$4.45 AUGUST 2007 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition ue w conri t s of ee t in th p. es g is 44 t iss n o i t a r g i Imm “MEN! I strongly recommend any of these ten titles to you so that you do not ‘lose your head’!” (see article, pp.14-18)–Fr. Kenneth Novak Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage) Pope Pius XI Pius XI reaffirms the Church’s teaching against contraception and offers a mini “compendium of Marriage.” Using Augustine’s triplet of offspring, fidelity, and sacrament (indissolubility of marriage), Pius XI shows how these are the great blessings of marriage. 69pp, softcover, STK# 5302 $3.50 My Way of Life Walter Farrell, O.P., & Martin J. Healy A pocket-sized summary of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Perfect for spiritual reading, study, and meditation on the go. Written in the everyday language that made Fr. Farrell popular for giving St. Thomas to the man in the pew. 630pp, pocket size, leatherette cover, STK# 6561 $7.50 The New Testament To Know This pocket New Testament is small and sturdy enough to Christ Jesus hold up for years–tucked into a pocket or purse. Perfect to carry with you for “down time”–allowing you to have a moment’s consolation from the Word of God. A reprint of the reliable Confraternity edition published in 1941 with easy-to-read type and a convenient ribbon place-marker. 701pp, leatherette cover, STK# 8175 $9.95 Frank Sheed This classic is a riveting study of the life of Christ. Sheed’s wide learning, profound spiritual insight, and lucid style bring the reader to a deep personal encounter with Our Lord. This book has been called “one of the most satisfying studies of the Gospel ever made.” Christian Warfare This prayer book is guided by the Spiritual Exercises. It has this as a unifying element and is not a haphazard collection of prayers. Includes the full text of the Ignatian Retreat. Prayers, litanies, rule for the SSPX 3rd Order–it is PACKED! And only 3/4" thick! 506pp, sewn hardcover, indexed, STK# 8155 $25.00 399pp, softcover, STK# 6446 $14.95 Everyman’s Garcia Moreno Rules for Discerning Trustful Surrender How Christ Fr. Augustine Berthe to Divine Providence Changed the World It is possible to vanquish the Theology the Spirits Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle Distills the wisdom of the 30-day Ignatian retreat into 20 principles you can use to discern which spiritual influences in your life are from God and which are from the devil. Father writes from 40 years of experience as a retreat master and was the first spiritual director at Econe, handpicked by Archbishop Lefebvre. 60pp, softcover, STK# 4092✱ $6.00 Bl. Claude de la Colombiere On August 21, 2005, Fr. Kenneth Dean held this book up during his sermon and said, “NO ONE should leave this earth without having read this book.” We agree...and you will too. If you follow these instructions, you will become a Saint. Period. 139pp, softcover, STK# 8139 $7.00 Msgr. Luigi Civardi The most important agent of positive social change for the last 2,000 years has been Jesus Christ, His doctrine and His Church. Civardi explains the effect of Christianity in every major aspect of human life and the principles that bore those effects. 111pp, softcover, STK# 8022✱ $9.00 Freemasonic idea of separation of Church and State and win nations for Christ the King. Garcia Moreno, President of Ecuador, held the Revolution at bay for 15 years. He restored Christian government and merited the title “Regenerator of the Fatherland.” A heroic martyr for Catholic civilization. 401pp, 66 photos and drawings. Softcover STK# 3097✱ $17.99 Hardcover STK# 6430✱ $32.95 Leo Rudolf, O.S.B. We have never seen a book that compresses so much sound doctrine into so brief and readable a book. Amazing. A complete treatise on all the dogmatic truths of our religion. With matchless clarity it explains every doctrine from Creation to the Last Judgment. 192pp, gold-embossed hardcover, index, STK# 7096✱ $21.95 “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 August 2007 Volume XXX, Number 8 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X letter from the editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fr. Kenneth Novak PublisheR Fr. John Fullerton A three-part interview with Fr. Gregory Celier, SSPX Mr. James Vogel principles governing immigration . . . . . . . . . . 3 the rights and duties of immigration . . . . . . . . . 7 young peoples, old peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Editorial assistant and proofreading the family has lost its head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Editor Fr. Kenneth Novak Assistant Editor Miss Anne Stinnett Design and Layout Mr. Simon Townshend MARKETING Mr. Christopher McCann comptroller Miss Lisa Cavossa customer service Mrs. Mary Anne Hall Mr. John Rydholm Shipping and Handling Mr. Jon Rydholm Ed Willock oblates of the society of st. pius x . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Menzingen, Switzerland Christendom NEWS Forty years of ecumenism with the orthodox conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Angelus Press Edition Fr. Hervé Gresland catechism of the crisis in the church . . . . . . . . . 36 Fr. Matthias Gaudron Questions and answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fr. Peter Scott MAY 2007 writing contest winning essay . . . . . . . . 43 The Angelus Monthly photo writing contest . . . 44 Footnotes for “Letter from the Editor” (p.2) 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 © 2007 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. 1 5 2 6 Kansas City Star, June 4, 2007. “Scientists Create Human Embryo Without a Father, Source of Stem Cells: ‘Virgin’ Territory for British Researchers,” The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 10, 2005. 3 Homily on Christmas, 1871. 4 “Wimps and Barbarians: The Sons of Murphy Brown,” Claremont Review of Books, Vol.4, No.1, Winter 2003. Ibid. “Finding the Masculine Genius: Interview With English Professor Anthony Esolen,” Zenit News Agency–The World Seen From Rome, April 23, 2007. 7 Ibid. The Angelus Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years US $35.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) $55.00 $65.00 $105.00 $100.00 $160.00 All payments must be in US funds only. Online subscriptions: $15.00/year (the online edition is available around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features.  Footnotes on Table of Contents page Letter from the Editor “We have met the crisis and it is us.” I mean, us men. It’s beyond fatherhood, beyond manhood; it’s down to the boys. For when a boy is told to be a good boy, what should this mean to him except that he learn his masculine role and advance into practical manhood? Though girlhood and womanhood are suffering terribly, too, the crisis in Creation–in all its material and spiritual aspects–is due to the failure of men, who have rendered themselves unnecessary. In their intellectual laboratories, promoting their own freedom just to be free, they have failed their masculine nature in more ways than one, the result being that manhood and fatherhood are being redefined into nonsense. From the newest babywear announcing “I ♥ MY DADS”1 to tricking an egg to divide and make a human embryo without a genetic father,2 the mocking of God is evident even among those who should know better, that is, us. The mockery of biological fatherhood was preceded by mockery of the masculine human nature, as manifested in men’s disordered action. This is the reason for the diagrams of the last two issues of The Angelus, this Letter, the article “The Family Has Lost Its Head” (pp.14-18), and why we will keep coming back to this topic. And with the failure of fatherhood to protect itself, so the Fatherland is failing to protect itself. That’s why the three articles on immigration are fitting to this month’s issue. Lies against the True Religion have discredited all religion and all truth, even truths of nature, upon which the truths of supernature are built. The lies against the masculine nature have undermined manly convictions and effectively unmanned men. This was the conclusion of Cardinal Pie (d.1880), mentor to Pope St. Pius X: Is not ours an age of mislived lives, of unmanned men? Why?...Because Jesus Christ has disappeared. Wherever the people are true Christians, there are men to be found in large numbers, but everywhere and always, if Catholicism wilts, men wilt. Look closely; they are no longer men but shadows of men. Thus what do you hear on all sides today? The world is dwindling away, for lack of men; the nations are perishing for scarcity of men, for the rareness of men....I do believe: there are no men where there is no character; there is no character where there are no principles, doctrines, stands taken; there are no stands taken, no doctrines, no principles, where there is no religious faith and consequently no religion of society. Do what you will: only from God will you get men.3 Two lessons are essential, says Terrence Moore.4 First, a clear challenge must be issued to males, especially the young; and second, a new generation of scholars [preferably Catholic priests, I add, and blood fathers–Ed.] must teach boys how to become men and act manfully. Appeals must be made to the intellect and will of the boys, both of which are in chronic need of cultivation. By words and deeds, it must be men who make these appeals, not mommies, though well-intentioned. Manhood is a sustained act of character; it is the same as to become virtuous. To be virtuous is to be “manly.” Virtue is a “golden mean” between extremes. When manhood, as with any virtue, falls by the wayside and is no longer a lived reality, we are left with only a caricature of it. Says Marine Lieutenant Moore: Too often among today’s young males, the extremes seem to predominate. One extreme suffers from an excess of manliness, or from misdirected and unrefined manly energies. The other suffers from a lack of manliness, a total want of manly spirit. Call them barbarians or wimps. So prevalent are these two errant types that the prescription for what ails our young males might be reduced to two simple injunctions: Don’t be a barbarian. Don’t be a wimp. What is left, a third part, will be a man.5 We will take up later what defines a “barbarian” and a “wimp,” and how the Brave New Anti-culture births them. For now, suffice it to say that these definitions may surprise us, and these types often even attend the Latin Mass. The first step, however, is to make the proper distinctions, which Ed Willock does uniquely well in his article reprinted here (“The Family Has Lost Its Head”). My own sister, grown up now and with the traditional Teaching Dominicans, was famous for saying when she was a child, “Boys are boys and girls are girls.” Providence College (Rhode Island) professor Dr. Anthony Esolen writes: I see manhood as the drive to lead–to serve by leading, or to lead by following loyally the true leadership of one’s father or priest or captain. The man exercises charity by training himself to be self-reliant in ordinary things, not out of pride, but out of a sincere desire to free others up for their own duties, and to free himself for things that are not ordinary. The man also must refuse–this is a difficult form of self-sacrifice–to allow his feelings to turn him from duty, including his duty to learn the truth and to follow it. A man loves his own family, but he also loves his family by refusing to subject the entire civil order to the welfare of his family; he understands that if he performs his duty, other families besides his own will profit by it....For instance, though men are certainly wilder creatures than women–the source of both their dynamism and their destructiveness–it is men, not women, who create the civil order, as it is women, not men, who create the domestic order....If a society does not train boys to become such men, or if it does not allow mature men to form such natural alliances with other men for the benefit of civic life, it will degenerate.6 Two last thoughts come from brighter minds than mine. Lt. Moore laments that today’s boy “lacks any formal, approved rite of passage that would turn him into a man.” I guess the Sacrament of Confirmation should be just such a rite, but it isn’t for many boys. In any case, the American frontier has disappeared, the sea has lost its call, and the allmale college is either illegal or financially impractical. With the advent of the New Economy, commerce and industry have been opened up to women, causing men to lose one more arena in which to prove themselves. Moreover, says the Lieutenant, “most of the jobs offered...hardly appeal to the spiritedness in man.” Where is the male proving ground? An emasculated Church? A world without sin? Co-ed “warfare” and sports? Good questions. Boys need “againstness” in the natural and moral worlds which they must fight to overcome. But they’re not compelled to fight any more, at least not much, too often not even within Catholic Tradition. And here’s a concluding thought, straight from Prof. Esolen: We desperately need single-sex schools for boys, and we need not apologize for them, either. Boys thrive in them, and unless boys thrive, our society is finished.7 Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Kenneth Novak 3 pA rt 1 n o I t a r g I m Im A t h r e e - p A r t I n t e r V I e w w I t h F r . g r e g o r Y C e l I e r Principles Governing ImmIgratIon Immigration is currently so massive a reality that it is a hot topic of conversation, the object of many newspaper articles and political declarations of every stripe. It seemed useful to us to examine this reality and the ongoing debate about it from a Catholic perspective, firstly by setting forth a number of principles without which the discussion either goes astray or deteriorates into ideology. Father, by tackling the theme of immigration, you are plunging into one of the most hotly contested political conflicts. Is this the proper role of a clergyman? Let’s be quite clear. I don’t intend to enter the domain of practical, concrete, partisan politics. That is the purview of laymen active in politics and, in a democracy, the voters. The object of my reflection is situated above, on the level of principles, the  principles of political philosophy and the principles deriving from Revelation, in order to shed some light on an often biased debate. Immigration exists; it is necessary to deal with it, but from an authentically Christian outlook. Do the popes and theologians speak of this matter? Since the Council, this has been a theme that comes up rather frequently, notably during the “Annual Migrants’ Day.” Contrariwise, I was surprised to discover that the popes before Vatican II seldom spoke of it. There are a few texts by Pius XII, which we shall cite, but there is almost nothing before him, while the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries saw massive emigration. Aid societies were founded, but few speeches are to be found. As for theologians, the majority of them have ignored the migrations of modern times. So we have few doctrinal sources on the topic? Yes, we do have; but it is necessary to look under different topics, concerning, among other things, property, the common good, the rights of persons, duties towards one’s country, and so on. To study doctrine concerning immigration, it is necessary to do a bit of researching. Where do we start? We start by defining the word immigrant. According to the dictionary, to immigrate consists in entering a foreign country for the purpose of settling there. There is both the notion of changing countries and the notion of settlement: a tourist or visitor is not an immigrant. That being established, it is appropriate to make a few distinctions. It is often because this preliminary work is lacking that the conversation bogs down or hardens along ideological lines. What distinctions? Let’s start by specifying what immigration we are talking about. It is possible for someone to arrive in a country as a result of being violently expelled from the country of which one was a citizen. This is the case of “displaced persons,” a rather massive reality since WWII. This sad phenomenon is the result of specific measures. Or someone can enter a country having been sent there in a professional capacity by his employer. These are what we call “expatriates.” We shall not discuss them either, for very few of them stay in the host country for a long time. They are closer to tourists than to immigrants. We are focusing our discussion on persons who, of their own choice, enter a country to find a better life and, in particular, work. THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org Should all these real immigrants be put on the same level? I think it is necessary to make a further, threefold distinction. There are immigrants whom the host country invited to do certain work. There are other immigrants (the greater mass, today) that spontaneously enter the country. From another perspective, there are persons who immigrate for a limited time (even though this may be for the duration of their entire working life) with the intention of going home, and persons who immigrate without the intention of going back, fully intending to settle permanently. Finally, the third distinction, there are persons who immigrate while respecting the laws of the host country and others who enter without regard for the host country’s laws: they are usually called “illegal aliens” or “undocumented workers.” Someone who was invited to come and who entered legally obviously must enjoy superior rights to someone who enters illegally. You see right away the importance of these distinctions. Having established these, we can seek the principles that regulate the question of immigration. It seems to me that they are to be found in the Church’s doctrine on property rights. I do not quite see the relation between property and immigration. You will understand quickly enough. The theologians unanimously teach that the earth and what it encompasses was given by the Creator to mankind in general for him to dwell in and to use for his subsistence. This universal and primitive destination of the earth remains despite all subsequent appropriations. Nevertheless, solid reasons (hard work, upkeep, order, peace, etc.) have pushed mankind to adopt private property, and not exclusively collective property (which still exists in a certain number of domains: the air we breathe, science or literature, sunshine, etc.). The appropriated good becomes “private”: it belongs to such a one, and not to others. This appropriation can be the act of an individual, a family, a society (e.g., a business), but also of a city or nation that attributes to itself a definite portion of the earth (a country). That is how you get back to the question of immigration: that nation can accept or refuse the entrance on its territory of foreigners. Exactly. As the proprietor of the land it occupies, a nation can agree to share it or not with others. This is the principle of private property: I allow into my home whomever I wish. Of course, every immigration is preceded by an emigration: an immigrant is someone who has left his own country, his own nation, his family, his culture, and often  his own language. For a small number of them, it involves men with a taste for adventure. But for the majority, it involves people who are constrained to leave their own country because of poverty. It is in this context that on July 23, 1957, Pope Pius XII spoke of “the abnormal situation” of emigrants. Their misery is principally caused by a lack of natural resources, climactic catastrophes or the like, war and corrupt governments. Because of this, the immigrant’s case involves what the theologians call a “state of necessity.” What do they mean by this “state of necessity”? The state of necessity arises from the lack of something. For example, I need to get from Paris to Chartres for an urgent appointment. The train schedule doesn’t match, and I don’t own an automobile. I am in a certain state of necessity. My neighbor owns a car; he is not using it that day but he refuses to lend it or rent it to me. May I take his car against his will, considering that I am in need, and that before the existence of private property, the goods of the earth were given for the use of all men? If such reasoning were commonly followed, it would be anarchy! You see the problem: cases of a state of necessity are numerous, and if everyone suspended the laws of private property, the latter would disappear, together with all its benefits for the common good. The theologians have clarified this notion. They tell us that only a case of extreme necessity, that is, danger of imminent death, justifies the taking of one’s neighbor’s property insofar as it is necessary to save one’s own or another’s life (for example, a mother for her child). In this precise instance, earthly goods exceptionally reacquire their original status of being at the disposition of any man. So, a man dying of hunger can help himself in a store without committing theft, strictly speaking. But who defines the state of extreme necessity? The theologians explain that it is not question of a common necessity, nor even of a simply grave necessity, but of an extreme necessity, that is, of peril of imminent death or of equally serious harm (loss of a limb, etc.). The same theologians underscore that in a case of extreme necessity, one may take what is necessary for survival, but no more: the cessation of private property is uniquely relative to this state of extreme necessity. In the other cases, private property must imperatively be respected for grave reasons of the common good; otherwise, public security and confidence would be jeopardized, which would constitute significant social harm. Of course, the same theologians reiterate the duties of charity in the usage of private property: the possessors are seriously liable before God. Still, charity is not owed in justice. It would undoubtedly be an act of charity were my neighbor to lend me his car, but I cannot require him to. But what happens if the one from whom one wishes to take something is also in a state of extreme necessity? You are right to bring up such a question insofar as extreme necessity is often a social condition: for example, during a famine, everyone is hungry. In that case, the right of the actual possessor takes precedence. If only one bit of bread remains, and with it only one person can be fed and saved, the owner of the bread can keep it, even if another dies by his side. For no one is obliged to let himself die to save another. And if the other person wants to take the bread from him, the owner possesses the right of legitimate defense to preserve his life and his possession. You apply these principles of property to the question of immigration? I add another principle, which is not to be found in ordinary treatises of moral theology, but which has been put in practice by all governments, even by the popes in their temporal domain. We have said that private property is one of the means chosen by mankind to assure the common good. But it can happen in certain cases that the principle of private property can work against the common good: for example, an immense property legitimately possessed that is not being put to use by the proprietor, to the grave detriment of the surrounding populations. In this case, the public authority, which is responsible for the common good, can restrict the rights of private property in order, for example, to oblige the proprietor to concede the right to farm the land to sharecroppers in exchange for a just remittance. Such laws existed in the Roman Empire (both pagan and Christian), and even in the Papal States. Similarly, in the case of a natural catastrophe, everyone can understand that it is legitimate for the public authority to proceed with requisitions, and hence provisionally to limit the right of property. Let’s try to summarize your remarks. In the beginning, the earth was given to all mankind for its use. In practice, for reasons of the common good, the earth was in part subject to the regime of private property. However, the proprietors must use it in accordance with charity (which in any particular case cannot be exacted) and, at least fundamentally, in the framework of the common good. In a case of extreme necessity, everyone is entitled to set limits to private property by taking what is needed for one’s survival. However, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007  if the owner is also in a state of extreme necessity, he can legitimately defend himself to assure his own survival against what would be in this case an unjust aggression. That’s right. To better grasp the last case (two people in