withdrew from the Union after hostilities began.
22
Chattel slavery did not become widespread in the world until the 15th century, and the
first formal papal condemnation of it is seen around the same time. In 1404, Spanish
explorers discovered the Canary Islands and enslaved its native peoples in the process
of colonization. In response, Pope Eugene IV issued his bull Sicut Dudum, in which he
condemned their enslavement and ordered all slaves to be freed. Those who chose to
keep their slaves incurred ipso facto excommunication. One hundred years later, Pope
Paul III encountered similar struggles with slavery in the world and issued the bull
Sublimis Deus in which he describes enslavers as friends of the devil. Popes Urban VIII
and Benedict XIV both condemned the slave trade, as did Pope Pius IX’s conservative
predecessor, Pope Gregory XVI, in his 1839 bull In Supremo Apostolatus. For more,
see Mark Brumley, “Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery,” This Rock,
Jul.-Aug. 1999, pp.18-20.
20

31
of slavery did not divide the Catholic Church in half,
but it did pose a grave threat to the Church’s unity
in America.23 While many Americans were able to
remain ambivalent to slavery, the Catholic Church
had to take a stand on the issue while also attempting
to avoid the same sectional disputes within the
Church that caused most Protestant denominations
to divide. Because of the hierarchical structure of
the Catholic Church, as opposed to the lack of
central authority in most Protestant denominations,
obedience to her teachings and to the pope was
enough to maintain Church unity. However, the
issue of slavery, as well as the division of the country,
complicated this task.
Catholics in the South found themselves in a
situation very similar to the early Christians in terms
of political influence. Both constituted a minority
group with practically no political power in a society
that advocated slavery. Although the Catholic Church
avoided permanent division in the United States,
American bishops differed in their opinions about
where the loyalty of Catholics should lie. Northern
bishops tended to support the Union, whereas
Southern bishops generally aligned themselves with
the cause of the Confederacy.24 However, while
Southern bishops supported the South with little or
no reservation, Northern bishops often had trouble
justifying the Northern position because Church
teaching often clashed with the North’s policies.
Bishops on both sides generally supported the section
in which they lived, which strained the Church and
often pitted bishop against bishop.
Archbishop William Henry Elder of Natchez was
one of the most prominent Church leaders in the
South. He was a rare native Southerner among his
fellow bishops and was the leader of all Catholics in
the state of Mississippi. In a letter to the Bishop of
Chicago in 1861, Bishop Elder made it very clear that
Catholics in the South were to give their allegiance to
the Confederate government:
I hold it is the duty of all Catholics in the seceding states
to adhere to the actual government without reference
to the rights or the wisdom of making the separation–or
the grounds for it–our state government [and] our new
Confederation are de facto our only existing government here
and it seems to me as good citizens we are bound not only
to acquiesce in it but to support it [and] contribute means
[and] arms [and] above all to avoid weakening it by division
of counsel without necessity.25

Although Bishop Elder did give recognition to
the Confederate government, he was careful not to
align the entire Catholic Church with the secession
movement; to do so could cause too much division
in the Catholic Church in America. He did make
Willard E. Wight, ed., “Letters of the Bishop of Savannah.” The Georgia Historical
Quarterly, Vol.42, No.1 (1958), p.93.
24
Willard E. Wight, “Bishop Elder and the Civil War,” Catholic Historical Review, Vol.4,
No.3 (1958), 290.
25
Letter of Bishop Elder to the Bishop of Chicago, quoted in Wight, “Bishop Elder and
the Civil War,” p.290.
23

it very clear, however, that one could personally
support the Confederate secession and still remain
in good standing with the Church. He explained his
position in a letter to the Archbishop of Baltimore:
“…if [Catholics] were satisfied, dispassionately,
that secession was the only practical remedy…their
religion [does] not forbid them to advocate it.”26
Bishop Elder also stated to a priest-friend that
Catholics could support the secession movement
because Confederate secession itself was in
accordance with Catholic morality:
Some say the Union was a kind of free association which
any state had a right to forsake whenever she judged it to
be conductive to her interests: the right of secession. Others
say…we were released by the right of self-preservation–
because it was impossible for us to live in the Union [and]
we had a right to provide for our safety outside of it….Now
any of these positions is perfectly consistent with Catholic
morality–with the highest patriotism.27

Bishop Elder was very skeptical of the Southern
cause at first, but he later changed his views. In an
1863 letter to a friend in Rome, the bishop voiced
his fears that the South’s actions were too rash and
that they should have relied on “Constitutional
Remedies.”28 However, he later viewed the South’s
actions as necessary:
The scornful treatment of all attempts at compromise
in Congress seemed to confirm the sagacity of their views
[and] I must confess that the progress of events in the North
has persuaded me the constitution would have afforded
little or no protection.29

The bishop saw Northern troops use brutal tactics
in his homeland of Mississippi and stated it “shows
how little reliance [could] be placed on the power of
constitutions or even of the universal laws of Christian
nations, to protect us against fanaticism.”30 Bishop
Elder was very sympathetic to the Southern cause and
believed that the South had no other choice than to
secede.
Bishop Elder taught that Catholics in the South
owed their allegiance to both the Confederacy
as well as to their individual state governments.
He recognized these governments as the de facto
governments, but was careful not to officially
support secession in order to maintain Church unity.
Although he attempted to stay neutral, his actions
and words caused him many troubles with Northern
authorities who considered him to be disloyal to the
Union government. During the Northern occupation
of Mississippi in 1863 and 1864, Union authorities
attempted to force Bishop Elder to direct all priests
under his jurisdiction to pray publicly for President
Lincoln at every Mass. Refusal to do so would have
constituted disloyalty and would have been punished.
Letter of Bishop Elder to the Archbishop of Baltimore, ibid., p.293.
Letter of Bishop Elder to Father Napolean J. Perché, ibid., p.292.
28
Letter of Bishop Elder to William G. McGloskey, ibid., p.294.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid., p.295.
26
27

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

S
P
O
H
S
I
B
N
R
SOUTHE
R
A
W
E
H
T
G
N
I
R
U
D
ELDER

32

LYNCH

810-7
Bishop Martin John Spaldingcky(1(1850-64)
Kentu
Bishop of Louisville,s con
secrated bishop of

9-1904)
Bishop William Henry Elderppi(181
857-80)
(1
ssissi
Bishop of Natchez, , Mi
ed bishop
rat
sec
he was con

A native of Baltimore
1857. He was made
of Natchez, Mississippi in
fused to obey the
“re
famous in 1864 when he
at Natchez and to have
order of the Federal troops
sident of the United
cer tain prayers for the Pre
the churches of his
States recited publicly in
tried, and convicted; but
diocese. He was arrested,
ry court was reversed at
the decision of the milita
cyclopedia).
Washington” (Catholic En

SPALDING 2)

Bishop Patrick Lynch (1817-82)
Bishop of Charleston,
South Carolina (1858-82) d and

VEROT

Irelan
Bishop Lynch was born in
eston, South
arl
Ch
of
hop
bis
ed
rat
consec
d until his
hel
he
Carolina, a post which
st learned
mo
the
of
e
death in 1882. “On
hierarchy in the
members of the Catholic
us lectures,
United States; his numero
the versatilit y
essays and treatises exhibit ...towards
dge
wle
and accuracy of his kno
Lynch went to
the end of the war Bishop
resentative of
Rome as the accredited rep
fidential mission”
the Confederacy on a con
(Catholic Encyclopedia).

