october 2005 $4.45 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition Bishop Fellay: What Will Happen With the Election Of a New Pope? Ne w Angelus Press Edition Fe at ur e news 2006 Liturgical Calendar anctuaries S of W E Sacrifice N Altars and Churches of Catholic Tradition The 2006 Liturgical Calendar features 12 sanctuaries of Catholic Tradition of the US District of the Society of St. Pius X with their histories and explanations. Extra chapels are featured in a special section.Why an altar calendar? Because the Catholic Church considers the altar as the whole reason for the existence of the building in which it stands. Not only does she look upon it as the sacrificial stone, upon which Christ, our Priest and Victim, offers Himself daily in His Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the central act of her liturgy; but she has proclaimed that the altar represents the Lord Himself. He is Altar, Victim, and Priest; and the reverence for the altar symbolizes the reverence due to Christ Himself. She declares this in the Divine Office for the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica: “[T]he altar which, anointed with oil, denotes the representation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Altar, Victim, and Priest.” The Pontificale Romanum expands this further by including the members in union with the Head of the Mystical Body. In the rite of the subdeaconate, it says: For the Altar of Holy Church is Christ Himself, as John bears witness, who, in his Apocalypse, tells us that he beheld a golden Altar (Apoc. 8:3) standing before the throne, in Whom and through Whom the offerings of the faithful are made acceptable to God the Father. The cloths and corporals of this Altar are the members of Christ, God’s faithful people, with whom, as with costly garments, the Lord is clad, according to the Psalmist–“The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty” (Ps. 92:1). Moreover, on the altar’s upper surface are incised five crosses, representing Our Lord’s five wounds.” [Adapted from G. Webb, The Liturgical Altar (1949), pp.18-20]. Plenty of room for your notes and appointment reminders. Largeholed for easy hanging! All the feast days of the year according to the 1962 Roman Missal are listed with class and liturgical color marked. Reminders of days of fast and abstinence. Includes the latest directory of Latin Mass locations and traditional Catholic schools in the US and Canada. Our most popular item year after year and, as always, it’s so handsome, you won’t want to throw it out at the end of the year! 10¾" x 10¾" Full color throughout, STK# CAL2006 $9.95 TV-B-Gone™ universal remote control is very much like any other TV remote control except it just has ONE button (an off/on switch) and it works on almost ALL TVs! Like any remote, TV-B-Gone is harmless to TVs, animals and humans. In fact, it is quite beneficial since it turns TVs off! You do not have to be subject to the poison of television in restaurants, barber shops, doctors’ offices, waiting rooms, etc. Shut the dang thing off yourself: quietly and discreetly. You have the right to be free from being bombarded constantly by what George Orwell called, in his famous novel 1984, the “tele-screen.” Protect your mind, your soul, the innocence of your children. STOP THE MATERIALIST PROPAGANDA and shut their infernal devil boxes off! STK# 8140, $19.99 TURNS OFF VIRTUALLY ANY TELEVISION! Hangs on your keychain Safe. Effective. Fun. How does your TV-B-Gone work? TV-BGone has the off/on codes of almost every TV in the Western Hemisphere programmed into it. Point it at the TV, press the button ONCE, and keep it pointed at the TV. REGIONS: This North American/Asian model will work in the USA, Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and India. It will not work in Europe, South America, or Australia...the Euro model does and is available directly from tvbgone.com. RANGE: 20-50 feet, depending on the make and model of the TV. W N E R I NG FE OF PHYSICAL SIZE: 1.92” x 2.27” x .675” inches with key chain attachment. BATTERY LIFE: Comes with batteries already installed which will last 3 months to a year, depending on how frequently you use it. Replacements are readily accessible. “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 October 2005 Volume XXVIII, Number 10 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X PUBLISHER Fr. John Fullerton EDITOR Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Bishop Bernard Fellay Fr. Kenneth Novak ASSISTANT EDITOR Mr. James Vogel OPERATIONS AND MARKETING THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT On the Nature of Modern Thought . .PART . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 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. Jon Rydholm PROOFREADING Miss Anne Stinnett TRANSCRIPTIONS Miss Miriam Werick THE MEETING Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay Concerning His Meeting With Pope Benedict XVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 LETTER #68 TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS . . . . . . . 27 Bishop Bernard Fellay BOOK REVIEW: Pope Pius IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Yves Chiron Persons Principles Amintore Fanfani It’s Not About ; . It’ . . .s. About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PART . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 WOMAN AND THE GIFT OF PITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. FROM RUMORS TO TUMORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Fr. Yves le Roux 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. Contents October 2005.indd 1 ON OUR COVER: See article pp.2-16. THE ANGELUS SUBSCRIPTION RATES US, Canada, & Mexico Other Foreign Countries 1 YEAR 2 YEARS $34.95 $52.45 $62.90 $94.50 All payments must be in US funds only. 10/13/2005 5:43:46 PM Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition 2 Angelus Press Edition NEWS What Will Happen With the Election Of a New Pope? Dear Faithful, A conference by Bishop Bernard Fellay, given in Brussels ( June 13, 2005). Christendom is a publication of DICI, the press bureau of the Society of Saint Pius X. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 It is, of course, perfectly normal that with the election of a new pope you will be asking yourselves: “What is going to happen now?” And this question, filled with hope, is based first and foremost on the promise of Our Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.” This we all know and believe. But it remains to be seen how we apply this to reality. I’m sure you do not need me to tell you that things are not going well in the Church, that it is indeed a tragedy, a monumental catastrophe. I would even go further than that: I am sure that theologians from the beginning of the 20th century would have considered us heretics if they had heard what we are saying, which is not a personal opinion, but merely a description of the current situation. I mean that in the past, theologians would have considered what is actually happening 3 today to be impossible, inconceivable. Remember the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, describing the situation in his own time. He said that “we may reasonably wonder whether the Son of perdition may not have already arrived.” What would he say today? On the one hand, we perceive this terrible crisis in the Church, and on the other, we believe in the promise of Our Lord. We know that the Good Lord is stronger. So let us try to think things over: how could this happen? How could Our Lord put things right? There is a very simple answer: a new pope, a good pope, and then everything will be all right again! Hence our intimate and even unconscious hope: here he is, this is the man! There is a new pope, so he is the one to do it! He is the one who must set things right since things are going wrong. Our Lord promised that things could not go too far and that someone had to get everything under control again. So, he is the man! Besides, there are many signs which support this point of view. For instance, on Good Friday, just before the death of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, during the Stations of the Cross, gave a very realistic description of the Church. He said that the ship was sinking, something which is, of course, dramatic in view of the promise of Our Lord that the ship will not sink–and we hear the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith telling us that the ship is sinking! He has said other things too, along the same lines. He has also criticized the new Mass several times in recent years. He has even written a book on the subject. All this seems to be pointing in the right direction. THE CONSERVATIVES’ CANDIDATE AT THE CONCLAVE We can also confirm, and this is not a mere supposition, that Pope Benedict XVI was elected in opposition to progressivism. We have information on the way the conclave went. As you know, all the cardinals take an oath of secrecy on all that happens during the conclave. So do not ask me how we know, but we do know that there were some 50 cardinals who gave their vote to Cardinal Ratzinger, that Cardinal Martini had about 20, that Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires also had around 20. Cardinal Sodano got 4 all through the conclave. Of course, Cardinal Martini is not a conservative. Obviously, during the first ballot he was the leader of the progressives. With him there was a group of at least three cardinals who spearheaded progressivism What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? during the conclave: there was the Cardinal of Scotland, Cardinal McCormack, and Cardinal Danneels. On the other side, there was a group of four or five cardinals. It seems that Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, a Colombian, worked the hardest for the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, together with Cardinal Castrillon, also a Colombian, and the Spanish Cardinal Herranz. It is also said that Cardinal Medina worked in favor of this election. Very soon, seeing how few votes he had, Cardinal Martini realized that he could not manage alone, and he asked his voters to cast their ballots in favor of the Cardinal of Buenos Aires, and thus at the second ballot, Cardinal Ratzinger had just over 50 votes, and a certain number of votes went to Cardinal Bergoglio. These two names came first. At that point, Cardinal Bergoglio got scared– perhaps that is too strong a word. He realized that he might be elected and that he was not ready for such a responsibility. So he withdrew. Consequently, for the third ballot, since there was one candidate less, by a very narrow margin, they say three votes, Cardinal Ratzinger was almost elected. That very evening, there was a fourth ballot, and this time he was elected with more than 100 votes. It was a disaster for the progressivists, who were truly broken. All this gives us hope. Things are going in the right direction, as the progressivists were defeated. And if we look at the cardinals, certainly Cardinal Ratzinger is one of the best among them. So then, all is well? It is not easy to speculate about the future! God alone knows the future. For us, a look into the future is always something very delicate. We may try to envisage what is probable, while at the same time knowing that when we speak about men, we are dealing with free will and contingencies. And if I tell you: “It’s going to happen this way,” at the same time, I am obliged to admit the possibility that it will not happen like that at all. There is a certain probability; we cannot say any more than that. What is this probability founded on, this look into the future of this pontificate? It is based on our knowledge of the past! We know Cardinal Ratzinger quite well and we think that between Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict XVI there is not much difference in personality or character. So, our opinion of Benedict XVI is much the same as our opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger. It is true that he has graces of state; it is true that he has the benefit of special assistance from the Holy Ghost, as the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. Nevertheless, his manner of reacting to problems, his way of tackling THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition 4 (Left to right) Cardinal Godfried Daneels, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, S.J.., Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. them, at least on the human level, will be much the same as when he was cardinal. A NON-THOMISTIC FORMATION So what do we see in the man who is now Benedict XVI? What do we know of his formation? Let us begin with the theologian. He is a university professor, and in his biography, he himself tells us that he is not a Thomist, that he does not even like St. Thomas, at least in the way he was taught at the seminary. We must then conclude that he is not a philosopher, nor a theologian endowed with this intellectual frame of mind which Thomism provides. If we recall that Pope Leo XIII used to say that each article of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas was a miracle, and that he declared that one single year in contact with St. Thomas bore more fruit than several years studying the Fathers of the Church; if we recall that Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi took away the title of doctor, in the Church, from all those who did not have a scholastic philosophical formation–can you imagine all the doctors of theology and canon law who did not study scholastic philosophy having their title of doctor taken away? Imagine this today: There would not be very many doctors left in the Church! So Professor Ratzinger is not a Thomist. We will see later, in his writings and even in his way of acting, that there is something Hegelian, very definitely Hegelian: an evolutionist element, a new way of looking at the truth. Classical perennial theology and philosophy see in the truth something which is absolutely THE ANGELUS • October 2005 above time. Indeed, truth is related to being, and being is beyond time. What is is, period. God described Himself thus: “I am who am,” in immediate reference to being; and we know that God is immutable. So there is something immutable, unchanged in all that pertains to the essence of things. The first man, Adam, was as much a man as we are. And what was good or bad at the time of Adam remains good or bad today. What in his day was virtue is today a virtue. What in his day was a sin, a failing, remains today a sin, a failing. The snow was white as it is today; on a fine day the sky was blue just as it is today. As soon as we look at the essence of things, we are outside of time. The outlook of the professor, the theologian, of Cardinal Ratzinger, is a new outlook. It is a new way of looking which admits a movement, an evolution of the truth. I will give a few example to illustrate this point. During the meeting in 1987 between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger, our founder insisted on the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was insistent and showed this struggle over what has been known since the Council as religious liberty. Archbishop Lefebvre: “This is contrary to Quanta Cura of Pius IX” Cardinal Ratzinger: “But, Your Grace, we are no longer at the time of Quanta Cura.” Archbishop Lefebvre: “Then I will wait till tomorrow, because tomorrow we will no longer be at the time of Vatican II!” 5 As an aside, a cardinal told me one day that Gaudium et Spes was outdated... Let me give you another example illustrating this idea of an evolving truth. It is to be found in the explanation given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time when they were trying to justify Rosmini. You may know that Pope John Paul II wanted to beatify Rosmini, or at least to pave the way for his beatification. Pope Paul VI had already established a commission to study his beatification process. The problem with Rosmini was that he had been condemned by the Church. So you had a first commission, under Paul VI, which said: “No, it is not possible, he has been condemned!” But John Paul II, who wanted to see What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? this process of beatification begin, set up another commission, which came to the same conclusion as the first. So it was prevented from making a final judgment; its findings remained buried in a file. So they went about it in a roundabout way. They got a decree from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which attempted to explain something rather difficult to accept. Thus they tell us that the condemnation of Rosmini, considered from the Thomistic viewpoint in force at that time, was absolutely valid. But today, things stand otherwise, that if we look at Rosmini’s thesis with the eyes of Rosmini, his doctrine is acceptable. This is a totally subjective approach to the truth. Rosmini spoke, his work was understood. The Church understood it and said that what was understandable was worthy of condemnation. But a little later, they come and tell us that it should not have been understood that way, that you had to enter into Rosmini’s mind to understand his vision of things. So that was the end as far as the truth was concerned! Please note, it is the end of objective truth; and this is something very, very serious. This shows you who Cardinal Ratzinger is, at least as far as his theological formation is concerned. I say it is Hegelian because of yet another aspect. Together with the evolutionist element, you have the famous trilogy thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This is very striking when we consider, now, no longer speculative truths–these truths which you may reflect on, but which do not have a direct practical application–but a practical application according to Cardinal Ratzinger. This dynamic perspective thesisantithesis-synthesis seeks to explain historical events by a conflictual meeting which ends up in a new (Left to right) Antonio Rosmini (1797-1855) Pope John Paul II. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition 6 state, presumably better than the preceding one, but which is the fruit of this meeting, of this conflict between the thesis and the antithesis. Here is a very concrete application made by the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The first time Cardinal Ratzinger visited the seminary of the Society of St. Peter in Wigratzbad, he said to them: “You must keep the old Mass as a counterweight to the new Mass.” You see the antithesis. We must keep some kind of balance. At the moment, we are going towards the left, so we must put some more weight on the right. We need a counterweight. “And later,” he said, “we will make a new New Mass.” So when this counterweight has neutralized the progressive tendency, as one more or less neutralizes the other, then we will make a new New Mass. Several times Cardinal Ratzinger abandoned himself to this practical application in a dialectic, Hegelian perspective. PERITUS AT VATICAN II ON THE S IDE OF THE P ROGRESSIVISTS Our first impression of Professor Ratzinger is strengthened by observing his attitude and his relationships during the Council and in the postconciliar period. He comes to the Council as peritus, i.e., as theologian of the Cardinal of Munich. He is the youngest peritus. His young colleague, Fr. Medina, is today a cardinal. They were both born in 1927. They were the youngest participants at the Council, not bishops, but periti, each helping one of the Council Fathers. His friends at the Council were Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. These are the big names of the Council. I do not mean that they achieved great things, but they caused great upheaval. They had a very great influence on the Council. During the Council, they used to say of Rahner: “Rahner locutus est, causa finita est,” he has spoken, the matter is settled. However, shortly after the Council, Ratzinger, who was not yet a cardinal, would distance himself from Rahner and draw closer to Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. With them, he founded the Communio movement, which was an association of theologians, with a publication also called Communio. It was still progressive, but it did not go as far as Rahner. Besides, as years went by, the progressivism of the Council has come to be regarded as conservatism today, while these theologians have not changed one iota. Urs von Balthasar, a year before his death, in THE ANGELUS • October 2005 1987, received the Paul VI prize. On this occasion, he declared: “If hell exists, nobody is in it, for the only thing there is in hell is sin, not sinners.” He just missed getting the cardinal’s hat–he died before he could receive it, but his friend Henri de Lubac was made a cardinal. De Lubac is famous for having been condemned in 1950 for his book The Supernatural, in which he explicitly denies the supernatural. He established a relationship between nature and grace in such a way that nature has a right to grace. Thus, it is no longer something gratuitous. He has supposedly corrected his thesis somewhat, but this is really open to discussion. This theological line of thinking was followed by the man who would soon become Cardinal Ratzinger. Moreover, in 1985, when he lamented the state of things in the Church, he did not ascribe it to the Council. According to him, an erroneous interpretation of the Council brought forth these bad fruits, not the spirit of