$4.45

may 2009

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

inside

Fr. Peter Gumpel, S.J.:
Pope Pius Xii and the
Catholic Church
During World War ii

Fr. Pfluger: Combat for the Faith

Interview with
Fr. Arnaud Rostand

The Blindness of Catholics

Pope Benedict’s Gesture
–Tradition’s Venture

The Morality of Video Games

new from ANGELUS PRESS

Fresh Reprints

A major player at Vatican
II, Archbishop Lefebvre
made these 12 official
statements at the Council
exposing the danger of its
documents. He warned
that the faithful would
become confused, and
predicted what would
surely follow if the Second
Vatican Council did not
alter its course...

Covering 1979-1982,
Michael Davies expertly
records many of Pope John
Paul II’s directives and how
they were opposed by the
Bishops, and why it was
necessary for Archbishop
Lefebvre and the SSPX to
avoid all compromise in
preserving Catholic Truth.

Softcover. STK# 3072✱ $10.00 Softcover. STK# 3040✱ $16.95
Originally transcribed
from a series of spiritual
conferences delivered
by the Archbishop to his
seminarians in Ecône,
Switzerland, from 1977
to 1979. In these 29
meditations, Archbishop
Lefebvre expounds upon the
life of the Redeemer, His
mind and will, His love for
the Father and His intense
desire for our salvation.

Softcover. STK# 5046✱ $10.95

Cardinal Ottaviani, in a
1953 lecture, explains
why the Church teaches
that the State has the
duty of professing the
Catholic religion and
why the rulers are to
ensure that the moral
principles of the true
religion inspire the
social activity and the
laws of the State.

Softcover. STK# 1029✱ $5.00

75%
Discount
on 10-packs
STK# 8297✱

✗

✗

STK# 8298✱

Each $11.95 NOW $4.95

Each $11.95 NOW $3.95

10-pack Now $29.95

10-pack Now $22.95

Retail Customers

Bookstores

Retail Customers

Bookstores

“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

May 2009
Volume XXXII, Number 5

• Kansas City, Missouri 64109

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

Letter from the editor. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2
Fr. Markus Heggenberger

PublisheR

Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Editor

Fr. Markus Heggenberger
books and marketing

Fr. Kenneth Novak
Assistant Editor

Mr. James Vogel
operations manager

combat for the faith  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger

interview with fr. arnaud rostand . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
pius XII AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE cATHOLIC
cHURCH DURING WORLD WAR ii . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13
Fr. Peter Gumpel, S.J.

Mr. Michael Sestak
Editorial assistant

Miss Anne Stinnett
Design and Layout

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The Blindness of Catholics .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19

Mr. Simon Townshend

comptroller

Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA
customer service

pope benedict’s Gesture–
Tradition’s venture. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27
Fr. Philippe Toulza

Mrs. MaryAnne Hall
Mr. John Rydholm
Miss Rebecca Heatwole

the society’s strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

Shipping and Handling

the morality of video games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35

Mr. Jon Rydholm

Fr. Regis de Cacqueray
Jacques Delorme

catechism of the crisis in the church . .Part
 .  .  .  .  .  .  .23
 .  .  . 38
Fr. Matthias Gaudron

church and world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
Questions and answers. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 43
Fr. Peter Scott

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly
under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen
of Angels. Publication office is located at
2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109.
PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
©2009 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts are welcome
and will be used at the discretion of the editors.
Postmaster sends address changes
to the address above.

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.

2

Letter
from
the
Editor

The reader of The Angelus will find in this issue the
first part of an interview with Fr. Gumpel, S.J., relator of
the cause of Pius XII. He is probably the living person
who knows more than anyone else about Pope Pacelli,
and he is ardently defending historical truth in praise
of the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII defended the
Jewish people (and others) against the unjust attacks
of a godless regime–Nazi Germany. This was for him
not a question of partiality, but of Natural Law. The
Ten Commandments, after all, do not apply only to
Catholics, but to all human beings, Christian or pagan.
In other words: the reason the Catholic Church rejects
abortion and the murder of the Jewish people (or any
other race) is essentially the same–obedience to the Law
of God.
Many interesting questions are raised in this
interview, and it is difficult not to have a feeling of
respect for the attitude of this pope (even if someone
did not share his religious views). It has been rightly
asserted that Pope Pius XII was the last pope of a certain
“traditional mindset”: it is also true that he could not
prevent the preparation of modernization which swept
away the Church in its traditional form and which came
from inside the Church. The huge crisis of faith, which
became visible at that time, was homemade–and Pius
XII knew it.
Therefore there is a certain logic in the fact that Pius
XII nowadays is denigrated and calumniated as “Hitler’s
pope.” This historical lie goes hand in hand with the
unrealistic concept of a “modern church, conforming to
this world,” promoted by Vatican II. The only problem
is: the modern church has produced nothing but ruins,
and self-destruction seems to be at hand.
Fr. Hans Küng, a Swiss priest, “architect of the
Second Vatican Council” and a long-term critic of
Church and Pope, seems to forget the actions of Pius
XII in favor of the Jews and the circumstances thereof.
In an interview with Euronews on April 7, 2009, he
stated: “The consequences of Vatican II were immense
and historic. For the first time a dialogue was opened
with the Jewish faith. Before, our relationship had been
poisonous….” But he “forgets” to mention that among
all international organizations the Catholic Church was
the only one that took a stand in favor of the persecuted
Jewish people–with a demonstrably high risk for its own
existence–not because of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” but
because of the “Spirit of Christ.” What does “poisonous
relationship” then mean? Does Fr. Küng want to change
the Catholic religion? It is highly improbable that the
preacher of dialogue and tolerance would have the
courage to imitate the example of Pope Pius XII. His
courage is just sufficient to forget historical facts or even
to insult this courageous pope. Albert Einstein (born in
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

Germany, of Jewish origin, who immigrated in 1932 to
California) has to be quoted here: “Only the Church
protested against the Hitlerian onslaught.…Up till then I
had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a
great admiration for the Church” (Time Magazine, 1940).
Hans Küng continues to spread his erroneous and
anti-Catholic views. He has damaged the reputation of
the Church for decades. His widely promoted system
of “global ethics” is a shallow reflection of Christian
Moral Theology, watered down to the level of pure
nature without Revelation: a doctrine which is not very
edifying, but totally in line with his critical views of the
Church.
The decisive question for the future will be: What
is the attitude of Pope Benedict? That the pope wants to
incorporate the “traditionalists” officially in the Church,
there is no doubt. What kind of doctrinal background he
plans to allow them is however not so clear–perhaps not
even to himself–hence the necessity of “doctrinal talks.”
Here is exactly the point where the SSPX hopes for the
intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary; here it becomes
visible that not everything can be explained through
and expected from even the best human endeavors.
Archbishop Lefebvre argued after the consecration of
bishops in 1988, that the Church “will need us” and that
therefore the relationship to Rome might be a temporary
problem for the SSPX, but not a permanent one. It is
astonishing how accurate his statement has been in light
of the recent developments. It was finally a result not
so much of human calculation, but rather of a Catholic
sense of the Church. The logic is simple: The Catholic
Faith will only be able to exist in its traditional form
(whatever Fr. Küng may say). We know that the Catholic
Church will not be destroyed according to Mt. 16:18:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.” Therefore Tradition has sooner
or later to be readmitted officially; otherwise the selfdestruction of the Church will be inevitable!
It is revealing that in all discussions about the
Catholic Church, it is the SSPX that is holding the
traditional view of the authority and infallibility of the
pope, of the divine origin of Christian Doctrine, of the
indestructibility of the Church; whereas its opponents
are generally holding the opposite view, often inspired
by liberal Protestantism and modernism.
It seems to be a special trial of the members of an
institution to fight for the survival of this very institution
which does not want that kind of defense. For Catholics
this means nothing else than imitation of Jesus Christ.

Instaurare Omnia in Christo,
Fr. Markus Heggenberger

3

Combat for
the Faith
F r .

N i k l a u s

Dear Fathers, Sisters, and Friends,
Thank you for coming this evening. I want to
speak to you about recent events and news between
the Society and Rome. In comparison with the last
20 years, the last two years have been very rich in
events, news, and discussions. I want to talk about the
withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, the
history leading up to the decree of January 21st, and
the decree itself. Finally I will say a little about Bishop
Williamson and the situation in Europe, especially in
Germany.
First, the decree of excommunication. Why did
the Society and the Superior General request two
preliminary conditions for doctrinal discussions with
Rome before we could have a practical or canonical
agreement? It is important for you, the faithful, to
understand the course of action in the Society, why we
do what we do, and why we cannot accept a merely
practical agreement with Rome immediately.
Since 2000 and the pilgrimage of Tradition, there
has been a new situation. Rome has seen a new side
to Tradition in general and the Society of St. Pius X in
particular. In January 2001, with the agreement of the
SSPX bishops and members of the General Council,
the Society established a line of conduct, a course of
action concerning our attitude towards Rome. The
Society posited two conditions for any discussions with
Rome. These doctrinal discussions with Rome would
be about the Council, the new errors, the novelties
in the Church and the new spirit in the Church. We

P f l u g e r

needed a sign that we would be able to trust Rome.
This was the reason we asked for two conditions: the
liberalization of the Old Mass and the withdrawal of
our bishops’ excommunications.
On July 7, 2007, by the motu proprio Summorum
Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that the
traditional Mass had never been abrogated. This is
surely the most important part of this motu proprio.
We are all aware of the behavior of many against the
Old Mass and the conscience in the modern Church
against the Mass. They behaved as if this Mass had
been abrogated; it was forbidden to say the Old Mass.
So it was a surprise for the Pope to acknowledge that
the Old Mass had never been abrogated.
There were other important items in this motu
proprio: it acknowledged the right of every priest in the
Church to celebrate the Old Mass. You are aware of the
negative and violent reaction of many bishops to this.
Nevertheless, the Pope said these two very important
things.
The motu proprio was not perfect but the essential
condition was fulfilled: the liberalization of the Old
Mass and the possibility for every priest to say this
Mass. In a certain regard we can say that, with this
motu proprio, Archbishop Lefebvre’s combat for its
maintenance was implicitly rehabilitated. His resistance
to the New Mass was necessary to eventually receive
the result of the motu proprio in 2007.
The second condition was, in a certain respect,
more difficult to realize. This is because it demanded
a personal and courageous act on the part of the Pope:
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