danger of death fighting over a means of survival), it is enough to imagine a lifeboat designed to hold ten people after a shipwreck. If there are only five of us in the boat, we would have a serious duty to pick up other victims to save them. If we refused to do it, they would be entitled to force their way on board (a case of extreme necessity). But when the lifeboat is packed, anyone else coming aboard would sink the boat, causing the other shipwreck victims to perish as well as the occupants of the boat. In this case, the occupants have the right to defend themselves by force against the other shipwreck survivors, even though the latter are also in danger of death. Can you apply the principles we have just summarized to the question of immigration? Let’s say that they can serve as a framework for reflection. But I would like to clarify two points, the first by remarking that immigration is not purely and simply “free.” Today the earth is not without a master; the nations legitimately possess their territory and can, within the limits of justice and charity, allow in whomever they want to. In our country today there is a veritable “immigrationist” ideology, curiously shared by extreme capitalists (in order to profit from docile, cheap labor) and by post-Marxian utopianists who act as if the earth were a vast, unowned region which must be freely shared by the most cosmopolitan, uprooted mankind possible. In both cases, it is tantamount to denying to human beings the need and the right to legitimate roots; it is to favor a shameful exploitation of unfortunates overwhelmed by misery. This union of vile exploiters and a cosmopolitan revolution [or, deracinated globalists] is rather strange. The second clarification concerns the welcome every nation must afford immigrants. Certainly, every nation is the proprietor of its territory, but it must not too readily close its borders to those who reasonably ask to enter. Pope Pius XII, and the Apostolic See in general, has insisted on this point. The reason for this insistence is that ordinarily the nations do not have superiors. Thus only a moral authority can call upon them to take into consideration not only their own immediate common good but also a share of the common good of the human race, as we said about requisitions in the case of a natural disaster. It was in these terms that, on August 1, 1952, Pius XII called for international legislation concerning immigration. THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org What were Pius XII’s arguments? The Pope first points out that the natural resources of a certain number of countries enable them to receive immigrants. On October 22, 1949, he addressed the Americans: Is the policy concerning immigration as liberal as the natural resources of a country so abundantly blessed by the Creator would allow and as the needs of other countries seem to require? To the Argentinians he said on December 2, 1956: How all this speaks of a providential abundance, of incalculable possibilities accorded by the Creator! How all that would express what might be called the maternal vocation of a people enlarging its heart to make room for all! In the Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana of August 1, 1952 (a text devoted to emigration and immigration), the Pope reiterates what he calls “the general principles of the natural law.” He speaks of “the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land,” and quotes his radio address of June 1, 1951, for the 60th anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum: Our planet...is not, at the same time, without habitable regions and living spaces now abandoned to wild natural vegetation and well suited to be cultivated by man to satisfy his needs.... Then,—according to the teaching of Rerum Novarum,—the right of the family to a living space is recognized. When this happens, migration attains its natural scope as experience often shows. We mean, the more favorable distribution of men on the earth’s surface suitable to colonies of agricultural workers; that surface which God created and prepared for the use of all. The Pope then quotes his letter to the American Bishops of December 24, 1948, on the general principles of natural law: The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Fideliter (Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp.510), with slight abridgments by Mr. James Vogel. Fr. Celier was ordained in 1986. His first assignment was to St. Michael’s School in France, where he taught for 12 years. In 1994, while still teaching, he was appointed editor of the Society of Saint Pius X’s French District’s monthly magazine Fideliter. He is also the editor of the French District’s publishing house, Clovis Publishing. n o I t a r g I Imm pA rt 2 7 The Rights and Duties of ImmIgratIon Based upon the enunciated principles and in the context of legal, authorized immigration, what should be the immigrant’s attitude towards the country that takes him in? Assimilation, equal rights, family reunification, ghettos, safeguarding national identity, etc., are the questions that inevitably come to mind, especially when massive immigration is occurring rapidly. Father, you have proposed certain definitions. Within this doctrinal framework, what can you tell us concretely about immigration? We are going to look first at the normal case, which should be the only case, that of an immigrant who enters the country legally. He is obviously bound to fulfill a certain number of duties, as is, moreover, every citizen. What kind of duties? Well, for example, he is bound to respect the law, the moral law firstly, and then the civil law. Every man is so obliged, but for the immigrant this general obligation is reinforced by a particular obligation that arises from the fact that he is the recipient of the hospitality of the country receiving him. He must also be grateful towards the host www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • August 2007  country and show this gratitude by his attitude: this is his way of practicing the piety towards the fatherland which is a citizen’s duty. As Pius XII put it on July 23, 1957, the immigrant “must be conscious of what he owes the people that welcomes him and tries to facilitate his progressive adaptation to his new way of life.” The immigrant must also do his job conscientiously, an obligation incumbent on everyone, native or immigrant; but in his case, this obligation is reinforced by the work contract that was the key to his entering the country. In short, he must be a decent and serious man, like every one, with the added nuance that, being the recipient of a generous hospitality, he is bound to be more watchful over himself. Does the immigrant have a duty to become integrated into the host country, to learn the language, and to accept local customs? The notion of hospitality will enlighten us here. When I am someone’s guest, I bend myself somewhat to his way of doing things. But this depends upon how long I’ll be staying with my host. If it is just for dinner, this accommodation will be rather superficial. If I am spending a long holiday or vacation at his home, I’ll make greater efforts. But a young lady hired to be a nanny in a foreign country, for example, obviously must model herself much more on the customs of the family receiving her. So a temporary immigrant is less obliged than a permanent immigrant? Obviously. Someone who is coming for a few months’ internship is not necessarily obliged to learn the language: in general, that would be a disproportionate investment. But it is normal that someone who wants to settle permanently in another country learn the language and know how to adopt the local customs. This is simply a matter of showing respect towards those who are sharing their riches with him. Undoubtedly, there can be exceptions because, as we all know, it is difficult to learn a foreign language after a certain age. But, as a general rule, it is evident that a long-term immigrant must study the language and customs of the host country. A certain number of countries have wisely made it a law that, to acquire citizenship (the ultimate goal of immigration), immigrants must pass tests on their knowledge of the language and customs. You have succinctly described the principal duties of the immigrant towards the host country. Does the host country have duties towards him? Of course! I remind you that we are speaking of legal immigration: the country has agreed to accept the immigrant, and in some cases has invited him to THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org come. This constitutes a form of implicit contract. The country must, for the sake of ordinary decency (we would say, as Christians, of justice and charity) as well as the implicit contract, treat him with respect, guarantee his rights, watch over him, etc. Must this immigrant enjoy the same rights as citizens? Not necessarily, quite simply because he is not a citizen. The nanny does not have the same rights as the children. For example, if the parents die, she will not receive an inheritance. But the nanny must be treated with courtesy, be given time off, receive the agreed remuneration, etc. The same holds for the immigrant. He must not be insulted, hazed, cheated, or exploited, according to the universal rule: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. It is the duty of every citizen as well as the public authority to observe this respect for the other, as is natural. Now, the immigrant cannot demand the absolute enjoyment of the same rights as the citizens because he is being received as a guest. In France, for example, he cannot vote; he cannot apply for certain jobs relating to national security. The United States goes further: the president must be born in that country. Even if he is perfectly assimilated, even if he has become a citizen, a first-generation immigrant does not possess all the rights of the native-born. Must the country foster assimilation? Everything depends on the host country’s immigration policy. If it is restrictive, it is in its interest to opt for short-term stays strictly controlled by a system of renewable visas. In this case, a superficial assimilation suffices to ensure peaceful coexistence and to keep the immigrant from becoming too attached to the host country. If, on the contrary, the country is welcoming immigrants to settle permanently, it must, to avoid the progressive dislocation of national unity, promote an adequate assimilation. However, while striving to guarantee a certain homogeneity of the population, the State must not transform itself into a totalitarian monster nor violate the most elevated rights of its citizens, especially the supernatural rights of baptism. As Pope Pius XII said on July 23, 1957, assimilation must not be effected “at the expense of natural rights and to the detriment of religious and moral values.” A Muslim State cannot force a Catholic to apostatize under the pretext that it is inhabited by Muslims. Must family reunification be authorized? Normally, a man has the right to marry and to live with his family. The exceptions to this rule must be justifiable and limited. For example, a soldier of the Foreign Legion cannot marry during his first enlistment. The purpose of this rule is to foster the soldier’s incorporation into the Legion. Likewise, for  adequate. It would be better simply to speak of distinction. There are legal distinctions between children and adults, and between men and women (for example, in the army, assignment or not to combat arms); there are also very legitimate distinctions between citizens and immigrants. What types of distinctions can a country put in place for immigrants? a limited-term work contract (for a particular job or rotation on a petroleum platform), the host country can stipulate that the immigrant must come alone. Conversely, long-term immigration is not compatible with the refusal to allow the worker to be joined by his family. The ten-year, automatically renewable work visa instituted in France in the 1970’s naturally goes together with family reunification. So temporary immigration becomes permanent immigration? Certainly. But that follows almost automatically from long-term immigration. To allow someone to spend 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in a country to work is necessarily to open the vista of his becoming a citizen. The contrary, it must be said, is unreasonable and inhumane. Thus, if a country accepts long-term immigration, then at the same time (and this is the natural law, as the popes have reminded us) it accepts the arrival of the immigrant’s family. And if the State allows children to be born there, learn the language and be educated, then implicitly it accepts the fact that this family can finally become, in one way or another, citizens. If this is not the desired outcome, then only short-term, not automatically renewable visas should be given. And if the State desires to allow it for some and not for others, then it is necessary to establish a quota system, as in the US. What you are proposing constitutes blatant “discrimination”–a word that today does not receive a favorable press. The word has taken the connotation of persecution or segregation, hence it is no longer Let’s recall one of the principles guiding our reflection. The nation is the legitimate proprietor of the territory it occupies, with its resources both natural and human; it can share them with whomever it wishes, within certain limits to which we shall turn later. The public authority is firstly and principally in charge of the common good of this nation, and not that of the other countries of the world. The public authority must therefore be sure that the welcoming of immigrants favors the common good and does not harm it. As Pope Pius XII said on March 13, 1946, “a certain restriction on immigration” is admissible, for “in this matter, it is not only the interests of the immigrants, but also the prosperity of the nation that must be consulted.” In what way? I think that the public authority must first determine the country’s capacity to accept immigrants, especially regarding employment, which is in general the immigrant’s main goal. It is entirely abnormal to allow in immigrants for work when thousands, and even millions, of citizens are unemployed and willing to take the work. That is obviously wrong and absurd. As Georges Marchais, head of the Communist party, said with common sense, “the arrival of new workers must be determined, every year, in relation to the common good and the needs of the economy.” A nation’s natural resources must equally be taken into account: a country that is just self-sufficient in food production must not allow in a large number of immigrants because it will not be able to feed them and its own population. The same can be said for lodging: it is absurd to accept hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families when a significant part of the population does not manage to find decent lodging. So the public authority must watch over the balance of the fundamental goods of the nation? That is self-evident. Mankind had to await the recent era to see politicians boast of pursuing Utopian projects flying in the face of reality. The art of the statesman, on the contrary, is the art of the possible in the service of the common good. But I think that besides the fundamental goods of a nation, there are other collective goods which the State cannot dispose of according to its own lights. I am thinking www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 10 in particular of social security. This is the inalienable property of those who have contributed to it. It seems to me abnormal to give millions of immigrants unlimited rights to Social Security payments without consulting its legitimate proprietors, namely all the workers contributing to it. Of course, an immigrant who works and contributes has a right to an equitable participation. But is it just that newcomers be automatically taken care of in a very protective manner by the system to which they never belonged? This is not done for other insurances: the immigrant does not have a right to free automobile insurance or life insurance. Why should this be different for medical insurance? Undoubtedly, it is necessary to be just, humane, reasonable. It is normal to treat well those whom one decides to take in. But it would be abnormal for the immigrant to enjoy greater advantages than the citizen simply because of his immigrant status, especial when it involves the citizen’s own property. If a country’s natural resources are sufficient, and if immigration helps development, can the public authority just open the borders? I don’t think so. Once again, the public authority is at the service of the common good of the nation as a whole. It cannot therefore stop at purely economic considerations, which is unfortunately the great flaw in the policy of many governments today. The rapid influx of a massive number of immigrants creates problems of coexistence between the groups. In the words of Mitterand, there are “thresholds of tolerance,” about which he said on December 10, 1989: “The threshold of tolerance [of immigration] was crossed during the 1970’s.” All the more so that immigrants from the same nation quite naturally tend to settle in the same place, spontaneously creating sorts of “ghettos,” potential sources of conflict with the natives. A government worthy of the name has a duty to regulate immigration to avoid these difficulties and tensions. It must control the rate of entry (to allow the first immigrants time to assimilate) and the total number admitted. Once again, a policy of quotas as it is practiced in the US, a country inhabited almost exclusively by immigrants, is a wise and balanced policy. According to you, in its search for the common good in the face of immigration, the public authority must take into consideration the nation’s capacity to assimilate immigrants, respect for the collective property of the citizens, and the equilibrium between the populations to avoid balkanization. Yes, but I think that it is necessary to go even further, onto ground upon which most politicians dare not venture too often, yet which has its importance. A nation is not an aggregate of anonymous individuals, THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org standardized and interchangeable with other men of any other nation. A nation possesses an ethnic and cultural identity which is its good, its property, and which it has the right (and even the duty) to protect and maintain. France, for example, is a white nation–or rather, let’s say, to be politically correct, “Caucasian.” In France there are citizens of African and Asiatic origin, and they are quite legitimate. But France is not a black nation, nor yellow, no more than Senegal is a white country, or Japan a black country: even though in Senegal as in Japan, there are white, yellow, and black citizens. It is normal for France to want to preserve its ethnic identity. To do that, it possesses an incontestable right to privilege Caucasian immigration, principally European, and to restrict black or yellow immigration. Your remark is a bit daring in our day of witch hunts, but one mustn’t let oneself be silenced by group think. Let’s move to the consideration of culture. France possesses a language derived from Latin: it can, for this reason, privilege immigrants coming from Latin countries, for example the Spanish or Italians (who constituted a large part of the “pied noir” community in Algeria). France possesses a history, a culture, a sensibility which it is lawful to protect by regulating immigration so as to admit only those new entrants apt to be assimilated easily. Even beyond the cultural heritage, there is at the basis of the French identity something much more important, and which the nation must protect at all costs. Namely? Its Catholic roots. The French nation began to take shape around the baptismal font of Rheims, and it developed over the centuries through a constant union between the Church, the monarchy, and the people. Certainly, the Revolution and its consequences, notably the Separation of Church and State of 1905, broke the juridical bond between the Catholic faith and French nationality. Certainly, the progressive dechristianization, largely fomented by Freemasonry, sapped the vital forces of its Catholicism. Nevertheless, the French people, in its instinctive reactions, its way of thinking, speaking, acting, envisioning the world, remains profoundly marked by Catholicism. It is legitimate to want to preserve these roots and to privilege the immigration of persons coming from Catholic countries like Ireland, Poland, Portugal, or Quebec, rather than persons coming from Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim countries, and so on. Translated exclusively by Angelus Press and slightly abridged by Miss Anne Stinnett from Fideliter (Jan.-Feb., 2007, pp.17-22). pa rt 3 n o i t a r g i Imm 11 Young Peoples, Old Peoples Legal immigration is just the visible face of a much more massive phenomenon, that of illegal immigration, which could even be called an “invasion.” Is it permissible to refuse or repulse the unfortunates driven from their own countries by misery? Father, you have defined the duties as well as the rights of the legal immigrant. You have also enounced the rights and duties of the host country. But today it is illegal immigration much more than legal immigration that is the problem. To approach this difficult question, let’s try to understand better the reasons for emigration and immigration. The principal cause of emigration, as we have said, is poverty, misery. Now what are the causes of immigration, that is, the choice to enter one country rather than another? There are two obvious reasons, and two less obvious. First, immigration is desired by the host country to obtain workers to fill the jobs that the citizens don’t do (hard work, paltry pay, difficulties, etc.). Secondly, immigration is chosen by the immigrant. The obvious reason that comes to his mind is the peace and prosperity of the host country. Then there are two less obvious reasons. The first is our demographic depression. As I said, politics is the art of the real. It is a “biological” reality, I would say: a country whose population is stagnating, diminishing, or aging, creates a vacuum for younger, more active, poorer peoples. However you look at it, the fact cannot be escaped: a rich country like France, if it refuses to have children, will necessarily have immigrants. The second reason comes as a corollary of the first: a country that no longer has children is a country that has lost confidence in itself, its culture, its history, its values. It is thus willingly a cosmopolitan country, cosmopolitanism being, not a generous and reasonable 12 welcome of others, but rather the nonchalance that is a prelude to death. The immigrants sense that, in this depressed country, they can keep their own customs while benefiting from the local wealth, for the natives no longer have a zest for life and camouflage this death wish beneath a false notion of welcome and sharing. Your vision is hardly optimistic, but it seems unfortunately realistic. For me, when a prosperous country suffers from a real and persistent problem of immigration, the causes are more internal than external. The globe is big, you know: why would immigrants choose a particular country if they were not sure of being taken in and of making a niche. A strong country, proud of its values, young mentally and demographically, whose citizens are ready to make themselves respected, will know how to regulate immigration. A country aging mentally and demographically because of its refusal to give life and to believe in itself, is an easy prey for the uncontrolled migratory masses. Let’s get to illegal immigration, which is at the center of all the debates. The political action must be effected at the source. Sending back the illegal immigrants does not constitute a policy; working to change things in the countries of origin so that they do not want to leave home could constitute a solution. As long as the life of the citizen in his own country is worse than the life of an illegal immigrant exploited by the slave drivers of the sweatshops, then the tide will continue to rise: no one is going to choose to die of hunger in his own country when he knows that he can live, however badly, in another country. As a politician openly fighting against immigration in France (and who is persecuted for it) said, “You cannot build walls to the sky.” The target country of immigration must act at the source to remove the desire to leave. This used to be called cooperation; now it is called codevelopment. It is better to invest in helping a country