the Council itself. FROM MUNICH TO ROME There is a very interesting event which, I believe, did determine some change of attitude on the part of Cardinal Ratzinger, I refer to his appointment to the bishopric of Munich. Up to that day, he had been a professor, and at that moment he entered, if we may say so, the field of concrete realities. Now he had to govern a diocese. And in the face of this reality, abstract ideas take on another dimension. Suddenly you realize that some theories which you could hold in the abstract, do 7 What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? (Left to right) Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., (1904-84), Fr. Urs von Balthasar (1905-88), Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J., (1896-1991). not work when you try to apply them in reality. In particular, on matters of obedience and the exercise of authority in the Church, it is clear that if those intellectuals attempted to apply their theories, they would not be obeyed. It is worth noting that even the progressives, when they have to govern, like to be obeyed. Then they do not like to be contradicted. This makes them come back to rather traditional methods, at least as far as their governing is concerned. In Munich, Ratzinger was even obliged to forbid one of his friends to hold a Chair in the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the University. This would earn him the harsh opposition of some of his former friends. I think this was a good lesson for him. It was a first step back, a change of attitude up to a certain point which gained him a certain reputation of being a conservative, a reputation which is correct in some aspects. When he arrived in Rome, in 1982, he had this different attitude, which in fact was a mixture difficult to describe and even more difficult to imagine. On the one hand, you could see a man who had the Faith. As a believer, he described the faith of his parents when he was a child: how beautiful that faith was! You could see that he still had it, that he loved the Catholic Faith. That was for the believer, but when you looked at the theologian, that was something else. He liked certain modern ideas very much. Thus he explained in his biography that when he presented his second thesis for his doctorate, it was refused because of its modernism. He realized that his thesis had two parts, one was crossed out in red ink all the way through, whereas the other part which was more historical, more or less held together. He presented this second part once again. It was thus that he obtained his second doctorate in theology. The next year, in 1983, he adopted several positions in opposition to the general trend. While he was head of the Doctrine of the Faith, he gave two conferences in France, in which he reminded the French bishops and faithful that the basis of the catechism, of any catechism, must be the Roman catechism, i.e., the catechism of the Council of Trent. And this reminder given twice would earn him the anger of the French bishops, and not only their anger but also a counter-attack. In the Documentation Catholique a retraction by the cardinal was published which he is said never to have written. It was also said that at that point he gave his resignation to the pope. This was his first setback. What he said was very true, but it was not accepted. Another fact: Assisi. We know that Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with it. He did not go to the first interreligious meeting in 1986. He was still against it the second time in 2002, but he was forced to go. It is said that at the time of the first Assisi meeting he wrote a letter of resignation again. Personally, I have heard it said four times that Cardinal Ratzinger gave his resignation. When Cardinal Medina visited Le Barroux recently, he said that he had given it twice. There must be some truth in this. He gave his resignation as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith several times because of a disagreement with the pope, in particular over Assisi. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition He also reprimanded and condemned some theologians; not very many of them, but at least a few. This is something which never happened under Paul VI. This is all to his credit. So I have given you, in piecemeal form, some aspects of his personality, trying to follow a chronological order, so as to better define his personality and try to see how he will react in the office he holds today. A CORRECT DIAGNOSIS, BUT NO EFFICIENT REMEDIES In 1989, there was the famous Charter of Cologne by 500 theologians, mainly Germanspeaking. They signed a statement of protest against the Roman Magisterium, because, according to them, this Magisterium was impeding the liberty of theologians. It was a first wave, followed by others. The French also manifested their opposition. It is important to realize the impact of this Charter of Cologne which set in motion all this controversy: 500 theologians, that is to say 500 professors of universities, theological faculties, seminaries, in other words the great majority of the Catholic intelligentsia of the time, protested against Rome and against the Magisterium. In reply, Cardinal Ratzinger published a short study on this modernist theology. Here, we must be honest and acknowledge that Cardinal Ratzinger has remarkable finesse when it comes to analysis. He pays attention to every nuance to describe as objectively as possible the situation he is analyzing, and, generally speaking, we can only agree with what he states. He noted three aspects of this modern theology. The first characteristic was the disappearance of the idea of creation, replaced by evolution. The problem with this is that if this world was not created, there is no longer a Creator. Consequently, we will soon no longer have God. Secondly, when they speak about Our Lord Jesus Christ, they no longer speak about the Son of God, since in the first point it was concluded that he did not exist. Then what is left for Our Lord? He is a superman, a revolutionary who came to a bad end since he died on a cross. Lastly, the disappearance of eschatology, i.e., the four last things, what happens after death: heaven, purgatory, and hell. Very interestingly, the cardinal shows that for this theology, hell no longer exists, purgatory does not get a mention, but there is no heaven either. If there is no God, no personal God, THE ANGELUS • October 2005 8 why should they invent heaven? Heaven will be tomorrow here below. It will be a future. So after such a description you expect some conclusions. If I were to ask you: “Then what do we do with this new theology?” I think you would soon come up with radical solutions like: the trash can, the vacuum-cleaner, the stake, excommunication. Let us not talk about it any more, we throw it all out and that’s the end of it. Well, the cardinal head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks himself the question as to what ought to be done and he gives us the following answer: We should try to understand these theologians! Such a conclusion is something of a damp squib. You were expecting an explosion, and then...nothing! We will find the key to this enigma in something he said this year, before he became pope, to a friend who is a priest: “You are a fighter, I am a thinker.” This says a lot; I even think it is an outstanding feature of his personality. In his recent book on the liturgy, he again gives very convincing arguments against the altar facing the people. When you read that, you can only be satisfied. His arguments are so good. The poor altar facing the people, well there is not much left of it at the end of his reasoning. Then comes the question: what should we do about it. Cardinal Ratzinger asks himself the question, and once again he dodges it: No, we will not go back to the ancient altar. Why? Because it would be too expensive, it would be too much of an upheaval, and cause too much confusion. The solution: We will place a cross in the middle of the altar, and this will be the mystical East. It is frustrating, yet that is truly the answer he gives. And why? Of course, we could say that he was not pope when he wrote this book. But, fundamentally, there is a problem, a real discrepancy between the analysis and going back to the root causes. You can see that the conclusion is out of all proportion, that it does not correspond with the description he gives of the situation. Is it because he has been hit too often, because he thinks he is not free, and cannot do as he would like? This is a very benign explanation. We will see if it is justified, now that he is at the head of the Church. Concerning the Mass, Cardinal Ratzinger has pleaded the cause for the old Mass. It is absolutely clear. He is indeed one of the few who has talked about it. Cardinal Stickler did it but more punctually. But there are not many others who have devoted a book to the subject. I think that, in the official Church, among the cardinals, if there is anyone who spoke out against the new Mass, 9 giving arguments in favor of the old, it is Cardinal Ratzinger. But let us go a little further and see how far he will go to defend the traditional liturgy. Last year, in reply to one of our faithful who had written to him asking the freedom of the Mass for all, he wrote: “We cannot give the freedom of the Mass, because the faithful are vaccinated against it. It would not be accepted.” That is why his solution would be to make a new Mass: a new New Mass based on the old. This is what he proposed last year as a cardinal. The New Mass as it is now is no good, the old one is not acceptable either, so we are going to “cobble together” a sort of mishmash of new-old, old-new. CARDINAL RATZINGER AND THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X And now, in concrete terms, what can we say concerning Tradition, concerning us, the Society of Saint Pius X? I think Cardinal Ratzinger knows us best; he has followed us since the beginning. In 1982, he took up the dossier after Cardinal Seper and would have dealings–official as well as unofficial–with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society. He presided over the drafting of the 1988 agreement before the consecrations. But before that, there were two or three strange endeavors. Some seminarians had left us as a result of the undermining operations made by Rome. Thus, we were obliged to send away nine seminarians from Ecône. These nine seminarians went to Rome, and a seminary was founded for them, Mater Ecclesiæ, if I remember well, and it was supposedly traditional. They were promised the moon, but all this came to an abrupt end. One of those who had taken part in this sad saga wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre, just before the consecrations, telling him how right he was. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who was practically the founder of the Society of Saint Peter. For those who do not know, it was founded by Rome in opposition to the Society of Saint Pius X. In the report by Cardinal Gagnon, or at least in his estimation, it was said at the time of the consecrations, that between 60-80% of the priests and faithful would leave Archbishop Lefebvre. Hence the hammer blow tactics against Archbishop Lefebvre, by that I mean the excommunication. And then, they opened wide the doors to all those who had not been smashed down, so that they would go over to the Society of Saint Peter. What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? This Society was founded expressly against us, and it is still like that today. In the dioceses, the bishops see red when our Society arrives, and they try to neutralize us by inviting the Society of Saint Peter. Sometimes they say openly: “No, we won’t give you anything unless the Society of Saint Pius X becomes established here. Then, yes, we will open a Saint Peter chapel.” Two years ago, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos wanted to get rid of the secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Msgr. Perl. But Msgr. Perl found a defender and a protector who opposed his eviction from Ecclesia Dei. It was Cardinal Ratzinger. In these circumstances, what is Cardinal Ratzinger’s viewpoint on the Society? I think he feels frustrated that the agreements of 1988 did not succeed. And then, it is true that we did not hesitate to attack him on all sides. That is not something pleasant, and I can understand that he did not like it too much. Looking back at recent events, we can notice some strange bedfellows. Here are some facts. Last year, a group of conservative cardinals got together with the idea of doing something for Tradition. That is something new, but it is true that they know perfectly well that the Church is not doing well. Confronted with this disastrous situation, Rome turned her eyes towards the traditionalists in general, i.e., all those attached to the old Mass, and not only the Society of Saint Pius X. And so these cardinals gathered to see what could be done in favor of Tradition. Two trends appeared. According to one, the Society of Saint Pius X, which is the backbone of Tradition, should be supported–and we know which cardinal supported this argument. According to the other, on the contrary, Saint Peter’s/Ecclesia Dei should be strengthened, while eroding our Society, and here again we know which cardinals were supporting this argument. This year, two cardinals, one of them Cardinal Ratzinger, went to see Pope John Paul II. They went to the Holy Father to ask him to appoint as secretary of the Congregation for the Liturgy a bishop who is convinced that the Church will not come out of this crisis without a return to the old Mass, a bishop who says that the priest cannot find his identity in the new Mass. His position is known in Rome. It was this bishop who was proposed as secretary for the Congregation for the Liturgy. This was a point in Cardinal Ratzinger’s favor. But the bishop in question was not appointed, because the secretary of the pope had already promised the office to someone else. This is how things are done in the Church! THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition 10 (Left to right) Cardinal Walter Kasper, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. Another example of these strange bedfellows. Cardinal Medina explained that he made efforts at the time of the publication of the third typical edition of the New Mass to include as an appendix nothing less than the old Mass. It is remarkable to see where Cardinal Medina stands at this moment in time, when we know that there was a time when he wanted to put a condemnation and interdiction of the old Mass in the typical edition. Then it was the Secretariat of State who forbade him to do so. Now he wanted to introduce the old Mass. And this time it would not be the Secretariat of State which would prevent him from doing so. It would be neither a secretariat nor a congregation. It would be a man, the pope’s Master of Ceremonies, who kicked up such a fuss with John Paul II, that they had to give it up. So you see how the history of the Church is made! POPE BENEDICT XVI AND V ATICAN II And now, what about Benedict XVI? Clearly he was elected in reaction. During the few days before the conclave, he invited the cardinals to talk freely. For the first time, they talked among themselves of the serious problems of the Church. Between themselves, they admitted firmly that things were not going well. And we may well believe that the vision of this tragedy of the Church impelled some cardinals to elect Benedict XVI. There is an expectation in the Church, even on the part of THE ANGELUS • October 2005 the hierarchy, in view of the disastrous state of the Church. Look at the number of vocations; it is not exactly brilliant! A diocese like Dublin can see a whole year without a single priestly vocation. We have sunk very low. Some years ago, in all the novitiates of Ireland there were 150 novices to replace 32,000 sisters. It is even more striking for the brothers. To replace 10,000 brothers, in all the novitiates of all the congregations of Ireland there were five novices. Last year, or the year before, for the whole order of the Jesuits there were only seven perpetual professions. This for an order which numbered 32,000 members 20 years ago. There must be about 25,000 today. No-one can be in any doubt what these figures mean. Cardinal Castrillon was once talking about the state of the Roman universities. In reply to his interviewer he said: “The pontifical universities of Rome are filled with heretics,” and he added: “Yes, it is terrible. I hope the new head of the Congregation will be strong enough to restore order there.” And two years later, the head of the Congregation for the Clergy declared: “We just can’t do anything about it.” This is how they speak in the Roman Curia about the pontifical universities: we just can’t do anything about it! It is certain that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, realizes the pitiable state of the Church. He knows that the Church is in a terrible situation. And also, he knows the third secret of Fatima. Then what can we expect? It has to be said, there is a problem which casts a shadow over 11 our hope. The problem is that Benedict XVI remains attached to the Council. It is his work, his brainchild. He acknowledges, of course, that there are some developments which are not acceptable– which means that there is, nevertheless, at least one which is acceptable. As for us, our position regarding the Council is very simple: it contains errors and ambiguities which pave the way for even worse errors. What inspired the text and what makes it unacceptable, was a non-Catholic spirit. Such is our position concerning the Council. Obviously, you can find in it certain elements which are true. But the whole is unassimilable. And that is why, considering the whole, we refuse to sign a declaration concerning the Council, which, in one way or another, might give the impression that we adhere to this Council. Let us take an image from domestic life. We are quarreling with Rome, they say: “It’s soup,” we say: “No, it’s not.” “It is.” “It isn’t.” Finally Rome says to us: “You won’t have to drink that soup, but at least you must say it is soup.” And we answer: “We know quite well it is soup, but it has been poisoned.” So it must no longer be called soup, it must be called poison. And if we call it soup we deceive people because they are going to believe they can drink it. The question is not to know whether it is a soup or not, it is to know whether or not it is poison, whether it will do us good or kill us. That’s the real problem. Confronted with that problem, it is useless to argue about whether it is soup or not. It is causing harm, so we do not want to drink it. Then Rome tries to find a “palatable” formula: “The Council in the light of Tradition.” But given the context in which this formula is used, it is not agreeable to us. For what does it mean: “I accept the Council in the light of Tradition”? What does it mean when they accuse us of having a wrong idea of Tradition? In the very text of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, we read that he committed a fault in consecrating bishops because he had an incomplete notion of Tradition. And they would propose that we sign a declaration saying that we accept the Council in the light of Tradition! Likewise, concerning the Mass, the formulae that Rome proposes to us are correct, but only out of context. So they now ask us to acknowledge that the New Mass is valid, if it is celebrated with the intention of performing the sacrifice of Our Lord. This is even more precise than what theology demands, which is to celebrate with the intention of doing what the Church wants. This phrase in itself is acceptable, but it is the same as with my image of the soup. The New Mass, even when valid, is What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? poisoned. That is why we do not drink it. That is why we tell you: “Don’t attend it!” Why is there this lack of understanding between the Roman authorities and us? Because they do not manage to extricate themselves from the Council, from the Council and its reforms. We feel clearly that they are uncomfortable with us. They acknowledge that what we do is Catholic. Cardinal Castrillon told us so positively: “You are neither heretics nor schismatic.” So the problem is not on our side. Rome’s attitude towards us can be summed up like this: “We let you continue, for what you do is good; but we would like you to say that what we do is also good.” And we are well aware of a desire on their part to make us feel guilty: “You did wrong. You performed consecrations against the will of the pope. This should not have been done. You say that the Council is bad, that the New Mass is bad. This is not possible. It was recognized by the pope. It is infallible.” As the same Cardinal Castrillon said during a conference in Munster: “The New Mass was recognized by the pope. It is infallible. It is good.” During a discussion, the head of the Congregation for the Clergy told me: “The pope and I like the New Mass. We think it is more apostolic. It is true that it lacks something, and it must be compensated for by an adequate catechesis.” Then I recalled the definition of evil given by St. Thomas Aquinas: “Evil is the privation of a due good. It is something which must be there which is lacking. Now, you yourself, Eminence, acknowledge that there is something missing from this New Mass. So you