4
to say that the decree from 1988 is no longer valid.
Today—and this is what is essential, in line with what we
had asked—the Pope has lifted the excommunications
and canceled the effects of the decree of 1988. It is
important to note that this lifting was done without
any corresponding act on our part. It was without
conditions for us. The Pope has done this again in spite
of the many reservations and hostility of his entourage.
This act which we had asked for was fulfilled by the
Pope in a unilateral, benevolent and courageous act.
After these past twenty years, it is certainly important
to thank the Holy Father and especially the Blessed
Virgin for this decree.
It is obvious that the Society always considered
these excommunications null and void. They were
profoundly unjust. Perhaps you wonder why we even
asked the Pope to withdraw the excommunications,
why we found this important if we considered them
null, void and unjust. Was it not an implicit acceptance
on our part of their validity? As Bishop Fellay has
said, we do not fight and suffer for ourselves. We
fight for the Church. We could have lived with the
excommunications since they are unjust and void. But
the excommunications were a burden and an injustice
for the Church, and for many priests and faithful this
burden was too hard and difficult to bear. Our concern
is for more than just our own Society and faithful; we
have a desire to help the Church. This is the reason we
made such a demand. Too many souls are prevented
from coming to us and our chapels and priories. And
too many priests and faithful in the United States,
France, Germany and the Philippines are stigmatized
as soon as they try to live their faith even a little more
traditionally.
In the US, there is a priest who is not a member of
the SSPX but who works with us. He was conservative,
he had the Faith and prayed the rosary—and this was
enough to have himself branded a “Lefebvrist”! He
didn’t know what that meant; he thought he was simply
being Catholic. You see how much it takes to earn
such a label! So this priest eventually came to us. But
many priests and faithful around the world have the
Faith, pray and maintain the Faith but do not have the
strength to come to Tradition with this unjust label.
With this in mind, you understand why the Society
demanded the withdrawal of the excommunications.
Of course, the excommunications in practice
did not simply affect the bishops of the Society.
Tradition as a whole was stigmatized and effectively
excommunicated. This was unjust, a handicap and an
obstacle to the apostolate and our mission.
In a Letter to Friends and Benefactors in October
2008, Bishop Fellay explained our view and
announced the beginning of another Rosary Crusade:
“Through the excommunication, what has been
censured and penalized is the very attitude which
specified the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre.” This
attitude, this behavior, this Catholic spirit is what was
excommunicated.
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

In the modern Church for some decades now, a
reference to the past of the Church, to Her Tradition,
or the history of the Church means history only since
the Second Vatican Council. This, of course, makes it
a very young history. All the dogmas of the Faith and
previous councils are practically no longer important.
With this excommunication in 1988, as Bishop Fellay
wrote, this reference to anything before Vatican II in
the Church, Her history and Tradition, was penalized
and excommunicated. Since then, because of this
reprobation, many have been afraid of going to the
Source of the Living Water, Who alone is capable of
restoring Holy Mother Church.
We need this Catholic view to understand why we
are not a sect. You could say it’s easier to be alone,
without contact with Rome and the bishops. It’s easier
to maintain one’s own line of conduct and vocation
without these contacts. But this is not Catholic. We fight
not only for us and for our priests and faithful; we do
what the Church needs. And this is Tradition, the Old
Mass, the preaching of the Faith.
A Mother Prioress in France told me that, in one
of her schools, a Sister asked the children how many
bishops there were in the Church. One 10- or 11-yearold child answered, “Four.” In a certain respect, this is
dangerous. If our youth have no view of the Church,
this is not what we want. We must have a desire that
the modern Church and the faithful return to the Faith
of all time.
In the past few years, there has been a reproach
from the sedevacantists: “Why are you looking for
contacts with Rome? They are modernists!” But the
Pope is the Pope and the Church is the Church. We
must save souls. I think it is important, for the young
generation, for us priests to understand that we have
a responsibility and a mission in the Church: not only
to have nice priories and good organization, etc. We
are Catholic. We are in the Church. We suffer because
of the new religion and the new spirit of faith in the
Church.
It is true that the excommunications, in a way,
offered a certain protection. There are many examples
of communities, priests and groups who have made
agreements with Rome. Very often, the consequences
were to accept Vatican II, or even to say the New Mass
like Bishop Rifan in Campos. Here we see a man who
was once so strong and now he has concelebrated the
New Mass. Or consider Fr. Michael Mary, the superior
of the Redemptorists. Two years ago, he refused to
name Pope Benedict XVI in the Canon of the Mass
because, for him, he was not the Pope! Now he has
made an agreement and consequently has nothing. So,
yes, in a certain regard, the excommunication was a
protection. But we could not live for 20, 30 or 40 years
for ourselves alone without a desire for the Church as a
whole to return to Tradition.
While offering a certain protection, they were
nevertheless an obstacle to our apostolate. All of our
priests know this handicap very well. So many good

5
seminarians do not enter in our seminaries simply
because of these labels. Because of this, we asked for
this iniquity to be washed away; not simply for us or
our bishops, but for the Church. It was insult to our
combat and honor.
Last June, there was another step, the so-called
ultimatum from Cardinal Hoyos. There was an
attempt made to force the Society into signing a purely
practical resolution to our situation. Cardinal Hoyos,
a Colombian, is a good man who certainly has the
Faith. He is, however, a political and diplomatic man
who wants results and contracts. And after all these
discussions and long years since 2000, his duties in
Rome will end this year or next. But what is at stake
was too big for us to sign a contract in time for last
summer’s holiday. It was not a sufficient reason.
The ultimatum, at the time, made the future of
the Society’s contacts with Rome uncertain. Bishop
Fellay said on the one hand, we could see the lifting
of the excommunications later that year but, on the
other hand, we might be excommunicated again now!
Cardinal Hoyos forced us and demanded a rapid
answer and was upset that Bishop Fellay, because of his
many duties, was not often at Menzingen. Because of
this, he does not have the time to write long letters and
could not immediately respond.
Nevertheless, on October 25, at Lourdes, we had
a meeting of the General Council of the Society. The
General Council in the Society includes the Superior
General, his two Assistants, the General Secretary,
and the General Bursar. In Lourdes, the other three
bishops of the Society were included. The meeting was
to discuss the withdrawal of the excommunications.
Should we continue with our course of action? Or
should we demand another? The first rosary crusade
was more successful than anyone could have imagined.
Who could have imagined the motu proprio with all
its good fruits? To have the Pope say not simply that
the Old Mass was never abrogated, but that any priest
had the right to say it, to pray with the old Breviary, to
administer the sacraments according to the old form.
No one could have imagined.
Because of this success, everyone determined
that it was necessary to continue following this line.
The next day, on the Feast of Christ the King, Bishop
Fellay announced the second Rosary Crusade for
the intention of asking Our Lady to help the Pope
withdraw the excommunications.
There was also the letter of December 15, 2008.
We had heard that the Cardinal, his friends and the
Pope were worried that there was no contact from
Menzingen. So the most important Cardinals decided
to have a meeting about us, the excommunications and
the lifting thereof. So Bishop Fellay wrote a letter on
December 15th to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to define
and clarify our position and to avoid any ambiguity.
Let me quote this letter:

We wish to remain Catholic and put all our forces at the
service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the
Roman Catholic Church.

This is nothing new, of course; the crisis is the same as
is our battle: to remain Catholic and to put our forces
at the services of the Church.
We filially accept Her teaching. We believe firmly in the primacy of Peter and his prerogatives, and for this reason the
current situation in the Church makes us suffer all the more.
We are ready to write the Creed in our blood.

The modern bishops say we are not Catholic—but we
are ready to write the Creed in our blood.
We accept and make ours all the Councils up to Vatican I.
But we have reservations about the Second Vatican Council,
which wanted to be, in the words of Pope John XXIII, “different from the others.” It wanted to be pastoral, not defining
anything but, rather, to be much more modest.

“Pastoral” is not negative, of course, but a pastoral
council, meeting, or bishops’ conference intends to
give answers for a specific time. If you have a new
situation, apostolate, behavior, or way of thinking,
etc., a priest, or an apostolate, or the Church has to
address these. But this is not new. There have always
been priests’ meetings to adapt to new situations. There
have always been specific conferences for certain
countries. But this is different from Councils like Trent
or Vatican I which convened to issue new definitions
against heresies. Protestantism, for instance, caused the
Council of Trent in the 16th century. And this is a very
different situation.
We are accused of putting ourselves above the
Pope. But this is false. We only follow what the First
Vatican Council says about the role of the Pope.
What we oppose to certain texts of Vatican II are not
doctrines specific to the Society of St. Pius X, but the
very texts of the Magisterium of the Church. In answer
to the reproach, “You don’t accept the Council! To be
Catholic, you must accept the Council!” we answer,
“This Council is different. This Council spreads
novelties and a new spirit. And this new spirit is in
opposition to the Magisterium of all time.”
It is an important reflection. As Bishop Fellay
said, it is not we who are at the origin of the crisis, and
it is not we who have caused the crisis. It is not our
problem. We suffer, but the origin of the problem is
not the Society of St. Pius X, it is the important men
from the Council. There are other reasons and causes,
but the new theology and religion, in which everyone
is saved, is at root. Thinkers like Henri de Lubac
and Karl Rahner are at the root of these problems.
Consider Rahner, who taught that because man is man,
because he has a human nature, he will receive the
necessary grace, because he has a right to it as man.
What a strange, false and new idea! It is new in the
sense that it is opposed to the doctrine, theology and
Faith of all time. And yet a man like Rahner managed
the Council and had importance and great influence
over the bishops of Europe, among others. We can
show and explain what this new theology has done. So
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

6
the problem of the crisis in the Church is not because
we are faithful to the Faith of all time. The crisis has
another source: the new theology.
The fruits of our apostolate can be seen
everywhere: serious conversions, vocations, missions
and large families. It is a proof of the Faith. We have
no other means with which to restore the Church than
Tradition.
The letter to the Cardinal continues:
Many other priests and young people would be ready to
follow this path, because they find in our apostolate a great
consolation, especially the realization of a truly sacerdotal
life.

A parish priest in Germany learned to say the Old
Mass in our German seminary; he sent me a letter after
offering his first Old Mass in the seminary in which
he said, “This is like coming home. I am discovering
the Faith.” And this is true! When you have a priest,
especially a young priest, who begins to celebrate the
Old Mass, he discovers not only what the Catholic
Faith is, but also the true nature of the priesthood.
With the New Mass, you cannot discover and live the
Catholic spirit; it is impossible.
We do not want to be pessimistic, Your Eminence, because
we have hope. But it is necessary to be realistic. We have
not seen yet all the consequences of the crisis which followed the Council. In a few years’ time, the situation will
be even more traumatic. The lack of priests will lead to the
de-Christianization of whole regions.