6)
Bishop Augustin Verot (180ia 5-7
(1
org 861-70)
Bishop of Savannah, , Ge
he was appointed to
Born in Le Puy, France
1 by Pope Pius
the See of Savannah in 186
ed the rights of
end
def
ly
IX. He simultaneous
king to improve the
the Confederacy while see
South in order to
conditions of slaves in the
bring them into the
eventually free them and
Church.

An American who wa
8. Becoming Archbishop of
Louisville, Kentucky in 184
s
sided over the deliberation
Baltimore in 1864, he pre
6.
186
in
ore
ltim
Ba
uncil of
of the Second Plenar y Co
as a strong defender of
wn
kno
ely
wid
o
He was als
e of the First Vatican
papal infallibility at the tim
r”
on the American Civil Wa
Council. His “Dissertation
the
for
s
hie
pat
ctual sym
inspired the Vatican’s intelle
South.

ODIN

1-70)
Archbishop John Odin (180
861-70)
s
ean
Orl
Archbishop of New nce, he wa(1
s the
Born in Ambierle, Fra
s during the time
Archbishop of New Orlean
ependence. “His
of the War of Southern Ind
among the
y
influence was extraordinar
IX wrote to him
s
Piu
Catholic soldiers. Pope
p Hughes in
sho
hbi
Arc
in the South, as to
uence for peace.
the North, to use their infl
interrupted only
His Apostolic labors were
interest of his
the
by journeys to Europe in
lopedia).
cyc
En
archdiocese” (Catholic

of
ns
6.

ar”
the

33
Bishop Elder refused to comply and as a result, was
ordered to remain inside Federal military lines, which
included Mississippi at that time. The Union took
control of his cathedral, as well as every other church
that refused to offer prayers for President Lincoln.
Lincoln eventually ordered Bishop Elder’s release,
but these experiences gave the Southern bishop even
more reason to support the Confederate cause.31
Other Catholic bishops across the South held
positions similar to those of Bishop Elder. John Mary
Odin, the Archbishop of New Orleans, was extremely
loyal and devoted to the cause of the South.32 In
Savannah, Bishop Verot joined Archbishop Odin as
an outspoken advocate of the Confederacy. In 1861,
Verot preached a sermon which caused many in the
North to label him as a rebel bishop and a supporter
of slavery. He condemned the slave trade, but laid
out a code of rights for the treatment of slaves.33
A Frenchman by birth, Bishop Verot believed that
intervention from the French Emperor was the best
way for the South to be victorious:
It appears to me that a solemn embassy to the emperor of the
French imploring him to interfere in the name of humanity,
civilization, [and] liberty, [and] another to Maximilian
offering him an alliance offensive [and] defensive with the
Confederacy would do more good.34

Bishop Verot was confident in his positions and
assured Southern Catholics that “the justice of our
cause is clear; clear enough to admit of no doubts in
our mind.”35 In addition to being a staunch supporter
of the Confederacy, he did not understand how the
Northern bishops could oppose the South: “I often
hear that Bishop Hughes [of New York]…speaks
against the South. I do not believe what I hear. Still I
would like to hear his arguments against the justice of
the Southern cause.”36
Although a supporter of the Confederate cause,
Verot was not an apologist for slavery. Indeed, the
abolition of slavery was one of his wishes and goals.
Religious education was the Church’s primary
concern with slavery in America, and Bishop Verot
believed that the spiritual needs of the slaves were
not being met.37 He was certain that abolition
would eventually come by spreading the teachings
of Catholicism, even with a Confederate victory.
Therefore, he was able to support the Confederate
cause in good conscience and counsel Southern
Catholics to do the same.38
In the North, the response of Catholic Church
leaders to secession and slavery was not as clear as
in the South. Archbishop John Hughes of New York
was an Irish immigrant, a staunch nationalist, and
Wight, “Bishop Elder and the Civil War,” pp.304-306.
Willard E. Wight, ed, “A Letter From the Archbishop of New Orleans, 1862,” Louisiana
History, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1962), p.130.
33
Wight, “Letters of the Bishop of Savannah,” pp.94-95.
34
Wight, “Letters of the Bishop of Savannah,” p.105.
35
Wight, “Bishop Verot and the Civil War ,” p.156.
36
Wight, “Letters of the Bishop of Savannah,” p.99.
37
After the war, Bishop Verot considered the abolition of slavery to be a blessing from
God sent to bring peace to the country, and a cause for “joy and congratulations.” For
more see Wight, “Bishop Verot and the Civil War,” p.99.

one of the most well-known and important Northern
bishops during the War Between the States. He held
a high position in the American Catholic Church
and was also respected in Rome, so his opinions
were held in high regard by all Catholics who had
difficulties responding to the war. The teachings of
the Catholic Church did not mesh well with many
popular Northern opinions, especially the violence
of abolitionism, so Archbishop Hughes had trouble
taking a stance on many sectional issues. Southern
secession saddened the Archbishop, but his views
on slavery were ambiguous–a recurring position on
slavery among Northern Church leaders.39 This is
seen very clearly in an 1854 sermon which he gave in
New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral:
While we all know that this condition of slavery is evil,
yet it is not an absolute and unmitigated evil; and even
if it were anything more than what it is–a comparative
evil–there is one thing, that it is infinitely better than the
condition in which this people would have been, had they
not been seized to gratify the avarice and cupidity of the
white man.40