acknowledge that it is evil.” I received no answer from the cardinal. It should be said that men of the Church, and not the Church, have erred. Now the Roman authorities do not want to enter this kind of logic. And as they do not want to tackle the problem where it really is, they cannot take the measures needed to get out of this crisis. That’s the trouble! REUNIFICATION WITH THE OR THODOX If you look again at our new pope, you see that the beginnings of his pontificate do not leave much room for hope. In his sermon at the taking of possession of the Chair of St. Peter at the Lateran, he spoke of the Bishop of Rome. The Lateran is the church of the Bishop of Rome. He did speak of the potestas docendi. It was a long time since the power to teach had been mentioned. But when it came to the primacy, i.e., not only the power to teach, but also to THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition rule, to govern, this primacy, for him, is reduced to a “primacy of love.” The interpretations which can be made of this expression are legion. Benedict XVI has an idea. He even announced that it would be one of the key-ideas of his pontificate. He will concentrate all his energy and all the energy of the Church on this idea. This idea is the reunification with the Orthodox. That is good. They are the closest to us. Thus the scope of ecumenism will be reduced appreciably. They will no longer talk too much about interreligious dialogue as in Assisi. The idea, which was already Cardinal Ratzinger’s, is that to bring about this reunification–since the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of Peter–we have to go back to the conception we had of the pope at the time when we were all in agreement. In other words, we should come back to the notion of the pope such as it was in the first millennium. It is an idea deeply rooted in Cardinal Ratzinger, which is now expressed by Benedict XVI. At Bari, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress, he made it very clear that one of the goals of his pontificate was reunification with the Orthodox. If it were according to the Catholic idea, there would be nothing to say against it. But the problem is that the Roman authorities have a concept of unity that I wish I could understand. John Paul II said it would be “neither an absorption, nor a fusion.” What can be the unity without the absorption or fusion of two beings which are at present separated? Cardinal Kasper is more explicit: “It will not be an agglomeration of Churches,” because that is a concept which is too political, too administrative. But we are still wondering what it might be. As with this expression “unity in diversity”: unity means one, diversity means several; is it then “the one in the many”? This formula is very fashionable in the New Age movement, and perhaps also in today’s Europe, but when all is said and done, it must be one or the other, not both. It cannot be both at the same time, or we must say that circles are square. In fact that is an image I often use to explain ecumenism today: Supposing that each religion or Christian denomination is a geometrical figure, how can we bring back to unity all these geometrical figures, while, of course, each one remains what it is, for that is diversity! Well, it’s not that difficult. Each geometrical figure only has to admit that it is a circle. Of course, this is tantamount to the suspension of the principle of non-contradiction. That is the problem. But if you manage to solve it, all is well and good! THE ANGELUS • October 2005 12 This is just what happens with ecumenism. They want to make us believe that squares are triangles or rhombuses, and that all these figures are circles. So, they tell us: “We all have the same faith.” This was affirmed by John Paul II: “All the Christians have the same faith.” We know very well that this is not true! Cardinal Kasper explains that, in order to have the same faith, it is not necessary to have the same creed. In plain English, you only need to know how to round off the corners! THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE: THE TRUTH This false ecumenism enables us to put our finger on the gravity of the situation. It is not merely a question of liturgical rubrics–three swings more or less of the censer–here we are dealing with the question of truth. “What is truth?” Today they do not even ask this famous question of Pilate. People live their lives without even asking it. They don’t care about it. Unity will be “everybody is nice, everybody is good.” And so much the worse for truth! We have reached that point. Neither the truth, nor the question of good are any concern for modern man. How many bishops, how many priests, no longer believe, do not believe that Our Lord is God. As a proof of this I will only take the case of Cardinal Kasper, who wrote a book entitled Jesus, the Christ, in which he tells us that when we love someone we tend to exaggerate. And that is why there are so many miracles in the Gospels. The Evangelists, who loved Jesus, exaggerated the number of His miracles! And Kasper takes up his scissors to cut out almost everything. He leaves in a few cures, because even today we witness them, so they could have happened at the time of Our Lord. He even dares to say that it was never said that Our Lord is the Son of God. But if we put forth the argument of the crossexamination of Caiphas: “I beseech thee, in the name of God, tell us if you are the Son of God,” and Jesus’ answer: “I am,” Kasper answers back: “You understand, at that time Jesus was under duress!” Today this man is a cardinal and he does not have the Faith! How many cardinals do not have the Faith? Benedict XVI is in the midst of them. What is he going to do? What can he do? What does he want to do? 13 WHAT MAY WE HOPE FOR? In the present state of the Church, how can we foresee the future pontificate of Benedict XVI? To sum up in an image, I would say that if we consider the pontificate of John Paul II as being in free fall, we could probably see that of Benedict XVI as a fall with a parachute. The problem is to know the size of the parachute. It will follow the same direction, but more slowly. He will brake, I think. But what will be the result? You know, when you go fast, you slam on the brakes, but you do not quite know what is going to happen to the car. Normally it slows down. But sometimes it goes into a ditch and then, it all depends on the size of the parachute. If it is small, we will see practically no difference. If it is big, it may slow things down noticeably. I believe that Benedict XVI will try to put the brakes on. Could we hope for more? Yes, of course we must hope for more, but not from men. Once again, our hope is in God. The promises of Our Lord hold good forever; they were good under John Paul II, they are good under Benedict XVI. And the Good Lord uses all things to make His Church go where He wants. If you want a personal opinion, I think that if– and this cannot be totally excluded–if Benedict XVI finds himself in a crisis situation, if he is driven into a corner, for instance by a violent and threatening reaction on the part of the progressives, or because of a political crisis, or persecutions, I think that if he is placed in such circumstances, the pope will make the right choice. I believe this on the evidence of his reactions so far. This means that the Church is ailing, of course, but her sufferings have a salutary value. Of course, we would never wish for persecution any more than we would wish to break a leg. But if that fracture enabled us to save our life, we would not hesitate, would we? I am not saying that this is what is certainly going to happen. But I think we must be under no illusion as to the situation in the world and in the Church. The laws passed all over the world today are slowly but surely making Catholic life impossible. This means that sooner or later, the Christian will be obliged to say: “No, I cannot!” And what does any State do when you tell it no? It puts you in prison. Today they are putting people in prison who say no to abortion, or who do nothing more that pray the rosary some 50 or 100 yards from a place where abortions are performed. And this in a country as liberal as the United States. So What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? you see, it is not difficult to go to prison for a good cause nowadays. We must be ready. We must get ready. You will ask me how we should do this. It is very simple. Our Lord gave us a rule to prepare ourselves for great trials. It is a golden rule, yet extremely simple: fidelity in little things. In other words: we must do our duty of state. Fidelity in little things assures us of fidelity in great things. Our Lord Himself told us so. RETAINING RELATIONS WITH ROME What are we asking from Rome? Very simply, we want to be and remain Catholic. We cannot ask for less: That the Church be Catholic, that our Mother Church be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. We ask for nothing more, but for nothing less. We ask for the whole Faith, all the sacraments and all the discipline. That is our goal. What are our means? Of course, it is not up to us to convert Rome. Yet, we can collaborate and cooperate. We must do all we can. And in this all we can, there is first of all the duty to keep our relations with Rome. We must not break away. It is a mistake to draw away from the pope, the curia and the bishops and to end up saying: “We are the only ones left.” If you need proof, you know that all those who begin like that always end up giving themselves a pope, their pope. Today there are some 15 of them! One of them wrote to me. He calls himself Peter II. And he asked me permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament in his garage! That’s how they end up! There is another, a Pius XIII, a capuchin who said to himself: “Now that I’m pope, I need cardinals.” So he appointed an Australian cardinal. A few days later he consecrated him bishop, while he was himself a simple Capuchin priest! And three days later, he had himself consecrated bishop by the man he had just consecrated bishop! It’s ridiculous! It’s sad. These are false solutions which lead nowhere. You’ve got bishops everywhere, a bishop in each garage, and popes! That is not the way. We can see clearly that in the official Church today there are still souls–priests, bishops–who do not show themselves too much, but who are, without the least shadow of a doubt, still Catholic. But we can say that only we who are faithful to Tradition keep the doctrine in its entirety alive, and that, alas, there are many Catholics who are no longer truly so. That is what makes it so difficult. In a cancer, if you have a tumor which is well confined, you can try to have it removed. But if you THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition have a general cancer, if the illness is everywhere, then you do not even try to remove anything. They no longer know what they should leave and what they should remove. Doctors are powerless. That is the state of the Church. It is a cancer so widespread that we can no longer take up the surgeon’s knife to remove the tumors. In the past, you had a heretical priest here, a heretical bishop there, they were removed and that was the end of it. Now the evil is so widespread that even Rome no longer dares to take up the knife. Do not ask me how this is possible. This is part of the mystery of the Church. We can see here an association between the Mystical Body and the sufferings of Our Lord on the Cross. We can see plainly that the Church is going through the same state as Our Lord, an unheard-of Passion. Can this go on until death, as for Our Lord? Will there be an apparent death, like the disappearance of the Church? I wonder if the released part of the third secret of Fatima does not deal with this Passion. At the end it speaks of a massacre: a procession which follows the pope, with bishops, religious and faithful from all walks of life, and they are all killed. This vision ends with angels offering this blood to God, and this blood will return as graces on those who are left. It looks as if there is an apparent disappearance of the Church. This interpretation is not exactly that given by Rome, but I am doing nothing more than describing purely and simply the vision. OUR DUTY TO BEAR WITNESS We are living in a truly unprecedented situation. Nevertheless, you can see for yourselves that with courage, efforts, tears and toil, we can still manage to live as Christians today. We manage to do this because the grace of God is still working. The proof: our little Society, which keeps growing in the midst of all this. To bear witness, this is our very simple task. We are in this world and those around us see it very well. You do not realize the impact produced by these Catholic families with children who still behave almost as they should. You do not realize how much this impresses people around us. Just a little fact on this subject: an Italian teaching sister came to the ordinations at Ecône. At the end of the Mass, she was in tears, deeply moved. Why? She had seen lots of little children, a whole swarm of them in all the crowd, under a hot sun, and they were as good as gold for five hours. She told us: “I can’t keep my children quiet for ten minutes. And here is a crowd of children who are so good.” She THE ANGELUS • October 2005 14 was deeply impressed. She left her congregation to join us. This also happened during our pilgrimage to Rome. We simply gave the example of Catholic living. We did nothing extraordinary. We were just there. We knelt to pray the rosary for almost an hour. But you do not see that any more. In the past this was perfectly normal. This is what strikes people, things as simple as these. You do not have to look for anything extraordinary. This makes people think, and I include theologians and bishops. The head of a dicastery in Rome, when he saw those processions, said: “But they are Catholic, we must do something for them.” He was stunned because we are represented as devils by all the newspapers. We can still do much. Of course, it is with our crosses that we go forward, but we must show that the Catholic religion still exists, that it is possible in this world, and that this is the way to gain ground. ENLIGHTENING THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS Our task is to maintain this minimal relationship in order to get the message across by example. That is why we mustn’t cut ourselves off completely. We must convert. Once again, it is not we who convert, it is God. But we can bring our little stone. Thus we take advantage of these relations to provide Rome with theological studies which show that there are really serious problems with the texts of the Council and those which followed. It is a long-term process until the Roman authorities consent to think about it and talk about it. But we lose nothing in telling the truth, even when it hurts. There is also much work to be done with bishops and priests. This annoys them, as you can imagine. And then suddenly, there is a French bishop who tells you: “I am very pleased that you visit my priests. They need that. Carry on!” Another, also in France, said: “The Church needs you. But, I beg you, stay as you are. Do not change!” At the same time, we keep receiving blows from other bishops, but we receive them willingly if this will help them to see clearly one day. Those who are beginning to understand are not very brave. They know only too well that if they opened their mouth they would get their heads chopped off. Some even say to us: “Pray for me because I must speak out.” I believe that Rome is wrong about the state of the Church. The progressives make a lot of noise. There are a certain number, but there are still faithful who are quite ready to go back to the old 15 Mass. They must certainly be prepared, but they are many more than we think. With priests, it is more difficult. Our experience shows us that there is a certain category which does not want to hear anything. The category of the 67-75 year olds, those who are as old as the Council, who had to give up all that existed before. They threw themselves into all those new things and today they cannot manage to come back. It is disturbing. It is painful. That is the age group which is most affected. The oldest, over 75 years old, have no problem, at least most of them. And very surprisingly the youngest are very open. They know nothing, that is true. But nevertheless they are open. A curate came to me and said: “Look, when I visit my faithful, they ask me why did you change the Church? Why did you change the Mass? We want the other Mass, the old one.” And this priest admitted: “I would like to say it, but I do not know it. I have never seen it. I am 28. When I try to ask the older priests, I get scolded. Would you teach me the old Mass? What was the Church like in the past? I know how it is since Vatican II, but before, I do not know.” Another edifying example. A boy used to go to the new Mass. One day, he learned that there were martyrs who died for the Mass. And he said to himself: “No, that is not possible.” He was troubled by this historical fact, because, for him, you could not die for the Mass, that just was not possible. Until one day, he learned that there was another Mass. That interested him. He searched, and he found us. He is now a seminarian. Did you know that in modern seminaries, groups of candidates to the priesthood gather during the night to study St. Thomas, so as to receive an antidote to what they have been taught during the day? It even happens that we receive phone calls from seminarians who ask us: “Our professor of Holy Scripture told us that there were three Isaiahs. This seems to me a bit strange. What does the Church say?” That happened in Austria. We were asked the same question by a seminarian in Australia. In this new generation of priests there is something very surprising which leaves the men in charge of vocations in modern seminaries completely dumbfounded. Suddenly, they realize that there are underground associations of seminarians in their seminaries who want to be conservative. Of course, when they are discovered, they are sent away. Nowadays it is a sin to be conservative. What Will Happen With the Election of a New Pope? So you understand why we are obliged to say that things are not going well. We have the duty to tell Rome: We do not want any compromise, any slipshod agreement. We want to be Catholics, period. And we expect nothing less from Rome. In 2004, Cardinal Castrillon was talking to me about the Society; he said: “I am discouraged.” But, I am not discouraged at all. We can see that the Good Lord is at work. Of course, we cannot say that the renewal of the Church is achieved, but it is like all those little green shoots in the middle of the desert. You see one here, another there, and you know, when you see them in the midst of the desert, that the Good Lord is going to make green grass grow everywhere one day. TOWARDS A REINFORCEMENT OF THE E CCLESIA D EI COMMISSION? In the present situation, what is going to happen to us? According to the information we have, Cardinal Ratzinger–and he is not the only one–was already working last year on a reinforcement of Ecclesia Dei. We may think that now that he is pope, he will carry on this work of reinforcement of Ecclesia Dei. He will give more weight to this commission and increase its staff. Thus, he will support even more those who want the old Mass. But this will remain limited to the societies recognized by Ecclesia Dei: Saint Peter, Christ the King, and so on. Paradoxically, all this helps us, because the Good Lord uses the Society of Saint Peter as a springboard towards the Society of Saint Pius X. In the final analysis, the result of the indult is that Rome miscalculated. By opening the doors, the authorities thought they would bring the faithful to the New Mass. In fact, the opposite is happening, so that we can only rejoice over any overture in favor of the old Mass. Why does this liberty favor a move in this direction and not in the other? Because the old Mass, in itself has an extraordinary power. It demands faith; it gives the Faith. And when you have had a taste of the traditional Faith, you want all that it implies. There are priests who said the New Mass, and then said the old Mass again, once, twice, three times. And then they said: “Never will we say the New Mass again.” On the contrary, I know a priest who does not dare to say the old Mass again, because he acknowledges that afterwards he will THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition no longer be able to say the new one. You feel like telling him: “Go on, have a little courage!” This Mass nourishes. It is truly the heart of the Church. The heart pumps the blood around the whole body. And the blood brings life and oxygen. The heart is the pump of our body, and the supernatural pump of the Church, which brings life to the whole Mystical Body, is the Mass. By feeding the pump, you regenerate the whole body. This is why we are asking for the liberty of the Mass. We know very well that it is not all, that there are heresies to be fought. But we have to begin somewhere, and first of all with something very concrete. At present, we need a change of atmosphere. We must make the authorities acknowledge in the facts, that Tradition is not some archaeological or prehistoric oddity. It is the normal state of things. It is even the only normal state of the Church. Of course, this will not be achieved in a day. So Rome will work on reinforcing the Ecclesia Dei Commission. We may suppose that they will ignore us. So, for a while, our situation might be more difficult than it was under John Paul II, because many people will be deceived and say to themselves: “That’s it, it’s great, we’ve won,” whereas, actually, nothing has yet been gained. The strengthening of Ecclesia Dei will probably mean, at one point, the creation of entities more or less exempt from the jurisdiction of local bishops. The Roman authorities will be obliged to grant some kind of exemption in spite of the violent opposition of the bishops. At present, they try to avoid going against this opposition, but they realize that this situation is unjust. They know that the faithful who want the Old Mass have every right to it. Yes, Rome knows perfectly well that this Mass cannot be forbidden. Cardinals have started to say so, among them the former head of the Congregation for the Liturgy, Cardinal Medina, who has declared: “I did some research. There is no text forbidding the Old Mass.” Now, saying that it is not forbidden is tantamount to acknowledging that it is allowed. Rome knows it and by Rome, I mean the Curia. John Paul II knew and now Benedict XVI knows that the Tridentine Mass was never forbidden and that it cannot be forbidden, that there is no juridical nor theological argument allowing them to forbid this Mass. They know it, and so one day, this injustice done to the Church and to the old Mass will disappear. Let us pray that this happen as soon as possible. Let us pray that it happen during this pontificate, for it is quite possible that it could happen under this pontificate. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 16 All that can be done in favor of Tradition is beneficial. What has been the result since the consecrations up to now? In the United States–these are the official figures for the indult Mass–150,000 faithful have access to the Tridentine Mass. Were it not for the consecrations, these faithful would not have the Tridentine Mass today. VICTORY AFTER THE BATTLE In conclusion, what are our present dispositions? There is hope, assured hope. Why assured? Because it is based not on man, but on the Good Lord, who is faithful to His promises, and who nevertheless wants to make use of His creatures. Let us pray specifically that the grace of God be so strong that it overcome all the shortcomings of those who hold office in the Church. God can do it, and He may even have decided to grant this grace in answer to our prayers and sacrifices. For there is an amazing solidarity in the Mystical Body. Let us make sure we don’t forget it. Instead of reproaching these poor bishops and priests who live scandalous lives, let us pray for them. Thus we do them much more good; we do much more good to the Church than when we insult them. We ask God to make His grace come down upon them. I believe the Blessed Virgin. Fatima is not over! We are living in the time of the Blessed Virgin. I am convinced, when I see all that has been happening since the 19th century, that we are living in the time of the Blessed Virgin: “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” But the battle precedes triumph. Victory comes after the battle, not before; just like resurrection comes after death. Today they only want to preach the risen Christ, but before He rose, He had to die. So let us bear in mind that victory comes after the battle. And let us not forget that we are now in the thick of the battle. Let us ask Our Lady to put her mantle over us, under her protection, in her army, to play our part in this victory by using all our energy in the current struggle. Courage! Keep on fighting. It’s not over yet. The Immaculate Heart will triumph. Originally translated from the Society of Saint Pius X’s bimonthly journal Nouvelles de Chrétienté (July-August 2005), and published in the Englishlanguage edition Christendom (No.1, September-October 2005). It is reprinted here with minor editorial revisions by the Angelus Press staff. si si no no 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) ● October 2005 Reprint #66 Reflections of a Catholic Teacher On the Nature of MODERN THOUGHT PART 1 Professor Paolo Pasqualucci has dedicated himself to the study of philosophy of law, politics, and of metaphysics. Among his most recent publications are Introduzzione à la metafisica dell’Uno (Rome: Pellicani, 1996, 151pp.) dealing with the metaphysical notion of the One in relation to the metaphysical notion of God, and Politica e religione, saggio di teologia della storia (Rome: Pellicani, 2001, 89pp.) which explores the relationship between politics and religion from the standpoint of the traditional Catholic theology of history. He has always participated in the theological congresses of SiSiNoNo. His contributions can be found in the Acts of the same, published in French by the Society of Saint Pius X and in English (partially) by Angelus Press. The following is the first part of the lecture given by Paolo Pasqualucci, professor emeritus of the University of Perugia, Italy, on January 3, 2004 at SiSiNoNo’s fourth theological congress held in Rome. It will be serialized in the next issues of SiSiNoNo. The text has been revised and expanded by the author. None of this is easy, but it is fellows like Dr. Pasqualucci that keep doctrine from impurities and our minds from going soft. SETTING UP THE DISCUSSION The Marriage of St. Thomas to Modern Thought A decree of the Sacred Congregation for Studies ( July 27, 1914) under the auspices of Pope St. Pius X, set forth 24 theses drawn from the metaphysics of St. Thomas as “safe directive norms” for the philosophical 17 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT and theological studies of Catholics. Although these norms were not made binding, the motive for this decree was later elaborated by Pope Benedict XV in his epistle Quod de Fovenda of March 19, 1917: The Roman pontiffs have constantly maintained that St. Thomas should be considered as “guide and master” in philosophical and theological studies, while always preserving liberty of discussion about that which could and was accustomed to be subject to discussion in both disciplines. Popes Pius XI and especially Pius XII reconfirmed this principle. Pope John XXIII, however, in his celebrated inaugural address at the Second Vatican Council, maintained that the “principal goal” of the Council was not “discussion of this or that theme of the fundamental doctrine of the Church, repeatedly expounded in the teaching of the Fathers and of ancient and modern theologians.” For such a purpose “a council was not necessary.” The “principal goal” of the Council was supposed to consist above all in a leap ahead towards doctrinal penetration and the formation of consciences, in more perfect correspondence of fidelity to authentic doctrine, albeit studied and set forth through the forms of investigation and the literary formulation of contemporary thought. One thing is the substance of the ancient doctrine of the depositum fidei, and another the formulation of its covering: and this difference should be taken account of in a spirit of patience, measuring everything by the forms and proportions of a magisterium pre-eminently pastoral in character. By proposing this basic distinction between “substance” and “covering,” between form and content, Pope John XXIII, while not formally renouncing St. Thomas as a guide, coupled him with modern thought, which in its various components is notoriously as distant as can be imagined from Thomistic metaphysics. This is the great novelty the Pontiff proposed for the Council to realize as part of its “principal goal.” Was it a matter, as many today still maintain, of a simple exterior adaptation, to make the ancient doctrine more understandable to moderns and contemporaries? But if it were a simple question of “exposition” and thus a pastoral matter, was not the convoking of an ecumenical council a disproportionate means to do this? Wouldn’t it have been enough for the Holy Office to give instructions to the bishops and the pontifical universities? Furthermore, if it were a simple problem of the exposition of doctrine and thus a pastoral issue, why did Pope John XXIII affirm that, beyond the exposition of doctrine, it was also necessary to study doctrine according to the “methods” (as 18 The SiSiNoNo theological congresses like the one at which Dr. Pasqualucci gave this presentation publish regularly the lectures from these symposiums. the official French translation has it) of modern thought? This distinction between the “substance” and the “covering” of doctrine was something new in the history of the Church. It did in fact lead to doctrine being studied in a deeper way in the light of contemporary thought and thus made to conform with its methods, thanks to a magisterium of “preeminently pastoral” character. It is well known that the Latin version of this directive by Pope John XXIII is more concise and seems more moderate than the official French and Italian versions....But we must recall that John XXIII did not rectify the vernacular translations, but allowed them to circulate freely and used them himself on at least one official occasion in quoting himself. On this point he maintained an attitude that seemed intended to legitimize the vernacular translations as representing the authentic meaning of the more concise Latin text. THE ANGELUS October 2005 Some Essential Features of Modern Thought Let us briefly outline some essential characteristics of modern thought. We shall focus on the negation of the distinctions between substance and accident, of being and appearance. Doing this, modern thinkers obscure the nature of intention as a conscious state of the subject’s being, which is realized in a free and rational will, distinct from its acts which it nonetheless shapes. Additionally, modern thinkers attempt to overcome the principle of causality. We will conclude with a discussion on the negation of the category of essence, another fundamental premise of modern thought, focused mainly on the speculation of Martin Heidegger. We hope that this exposition will show the intrinsic incompatibility of “modern thought” with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, and the intrinsic weakness of the “negations” and “overcomings” on which modern thought is based. The modern school of thought deliberately places human thought, will, or instincts at the center of everything, denying any legitimacy to the very idea of the supernatural. DISCUSSING THE ERRORS OF MODERN THOUGHT An Overview of the Traditional Concepts Let us begin with the concepts of substance and accident as summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas. The first concept, that of “substance,” aims to express that which constitutes the very essence of a thing or entity: that on account of which something is what it is. Even in everyday speech we are accustomed to speak of “the substance (or essence)” of a thing in indicating the essential aspect of a thing, event, or situation, its inner or constitutive nature, fundamental structure or essence. The word substance is often used as a synonym for essence. The second concept, that of “accident,” denotes by contrast that which appears to be an external quality or characteristic of a thing, whether permanent or transitory. The substance is under (sub-stare) that which appears and contributes to the very being of something in its essence while the accident (accidens, that which happens and strikes the senses) appears from the outside, in perceptible or phenomenal reality. In a concrete entity, understood as a whole, substance and accident are found in an inseparable connection between what is external and what is internal and profound. The notion of accident implies transiency and change not affecting the substance. Man, for example, generally shows a loss of his outer characteristics with the passing of time, but can we deduce from this fact some modification in his very human nature? Certainly not. Nor can we say that this quality is lost with the eventual decline of his faculties because of sickness and old age. From a moral point of view, and a general spiritual perspective, man remains always himself, whatever exterior alteration may take place in all his qualities, exterior and interior. An entity therefore both exists and appears: it appears as it is, but also as it is not. There is a logically necessary distinction between being and appearance, parallel conceptually to that between substance and accident. The substance is in the accidents, in the sense that it is manifest in them; however, it is not identical with its accidents, is not exhausted by them and cannot be identified with them. Substance persists through the changing vicissitudes of becoming. It involves their essence. Applying These Traditional Concepts to “Transubstantiation” What would result if we were to look at a dogma of the Catholic Faith without the help of the notions of substance and accident, philosophically of Aristotelian origin, re-elaborated in Scholastic thought, and in particular that of St. Thomas? Without this philosophical apparatus it is not THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS October 2005 19 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT possible to understand the singular wonder of transubstantiation in the most rational and thus the best possible way, in conformity with a sane intellect. The consecrated bread and wine maintain their species or normal appearance, with all their natural qualities or accidents: colors, odors, density, weight, taste. But their substance is changed in a supernatural way. By virtue of the words of consecration, they have become “the body, the soul, and the divinity” of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Normally, the substance of something is manifest in the accidents or qualities of the thing itself. Nevertheless there can be a difference, because everything that is in itself exterior and subject to change does not always manifest its substance. This happens in a supernatural way in the Eucharist, where the consecrated Host is sacred not on account of what it appears to be, but because of what it has intrinsically become after consecration (transubstantiation) even while retaining all its accidents intact. This difference can also be found in the realm of secondary causes. In the case of man, appearance (being external and therefore accidental) often does not correspond entirely or even in part to being, that is to the interior substance in the heart and the mind of a man. As far as spirit and the ethical life are concerned (the only life that counts as such for the purposes of our salvation) unity and difference constantly show themselves to our intellect, which must collect them, discerning in an adequate manner in itself and in others the relation between reality and appearance, that is to say, the difference between exteriority and interiority, between the transient and the permanent. How Traditional Concepts Are Denied in Modern Thought The faculties of discernment and judgment are hard to exercise, yet are of vital importance. Modern thought fails to supply any principle worthy of the name, prone as it is to simplify reality from the perspective of the subject. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote: Modern thought made great progress in reducing existence to a series of phenomena [impressions–Ed.] which manifest it. In this way it sought to eliminate a certain number of dualisms....Indeed it has above all disposed of the dualism that opposed that which is inside an entity to that which is outside. No longer is there anything exterior to an entity, if by this is understood a superficial skin that would conceal the 20 true nature of an object from our vision. This true nature was supposed to be the secret reality of things. It could be intuited or supposed but never reached because it was “interior” to the object taken into consideration. The phenomena that manifest the entity are neither exterior nor interior; they are all of equal value, they all refer to other phenomena and no one of them holds a privileged position....An electric current, for example... is nothing but the ensemble of actions that manifest it. No one of these actions is sufficient to reveal it. At the same time it does not cause us to see anything behind itself; it refers to itself and a whole series [of actions]. The result of this, as it appears, is that the dualism between being and appearance no longer has a place in philosophy. That which appears directs us to a whole series of phenomena and not to a hidden reality capable of drawing to itself all the being of the entity....Thus the being of an entity is precisely its appearance....For the same reason, the dualism of actuality and potentiality disappears. Everything is actual. There is no potential behind an act, nor is there a capacity, nor a virtue [of producing the action]....Therefore we can indeed refute the dualism of appearance and essence. The appearance does not hide the essence, but reveals it: it is the essence [my emphasis added]. Sartre here presents principles that he would apply both to nature and to man. These principles epitomize the characteristic tendency of modern thought towards a constant, progressive reduction to a single entity which is not God but man. If man–whether as an individual or as a collective subject–were to take himself as the source of the meaning of existence, of the whole, he would tend to repress not only every idea of essence but also every idea of transcendence, of First Cause, of the supernatural! He would then find himself enclosed in a reality that appears to be constituted by a simple series of appearances, by phenomena that could not be reduced to a deeper reality, would not depend on a first cause, and would not be marked by a final cause. It would thus be appearance, that is, the situation, that would make us what we are. Ethics could no longer be based on absolute principles– because such principles express an immutable essence that transcends phenomena–but would rather be a situational ethics and thus the mere reflex of a finite reality that constitutes and justifies itself by the demands of action. In such a vision man, as a subject endowed with intellect and will, dissolves in the elusive becoming of appearances and is overwhelmed by the anxious perception of nothingness on which existentialist thought of the 20th century has always insisted. If in fact “appearance is the essence,” and if therefore “everything is in actuality,” if there is no potentiality behind and therefore prior to an act and no “capacity” or virtue is realized in it, this amounts to saying that THE ANGELUS October 2005 nothing underlies it. Behind the appearance there is no essence, and if there is no essence there is nothing behind it or, if one prefers, nothingness lies behind it. Thus, we come from nothing and we go to nothing. The inevitable conclusion constitutes a metaphysical absurdity even more than a moral one: if nothingness is both before and after us, how did something–life itself–arise? A Criticism of the Materialistic Foundations of Contemporary Nihilism To respond to this traditional objection, materialists have from ancient times responded that matter should be understood as eternal and uncreated. This amounts to an act of faith in matter. Matter is endowed with divine attributes; matter is implicitly supposed to contain an intelligence that gives order to the world. Lucretius (c. 98-54 BC) wrote that things cannot be born from nothing by a divine act (De Rerum Natura I, 150) because otherwise reality would be dominated by chaos and “we would see everything born from everything, and nothing would have its own seed, men would be born from the sea, scaled fish on land, birds would jump from the sky (ibid. I, 158-63). Nature shows that every thing is born in a definite and ordered way, through the operation of a generative power that acts from its own seed (ibid. I, 168; 173-74) and develops not arbitrarily but in accordance with a determinate, specific and finite form. To understand this one must recognize that “a finite part of matter was given to all things, a limiting part was given to every existent thing for the purpose of generation out of which it is clear what can arise” (ibid. I, 203-4). The poet’s lyrical formulation begs an obvious question: “Who has given a finite matter and thus a determinate form to each and every thing?” Was it the gods?