This letter was sent in December 2008.
Rome always spoke of reconciliation and full
communion. It is not so easy to understand what
“full communion” means; they don’t speak of schism
or excommunication, but a lack of full communion.
We are Catholic; we cannot be more than we are.
So, for Rome, it was the question of a canonical step.
For us, the contact, meetings and letters with Rome
were for the rehabilitation of Tradition. It is not
because we doubt or have a complex or feel we are
excommunicated. It is not so easy to carry on in this
matter; consider, as an example, when Cardinal Hoyos
said in an interview that Bishop Fellay, in the name of
all the Society bishops, accepted the Second Vatican
Council. Then we had to clarify this publicly, and then
Cardinal Hoyos clarified, etc. It is not happy to always
discuss, send letters and have meetings. But it is for
the rehabilitation of Tradition. It is not our choice, but
rather our mission. It is something we have to do for
the history of the Church and for the next generation,
to show that the excommunication of Tradition was
unjust.
The letter concluded:
By this letter, we again formally request, and in the name
of the three other bishops consecrated for the service of the
Society of St. Pius X, the second sign: the withdrawal of the
decree of excommunication. For us, it was never a question
of establishing a parallel hierarchy, but in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, an operation of survival. We are intimately
persuaded that this second action on the part of Rome would
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

help much to improve both the general atmosphere of Holy
Church and the atmosphere of trust necessary to go ahead.

One month later, on January 17th, Bishop Fellay
met with Cardinal Hoyos in Rome. He went to present
the bouquet of rosaries offered to the Blessed Virgin
Mary for the intention of granting courage to the Holy
Father, that he might withdraw the 1988 decree. He
returned with the decree which was signed on January
21st, to be made public on January 26th. But then a
blogger in Spain announced the decree to the whole
world, so Rome published the decree on January 24th.
I will quote some of the important parts of the
Decree from the Congregation for Bishops:
By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His
Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos...Mons. Bernard
Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the
latae sententiae excommunication.
His Holiness Benedict XVI...decided to reconsider the
canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier
de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta,
arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal
relations of confidence...

So this decree is intended to build trust, as we asked.
...and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship
of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See.
This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations,
is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity
of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal
of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed...

Now, in the context of the statements of Bishop
Williamson, all the bishops in the world are trying to
force the Society to accept the Second Vatican Council
immediately, to show that this demand was sincere. But
Rome writes differently:
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt
accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the
entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity
and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority
of the Pope...
Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy
Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit
from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais,
Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure
of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any
juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated
at that time.

This should be read in the context of the
announcement of the need for doctrinal discussions.
The positive aspects of this decree include, firstly, the
great benefit of lifting the opprobrium which affected
not only persons but all of Tradition. Also, the decree
was signed by the Congregation for Bishops, not by
the Ecclesia Dei Commission which is important
because the decree has the same value of 1988. It
does not mention the Week of Christian Unity. And it
finally admits as necessary, doctrinal discussions. This

7
is our course of action: the two conditions and now
the beginning of doctrinal discussions concerning the
Council.
The more disappointing aspects of the Decree
include, firstly, the fact that it speaks of a remission of a
censure, not the annulment or withdrawal of the 1988
decree. But considering the circumstances and situation
of the Church, it is not possible to obtain much more
than this. As Bishop Fellay said, Rome never loses face;
and, for now, it would be illusory, even dangerous, to
seek from the pontifical authority anything further. It is
also a question for us of safeguarding the principle of
authority: Rome is Rome.
The unjust decree of excommunication from
1988 has been withdrawn. One decree has driven out
the other. And the new decree renders the first one
obsolete, null and void, without effect. Of course,
there is another question: is Archbishop Lefebvre not
included in this new decree? Certain authoritative
voices among some important canonists in Rome think
so. Indeed, the last sentence of the decree declares the
1988 decree deprived of juridical effects. It would thus
implicitly include Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de
Castro Mayer. We are certainly not satisfied, but it is a
step. And we work one day so that these two bishops
will be completely rehabilitated.
After this decree, the four bishops consecrated 20
years ago wrote together a letter to Pope Benedict XVI
with the intention of thanking him for this withdrawal:
Holy Father, with sentiments of thanksgiving we wish to
express our deep gratitude for Your act of paternal kindness and for the apostolic courage by which You rendered
ineffective the measure which was imposed upon us twenty
years ago following our episcopal consecrations. The decree
of January 21, 2009 restores in some way the reputation of
the venerated founder of our Society, Monsignor Marcel
Lefebvre. It also grants a great good to the Church, so it seems
to us, by doing justice to the priests and faithful around the
world who, attached to the Tradition of the Church, will no
longer be unjustly stigmatized for having kept the Faith of
their fathers.
Because of this battle for the Faith, we assure Your Holiness, according to the wish You expressed, that we ‘will spare
no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through
necessary discussions with the authorities of the Holy See.’
We indeed desire to begin, as soon as possible, exchanges
with representatives of Your Holiness concerning doctrines
opposed to the Magisterium of all time.

So now we need good theologians to present our
view and opinion about the liturgy, the New Mass,
ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. Then Rome has to
discuss and show what is true and what is false. This is
not, as I said, for us. It is not because we have doubts
about our position. It is a way to show the hierarchy, to
Rome, and to men of good will that there is a problem
with the Council, with the last 40 years, and with the
new theology.
By following this path still necessary, mentioned by Your
Holiness, we hope to help the Holy See to bring the appropriate cure to the loss of the Faith inside the Church....

...With this assurance, we filially ask the Universal Pastor
to bless four of His sons most attached to the Successor of
Peter and to His charge of feeding the lambs and the sheep
of the Lord. Menzingen, January 29, 2009.

Now we enter into a new stage in our combat for
the triumph of the Faith. This is the preparation for the
discussions for which we asked and which the decree
recognized as necessary before any purely canonical
agreement or accord can be reached. This is now our
great desire to begin these discussions for the love of
the truth, for the love of the Pope and to help him with
all our forces to heal the evils from which the Church
suffers, and to restore all things in Christ.
At the same time, around the 21st-23rd of January,
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos made many proposals for
a canonical solution. He called Menzingen and said
“Your Excellency, it is a shame that now we have
a decree for the four bishops but not for all of the
censures that struck the bishops and priests. Accept the
Council and everything will be OK!” The next day—
because we cannot accept the Council—at 10 o’clock in
the evening, he phoned again and said, “Oh, it is not
necessary to accept—simply write a letter to the Pope
and demand, in the name of all the priests, to withdraw
the censures which still apply to the priests. Then we
will have a resurrection of the Society of St. Pius X!” It
was so quick and pressured that we had the impression
that he was simply trying to push and force the Society.
After consulting his assistants and the other bishops,
Bishop Fellay rejected these proposals.
Why? They left unanswered too many questions.
Some of these were very dangerous, such as our
marriages. Or what would happen if some of our priests
did not accept such an accord? Then there would be
division in our Society. It was too quick. It is better to
continue peacefully following the course of action we
ourselves fixed and which the decree now demands
as well, to discuss before we make an agreement. The
situation of the Society cannot be resolved by a simple
solution of positive law; it is a question of faith and
doctrine.
This is the situation now. The Society is organizing
theological commissions for the liturgy and the New
Mass, for religious liberty, ecumenism, etc., to present
a text or an analysis. Then we will see that this is not
a question of time, of weeks, months or years. It is an
important testimony to our apostolate. These studies
will show Rome it is only one possibility to restore the
Faith and Catholic life; this is the combat of Tradition.
I have some reflections about the situation with
Bishop Williamson. You are aware, of course, of
the violent media storm caused by the imprudent
declarations of Bishop Williamson to Swedish television
which coincided with the decree of January 21st.
In many countries, primarily in Europe, but also in
South America, and a little bit in America, the Society
of St. Pius X was confronted with a hurricane from
the media. And we are not the only ones who have
been attacked; the Pope and the Church have also
been attacked. This media storm is a real danger for
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

8
our chapels, our houses, and our works, especially in
Germany and Europe.
Bishop Williamson presented to Bishop Fellay his
apologies for the damage done to the Society by his
fault. He also sent to Cardinal Hoyos a message of
regret on January 28:
Your Eminence,
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to
accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for
having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much
unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the
interests of His one true Church, through which alone we
can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way,
to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the
prophet Jonas, I, 12:
“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will
quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this
great tempest has come upon you.”

This tempest is a perfect image for the situation...
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my
sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer
a Mass for both of you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Richard Williamson

This letter was written on January 28th. Of
course, the decree referenced is that of the lifting of
the excommunications. After this letter, Bishop Fellay
wanted to apologize himself to the Holy Father for such
a scandal, because the Pope himself had been attacked
with us. The approach was that, to deny the Holocaust
in Germany is illegal, so the bishops profited from this
statement to attack the Pope who had just withdrawn
the excommunications of some bishops...one of whom
denies the Holocaust! This was the argument.
The coincidence was quite bad. We proposed
to the Holy Father a right diagnosis of the crisis that
affects the Church and offered him the suitable remedy
to get out of this crisis—Tradition. At the same time,
these events have brought much trouble and discredit
upon our Society. In the first two weeks, in Germany,
Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Argentina, we have
been connected with this statement and have been
accused of being an anti-Semitic sect and of denying
the Holocaust. We thus had to show that this question—
which can be discussed forever—is not our combat.
Where did this problem come from? On November
1, 2008, the Feast of All Saints, Bishop Williamson was
at the seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, to ordain Sten
Sandmark to the diaconate. This Swedish seminarian,
around 60 years old, was a former Protestant preacher
in the Protestant Swedish Church. He was a very
well-known preacher in Sweden. His conversion to the
Catholic Faith thus received some public interest in
Sweden. There was thus a Swedish television station at
the seminary for his ordination.

THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

Bishop Williamson spontaneously agreed to give
an hour-long interview about the Society, the work of
Tradition, etc. But at the very end of the interview—at
the most, for five minutes—he was confronted with
a statement he made in 1989 in Canada that there
were no gas chambers at the concentration camp in
Auschwitz. In that sermon, he said the gas chambers
were invented by the Jews and that no Jews were killed
therein. In the interview last year, you can see very
easily that Bishop Williamson is hesitant and knows
very well what the consequences are; he even says,
“Don’t publish this in Germany because it is illegal and
I could go to prison.”
Instead of ending the interview immediately,
however, he explained in detail why he thinks that
no Jews were killed in gas chambers under the Nazi
regime. The important statement was that he thinks the
total number of Jewish victims is just about 200,000300,000—none of whom died in gas chambers. This
is the so-called “Auschwitz lie”–to deny that there
were gas chambers, six million victims, and genocide.
Bishop Williamson denied all three.
Here is the historical quote from Bishop
Williamson: “The historical evidence is hugely against
six million having been deliberately gassed in gas
chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I
believe there were no gas chambers.” This interview
was released on TV, and, of course, on the Internet
on the very same day as the Vatican published the
decree lifting the excommunications. This interview on
Swedish TV was announced in an article in Der Spiegel,
the most important magazine in Germany on January
19th, in an article about the Society, our works and our
apostolate, which was not so bad, but at the end it said:
“The Pope will have a big problem with the Society
because he will withdraw the excommunication of
the four bishops, one of whom is a Holocaust denier.”
And thus the bomb was dropped. It was a worst-case
scenario for us.
In America, you are intelligent, free and happy.
But you cannot imagine the history in Germany and
Europe about this question. It is illegal to doubt or
even to compare the Holocaust to another genocide.
So, for instance, in February, to illustrate how much
of a problem this is for priests and for the faithful,
a German Novus Ordo bishop, Bishop Mixa, gave a
conference on abortion and pro-life movements to 300
people or so. He spoke about abortion in Germany and
said, while it is horrible to deny the Jewish Holocaust,
we have now killed more children through abortion
(approximately nine million) than Jews who died in the
Holocaust. But merely to make this comparison, or to
compare it to the Armenian Holocaust, is considered
worse than denial in a sense. It is the crime of
comparing something to the Jews.
We know, more or less, the history of this question.
There is a female journalist in France who has contacts
with high Freemasons in France, the Grand Orient.
Last year, she published a bad book about us and