attain prosperity and retain its people than to spend billions trying to keep unfortunate people from trying to enter our country, which they will always succeed in doing because misery engenders energy, patience, and cunning. There is a lot of talk about cooperation or codevelopment, but nothing seems to be happening. First of all, there is a problem here. Political and journalistic habits have gradually imposed a very shortterm horizon on political discussion, gestures preferred to long-term actions, the only kind that can be effective. Some publicize “charters” to show that they are fighting against illegals; others subscribe to “regularization” to show that they are treating the problem humanely. Some call for “abolishing the debt” of poor countries, etc. These measures do not constitute a policy any more than painkillers can cure sickness. Expulsions are THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org necessary; regularizations are necessary; forgiveness of debt is necessary; but only as nuances in a long-term policy, the only kind that can be effective. The countries of emigration are not necessarily very “cooperative” in accelerating their development. That is a problem. The decolonization in the postwar period did not go very well. It took place at a time when the European peoples were demoralized. As a result, we left without provision, with a parting “Now get along without us!” That said, some people with the same level of resources and education as others at the start, took charge of their future and succeeded in rising from misery or in avoiding it, while others gradually sank into “underdevelopment.” When I was young, we had to make sacrifices during Lent for “the poor little Indians.” Now this country has undergone its green revolution, and now we are told that it will be one of the economic giants of the 21st century. The same was never said of black, sub-Saharan Africa, a continent that contains, nonetheless, immense resources. Yet today, it is a locus of misery and the source of a continuous stream of immigration. But these countries’ misery is caused first of all by their own widespread corruption, the negligence of leaders, inter-tribal strife, and, lastly, by power struggles. That’s true. In that regard, codevelopment is not easy. And the time lost in vain talk over the last 40 years has not helped anything. But France still possesses a certain moral authority, an administration, an economy, an army. By really applying ourselves with a political vision, in the long run it would really be possible to help the populations stay home, because they would be happier there than in a foreign land. After that, it would be necessary to address wisely and humanely the residual immigration, which would not represent the grave problems posed by massive immigration today. However, even with codevelopment, it could happen that the population of one country in a state of misery might invade another country en masse. That’s what former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing called “invasion immigration,” when he declared on September 21, 1991: “The kind of problem we are facing has shifted from immigration to invasion.” The author Jean Raspail imagined such a scenario in his 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints. In the novel, the target country is also in a state of extreme necessity. It obviously cannot suddenly take in millions of foreigners. It has no lodging, food, or employment for them. In such an event, the target country has a real right to legitimate defense, even against people who are objectively in misery and suffering. The images of an t 13 army preventing by force hordes of unfortunates from entering a country in danger of their ruining it would be very unpleasant, but weakness in this case would endanger the inhabitants without saving the would-be immigrants. We are considering a rather unusual case, undoubtedly, but which in part is the reality, even today. You are preaching a right to self-defense? A people has an incontestable right to protect itself against an immigrant influx that turns into an invasion. We have said along with the popes: the welcome in principle must be generous, because the earth was created in the beginning for all of humanity, and a majority of the immigrants knock at the door in order to escape their wretched condition. On the other hand, the territory belongs to the nation that inhabits it as its property, and it can receive whom it likes. It is incumbent on the political authority to defend the common good of the nation itself before the good of other men or of the world. This public authority must put in place a humane, just, and generous immigration policy, but it must also be prudent, reasonable, and wise. Now, it would be neither reasonable nor wise nor just to let entire peoples flood into the nation out of sheer laxity to the grave detriment of the country of origin, of the host country and nation of which the leaders are only the representatives. Has an illegal immigrant any rights? That’s the way the subject is framed nowadays, but this question is skewed from the start. For the term used (illegal) in itself excludes any right; but the illegal is not only an illegal, he is, for example, a human being. So if I answer that he has no rights, then I am inhumane; if I answer that he possesses certain rights, they are applied to his illegal status. I think that it is necessary to invert the question, and to ask what are a country’s duties towards the illegal alien. We have the duty to make him return to his own country, but in a just and humane way. If the illegal alien has been there for 10 or 20 years, is it still just to deport him? You are bringing up a question of juridical status. Everyone knows the maxim: “Supreme justice becomes supreme injustice.” For example, it is good to punish a malefactor. But if he is not caught, after a certain lapse of time, to punish him (which would be just per se) risks causing even greater injustices. That is why the law posits a limitation: for example, in France, there a statute of limitation of 30 years for murder. It may be wise to establish a statue of limitation for immigration violations. The law could stipulate that an immigrant having remained undetected in the country for 20 years, for example, could be regularized. But let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with the illegal alien’s right; it involves, rather, a rule set for the sake of the common good. That is why statutes of limitation vary from country to country. Why are the current European governments so ineffectual against the phenomenon of immigration? Each one is the guardian of its laws. Despite the moralizing proclamations, a people that has lost the will to live will necessarily be submerged by young, courageous, prolific peoples. The rest is nothing but fiction and warm feelings. A people that no longer wants to do hard work will be invaded by the immigrants who come to do them. A people that no longer wants to have any children will be invaded by more prolific immigrants. A people that no longer wants to defend itself will have an army of immigrants. Such is the hard law of life: there is no place at the banquet of humanity for old peoples. Is there a solution? There are palliatives, of course. The slower the rate of immigration, the better the chance of assimilating the immigrants without altering the personality of the host country. Slowing down immigration is a way of gaining time. But the solution is the renaissance of our peoples: by demographic growth, by the taste for work, by the love of one’s own values, by fidelity towards our history. And also by an effective political policy of codevelopment to enable the poor populations to stay at home in peace. But for such a renaissance, it would be necessary to reverse the direction of the infernal machine put in place some 130 years ago. An infernal machine? The one the “Republicans” of 1875 devised. They wanted France to cut her ties to the Church while at the same time keeping her Christian morals. They wanted the French to stop being Catholics but remain decent, hard-working, patriotic, polite, and obedient. Only, when you cut the tree at its roots, you mustn’t be surprised to see it die. Undoubtedly, a little time will pass before it weakens and breaks. But one stormy day, this tree will fall on its owner’s house. The French who were taught that there is no God finally drew the conclusions: “No God, no master.” Why be honest if there is no Divine sanction? Why work if one can live without working? Only a restoration of Christianity could give our people back a taste for eternal life, and before that for life on earth. The question of immigration is certainly a political question. But it is pre-eminently a more serious, pre-political question. Does our people still have a zest for life and to be itself, and to make proportional efforts to that end? If it surrenders to the gentle sleep of decline, it will ineluctably end by disappearing, submerged by young peoples demanding their piece of the cake of life. Translated exclusively by Angelus Press and abridged by Miss Anne Stinnett from Fideliter (Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp.29-35). www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 1 From INTEGRITY Magazine Marriage is a happy relationship because of the difference between the sexes, not because they are similar. Differences in being mean difference of status. Men and women are clearly different physically and psychologically. These differences combine to make the man the leader in any household. The two causes for the failure of men to lead their family are 1) female immodesty and male incontinence, and 2) the man’s intellectual irresponsibility. The Family Has Lost Its Head E d W i l l o c k The rhyme about Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sprat and their divergent tastes in meat is a refreshing relic from some earlier day when it was considered more important that mates should be complementary than that they should be similar. The fact that Jack could eat no fat and the Mrs. eat no lean, is as apt and typical a condition of marital dissimilarity as one could find. My wife abhors sugar in her tea, whereas I dislike cream. My friend’s wife loves brilliantly colored furnishings, while he prefers neutral shades. This divergence in tastes, rather than making married life difficult, is the factor most contributive to its preservation as an institution. Diversity makes for beauty. In this factor we see but one in a legion of reasons why the idea of the family and the true relation of its parts is almost incomprehensible to the modern mind. In the modern scheme of things the concept of unity is not that which one finds in an organism such as a flower or a vine, but rather that kind of unity found in a heap of ashes. Instead of dissimilar things brought to a common fruition by a sharing Available from Angelus Press 200pp, softcover, STK# 6721, $13.00 The ANgelus • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org y 1 of functions, the modern unity is achieved by the reduction of all things to their elemental form. The relations of persons is no longer a meeting of minds, but a wedding of valences, or, in marriage, the reconciliation of metabolisms. Consequently the solution to divorce is not the marriage of likes, but marriage based upon a concept of life that finds order and beauty in diversity. The sole requirement for pairing off under such a concept would be that the man be manly, the woman, womanly, and both more or less willing to accept the fact that the children would be childish. All that needs to be common to a man and wife is a common Faith, common sense, a common bed and board, and common children. Beyond this, all other common interests can only cement the marital bond, if they are interests normally common to either sex. To the peril of the institution of the family, men are seeking to build the common bond upon those habits of the man and woman, which by their nature should remain autonomous. Rarely sharing a common Faith, the marital expert insists that the mates read the same books or smoke the same brand of cigarettes. Commonly lacking common sense, the man and wife are counseled to share the same intellectual prejudices. Frequently lacking a normal quota of common children, the couples are advised to baby each other, and play the same games. Now if the basis of marriage harmony is playing the same games, you may be sure that it will be a losing game, and one in which it will be more and more the custom for one child to pick up the marbles and look for another playmate. To say that marriage is companionship is the same kind of lie as saying that Christ was a good man. If that is all that He is, or all that it is, then the human race has been victim of a malicious fraud. If marriage is a question of a man leaving a number of male companions to cling to one female companion, then marriage is a mad institution indeed. It is just a mad kind of card game in which the dummy has the children; it is a kind of tennis match in which the children are the balls and love is a way of keeping score. It is a race in which the human race is bound to lose. Marriage is a wonderful thing that only God could have invented. The Church compares it with the union between Christ and His Church, for there is no other comparison on earth to do it justice. This should serve as warning to us that we should approach a study of marriage with great humility, realizing at the outset that this institution has only the faintest resemblance to the modern substitute falsely classified under the same title, and listed in the same book at City Hall. St. Paul has something to say about marriage which is of more than passing interest. The Church, in her wisdom, has incorporated it into the nuptial Mass. The good saint says, “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord: for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church. He is the Savior of His body; therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in all things.” On the basis of this testimony, with that nasty dogmatism so characteristic of Catholics, I present the statement without debate that “the man is head of the family.” This is a conclusion hardly substantiated by statistics. Generally speaking, the American male is not the head of the family. This difference between the counsel of St. Paul and the evidences of our senses in the matter of masculine headship is of prime importance, if we are intent upon reforming the family. The restoration of all things in Christ must include, well up on the agenda, the restoring of the man to his proper position within the family economy. The Differences Between the sexes The most obvious fact and consequently the one most overlooked except by simpleminded Christians, is that marriage is a happy relationship because of the difference between the sexes, and not because they are similar. The proper end of marriage is the propagation of children and depends, it has been whispered, on functions peculiar to each sex. This evokes a problem very upsetting to the equalitarian. Difference of function implies difference of status. You cannot say that a woman is the equal of a man, any more than you can say that an apple is the equal of a peach, unless you have a different definition of equality from the rest of mankind. This difference between the sexes is not only physical, but also psychological, and it is because of these natural differences, and not because of any ecclesiastical decree that man is the normal head of the family. Man’s physical qualifications for the job of headship are seldom questioned. His superior physical strength makes him the logical breadwinner, and for obvious reasons the breadwinner should be the head of the family. Women, during long periods of pregnancy and while nursing, are dependent. This dependency indicates the function of the man. The head of the family must be independent. Adequate as these reasons may be for the establishment of headship, it is more the psychological peculiarities of the man which indicate his proper function as husband and father. The outstanding male tendency is to be objective. The man can more readily stand off and consider a thing apart from its relation to himself. In a woman this quality, though possible, is rarely developed. She, on the contrary, is personal and tends to measure all things with her heart. For that reason she is more readily sympathetic and willing to serve. It is this tendency, when brought to virtue, which makes a woman the warm, pulsating heart of the family. When she is free to do so, a woman gravitates to www.angeluspress.org The ANgelus • August 2007 16 certain interests and occupations different from those which capture the fancy of man. Seldom is she interested in those sciences which demand the utmost in objectivity. The fields of theology, philosophy, mathematics and academic law have been, and always will be, the fields of the man. Anything which requires human sympathy and selfless friendship will be most attractive to women. Women succeed as novelists, on the whole, because of their easily stimulated sympathies, and wherever the male novelist is superior, it is usually because of philosophic content. Since man’s objectivity makes him more interested in universals than particulars, the composition of music and the making of art objects in their purest form, will always be predominantly male occupations. It is neither by accident nor conspiracy that women have always been homemakers, nor is it male arrogance to say that that is their proper place. The female temperament is most happy surrounded by particular and familiar creatures on which she may be free to exercise her tremendous capacity for loving devotion. To tell a man that he is illogical is as much an insult as to deny a woman’s intuitive abilities. Wives will always say, “John Jones, you make me mad. You’re always so coldly analytical!” The husband will eternally retort, “But you are always jumping to conclusions!” This is the method proper to each for attaining a deeper understanding of truth. The combination of the logical genius of man and the intuitive genius of woman is one of God’s most beautiful syntheses, and it is the natural gift upon which the parents’ authority to teach the children is based. Man’s other tendencies are a consequence of his objectivity, and his physical prowess. He is by nature aggressive and direct. It is his to initiate and to envision. The woman is by nature more retiring, satisfied to find strength in her husband’s protection. She is circumspect, using devious methods to gain her ends, resorting to tact or diplomacy as expedient instruments. All of these innate characteristics help us to determine man’s proper place in society and in the home. Difficult to Prove What I have said here is not all that can be said about the relation of the man and wife in marriage, and you can’t prove any of it by the isolated case of John Dee or Mary Daa. It would be even difficult to prove the aptness of categorizing male and female temperaments in this way, by taking a poll among your friends. That is the sad part of it! There is a condition in modern times which, for lack of a better word, I will call feminization. It is a condition both in the family and in the community which is the result of a preponderance of feminine virtue being exercised under circumstances that demand the masculine approach. The blame, if there were any advantage THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org to placing it anywhere, is upon the men. The women are not usurping the places of the men, nor would denying them that questionable privilege solve anything. Wives and mothers are being forced to take over the throne from which the husband and father has abdicated. The man has become inoperative. Where it is the function of the woman to be heart and center of the family, it is the function of the man to relate his family to the rest of society for the mutual benefit of all. This relating of the family to the community is the root foundation of the married man’s vocation. This is his field, his domain. If the man does not control this field then the woman must, and the result will be a disregard for the common good and an over-emphatic concern for the well-being of the individual family. Since the well-being of the individual family should proceed from the common good and not merely be a sum total of all the individual goods, an overconcern for the individual family’s welfare will bring about a state of affairs spelling chaos for the whole society. There is a normal tension between the man and wife in regard to the question of the common good. It is the kind of tension that makes for balance. The woman will usually place the good of her family first. For her to do so is normal. The man, if he is truly head of the family, realizes that his family’s well-being depends upon the common good and thus will make the common good the first end of his work. With him, that sense called “social consciousness” will not be merely a part-time hobby, but the motivating force in everything he does. When called upon to do so, he will even jeopardize his family’s welfare in order to serve the common good. Men have always done this in time of war. It may sometimes be asked of them in time of peace. Today, faced as we are with the need for reorganizing the social order, this responsibility to serve the common good cannot be shirked if we are to avoid complete disaster. As it was of St. Joseph, the greatest praise for a man is that he be a “just man.” The masculine temperament, being objective, logical and direct, is a fitting occasion for the virtue of justice. This is the virtue most lacking in persons and their affairs today. We have evidence of charity, goodwill, emotional sympathy on the part of many people, all of which fail to compensate for the lack of justice. It is typically feminine to be sympathetic for the lot of the impoverished. It is typically masculine to crusade against the injustices which are the root causes of the deprivation. Matriarchy The average American family is approaching a matriarchy. Sons are adopting the virtues of their mothers for lack of a substantial display of masculine virtue by the fathers. The movies, radio and comic strips have all adopted this theme of masculine 17 inferiority in the home, and it rings appallingly true to life. Among the faithful in the Church, it is as evident as elsewhere. The expression of the Faith today is primarily private devotion and not public apostolicity, and it is the former that appeals most to women and the latter which appeals most to men. Even the parochial men’s groups have taken on a feminine flavor, hardly relieved by an occasional “Sport Nite.” Not the least misfortune that results from this feminization is that these male parochial groups act as buffers between the clergy and other men who, though possibly less pious, possess an aggressive masculinity ripe for conversion to the apostolate. The constant and endless regard of today’s good husband for the well-being of his family, so that he saves from the time of their birth for the education of his children, while his neighbor’s children starve, or while his local political system grows corrupt, or his Faith goes unchampioned, or his brother is exploited, is a sign of the times. It is goodness measured by the standard of the wife, and thus she is the actual head of the family. This is not good headship measured by any objective standard. Such a father may leave an inheritance of wealth to his sons, whereas what they need most is masculine virtue lived out for their emulation. The son in such a matriarchy of predominately feminine concerns, becomes one of those lads whose lack of masculine virtue has been called “momism.” Under stress he becomes inoperative for lack of the soothing hand of a tender woman on his brow. He is of little use to the army, and is poor material for Catholic Action. Unless he mend his ways, the son of such a father will prove to be a greater handicap to his future wife than was his dad. He will be just another child for his wife to care for. Until men go back to the masculine pursuits of devotion to the common good, relating the talents of their children to that end, they will fail to fulfill amply the office of head of the family. The Causes The cause of a lapsed fatherhood is not difficult to find. I think there are two root causes. The first is immodesty on the part of women and incontinence on the part of men. The second is intellectual irresponsibility bred by modern methods of work. Modesty and continence go hand-in-hand. Without either or both virtues men become the slaves of women. The natural tendencies to sexual promiscuity