–No, the Olympian gods, infinitely distanced from the world, cannot be understood in this manner; the gods of Epicurus are neither creators nor judges, but mere ciphers, so to speak. Was it then matter that gave itself an order on its own, without the intervention of a demiurge or artificer?... Lucretius does in fact think of matter as an entity that produces and orders itself on its own without need of a mind and a power to create it. This conception, with diverse nuances, is at the foundation of all materialistic philosophies through succeeding generations. It is the well-known argument of the shoe that makes itself, without need of a cobbler. Common sense argues that it is absurd. Yes, it is absurd. But there is no error that does not have its share of truth, its appearance of truth and its subtleties with their own power of fascination. Thus one should attempt to refute it with rational and measured arguments. Against Lucretius and his disciples the following arguments are to be made: Understanding “Nothing” Lucretius writes that, if things had appeared out of nothing, chaos would reign, because everything would come to be spontaneously without any order. Here he contradicts the traditional principle, which he himself repeats several times, that nothing can in any way be created from nothing (nil posse creari de nilo, op. cit., I, 156-57). In fact, only nothingness can come from nothing and thus nothing can be produced by nothing, not even chaos (i.e., birds falling from the sky, fish born on earth, etc.). Nothingness produces nothing. It abides forever in its absolute non-being. Non-being is always something that has no potential being. Nothing is born in nothingness, nor does anything develop in nothingness, whether order or chaos. Nevertheless, our criticism cannot stop here. The philosophy of Lucretius obliges him to suppress a concept that is in itself valid–that of creation out of nothing, as revealed by revelation–by representing it in a mistaken way. That’s important to look at. The target of Lucretius’s polemic is the pagan religion that he knew. In the introductory verses of his poem he exalts Epicurus for trampling on religion with his materialistic philosophy. He cites the (legendary) sacrifice of Iphigenia in Aulis as an example of the evils caused by religion. The concluding verse of this episode contains an invective that has been cited over centuries by all the enemies of religion, that is, “Religion had the power to induce the practice of such evils,” though the word “religio” in this context is better translated “superstition.” Lucretius lived in the age of Cicero, when Roman society was in grave crisis because of the ongoing civil wars. This crisis arose from social, political, and economic causes. Religion in itself can hardly be cited as a cause of the crisis, understood THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS October 2005 21 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT in the strict sense. But Lucretius’s visionary and poetically seductive materialism seems to express a more profound crisis than that derived from the lost political ideals of the Roman republic. It manifests the spiritual crisis of an entire civilization which could no longer find a place to stand. In such a situation the world-view of Epicurus was seductive. It proclaimed a philosophy of renunciation, of the hidden life, of egoistic retreat into oneself, compensated at the same time by exaltation of the self as an atom that, believing itself projected into the eternity of matter, imputed to itself a lasting cosmic dimension. The idea of creation from nothing cannot be found in the religious mythology nor in the mystery religions of paganism, nor in Greek philosophy. The Platonic demiurge does not create matter from nothing, but forms its elements from an abiding substrate dominated by chaos: Because the god wanted all things to be good and that, insofar as possible, nothing be bad, he then took every visible thing that was not at rest but was driven about without order or rule and reduced it from disorder to order, judging this a superior condition. In fact, creation from nothing is a Biblical concept, testified by divine revelation. Human thought did not arrive at it on its own. But we cannot suppose that Lucretius meant to polemicize against the Book of Genesis. The Septuagint, the celebrated Greek translation of the Old Testament, was composed from 250 BC to about 130 BC and was not part of the intellectual furniture of Greek and Roman intellectuals in the first century BC, even if some general and indirect knowledge of its teachings cannot be excluded a priori. Be that as it may, the concept of creation out of nothing as criticized in Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura is not the same as that revealed in the Bible. I must make this clarification to oppose the mistaken belief that Lucretian criticism is applicable to the Biblical doctrine. The creation of the world as described in Genesis does not suppose the existence of matter prior to the Creator, and thus does not imply the capacity of matter to give order to itself independently of a Creator. Creation took place according to the mind of God who thought and made all things issue forth from nothing. This happened in a sudden manner, according to the well-known fiat known from the Bible. This creation is not the work of nothing but of God, who makes all things (including man) originate from a state of nothingness with respect to themselves, not with respect to God. This means that the nothingness from which things arise is that of their prior lack of existence, not that of an absolute Nothing–Non-being–which cannot exist Creation of Adam by Michaelangelo 22 THE ANGELUS October 2005 if God exists. But God exists “from eternity” and will always exist. Lucretius, who did not believe in a reality outside the senses, clearly understood by “creation out of nothing” either the creative act of an absolute Nothing, of nothingness as a whole, which, if its existence be admitted, itself makes the concept of creation impossible; or else, and more likely, he understands it as the act of the Platonic demiurge, which makes the world out of an original substrate which would constitute “nothingness” as a primordial disorder. In either case his criticism of the idea of a creation out of nothing cannot be applied to the true conception of “creation out of nothing” as reported in the Sacred Scriptures. as something spiritual. Matter would thus contain a reality (thought) whose characteristics are not those of matter, which is characterized first of all by extension. Mind lacks extension and thus, by virtue of this fact alone, its operations cannot be reduced to that of matter. They lack that essential condition of finite and sensible beings, that spatially determined limit that characterizes matter. The “mind,” intelligence, thought, spiritual ways of being that have their roots in our soul, this complex and entirely spiritual reality seems in effect unlimited in comparison with matter. As Anaxagoras said: Understanding “Matter” If matter were to think, would it not have to be capable of explaining itself? Instead, it always appears as endowed with form and forms itself [i.e., as weather elements swirl and become a hurricane– Ed.] according to a direction and an end, without ever being able itself to give any explanation of its being and action, of why it is what it is. But this insuperable incapacity of matter seems nevertheless at the same time connected to its ordering itself according to the idea of an end. Such a connection, explains St. Thomas Aquinas, legitimizes or even necessitates the hypothesis of the existence of a If no one gave matter the capacity to distribute itself according to a form, to grow in a regulated and finite way, something that implies a plan, an end, it is then necessary to admit that matter possesses on its own that capacity which can be seen in a thought or a mind at work. But this implies that matter as such thinks, that it is capable of conceiving itself according to all the forms which it can possibly take. Matter would thus contain not only creative power but also thought itself, the mind that directs it. But mind and thought can only be conceived All other things have a part in every thing, but intelligence is unlimited, independent, and not mixed with anything, but stands alone in itself. THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT THE ANGELUS October 2005 23 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Mind that creates and directs matter. As he says in his Summa Theologica: We see in fact that determinate realities lacking reason, constituted by natural things, operate with a view to an end. This appears from the fact that they always or very often operate in the same manner to achieve the best end; whence it appears that they reach their goal not by chance but deliberately. But things that do not possess knowledge [because they lack reason–Ed.] do not tend towards an end if they are not directed by someone capable of knowing and understanding, but therefore, there must be a rational being by whose operation all natural things are ordered towards an end: and this entity we call God. “Nature” Doesn’t Run on Auto-Pilot The argument of Lucretius for the eternal conservation of all nature by nature’s own operation is totally unacceptable. Thus it happens that nature dissolves all things into their own elements and does not disperse them into nothingness: if a body were subject to total dissolution, anything could suddenly disappear before our eyes and cease to exist: no force would be necessary to realize the separation of its parts and dissolve its connections. (op. cit., I, 215-20) The fact that the world has not disappeared up to now does not result from the fact that every thing has been absorbed into the constituent parts of its nature. A natural entity dissolved by death never returns. If it did, one would be obliged to admit the absurd concept that the dead body of one’s father is contained in the seed of each one of us and so on infinitely through the generations. The fact that the world persists up to now results from the fact that it is maintained in its being by new births that continually replace the dead. This self-reproduction involves a compensation of life and death that appears thought out and willed by Someone in function of the equilibrium of the whole. Society of Saint Pius X District of the United States of America REGINA COELI HOUSE 2918 Tracy Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED For Christian philosophy the principle of causality [i.e., that every effect has a cause–Ed.]: 1) has an ontological value, that is to say, is really present in [the being of] things; and 2) is so evident that it is easily resolved into the first principles of our mind [i.e., that a thing is what it is and not what it is not, that one thing cannot be itself and another at the same time–Ed.]. In fact, given an entity that has the character of an effect [i.e., by participation, contingency–Ed.], the intellect sees in it the implicit need for a cause. All our theodicy rests on the principle of causality (Parente-Piolanti-Garafalo, Dizionario de Teologia Dogmatica). [“Theodicy,” by the way, is the philosophical apologetic that confirms the justice of God and whereby right reason demonstrates the principles of the Faith, the existence of a personal God, and the necessity and discernibility of revelation–Ed.]. Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Gregis said about Lucretian concepts: Their system, overflowing with so many and such enormous errors, has emerged from the marriage of false philosophy with the Faith. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from SìSìNoNo (May 31, 2005, Vol. 31, No.10). To be continued. $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 NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID KANSAS CITY, MO PERMIT NO. 6706 THE 25 Interview With Bishop Fellay Concerning His Meeting With Pope Benedict XVI MEETING DICI : Your Excellency, you requested an audience with Pope Benedict XVI which took place last August 29. What was the purpose of your request? We wanted to meet the Holy Father because we are Catholic and, like all Catholics, we are attached to Rome. By requesting this audience we wanted to show, quite simply, that we are Catholics. Our recognition of the Pope is not limited to the mention of his name in the Canon of the Mass, which is said by every priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It is normal that, as Roman Catholics, we should express our deference. Catholic means universal, and the Mystical Body of the Church is not limited to our chapels. We also were seeking to call the attention of the Sovereign Pontiff to the existence of Tradition. We wished to remind him that Tradition is the Church, and that we incarnate in a vital way the Church’s Tradition. We wanted to show that the Church would be much stronger in today’s world if it maintained Tradition. We wanted thus to bring him our testimony: if the Church wants to get out of the tragic crisis it is presently going through, then Tradition is a solution, indeed the only solution to the crisis. DICI : How did the audience go? The audience took place in the Popes’ summer residence at Castelgandolfo. Scheduled for 11:30am, it actually began at 12:10pm, in the Sovereign Pontiff’s office. He generally grants an audience of 15 minutes to a bishop. For us, the audience lasted 35 minutes. This means– so say the Vatican specialists– that Benedict XVI wanted to demonstrate his interest in these questions. There were four of us: the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Fr. Schmidberger and myself. The conversation took place in French, contrary to the announcement by some that it would take place in German. The Pope himself led the conversation in a friendly atmosphere. He listed three difficulties in response to the note we had sent him shortly before the audience. Benedict XVI had obviously read the note, so it was not necessary to go over the points brought up in it. In the note we had described the Church by citing John Paul II’s own “silent apostasy,” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s statements about “the boat which is taking in water from every side” and “the dictatorship of relativism,” and we had appended photos of certain very scandalous Masses. We also presented the Society, quoting figures and various achievements. We gave two examples of actions carried out by the Society in today’s world, and the unbelievable attitude of the local bishoprics towards them: the lawsuit in Argentina which resulted in the banning of the sale of contraceptives, and which earned for us the name of terrorists from the bishopric of Cordoba; and the denunciation of a gay pride parade in Lucerne, which ended with a Protestant service in a Catholic church–all this to the complete indifference of the bishop. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Bp Felly on Pope Meeting 4.indd 25 10/13/2005 5:42:15 PM 26 Finally, we expressed our requests: that the climate of hostility towards Tradition, which makes traditional Catholic life (is there any other?) practically impossible in the conciliar Church, be changed. We asked that this be done by granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass, by silencing the accusation of schism directed against us, by dropping the alleged excommunications, and by finding an ecclesial structure for the family of Tradition. DICI : Is it possible for us to know the difficulties raised by Benedict XVI? I can only evoke them. First of all, the Holy Father insisted on effective recognition of the Pope, linking it to the state of necessity invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre to justify the consecration of bishops and our subsequent activities. Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can be only one way of belonging to the Catholic Church: i.e., by having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is to say according to the intention of the Fathers of the Council and the letter of the text. This is a perspective that rather frightens us. Finally, the Sovereign Pontiff thinks that we would have to have a suitable structure for the traditional rite and certain exterior practices–without, however, protecting us from the spirit of the Council that we would have to adopt. DICI : The Vatican press release at the end of the audience speaks of a “desire to proceed in stages and within reasonable time limits.” What are we to understand by this expression? The Pope did not want to attack the problems, but simply to sketch them. It will indeed be necessary first of all to deal with the question of the right to the old Mass, and take up the errors of the Council afterwards, for we see there the cause of the present evils–both a direct cause and a partly indirect cause. Of course we will go step by step. We must show the Council in a different light from that which is given by Rome. In denouncing the errors, it is indispensable for us to show their logical consequences and their impact on the disastrous situation of today’s Church, without, however, provoking exasperation that could cause the discussions to be broken off. This obliges us to proceed by stages. With respect to reasonable time limits, it is being said in Rome that documents are in preparation for communities attached to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, something quite new, never seen before. “Let us wait and see!” It is certainly true that the Pope wants to settle this situation quickly. In order to be entirely fair, I would like to add this further detail. We must consider the Pope’s difficult situation. He is stuck between the progressives on one side and us on the other. If he grants general permission for the Mass on the basis of our request alone, the modernists will rise up, saying that the Pope has given in to traditionalists. We learned from Bishop Ricard that in 2000 he himself, along with Cardinal Lustiger and the Archbishop of Lyons, rushed to Rome to forestall concessions to the Society, brandishing the threat of rebellion. We know that the German bishops acted in the same way at the time of the World Youth Conference in Cologne: “It is us or them.” By this is meant: “If they are recognized, we will leave the Church and create a schism.” So the Pope could not, during the audience, give us verbal assurance that this fall, for example, the Mass would be freed. Any promise made by him to the Society in this sense would inevitably expose him to pressure by the progressives. We would then have received the views of a Pope against a majority of bishops inclined to secede. This cannot be envisaged in the midst of the current debacle, even given desire for a certain restoration. Personally, I believe that only limited freedom will perhaps be conceded. DICI : The Press has published rumors concerning divisions within the Society of Saint Pius X. What exactly is the case? The announcement of the audience granted by the Pope has provoked feverish talk in the media, They made a lot of noise, attempting to show that divisions exist in the Society among its four bishops. Journalists have also published the threats directed against the Pope by the progressives: “To grant freedom to the Mass is to disavow Paul VI and the liturgical reform.” I can, however, affirm that within the Society of Saint Pius X, the four bishops are united on the question of the relationship with Rome, and that Bishop Williamson, whose name has been quoted, is not “sedevacantist.” The media has nothing to worry about. Alas, this for them is not newsworthy. DICI : Your Excellency, what do you now hope for? Some Cardinals in Rome hope to see Tradition recognized. We hope for that too. We hope, in particular, for complete freedom to be granted to the Mass, but there is little chance that this will come tomorrow. It will then be our duty to demonstrate the place of Tradition in the Church, avoiding the misinterpretations that are often given of it. We must get the Roman authorities to admit that we cannot follow without serious reservations the interpretation given of the Council and of ecumenism as it is practiced. Deep down, what we hope for is to make them understand one day the whole reason for Tradition. English translation taken from DICI, the press agency of the Society of St. Pius X (September 24, 2005). THE ANGELUS • October 2005 Bp Felly on Pope Meeting 4.indd 26 10/13/2005 5:42:16 PM Letter #68 h . e . B i s h o p B e r n a r d 27 f e l l a y Letter #68 to Friends and Benefactors from Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X In a few weeks we shall have the great joy of celebrating the centenary of the birth of our venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. What an extraordinary figure this tireless missionary presents, missionary first of all in Africa to bring the Gospel, and then missionary in Europe and the whole world so that the Catholic Faith might be preserved whole and entire. We would like to dwell upon his magnificent stature and the profound virtues that characterized him throughout his life, but in light of the audience we had at the end of August with Pope Benedict XVI, we shall be content to reproduce a document that sheds light both on the wisdom and perspicacity of our founder, as well as upon the rule which guided him and which we, too, wholly espouse. In 1966, thus just a year after the Council’s close, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to questions posed by the Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, on the situation in the Church in the following letter: I dare say that the present evil seems to me something very much more serious than the negation or placing in doubt of any one truth of our faith. It manifests itself in our day by an extreme confusion of ideas, by the disaggregation of the Church’s institutions, religious institutes, seminaries, Catholic schools, and, finally, of what had been the Church’s permanent support; but it is nothing other than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been sapping the Church for the last several centuries, especially since the liberalism of the 19th century, which has done its utmost, no matter the cost, to reconcile the Church and the ideas that culminated in the French Revolution. In the measure that the Church has opposed these ideas, which are contrary to sane philosophy and theology, it has advanced; on the contrary, the least compromise with these subversive ideas has provoked an alignment of the Church with civil law and risked making it a slave to civil society. Moreover, each time groups of Catholics let themselves be attracted by these myths, the Popes courageously corrected them, instructed them, and, if need by, condemned them. Catholic liberalism was condemned by Pope Pius IX, modernism by Pope Leo XIII, Sillonism by Pope St. Pius X, communism by Pope Pius XI, and neo-modernism by Pope Pius XII. Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church was strengthened and developed. Conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous, heresy was completely routed, and the States accepted legislation in keeping with Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, groups of religious imbued with these false ideas succeeded in spreading them through Catholic Action, and in the seminaries thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of bishops and the toleration of certain Roman dicasteries. It was from among these priests that bishops were soon to be chosen. It is in this context that we must situate the Council, which, through the work of the Preparatory Commission, was preparing to proclaim the truth in the face of these errors in order to make them disappear for a long time from the Church’s midst. It would have spelled the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new, fruitful era of the Church. But this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the worst tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have witnessed the marriage of the Church with liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence and to shut one’s eyes not to affirm courageously that the Council allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above to legitimately believe that their doctrines were henceforth approved. One can and one unfortunately must affirm that, in a general way, when the Council innovated, it shook the certitude of the truths taught by the authentic magisterium of the Church as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition. Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, THE ANGELUS • October 2005 etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar texts on these truths henceforth allow doubts. The consequences have been rapidly drawn and applied to the life of the Church: • • • Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations. Doubts about the necessity and the nature of the “conversion” of every soul lead to the disappearance of religious vocations, the ruin of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the futility of the missions. Doubts about the legitimacy of authority and the duty of obedience provoked by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience, and of freedom shake all societies starting with the Church, religious societies, the dioceses, civil society, and the family. The normal result of pride is the burgeoning of the concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. Perhaps one of the most frightful observations to be made about our epoch is to note to what a level of moral degradation most Catholic publications have descended. They speak without the least reticence about sexuality, birth control by any means, the legitimacy of divorce, of co-education, of dating, of dances as a necessary part of Christian education, of priestly celibacy, etc. • • Doubts about the necessity of grace in order to be saved provoke the undervaluing of baptism and its postponement, and the abandonment of the sacrament of penance. Moreover, this especially involves an attitude of priests and not of the faithful. The same goes for the Real Presence: it is the priests who act as if they no longer believed by hiding the Sacred Host, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament and all the ceremonies in Its honor. Doubts about the necessity of the Church as the unique source of salvation and about the Catholic Church as the only true religion originating in the declaration on ecumenism and religious liberty, destroy the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Indeed, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary “Magistra Veritatis.” Compelled by the facts, it is necessary to conclude that the Council has favored, inconceivably, the diffusion of liberal errors. Faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline have been shaken in their foundation according to the predictions of all the Popes. The destruction of the Church is rapidly advancing. By an exaggerated authority given to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself ineffectual. In a single year how many painful examples of this have we witnessed! Still, the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church. Here are the solutions recommended by Archbishop Lefebvre: Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith; let him designate them in the important dioceses. Let him deign, by important documents, to proclaim truth, pursue error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of questioning the pastoral dispositions of the Council. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 May the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to uphold faith and morals, each in his respective diocese, as befits every good pastor; to support the courageous bishops, encouraging them to reform their seminaries and to restore studies according to St. Thomas; to encourage the general superiors to uphold in the novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a doctrinally sound Catholic press, associations of Catholic families; and, finally, to reprimand the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclical letters, mandates, and letters to bishops. Undoubtedly, it is bold of me to express myself in this way! But it is from a burning love that I write these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, love of the Church and of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.... Everything has been said, and even today there is nothing to add or remove from this remarkable analysis of the logical consequences of the Council, replaced in its historical context, and of the reforms that were then on the horizon, and even of the depth of the crisis which had struck the Church and from which she has still not escaped, held fast by the principles with which the Council and the popes have bound her. We think quite frankly that the solution to the problem that the Society creates for Rome is intimately linked to the resolution of the crisis which has struck the Church. The day that the authorities again look with a benevolent eye and with hope upon the Church’s past and her Tradition, they will be able to get beyond the rupture caused by the Council and to be reconciled with the eternal principles on which the Church has been built for twenty centuries; they will be able to draw strength and to find the solution to the crisis. And then there will no longer be a Society of St. Pius X “problem.” That is the reason for our discussions with the Holy See. That is the fundamental problem. The new Mass and the Council are just the tip of the iceberg that has struck the barque of the Church; the spirit of the Council proceeds from liberalism, from Protestantism, and, ultimately, from the revolt against God which will mark the history of men until the end of time. What would be the point of an accord that would consist in letting oneself be sunk by the iceberg. We heartily thank you for all your prayers and generous sacrifices. All of that is very precious to us. In our visits to Rome and in all our activities, we rely very much upon them. Please be assured in return of the seminarians’ prayers and ours at the foot of the altar in thanksgiving for your unceasing generosity. May Our Lord’s sacrifice be your daily support! May the Immaculate Heart of Mary be your protection and refuge. With all my gratitude, I bless you. On the Feast of St. Michael September 29, 2005 + Bernard Fellay BOOK 29 REVIEW TITLE: Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth AUTHORS: Yves Chiron PUBLISHER: Angelus Press DISTRIBUTED: Angelus Press. Price: $24.95 REVIEWER: John Dredger SUMMARY: This new book from acclaimed French author Yves Chiron covers the life and pontificate of Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, Blessed Pius IX. He was born during the French Revolution and lived through some of the greatest social upheavals in relatively recent history. The book also covers the proclamation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, the convocation of the First Vatican Council, the publication of the Syllabus of Errors, the beginnings of Catholic Action, and the development of the foreign missions. When most Americans hear the name Pius IX, there is most likely a pause, then a moment of hesitation, and finally an embarrassed, “Well, he was a pope, wasn’t he?” Even with the recent declaration of Pius IX as Blessed by John Paul II in 2000, this is sadly still the case, and one may reasonably ask why. The most plausible answer is the fact that there have been very few biographies of Blessed Pius IX published in the United States. The results of a brief research are that the latest book to be found about the life of Pius IX was published in 1955, and that of course is now out of print. So what was an American to do for the past fifty years in order to find out about the greatest pope of the nineteenth century without having to obtain a foreign language biography? Obviously the American reader isn’t entirely at fault for not knowing much about Pius IX, but happily the dilemma has been solved with the publication of Yves Chiron’s book entitled Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth from Angelus Press. What is it then that makes the life of Blessed Pius IX so worth knowing? These are just a few of the events which took place during his pontificate, which still remains the longest in the history of the Catholic Church: the Revolution of 1848, during which Blessed Pius IX was forced to flee into exile; the unification of Italy and the theft of the Papal States by Communists and Freemasons; the unification of Germany headed by Protestant Prussia and its chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who initiated the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf throughout Germany; the Crimean War (1854-56), the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, the Seven Weeks’ War (1866), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). As one can see, there were very few peaceful times during Pius IX’s long reign. This list does not even include the events which took place during Pius IX’s lifetime before he became pope. Born in Italy in 1792, Giovanni Maria MastaiFerretti, the future Pope Pius IX, would have many encounters with the enemies of the Church. While still young and trying to follow his vocation to the THE ANGELUS • October 2005 30 priesthood in Rome, Giovanni Maria had to abandon his clerical attire because of the anti-clerical edicts of the French government under Napoleon Bonaparte, who had annexed the Papal States in 1809. This was only the first of many trials that Giovanni Mastai would have to face on the path towards his election as pope in 1846. As a result of the anti-clerical French edicts, Giovanni was not ordained priest until 1819. He next encountered the enemies of the Church in South America in 1824-25 while on a mission to Chile to inspect the state of Catholicism there after the recent revolution against Spanish rule. This adventure shows the true situation in South America due to these revolutions, which were for the most part opportunities for the Freemasons to try to control the Church and the population through the State and not the winning of freedom and liberty for the people, as it is portrayed by most modern historical accounts. Not long afterwards, as Bishop of Spoleto, Msgr. Mastai had to undergo the Revolution of 1831, during which a “provisional government” of revolutionaries kicked out the authorities appointed by Pope Gregory XVI, and thus Msgr. Mastai deemed it prudent to leave Spoleto. This revolution was quickly suppressed, but it was a signal of the growing liberalism which had been spreading so rapidly throughout Italy in the wake of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Era, and which would plague Pius IX’s pontificate from its beginning to its end. As mentioned before, Pius IX would have to flee Rome in 1848 due to the takeover of the papal government by anti-clerical Italian revolutionaries. This flight was not without its share of suspense and ruse, complete with a disguise for the Pope himself: On the evening of November 24, the Duc d’Harcourt, French ambassador to Rome, went to the Quirinal to be received in audience by the Pope. He was introduced and, following a plan prepared in advance, he helped Pius IX to divest himself of his white papal robes and put on the simple black soutane of a priest. Then the Sovereign Pontiff left the Quirinal on foot...by a secret door, and went to the carriage of the Bavarian ambassador, Count Spaur, which was waiting for him some distance away. When the Duc d’Harcourt came out of his supposed ‘audience’ with the Pope, he told the personnel not to disturb the Sovereign Pontiff, as the latter had retired to his private apartments. So it was not until the next day that the revolutionaries learned of the Pope’s flight; by that time he was already far away, on the territory of Naples. (pp.114-115) As it is so often the case, true history is more exciting than fiction, if only because true history really happened, whereas fiction is a concoction of some sort based on reality. However, it must not be assumed that Blessed Pius IX’s life was merely one revolution after the other; while this is true to a certain extent, it must be seen that Pius IX found the time for great acts of spirituality and faith. Long before becoming Pope Pius IX, Giovanni Mastai showed signs of a deep spiritual life. Whenever he was about to make a very serious decision or THE ANGELUS • October 2005 embark upon a new task in his life, he would make a retreat according to the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, during which he would write notes on his faults and how to correct them. It is also in his youth that we can find him giving much time to various devotions, especially those of the Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Conception. Thus the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which was promulgated by Pius IX in 1854, was not something new either to the Pope himself or to the Catholic people, but rather the culmination of a belief long held and well-known by many. In pronouncing the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin on December 8 that year, Pius IX was conscious of the temporal context of such a definition. He was not simply giving the sanction of his authority to a very ancient belief that was now an article of faith, but also equipping the Church with an additional weapon. In the spiritual warfare he and the whole Church had to wage against philosophical and theological errors, against laicism and anti-clericalism, the invocation of the Virgin Mary was a powerful aid. (p.112) The shrewdness of Pius IX along with the care of his flock are obvious from this great work of defining the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of faith. However, Blessed Pius IX did not stop there; he called the First Vatican Council (1869-70), the first ecumenical council in modern times, during which another dogma of faith was defined: Papal Infallibility. Again, another widely held belief was used to serve as a weapon during a time of great crisis for the Church, for soon after the dogma was defined and the council ended, Pius IX was stripped even of his rule over Rome and was confined as “The Prisoner of the Vatican.” In addition to defining dogmas, Pius IX, during his whole pontificate, made reform one of his greatest priorities. This reform was not the reform of the modern world, that of liberalism and change for the sake of change. All of Pius IX’s reforms, both spiritual and political, had the good of his subjects in mind. Due to his vast efforts, the monastic orders were imbued with fresh vigor (the Jesuits doubled their numbers within thirty years); the Church’s hierarchy was re-established in England, Holland, and Scotland, where it had been missing for several hundred years because of Protestantism. In the temporal sphere, he tried to use some of the newer social improvements, such as railroads, to improve the communications, commerce, and efficiency of his government. At the same time he made attempts to placate the liberals who wanted more political reforms by granting an amnesty to political prisoners, setting up commissions to reform the judicial system and other parts of the papal government, and even allowing some laymen to participate in the government. However, these reforms did not placate the radical liberals, who proved yet again that they were not laboring for better governance, as they publicly proclaimed, but rather for the end of all clerical rule. 31 Ironically, it is because of these reforms, especially the amnesties, and the fact that Pius IX, even before becoming Pope, always stayed aloof from any of the political factions of the day, including the supposedly conservative ones, that he gained the reputation of being a liberal. This myth began in his own lifetime and, despite all proofs to the contrary, it has come down even to our own times. Those historians who do mention Pius IX usually do so with a reference to how he used to be a liberal but suddenly made a complete turnabout to ‘ultraconservatism’ when he was forced to flee into exile in 1848. While this may be the more romantic interpretation of history, it does not conform with the facts as presented to us by Yves Chiron. Perhaps Blessed Pius IX made some miscalculations in his attempts to placate the liberal parties in Italy, but this came not because of sympathy for their ideas, but rather the desire of the Pope to bring them back to the fold of the Church. About the examination of conscience which he made during his exile concerning his failed attempts at conciliation, Chiron says: Pius IX recalls that the concessions made (amnesty, press freedom, etc.) “failed to produce the fruits we had desired, nor could they even take root, because these skillful artisans (the revolutionaries) only used them to prompt further agitation.” The allocution also contains a justification of the papacy’s temporal power. (p.123) These are not the thoughts of a converted liberal, but instead those of one who has realized that any attempts to win over the more moderate liberals will always be ruined by the anti-clerical radicals. It must be recalled that Pius IX, previous to his election, had already received trouble from the revolutionaries in Spoleto and in South America, and thus, it was not as an embittered yet wiser former liberal, but rather as an ever staunch defender of the Church and its doctrines that Pope Pius IX issued a condemnation of modern philosophical and theological errors in his encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of the Principal Errors of Our Time in 1864. As with Pius IX’s other works, these two documents were long in the making as well. There were many errors which were being spread not just among the intellectuals of Europe but even within the Church itself. It is not merely in our own time that infiltration of the Church has been attempted; in the 19th century, there were many liberal priests and religious who were doing untold harm by publishing their fallacious ideas. Thus, the need for a condemnation of all the prominent errors of that time was seen by the Pope and many of his cardinals. The 80 propositions condemned in the Syllabus are well worth our notice, for they apply as much, if not more, to our own times as they did 150 years ago, because many of them are generally accepted today as true. For example, errors concerning Christian marriage, civil society, ethics, modern liberalism, and many others are condemned. One error especially noteworthy is that of religious indifferentism, that: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15); and, “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation” (Proposition 16). These condemned propositions are particularly interesting for our present time, as they have been spouted by modern theologians, including John Paul II, so prominently in the recent past. That is what makes the declaration of Pope Pius IX as blessed by Pope John Paul II so ironic; here we see a liberal pontiff solemnly stating that a pope who condemned indifferentism and latitudinarianism is on his way to canonization. Of course, there may be various political reasons of the Vatican for declaring Pius IX blessed, and who can know all the reasons involved in such decisions, but surely we can see that the Holy Ghost still has ultimate control over the Church, even in these times of apostasy. Just as there was great opposition to Pius IX in his own lifetime, there was great opposition to his being declared blessed, and this is to be expected because of his great defense of the truth in the face of so many errors. However, one cannot argue in the presence of miracles, such as the state of his almost perfectly preserved body when it was exhumed in 2000. This was by no means the first miracle which God worked for Pius IX, for in his own lifetime he was cured of epilepsy which had plagued him for many years. Without this miracle, Pius IX would never have become a priest and the Church would never have had such a great pope in its time of need. As can be seen, the life of Pius IX was not quiet and peaceful, although he would have preferred it that way for the sake of the Church. It had wars and invasions, political intrigues and revolutions, miracles and declarations of faith. And in addition to all this, it is the life of one whose process for canonization is in progress, the life of one who can give us strength and encouragement for our own time of crisis. Who would be better to write the life of Pius IX than the historian Yves Chiron? Having been given access to sources usually reserved only for members of the Congregation for the Cause of Saints, Chiron has produced a well-documented and masterful work, not just for those with an interest in history but also for those who desire a greater knowledge of this little known pope who played such a prominent role in the Church and the world of his time, and who still has a great effect even now. Mr. John Dredger has an Associate of Arts and a Bachelor of Arts in Education from St. Mary’s College and a Master of Arts in Classics from the University of Kansas. He teaches Latin and History at St. Mary’s Academy and College, St. Mary’s, Kansas, and is the father of four children. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 32 Persons Principl It’s Not About It’s About A CATECHISM OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING Part II HEADING ONE: With another installment, The Angelus continues the serialization of the book Catechism of Catholic Social Teaching by Amintore Fanfani (translated by Fr. Henry J. Yannone, The Newman Press, 1960), which will run monthly until its conclusion. He was the author of articles and books on economics, including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism, available from Angelus Press for $14.95. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 MAN AND SOCIETY Chapter I. Origin, Nature and Rights of Man is the origin 1) What and nature of man? Man is a being created by God. He is composed of a body which is material and mortal, and of a soul which is spiritual and immortal. He is endowed with intelligence and free will. Through sanctifying grace he is elevated to the dignity of a child of God. Pius XI: Man has a spiritual and immortal soul. He is a person, marvelously endowed by his Creator with gifts of body and mind. [Divini Redemptoris, §27] Pius XI: Only man, the human person...is endowed with reason and a morally free will. [Divini Redemptoris, §29] Leo XIII: Liberty, nature’s most exalted gift, the endowment of intellectual and rational beings only, confers on man ns; ples : 33 A m i n t o r e the dignity of abiding “in the hand of his counsel,” of having power over his own actions. [Libertas, §1] Plus XI: [Man] by sanctifying grace is raised to the dignity of a son of God, and incorporated into the kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ. [Divini Redemptoris, §27] is the ultimate end of man? 2) What Man has an earthly life during which he must give glory to his Creator; but there is also a superterrestrial life in which he will enjoy for eternity, if he will have deserved it, the beatific vision of God. The ultimate end of man is the glory of his Creator. Pius XI: God alone is [man’s] last end, in this life and the next. [Divini Redemptoris, §27] what does the superior of man consist? 3) Indignity As an intelligent being, free and endowed with an immortal soul, man surpasses in dignity all nonintelligent beings and all inanimate things, which he must use as means of attaining his end. Pius XI: Man is a true ‘microcosm,’ as the ancients said, a world in miniature, with a value far surpassing that of the vast inanimate cosmos. [Divini Redemptoris, §27] Leo XIII: It is the soul which is made after the image and likeness of God; it is in the soul that sovereignty resides, in virtue of which man is commanded to rule the creatures below him, and to use all the earth and the ocean for his profit and advantage. [Rerum Novarum, §32] Pius XI: For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. [Casti Connubii, §13] Pius XI: It is therefore according to the dictates of reason that ultimately all material things should be ordained to man as a person, that through his mediation they may find their way to the Creator. [Divini Redemptoris, §30] Leo XIII: [Man has it within] his power to exercise his choice not only on things which regard his present wel- F a n f a n i (1908-99) Former Prime Minister of Italy and a professor of Economic History at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy. fare, but also those which will be for his advantage in time to come. [Rerum Novarum] 4) What rights were bestowed upon man by his Creator? Man possesses certain rights bestowed upon him by God at the moment of his creation. They flow from the very nature and end of man. The principal rights are the right to life and to tend to his ultimate end, the right of association, to possess and to use worldly goods, to contract marriage and enjoy the use of it. Pius XI: Man has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives: the right to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God; the right of association and the right to possess and use property....Matrimony and the right to its natural use are of divine origin. [Divini Redemptoris, §§27,28] Pius XII: ...fundamental personal rights: the right to maintain and develop one’s corporal, intellectual and moral life, and especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private and public and to carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the indispensable means towards the maintenance of family life; the right to free choice of a state of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to the use of material goods in keeping with his duties and social limitations. [Christmas Message, 1942] 5) Why has man a right to life, and in what does this right consist? In creating man, God conferred upon him the right to life. This becomes a concrete reality in the right to his physical integrity and to a physical, intellectual and moral development, and also in the right to obtain normally through his work the means necessary to such development. In the absence of such means his right to life would be a mere theoretical concession. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 34 Pius XI: Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body....Private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body. [Casti Connubii, §§70-71] Pius XII: To the personal duty to labor imposed by nature corresponds and follows the natural right of each individual to make of labor the means to provide for his own life and that of his children. [Address on Pentecost, 1941] Pius XII: [Man has] the right to maintain and develop his corporal, intellectual, and moral life and especially the right to religious formation and education. [Christmas Message, 1942] does man have a right to achieve his ultimate end, and how can he achieve it? 6)Why Having assigned to him an ultimate end, God has conferred upon him also the right to tend toward it, using the means necessary to its achievement, and practicing freely public and private worship. Leo XIII: To contemplate God and to tend to Him is the supreme law of the life of man. [Sapientiae Christianae, §1] Pius X: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. [Singulari Quadam] Pius XI: The true Christian must live a supernatural life in Christ and display it in all his actions. [Divini Illius Magistri] Leo XIII: Every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle...This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God. [Libertas, §21] 7) Why does man have a right to propagate himself, and how can he do this? Having given to man the capacity to propagate himself and the task to perpetuate the human species, God gave him the right to join in marriage and to use it according to the law of nature. Leo XIII: No human law can abolish the natural and primitive right of marriage, or in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage, ordained by God’s authority from the beginning: “Increase and multiply.” [Rerum Novarum, §9] Pius XI: [There exists] the natural and primeval right of marriage....The Creator of the human race Himself... THE ANGELUS • October 2005 in His goodness wished to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life....Christian parents must also understand that they are destined...to propagate and preserve the human race on earth. [Casti Connubii, §§9,12,14] It is wrong to brand men with the stigma of crime because they contract marriage, on the ground that, despite the fact that they are in every respect capable of matrimony, they will give birth only to defective children, even though they use all care and diligence. [Casti Connubii, §69] has man the right to possess and to use worldly goods? 8) Why In giving to man the capacity to produce new things, useful in the achievement of his ultimate end, God gave him the right to possess and to use such things. Leo XIII: When man thus spends the industry of his mind and the strength of his body in procuring the fruits of nature, by that act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates–that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his own personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his own, and should have a right to keep it without molestation. [Rerum Novarum, §7] Pius XI: The right to own private property has been given to man by nature, or rather by the Creator Himself. By means of it, the goods which the Creator has destined for the human race may truly serve this purpose. [Quadragesimo Anno, §45] Pius XI: The only form of labor, however, which gives the workingman a title to its fruits is that which a man exercises as his own master, and by which some new form or new value is produced. [Quadragesimo Anno, §52] Pius XII: The dignity of the human person, then, requires normally as a natural foundation of life the right to the use of the goods of the earth. To this right corresponds the fundamental obligation to grant private ownership of property, if possible, to all. Positive legislation regulating private ownership may change and more or less restrict its use. But if legislation is to play its part in the pacification of the community, it must prevent the worker, who is or will be a father of a family, from being condemned to an economic dependence and slavery which is irreconcilable with his rights as a person. Whether this slavery arises from the exploitation of private capital or from the power of the State, the result is the same. [Christmas Message, 1942] 9) Why does man have the right of association? In creating man in need of other men’s help, God gave him the right to associate with them, in order to integrate his own inadequacies with others and reach his own perfection. 35 Leo XIII: Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society. Isolated, he cannot provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. It is, therefore, divinely ordained that he should lead his life–be it domestic, social, or civil–in contact with his fellow men. [Immortale Dei, §2] Leo XIII: The experience of his own weakness urges man to call in help from without....It is this natural impulse which unites men in civil society; and it is this also which makes them band themselves together in associations of citizen with citizen; associations which, it is true, cannot be called societies in the complete sense of the word, but which are real societies nevertheless. Particular societies, then, although they exist within the State, and are each a part of the State, nevertheless cannot be prohibited by the State absolutely and as such. For to enter into a ‘society’ of this kind is the natural right of man. The State must protect natural rights, not destroy them. If it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence; for both they and it exist in virtue of the same principle; viz., the natural propensity of man to live in society. There are times, no doubt, when it is right that the law should interpose to prevent association; as when men join together for purposes which are evidently bad, unjust, or dangerous to the State. In such cases the public authority may justly forbid the formation of associations, and may dissolve them when they already exist. But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals, and not to make unreasonable regulations under the pretense of public benefit. [Rerum Novarum, §§37,38] All such societies are not merely free to exist, but have the further right to adopt such rules and organizations as may best conduce to the attainment of their objects. [Rerum Novarum, §42] 10) In regard to whom are the rights of man inalienable? All the rights given to man by God are inalienable with regard to other men, whether taken individually or united in a group, and nobody has the right to take them away from him. Leo XIII: The fact is that in the projects and enactments of men there exists no power that can change the character and tendency given to things by nature. [Arcanum, §18] Leo XIII: The State must protect natural rights, not destroy them. [Rerum Novarum, §38] Leo XIII: “The liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects...but instead the binding force of human laws lies in the fact that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law. [Libertas, §7] Pius XI: Society...cannot defraud man of his Godgranted rights...nor...by making their use impossible. [Divini Redemptoris, §30] Pius XII: Before the State everyone has the right to live honorably his own personal life in the place and under the conditions in which the designs and dispositions of Providence placed him. [Christmas Message, 1944] 11) Can man renounce the exercise of the rights given to him by God? Only in view of a higher perfection, man can renounce the exercise of those natural rights which do not constitute at the same time a duty for him. For instance, for the love of God, he may renounce marriage and the enjoyment of material goods, but he cannot renounce the duty to pursue his ultimate end. Leo XIII: No man may outrage with impunity that human dignity which God Himself treats with reverence, nor stand in the way of that higher life which is the preparation for the eternal life of heaven. Nay, more; a man has here no power over himself. To consent to any treatment which is calculated to defeat the end and purpose of his being is beyond his right; he cannot give up his soul to servitude; for it is not man’s own rights which are here in question, but the duties towards God, most sacred and inviolable. [Rerum Novarum, §32] Leo XIII: It is a sin to disobey God for the sake of pleasing men. [Sapientiae Christianae, §3] Leo XIII: In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty either to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to virginity, or to enter into the bonds of marriage. [Rerum Novarum, §9] Leo XIII: The preservation of life is the bounden duty of each and all, and to fail therein is a crime. [Rerum Novarum, §34] 12) What advantages does man obtain from the full fruition of the rights given to him by God? Full fruition of the rights given to man by God permits him to use integrally all his faculties, to exploit fully to his own advantage and that of society all the talents received, thus achieving his own end and giving God a more perfect glory. Leo XIII: It was divinely ordained that things instituted by God and by nature should be proved by us to be the more profitable and salutary the more they remain unchanged in their full integrity. [Arcanum, §13] Pius XI: For according to Christian doctrine, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed here on earth in order that, spending his life in society and under an authority ordained by God, he may develop and evolve to the full all his faculties to the praise and glory of his Creator; and that, by fulfilling faithfully the duties of his station, he may attain to temporal and eternal happiness. [Quadragesimo Anno, §118] Taken from Amintore Fanfani, Catechism of Catholic Social Teaching (The Newman Press. 1960), pp.ix-13. THE ANGELUS • October 2005 36 Ten Minutes with Fr. de Chivré: Woman and the Gift of Pity It is a subject no one discusses: the meaning of woman’s Fall, its “other side.” I am going to show you what it consists of. The gaze of modern man is incapable of seeing any deeper than the physical aspect of woman. We can hardly blame him; everything today is organized to make him that way, even what used to be known as morals. With the Fall, Eve’s beauty was reduced to the poverty of a merely physical expression, distributing passion (which explains the difficulties and crises in marriages). “It was the serpent who tricked me.” It is the admission of an emptiness in place of the mission which the woman had received, namely, to be queen. Remember the old expression from the French, THE ANGELUS • October 2005 “ma Dame,” “my Lady,” an expression of majesty. Reduced to a state of slavery by her spirit led astray, woman drew the regard of God who did not disavow the original Beauty He had created. This beauty He would later find again in the magnificent face of Mary, yet He still saw in Eve as it were the reverse of beauty: the sense of pity, pity for what is not beautiful. I have always noticed in the feminine temperament the horror of ugliness in all its forms, like an echo of the original source. This horror encompasses artistic, moral, and material ugliness. In this, woman reveals that, in spite of his victory, Satan never knows the reserves of virtue still remaining in what God has created. That splendid woman, who 37 prefigured Mary, could not remain in the thought of God as a defeat. Satan, in his tragic beauty, has no notion of pity. And the pity of God overflows onto the heart of woman to draw her spirit toward a baptism of tears mingled with the blood of Christ, who is the Veritable Beauty. God summoned woman to Calvary in many ways. Think, first, of the woman undefiled, His Mother. Consider also the fallen woman, Mary Magdalene. Again, there is Martha, the woman full of heart. Contemplate all of the women who were witness of the scene, beating their breast (Lk.13:20). These women were not themselves guilty. God summoned these women to Calvary so that they would be conscious of the profaned physical Beauty of the Son of God, an evocation of the profaned spiritual beauty of the nature of the first woman—all with Mary as a witness. These women united themselves in this way to the Passion of Christ, whose martyrdom was in the process of purifying the human spirit of all of the stains come by the fault of the first woman, to give it back its crystal and its dawn. Woman received there the mission to utilize her pity for Jesus by letting flow from her heart all of the modes of redemptive activity of which a woman is capable. The spirit of woman, once it is regenerated, drinks at the fountainhead of her own heart all that she needs to be a woman. This includes the assurance born of her dignity as a woman, her audacity of devotion, her boldness of physical offering in reparation, her delicacy in resurrecting consciences, courages and audacities, her courage for helping a sinner climb to the highest sanctity, for rising back up in her sinful tatters, transformed into the armor of repentance and joy. Who will carry off the victory? God or Satan? Sinful woman or woman victorious? After having followed Satan, woman regenerated snatches the eternity of souls from his clutch. He is vanquished by the blood of the Son of Man and by the tears of His Mother, representing in herself all of the women who collaborate with the Savior by their pity coupled with the mercy of the Son of Man. The modern world no longer has this sense of woman as responsible for pity on the world. It has turned her pity away from its object to turn it toward woman herself. Hence, we have “women’s liberation.” It becomes nearly impossible to make the world understand that Calvary is the only place where woman can rediscover her spirit exorcised of these malevolent currents. There does she draw the answers formed by the liberating slavery of Love, unacceptable to the deviated spirit of “women’s liberation.” The veritable love, for her, begins on Calvary. Outside of this love for others, for children to educate, for gift of self, for country, for the Church, there remains only the slavery of her body, within the lie of her manipulated intelligence. Woman is either divinized or possessed: “It was the serpent who tricked me.” It is by the intermediary of pity that God renders woman her dignity, by making her rediscover her heart. Do you know what pity is? It is the manifestation of the mercy of God by the intermediary of a human spirit. St. Thomas tells us that pity is the greatest of the moral virtues. It is pity that restores the human spirit in the three conditions without which it is not human. This is first done in the integrity of nature. Next, pity accomplishes its end by the welling of hope. Finally, pity restores the human spirit in the value of its merits. Once woman becomes the proprietor of pity, she is capable of distributing it where human science cannot. For instance, she is capable of having pity on the helpless, such as devotion to the elderly. She has pity in the incomprehension of unrequited