This opinion that Negroes were better off as slaves
than they would be had they remained in Africa was
one of the South’s primary justifications for slavery,
causing Archbishop Hughes to be accused of being
a supporter of the institution in America. However,
his positions seem to more closely resemble those
of a man who struggled with the issue himself and
attempted to justify it in order to avoid having to
condemn it.
Though he constantly believed in his heart
that something was very wrong with slavery, he
condemned the acts and beliefs of abolitionists and
stated that it was an error to think that slavery could
end immediately. Instead, he taught that the slave
owner had an obligation to be kind to his slave and
provide for all of the slave’s physical and spiritual
needs. He maintained that with the spread of
Catholicism, slavery would eventually be unthinkable
in society and that emancipation would come not
from the government, but from the charity of the
slaveholder, following the Scriptural example of
St. Paul. 41 In his Epistle to Philemon, St. Paul sent
an escaped slave back to his owner, but urged the
slaveowner to have a change of heart and to accept
him back not as a slave, but as a brother in Christ.42
Similarly, Bishop Elder believed that only through
the spread of Catholicism and Christian charity,
not through laws or violence, could slavery be truly
abolished and the distinction between master and
slave be truly removed.43
Wight, “Bishop Verot and the Civil War,” p.162.
Walter G. Sharrow, “John Hughes and a Catholic Response to Slavery in Antebellum
America,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul. 1972), pp.254-256.
40
Ibid., pp.255-256.
41
Sharrow, “John Hughes and a Catholic Response to Slavery in Antebellum America,”259266.
42
Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon.
43
Sharrow, “John Hughes and a Catholic Response to Slavery in Antebellum America,”
259-266.

31

38

32

39

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

34
The most important Catholic opinion on the
American War Between the States was that of the
Bishop of Rome, Pope Pius IX. As noted, after
surviving the Italian Revolution over a decade earlier,
the Pope rethought his past tendencies and adopted
conservative policies that reinforced the constant
tradition and teachings of the Catholic Church. For
the Pope, the situation in America was all too familiar.
Liberalism was thriving in the North and progress
towards a centralized liberal democracy threatened
to remove traditional values from American society.
In the South, the Pope saw a society that clung to
traditional religious and family values and he believed
to be more conducive to Catholic principles, despite
its support of slavery.44
Until he became President of the Confederate
States of America, Jefferson Davis attended Baptist
churches. After becoming President, he was baptized
into the High Anglican Church. He developed a great
respect for the Catholic Church,45 however, probably
due to his attendance at a Dominican Catholic high
school in Kentucky for two years. (He was withdrawn
not because of poor grades or unruly behavior, but
most likely because his help was needed on the
family plantation.) He kept this respect throughout
his life and developed a personal, although distant,
relationship with Pope Pius IX during the war. In
Roman Catholics he saw friends in whom he could
trust and who would not turn their backs on the
“oppressed.”46 In 1863, Jefferson Davis penned a
letter to Pope Pius IX in which he acknowledged the
concern that the Holy Father had shown for America
in the letters the Pope had written to the bishops of
New York and New Orleans. In these letters, the Pope
conveyed his sadness over the Civil War, and voiced
his desires to see it end quickly. Davis assured the
Pope that the Confederacy wanted the war to end as
soon as possible and that they were merely fighting
so that they could live in peace under their own
government.47
That Pope Pius IX referred to Jefferson Davis
as the “Illustrious and Hon. President”48 could have
been merely formal and respectful language, but
behind the Pope’s words in the letter seemed to lie
for the Confederacy a hope of implied recognition
of its government, or at least a desire to recognize it.
Curiously, Cardinal Antonelli, the Papal Secretary
of State during Pius IX’s pontificate, claimed that
the Pope had not yet recognized the sovereign
independence of the Confederate States, but had
in fact recognized their belligerency–the first step
Although written after the Civil War, Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum
confirmed the Church’s constant teachings on what constitutes a Catholic society. In the
encyclical, the Pope stated that developments in industry and strong centralized government cause a decline in morals by eliminating traditional values and focusing man’s mind
on things other than God. For more see Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, http://www.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/ hf_lxiii_enc_15051891_rerumnovarum_en.html.
45
Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America: A Memoir
By His Wife Varina Davis, II, p.445.
46
Ibid.
44

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

towards formal recognition.49 (Effectively, this meant
that the Vatican recognized that the war was being
fought, as France and Great Britain had already
done.) In his letter, Pope Pius IX showed his gratitude
that the Confederacy was eager for an end to
violence, while acknowledging that the North did, in
fact, have separate rulers and a separate government
and that Southerners were not merely rebels: “May
it please God at the same time to make the other
peoples of America and their rulers…receive and
embrace the counsels of peace and tranquillity.”50 Pius
IX concluded the letter with a subtle hint that he saw
a bright future for relations between the Vatican and
Confederacy, were it to become a sovereign nation:
“We, at the same time, beseech the God of pity to
shed abroad upon you the light of His grace, and
attach you to us by a perfect friendship.”51 What the
Pope meant by “perfect friendship” is unknown, but it
indicates that the Pope saw something attractive in the
Confederacy–so attractive that he was willing to stand
alone as the only European leader willing to formally
associate himself with its government.
Pius IX’s correspondence with Jefferson Davis
implies that he favored the South during the war and
recognized values in the South that were uncommon
in the progressive world. The South’s respect for
religion, rejection of industrialization, emphasis on
family, and opposition to strong centralized secular
government were very similar to traditional Catholic
principles, so the Pope easily could have considered
the South the fertile place in America to spread the
Catholic Faith. He may have also seen the South as
a sovereign nation which would perhaps one day
faithfully follow the Church’s teachings.
What is for sure is that by 1863, the Vatican
understood that the Lincoln administration seemed
less interested in returning the South to the Union
than in punishing it into complete submission. When
the Emancipation Proclamation reached Rome in
the Fall of 1862, Vatican reaction was negative.
L’Osservatore Romano condemned it as a desperate and
hypocritical war measure which freed no slaves but
encouraged rebellion in the South. The Jesuit journal,
La Civiltà Cattolica, portrayed the war as a hopeless
and unjust struggle of the North to punish the South.
During President Davis’s imprisonment following
the defeat of the Confederacy, Pope Pius IX sent
a picture of himself to him with the handwritten
inscription: “Come unto me, all ye who are weary
and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”52 Along
with this picture, the Pope sent a miniature crown of
Letter of Jefferson Davis to Pope Pius IX in Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of
the Confederate States of America: A Memoir By His Wife Varina Davis, II, p.446.
48
Ibid.
49
Arnold Blumberg, “George Bancroft, France, and the Vatican: Some Aspects of American, French, and Vatican Diplomacy: 1866-70,” The Catholic Historical Review (1965),
p.484.
50
Letter of Pope Pius IX to Jefferson Davis from Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President
of the Confederate States of America: A Memoir By His Wife Varina Davis, II, p.447.
51
Ibid., p.448.
52
Ibid.
47