9
the conservative groups in the Church: The Pope’s
New Soldiers. She gave the advice to the Swedish TV
station to wait and release the interview (conducted in
November) later to pressure the Pope not to help the
SSPX.
It is Cardinal Kasper, a German, who is
responsible for contact with the Jews. He organized
all this because it’s a German pope, and for the last
three or four years, although they have been kind to
him, they cannot accept the motu proprio and now the
lifting of the excommunications. They hate Tradition.
But for the Pope to lift the excommunication of a
“Holocaust denier”–that is the worst.
This was the problem until now: the bishops,
the media and the Vatican have used this imprudent
statement not only against us, but against the
Church and the Holy Father. This is bad. I think you
understand that this is not our fight. The Society, its
priests, the faithful expect from Bishop Williamson to
withdraw or retract this statement. Now he has made a
declaration, but for the Vatican and the media, it is not
enough:
The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay,
have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on
Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I
regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known
beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give
rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would
not have made them.
On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…“I
believe”…“I believe”…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed
20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and
rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of
recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for
much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal
from what I said before God I apologize.
As the Holy Father has said, every act of unjust violence
against one man hurts all mankind.
+Richard Williamson
London
February 26, 2009

I think it is too late [in this evening], and it is not
the time to discuss this question. There are many
different positions. The problem that we have is
that we cannot demand our faithful in Germany, for
example, to follow the Society in such a question.
They suffer, they may know better or have a
different position. You are free to discuss, but even
here, in France and in the English Parliament this
has been discussed. The Chancellor of Germany,
for the first time ever, publicly criticized the Pope
about this problem: “Why would you withdraw
the excommunication of a bishop who denies the
Holocaust?”
If we are attacked because of our faith, or the
Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ, then we hope, with

God’s grace, to resist and to bear this persecution,
even to give our lives and blood for the Faith. But we
cannot, as an institution, or as a Superior or priest,
demand from the faithful something which causes them
to be unnecessarily attacked. This is simply not our
combat. Our combat is the Faith, the truth, and Our
Lord Jesus Christ—not the Holocaust, the Jews, and the
gas chambers, etc.
You know very well what Bishop Williamson’s
intention is. It is excellent; he attacks this ideology
and this new religion through the Holocaust. This
is right and necessary to understand. For example,
here in America, there are Orthodox Jewish groups
who consider the Holocaust the new Sacrifice and
Redeemer. Instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jewish
People and the Sacrifice is the Holocaust. Bishop
Williamson attacks this false idea and religion.
I think you understand that Bishop Fellay cannot
demand from the Society something that would cause
us to be destroyed by this question. It is not necessary
to believe in or deny the gas chambers for salvation.
There is another problematic consequence, in which
you see the devil’s influence: now Bishop Williamson
cannot travel! He had to leave Argentina with media
attention, and now he is in London, but he cannot
continue his episcopal functions in our houses because
of this hysteria. His physical life is even in danger and
his reputation is damaged.
The reputation of the Society has also been
affected. For example, we need a bigger house in
Menzingen for our headquarters; our current structure
is too small. And we had found a suitable building to
purchase, with the permission of the government of the
canton (similar to a state in America) and even that of
the local bishop. But, now we have received a letter
from the government saying that, with the Holocaust
denial and your reputation, we can no longer sell it
to you. Now, at this time to found and to open a new
school in Switzerland or in Germany is more difficult.
Every day, there were articles and television
programs about us. Now it is a little better since our
priests and superiors have explained how our position
is different: we fight for the Faith and will not follow
Bishop Williamson in this historical question. This
is bad; it is a shame. In an artificial sense, from the
outside, it makes it seem that there is a certain division
which makes it impossible for Bishop Williamson to
work for the Society and Tradition. This is the bad
result.
I hope you continue the combat for the Faith. With
God’s grace, we hope to be saved. Thank you very
much.
Conference given at St. Mary’s Academy and College, St. Mary’s, Kansas
(March 1, 2009). Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (at far left in the photograph on p.3) was
ordained for the Society of St. Pius X in 1984. He has been superior of the
district of Switzerland, rector of the SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany,
and superior of the district of Germany. He is currently the First Assistant to
the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

10

Interview

Fr. arnaud
Rostand
Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand, District Superior
of the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X
Father, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?
Perhaps where you were born, ordained, etc.?

Yes, of course. I was born in Paris, a city boy,
and grew up there, including school. I was raised in
Tradition. We attended St. Nicholas in Paris and I
was there when the church was taken in 1977, even
if I was a young boy at the time. I was educated in
Tradition in Paris. I entered the seminary after one
year of college at the Institute of St. Pius X [See
October 2007 issue of The Angelus–Ed.] and went to
Flavigny for three years and was ordained in Ecône
after three more. I was ordained in 1993.

Did you ever know the New Mass?

No, not really. There was a period of time, like
everyone, when we didn’t know where to go. But in
Paris there were some old priests who maintained
the Latin Mass through the time until the Society of
St. Pius X was more established. So we were always
going to this Mass and thus didn’t really know the
New Mass. I was protected from that.

So, ordained in 1993 and from there,
what was your appointment?

My first appointment was the Philippines, for the
Asian district. I spent two years there. Afterwards I
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

was appointed prior in Sri Lanka when we opened
the mission there. And I spent three years there. So I
started in the missions.
Then I was sent back to France, to Paris, and was
assigned to our high school there. I was an assistant
priest there for one year and then Headmaster for
seven. Then I was sent to Canada, where I was
District Superior for two years. And now, here I am!

You spent the beginning of your priesthood in an
English-speaking part of the world. Did you speak
much English in the Philippines or in Sri Lanka?

Well, I tried to, as I try to now! But, yes, that is
where I learned English, at a school like other French
students. But I prefer not to comment on my English
studies at that time...
But between the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Canada,
and now here, I have had time to practice it.

Was it a surprise for you, after two years of being
District Superior of Canada, to be appointed District
Superior for America?

Yes. I think all my appointments as a priest have
surprised me. I was not thinking of the Philippines
when I was assigned there, for instance. Even when I

11
was sent to Canada, I was not expecting any changes.
I was quite happy in my school, enjoying education; I
truly loved teaching and taking care of the school. But
I was even more surprised last spring when Bishop
Fellay told me I would move again! It is not very
usual that we are moved from a District after only two
years and, also, the District of the United States is big,
and it is surely an honor for me to be here, but it is a
big job!

Could you perhaps give us some reflections or initial
impressions of the American District, its faithful and
chapels, etc.?

My first impression was the strength of the
District, primarily the youth. I have been amazed by
the number of families and children which I have
noticed everywhere in the States. It is a very young
District in the Society. The families thus give a real
strength to the Society here. The Society’s growth
comes from the generosity of the families. And this is
where we should work, in education, in schools and
youth groups. This should be our first aim.

Could you explain why, in the mind of the Society, the
excommunications which were “lifted” recently by the
Holy Father were never considered valid?

Well, we have always maintained and said that
it was out of necessity that Archbishop Lefebvre
consecrated the four bishops. When we look back at
his life, we see that he always followed Providence.
The consecration was not a purely personal idea of
his own, but the different circumstances and events
surrounding it brought him to do it. He tried to keep
as much contact with Rome as much as he could; It
was a disposition of his even though he was absolutely
hurt by everything going on in Rome and around the
world. He was a man who had been Delegate for all
French Africa, in charge of so many countries and
dioceses, watching the world he worked for falling to
pieces.
At the same time, he saw the prayer meeting at
Assisi and other ecumenical gatherings and ideologies
having more influence in the Church. Seeing also
that there was no proper response from Rome, he
really saw the consecrations as a necessary act for the
survival of Tradition—not only of the Society of St.
Pius X, but of the Mass and of traditional Catholic
teaching.
And Canon Law is clear: when an act is made
out of necessity, there is no condemnation. Even in
light of our situation today, our only justification is
that there is a necessity in the Church, not only to say
the Mass but also to preach the traditional Faith. So
we have never considered these excommunications
valid. We have always maintained this position in our
literature.

And, at the same time, it was important for us to ask
the Pope to publicly acknowledge that the bishops
were not excommunicated.

Yes. As Bishop Fellay has explained, it was
not primarily for us that we asked for the lifting
of the excommunications. It was more for the
Church Herself and for those on the outside. We
understand the situation in the Church, as do our
faithful, and thus we know where we are and why
we act in the way that we do. But it was important
for the Church to say that Tradition is not bad and
is not to be perceived by people on the outside as
excommunicated. The aim here is mostly for others,
not ourselves or our faithful.

So what is the main benefit of
Pope Benedict’s declaration?

I think it is in line with what he has already done.
If you consider the motu proprio for the Latin Mass,
which was the first step we asked, the lifting of the
excommunications follows. The most important thing
is to see a certain good will in Rome and the Pope
mostly, as he is rather alone in this fight and in these
decisions. The main effect is that we will now be
ready to enter into doctrinal discussions with Rome.
For us, it does not change anything; it is but a step.
But when you see the reactions from all around
the world, within the Church, especially from the
Left, the progressive bishops and priests are very
troubled by this little step in the Church. It is not a
huge decision; the Pope has made bigger decisions.
But it is made out to be the most important decision
he has ever made! The reaction has been so violent
that it shows the Pope has made a step in the right
direction.

You mentioned there is still a ways to go. Obviously,
Rome is not yet what we would call traditional
Catholic. What additional steps do you see remaining
before we could say the Society is comfortable?