affection. She showers pity on the pretensions of minds wise in their own conceits, pity on weakness of health, toward the poor and timid, pity watching over others, in the essentially spiritual mission of bringing forward the deeper spiritual qualities in the motley crew of beggars that we are. Throughout history, in fact, we always find a woman watching over the men. Remember Pentecost, and that extraordinary woman who guides the first steps of the Church, surrounded by fearful, anxious men. It was Mary who obtained from the Holy Spirit the gift of persevering to the end. Look at the history of the Church: Mary Magdalene, the great repentant, who gathers around herself hundreds of girls who, redeemed, refuse their carnal ugliness and become souls of absolute sanctification. Look at St. Scholastica, St. Clotilda, St. Genevieve, St. Elizabeth of Sweden, St. Joan of Arc, Jeanne Hachette, Louise de Marillac, Louise de Betigny, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Theresa of Lisieux. They are stars among the stars, a luminous path tracing a light through the social night of the Church, of the homeland, of families and associations to awaken the sun whose memory woman conserves in her heart and which God first lit in her heart on Calvary by the intermediary of pity. We are today in the century of violences, in other words, the century of the great weaknesses of instinct. We live in a world that seems strong and is only weakness, fear, helplessness, and capacity for anger. It little appreciates the pity that wells up from the heart. What is the heart? It is the seat of the domestic virtues, those virtues which nobody mentions anymore, ever since the liberation of woman, ever since she is no longer concerned with what happens in the little house that is the cell of a religious, in the house that is the Christian home, in the big house that is the country, the immense house that is the Church. The domestic virtues are those virtues indispensable to the construction of the “house”: the virtue of silence, of continuity in gift of self, of meticulousness THE ANGELUS • October 2005 38 in work, of presence in sacrifice, the virtue of duty of state above all. In summary, all of those virtues which repair the laziness of the spirit with all its ugliness of sensuality and wicked pleasure. It is quite a task today making people understand that, without the domestic virtues, it is impossible to construct or to maintain a society. These virtues are what express true pity, and only in their practice is pity true. There is no need to invent anything; we only need to remind woman of the great liturgy of the domestic virtues. God placed a profundity in the heart of woman meant for that liturgy, the liturgy of the holy women on Calvary. Imagine what must have been the return from Calvary–what silence–those women seeing the Son of God paying for the fault of their mother Eve. The first attitude to rediscover is to reassume one’s post of positive, heroic, daily love, to reawaken on earth the memory of Calvary lived and meditated even to the birth of sanctity. Compare the history of the Church, of the holy women, of mothers who have held the line, the history of those who, in the single life, have lived virginity, source of strength, with the liberty and the liberation of woman, of which we have been the witness since 1900. Do you want to know the endpoint of the great projects of women’s liberation? It began with the sterility of her spiritual mission: she no longer had the time since she was snared by her professional ambition. Next came the sterility of the style of feminine attitudes: the amazon or the shrew, both losing any resemblance to feminine pity. Feminine style says a great deal about the heart of a woman and her spiritual culture. Then it was the sterility of the mind, incapable of realizing, in the abundance of her knowledge, that she had to remain a woman whatever she did. Finally, today we have the legalized sterility of woman’s maternity. On one hand the resurrection of woman’s heart on Calvary and, on the other, a cascade of successive sterilities. Why these lifeless homes, these children without education, these juvenile delinquents, these young murderers? Because women are no longer preoccupied with the transfiguring domestic virtues. These children no longer know where to go. They have no more home. We have intellectualized the life of the woman, whom Satan had led astray. It is not a question of cutting a woman off from knowledge and culture, but of remembering that her heart is responsible before all the world for that pity of which she is capable for saving, as Christ saved us on Calvary. The energies of the feminine heart, the energies of feminine decisions presuppose that woman is aware of her mystery. The law of the spirit is to be a mystery; a mystery of interiority, without exterior check, without need of an exterior life. The beauty of the woman was the mystery of the spirit descended from heaven to help Adam reTHE ANGELUS • October 2005 ascend. In spite of Satan, in spite of the Fall, God has the last word and the Redeemer summons women by pities capable of engendering life. The law of the woman is life: the spiritual life, the life of the heart, the life of the body, the life of the mind, the life of initiatives. It is the woman who has charge over life. She has the mission to be queen by her pity for a world overrun by ugliness, for a leprous world. The leprosy of the masses, the leprosy of the unreasonable materialism of the pagan mind, is fascinated with diagrams: laying out highways, plotting birth rates, etc. It is fascinated with dialectic: thesis and antithesis, but never a conclusion. It is fascinated with diagnostics and examinations even to the martyrdom of the sick brought to their grave by excess of experiments. It is fascinated with balance sheets without decisions. We are a pastiche of humanity walking addition by addition toward the final collapse of negative results. Where is our character, our personality? Where is our conscience? Our sentiments, our prayers, our supernaturalized affections? Our victories over evil? We have a fearful disdain of direct, immediate and audacious action. Where there are no more women, there is no more life in any domain. If there are no more women, there is no more devotion to Mary, there are no more priests, there is no more respect for mothers, there is no longer a “house”, there are no more promises in hearts (only trial arrangements), and there is no longer a sense of feminine pride wreathed in the honor of an ardent, apostolic celibacy. Women today may be professors, doctors, nurses or secretaries, but woman has become incapable of watching over the spiritual life. When the disinterestedness of feminine devotion has disappeared, there remains only feminine selfishness, which is an abominable thing, productive of nothing. The world is mad, of a madness dressed up as success. The world is mad for woman is driving it mad. She is driving everyone mad, so completely has she snuffed out the expression of beauty, lost by the profanation of sin. She has profaned her pity for the world. Who will have pity upon her? She remains the source of life; she will pay in her eternity if she turns it into a source mannered like the coils of the serpent. We need to find women capable of pity, that is, of resurrecting the pre-eminent values of intelligence, faith, grace, enthusiasm, purity, and moral virtue. Pity for the world and pity for the Church: both of them stand in need of the pity of sanctified women. Translated exclusively into English for Angelus Press and published in this language for the first time. Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. (say: Sheave-ray´) was ordained in 1930. He was an ardent Thomist, student of Scripture, retreat master, and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre. He died in 1984. 39 From Rumors to Tumors Letter from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Dear Friends and Benefactors, Tribulation always takes us by surprise and hurts us, whatever it may be–the brutal loss of a loved one, an accident, a contradiction, an error, the consequences of our own sins... Then we fail to control the violent emotions that agitate us. Blinded by grief, we are distraught, and, adding to our confusion, an interior voice repeats a nagging “why?” Shut up in our deep affliction, shaken by the roaring flood of our emotions and subject to the tyrannical power of our own imagination, we are impotent to answer that painful question. The recent, brief meeting between the Holy Father and the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X has suddenly provoked a flurry of rumors. This is not something new, but it deserves to be considered so as not to let ourselves be taken over by a spirit of suspicion–a distrust that is nothing else but the cockle sown by the devil who, according to the strong words September 5, 2005 of St. Peter, prowls about us like a roaring lion, seeking to devour us. The devil does prowl about us. It is obvious. But the battlefield is not restricted to attacks against faith and morals. After his fall, the devil has kept his powers, and his snares are always deadly. We must be on our guard, right and left, as the subtlety of the Beast remains undiminished. Even among us, it worms its way into our hearts through the venom of rumors. “Brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers....Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God?” (I Cor. 6:6). This warning of the Apostle also applies to all those who peddle–or invent– rumors. Such people belong to the sorry race of calumniators, who breathe but venom and bitterness, which they pour upon their neighbors under the pretense of kind concern. Rumors are a satanic weapon for those who are intent on destruction, as rumors leave in the soul of the listener a persistent, (continued on p.40) THE ANGELUS • October 2005 40 (continued from p.39) disturbing uneasiness that seems to encourage the dissemination of the “news” just received in confidence. The diabolical origin of rumors is proven by the fact that they fear to be exposed in daylight. On the contrary, they are discussed in small groups and secret gatherings, under the pretext of edifying our neighbor or of warning him against such or such person. Rumors have grown immeasurably thanks to the Internet which allows them to spread their poison throughout the whole world. Those who spread rumors pose as good apostles–but they are not. The rumors themselves are proof that those who disseminate them have souls poisoned by resentment, grudges or jealousy. If they are certain of their facts, why don’t they speak openly? They fear to be exposed in full light so much that they pass on their remarks in an ambiance of suspicion, where they are able to speak as they please of those who are absent, and to judge and condemn them without pity. Is that charity? Is that courage? True courage would be to say such important things in the open, before a large audience. But they don’t do it. They remain silent. Why? Why are they now silent who spoke so loudly in their restricted meetings? They have become Satan’s instruments and thus act like him, avoiding the light, sowing only trouble in souls. If they are certain of what they say, why do they say it as conspirators who have no greater fear than to be found out? They will have to render an account, before the tribunal of God, of their vain words, of the judgments without appeal that they have passed, attributing to themselves the roles of both accuser and judge, in contempt of any justice. They will have to answer to the Just Judge for the trouble they have caused in souls, for the reputations sullied, for the suspicions cast, suspicions that will continue to plague their victims for a long time, and for the divisions caused between individuals and families by their venomous words. What will they answer when Christ accuses them of having helped the enemy of mankind, that enemy who rejoices in the divisions that weaken the good and are an obstacle for conversions? Have they forgotten that it was the charity of the first Christians that converted the Roman Empire? All those who cultivate rumors, spread them and are nourished by them are similar to the anopheles mosquitoes that live in marshes and prey upon the men who approach them, transmitting paludism, a terrible illness that causes intermittent and violent fevers that last, in sudden attacks, for the rest of a man’s life. Our first concern must be to avoid approaching such troubled and unhealthy waters. We must refuse to venture into those marshy regions where it is not rare to die by a slow, inexorable asphyxiation of the soul. Rumors are spread by subtle insinuations, in which it is difficult to discern and separate what is true from what is false. The slogan of Voltaire could serve today as motto for those who disseminate such hearsay: “Lie, lie and lie again–something will remain.” St. John Berchmans said that all troubles come from the devil. If we apply the rules of discernment of spirits to the case of rumors, it is clear that their poisoned fruits do not come from God. The first fruit is the inquietude that gnaws into the soul. The second, more dangerous, is the suspicion that spreads throughout the members of the body as a tumor and sterilizes the work of Redemption, as it obliterates the bond of charity. Confronted by this cancer, we must react with all our strength. Half-measures are useless. We must refuse to listen to such gossip. If it is necessary, we must even avoid those persons who thus spread their resentment and hostility. Simply listening to them, even without saying anything, is already a sin–our silence encourages them and it may give the impression that we agree at least a little with them. The combat we must fight is grave. The stakes are far beyond our persons–the future of Catholicism is at stake. Are we ready to work with intelligence and determination so that our children may tomorrow still breathe the air of Christendom? If so, then let us overcome our susceptibilities, let us cease the useless quarreling that disperses our forces, and let us apply ourselves to act in truth and charity with our brethren, without distinction of persons, without gloating over their failings, but having between us the bond of perfection, that charity that excuses all, understands all, and makes us participants in the divine life. In Christo Sacerdote et Maria, Fr. Yves le Roux Fr. Yves le Roux was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1990 and is currently Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where he also teaches Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Acts of the Magisterium, and Liturgy. Reprinted with permission. Qui Pluribus On Faith and Religion (Pius IX, 1846) W E N Pope Pius IX The Man and the Myth Yves Chiron Just when everyone thought Pope Pius IX would compromise with the world, he issued Qui Pluribus (Nov. 9, 1846)–a cannon shot fired across the bow of modern Europe which proved he was anything but naive regarding the dangers threatening the Catholic Church. Pius IX alerted the world’s bishops to the errors of the day: liberalism, Freemasonry, rationalism, pantheism, naturalism, Protestantism, and Communism. These forces, he said, were “linked in guilty fellowship,” to wage a “fierce and terrible war” against the Church, divine revelation, and society. Pius lumped Protestant “Bible Societies” in with Freemasons and Communists, and decried the hypocrisy of Protestantism, which, claiming to venerate Sacred Scripture, falsely translated the Bible and further mutated the Holy Word with “perverse and erroneous interpretations...in conformity with his own private judgment.” “As a result of this filthy medley of errors...We see the following: morals deteriorated, Christ’s most holy religion despised...the authority of the Church attacked and reduced to base slavery...the sanctity of marriage infringed, the rule of every government violently shaken and many other losses....” 22pp, STK# 5312Q $3.25 Is the 19th century a blank century to you? Let the newest book from Angelus Press connect the dots from the viewpoint of the longest pontificate in the history of the Church– Blessed Pius IX. Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti is one of the most interesting and complex individuals to ever become Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. He was born in 1792, during at ls the French Revolution, lived through the Napoleonic conquests of Europe, and witnessed the unification of both Italy and the Prussian Empire. grelica His pontificate included the proclamation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception c cy Pope and papal infallibility, the convocation of the First Vatican Council, the publication of the en of Syllabus of Errors, the beginnings of Catholic Action, and the development of the foreign s IX Quanta Cura & the u missions. i Syllabus of Errors P If you want an insight into the many interesting facets of the relationship between the (Pius IX, 1864) Church and the world at the end of the 19th century, this book is for you. If you are interested This encyclical letter of in the fight of the Church against the great movements of Modernity: liberalism, Freemasonry, Pope Pius IX was promulgated the Enlightenment, laicism, capitalism and communism, this book is worth reading. If the in 1864, and the attached mention of Pius IX brings nothing to mind, you need to read this book. Chapters include: Syllabus of Errors was  The First Years  A Difficult Path to the Priesthood  From Tata Giovanni to Chile  Bishop of Spoleto  Bishop and Cardinal of Imola  Sovereign Pontiff  From Reform to Revolution  The Pope in Exile  Resistance and Renewal  The Pope of the Immaculate Conception  Pius IX and Italy  The Pope of the Syllabus  The Roman Question  The Vatican Council  The “Prisoner of the Vatican”  Towards the Canonization. The author, Yves Chiron, is a professor of history and a member of the Society of the Ecclesiastical History of France. He has authored many works in his native French, including biographies of Padre Pio and Paul VI, and is the author of the Angelus Press title St. Pius X: Restorer of the Church. 327pp, softcover, 45 photographs and illustrations, bibliography, index, STK# 8126 $24.95 W NE Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church) Pope Leo XIII simultaneously issued by the same great Pontiff to all bishops so they would see “... all the errors and pernicious doctrines which Pius IX has reprobated and condemned.” All-but-forgotten today, it ignited a “firestorm” reaction when it was first issued. The Syllabus is a catalog of 80 erroneous propositions, a list of the most common errors of modern thinking. Grouped under ten separate headings, each proposition is cross-referenced to the specific Papal document where the particular proposition was discussed–and condemned as erroneous. “Teach them that kingdoms rest upon the foundation of the Catholic faith...and that nothing is so deadly, nothing so certain to engender every ill...as for men to believe that they stand in need of nothing else than the free will which we received at birth.” 29pp, STK# 5314Q $3.45 “That they may be one–Ut unum sint” has been the rallying cry of Churchmen since Vatican II, and the explanation for the promotion of an ecumenical agenda that places “unity” before everything. But what is the nature of the unity for which the Lord prayed His heavenly Father on the way to Gethsemane? Indeed, most Catholics cannot answer with precision what exactly the Church is, the conditions for belonging to it, or its necessity for salvation. If you want a clear and concise explanation of these principles, Satis Cognitum is the place to begin. Written when popes said what they meant and meant what they said, it is free from the ambiguities which are so characteristic of late 20th-century explanations of these issues. “Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful–‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’” (Eph. 4:5). 48pp softcover, STK# 8131 $3.95 ONLYl w Th as o e t n y $2 lon’t 9. g ! 95 ! ✱ Large-Format Douay-Rheims Bible Hardcover Family Edition Features of this edition: l Douay Rheims Version–the definitive English translation of the Bible l Translated from the Latin Vulgate (diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other languages) l Full color Presentation Page l 12-page Family Record Section l Scripture “callouts” of favorite verses l White padded cover with gilded page edges l Non-acidic Bible paper l Art masterpieces of the Life of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary l The Rosary l The Way of the Cross l Origin, Inspiration and History of the Bible. ✱ Sorry, no bookstore discounts. ✱ Limited stock, order immediately or call for availability. 702pp, padded hardcover, gold-foil stamping, gilt edged, large format (8¾” x 11¾” x 2½”), STK# 8142, $29.95 Thomas A. Nelson Which Bible Should You Read? is a short, provocative analysis showing which is the most accurate, safest English translation of the Bible. Not so surprisingly, the Douay-Rheims traditional Catholic version of the Bible emerges from this analysis and comparison as the best, safest, most accurate Bible in English of the ten versions compared. 104pp, softcover, STK# 8089Q. $4.00 F Bible Sh ou Which ead? when yBible. You R e the Holy purchas 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. N Which Bible Should You Read? of y p o c ree ould Shipping & Handling