35
thorns which the Sovereign Pontiff had woven with
his own hands (see title page).53 Such a gift, said a
great niece, was “never before conferred on any but
crowned heads.” Robert E. Lee, pointing to his own
portrait of Pius IX, told a visitor that he was “the
only sovereign...in Europe who recognized our poor
Confederacy.”
The War Between the States proved to be one
of the most trying times for the Catholic Church
in America, and the involvement of Pope Pius IX
shows that the war had many international effects.
Because of the affinity between Catholic and Southern
moral and social principles, one could argue that
Pope Pius IX believed that the Southern culture
provided a more suitable atmosphere for the spread
of Catholicism, despite the issue of slavery. Spreading
the Catholic Faith was the primary mission, and
the American bishops believed that the necessary
abolition of slavery would eventually follow. The
report of Bishop Martin Spalding to Pope Pius IX
in 1863 (serialized in L’Osservatore Romano) warned
that the immediate emancipation of the slaves
would not only force them into an inferior class,
but would also make it more difficult to bring them
into the Church. He noted that in heavily Catholic
New Orleans, almost half of the slaves had been
freed by 1860 through a change in their masters’
hearts, and had become some of the most devout
53

“Confederate Museum to Keep Its Home of 112 Years,” The Lafayette Advertiser, Dec.
28, 2003. http://www.acadiananow.com/news/html/1C0E0D37-7F28-46CB-BD18280950A8A444. shtml, Dec. 1, 2004.

WORKS CONSULTED

Alvarez, David J. “American Recognition of the Papal States: A Reconsideration.”
Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: American
Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, 1980, 49-57.
Ballagh, James. A History of Slavery in Virginia. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
1902.
Barnes, Albert. An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery. Philadelphia: Parry &
McMillan, 1855.
Blumberg, Arnold. “George Bancroft, France, and the Vatican: Some Aspects of American,
French, and Vatican Diplomacy: 1866-1870.” The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 50,
No. 4 (1965), 475-493.
Brumley, Mark. “Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery.” This Rock (Jul.-Aug.
1999), 16-21.
Chadwick, Owen. A History of the Popes 1830-1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.
Codignola, Luca. “The Civil War: The View From Italy.” Reviews in American History, Vol.
3, No.4 (1975), 457-461.
“Confederate Museum to Keep Its Home of 112 Years,” The Lafayette Advertiser, Dec. 28, 2003.
http://www.acadiananow.com/news/html/1C0E0D37-7F28-46CB-BD18-280950A8A444.
shtml, 1 Dec., 2004.
Coppa, Frank J. and Charles Delzel (commentary). “A Reformer’s Attempt to Avert Revolution: Pio Nono’s Projected Italian League of 1848.” Consortium on Revolutionary Europe
1750-1850, Vol. 21, 1992, 17-24.
Coppa, Frank J. “Papal Rome in 1848: From Reform to Revolution.” The Consortium on
Revolutionary Europe: 1750-1850, Vol. 2, 1979, 93-103.
Coppa, Frank J. “The Reformism of Pio Nono, 1846-1848.” Consortium on Revolutionary
Europe 1750-1850, Selected Papers, 1995, 693-700.
Davis, Varina. Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America: A Memoir
by His Wife Varina Davis, Vol. 2. Baltimore: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, Inc., 1990.
Duffy, Eamond. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1997.
Faherty, William B. “From the Gray to the Black.” Civil War Times Illustrated, Vol. 38, No.
7 (2000), 50-55.
Joyce, Toby. “The American Civil War and Irish Nationalism.” History of Ireland, Vol. 4,
No. 2 (1996), 36-41.
Martin, Tyrone G. “The Pope’s First American Visit.” Naval History, Vol. 15, No. 6 (2001),
46-49.
McCaffrey, Lawrence J. “Irish Textures in American Catholicism.” Catholic Historical Review,
Vol. 78, No. 1 (1992), 1-18.
McGloin, John B., S.J. “Catholic Attitudes in San Francisco During the Civil War.” Records of the
American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, Vol. 73, No. 1-2 (1962), 51-57.

Catholics that he had ever seen.54 As late as August,
1864 (eight months before General Lee’s surrender
at Appomattox), Rufus King, a Federal liaison to
Rome, was admitting that papal officials remained
unenthusiastic about the Union cause and Cardinal
Antonelli was still concerned over the dangers of
untimely emancipation. Pope Pius IX himself had
recently confessed to a British diplomat that his real
sympathies were with the Confederacy.55 The Pope
and Cardinal, however, suppressed their feelings in
the face of rising Federal fortunes on the battlefield
and the promise of a quicker end to the bloodshed.
But the evidence exists to believe it plausible that
Pope Pius IX would have liked to have given official
recognition to the Confederacy in its beginning, and
mourned its defeat in its demise.
Phil Johnson is a senior at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland,
currently in France on naval assignment. He is studying History, French, and
Engineering to become a nuclear submarine officer. He was born and raised
in Greensboro, North Carolina, and when at home assists at the Latin Mass at
St. Anthony of Padua Church in Mt. Holly, North Carolina. This article was
edited and addended by Fr. Kenneth Novak.
The crown of thorns made by Pope Pius IX and sent to CSA President Jefferson
Davis is used courtesy of Memorial Hall Foundation, Confederate Civil War
Museum, 929 Cage St., New Orleans, LA 70130.
For the reader interested in more on this topic, the editor suggests “The Papacy
in the Diplomacy on the American Civil War” by David J. Alvarez appearing
in The Historical Catholic Review (April 1983).
54

55

David Spalding, “Martin John Spalding’s ‘Dissertation on the American Civil War,’”
The Catholic Historical Review, (1966), pp.76-77.
King to Seward, Aug. 22, 1864, United States Ministers, p.315-316; O.Russell to J.
Russell, Jul. 30, 1864, The Roman Question, p.288.

McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1988.
Noether, Emiliana P. “Vatican Council I: Its Political and Religious Setting.” Journal of Modern
History, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1968), 218-233.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/leo_xiii/ encyclicals/
documents /hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html, Apr. 17, 2005.
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX. http://www.papalencyclicals.
net/ Pius09/p9syll.htm, 26 Apr., 2005.
“Reconstruction and Subjugation One and the Same.” The Charleston Mercury, Oct. 1, 1864,
http://www.accessible.com/accessible/text/civilwar/00000103/00010360.htm
Schaff, Morris. Jefferson Davis: His Life and Personality. Boston: John W. Luce and Company, 1922.
Schmandt, Raymond H. “A Philadelphia Reaction to Pope Pius IX in 1848.” Records of the
American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol. 88, No.1/4 (1977), 63-87.
Schmandt, Raymond H. and Josephine H. Schulte, translated and annotated. “Civil War
Chaplains: A Document from a Jesuit Community.” Records of the American Catholic
Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol. 73, No. 1/2 (1962), 58-64.
Sharrow, Walter G. “John Hughes and a Catholic Response to Slavery in Antebellum America.”
The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1972), 254-269.
“Slavery and the Catholic Church,” A Catholic Response, Inc., 1999. Nov. 18, 2004, http://users.
binary.net/polycarp/slave.html.
Spalding, David. “Martin John Spalding’s ‘Dissertation on the American Civil War,’” The
Catholic Historical Review. Vol. 52, No.1 (1966), 66-85.
“Telegraphic. From Richmond,” The Charleston Mercury, Jan. 23, 1864. http://www.accessible.com/ accessible/text/civilwar/00000088/00008861.htm.
Thomas, Samuel J. “The American Press Response to the Death of Pope Pius IX and the
Election of Pope Leo XIII.” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of
Philadelphia. Vol. 86, No. 1-4 (1975), 43-52.
“Union with the Northern States Necessarily Destructive of Southern Liberty.” The
Charleston Mercury, Jan. 18, 1861. http://www.accessible.com/accessible/text/civilwar/00000001/00000181.htm.
Wight, Willard E., ed. “A Letter from the Archbishop of New Orleans, 1862.” Louisiana
History, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1962), 129-132.
Wight, Willard E. “Bishop Elder and the Civil War.” The Catholic Historical Review, Vol.
44, No. 3 (1958), 290-306.
Wight, Willard E. “Bishop Verot and the Civil War.” The Catholic Historical Review, Vol.
47, No. 2 (1961), 153-163.
Wight, Willard E., ed. “Letters of the Bishop of Savannah.” The Georgia Historical Quarterly,
Vol. 42, No. 1 (1958), 93-106.

36

R e v .

F r .

a l v a r o

c a l d e r ó n

CANONIZA

IN TODAY’S PAPAL MA

The Church has always rendered a public cult to
her saints, first to the martyrs and later, from the fourth
century onwards, to the confessors. Although only
the pope has authority to judge whether the universal
Church may honor a servant of God as a saint, during
the first ten centuries they were canonized by the piety
of the Catholic people, more or less directed by the
bishops and with the implicit consent of the Roman
pontiffs. But as there were abuses and negligences, the
popes progressively exercised a greater control over
these processes, and ended by reserving for themselves
the faculty of canonizing saints. The first document to
mention this is a decretal of Pope Alexander III, in
1170.
The exemplary life of the saints is one of the notes
that distinguish the Church from false religions, and
to counter those who deny it, the procedure by which
the popes canonize saints has been always extremely
rigorous. Until 1588, canonizations came under the
Roman Rota, performed in the manner of a judicial
process between a “postulator” defending it, and a
“promoter of the faith” opposing. In 1588, Pope Sixtus
V established the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SCR),
which had exclusive control over these processes and
unified and perfected the procedures to be followed.
Pope Urban VIII, in 1625, forbade any kind of cult to
anyone who has not been beatified or canonized by the
Holy See, except in the proven cases of immemorial
cult. The procedure, enriched by the experience of

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

centuries, is described in its essentials in the 1917 Code
of Canon Law. Later, in 1930, Pope Pius XI established
the Historical Section for ancient causes, promulgating
in 1939 the norms to follow in these cases, and Pope
Pius XII established a commission of medical experts.
Until that date, the procedure was in two stages:
1) that which ended with the beatification, itself divided
into two stages, the ordinary process and the apostolic
process; 2) that which ended with the canonization.
The ordinary process, so called because it was
realized under the authority of the diocesan bishop,
was directed to present the cause before the SCR. It
consisted in three steps: 1) the careful search for all
the writings of the Servant of God; 2) the informative
process, which attempted to establish the reputation of
sanctity; 3) the process of absence of cult, according to
the decree of Urban VIII. Before going ahead with the
informative process, the writings had to be sent to the
SCR to be rigorously examined.
To bring to an end definitively a cause of canonization, it is
not necessary that the writings of the Servant of God contain
formal errors against dogmas or morals; it is sufficient if in
them are found suspicious novelties, frivolous questions,
or some singular opinion opposed to the teachings of the
Fathers and the common opinion of the faithful.1

The apostolic process, realized under the authority
of the pope by the SCR, had two series of procedures:
instruction and recognition. The instruction was
performed in the diocese, by command of the SCR,

37

The talk about canonizing
Pope John Paul II raises the
question about how this used to
be done and is done now.

ATION

MAGISTERIUM
and comprised two steps: first, the process of reputation
of sanctity was repeated, and afterwards the virtues (or
martyrdom) and the miracles were examined in particular.
The recognition was performed in Rome, and it included four
steps: 1) on the heroism of virtues; 2) on the martyrdom and
its cause; 3) on the miracles; and 4) the last session, called “de
tuto” because in it was decreed that the canonization could
proceed “with certainty.”
For the canonization there were no new processes or
revision of the previous proceedings. Only two conditions
were necessary: the beatification and the approval of two
new miracles. The postulator had to present the proofs of
the new miracles and ask for the resumption of the cause. If
the SCR approved them, a new decree “de tuto” determined
that the canonization could go ahead. There was still a
triple consistory in which the pope met with the cardinals
and bishops. Finally, if that was his will, the Roman pontiff
dictated the bull of canonization, dating it on the day of the
solemn liturgical ceremony in the basilica of St. Peter in the
Vatican.
In 1967, Pope Paul VI reorganized the Roman Curia
by his apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae,
which affected also the SCR, but without any significant
modification of its procedures. The first important
modification was made by the motu proprio Sanctitas
Clarior, on March 19, 1969. By it, the pope delegated
to the bishops and episcopal conferences the necessary
authority to introduce the causes and perform the processes
of instruction, which had been until then reserved to the