The next step is the doctrinal discussions with
Rome. We hope that the Pope will assign some
theological experts who can sit down with our own
theological experts and priests so that our objections
to the Second Vatican Council can be made clear.
We have not changed our critique at all concerning
the crisis in the Church. We have maintained that the
main problem in the Church is the Second Vatican
Council and what flows from it: religious liberty,
ecumenism, collegiality, etc. This is the root of the
crisis that we are in. And as long as we cannot discuss
these things, there will be no progress.
It was very important for the Pope to
acknowledge that these doctrinal talks are necessary.
It was the first time. Until now, we have always been
refused: “No, just accept the Council. Then we can
talk.” Well, we have not changed and now we have
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

12
said, “No, let us talk about this Council which we
cannot in conscience accept because it is not in line
with the traditional teaching of the Church.”
So we will see how it goes. Probably, though,
there is a long way to go. And it depends a lot on
Rome’s reaction. We must remember that this all
started with the Pilgrimage of Tradition to Rome in
2000. This impressed Rome; many cardinals and
bishops saw the Society, young and strong, praying in
Rome. Thus, in 2001, Bishop Fellay announced three
steps for us to go forward: the freedom for the Mass,
the lifting of the excommunications, and doctrinal
talks. This is only eight years ago. And these things
were considered impossible at the time; we were
strongly criticized for being unrealistic. But now we
have the first two and are about to start the talks. And
we have not changed our positions at all; yet some
positions have changed on the part of Rome.

Could you perhaps explain what the content of the
discussions will be? You mentioned religious liberty,
ecumenism, and collegiality. What is the difference
between the way the Second Vatican Council or the
“spirit of Vatican II” sees these topics and the way the
traditional teaching of the Church sees them?

Of course, that would require a long answer.
But to go straight to the point, I think the easiest
to understand is the problem of ecumenism. The
Catholic Church has always believed in Her own
divinity and the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
that He founded a unique Church in which alone we
can be saved. This is the dogma “Outside the Church,
there is no salvation,” which, granted, needs some
explanation.
Whenever there were discussions or dialogues
with other religions, it was in order to bring them to
the Catholic Church, to convert. The new approach
on ecumenism, from Vatican II, was more to diminish
our faith in order to reach some common religion
where we can all be happy in a new world. It is no
longer to bring the Catholic Faith to people, but to
diminish our faith so that others can believe in it and
accept it.
And, for instance, it has been applied to the Mass.
They wanted Protestants to be able to accept the Mass
and participate in it. This is the New Mass, which is
accepted by the Protestants; some even celebrate it!
Or they join Catholic priests in offering it. The New
Mass is a visible sign of what ecumenism has done to
the Church. It is a destruction which is much greater
than what we can imagine in its evil effects in the
Church.
Today if you ask a regular Catholic basic
Catechism questions, you won’t receive an answer.
The people who believe least in the necessity of the
Catholic Church are often its own members. This
ecumenical influence, diffused through the New
Mass, has the effect that they assume it is OK to be
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

a Protestant or any other religion, so long as one is
“sincere to himself.”
These are the topics we will try to talk to Rome
about: ecumenism, religious liberty, the relationship
of Church and State, problems within the Church
such as the New Code of Canon Law, collegiality, etc.
We have some work! It is a big task.

Could you perhaps give some advice to our parents,
who are facing the challenges posed by a godless
world in trying to raise their children in a way that will
enable them to keep the Faith in such a world?

Sure, although this again requires a longer answer
than I can give here. I think it’s important first to
realize that there is an opposition between the spirit of
the world and the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This
is not new; it is not just the modern world. Our Lord
Himself, in His preaching, emphasized that there
will be a fight in our lives between these spirits. For
parents, they must know this, and they surely see it in
their own lives. We have to try to put this into practice
in the education of children.
One thing I might emphasize, and which is
disappearing, is the spirit of sacrifice. Especially in the
modern world, sacrifice is absolutely unacceptable.
Today, we are told: you must avoid any suffering, any
pain, anything which has a sacrifice involved. But life
today is organized to try to remove sacrifices from our
lives—even though this is impossible.
And this affects everything. The comfort of life,
of course, is one way of avoiding any sacrifice. So,
for instance, we refuse to walk two minutes to do
shopping, and instead take a car so it only takes us
ten seconds. Or we don’t ask students to walk home
to get something, even if it’s only five minutes away,
but instead they call their parents for a ride. These
are little things, but the easiness of modern life which
technology provides, diminishes sacrifice in our daily
life. And, little by little, it suppresses the spirit of
sacrifice which is so important.
We see this in education. I believe it is important
to teach children, from a young age, the spirit of Our
Lord Jesus Christ, which is a spirit of sacrifice. How?
I think it must start in little things. For instance, some
always give their children a choice: They can choose
their food, their drink, etc. Perhaps this is good for
a feast, but normally, and especially in Lent, they
should eat whatever is put on their plate. It is in little
things like this that we can teach a spirit of sacrifice.
The education of children is a difficult task—but
it has always been so. St. Gregory called it “the art of
arts.” In a way, it is not natural to us; we have to learn
how to educate. We have to read about education. If
we think we can educate because it is natural to us,
we are wrong; it is an art. Therefore, it is to be studied
and learned. Today it is especially difficult.

13

Pope Pius XII
and the Attitude of
the Catholic Church
During World War II
Interview with Fr. Peter Gumpel, S.J., the relator of
the cause of Pope Pius XII. A German by birth, he
relates his own personal history and life under the
Nazi regime. More importantly, however, he shares
his decades of research into the life and pontificate of
Pope Pius XII, especially as it relates to the history of
the Second World War. This is the first part in a series.
Fr. Gumpel, first of all I’d like to thank you very much for giving us the time in
describing your personal experience so that we can further clarify the papacy of Pope
Pius XII in the eyes of the world. Could you give us a brief history of your personal
experience under Nazi rule in Germany? I think this is very significant.

Frankly, I am not very eager to talk about this awful time. I lived through the Nazi
period, I was exiled twice to save my own life. I am especially sad, even now when I
think about it, that they killed my good grandfather. We had a very good relationship;
I was destined to become his direct successor, and he took a very active hand in my
instruction, formation and education.
Unfortunately, before World War II began, suddenly some people appeared at his
villa and asked him to accompany them. Since then, we know nothing about him. The
only thing that ever came to light was one of his gold cuff-links with our coat of arms;
this was the only thing we ever found. We don’t know where or how he was killed or

14
where he is buried. Nothing whatsoever. This is one of
the memories which I do not like to recall, as you can
well understand.
Second, I remember a message I received when I
was between 14 and 15 years old from my uncle, my
mother’s brother. He told me, “Peter, you are getting
older now and you are no longer a small child. I can
tell you very frankly that a very serious thing has
happened to your mother.” So I asked what happened.
He said, “Well, your mother went for a long walk and
had a very bad accident and it is extremely serious.”
So I asked if she was in the hospital. He answered,
“No, it is much worse.” So I asked if she were dead.
And he said: “Yes.” And then he said he was leaving
immediately to try at least to get permission to bring
her mortal remains home.
So there you are. I was between 14 and 15 years
old. I knew why my mother had left Berlin. Word
had reached us that my grandfather’s house—a rather
splendid piece of property which he had bequeathed
to me—had been invaded by the Nazis and that they
had destroyed everything. My mother wanted to go
there so that one day, when Hitler’s terrible period
was over, she could put in a claim of reparation to the
next government. Unfortunately, the photographer she
had approached denounced her to the Nazis. She was
arrested, and then I received the message above.
This is a thing that might be difficult to understand
from a psychological point of view. I believed what
my uncle had told me. He was a trustworthy man,
an engineer, a cool-headed person. I sat down and
wondered what I should do about it. And then, thanks
be to God, I remembered that once, in my presence,
a general—a friend of the family—had told my mother
to get in touch with him if there was ever any serious
crisis. I knew that he had left his telephone number,
albeit ciphered, but I knew how to decipher it by
reading it backwards, etc.
So I went to the street telephone since I couldn’t
use our telephone; it was wiretapped. I called him
from the public telephone and, thanks be to God, he
was in his office. I asked if I could see him. He said
yes and gave me a place to meet. I explained the
situation, and he said, “Time is running short because
I understand the idea is your mother has not been
killed. But there is an order by Himmler himself
and Hitler that she is to be shot tomorrow morning
at 5am. I know this.” I asked if there was anything
we could do. He said he would speak to one of the
most important military officers, his superior, another
general. He asked me to call him at the same number
in an hour.
He arranged for me to meet this general in a very
dark street in Berlin in the middle of the night in the
hope that it would be successful. But he told me not
to have too much hope. So I went and met this officer,
who was in civilian clothes, a hat, and dark glasses.
I had prepared what I had wanted to say but when I
actually arrived, I had forgotten every word. I simply
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

looked at him. And I said: “General, you know exactly
what is going to happen. Now I ask you: What are
you and your colleagues doing?” He removed his
spectacles and looked at me—I don’t think he had
ever been spoken to like that by a boy—and said: “You
know, from your eyes speaks the conscience of your
nation. I will do a very risky thing. Hitler always goes
to sleep very late. I will go to him and threaten him.”
And he did.
However, I didn’t notice, but when I got home,
it was 3am. There was an SS officer standing in front
of my home. My first reaction was that Hitler was
probably enraged when he found out what I had done
and now I would be killed as well. But it wasn’t like
that. He told me that Hitler sent him to get my mother
back by plane the same day. He said: “I am telling you
that out of human consideration, but if it ever becomes
known that I paid you a visit, I will have to pay for it.”
Later they killed a nephew of mine for the simple
reason that he was a good Catholic and didn’t do what
they asked him to do; he refused point blank to do
a treacherous thing. And for this they shot him from
behind.
I was personally exiled twice. In 1934, the
situation for my family became dangerous, with people
assembling in front of our villa in Hanover, shouting,
etc. It was decided that, since I was the future heir of
the entire property—a huge concern–I should be sent
to France for two years. So I went without knowing a
single word of French, learning in a French school, and
so on. This was my first exile. Later, when I returned
to Berlin, we were given the assurance that they would
not try to do anything against us, but could you trust
Hitler’s word?
In 1938, when the situation arose again, after other
similar experiences, they sent me to Holland for a
definite period, where I went for my second exile.

From your research, I’m interested in Eugenio Pacelli’s
personal experience with Jewish people–with his
friends, for example. Can you tell me anything about his
childhood with Jewish friends?

Definitely, yes. His very best friend was Jewish,
Guido Mendes, who eventually became a famous
surgeon and went to Israel. During the Jewish
persecution, Pope Pius XII saw to it that he could
leave Switzerland. Mendes became, later, in Israel, a
famous surgeon and professor of medicine. These two
were close friends; he was really young Pacelli’s best
friend. They visited one another at their respective
homes. It has been said, with some humor, that Pacelli
was probably the only Pope who ever partook of a
kosher meal! When he went to his friend’s house, he
obviously ate what was offered.
They were truly best friends, had discussions,
exchanged books, etc. When Pope Pius XII died in
1958, Guido Mendes went on record to recall his
memories of his former classmate, and he said that not
only were they personally friends, but that Pacelli had

15
been friendly with all their Jewish classmates, polite,
always correct, and the very best student among all of
us.

Do you have any examples from when he was Apostolic
Nuncio in Germany of his intervention to help save
Jewish lives?