and feminine coquettishness as consequence of original sin, have been aided and intensified by the popular use of contraceptives. Previous to their widespread distribution, male continence was encouraged by women if not by the moral law, for fear of the social tragedy of bearing illegitimate children. Nature, permitted to take its course, rendered a punishment that few women would dare risk incurring. Thus for reasons of respectability as well as morality, certain social precautions were taken to save men from themselves. The most effective of these was modesty in dress. Another was the custom of chaperons, both good Christian customs. The manufacture of contraceptives (made possible by mass-production methods) changed all this. There was nothing to fear now but God (which is ironic, because if God were genuinely feared, neither contraceptives nor mass-production would ever have come into existence!). Women set out to be attractive, and men gave up trying to be continent. The whole social attitude toward woman changed so that today a pious virgin can dress to the point of being indistinguishable from a harlot without evoking any comment more adverse than a whistle. This change in the character of womanhood drastically revised the common attitude toward marriage. Having children became arbitrary. The female instrument of contraception placed the decision for having children on the shoulders of the mother. It became her prerogative to say how few children she should have. When you add this fact to the obsolescence of the male virtue of continence, it is no wonder that the modern male has become subservient. We would be astonished to discover how many kept women decide the policies of our nation, due to the judicious use of their wiles and the extreme vulnerability of incontinent men. Wherever the Catholic family continues to maintain the Christian principles of morality in relation to the marriage act, it has to be done unaided by social customs and habits of the same order. Although a wife may be of good will, she may still subscribe to the current social views on female decorum wherever they do not obviously clash with morality. She may still feel that children are arbitrary and encourage the practice of Catholic (?) birth control indiscriminately and for motives hardly sufficient to warrant so dangerous a practice. The man may consider his wife an exception while continuing to hold the current views toward womanhood. This will not only try his fidelity, but also make him unfit to guide his growing sons and daughters. Private virtue in regard to chastity will always be seriously threatened until it is accompanied by public customs of morality. The second cause of the loss of male headship may very well be a remote consequence of the first. It is otherwise difficult to explain why men have for so long tolerated a social system so detrimental to the fulfillment of their vocations. The concentration of productive property in the hands of a few has left the average husband no alternative but to let himself out for hire. He no longer possesses either the skills, the property, or the tools to set his own motives or standard of work. Returning home from an office where all his conquests have been of doubtful merit to the community at large, or from a factory where his efficiency is measured by mechanical standards, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 18 he can maintain dominion over his family only by reversing the habits which have characterized his day. What virtues he does possess can only be revealed to his children under home circumstances much more favorable to his wife. He finds himself helping her in tasks of her own invention, doing work which she initiates. In the eyes of the children and his wife, he soon assumes a subordinate role. It is small wonder that the suburban husband, in more cases than one, seems somewhat less formidably masculine than his wife! To Reassure the Ladies A casual glance at the foregoing arguments might lead my lady readers to arm themselves against a turbulent and bloody revolution espoused by the menfolk. Housewives might run to the dry goods store for scarlet draping material to match the color of the blood soon to be shed in their living rooms. Dear old dad, they may suspect, will go about like some Charles Laughtonesque lion seeking whom he may devour. Becoming once again the head of the family might go to father’s head. By contrast, with the new regime, the Barretts of Wimpole Street will be considered a family with a hen-pecked father. For that reason, before jumping to such conclusions (or, if you will, arriving at intuitive perceptions), I hope that the ladies’ glances will be more than casual. Whatever a male headship may add to a household will be something more satisfying than bruises or broken heads. It might be that peace of mind so vainly sought by neurotic matrons in the book of that same name. At any rate it will be a state of affairs which a more sane people than we considered normal. Whatever the specific remedy may be, the general prescription is this. Men must return to the concept of manhood in which each man is considered to have a mission to fulfill. This mission is related to first, the honor and glory of God; second, the common good, and third, to his specific contribution to each. In the work of fulfilling this mission, some men take a helpmate so that in one flesh and one mind and one heart, they may more effectively accomplish this mission. As a result of this holy union, children are born. These children, in turn, are educated by word and deed to a physical, intellectual and spiritual maturity so that they, too, may take up the mission to which God has called them. As you can also see that it calls for a kind of apostolicity, and more than that, a conversion. Without this Christian concept the family has only half a meaning, and that is the woman’s half. When only this half-meaning is known the children are all dressed up with no place to go. They are prepared, but no one knows for what. Everyone is getting ready for a great occasion which never happens. The meaning that the man gives to the family is purpose, direction, motive and end. THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org When groups of families get together to discuss these things, Christ will be there in the midst of them, and so, too, Mary and Joseph. The job of the men will be to discover what their specific missions are. The job of the women will be to discover how they can best assist their husbands in the accomplishment of their missions. As time goes on with corporate discussion and personal meditation, the men will see, as their Holy Father has, that their vocations must be part of the Church’s crusade to restore the affairs of men to Christ. This will become the end which gives meaning to their every act. What was first an evening spent in companionable and neighborly discussion, will become for them a new way of life. As they look back on their lives they will see as its milestones, not their first pair of long pants, or their school graduation, or the first dollar they earned, or the first time they met their wives, but rather they will see those magnificent steps to maturity in Christ, baptism, penance, the Eucharist and matrimony. The work which fills the days of these men will fall under greater scrutiny. They will reform it to coincide with the laws of charity and justice courageously without fear of consequence, knowing how ridiculous and imprudent it is to seek security elsewhere than in the furtherance of God’s Will. They may conclude that the work they are now doing is without merit and directed solely toward the profit of the owners at the expense of the common good. Then they will consider ways and means to abstract themselves from that job, so that they may better use the talents that God has given them for His purpose. These are the things that men can do to regain the headship of the family. You may wonder that I have said little about religious practices or the cultivation of virtue. Can it be that I am putting too much emphasis on the social problem and not enough on the problems of the spirit? That is not my intention. Once men have become aware of the magnificent mission to which they have been called, they will hunger for the Eucharist as they have never hungered before. Their virtue will not be cultivated merely by quiet spiritual exercises, but rather come as the consequence of Christ acting through them in their daily apostolate. With a new purposefulness, the new Christian man will lift his fellows from the quiet desperation of their lives, and in acting Christ-like, he will be setting for his children an example which is the crowning glory of fatherhood. Ed Willock was born in South Boston in 1916. A football accident kept him laid up for five years during which time he taught himself cartooning and devoured Chesterton’s writings. The Church’s Last Sacrament unexpectedly gave him an extension of life. He used this borrowed time to marry, have ten children, build his own house and lavish his talents on Integrity magazine which he founded along with Carol Robinson in the 1940’s. Integrity’s specific purpose was to examine the relationship between religion and life in the modern world, using for light the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. He was one of the founders of the Catholic community Marycrest, New York. He died in 1961. Menzingen, Switzerland Traditional Religious Orders The Oblates of the Society of Saint Pius X What does the word “oblate” mean? 19 According to the Latin etymology, oblata comes from the verb to offer; hence the term Oblate means offered. The word both summarizes and expresses our whole vocation. Indeed, more than a simple name among so many religious families, is not the name Oblate in itself a call for the total gift of oneself? This is what every novice should understand when, on the day of her oblation, kneeling at the foot of the open tabernacle, united with Our Lady of Compassion, she gives to God her offering as a victim with the Divine Victim: I make to Thee the offering of my person, of my life, of all that I have, of all that I am, for Thy greater glory, O my God, for the salvation of my soul, the salvation of all souls, and very especially for the sanctification of priests and of future priests. (Act of Oblation) 20 What is the relationship of the Oblates to the Society of Saint Pius X? In 1973, in the “Letter to Friends and Benefactors No.5,” Archbishop Lefebvre was asked the question: “Does the Fraternity consist of several different families?” He replied: It consists of priests and future priests, then auxiliary Brothers, Oblate Sisters, and soon, we hope, religious Sisters of the Society.... Finally, we hope, by the grace of God, to extend the spiritual blessings of the Society to the lay persons in the world.” In 1980, with the birth of the Third Order of St. Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre saw the realization of his Work as he had conceived it with the four families of the Society. When these four branches of the Work are enumerated, an order of precedence being always necessary for the classification of persons and things, it has become customary to place the Oblates as the third family, the first being the priests, Brothers, and seminarians; the second, that of the Sisters of the Society; and the fourth, that of the Third Order. Who founded the Oblate Sisters? Founded by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, the family of the Oblate Sisters of the Society came into THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org being in 1973. Forced by her conscience to leave her religious community, which had become unfaithful, a French hospitaller Sister, Sister Marie Bernard, knocked on the door at Ecône. Others did not wait long to do the same thing, and so our Society was born. In the beginning, the Oblate Sisters were nuns who were canonically liberated from their obligation vis-à-vis their respective congregations and desirous of protecting their religious life from the post-conciliar debacle. Soon enough, they were joined by women of mature age who were freed from their duties and desirous of sanctifying themselves by contact with the Society and devotion to its works. Currently, as the crisis in the Church persists and creates new needs, our recruitment tends to modify itself: a new and more flexible structure makes it possible for other vocations to find grounds in which to flourish. Do the Oblates have their own hierarchy? No, the Oblate Sisters do not have their own hierarchy. This distinguishes them from most congregations of women like the Sisters of the Society, which, notwithstanding their name and the strong spiritual ties to our Society, are juridically independent. As full members of the Society, like the Priests and Brothers, the Oblates have no Superior General elected from their ranks. St. Therese Novitiate, Salvan, Switzerland Chant Class The Superior General of the Society, currently Bishop Bernard Fellay, directs us. It is under his authority that we make our oblation, remaining at his disposal for the needs of the Society. In our priories, the Prior directs our Sisters. If the community of Oblates in the house consists of more than three members, the Superior General may designate a Superior after consultation with the Prior. What is the difference between a Religious and an Oblate? According to the very terms of our Statutes, drafted by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1982, the Oblate Sisters form “a society of common life without vows, but with a promise (engagement) like the society of the priests of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.” What does this mean? First, we should carefully distinguish between, firstly, the gift made to God, the essentially voluntary act of the person who offers her or his life, his or her entire activity. (This is an act that 21 can very well take place privately in one’s inner conscience.) Secondly, the exterior and positive regulation of Mother Church, the fruit of her experience. When we follow the history of the Church, we observe the development from the general and traditional concept of monasticism (with stability and the solemnity of vows) to the most recent forms of “States of Perfection.” Indeed, across the ages, without abandoning anything of the monastic tradition, which keeps its privileged place, new religious families have been founded according to structures that are more and more supple. Freeing themselves from external forms, which are certainly very important but not indispensable, these new forms of religious life have kept only the essence of a life completely given to God, accepted and approved by the Church. And so, beside the “canonical state of perfection, strictly speaking”–the perfect types of the state of perfection (the Orders of solemn vows and the Congregations of simple vows)– Canon Law defines as a “second canonical state of perfection” the societies of common life without vows. Lacking several juridical elements necessary to the constitution of the canonical state of perfection strictly speaking, such as the public vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, these societies nonetheless possess other qualities that belong to the essence of the life of perfection. In a word, according to Church law, if these societies are not in the strict sense religious institutions, nor their members clerics, they are nonetheless included or assimilated in the Code. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 22 Being Oblate Sisters as His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre wanted us to be, we have a well-defined place in the Society and in the Church. Was this not the way traced out for us, for example, by the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, who, according to the explicit desire of their founder, have never been religious in the canonical sense of the term? What is the spirituality of the Oblate Sisters? The spirituality of the Oblates is that of the Society, which is the very spirit of the Church, whose heart is the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross renewed each day on our altars in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. “The holy Mass is thus the inexhaustible source of our spiritual and religious life” (Statutes). Our entire day is immersed in the Blood of the Lamb, fixed as we are by our Oblation at the foot of the Cross through the Holy Office–Prime, Sext, and Compline–meditation, rosary, spiritual reading, and personal prayer. “They will be happy to participate in the Sacrifice of Our Lord, like Our Lady of Compassion, standing at the foot of the Cross” (Statutes). To contemplate Jesus on the Cross with the spirit of Mary: this is the true vocation of an Oblate: She will add, in a special way, as the intention of her spiritual life, compassion THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org with the sorrows of Jesus on the Cross, with the picture of Our Lady of Compassion, the Oblates’ Patroness–for the redemption of souls, for the holiness of priests, for her own sanctification. (Statutes) “For the priests”: members of a Society whose goal is the priesthood, and everything related to it: it is above all for the priests that we must sanctify ourselves. Indeed, when addressing the Oblate Sisters of Ecône on the Feast of Our Lady of Compassion, April 10, 1981, Archbishop Lefebvre explained the spirituality of the Oblates: ...And so you, dear Sisters, [are] auxiliaries of the priests; auxiliaries, not only with your hands but also with your souls and with your spirit; [auxiliaries] that is, of the Priesthood, of the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, of His Cross, of the extension of His Reign, of the extension of His Love. Thus you are united in a very particular manner to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. Like Her, close to her Divine Son, you will compassionate and suffer with her, and thus you will also contribute very efficaciously to the redemption of souls, insofar as you are able, insofar as Providence has given you the necessary grace. And in this way you will be associated more profoundly with the priesthood of the priests. Ask that these priests, these seminarians whom you serve, become true priests, that they become truly other Christs; that they unite themselves more profoundly and more perfectly with the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ....You will then ask this of the Most Holy 23 (characteristic of societies of common life without vows), we are in a position to serve the priests in whatever conditions their ministry may present. It is an active life in a most diverse form, which has no limit in the prescription of our Statutes. Who should be contacted in order to enter the Society of the Oblates? Virgin Mary. Offer your sufferings, offer your sacrifices for this intention, in order to spread the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this hour of crisis for the Church and the priesthood, there is another specific intention Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to include in our mission: More than ever, there are many sacrileges being committed, painful abandonment of Our Lord especially by those who have consecrated themselves to God. This is why we ardently urge you to offer up your small trials, your sacrifices, your difficulties, all those pains that Our Lord permits you to suffer, which you experience, in union with the suffering of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, in order to make reparation for all these sacrileges. (Sermon, April 6, 1979) If we would like to sum up our spirituality, we would say that everything is expressed in our Act of Oblation. We, therefore, have it at heart to repeat it as often as possible, so that from it we will draw forth life ever more fertile and intense. What sort of life do they lead? One might call it apostolic, since the Oblate Sisters must continue, beside the priests, the discreet role of the Holy Virgin and of the holy Women beside our Lord and His Apostles, a role which is willed by God. Within the frame of a religious life having a more flexible structure The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X should be contacted. It is, however, recommended that the Superior of one’s own District first approve such a step. What are the requirements for becoming an Oblate? For the admission of all aspirants, a superior must judge whether the aspirant will be a help or a burden in the community life. The Oblate Sisters being devoted to the works of the Society, i.e. helping the priests, whether in the seminaries, priories, or schools, in this perspective, the aptitudes required are the following: l in general, a well-balanced personality; l at least a minimum of good judgment and common sense; l maturity and a strong will to persevere in spite of difficulties, since an Oblate must be able to face all sorts of situations; l a normal and well-balanced emotional development, which is particularly necessary for an Oblate, since she is called to work and therefore be in contact with priests; l qualities of sociability necessary for life in common. Of course, the presence of the required aptitudes is not necessarily a sign of vocation: not everyone who has them is called to the religious life. But someone who does not have them is certainly not called. It should also be remarked that a canonical impediment to admission in certain congregations is not necessarily an obstacle to joining the Oblates. Each case depends on the Superior General’s judgment. As will all religious orders, in order to become an Oblate the most important thing is the call from God–that is to say, the vocation. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 24 Is there a special preparation or required studies needed? Sisters took over the training of our novices until our major superiors decided that the growing number of Is there a minimum or maximum age limit? The only preparation required in order to become an Oblate is that of a genuine Christian life based in Tradition. As for age, it is very variable... According to our Statutes, persons of a certain age (from 30 onwards) who are not able to enter the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X can apply for admission to the Oblates. But there are cases where an exception is made when other impediments besides age hinder the aspirant from being accepted by the Sisters. No age limit is fixed as long as the aspirants are still capable of adapting to common life and of serving the Society. Is good health required? It depends. It is certainly necessary to have good health to be able to dedicate oneself and render service according to one’s aptitudes where Obedience calls. But a fragile health or even certain maladies are not necessarily an obstacle to joining the Oblates. Is a dowry required? A dowry is not required to join us. Instead, whenever our Novitiate lacks its own income and in order to help with the material expenses of the house, we ask a small contribution from the postulants and novices. Is a time of postulancy required? A time of novitiate? What do these consist of? Our Statutes foresee a year of postulancy and a year of novitiate. The period of novitiate commences after the taking of the habit, which marks the entrance into the novitiate (properly speaking). This period is a time of learning which may be compared to the sowing of seeds. Until 1993, our aspirants were trained either in one of our houses–especially that in Bitche, France–or in the novitiates of the Sisters of the Society. The THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org vocations required a new novitiate of our own, which without being strictly canonical would provide the special training for the Oblate Sisters. This project was realized in 1993 in Menzingen, when the General Motherhouse of the Society had just been established under Fr. Franz Schmidberger as Superior. A steady influx of aspirants presented themselves continually, and the General Motherhouse became too small to shelter everyone. It was necessary to find another nest. Therefore, in August 1999, Bishop Fellay decided to transfer the Novitiate of the Oblate Sisters to Salvan, a small village in Valais, Switzerland, about 15 miles from Ecône. The Society already owned a house there, purchased during the lifetime of Archbishop Lefebvre, who had the idea of opening a boys’ school. What do you do in Salvan? Indeed, our Sisters have to manage everything and learn how to handle brooms, lawn mowers, paintbrushes, and electric drills! And more than once, wherever experience is wanting, we have to test our ingenuity! But that is not the essential part. In the silence and recollection of a more retired life, postulants and novices prepare to become the auxiliaries of the priests–auxiliaries, as we have already mentioned, not only with their hands but also with their souls and their spirit. Not yet involved in the bustle of the active life, they construct the future foundation of their lives and become initiated into the secrets of the interior life: the “reason for being” consecrated to God, as stated in the Statutes. They learn that this life of union with God must be all the more profound because it will be less protected later. Adapting to their own state, they apply to themselves the words St. Vincent de Paul addressed to his Daughters: 25 Daily Schedule 6:00 am Rise 6:30 am Prime or Lauds, meditation 7:15 am Mass 8:00 am Breakfast, free time, cleaning 9:00 am Work 12:15 pm Sext 12:30 pm Lunch, free time, spiritual reading 3:00 pm Work 4:15 pm Afternoon tea 4:30 pm Work 6:00 pm Free time, ...Insofar as they are more exposed out in the world to the occasions of sin than Sisters who live in a cloister, having no monastery but the house [or the school or the priory]...for their cloister, they will have obedience; for their grill, the fear of God. They must have as much virtue as if they had made their profession in a religious Order. They are obliged to comport themselves, whenever they find themselves in the midst of the world, with as much recollection, purity of heart and body, detachment from creatures, and edification as true nuns in the solitude of their own monastery. This is a vast training program for two years of novitiate, which is not too much! The Sisters follow courses in the morning and in the afternoon, according to their level. Catholic doctrine and the History of the Church are lessons taught by the chaplain. The Novice Mistress teaches Spirituality and Religious Life. The discovery of the liturgy is directly integrated into the rhythm of the liturgical year. The proximity of Ecône makes it possible for us to attend and to appreciate the splendor of ceremonies on feast days. Spiritual readings, joined with daily reading of Holy Scripture, nourish the soul and strengthen the spirit. Time for personal study makes it possible for each Sister to assimilate what has been taught and to deepen it according to her needs. In addition to this spiritual training, our Sisters are also instructed in house management, and receive practical instruction in cooking, sewing, laundry, and sacristy work: in a word, everything that makes up the life of a priory. Besides all this, they have half an hour of Gregorian chant lesson each day, two recreational periods, and normally one outing a month in the beautiful Swiss mountains. Now you have more or less a complete idea of the life we lead in the Novitiate of St. Theresa of the Child Jesus. Our Novitiate is French speaking officially, but it admits all nationalities. Recently, with the arrival Rosary, or exposition of the Blessed Sacrament 7:30 pm Dinner 8:45 pm Compline, grand silence of more English speaking vocations, instructions are now given in English simultaneously with French. For the moment, we wait for Divine Providence, which will permit the opening of other novitiates of different languages in other countries. Once this preparation is completed, do they pronounce vows? At the end of this preparation the novice commits herself not by professing public vows, but by making an act of engagement, an act by which she offers her oblation to God, with the Divine Victim, and promises to observe the Statutes–especially what they prescribe concerning the virtues of Obedience, Poverty, and Chastity. After six years of annual engagement, the Oblates can request the renewal of their engagement for a period of three years, and after nine years they can ask for a perpetual engagement. The renewal of their engagements occurs on the feast of Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows, on September 15. Even though the Society is not a religious society canonically, the Oblates should strive to practice the religious virtues and can, in agreement with their director of conscience, take private vows (Statutes). To what sort of apostolate do the Oblates consecrate themselves? Since our Statutes stipulate no other goal than devotion to the works of the Society according to one’s talents, the apostolate of the Oblates can vary as much as the works themselves. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 26 At the end of her novitiate, the new Oblate can be sent either to a priory, a school, or to a seminary. In these settings, already very different in themselves, very humble, sometimes hidden, she can exercise a great variety of tasks according to her aptitudes: housekeeping, sewing, office work, secretarial work, catechism, primary or secondary school teaching, nursing, etc. In the priories, every sort of activity is possible, and our Superior General can find for every Sister a place where she can best develop her personality for the greater glory of God. Wherever she is sent, the Oblate Sister never forgets that she has given herself “to serve.” How many Oblates are there now, and what are their nationalities? Without taking into account the novices and the postulants, there are currently 74 Oblates: 20 Oblates from France, 8 from Germany, 8 from the Philippines, 7 from Switzerland, 4 from the United States, 3 from Argentina, 3 from Austria, 3 from Canada, 3 from the Ukraine, 2 from Kenya, and others from Australia, Belgium, Ghana, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, and Thailand. At the Salvan novitiate, where currently 5 Oblates with 4 novices reside, we can count 8 different nationalities. Where do they perform their apostolate? The Oblates can be called to exercise their apostolate anywhere that the Society may be. Currently, we have a presence in 10 countries: Twenty-four Sisters are in Switzerland: 12 in the General Headquarters of Menzingen, 5 in the seminary of Ecône, 5 in the novitiate of Salvan, and 2 in the District Headquarters at Rickenbach. Germany has 11 Oblates: 5 at the girls’ school at Schönenberg, which is under the care of the Oblates; 1 at the seminary at Zaitzkoffen; 4 at the old people’s home at Weihungszell; 1 at the Berlin priory. There are 14 Oblates in France, mainly at our schools in Bitche and in Montréal-de-l’Aude, plus two elderly Sisters in the old people’s home in Le Brémien. Seven Sisters are in Canada: 3 at the school in Lauzon, 2 at the priory of Toronto, 1 at Shawinigan, and 1 at Levis. Our school in England has 4 Sisters, the priory of Montalenghe (Italy) has 2 Sisters, and the priory of Roodeport in South Africa has 2 more. Finally, there are Oblates at the priories of Buenos Aires (Argentina), Jaidhof (Austria), Manila (Philippines), Warsaw (Poland), and at the St. Ignatius Retreat House in Ridgefield (USA). Does an Oblate necessarily return to her country to exercise her apostolate? No, an Oblate does not necessarily return to her country to exercise her apostolate. We make our Oblation in the hands of the Superior General of the THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org Society of St. Pius X and we know that we are at the service of the Society. However, we also know that when he gives assignments, our Superior takes into consideration the Oblate’s health, language, and skills. It is for this same reason that we read without fear these words from our Statutes: “The Oblate must adapt herself with generosity to the circumstances of her apostolate and have confidence in the graces that God gives to souls of good will.” What does the Oblates’ habit signify? As all religious habits, that of the Oblate Sisters signifies our separation from the world and the fact that we totally belong to God. In order to distinguish our habit from that of the Sisters of the Society of Saint Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre decided to make their veil in a pointed form, and ours round; and the neckline of their scapular square, and ours round. Instead of the medal of St. Pius X, we receive and wear the cross of St. Benedict. Is this not for us a constant invitation to live our Oblation in union with Our Lady of Compassion? Oblata... For information: Novice Mistress Noviciat Ste Therese 1922 Salvan, VS Switzerland Telephone: [41] (27) 761-2128 Fax: [41] (27) 761-2119 Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition 7 FortY Years oF eCumenIsm WItH tHe ortHodoX F r . H e r v é G r e s l a n d ConClUsIon The supremacy of the Pope The Angelus continues Fr. Gresland’s discussion of the Orthodox and the ecumenical movement with the concluding part of his study. We now have to study the different doctrinal problems at stake in the relationships with Orthodoxy. And we will begin with what Cardinal Lercaro called “the crux of the matter”1: the supremacy of the pope. The other doctrinal points which separate the Orthodox from the Catholic Church are not many and do not seem impossible to overcome: the Filioque, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, because these dogmatic definitions were pronounced after they had broken away from the Catholic Church. The main doctrinal obstacle to union, the real stumbling block is the dogma of the universal supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallibility. For the Orthodox, the Church is not presided over by one single supreme head who has an ordinary and immediate authority over all and everybody in the Church. They see it more as a society governed by a collegial power given by Christ to all the Apostles and, after them, to the entire united episcopal body. They consequently affirm that the local Churches enjoy a certain autonomy, which they call “autocephaly,” which means that each is its own head. The pope is no longer the vicar of Christ, but is on par with an Orthodox Patriarch. The Orthodox have always held firm to this doctrine ever since their schism, and they do not hide it in ecumenical dialogue. As an example, in a discourse to the Swiss bishops in Zurich, in December 1995, Patriarch Bartholomew, who succeeded Dimitrios, who passed away in 1990, spoke thus about the pope’s supremacy: 28 The idea according to which the Lord, when choosing the twelve Apostles, entrusted to one of them the task of governing them, has no basis in Sacred Scripture. When the Lord commanded Peter to be the pastor of his sheep it did not mean that He was entrusting this latter with a pastoral charge higher than that of the other disciples.3 The Orthodox have the merit of being frank. If after this, conciliar Catholics do not understand, there are only two possible explanations. Either they do not want to understand too much and hope that “dialogue” and time will improve the situation. Or they do not themselves attach too much importance to this truth of the Faith, namely, the supreme authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. And indeed Pope John Paul II asked them to think about another mode of exercising his supremacy which would no longer be an obstacle to ecumenism. In other words, how can we diminish the role of the pope so as to make the pontifical supremacy acceptable to the Orthodox?4 So be it. Cardinal Husar, the archbishop of Lviv in the Ukraine, stated in May 2001 about the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox that there was between them only a modest difference: the supremacy of Peter. Besides, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not fear to affirm, following Pope Paul VI, that the “communion [with the Orthodox] is so deep that very little is lacking to attain the fullness which would authorize a joint celebration of the Eucharist.”5 Communion with the Sovereign Pontiff is considered as “very little.” It is surprising to see that, in the framework of ecumenism, Rome makes so little of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and communion with him, whereas it wields them as a weapon against the faithful who hold the Catholic Faith, and goes so far as excommunicating those who disagree with the suicidal ecumenism she practices. By attacking the supremacy of Peter, the rock upon which the one Church of Christ is founded, ecumenism consequently undermines the visible unity of the Church which rests, among other things, upon obedience to one and the same pastor. It is paradoxical that what is the principle and visible support of the Church, namely this primacy, is proclaimed to be a great obstacle to union, whereas the absence of this supreme authority wreaks so much havoc in the communities which do not have it. The Doctrine of the Sister Churches In the year 2000, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a note on the expression “Sister Churches.” In this clarification, Cardinal Ratzinger said: In the proper sense, the Sister Churches are only the local Churches between themselves....We cannot say, properly speaking, that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or of a group of Churches. It is not only a matter of terminology, but rather of the respect due to a basic truth of the Catholic Church: namely the unicity of the Church of Christ. THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org Consequently, the use of expressions such as “our two Churches” must be avoided because these expressions are a source of misunderstanding and theological disorientation: they insinuate, if applied to the Catholic Church and the whole of the Orthodox Church (or one of the Orthodox Churches), a plurality not only on the level of the particular Churches, but on that of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.6 This note, meant to bring back to mind the Catholic doctrine, was only making matter worse for the Vatican: Cardinal Ratzinger was admitting that the Orthodox “Churches” were real Churches. He added: “We can speak of sister Churches in the proper sense, with reference to particular Catholic or nonCatholic Churches.” This theory of sister Churches cannot be accepted if you want to apply it to Eastern schismatic Churches. Besides, as we are going to see, the expression was often used in a sense contrary to that which he recommended (and which was already contrary to the divine constitution of the Church). The text of the Second Vatican Council which we have quoted above (on the decree about ecumenism) is meant for local Churches. But the term “sister Churches” for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is often found in the official texts from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the years following the council. So the Orthodox were the first to adopt the formula, and the popes followed suit. We will only quote a few examples. In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote to Patriarch Athenagoras: “The Lord grants us to rediscover one another as sister Churches.”7 This is the first pontifical document to use the expression sister applied to the Churches considered as a whole. On June 5, 1991, in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, in Poland, John Paul II addressed the representatives of the Orthodox Church: Today, we see better and more clearly that our Churches are sister Churches. To say “sister Churches” is not a mere phrase for the circumstance, but a basic ecumenical category of ecclesiology.9 Cardinal Lubachisvsky, in the pastoral letter already quoted, spoke of the basic truth which characterizes the relations between Catholics and Orthodox; the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are sister Churches.10 This notion of sister Churches rests upon the conciliar subsistit, about which we will say more later. If the Church of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church, if it is not “reduced” to the Catholic Church, but only subsists in the Catholic Church,11 and if it is constituted by a more or less perfect communion12 in the Faith and the hierarchy, then a non-Catholic community can become a “sister Church” on condition of having what gives the quality of “Church”: a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. But since, according to sound doctrine, the Church of Christ is identical to the Catholic Church, and ecclesial “communion” does not admit greater or lesser 29 degrees, but is lost entirely by those who live outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, it follows that these separated communities do not deserve the name of Churches, nor of sister Churches, which is something proper to the Catholic Church and its local Churches. They are not as such means of salvation, because they were born from a revolt against the Holy Church, and they were constituted by this very refusal. On the contrary, being separated, they resist the Holy Ghost and are a more or less great obstacle to the salvation of their adepts. What is true, on the other hand, is that the Holy Ghost, without using their communities which keep souls captive of error, can act in these souls to free them from error. From this doctrine of the “sister Churches” flows forth a whole series of consequences. Let us begin with the hierarchy: since the Orthodox Church is a “genuine Church of God,” her heads are consequently real pastors. And indeed, Pope Paul VI taught this as early as 1967: the heads of the Churches must “recognize and respect themselves mutually as pastors of the portion of the flock of Christ which is entrusted to them.”14 When Pope John Paul II received Abuna Paulos, the patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, he used the same words again: Catholics and Orthodox, by recognizing and respecting themselves mutually as pastors of the portion of the flock entrusted to them, have no other aim than the increase and cohesion of the people of God.15 To recognize and respect the Orthodox bishops as pastors of the faithful is to affirm their legitimacy in following Jesus-Christ. And the Balamand Declaration proclaims: “Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority that the Holy Ghost gave to the bishops and priests of the other Church.”16 These words are unacceptable. The Orthodox bishops are not the pastors of a portion of Christ’s flock. Christ can entrust His sheep only to Catholic pastors. The situation of the Orthodox bishops is that of illegitimate pastors with no mission; and even more, the anti-Catholic obstinacy of many of them makes them formal and not merely material schismatics. If, materially, the life of grace passes through them to the sheep of Christ, these latter are kept by them outside the sheepfold of Christ. Contrary to what the Balamand Declaration says17, only the Catholic hierarchy possesses formal apostolic succession; the separated Eastern bishops only have a material apostolic succession. And they have no jurisdiction: the Catholic Church supplements for this, for the sake of the spiritual good of their faithful. Proselytism Consequently, there flows from this a new missionary attitude: since the Orthodox already belong to the true Church of Christ, why and to what should we try to convert them? They have no need for conversion. The members of the commission renew the condemnation of proselytism already pronounced on many occasions by the authorities of both Churches. Any form of proselytism must be avoided in the relations between our faithful, and must be eradicated wherever it may exist.18 Proselytism is what they now call the missionary work of the Church. Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios 1st specified together: “We reject any form of proselytism, any attitude which is or could be perceived as a lack of respect.”19 The directives from the Pro Russia Pontifical Commission in June 1992 take the following dispositions: Rome sends to the Eastern countries bishops and apostolic administrators, but in order that they minister exclusively to the Catholics: The apostolic structures which the bishops set up in the territories entrusted to them have for their objective to answer the needs of the Catholic communities present in those territories. They absolutely do not aim at causing the Catholic Church to enter into competition with the Russian Orthodox Church or with the other Christian Churches present in the same territory. Thus, each “Church” will be able to accomplish her mission without being hindered by the others (especially by the Catholic Church). The Balamand Declaration confirms this explicit agreement made by the conciliar Church with the Orthodox Church: she promises no longer to seek the conversion of the Orthodox: In the effort to re-establish unity, it is not a question of seeking the conversion of persons for one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.20 The pastoral activity of the Latin as well as the Eastern Catholic Church does no longer tend to make the faithful pass from one Church to the other, namely it does no longer aim at proselytism among the Orthodox. Her objective is to answer the spiritual needs of her own faithful and she has no desire to grow at the expense of the Orthodox Church.21 We come to the interdiction of the apostolate and of missionary zeal towards the Orthodox. The present state of ecumenism includes de facto the renunciation to the expansion of the Faith. But the Catholic Church can at no time cease to be missionary. To refuse the work of the conversion of souls in order to bring them back to the one true Church of Christ is to resist the command of the divine Master. This “dialogue” which has as its condition the paralysis of Catholic proselytism bears the hallmark of the devil. The Uniates The Uniate Churches (united to the Catholic Church), we can guess, are posing great problems to present ecumenism. The Uniates are themselves an obstacle to ecumenism, therefore Rome is distancing herself from them. In 1979, Metropolitan Juvénaly, president of the Department for Foreign Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow, reacted strongly after Pope John Paul II sent a letter to Cardinal Slipyj on the occasion of the millennium of Catholic Ukraine. Cardinal Willebrands answered him on behalf of the Pope22: The pope had no intention at all to present the union of Brest-Litovsk as the model for our relations with the Orthodox www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 30 Churches today or as the model of a union to be considered in the future.… According to this same spirit, Pope John Paul II asked for a correct appreciation of what was done in the past centuries with the intention of bringing about again the union of the Churches: From these efforts accomplished under circumstances different from ours, and inspired by a theology which is no longer ours today, were born the united Catholic Churches. Their existence allowed Christians to express their communion with the Church of Rome according to the demands of their conscience. Inside the Catholic Church, they were a concrete reminder that the Latin tradition was not the only truly authentic Christian tradition. In this sense, their existence has been and remains beneficial. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that, unfortunately, their foundation also caused a breaking of the communion with the Orthodox Churches and new tensions between Catholics and Orthodox. Nothing better could be said to disown the immense apostolic work accomplished by the Church to bring these peoples back to the one true Church of Christ. “A theology which is no longer ours today….” They realize that they are turning their backs on traditional teaching. And the Uniate have “unfortunately broken the communion with the Orthodox Churches”; it takes a lot of nerve to write this! The Balamand Declaration In the historical section of the relations between Catholics and Orthodox, we mentioned the meeting of the Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which took place in Balamand, Lebanon, from June 17-24, 1993, in order to tackle the problem of Uniatism as a priority. At the end of the session a joint declaration was signed. This document is made of two parts: first the principles, then the practical rules. Its clarity and frankness are remarkable. It explains the new ecclesiology introduced by the Second Vatican Council. There is nothing new as far as the principles are concerned, but the great advantage of the document is that it sums up all that had been previously said on the subject. We quote here some passages;23 first, about the principles. The Eastern Catholic Churches were born of a breaking of the communion with their mother Churches in the East....Thus was created a situation which became a source of conflicts and sufferings first for the Orthodox, but also for the Catholics. (§8) The true mother-Churches were not those schismatic Churches, but the original Eastern Churches united to Rome up to the time of their respective schisms. And to blame the ensuing rupture upon the Uniate conflicts is to show a terrible cynicism, as if it were not persistent schism which poisoned their relations with the converts. Progressively, missionary activity tended to inscribe the effort for the conversion of other Christians among its THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org priorities, in order to make them “return” to its own Church. The Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the unique depositary of salvation in order to legitimate this tendency which was a source of proselytism. (§10) “The theological vision” in question is as old as the Church, for the simple reason that it is a dogma of Faith, taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who made His Church the unique ark of salvation. Consequently, through this declaration, the Church acknowledges that she is not the unique depositary of salvation. Further down (§30) the Declaration says that we must “go beyond the outdated ecclesiology of the return to the Catholic Church”! Thus she agrees with what the Orthodox have been asking for these past thirty years: We must acknowledge on both sides that propaganda, proselytism, the tendency to have one Church absorb the other, as well as the invitation to a return are so many outdated methods, rejected by Christian conscience and which can only widen the breach, strengthen distrust, and unquestionably perpetuate the aftermath of the separation.24 Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox consider one another once again in their relation to the mystery of the Church, and re-discover themselves as sister Churches, this form of “missionary apostolate,” described above, and which was called “Uniatism,” can no longer be accepted either as a method to follow, or as a model of the unity sought by our Churches. (§12) The Declaration goes on to speak of the measures which, in practice, will rule the relations between Catholics and Orthodox. Or to be more precise, it enumerates the obligations imposed upon the Catholics. “In order that there may no longer be room for distrust and suspicion,” the Catholic Church promises not to take any pastoral initiative “without consulting beforehand with the Orthodox leaders,” in other words without their placet (§ 22, 25, 26). Any apostolate on the part of the Catholics must be controlled by the Orthodox! Financial help received from Western Catholics must be shared with the Orthodox (§24). As His Holiness John Paul II recommended in his letter of May 31, 1991, the use of any violence must absolutely be avoided. The use of violence to take over a place of worship goes against this conviction. On the contrary, let the celebrations of the other Churches be facilitated by placing your own church at their disposal through an agreement enabling celebrations to take place alternatively in the same building. (§27-28) Plainly speaking: Eastern Catholics claim their churches were confiscated during Communism. Sometimes they were returned to them by the governments, but the schismatics refuse to give them back: Catholics, it would be anti-fraternal of you to want to get your churches back. But we will grant you from time to time a liturgical space in them. On this point of ecumenism for places of worship, the Pope gave the example. He placed one church 31 of Rome, St. Theodore’s, at the disposal of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, “so that it may be destined to the worship and pastoral activities of the Orthodox community in the city.”25 Thus excluding in the future any proselytism and any desire of expansion of the Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the Commission hopes that it has suppressed the obstacle which urged some of the autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation to the theological dialogue. (§35) This text shows that the Uniates are less well considered by Rome than the “separated brethren,” because the former are anti-witnesses to ecumenism. The official line of the conciliar Church in Russia is expressed by a bishop: The Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ sent to the Russian people. If the Orthodox Church is truly for us a Church, why establish another opposite of her?26 There you are! Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Orthodox Church just as well as the Catholic Church. Gradually this false and pernicious idea that the true Church of God in the Eastern countries is the Orthodox Church is gaining ground. We refer to the Orthodox as “the Eastern Church.” For the Balamand Declaration, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are like two territorial Churches, two big dioceses. The Uniates must not say that the Orthodox are schismatic. Russians do not have to belong to Catholicism in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ; they can remain in Orthodoxy. All the Catholics of the Greek rite would do much better to go back to Orthodoxy which they should never have left in the first place, since it is the Church sent to them by Jesus Christ. Instead of a return of the Orthodox to Catholicism we may well have more or less a return of the Uniates to Orthodoxy. Let us hope that they will remain staunch Catholics, in spite of Rome’s treason. Eastern Catholics receive many converts from schism, for instance those who were disgusted by the servile attitude of the Orthodox Church under the Communist regime. But we are no longer allowed to speak of the past collaboration of the Orthodox with Communism, nor of the persecutions they organized against the Catholics. There is a twofold attitude towards the Orthodox: one of great opening towards those who have no desire at all to convert, and another of great reserve towards those who want to become Catholics. These latter are tolerated more than supported. Of course, because of religious liberty they cannot be prevented from changing their religion, but if they convert, they will become an obstacle to Christian unity. If an Orthodox goes to the Catholics with the intention of converting, he runs the risk of being discouraged from carrying out his design and of being told to go back where he belongs! Bishop Fellay gave some examples a few years ago: When Orthodox want to convert, after having recognized that the Catholic Church is the only true Church; when they ask to enter it, the Catholic Church shuts the door in their face! We know personally of several examples not only of simple faithful, but of priests, of prelates, of Orthodox bishops to whom entry into the Catholic Church was denied. Even better, in 1989, a Catholic bishop who up to then had been the underground bishop of Lviv in the Ukraine, and who had therefore suffered persecution to remain Catholic, used to receive many Orthodox into the Church. At that time, with the apparent collapse of Communism, the hold of the State on religion had relaxed and people massively went for religion, and among others many Orthodox converted. Entire parishes went all at once from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, or simply went back to Catholicism. So this bishop, Msgr. Vladimir Sterniuk, received not only these faithful, these parishes, these priests, but even two bishops from the patriarchate of Moscow. Then the enraged patriarch of Moscow contacted Rome. And Rome said that, since only the pope could receive Orthodox bishops into the Church and since he had received no such request, no Orthodox bishop could enter the Church. And they forced Bishop Sterniuk to send away the two bishops he had received into the Catholic communion!27 Collaboration with the Orthodox Since the Orthodox Church is a Church founded and willed by Jesus Christ, she is, with the Catholic Church, “jointly responsible for maintaining the Church of God faithful to the divine design,” reads the Balamand Declaration.28 When Pope John Paul II received Abuna Paulos, the patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, he basically said the same thing: We must avoid any hostility and any spirit of rivalry, in order to commit ourselves resolutely to a mutual collaboration in view of the growth of our Churches.29 Consequently, Catholics must collaborate to the growth of a non-Catholic religion. The various Churches consider each of them as a part of the whole: the Church of Christ. It is the will of Christ Himself that the flock be legitimately distributed between them. Any desire to recuperate the whole flock would cause a new rent contrary to the Gospel’s announcement. No, each Church must support the other just as she is, and Catholics must be the first to give the good example: The present circumstances urge us to work together in the pastoral field, in order not to hinder the most sacred of all causes: the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures.30 “In this spirit we will be able to face together the re-evangelization of our secularized world.”31 One of the “characteristics” of the new evangelization promoted by Pope John Paul II is ecumenism, as if the mission could belong jointly to the legitimate and the illegitimate pastors! Seeing sister Churches in the Orthodox Churches, the Catholics must consequently support them positively: “The Catholic Church,” said Pope John Paul II, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 32 recognizes the mission that the Orthodox Churches are called to fulfill in the countries in which they have been established for centuries. She has no other desire than to help this mission and collaborate with it.32 And so the Catholic Church will support the Orthodox Church in her mission. Special attention must be given to the formation of the future priests: To prepare the future relationships between the two Churches, special attention will be given to the formation of future priests….Their formation must be objectively positive towards the other Church….They will avoid using history in a polemic manner.…33 On the occasion of the inauguration of the major Seminary of Moscow, Pope John Paul II sent a message to Bishop Kondruziewicz, apostolic administrator for Western Russia, in which he reminded him that the seminarians must be trained to “develop the necessary good relations with the Orthodox Church.”34 To help the Orthodox Church also means to give her financial support, for even if the Orthodox do not like the Catholics at all, they very readily accept their money! The organizations which work in Russia have received directives from Rome in this sense. The organization Aid to the Church in Need, founded by Fr. Werenfried Van Straaten, was a marvelous work at the time when it would help Catholic priests and faithful in countries under the Communist yoke. Now this organization also supports the Orthodox Church: its money serves to form Orthodox seminarians, to help the Orthodox press, etc. As a matter of fact, in the March 1993 newsletter, Father Werenfried explained that we had to help Orthodox services, seminarians, and preaching. “We want to comfort the Orthodox Church,” he wrote, and he invited his benefactors to show “an ecumenical generosity.”35 Ecumenical Holiness Since the Orthodox belong to the Church of Christ, they can have saints. In the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millenio Adveniente (November 10, 1994) preparing the jubilee of the year 2000, John Paul II wrote: “The witness given to Christ even to the shedding of blood has become a patrimony common to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants.” (§37) On May 7, 2000, in Rome, at the Coliseum, the Pope presided over an ecumenical commemoration of the “witnesses to the faith in the 20th century,” which was probably one of the worst acts of the Jubilee. In the text presenting it, the Pope said: Many men and women, Christians of all denominations, races and ages, have born testimony to their faith in the midst of harsh persecutions, in captivity, in the midst of privations of all kinds, and many of them also shed their blood to remain faithful to Christ, to the Church, and to the Gospel. In his homily, he spoke of “the example of those who remained heroically faithful to their faith.”36 If a non-Catholic can be a martyr, this is to admit that he can bear this most glorious title as a member of THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org a false religion. Now let us ask the question: Will this martyr still be Orthodox in heaven? It would be a great injustice to Mother Church to think that the saints in heaven have God for their Father without venerating her as their Mother. In his famous treatise on the canonization of saints, Pope Benedict XIV makes a fundamental distinction concerning the non-Catholics killed out of hatred for their faith. The learned Pope admitted that they could be martyrs before God, but not before the Church. Indeed, theses persons may have been in invincible ignorance, and be ready, with the help of grace, to believe what the Church teaches. But the Church cannot judge the interior dispositions of someone she sees dying in heresy or schism; she cannot know whether he has the requisite dispositions. Consequently, Pope Benedict XIV does not deny the possibility of martyrdom for a non-Catholic of good faith, but he states that it is impossible for the Church to declare him such. This did not stop Pope John Paul II from celebrating as martyrs those who, though they died in anti-Christian persecution, did not belong to the Catholic Church. What is impossible has become possible! The Churches’ Equality Ecumenism presupposes as its basis the equality of all the Churches before the problem of union. And this under several aspects: First, all the Churches must acknowledge themselves guilty of the separation, so that instead of accusing one another, each must ask pardon. Pope Paul VI confessed this in the address he made for the opening of the second session of the Council. John Paul II, always ready to ask pardon for the “faults” of his predecessors, hurried to do likewise: We can only humbly acknowledge that, in the past, in the relations between the Churches, the spirit of evangelical brotherhood did not always reign. We all bear the burden of historical faults, we all made mistakes. With sincere and deep sorrow, we acknowledge this today before God, and ask Him to forgive us.37 “The responsibilities for the separation have been shared, and left deep wounds on both sides.” (Balamand Declaration, §30) The ecumenists tamper with history by exaggerating the wrongs of the Catholics, and they forget what is essential, namely defection from Catholic unity. To practice ecumenism you must consequently take away from the Church the halo of her holiness. Second, no Church, after the separation, can believe herself to be the one and complete Church of Christ, but she is only one part of this Church. Consequently, none may arrogate the right to oblige the others to come back to her, but they must rather all feel under obligation of reuniting among themselves in order to reconstitute this Church. “The union of the Churches to form all together the one true Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” such was the idea already 33 defended in 1926 by Msgr. Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII.38 The ecumenist heresy is crystallized in the famous formula of the Second Vatican Council39: “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church,” instead of the traditional doctrine which teaches that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the one and holy Church founded by Christ. According to Vatican II, the Church of Christ is no longer the Catholic Church; she only subsists in the Catholic Church: the Catholic Church is not the whole Church founded by Jesus Christ, there exist other parts of it elsewhere, namely in the other Christian Churches. The Church of Christ also subsists in them, and all must realize this common subsistence in Christ. Consequently, the union of all the Churches must not take place in the Catholic Church by the return of the separated brethren to the Catholic Church, but in the Church of Christ, and by a movement of all the denominations towards a center which is outside of each one of them. The future ecumenical Church resulting from this union cannot be identical to any of the Churches now existing. She will surpass all particular Christian denominations. The Catholic Church, together with all the other denominations, must only concur in the convergence towards this center which is outside of her. The total Christ will be achieved by the synthesis of all the scattered members of Christianity. Patriarch Athenagoras professed this openly: In this movement of union there is no question of one Church going towards another, but all the Churches go towards the common Christ. It is a question of rebuilding the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.40 So the unity of the Church has to be built. And it will be first of all the fruit of dialogue. John Paul II was convinced of this and it was a constant element in his thinking: we must reconstitute Christian unity, rebuild the lost unity of the Church by means of dialogue, as if this unity did not already exists and was not one of the characters of the Spouse of Christ, but some sort of “omega point” after the fashion of Teilhard de Chardin. According to the words of Pope John Paul II [in the Encyclical Slavorum Apostoli ], the ecumenical effort of the sister Churches of the East and the West seeks a perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion, but meeting in truth and love.41 We already find this same idea in the letter Cardinal Willebrands wrote on behalf on Pope John Paul II in 1979: The union we seek is not absorption of one by the other, nor the domination of one over the other, but full communion between Churches who share the same faith and the same sacramental life.42 structures into the Catholic Church: patriarchates, bishoprics, parishes, with all their hierarchy will become Catholic in submission to the pope. Third is the Churches’ mutual enrichment. In his Instruction of December 20, 1949 about the “ecumenical movement,” Pope Pius XII gave the following warning: We will avoid speaking in such a way that, coming back to the Church, they imagine that they bring her an essential element which would have been missing to her up to now. They must be told these things clearly and without ambiguity, first because they seek the truth, and secondly because outside of the truth there will never be true union. The conciliar Church acts very differently. On November 30, 1985, on the occasion of the Feast of St. Andrew, John Paul II sent a message to Patriarch Dimitrios in which he said: “In the quest for Christian unity, there is a source of mutual enrichment for the unity of the faith.” That same year, in a letter addressed to the presidents of the Bishops Conferences in Europe, Pope John Paul II declared: If, in the course of the centuries, there unfortunately occurred the painful rupture between the East and the West, from which the Church is still suffering today, the duty of rebuilding unity is particularly urgent so that the beauty of the Spouse of Christ may appear in all its splendor. For precisely, from the fact that they are complementary, both traditions are, in some measure, imperfect if considered separately. They can complement one another and offer a less inadequate interpretation of the “mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints.” Certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized” in religions other than the Catholic Church, said John Paul II.43 So the Catholic Church needs what the Orthodox are going to bring her. Nobody possesses the whole truth, the Orthodox have part of it. In order to have the whole truth, we must “achieve unity,” namely bring together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. And the Church will derive from this an increase of beauty and perfection. So that the Catholic may be apt to receive this enrichment, Pope John Paul II asked of them a movement of conversion: “This change [of attitude] can only be the fruit of a deep conversion and of a continual effort of renewal.”44 “There is no true ecumenism without interior conversion, without overcoming prejudices and suspicions.” Catholics must eliminate their prejudices against the Orthodox, overcome courageously their laziness and the narrowness of their hearts.45 Through this magnanimous act of humility and opening they will become capable of hearing “what the Spirit says to the Churches,”46 and of receiving his graces. A unity which is “neither absorption nor fusion, but meeting”: yet it is clear that unity in the acknowledgment of the pope’s supremacy will necessary lead to the absorption of the Orthodox www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 34 What Are the Results of Ecumenism? Before this “ecumenical generosity” of the conciliar Church towards the Orthodox world, what is the reaction of the Orthodox? Pope John Paul II multiplied his visits to Eastern countries in which, most of the time, Orthodox are more numerous than Catholics: Romania (May 1999), Georgia (November 1999), Greece and Syria (May 2001), the Ukraine ( June 2001), Kazakhstan (September 2001), Azerbaijan and Bulgaria (May 2002). These journeys, on his part, were obviously the occasion of ecumenical objectives: during his visits, he multiplied ecumenical meetings or celebrations, to such a point that we could not conceive a journey of his without some meeting of this kind. But his desires did not always become reality, because of the reticence of the Orthodox who were displeased to see him come into their domains. He went to the Ukraine in spite of the hostility of the Russian Orthodox Church. These visits to Eastern countries, they said, give the impression of an expansionist Catholicism. Pope John Paul II desired to go to Russia, but the Patriarch of Moscow always strongly opposed it. The establishment of Catholic dioceses in Russia had deeply irritated him. In the summer of 2002, he published several official communiques. Concerning the activity of the Catholic Church in Russia, Alexis II pointed out that, “under cover of pastoral activity, it is doing nothing less than simply taking faithful away from the Orthodox Church.” All this activity proved “the determination of the Vatican to pursue a policy of missionary expansion, which is unacceptable in the eyes of Orthodoxy.” And the patriarch of Moscow concluded: “This can only give rise to distrust and increase the distance which separates our Churches.”47 Among the Orthodox and in public opinion, we see a rancor and a spirit of hostility against the Catholic Church. The Orthodox accuse the Catholics of trying to expand at their own expense. The Patriarchate of Moscow asked the Church to fulfill the pastoral ministry only for the already existing Catholic population, and to limit her activity to people of Polish, Lithuanian, or German origin. In 2002, the Catholic Church experienced a certain number of obstructions and problems (for instance, visas were confiscated) with the civil authority in Russia. The Patriarchate of Moscow denied any implication, but did not voice any criticism of what was done. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, is more deeply involved in ecumenism than the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis II. For instance, he was present at the Prayer Day in Assisi on January 2002. According to Cardinal Lubachivsky, he was a personal friend of John Paul II. But all in all, these 40 years of dialogue and concessions produced very few positive results on the side of the Orthodox hierarchy. We cajoled it, but without meeting with any reciprocity. Sympathy and THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org friendship are not sufficient to solve all the problems. There are various reasons for this. We must not underestimate the immense difficulties, simply on the psychological level, involved in a reunion occurring after centuries of separation. Such obstacles would exist even if ecumenism were undertaken in a Catholic spirit. Cardinal Bea could see this clearly: Obstacles of the psychological order seem by far to be the most important. Different mentalities progressively became alien to one another. We no longer understood each other. We ceased to feel we were brethren and ceased to deal with the other as with a brother. We hardened in our opposition to the other. We stressed and over-emphasized the differences. We became encysted. We wanted to justify at Church level a de facto separation caused exclusively, or almost so, by non-theological factors. For centuries, this attitude shaped Christian mentality on both sides. We now have to re-build what those centuries have undone.48 Ecumenism is slowing down, and it even seems to be getting bogged down. During the first years, there were exceptional manifestations, but it became a “normal” activity of the Church. In the 1970’s came the disillusions. Pope Paul VI said in a dramatic discourse: The difficulties we meet with to form again a true unitary fusion between the various Christian denominations are such that they paralyze any human hope to see it historically achieved. The fractures have become ossified, solidified, organized to such a point that any attempt to rebuild a wellunified body, attached to the head which is Christ seems a utopia.49 For some years now, the doctrinal discussion has lost much of its enthusiasm. Pope John Paul II wrote to Patriarch Bartholomew: In the year 2000, after a long interruption of its works, the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches was able to meet again in Baltimore for its eighth plenary session. Such a meeting is in itself an important event and was the occasion to underline the complexity of the issues under study. However, much to our regret, we must admit that it did not make possible any real progress in our dialogue.50 Theological dialogue is at a standstill, acknowledged Pope John Paul II.51 We would rather say that it went down a blind alley. To consider only what unites us is to be an ostrich, and sooner or later we realize that such a policy has its limitations. Schism did not occur because of the issues upon which we agreed, but because of the divergences. And the points of divergence are not of secondary importance. The Orthodox realize this much better than the Catholics: Without one only faith, the unity of the Churches cannot be imagined. It would be merely an artificial union. In other words, not a vital union but a false union.52 A good example of this ostrich policy is the indissolubility of marriage. The Orthodox Church sometimes allows divorce. We saw this when Mrs. Kennedy, widow of President Kennedy and a Catholic, married Mr. Onassis, an Orthodox, canonically married a first time, and whose marriage had been dissolved “according to the Canon Law of the 35 Orthodox Church,” but not according to that of the Catholic Church. The man was really married. The Orthodox Church, through Metropolitan Meliton, the highest authority after Patriarch Athenagoras defended this second union: “This marriage is a mixed marriage, perfectly legal and valid for the Orthodox Church and it must be defended by her.”53 And the Catholic Church only had to keep quiet. But it is true that she now does not do any better in the field of marriage annulments. Ecumenical conversations carefully avoid tackling this moral issue, which is, however, of capital importance. The sunny side of this ecumenical utopia is the certitude that it will never achieve anything. Its dream of unity is a chimera. Except for a few, the partners of the ecumenical Catholics do not wish the success of this utopia. They are content to accept as due to them the concessions made by the Catholics, and do not consider that these call for any reciprocity. They do not mean to give in on any point. They interpret what the Catholics relinquish as so many signs of weakness and thus feel strengthened in their errors. Forty years later, the Orthodox are still Orthodox. On the other hand, there is considerable damage among the Catholics who have become less Catholic and even often heretical. By keeping quiet about the truths denied by the schismatics, ecumenical dialogue causes doctrinal confusion. Ecumenism is carried out at the expense of the Faith and of the divine constitution of the Church. It slows down conversions; it leads Catholics to indifferentism. “This [ecumenism] is what the Church is presently dying of,” said Archbishop Lefebvre.54 Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II kept on going according to his own idea: “I want to 1 La Documentation Catholique (D.C.), January 21, 1965. Cardinal Lercaro was one of the four moderators of the council. 2 November 29, 1973. D.C., January 20, 1974. 3 D.C., February 4, 1996. 4 Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, §22. See also the homily of the Pope (quoted above) on December 6, 1987. 5 §838. Address of Pope Paul VI on December 14, 1975. 6 D.C., October 1, 2000; Osservatore Romano, October 28, 2000. 7 See footnote 22. 8 Letter of September 1979. D.C., November 1979. 9 D.C., July 21, 1991. 10 See footnote 10 in Part I (The Angelus, July 2007). 11 Lumen Gentium, §8. 12 Unitatis Redintegratio, §3. 13 Declaration of Bari. D.C., No.1945. 14 Address at the Phanar, July 25, 1967. D.C., August 6, 1967. 15 Osservatore Romano, French edition, November 30, 1993. 16 §29. 17 §13. 18 Communiqué at the end of the Bari meeting between Catholics and Orthodox on June 16, 1987. D.C., No.1945. 19 Declaration of December 7, 1987. 20 §15. 21 §22. 22 See footnote 9. 23 Declaration of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Balamand, January 23, 1993. D.C., August 1 and 15, 1993. 24 Address of Msgr. Meliton, President of the Conference, at the Pan-Orthodox Conference of Rhodes, on November 1964. D.C., May 2, 1965. 25 Letter to Patriarch Bartholomew on November 25, 2000. D.C., January 7, 2001. 26 Bishop Daucourt, at the time bishop of Troyes (France). D.C., No.2078. say that the Catholic Church’s commitment to the ecumenical movement was an irrevocable decision,” he proclaimed in 1985. Powerful graces will be needed to convert both the conciliar Catholics and the Orthodox. But in Fatima, the Blessed Virgin promised that she would convert Russia if that country was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by the pope and the bishops. Let us beg God to enlighten them: may they understand again the meaning of true Catholic unity, which is based not on a pseudo-charity, but on the Faith. After having breathed the poisoned atmosphere of ecumenism, a breath of fresh Catholic air will do us good. St. Augustine provides it for us: He shall redeem my soul in peace from them that draw near to me: “for among many they were with me.” In many things they were with me: we had the same baptism, in this they were with me; we were reading the same Gospel, in this they were with me; we celebrated the feasts of the martyrs, there they were with me; we frequented the Paschal solemnity, there they were with me. But they were not with me in all things; in heresy, they were not with me. In the few things in which they were not with me, it was of no use to them to have been with me in many things.…Observe that the straw is close to the wheat. It comes together with it from the same seed, both took root in the same field, the same rain nourished them, the same harvester cut them down, they were threshed together, the same winnowing fan waited for them; the barn alone separated them. From Christendom, No.10. Christendom is a publication of DICI, the press bureau of the Society of Saint Pius X (www.dici.org). The article was edited by Angelus Press for clarity. However, since Benedict XVI considers ecumenism with the Orthodox as one of the priorities of his pontificate, this study by Fr. Gresland has lost none of its interest. Fr. Hervé Gresland, a Frenchman, was ordained in 1983. After several assignments at priories in France, he is now at the Sierre Priory in Switzerland. 27 Sermon for the ordinations of June 29, 1996. §14. 29 Osservatore Romano, French edition, November 30, 1993. 30 Idem. 31 Balamand Declaration, §32. 32 Address to Patriarch Theoctist of Rumania, October 12, 2002. 33 Balamand Declaration §30. 34 D.C., No.2080. 35 Letter to Benefactors of November 15, 1994. 36 D.C., June 4, 2000. 37 John Paul II, June 5, 1991, ecumenical meeting in the Cathedral of Bialystok, in Poland. D.C., July 21, 1991. 38 See Marcel Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004), p.272. 39 Cf. Not 68 (Lumen Gentium, §8). 40 Informations Catholiques Internationales, No. 311, May 1, 1968. 41 Balamand Declaration, §14. 42 Letter to Metropolite Juvenaly, September 22, 1979. D.C., November 18, 1979. 43 Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, §14 44 Address to the delegate of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1993. D.C., No.2078. 45 Homily of October 13, 2002, at St. Peter’s Basilica in the presence of the Rumanian Patriarch Theoctist. 46 Apoc. 2:7. 47 Nouvelles du Monde Orthodoxe, November 2002. 48 Interview granted to the daily To Vima, May 12, 1965. D.C., July 18, 1965. 49 D.C., February 5, 1978 50 Letter of November 25, 2000. 51 Address to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, October 22, 2001. 52 Conference by the metropolite of Patras on November 27, 1980. D.C., November 1, 1981. 53 D.C., January 19, 1969. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 54 Sermon at Le Bourget, November 19, 1989. 28 pArt 4 3 F r . M a t t h i a s G a u d r o n The Angelus continues the installments of Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism of the Crisis in the Church with the continuation of Part Three on the Magisterium of the Church. Catechism of the Crisis In the Church 21) Does the pope also share the responsibility for the current crisis in the Church? As we related, one of the characteristics of the current crisis in the Church is that it is encouraged by the highest authorities in the Church. The conciliar popes have encouraged this crisis: 1) by giving modernist theologians their support; 2) by their defending opinions and acting in ways incompatible with the Catholic faith; and 3) by erecting obstacles to the work of defenders of the faith. The ANgelus • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org l Can you prove these assertions? We shall give some illustrations here; others will appear further on in our study. l Does Pope John XXIII have a share in the responsibility for the current crisis? John XXIII (1958-63) is the pope who made the crisis, which had been simmering for several decades, erupt. Despite warning voices, he convoked the Vatican Council II, and his aggiornamento became the marching order for an unlimited upheaval as well as for the entrance of the spirit of the world into the Church. 37 l Can John XXIII really be blamed for convoking Vatican II? Even more than for convoking the Council, John XXIII should be blamed for the goal and the spirit of the convocation. In his opening discourse at the Council, after recalling that the Church had never failed to condemn errors, Pope John XXIII continued: ...Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them.1 The Pope was also against the “prophets of gloom” and thought that the errors would vanish by themselves “like fog before the sun.” l What is blameworthy in these statements? Its naive viewpoint has no connection with reality. Buddhism, Islam, and Protestantism are errors that have existed for centuries and have scarcely vanished by themselves. On the contrary, they are spreading even more because the Church nowadays refuses to condemn them. In the Church itself, despite the optimistic expectations of Pope John, the truth has not shone, but on the contrary a multitude of errors have spread. l Are there other examples of John XXIII’s eirenism? Even worse is the episode witnessed by Archbishop Lefebvre while a member of the Council’s preparatory commission. At one of the meetings during which experts for the Council were being chosen, he was astonished to discover on the lists, contrary to the rules, the names of at least three experts who had been condemned by Rome for their heterodoxy. At the end of the meeting, Cardinal Ottaviani approached Archbishop Lefebvre and explained to him that this was at the Pope’s express wish. Thus the Pope wanted at the Council experts the integrity of whose faith was questionable! l What was the attitude of John XXIII’s successor, Pope Paul VI? Pope Paul VI (1963-78), who continued the Council after John XXIII’s death, clearly supported the liberals. He appointed the four Cardinals Döpfner, Suenens, Lercaro, and Agagianian to be the moderators of the Council. The first three were well-known liberals, and the fourth was not an outstanding personality. l During the Council, didn’t Paul VI oppose the liberal bishops (especially during what came to be called “the black week” in November 1964)? Even if Paul VI sometimes acted against the extremist liberals, it is certain that the situation of the conservatives among the Council Fathers was practically blocked because the liberals visibly enjoyed the Pope’s favor. On December 7, 1965, Pope Paul declared to the bishops assembled for the Council’s cloture: The religion of the God Who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognise our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honour mankind [literally: have the cult or worship of man].2 l What should we make of this declaration? It can be contrasted with the advice given by St. Pius X in his first encyclical: We must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness so characteristic of our time–the substitution of man for God.3 Freemasonry, the goal of which is the destruction of the Catholic Church, has the cult of man, but not the Catholic Church. Hearing Paul VI promote the cult of man, the Freemasons must have savored their triumph. Is it not the achievement of the plans they forged in the 19th century? l How can one learn about the plans elaborated by Freemasonry against the Church? One way the plans of Freemasonry were made known was through the secret correspondence of the heads of the Italian Alta Vendita that fell into the hands of the Vatican police in 1846, which Pope Gregory XVI ordered to be published.4 l What do the Masonic plans foretell? The correspondence that was seized and published shows that the Freemasons wanted to do everything so that “a Pope according to our wants” could ascend the throne of Peter. They explained: ...that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the ...humanitarian principles which we are about to put in circulation....You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner–a www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 n, n s. at d e g n, s 38 Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire.5 l Can it truly be said that Paul VI was this Pope imbued with humanitarian principles? The following hymn, which Paul VI intoned when man walked on the moon, would be suitably placed on the lips of a Freemason: Hail to man; hail to thought and science, to technology and work; hail to the boldness of man....Hail to man, king of the earth and now prince of the heavens.6 l Is Paul VI responsible for other aspects of the current crisis? Paul VI is also the pope who introduced the new rite of Mass, the harmfulness of which we shall examine. l What else should be pointed out about Paul VI? It was during Paul VI’s reign that the persecution of priests who wanted to stay Catholic and who refused to abandon the faithful to Protestantism, modernism, and apostasy began. l Didn’t Pope John Paul II turn things around? Endowed with a stronger personality than Paul VI, John Paul II was able to seem firmer on certain points, but he also committed himself more resolutely to the course of novelties. He performed actions to which the note of apostasy or suspect of heresy would formerly have been attached. l Can you give us an example? On May 29, 1982, John Paul II recited the Creed with the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Runcie, in Canterbury Cathedral, and then gave the benediction with him. The Primate of the Anglican Church was vested in all his pontifical regalia, whereas he is just a layman by reason of the invalidity of Anglican orders.7 l Are there any similar examples? There is worse: participation in idolatrous rites. In August of 1985, John Paul II participated in an animist rite in the sacred forest of Togo. On February 2, 1986, at Bombay, he received on his forehead the Tilac, which symbolizes the Hindu deity Shiva’s third eye.8 On February 5, at Madras, he received the Vibhuti (sacred ashes), sign of the adorers of Shiva and Vishnu.9 l How far did the Pope’s participation in false worship go? The sad climax of these activities was reached with the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi on October 27, 1986. The Pope invited all the religions of the world to come and pray for peace at Assisi, with the representatives of each religion praying according to their own rite. Catholic churches were placed at their disposition THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org for the celebration of pagan rites. In San Pietro’s Church, they even placed a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle. l Isn’t it a good thing to promote peace and elicit prayers for this intention? It is not peace, but idolatry and superstition that are bad, for they seriously impinge on the honor due to God. A good intention can never justify committing or encouraging acts bad in themselves. l Did John Paul II stop there? After 1986, John Paul II continued to sponsor annually interreligious meetings like the one at Assisi. He also continued the spectacular gestures in support of false religions. On May 14, 1999, he publicly kissed the Koran. The diffusion of the photograph of this act, widely broadcast in Muslim countries, could only confirm the Mohammedans in their false religion. 22) Why do these popes pass for conservatives? The conciliar popes generally pass for conservatives because they continue to defend certain principles of the natural law that the modern world rejects, and because, in doctrinal matters, they seek to restrain the more radical of the modernist theologians. l Is there any other explanation for this mistaken reputation as “conservative”? One characteristic of the current crisis is the great confusion of ideas and viewpoints which holds sway even in the Catholic Church. It is sufficient to defend some point of Catholic doctrine to be labeled conservative. The expression no longer signifies very much. l Why does Pope Paul VI have the reputation of being a conservative pope in matters of morals? Pope Paul VI passes for a conservative because of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae ( July 25, 1968), which reaffirmed the Church’s opposition to contraception. This encyclical aroused much hatred against him, and many bishops were more or less openly against it. l Given the circumstances, wasn’t Paul VI’s promulgation of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae a courageous act? Promulgating Humanae Vitae undoubtedly required a certain courage on his part, and it certainly is proof of the divine assistance afforded the Church even in the midst of the current crisis. But it should not be forgotten that Pope Paul VI was chiefly responsible for the prevailing circumstances since he had refused to allow a clear condemnation of contraception by the Council. The door would not have been so 39 difficult to shut had it not been left ajar during the Council. l Is not John Paul II a great herald of Christian morality to the modern world? John Paul II is decried as a hard-core conservative because of his clear position on the questions of conjugal morality and celibacy. Yet let us not deceive ourselves: even in these matters, there has been some doctrinal slackening. l Can you give an example of a relaxation in John Paul II’s teaching on morals? The Pope’s declarations give the impression that, if artificial birth control is indeed forbidden, the natural regulation of births is authorized without restriction. But according to Catholic teaching, it is only authorized under certain conditions: when, whether temporarily or permanently, a couple can no longer have children for grave reasons. l Does the moral teaching of John Paul II deviate from Tradition on other points? In the justifications John Paul II gives for Christian morals, the accent is shifted: the dignity of man is always given as the primary reason. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance, affirms: “The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator” (§2320). Such an inversion of the order of those two things shows just how far the humanism of churchmen has gone. It echoes Paul VI’s affirmation that the Church also “has the cult of man.” l As regards doctrine, didn’t Paul VI defend traditional doctrine in his “Credo of the People of God,” as did John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of May 22, 1994, clearly declaring that the ordination of women is absolutely out of the question? The current popes are not (and, thank God, they cannot be) deficient in everything. But it is enough for them to be deficient in some things for the consequences to be tragic for the whole Church. And in fact, these popes have in numerous cases upheld the modernists and abandoned or even condemned the defenders of Catholic truth. l Can examples be cited in which John Paul II supported modernists? John Paul II named cardinal four neo-modernist leaders: the French theologians Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar, and the German-language theologians Hans Urs von Balthasar and Walter Kaspar. l Who is Henri de Lubac? Henri de Lubac ( Jesuit, 1896-1991) was the principal leader in France of what is called the “new theology.” After World War II, the “new theology” adopted the modernist theses condemned by St. Pius X in 1907 (confounding of the natural and the supernatural, doctrinal evolutionism, etc.), but more cleverly. The Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) said of St. Augustine: “Don’t mention that unfortunate man; he spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural.”10 His confrere and friend Henri de Lubac, who always defended him (not hesitating to abridge his correspondence while claiming to publish it in its entirety),11 was much more subtle: he admitted in principle the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural,” but then in his books deliberately worked to make it lose all meaning. Without denying anything too categorically, the “new theology” excels at making everything hazy by systematically putting forward the least precise authors. It invokes the Fathers of the Church against St. Thomas, the Greek Fathers against the Latin Fathers, and even, when useful, St. Thomas himself against his most exact commentators. Pius XII condemned the principal theses of the “new theology” in the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950, but the Encyclical was hardly obeyed. Henri de Lubac, who had been suspended from teaching by his Roman superiors, was a theologian at Vatican Council II and named cardinal by John Paul II in February 1983. l Who is Yves Congar? Yves Congar (Dominican, 1904-95) was the father of the “new ecclesiology,” that is, the new way of conceiving the Church. A disciple of Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, he took classes at the Protestant Faculty of Strasbourg just after being ordained to the priesthood. He decided to consecrate his whole life to the rapprochement of the Church with the heretics and schismatics, going so far as to claim that Luther is one of the greatest religious geniuses of all history. In this regard I put him on the same level as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Pascal. In a certain way, he is even greater. He entirely rethought Christianity....I studied Luther a lot. Scarcely a month goes by without my revisiting his writings.12 Subject to strict surveillance after 1947, (he would later say: “From the beginning of 1947 until the end of 1956, I experienced nothing but an uninterrupted series of denunciations, warnings, restrictive or discriminatory measures, and mistrustful interventions”13) he cleaved to the same ideas (in his intimate diary, he relates that www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 40 twice while at Rome he went to urinate against the door of the Holy Office as a sign of revolt!14). Nevertheless, Yves Congar was summoned as an expert to Vatican II by John XXIII and greatly influenced the Council. John Paul II named him cardinal in October 1994. l Who is Hans Urs von Balthasar? In keeping with the “new theology,” Hans Urs von Balthasar (Swiss, 1905-88) devoted himself to reconstructing theology around modern philosophers and poets. Highly influenced by the fake mystic Adrienne von Speyr (1902-67), he also developed the thesis of an empty hell. Named cardinal by John Paul II in 1988, his sudden death prevented him from receiving the cardinal’s hat. l Who is Walter Kasper? President (since 2001) of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Walter Kasper is notwithstanding a declared enemy of the Catholic Faith. In his book Jesus the Christ, he openly denies many miracles recounted in the Gospels We must count as legendary many of the stories of miracles contained in the Gospels. In these legends one must seek not so much their historical content as their theological aim.15 He doubts the historicity of the Resurrection: This observation of the existence of an historical core in the accounts concerning the tomb in no way