Response of His Holiness
Benedict XVI for the
Examination of the
Cause for Beatification
and Canonization of
the Servant of God
John Paul II
At the request of His Most Eminent and
Reverend Cardinal Camillo Ruini, Vicar
General of His Holiness for the Diocese of
Rome, the Supreme Pontiff BENEDICT
X V I , taking into consideration the
exceptional circumstances put forward
during the Audience granted to the same
Cardinal Vicar General on April 28, 2005,
has dispensed the five-year waiting period
following the death of the Servant of God
John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła), Supreme
Pontiff, so that the cause of Beatification and
Canonization of the same Servant of God
can begin immediately. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary.
Given in Rome, from the See of this
Congregation for the Causes of Saints, May
9, 2005.
Cardinal José Saraiva Martins, C.M.F.
Prefect
Archbishop Edward Nowak,
Titular Archbishop of Luni
Secretary

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

38

Roman Congregation. The processes were reduced
to three: 1) on the writings of the Servant of God; 2)
on the life and virtues, or on the martyrdom; 3) on
the miracles. Until then, the processes of instruction
were performed by representatives with dimissorial
letters from the SCR. Now, if the bishop can establish
a diocesan tribunal with specialized officials, he can
instruct there the processes; if not, he must have
recourse to the tribunals established ad hoc by the
Episcopal Conference. Msgr. Antonelli, secretary of
the SCR, said that these innovations “undoubtedly
opened a new era in the history of the causes of
beatification and canonization.”2 Two months later,
by the apostolic constitution Sacra Rituum Congregatio,
May 8, 1969, Pope Paul VI divided the SCR into two
congregations, one “for the Divine Worship” and the
other “for the Causes of Saints,” giving to the latter an
organization attuned to the new procedures.
The second important modification of the
processes came with the apostolic constitution Divinus
Perfectionis Magister, of Pope John Paul II, published
on January 25, 1983, together with the apostolic
constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, by which the
1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. This new
legislation, completed with a decree of the Sacred
Congregation for the Causes of Saints (Feb. 7, 1983),
replaced totally the previous laws, as the 1983 Code
does not legislate on these matters–Canon 1403 §1
says that “the causes of canonization of saints are
regulated by a particular pontifical law.” Following the
line established by Pope Paul VI, a double objective
was intended. The first was practical:
After the recent experience, it has appeared to Us opportune
to revise further the process of instruction and reorganize
this Congregation for the Causes of Saints, in order to
respond to the demands of the wise and to the desires of our
brothers in the episcopate, who many times have required
the easing of the procedures, although keeping always
the soundness of the investigation in such an important
matter.

The second was doctrinal:
We think also, in the light of the teachings of the Second
Vatican Council on collegiality, that it is convenient to

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

involve the bishops more with the Apostolic See in the study
of the causes of saints

Now the pope grants to the bishops the right to
introduce the causes of canonization and instruct
the processes, without the authorization from the
Roman Congregation that was still required under
Paul VI. It is no longer necessary to submit all the
writings to a theological examination, but only
those that have been published; the theological
censors are appointed by the bishop; the manner of
deposition of the witnesses has been simplified; the
ancient process of “no cult” has been reduced to a
simple visual inspection, by the bishop, of the places
where such undue cult might have been rendered.
Once the process of instruction is finished, its acts
are sent to Rome. The Sacred Congregation for the
Causes of Saints studies them “in depth”: it verifies
that everything has been done according to the
rules; it prepares a report or “positio” on the virtues
or martyrdom, and another on the miracles, to be
examined by theological consultants and experts,
who, in turn, will present their conclusions in
reports to be discussed in the meetings of cardinals
and bishops. Finally, the whole is submitted to the
judgment of the Roman Pontiff.
It has to be noted that the new legislation does
not mention beatification as an intermediate stage.
According to the canonists, it would leave open–in
order to promote collegiality–the possibility of giving
back to the bishops the authority to beatify that they
had in the first centuries.3
If we make a sweeping comparison between what
canonizations were in the papal magisterium of the
past, and what they are supposed to be according
to the new legislation, we may summarize the
differences by saying that today they are no more an
“extraordinary” event in the activity of the Roman
Pontiff.
They are not “extraordinary,” firstly, because
the simplification of the procedures has increased
the frequency of canonizations in such a manner

39

that they are no longer anything uncommon in the
life of the Pope. According to the Index ac Status
Causarum, published by the Sacred Congregation for
the Causes of Saints in December 2000, from Pope
Clement VIII (1594) up to Pope Pius XII inclusive
(1958), the SCR canonized 215 saints, approximately
one every two years. Pope Pius XII canonized 33
saints in his 19 years of pontificate. Pope Paul VI
made 3 canonizations before the first simplification
of the process (in the first ceremony, he canonized
the 22 Martyrs of Uganda), and 18 in the following
years (among them the 40 English Martyrs), a total
of 81 canonized saints. With Pope John Paul II the
frequency increased noticeably. In his first ten years
of pontificate, he canonized 254 blessed (among them,
the 103 martyrs of Korea), and beatified 300 servants
of God, a majority of them martyrs (60 from the 20th
century). In 1999 those canonized by the present
pontiff were already 295, and the beatified 934. Since
1999, the pace of canonizations has accelerated. Padre
Pio was the 462nd saint canonized ( June 16, 2002) by
Pope John Paul II. On June 13, 1994, he explained:
Sometimes it is said that today there are too many
canonizations. This not only reflects the reality that, thanks
be to God, is as it is, but it also corresponds to the desire
manifested by the Second Vatican Council. The Gospel has
spread so much out into the world, and so deeply rooted is
its message, that precisely the great number of beatifications
vividly reflects the action of the Holy Ghost and the vitality
that springs forth from Him in that field which is more
essential for the Church, holiness.

But if the canonizations have ceased to be
“extraordinary” events because of their frequency,
this must mean something regarding their theological
nature. Theologians call “extraordinary” magisterium
of the pope, firstly and principally, the ex cathedra
definitions of matters regarding faith and morals.
His other activities, either regarding doctrine, such
as the teachings given in discourses and encyclicals,
or regarding concrete facts, such as the disciplinary
decisions, constitute the ordinary papal magisterium.
In questions of doctrine, the pope is infallible in
his extraordinary magisterium, that is, when he
gives definitive sentence ex cathedra. The other

teachings, given in an ordinary manner, are not by
themselves infallible, although they may become
so if they acquire an equivalent weight by their
frequent repetition or because they end by imposing
themselves on the whole Church. In questions
regarding concrete facts, the pope is not infallible. St.
Thomas Aquinas says that “in sentences relative
to particular facts, that is, regarding possessions,
crimes and similar things, there is the possibility of
error in the judgment of the Church, on account of
false witnesses.”4 Although the canonizations have
as object a concrete fact (that is, that such Christian
man or woman attained holiness and is in heaven),
nevertheless, given the manner in which the saints
have been proposed to the people’s veneration
by the magisterium, theologians in the past have
considered canonizations as something intermediate
between doctrinal sentences and those regarding
concrete facts, and they are of the opinion that those
canonizations are also infallible. In the text we have
quoted above, St. Thomas Aquinas continues:
The canonization of saints is something intermediate
between these two [kinds of sentences]. As the honor we
render to the saints is a profession of faith by which we
believe in the glory of the saints, it has to be piously held
that in this the judgment of the Church cannot err.