Certainly there are a few incidents. For example,
when he first arrived in Berlin he became very friendly
with a Jewish conductor, Bruno Walter, because Pacelli
loved music. He personally played the violin well
although he eventually gave it up for lack of time.
At the time, this conductor was directing the Royal
Opera in Berlin. It so happened that one of the people
playing in the orchestra, also a Jewish gentleman
by the name of Gribilowski, was arrested in an antiSemitic movement. Bruno Walter did everything to
free him, without success. So he went to Pacelli, the
Apostolic Nuncio, his friend, who immediately took
action. The next morning the man was free. This is a
typical example.
An even greater example of what he did regards
a person named Walter Rathenau. He, a Jew, was
Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, similar to
America’s Foreign Secretary. At some point, Pacelli
received a priest who said, “Your Excellency, I feel
it my duty to inform you that people are planning to
kill Rathenau. This is serious information.” So Pacelli
called for an immediate audience with Germany’s
Chancellor, Dr. Joseph Wirth, explained it to him, and
it was taken seriously. He called in Wirth and gave him
a significant police escort since his life was in danger.
And Rathenau laughed it off and thought it impossible.
A few weeks later, on June 22nd, he was effectively
assassinated.
There are other examples, but if you consider
these facts, can you say that Pius XII was anti-Semitic?
I think this is downright foolish. He did whatever he
could, at this time and later on, to help Jews and many
other people wherever he could.

You mentioned before that some of the time that you
spent in exile was spent in Holland. Would you mind
relating to us the story when they began arresting the
Dutch Jews? By this time, Eugenio Pacelli was Pope,
and I believe that he made a statement through the
Nuncio and other diplomatic channels.

Of course, you have to understand that this was
1942. Holland was invaded by the German army on
May 10, 1940. One of the very first things they did was
to expel the Apostolic Nuncio. Thus, in 1942, there
was no Apostolic Nuncio.
However, I think that you are referring to
something which happened on the last Sunday of
July in 1942. Being a good Catholic boy, on Sunday
I went to church to fulfill my obligation; I liked going
to church anyway. This particular Sunday, there was
no sermon. The priest approached the pulpit and said,

“There is no sermon today. Instead, I am going to
read a Pastoral Letter from the Archbishop of Utrecht
(the only Archbishop in Holland).” And he did. To
my great surprise, there was a very strong protest
against the deportation of Jewish and young men to
be forced to work for the German armament industry
in Germany. There was also a flaming protest against
another thing, in the strongest possible terms. And this
was a protest against the forced deportation of Jewish
Dutch citizens. This was extremely strong.
At this time, I was 18 years old and had just
completed my first year of philosophical studies, on
my way to a Master’s degree in philosophy. So I was
no longer a child. My reaction was twofold: One, I had
great admiration for the courage and noble gesture
of the Archbishop for people who did not belong to
his flock. In Holland, the relationship between Jews
and Catholics was normal. They were not particularly
intimate, but they were polite. However, the fact
that he, as a Catholic Archbishop, during the Nazi
occupation, would have the courage to come out with
such a strong statement in defense of people who did
not belong to the Catholic Church caused my greatest
admiration. This was my first reaction.
At the same time, my second reaction was “My
good Archbishop, do you know what you are doing!”
I had experience with the Nazis and knew how they
would react—and they did. A few days later, one of the
top officials in the Nazi government of Holland gave
a speech in the capital saying, “If the Roman Catholic
Church thinks that they can behave as this gentleman
has done, they are seriously mistaken. Number one,
this action will not cause a single Jew to be saved; on
the contrary, we will accelerate the deportation of the
Jewish people. Number two, we had not decided to
deport Jews who had been baptized into the Catholic
Church. But now, in response to this Archbishop, they
will be the first to be deported.” And they were.
Later on, when Dr. Robert Kemptner put on trial
those who were responsible for the deportation of
these 600 Jews, he condemned them in the strongest
possible terms and praised the courage of this
Archbishop while at the same time making it clear that
it was a total disaster.
This fact was immediately reported to Pope Pius
XII. It induced him even further not to come out
with flaming protests because he was convinced—and
rightly so—that any public pronouncement would not
help anything; on the contrary, it would aggravate
the situation. He said he would not put this on his
conscience. He recognized that he could make large
gestures and be congratulated—but, at the same time,
how many Jews would pay with their lives for this kind
of gesture? He would not burden his conscience with
this kind of stupidity.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

16

Would you say that this Archbishop’s position
reflected that of the Catholic Church?

Well, he knew perfectly well. All the bishops knew
in Germany with the exception of one Nazi bishop who
had been imposed on them, the bishop of the army. It
was a choice between him and not giving spiritual care
to those in the army. We were practically forced. But he
was excluded from the German episcopal conference.
With this exception, all the bishops knew—in
Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, all the occupied
countries—perfectly well the position of the Pope. He
wanted them to do everything possible to save all
persecuted persons—not only the Jews, but especially
the Jews because they were more persecuted than
anybody else.
Later the Pope sent a private messenger, Fr.
Smulders, a Dutch Jesuit whom I knew well personally.
The message said to do what we could to help the Jews.
And these messages were sent all over. There was no
doubt what the Pope wanted. Wherever there was an
Apostolic Nuncio—in Hungary, Slovakia, etc.—they
were instructed to do this and to communicate it to the
bishops. If not, personal messages were sent all over to
inform bishops to do what they could.
If you look at the writings of Pius XII to the
German bishops, it is all carefully worded because you
never knew if they would fall into the hands of people
who should not see them. But for anyone who knows
the time and style of Pius XII, it is obvious that he
encouraged them to help.

I’d like to read a few quotes to you because I believe
they’re very significant. This was one thing, first of all,
that was to give an example of the Pope’s opinion of
the Nazis. Joseph Lichten, who was the Anti-Defamation
League director when he was discussing the election
of Pope Pius XII when he was a cardinal, said that the
election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor
in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism
and practically determined the policies of the Vatican
under his predecessor. So Joseph Lichten, who was
very prominently a Jewish leader certainly, made this
statement. I was wondering if you could comment on
this statement made by Joseph Lichten?

Well, this statement is not new to me. Of course,
I’ve come across it many times in my studies of the
cause of Pius XII, of which I am in charge of the
investigation. I know this statement, and his is not the
only one. There were very many others, even scores of
statements to the same effect from all kinds of Jewish
organizations, even political people. Golda Meir, the
Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, Einstein, and so many
others. There were many people with regard to the
statement that the election of Cardinal Pacelli to be
the successor of Pope Pius XI was not well seen in
Germany–obviously not. They knew perfectly well
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

from the very beginning that he had been hostile to
them. You see, when Pacelli left Germany in 1929, he
warned German politicians to beware of Hitler. He
said, “Well, you see, I have read this terrible book he
has written. That is a man who will tear down anything
that stands in his way. He is a man capable of walking
over corpses!” He warned them, but of course, what
could he do? These things became known to the Nazis.
It was also, as Lichten rightly said, perfectly true
that Pacelli was instrumental even in a determining
way in drafting the famous Encyclical Mit Brennender
Sorge. This was published in Germany. It’s the only
encyclical ever written in German. It was smuggled
into Germany by a diplomatic pouch, distributed by
persons on motor bicycles or cars to the individual
bishops, printed in hundreds of thousands of copies,
read out from all the pulpits in Germany on a given
day; and of course the Nazis were furious because there
are statements about extolling race above everything
else, etc. Therefore it is a total condemnation of the
racist ideology of the Nazis.
Whenever they could get hold of a printed copy
of this, the man went to prison. They couldn’t keep it
from being read in all the churches because only on
the Saturday evening before were they informed by a
traitor, an employee of a printing establishment who
had printed these things, who went to the Gestapo; but
they couldn’t do anything because they couldn’t get
hold of this thing. I know because every precaution
was taken. Even I was commanding officer as a boy
officer in a Catholic school in Berlin in 1937. My boys
and I went around to parishes with copies under our
coats. Ostensibly, we were going to confession because
in the confessional people couldn’t see what we were
doing. We knew exactly to whom we were supposed to
go because not all the priests were equally safe. Then
we handed them over, and a number of them locked
them in the tabernacle and only took them out shortly
before the service began the next Sunday. So they were
furious.
But there was one more thing that people overlook
at times. You see, I have read dozens and dozens of
books about Pius XII and his attitude toward Nazism,
etc. Why on earth did people not take the precautions
that I have taken in my investigations of Pius XII?
There are two reasons. One: what did Jewish people
write and say during the Second World War? I asked
one of my collaborators to go to the New York
Public Library, which is the best place to research
what was said in Jewish newspapers, Jewish reviews,
publications, etc., and not only of American origin, but
from England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, etc. In the entire free world there is nothing
but praise about Pius XII in the Jewish publications of
that period. That is point one. You can take a similar
endeavor in this regard, seeing what was published in
Nazi Germany and in countries occupied by the Nazis
where the Nazis dictated what should be written about:
You get the totally opposite picture. There is nothing

17
but attacks on Pius XII. He is ridiculed; he is smeared
with all kinds of things; there are pictures with him in
the middle of swine–it is just awful. Now, that is typical
of the attitude for these two sets of people: the Jewish
people at that time and the Nazis. The Jewish people
praised Pius XII for what he did, the others attack him
and call him “a Jew-boy, a Jew-Pope, a Jew-Cardinal,”
etc. They say he is defending the Jewish warmongers,
etc. So it couldn’t be worse. Now this is revealing, and
it is very strange to me that trained historians, as I am,
never undertook this effort.

This was after he passed away. There is a quote
from Golda Meir, who was at that time the Israeli
representative to the UN and the future prime minister
of Israel. Upon receiving the news of the death of Pope
Pius XII she said, “We share the grief of the world over
the death of his holiness, Pope Pius XII. During the ten
years of Nazi terror when our people passed through
the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice
to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with
their victims.” This is very substantial–this is Golda
Meir. If I may continue, Mr. Nahum Goldman, who at
that time was president of the World Jewish Congress
said, “It is with special gratitude that we remember
all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one
of the darkest periods of their entire history.” And to
further this, Rabbi Elio Toaff, who was the chief rabbi
of Rome, stated, “More than anyone else we have
had the opportunity to appreciate the kindness filled
with compassion and magnanimity that the Pope
displayed during the terrible years of the persecution
and terror.” And I’d like to read one more, from Albert
Einstein: “Only the Catholic Church protested against
the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Until then, I had not
been interested in the Church. But today I feel great
admiration for the Church, which alone has had the
courage to struggle for the spiritual truth and moral
liberty.” Now these are very decisive statements. What
I’d like to ask you is: In light of the obviously positive
influence of all these facts on the Jewish people, why
do you think this changed? What happened to cause
this to change suddenly?

To tell the truth, it has always been in a sense
mysterious to me how this was possible. But the
immediate occasion, to answer your question very
directly, is, of course, the play written by a man named
Rolf Hochhuth that attacked Pius XII. It is not an
historical kind of work at all. It is pure fantasy, even
though he claims it is historically accurate. It is not. It
is simply an effort to attack and denigrate Pius XII–to
calumniate him, to put it very bluntly. And, of course,

who was this Rolf Hochhuth when he wrote it? He was
a young man just over 30 years old.