implies a proof in favor of the resurrection.16 He also goes so far as to put in doubt our Lord’s divinity, writing pages and pages to relativize all the scriptural passages that mention it. Nevertheless, Kasper was named cardinal by John Paul II in 2001 without having retracted any of his theses. l Yet didn’t Pope John Paul II support the efforts of the conservatives? When Dom Gerard Calvet, the Benedictine abbot of Le Barroux, went to Rome in April 1995 with 75,000 signatures to ask that the Holy Father allow the traditional Mass to be celebrated freely, he was invited to concelebrate the new Mass with the Pope “to give a sign.” He concelebrated, but liberalization of the usage of the traditional rite of Mass did not follow. As for the conservative bishop of Coire, Msgr. Haas, instead of helping him to reform his diocese, John Paul II assigned him two progressivist auxiliary bishops before shunting him aside by making him the Archbishop of Lichtenstein. l To conclude, what can be said about John Paul II? It must not be forgotten that the prayer meeting at Assisi, as well as the entire THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org ecumenical movement, was one of the principal intentions of John Paul II. 23) Are then the postconciliar popes heretics? A heretic, in the precise meaning of the word, is someone who expressly denies a dogma. Now, the Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have done and said many things that have seriously harmed the Church and the faith and that could have confirmed the heretics in their way of acting, but it cannot be proven that they knowingly and willingly denied a dogma. Rather, they must be counted among the number of liberal Catholics, who on the one hand want to remain Catholics, but on the other desire to please the world and do everything to accommodate it. l Isn’t it possible for a liberal Catholic to push his conciliation with the world to the point of heresy? One of the characteristics of Catholics of this kind is that they never want to commit themselves; for this reason alone, it is very difficult for them to maintain a heresy with pertinacity. l Is pertinacity in error absolutely necessary for someone to be a heretic? It suffices to contradict a single dogma to be materially heretical. But to really commit the sin of heresy (to be formally heretical) this negation must be conscious and deliberate. A child who, having badly learned his catechism, attributes two persons to our Lord Jesus Christ has committed a sin of laziness but not the sin of heresy (he proffers a heresy without being conscious of it; he is not formally a heretic). A liberal Catholic multiplying ambiguities and concessions to please the world may even arrive at uttering heresies without being really conscious of it: he is not formally a heretic. l What is the Church’s teaching on these liberal Catholics? About the liberal Catholic, Pius IX said: These are more deadly and dangerous than declared enemies....Because [by remaining just outside the bounds] of formally condemned opinions, they show a certain sign of apparent integrity and irreproachable doctrine, convincing thereby imprudent amateurs who support conciliation and misleading honest souls who would have revolted against a declared error.17 41 24) In the Church’s history, are there analogous examples of papal deficiencies? l Did Pope Honorius really adhere to the error of monothelitism? It seems that Honorius did not really share the Patriarch of Constantinople’s error, but, not understanding thoroughly the whole matter and seeing in it nothing but a theologians’ quarrel, he still took Sergius’s side and silenced St. Sophronius, who defended the Catholic cause. For this reason, Honorius was posthumously condemned by Pope Leo II.19 If there have been, unfortunately, a certain number of popes whose moral lives were not exemplary, yet in doctrinal matters, they were almost always irreproachable. There are, however, some examples of popes who fell into error or who, at least, upheld error instead of fighting it. These were the Popes Liberius, Honorius I, and John XXII. l How did Pope John XXII uphold error? John XXII (1316-34) supported the false doctrine according to which the souls of the faithful departed do not obtain the beatific vision and thus full beatitude until after the general judgment. Beforehand, they simply enjoy the vision of Christ’s humanity. Similarly, the demons and damned men do not undergo the eternal pains of hell until after the last judgment. However, he had the humility to allow himself to be corrected and retracted his error on December 3, 1334, the day before he died.20 l How did Pope Liberius uphold error? Pope Liberius (352-66) succumbed to the pressure of the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ. In 357, he excommunicated Bishop Athanasius, the valiant defender of Catholic doctrine, and subscribed to an ambiguous profession of faith.18 l How did Pope Honorius I uphold error? In the seventh century, Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, invented the heresy of monothelitism. This error teaches that in Christ there is only one will, while in fact Christ possesses two wills, the divine will and a human will. Sergius succeeded in deceiving Honorius I (625-38) and winning him to his cause. 1 John XXIII, Opening discourse, The Documents of Vatican II, Abbott ed. Paul VI, Public Session, December 7, 1965 [English version: Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session (London, 1966)]. 3 Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus (§9). The holy Pope identified as “the distinguishing mark of Antichrist” the fact that “man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored” (§5). 4 The publication was done by Jacques Crétineau-Joly (1803-75) in his work L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution (1859). The work was honored by a brief of approbation from Pius IX (February 25, 1861), who implicitly guaranteed the authenticity of the documents. (All the documents were reproduced by Msgr. Delassus in an appendix to his work The Anti-Christian Conspiracy [French]). 5 Ibid. The texts cited by Crétineau-Joly were published by Msgr. George Dillon in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (1885; reprint in Palmdale, CA: Christian Book Club of America [Omni Publications], 1999), pp. 91,95. 6 Paul VI, February 7, 1971, Documentation Catholique, February 21, 1971, p.156. 7 The invalidity of Anglican ordinations was solemnly pronounced by Leo XIII in the Letter Apostolicæ Curæ of September 13, 1896. 8 La Croix, February 6, 1986; and L’Express, February 7, 1986, with photograph. 9 Indian Express, February 6, 1986. 10 Teilhard de Chardin to Dietrich von Hildebrand in March 1948, published in the appendix of The Trojan Horse in the City of God (London: Sands & Co., 1969), p.227. 11 See Henri Rambaud, “The Trickeries of Father de Lubac,” [French] Itinéraires, No. 168, pp.69-109. 2 Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloß Jaidhof, Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation. 12 Congar, Une Vie pour la Vérité (Paris: Centurion, 1975), p. 59. Pope Adrian VII, in the Bull Satis et Plus, designated Luther as “the apostle of the Antichrist,” and St. Alphonsus Liguori called him “a baneful monster from hell.” 13 Informations Catholiques Internationales, June 1, 1964, p.28. 14 On May 17, 1946, and then on November 27, 1954. See Yves Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946-56), presented and annotated by Étienne Fouilloux (Paris: Cerf, 2001), pp. 88, 293. 15 Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ [5th French ed.], (Paris: Cerf, 1996), p.130. 16 Ibid., p.193. 17 Pius IX, Brief to the Catholic Circle of Milan (1873), cited in Rev. A. Roussel, Liberalislm and Catholicism (1926; Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1998), pp.120-21. 18 Letter Studens Pacis addressed by Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the Orient in the spring of 357: ...By this letter, which I composed with a concern for unanimity with you, know that I am in peace with all of you and with all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, but the aforementioned Athanasius is excluded from communion with me, that is to say, from communion with the Roman Church, and from the exchange of ecclesiastical letters. (DS 138) Pope Liberius confirms this excommunication of St. Athanasius in the Letters Pro Deifico (DS 140), Quia Scio (DS 142), and Non Doceo (DS 143). 19 John IV (Pope from 641-2) took up the defense of his predecessor Honorius in the Letter Dominus Qui Dixit (DS 496-498), showing that the ambiguous texts of Honorius can be interpreted in an orthodox sense. But the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1) and Pope Leo II (682-3) pronounced an anathema against Honorius, who had in fact favored heresy (DS 552 and 563). 20 John XXII retracted his errors in the Bull Ne Super His (DS 990-1), which was published by his successor, Benedict XII. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 42 F R . p e t e r Can a US citizen swear an oath of loyalty to a foreign Christian prince? The answer to this question depends upon the question of the submission of subjects to legitimate rulers. This is a duty of justice that derives from the principle contained in Sacred Scripture and constantly taught by the Church that the civil power of government comes from God and not from the people: Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. (Rom. 13:1-2) R . s c o t t A second exception that could exist is the modern situation of dual nationality, which has now become a common occurrence. When a person takes up a second nationality he must make an oath recognizing submission to the civil authority of the country in which he takes up a second citizenship. This is understood, however, to mean that each government is sovereign in its own domain, that is, in its own country, and that the person with dual citizenship will fulfill his duties in justice towards the governments of both countries without denying either one its rights, and that in case of conflict he will observe the laws and authority of the land in which he is living. Q This reverence to civil authority requires that no oath be pronounced that be opposed to that authority within the territory of its jurisdiction, or that undermines it. The swearing of an oath of fealty or submission to a foreign power or prince would regularly be considered by all parties to be an infringement of the rights of the civil authority, for no man can serve two masters. The citizen’s duty in justice is to defend his own country, its laws and its civil authority, by the virtue of observance, and not that of another. In general, the swearing of allegiance to a foreign rule means the compromising in some way of one’s obligation towards one’s own country, or at least the possibility thereof. This very possibility would make the swearing of such an oath immoral, since it would mean an attempt to bind oneself to an obligation that could be in contradiction with a prior obligation in justice. However, there could be exceptions to this principle. One such exception could take place if a person could establish that the established authority in his country is illegitimate, either because it is opposed to the natural and divine law, or because power was seized in an unjust manner. In such a case, one would theoretically not be bound in conscience to obedience to such an authority. However, this does not seem to me to be the situation with our modern Freemasonic governments. Many of their laws are unjust, immoral, and iniquitous, and no one is bound in conscience to obey them. However, God has given them the authority to rule, and we should respect their authority for as long as they do not request us to do anything against faith and morals. Civil governments would rightly refuse to acknowledge an oath of fealty to a foreign power, and would rightly punish a man who would deny his duty in justice to his own country in order to live up to such an oath. Consequently, a US citizen’s oath of allegiance to a foreign king ought to be considered unjust, illegal, and null and void, as being opposed to his allegiance to his own country. Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who condones an unjust war? The Catholic Church does not tell Catholics to avoid all involvement in politics simply because there is injustice, greed, ambition, just to mention some of the evils involved. The Church teaches us that all our involvement in politics ought to be motivated, inspired, and directed by the Church’s social teachings, and in particular by the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Voting, as well as involvement in political campaigns, must have as its ultimate motive these higher, supernatural principles, that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, and the rights of the one true Church be acknowledged publicly in society. Manifestly, we are presently very far removed from achieving these aims. It does not mean that we should do nothing. It does mean, however, that whatever we do will necessarily involve the toleration of many evils, which we in no way desire or will. However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones. For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding samesex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost A THE ANGELUS • August 2007 www.angeluspress.org 43 importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion. Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue. Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gay, or pro-euthanasia. Voting in local and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and permissible. However, it would certainly be obligatory to use the democratic process in place in the unlikely event that it could be used to introduce Catholic candidates who do not accept the propaganda of modern liberal democracy. Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor and the US District Superior, he is currently the rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia. writing Contest winner Krescentia Hattrup Immaculate Conception Church, Post Falls, Idaho MAY 2007 Serving Without Stain Do we prepare ourselves adequately for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the reception of the Holy Eucharist? Our souls should be clothed in the virtues, just as the consecrated priest dons the symbolic vestments before Mass. Christ expects to enter a soul cleansed from impurities. It should be swept clean of the dust and choking grime of the world, and wiped free of the filth of sin by confession. “Let not the partaking of Thy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, though unworthy, presume to receive, turn to my judgement and condemnation...” (Offertory) The priest prays as he places the cincture around his waist. “Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity and extinguish in my heart the fire of concupiscence so that the virtue of continence and chastity always remaining in my heart, I may serve you better.” The priest, even more than the faithful, has an obligation to take care in his preparation before Mass. With each article of clothing he puts on preceding the great Sacrifice, he prays for a spiritual strength of some kind. Seen in this light, the vesting of the celebrant could also be likened to placing armor upon oneself. There is the “helmet of salvation,” the “cincture of purity,” the “maniple of sorrow,” and the “stole of immortality”–these are the names given to the amice, cincture, maniple, and stole. We too can prepare our souls for Mass in like manner, though on a simpler scale. The armor pieces of our souls are purity according to our state of life, love and charity for our fellow men, and the right disposition in receiving Communion. “He who eats My www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August 2007 Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him.” Ps. 144:16 The Angelus monthly photo writing contest Any member of a household aged 10-18 whose family address has a current subscription to The Angelus (either in print or online) is eligible. There may be more than one entry per address if more than one child is eligible. (Please include your family’s address and phone number, especially if you are a contestant writing from a boarding school.) Pricing for The Angelus is found at the bottom of the “Table of Contents” page. The Angelus is offering $150 for a 250-word creative writing composition on the above picture. (This may include, but is not limited to, any poem, dialogue, short story, song lyrics, script, explanation, etc.) If none is deserving of the prize, none will be awarded. The winning essay may be published if there is a winner. An extra $50 is available if one is a member of the SSPX Eucharistic Crusade (verified by your chaplain with your entry). Entrants must submit a creative-writing composition in their own words about the featured monthly picture. Submissions must be handwritten and will be judged on content, legibility, and creativity. The essays will be judged by parties outside of Angelus Press. Essays must be postmarked or faxed by AUGUST 31 and be addressed to: Attention: The Angelus Monthly Photo Writing Contest 2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109 FAX: 816-753-3557 (24-hour dedicated line) “The Family Has Lost Its Head” (pp.14-18) –FURTHER READING My Life with Thomas Aquinas Raising Your Children Fatherhood and Family Chapter after chapter on how to apply St. Thomas’s teachings to modern society—and why we must do so if we are to have any hope of leaving this world with our souls intact. Far from being an esoteric philosophical treatise, this book is eminently practical, engaging, and highly rewarding for any Catholic. Each chapter was originally an article in Integrity magazine. Confusion prevails about the job of bringing up children. Integrity Magazine, a post-WWII journal by lay Catholics for living an integral Catholic life, has been sifted for insightful articles on every aspect of raising children.  Teaching Children to Pray  Purity and the Young Child  Creative Activity  The Dating System  Crisis of Faith in Youth  The Vocation of Parents  Marriage for Keeps and MUCH more all in short easy to read article-chapters. Fathers are essential for a Catholic America. The question is, “What do fathers do?” Forward-thinking Integrity Magazine gives answers:  Men, Mary, and Manliness  The Family Has Lost Its Head  Economics of the Catholic Family  Afraid to Marry?  Glorifying the Daily Grind  The Heroism of the Big Family  Bringing the Church into Work  and MUCH more, all in short easy to read article-chapters. Vol.1, The Integrity Series Carol Robinson 307pp, softcover, STK# 4094 $15.00 Vol.2, The Integrity Series 256pp, softcover, STK# 6598 $15.00 Vol.3, The Integrity Series 200pp, softcover, STK# 6721 $13.00 Buy all three Integrity titles and save over 30% (normally $43.00) Ye Gods Sins of Parents Christ in the Home If there’s one thing in the Bible that’s hard for moderns to understand it’s the matter of idolatry. Can you imagine people in our day building a golden calf and worshipping it? Read Ye Gods and you’ll be shaken by what have become our modern idols. In two parts: “Sins of Commission” and “Sins of Omission.” While perhaps avoiding major sins of commission, even the best Catholic parents commit sins of omission, often without even knowing it.  31 Don’ts of childrearing  21 character traits of good parents  the “unbreakable rule”  three parental attitudes that damage your children  Why do we shout at our children?  And much more! Ideal for the engaged, marriage instruction classes, and for the already married. A guidebook to finding a happy marriage, keeping a happy marriage, and raising happy children is full of practical and spiritual advice in a series of four meditations: Courtship, Marriage, the Home, and the Training of Children. His section on imparting sex knowledge to children will be helpful to parents faced with this complex problem and duty. Ed Willock 151pp, illustrated by the author, softcover, STK# 8179Q $14.95 Fr. Charles Hugo Doyle 206pp, hardcover, gold-foil stamped, STK# 6762✱ $19.95 Fr. Raoul Plus Listen, Son Now $29.95 STK# 6695 Twelve heart-to-heart talks to be given by Dad to his boys and young men about the mysterious processes of reproducing life. Presents timeless supernatural attitude in accord with Catholic principles. No crude language. Graduated structure in three parts: ages 9-13; 14-16; 16-19. Suggestions for preserving purity. 75pp, softcover, STK# 5104✱ $5.00 Dear Newlyweds Pope Pius XII Pius XII addressed scores of newlyweds in the 1940’s. These addresses were not off-the-cuff remarks, but taken together, form a complete course of instruction on married life, which is why Dear Newlyweds is NOT just for newlyweds, but all married couples and anyone contemplating marriage. Inspirational yet full of practical advice. 269pp, softcover, STK# 6730✱ $15.00 343pp, larger type, softcover, STK# 8128 $18.95 www.angeluspress.org l 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. Sunday Missal Booklet #1009 In the early 1980’s, Angelus Press printed its first Latin-English Missal booklet. Others have come and gone since then, but we believe that our new edition is the best available. From the durable cover to the two-color printing (rubrics in red), this missalette is a gem. The complete Mass is in Latin and English. Features include: Short Instruction on the Holy Mass; Ordinary of the Mass for High and Low Masses; the Propers of Trinity Sunday; 22 original illustrations to help newcomers follow the Mass; directions for kneeling, sitting, and standing; copious commentary in the margins on the Mass itself taken from St. Thomas Aquinas and the writings of Frs. de Chivré, Gihr, and Beaubien; the after-Mass Leonine Prayers, Prayer for the Sovereign of England, Thanksgiving Prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas, Anima Christi, indulgenced Prayer Before a Crucifix, and the Prayer for All Things Necessary to Salvation. Also includes the Rite of Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. 64pp, 5½" x 8½", durable softcover, STK# 6636✱ $5.00. 10-pack, STK# 6640✱ $30.00 W E N archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Writings and Addresses 1963•1976 “You rint rep must p Speaks. o h A Bis ’s a very k.” It nt wor ta avies p m i or D hael –Mic  Out of print for 13 years!  New, expanded edition!  Includes those parts unpublished in the original English edition E-mail Updates from Angelus Press! If you would like to receive our bi-weekly e-mail, ­updating you on new titles, sales and special offers (most available only online), simply send your e-mail address to: listmaster@angeluspress.org. Out of print for 13 years, A Bishop Speaks is back! Posthumous thanks are due to Mr. Michael Davies, RIP, who continually encouraged us to reprint this book while revising Pope John’s Council and Pope Paul’s New Mass. He said, “You must reprint A Bishop Speaks. It’s a very important work.” He referred to and quoted from his old copy constantly. This book is a chronological collection of key letters, sermons, conferences, and interviews (1963-1976) of Archbishop Lefebvre that are critical to understanding his founding of the SSPX, his defense of Catholic Tradition, and his opposition to Vatican II and the New Mass. Includes letters from 1963, ’64 and ’65 on the various Sessions of the Second Vatican Council (invaluable); from 1968-69, he reflects repeatedly on the deepening crisis in the Church and society, particularly noting a crisis in authority; the 1970 classic “To Remain a Good Catholic Must One Become a Protestant?”; he shifts gears in the aftermath of the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae and from 1971 to ’74 writes four outstanding pieces on the nature of the Mass, the Priesthood, and the fruits of the New Mass; his famous Declaration of 1974; five letters to Pope Paul VI written in 1975 and 1976; and much more! In the first English edition Archbishop Lefebvre said: angelus Press We hope that this English edition will be widely read. May it also help many Catholics–bishops, priests, and laity–to understand the tragedy that is ruining the Church, and the new betrayal of which Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Victim. 1-800-96ORDER 312pp, softcover, STK# 5067Q $20.00 You can change your e-mail reception preferences or unsubscribe at any time. Shipping & Handling USA $.01 to $25.00 $7.50 $25.01 to $50.00 $10.00 $50.01 to $100.00 $15.00 Over $100.00 15% of order Foreign 50% of order subtotal 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 1-800-966-7337 www.angeluspress.org l 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. I