Do we still have to consider them so today, in spite of
their having become an “ordinary” occurrence, as acts
belonging to the “extraordinary” papal magisterium?
To discern whether an act belongs to the ordinary
or to the extraordinary papal magisterium, we have
to apply the following theological criterion. The gift
of infallibility does not depend on the efforts the pope
uses to ascertain the truth of his acts, but only on the
assistance of the Holy Ghost, to Whom the pope has
recourse out of his own free will. Nevertheless, in
each case, to avoid tempting God, the pope acts as
any other human teacher, humano more. This means
that, when the Pope teaches in an ordinary manner,
without any very special diligence or solemnity, he
does not intend to be infallible; but when he is to give
a definitive sentence, he inquires, demands advice,
and acts as if he were to avoid any possibility of error
by his own forces.5 These endeavors, proceeding in

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

40
the usual human manner, are a clear indication of the
degree of authority that the pope gives to each one of
his acts.
In the 11th and 12th centuries, the popes took
away definitively from the bishops the faculty to
judge in questions of sanctity and kept the causes of
canonization for themselves, establishing a complex
procedure to determine personally, by means of the
officials and organs of the Roman Curia (directly
under their supervision), the reality of the facts
adduced. Then the theologians were able to see
in those acts the full engagement of the pontifical
authority, judging that those acts were so near
an ex cathedra definition that they should also be
included among the solemn acts of the extraordinary
magisterium.
Today, the Holy See has given back to the
diocesan bishops the responsibility of judging
the truth of the facts, either by themselves or by
the organs established by them. Considering in
accordance with the rules of human judgments,
humano more, the pope cannot now give a personal
testimony to the truth of the facts, he cannot say:
“I myself give testimony that this person led an
exemplary Christian life, because I have sent people
I trust in to find out the facts, and I have had the
facts studied by theologians chosen by me.” Now
his testimony is no more immediate, but mediated
through the bishops: “According to the documents
given to me and trusting the prudence and honesty
of the diocesan procedures, I give testimony that this
person is a saint.” The value of a sentence given in
these conditions is certainly much less, because the
scientific authority of a diocesan tribunal is less than
that of a Roman Congregation, which chooses its
experts from the best in the whole world. Moreover,
the diocesan bishop is necessarily much more
interested in having canonized saints from his diocese,
and is therefore a less impartial judge than the Roman
Pontiff. Finally, and principally, because whereas in
the case of a sentence about doctrine it is irrelevant
from whom it has been learnt insofar as it is the truth,
a sentence about concrete facts depends completely
upon the correct observation by the witness.
The return to a situation similar to that of the first
centuries of the Church–when the pope did not judge
immediately, by himself, but simply confirmed the
judgment of the bishops–has been purposely willed
to promote collegiality. Consequently, as the “human
manner” in which the pope proceeds indicates the
degree in which he engages his authority as Vicar of
Christ, the theological judgment about the degree of

THE ANGELUS • June 2005

authority of the canonizations will have to change: the
canonizations in today’s papal magisterium should not
be considered as acts belonging to the extraordinary
magisterium of the Roman pontiff, but rather as acts
proper to his ordinary magisterium.
We do not have knowledge of any theological
works on this matter, and while what we affirm
may surprise some Catholics who have had
some theological training in the past, it must be
understood in the context of the new pedagogy of
the magisterium since Vatican II. The ex cathedra
definitions of the extraordinary magisterium constitute
the most absolute exercise of any authority upon
earth, and contemporary man, under the influence
of the democratic spirit, feels an instinctive horror
for anything imposed on him without his previous
consent. The last popes have, for that reason, judged
convenient not to resort to the Pythagorean “magister
dixit” (i.e., “The master says”), but rather to the
Socratic “dialogue,” exercising the magisterium only
in its ordinary manner, trusting in each case on the
assistance of the Holy Ghost to impose the truth
progressively. Even in the act that Pope John Paul II
had endowed with greatest authority, the declaration
on the impossibility of the priestly ordination of
women, he did not decide it by an ex cathedra papal
definition, but pointed out that already “it had been
previously proposed by the ordinary and universal
magisterium.”6 It must not, therefore, surprise us
if, as being more convenient for the sensibility of
modern man, the canonizations are today made in the
collegial manner of the ordinary magisterium.
Rev. Fr. Alvaro Calderón, a native of Argentina, was ordained in 1986 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since then, he has been teaching Dogmatic Theology
at the Society of St. Pius X’s Seminary in Argentina. This article, translated
by Rev. Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara, was first published in Tradición Católica, the
bulletin of the Spanish District of the Society.
1

DTC, art. “Canonisation dans l’Église romaine,” col.1647. Cf. Benedict
XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatific. bk.II, ch.25-35, 52.
2
L’Osservatore Romano (Apr. 12, 1969). Cf. La Documentation Catholique,
1969, n. 1539, p.409.
3
Cf. J. Bonet Alcón, Causas de canonización. Introducción y comentarios
al proceso ordinario en la nueva legislación canónica (Ed. Universidad
Católica Argentina, 1993), pp.41-42.
4
Quodlib. IX, last article.
5
John of St. Thomas, De auctoritate S. Pontificis, Disp.III, Art.2, n.13: “in
the definition of matters of faith, it is required to proceed ‘humano modo’ to
a diligent investigation, which by itself does not offer sufficient foundation
for an infallible definition, but which under the direction of the Holy Ghost
does so.”
6
Responsum of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (Nov. 24,
1995), on the authority of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope
John Paul II.

G.K. Chesterton Collection

A Miscellany of Men

G. K. Chesterton covers
many timely truths and
makes prescient observations on topics ranging from
literature to philosophy,
history to social criticism.
A snapshot of thought
on 20th-century Europe
(and the world) by one of
Europe’s sharpest wits and
ablest pens. Thirty-nine
brief sketches of individuals, each one of whom illustrates an aspect of contemporary society.