What was the name of the play?

In German it’s called Der Stellvertreter. In Englishspeaking countries it has two names: some call it The
Vicar, and some call it The Deputy. I believe that in
America the more common name is The Deputy; in
England, it’s The Vicar. So he was a young man when
he wrote this kind of thing. He was so inept that if
this thing had been produced as he had written it, it
would have lasted seven or eight hours. You can well
imagine: endless monologues, etc. It would have been
boring. He had, however, the good fortune that this
play came into the hands of a very famous director
and producer by the name of Erwin Piscator. This man
had already joined the German Communist party in
1918. He was a dyed-in-the-wool communist.
When Hitler came to power, [Piscator] went to
Moscow, and from that moment on he continued to
receive his instructions and orders from Moscow. That
was the man who put this thing into shape. And being
a very able director, he used all kinds of effects that
could create an impression in listeners who were not
familiar with the real history. And it did, unfortunately.
The book he published simultaneously under the
direction of Erwin Piscator is absolutely worthless from
an historical point of view. I don’t know any serious
historians nowadays who pay any attention to it. But
this is one thing.
The other thing is its effect on the public mind.
That is why when this play was produced, they
changed it in different countries–in the United States,
for example; and they changed it again for production
in England, etc. But the communists and left-wing
people altogether promoted it the best possible way
they could. For example, in the Russian-occupied,
Communist-occupied countries until 1989 it had to be
produced at least once a year in all the major cities.
And Erwin Piscator remained a communist until the
end of his life. He also spent a period in a tiny college
in the US, but a very left-wing college. That is the
point: he was an able man.
So there is one thing I think people should not
forget: Hochhuth did not only write this play with
the help of Piscator, he wrote another play, this time
not against a man of the Church, but against Winston
Churchill. And he denigrated Winston Churchill,
accused him point blank of being the murderer of the
Polish general Sikorsky, who was at that time the head
of the Polish government in exile. Now the curious
thing is, in English law at least–and I studied four years
in England so I know a good deal about English law–
only the person who has been calumniated can react
against this. Churchill was dead, Pius XII was dead,
so Hochhuth could do whatever he wanted without
being punished. He made a huge mistake: he thought
the pilot had been killed because Sikorsky was killed
in a plane crash close to Gibraltar. But the pilot was
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

18
still alive. The pilot was a high-ranking officer in the
RAF, but now in retirement. He was born Czech, but
he had gone to California for his retirement. He read
about it in the newspapers and said, “What?” He made
an inquiry and, having been accused of being the pilot
who caused this accident in which Sikorsky was killed,
he took Hochhuth to court.
He did this because they had started to perform
the play which in German is called Die Soldaten and
in English The Soldiers. So he took the producer and
Hochhuth and everybody else connected to this to
court, and they were very severely condemned for
slander. I myself listened to one of the final meetings,
and I am accustomed to what British lawyers do.
Usually they are very cold, but in this particular
instance they were ice cold and cuttingly sharp. And
the defendant Hochhuth didn’t appear, which was
good for him or he would’ve been arrested on the
spot, you see, because there was a public outcry after
this happened. So here you have two parallel cases,
two people who have died. Both are denigrated,
calumniated without any cause whatsoever. In one
case, well, it’s a pope–it’s a man of the Church. The
Church did not take him to court, etc.; the other
party did. This play, The Soldier, has completely
disappeared everywhere. It is never performed, cannot
be performed. It is punishable to perform it. With Pius
XII things are different. But to answer your question,
to return to the starting point, the turnover in public
opinion is due to Rolf Hochhuth’s scandalous play.

We discussed earlier the fact that the Pope actually
was working behind the scenes in a very dangerous
way as a go-between between the British and the
German generals. Would you elaborate on this?

Certainly. This happened in the last months of
1939 and the first months of 1940. To put this thing
into a proper historical setting, the war in Poland is
over, but a big offensive against the west–Holland,
Belgium, France, etc.–has not yet begun. There
was always a group of German generals who were
utterly opposed to Hitler, led by a famous general
by the name of Ludwig Beck, who was head of the
General Staff of the German army and who resigned
in protest against Hitler’s policy. So he was put in
retirement–he wanted to be put into retirement, he
didn’t want anything to do with it. But he was the one
behind the scenes who continued to act against Hitler,
trying to remove him–not to kill him. He was a good
Christian–not a Catholic, a Protestant. There were two
possibilities: Either to put him in front of a German
tribunal or to shut him up in a lunatic asylum. That
was the idea.
The German generals’ problem was this: we
are at war with France and England. If we remove
Hitler, there will be the possibility of a civil war
because there are still many people who are in favor
of Hitler–the army was questionable. It will be a very
uncertain situation. Our enemies could make use of
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

this opportunity, invade us, and defeat us like that.
So we will try to remove Hitler, but we want to have
the assurance that neither France nor England will
attack us at this particular very delicate and dangerous
moment. How could this be effected? They had no
direct contact, of course, with Great Britain, but Beck
had known Pius XII when he was apostolic nuncio, so
he got the idea to send somebody, a certain Dr. Josef
Muller, who later became minister of state after the
war in Bavaria, to Rome. He was incorporated into
the German counter-espionage. He went to Rome and
through an intermediary put this proposal to Pius XII.
Now, this was a highly dangerous thing to do. Pius
XII said, “Well, I must do everything I can, because if
the war continues it may cost millions of human lives,
and this would also be an opportunity to stop this
madman and his killing of innocent people all over:
the Jews and others.” So he decided to go ahead with
it. He approached the British ambassador, who was
living in the Vatican at the time, and the ambassador
transmitted it. All the documents are in the British
archive in Kew; I’ve seen them there myself. This is
not something that was made up, no. Certain people
argue that all the documents are not in the Vatican.
You won’t find a scrap of paper in the Vatican archives
about it because it was too dangerous. If there were
ever an invasion by the Fascists, the Nazis would have
found it; it would have been a terrible thing for the
Catholic Church. But the whole correspondence going
back and forth is in the British archives in Kew, Great
Britain’s central archives. And they say it very clearly.
Now, this thing went back and forth. The German
generals continued to put pressure on the Pope. The
English were hesitant, and they said, “Well, who are
these generals?” But the Pope said, “I can’t give you
the names because giving out names like that could
mean that somebody by indiscretion or spying would
find out, and these people would be shot on the spot.
But I assure you that the persons who are heading this
group are honest, very serious people.”
In the end, the generals did not succeed in
overthrowing Hitler, so the whole thing fell flat. But
the fact remains that in a critical situation like this,
the Pope had the courage to undertake something that
might have caused absolute, disastrous damage to the
Catholic Church had Hitler ever come to know about
this endeavor. Thanks be to God, people kept their
mouths shut. The English had promised to keep this
secret, and they kept their promise. And, of course, the
Pope was the last person to be interested in divulging
it. Hardly anybody in his immediate surrounding knew
about it, not even the secretary of state.
This is an edited transcript of a video interview of Fr. Gumpel with Pave the
Way Foundation, which owns the copyright to this material.

The Angelus English-Language Article Reprint

Let your speech be “Yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37)



May 2009

Reprint #86

“I shall harden Pharao’s heart” (Ex. 7:3)

The blindness
of Catholics

and the social kingship of Christ
If there is one truth Tradition hands on to us
which today is almost completely ignored and
openly refused by almost all Catholics, it is the social
Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. When speaking of
the relations between Church and State, the “cake” is
divided amongst the secularists (like the French), the
atheists (like the Soviets), and “healthy secularism.”
For the Church’s doctrine—for that is what is
involved—not even a few crumbs are left.
But how could this have happened in such a
short time? For, if we glance at the papal encyclicals,
we see that until 50 years ago the teachings on the
confessional State, the superiority of the spiritual
power over the temporal power, the indirect power

of the Church, etc., were still acknowledged and
present though subjected to a severe critique even
then. The answers to this question guides our inquiry
towards two key events of the last century: the rise of
communism with its lethal influence on the Catholic
world, and the great apparitions of the most Blessed
Virgin to three shepherd children of Fatima on July
13, 1917, apparitions made famous because of the
great secret confided to the three children, and the
apparition of June 13, 1929, at Tuy, Spain.
We propose a reflection developed in three
phases corresponding to three sections: 1) the
analysis of the essence of communism and the
solution proposed by Heaven; 2) the tragic choice of

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

the path of diplomacy by ecclesiastical authorities:
Popes Pius XI and Pius XII; and 3) “Russia will
spread her errors in the world”: The Ostpolitik of
John XXIII is the principle of the new concordats.

Analysis of the Essence
of Communism and the
Solution Proposed by Heaven
The Woman and the Dragon:
Fatima and Moscow

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Great
War between the Woman clothed with the sun and
the dragon (cf. Apoc. 12)—a war that has traversed
all history without exception—became increasingly
radical and reached its summit by “becoming
incarnate,” as it were, in two events: At one extremity
of the European continent, the cradle of Christianity,
in the small, unknown village of Fatima, this Woman
appears in all her splendor and maternal solicitude;
at the other extremity, in the great Russian nation,
the most extensive and most populous of Europe,
the most perverse and deleterious attack of the devil
is unleashed on the world, an attack characterized
by lies, blasphemy, and death. These are the
characteristics of the first beast spoken of by St.
John in the Apocalypse (c. 13), which receives all his
power and authority from the dragon: he “opened his
mouth unto blasphemies against God” and provoked
imprisonment and martyrdom.
It is because the power of this beast, this
“creature” of the devil, comes from the dragon
himself that it cannot be confronted with human
means, and even the ordinary means of grace are
inadequate. That is why the God of mercy sent in
person Her who from the beginning was predestined
to crush the head of the evil one, and He gave us
a simple, concrete means for combating the snares
of our time: devotion to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary, to be accomplished in two very precise ways:
the five first Saturdays of the month and the solemn
consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary.
But why did God choose to make the salvation
of the whole world depend on such puny and in a
certain way insignificant means? Why these precise
means and not others?
The answer to these questions resonates sweetly
in Catholic ears while it is a motive of scandal, anger,
derision, and incredulity for others. The simplicity
of God shatters the cunning of the devil, and His
weakness, as St. Paul writes, is stronger than every
power, human or diabolical. It is clear that what is
required here is an act of faith, without which the

20

remedy proposed by Fatima seems pure madness;
and this is precisely what the Virgin demands when
she asks that the Holy Father and all the bishops
consecrate Russia to her.
The history of the last century is the history
of God’s goodwill and the resistance of men of
the Church to grace, for they have preferred to
follow another, more “reasonable and concrete”
way: the path of diplomatic compromise with
communism. Where the Lord demanded that Russia
be consecrated, thereby manifesting the centrality of
the social Kingship of Jesus Christ by the Immaculate
Heart of Mary, the men of the Church answered
by refusing to perform the consecration and by
compromise. The consequence is before everyone’s
eyes: the blindness of the ecclesial authorities,
the dissolution of Christendom, and the spread of
Russia’s errors throughout the world.