Irish Impressions

Chesterton’s study of the
Irish question. As a Roman
Catholic and a lover of English nationalism, Chesterton
shared many sentiments
with the Irish. Written objectively and frankly, this is
an important work for any
student of English/Irish history as well as an excellent
study of the effects of ideology and religion on society.

152pp, softcover,
STK# 7083. $12.95

184pp, softcover,
STK# 8034. $13.95

R EA
D EA L
L

Utopia of Usurers

The Outline of Sanity

The New Jerusalem

133pp, softcover,
STK# 7074. $11.95

183pp, softcover,
STK# 6763. $14.95

307pp, sewn hardcover,
STK# 8055. $29.95

A collection of over two
dozen of Chesterton’s most
readable essays on what
Capitalism is, and how bad
it is, in both precise and
readable terms. He cuts to
the core, and tears away
polite illusions and pathetic
excuses, demonstrating that
modern Capitalism stands
condemned not only by the
Catholic Faith but by every
sane view of the world. Not
for the ideologically squeamish.

Chesterton’s critique of
both capitalism and socialism and a Catholic proposal
of how things ought to be,
that is, widespread ownership of real property by
every family...Distributism.
Chesterton explains that
the medieval peasantry is
the standard by which we
should measure our progress in giving back to man
the dignity proper to him as
a human being and a creature of God.

Buy all five (normally $83.75) Now $74.95

Robert Hugh Benson Collection

Dawn of All

A novel in which an apostate
priest (on his deathbed) slips into
a coma and is given the grace to
see the world in a different light;
a world in which Christ reigns
Supreme. Through this revelation,
he discovers the abundant errors
of Modernism–the very errors
that had led him from the Catholic
Faith. A stunning blueprint for the
Social Kingship of Christ. A must
read for our times.

287pp, 16 yrs and up, hardcover,
STK# 7078. $18.00

By What Authority?

Travel across the English countryside hunt­ing for priests; then find
yourself in the Queen’s court.
During the Protestant Reformation, Catholics suffered terribly—families were divid­ed; people
jailed; priests were hunted down
and killed; neighbor turned against
neighbor. But through it all, the few
priests that remained were able
to sustain and convert many. The
tale told in this book is one of suspense, deceit, loyalty, martyrdom,
truth and conversion.

558pp, 15 yrs and up, hardcover,
STK# 7076. $20.00

Come Rack! Come Rope!

A time when priests travelled in
disguise and had to be hid by
the faithful. Families heard Mass
and received the Sacraments in
secret—but a traitor in the midst
could mean capture, torture and
death for the undercover priest.
Provides vivid descriptions and
profound insights to the persecutions of Catholics during the age
of the English Protestant Reformation.

469pp, 16 yrs and up, hardcover,
illustrated, STK# 7077. $20.00

Honest discussion about
Islam, Zionism and other
continuing controversies.
The plain, unsanitized
truth about Islam, why the
Zionist dream of a Jewish
“refuge” in the Holy Land
was doomed from the start,
the real causes of the
Crusades—and the real
condition of Christians under Muslim rule. Chesterton
compiles his insights after
a trip he made to Palestine
shortly after World War I.

STK# 6692

S PE

CIA

Initiation

Who was young Sir Neville Fanning?
Why did he call himself a Catholic,
and at the same time, lament that
he wasn’t a very good one? He was
convinced that there was some­thing
deeper than conventional religion.
Denying the cross again and again,
he couldn’t bear to suffer–even
though at every turn Our Lord called
him to Himself. He sim­ply could not
see the point in submit­ting to the
Divine Will. His “initiation” is a beautiful story of how the surrender was
asked—and then won in the end!

447pp, 16 yrs and up, hardcover,
STK# 7079. $20.00

Buy all four (normally $78.00) Now $69.95

STK# 6693.

L

Great Catholic
Literature

N EW NGS
ERI
O FF

Fr. Owen Francis Dudley was known as a
penetrating thinker and a stirring novelist. Born in 1882,
he studied for the Anglican ministry and was “ordained”
in 1911. In 1915, he converted to the Catholic Faith,
studied for the Catholic priesthood in Rome, and was
ordained a priest in 1917. He served as Chaplain to
the British Gunners on the French and Italian fronts
in World War I. After recovering from war wounds, Fr.
Dudley be­came very active in the work of the Catholic
Missionary Society, of which he was Superior from
1933-46, lecturing in town halls, theaters, Hyde Park
(in London, on the same street corner as Fr. Vincent
McNabb), and mining club rooms. He visited the US for
lecture tours. As part of his missionary apostolate,
he wrote a series of novels on the abiding problems
of human happiness.

The Shadow on the Earth

This novel depicts the different perspectives of
optimism and pessimism pitted against each
other–a story of good versus evil at its best.
Set in a Benedictine monastery, this great
read leads to a deepened understanding of the
answer to the problem of pain and suffering.
143pp, hardcover, STK# 8074. $10.00

The Masterful Monk

Rea
of t d the
hi
s
con s auth tory
sta
ve
or
in t rting rsion ’s
on
he
p
M
Ang ay 2 .26
elu 005
s.

In a vivid portrayal of the philosophical
problem of human happiness, Fr. Dudley
lays out for the reader the now all-toofamiliar attack on mankind’s innate sense
of morality. Temptations of materialism were
never stronger than they are today, yet here
they are embodied in a novel from 1945!
314pp, hardcover, STK# 8075. $12.00

Pageant of Life

A tale of human respect. In this book, Fr.
Dudley presents an antithesis to that modern
cowardice which manifests itself in the vogue for
the vague and non-committal; the convenient
indifference which ques­tions everything and
holds nothing.
343pp, hardcover, STK# 8076. $12.00

The Coming of the Monster

Portrays the modern revolt against God
and the moral law. An unusual mystery that
leads you on a “journey of the mind”–and
body!–with scenes set in Leningrad,
Lourdes, Paris, and Hollywood.
275pp, hardcover, STK# 8077. $12.00

The Tremaynes and the
Masterful Monk

A character study; the story of an ugly, unlikable man who seemed unredeemable. In
the event, he proved otherwise–owing to the
monk acting on the principle of the potentially
reclaimable deep down.
333pp, hardcover, STK# 8115. $12.00

Shipping & Handling
US/Canada

Foreign

$.01 to $10.00
$3.95
$7.95
$10.01 to $25.00 $5.95
$9.95
$25.01 to $50.00 $6.95
$12.95
$50.01 to $100.00 $8.95
$14.95
Over $100.00
9% of order 12% of order
Airmail surcharge (in addition to above)
Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal.

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

1-800-96ORDER
1-800-966-7337

www.angeluspress.org
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.