Historical and
Dialectical Materialism
Above all, we must understand the essence of
communism so as not to confuse it with transitory
aspects of historical opportunism. The essential
characteristic of communism is materialism, but
not a superficial materialism that is the same
as consumerism. It involves, rather, a unified
conception of reality. Lenin explained it very well:
“The philosophy of Marxism is materialism....
The philosophy of Marx is integral philosophic
materialism.”1 Thus there is nothing that transcends
man, who is reduced to a purely material being. But,
to avoid falling into a widespread error, it must be
made clear that scientific or Marxist materialism does
not assert that matter is absolute:
It is impossible to betray a more complete incomprehension of Marxism, since the principle of Marxism is
specifically that there is no absolute, that there is nothing that can be posited as having a self-sufficient, lasting
existence; there are only forces in conflict which allow
nothing to last or exist.2

Indeed, this materialism is distinguished from
“traditional” materialisms by its historical and
dialectical character. For those who are not familiar
with modern philosophy, dialectical materialism
conceives of reality not only as pure matter (which
then manifests itself in numerous ways, including
those we define as spiritual realities but which are
in reality, according to materialism, nothing else
than the product of the evolution of matter), but also
as matter infinitely in motion. And this motion is
not fortuitous, but always occurs as the opposition
between two contraries (thesis and antithesis), which
produces a new situation (synthesis); the synthesis in
turn becomes the thesis, which must be surpassed by
another antithesis, and so on.

THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

One last passage: dialectical materialism is the
law, not of “things” but of history and society:
The world must not be conceived of as an ensemble of
set things, but as an ensemble of processes in which things
stable in appearance and their intellectual reflection in
our minds, concepts, traverse an uninterrupted process
of becoming and decline.3

Thus all reality is nothing other than matter and
dialectical movement. The consequences of this
theory are evident, as Engels clearly asserts:
If, in one’s investigations, one always proceeds from this
way of seeing things, then the exigency of solutions and
definitive truths is finished once and for all: one is always
aware that all acquired knowledge is necessarily limited,
that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was
acquired; likewise one no longer abides the old antinomies between true and false, good and bad, identical and
different, necessary and contingent.4

It is only too clear that such a conception of
reality is not only the negation of the Christian
vision, but it is in some way its dissolution. In effect,
communism is not properly speaking an alternative
to Christianity, for in fact communism does not
propose an alternative. One cannot state: “This
type of society if the communist ideal,” or “This
type of man is the object of communism.” A good
many have interpreted communism in this way and
have committed some unbelievable blunders. By
placing contradiction at the very heart of being, the
issue of communism can only be nihilism. There
is no goal, no finality in communism: that would
require an order, a stable value above others. But
all that is denied at the outset. Communism has no
other “purpose” than negation itself, revolution for
revolution’s sake.
Marx did not start from the proletariat, its needs and
sufferings, or from the need to deliver it and then discover
Revolution as the only means of saving the proletariat. On
the contrary, he proceeded in the opposite direction....By
looking for the possibility of Revolution, Marx found the
proletariat.5

Clear. And upsetting. We find ourselves faced
with “a revolution of the revolution.” In effect,
common sense tells us that a revolution can be a
means of obtaining an end: in keeping with this
understanding, Marxism has generally been identified
with the cause of the proletariat. But nothing is more
false:
Revolutionary action is not a means for him [the
Marxist]: it was willed as the gigantic work in which the
new man will create himself; it is question of finding the
means to bring about this revolutionary action. In Marx’s
time, an excellent means presented itself: the extreme
misery and complete dissatisfaction of the working class.
The happiness of the working class, or proletariat, does
not constitute an end for the Marxist, as is commonly
believed, but it is the wretchedness of the proletariat
which is a means for revolutionary action....In order to

develop a total revolutionary will that desires to conserve
nothing, in which nothing conservative remains, which
seeks to transform everything, to create an entirely new
society [only to revolutionize it anew] men were needed
who had absolutely nothing, who were divested of everything.6

This was exactly the state of the proletariat, who
lived in a condition of affective, cultural, and spiritual
deracination, or uprootedness. This is the state today
of the majority of people, deliberately exposed to the
most deleterious perversions. Think about it: why
facilitate the break-up of marital unions by legalizing
divorce; the destabilization of the family by women’s
liberation, cohabitation, etc.? Why encourage
the destruction of the youth by increasingly
decriminalizing drugs, by favoring harmful
amusements, by abandoning youth and children to
immoral societies? Why the deracination of man
from his own civilization and culture in the name of
multiculturalism? All of that serves the revolutionary
cause, for when man is weak and unstable, only then
is he easily manipulated and exploitable.

The Remedy
Faced with this “materialization” of the spiritual
and the supernatural, God sets an act of consecration
as the remedy. It is in the very disproportion between
the enormous machine of the revolution and the
little remedy indicated by Heaven that the wisdom
of God appears. He wills that all recognize (and this
is why He demands a public, official consecration)
the conversion of Russia as the exclusive effect of
the decisive action of the supernatural in history, so
openly liquidated by communism; and He wills to
accomplish this in particular through the intercession
of her who not only fully lived the supernatural
dimension, but carried in her womb the very Author
of grace, acquiring thereby an almost infinite dignity,
according to the famous expression of St. Thomas.
The public consecration would moreover clearly
manifest the essentially evil and diabolical nature of
communism.
We emphasize this point: the consecration
requires a supernatural act of faith on the part of
the Sovereign Pontiff, that is to say, the head of the
Church, which regenerates and nourishes souls by
divine grace.
Thus on the one side communism stands as
the social embodiment of naturalism; on the other,
God exalts the supernatural life and her who is
the Mediatrix of all graces. God thus is offering a
supernatural means and requires a supernatural
act to save Russia and the world from the plague
of communism, promising an equally supernatural

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

result: the conversion of Russia. The most
Blessed Virgin Mary does not promise economic
development, the opening of international relations,
diplomatic agreements, etc.; she promises the
conversion of Russia and, consequently, peace as the
fruit of the re-established order between man and
God.
Faced with the big lies of communism, which
becomes a system, a synthesis of reality; faced with
communism, which is embodied in a society, Russian
society, from which it extends its revolutionary
“progress,” encompassing all that exists and
engulfing everything in its dialectical and nihilistic
process—faced with all that, it is futile to deploy the
ordinary arms of diplomacy and mediation, “for
our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but
against principalities and powers, against the rulers
of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of
wickedness in the high places” (Eph. 6:12). Pope Pius
XI, after the total failure of diplomatic action (as we
shall see below), recognized this diabolical trait of
communism by defining it in the Encyclical Divini
Redemptoris as “intrinsically perverse.” It is not just
some aspects of communism that are erroneous; nor
is it question, as some have given to understand, of
good ideas achieved by bad means. No, it is the very
soul of communism that is perverse.

Subversion of the Social Order
One last aspect is worth highlighting: from
what we have seen, it is clear that the Communist
Revolution, having no other ideal to pursue than
revolution itself, is not limited by time or space.
It aims at the whole of human society, which
is precisely this “matter” subject to dialectical
movement. Communism thus tends by nature to
destroy everything ordered and stable in society.
Pius XI explicitly underscores this aspect, describing
communism as
a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition
both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the
social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose
of the State.7

This is why the Virgin is not content to call for
personal conversion, which is necessary, but asks
for the conversion of an entire nation. It is not only
individuals that must correspond with the divine plan,
but also society with its structures and organization.
The principle of the confessional State is not
a theological thesis that has been discussed and
discarded, but a truth that “Leo XIII proclaims
as a requirement of politico-religious organization
according to the principles of Catholic thought, in

22

particular in the States which enjoy the unity of the
Catholic Faith.”8
The Jesuit Fr. Messineo indicates explicitly that
the principle of the confessional State is necessary
because
it is based on two revealed premises: the true religion
can only be one and unique, and [the true religion] is
exclusively the Catholic religion, towards which converge
all the historical and dogmatic proofs. To these premises
is added a principle derived from the order of reason,
namely, right connects ontologically only with truth....
The conclusion is that it is impossible to uphold the thesis
of the secular State and its separation from the Church,
with neutrality towards all religious confessions without
distinction as a consequence, without first overturning the
solid bastion called dogma.

So as to avoid any misunderstanding, let us
emphasize that the Church does not condemn the
fact that in some situations one or several States may
maintain a certain neutrality towards the different
religious groups, or that one may seek a practical
accord with a self-proclaimed secular State. What the
Church refuses is the idea of the secular State as the
governing principle of the relations between Church
and State, as the ideal towards which to tend.

Recapitulation
1) Communism is essentially revolutionary (its
key principle is historical and dialectical materialism);
it tends towards the theoretical negation and the
practical destruction (since communism is principally
praxis) of all that is stable. It is intrinsically perverse.
2) It has an eminently social aspect.
3) The Virgin of Fatima offers in remedy
eminently supernatural means which alone allow us
to confront a really diabolical system.
4) By the request for the consecration of a nation,
Russia, the Virgin forcefully expresses the necessity of
a Catholic social order for the good of souls and true
world peace; the nature of this order was sketched.

The Tragic Choice of
Diplomacy by Church
Authorities: Popes
Pius XI and Pius XII
In the preceding section, we gave a rapid but
essential “diagnosis” of the evil that invaded the
world at the beginning of the 20th century and of the
“therapy” offered by Heaven. The Virgin at Fatima
came to open our eyes to contemporary history and
to offer us the only exit door by which to escape from
the evils that were going to be unleashed. The Virgin
did not give several options, but only one obligatory
way: that of the consecration of Russia to her
Immaculate Heart and the Communion of reparation
on five first Saturdays of the month.
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

The Vatican’s Ostpolitik
under Pope Pius XI
Now we must show what the response of
churchmen to Heaven’s request was by considering
the Holy See’s actual conduct towards the
communism imposed on the countries of Eastern
Europe during the pontificate of Pius XI.
The first phase of the Milanese pontiff’s policy
towards the communist countries was compromise.
The Sovereign Pontiff’s intention was obviously to
come to the aid of the populations struck by cold
and hunger because of Lenin’s catastrophic policies.
But so doing, the Holy See opened the door to a
de jure international recognition of the Bolshevik
government. Not only that, but this “safe conduct”
forced the Pope to keep silent about the unbelievable
oppressions to which the Bolsheviks subjected the
people whose liberators they declared themselves
to be. The Russian refuges, having learned of these
contacts, publicly made known to the Pope their
disagreement in an open letter by their “National
Committee”:
The newspapers are forecasting the conclusion of a concordat between the Holy See and the Bolsheviks. It matters
little whether the news is true or not, for the form of the
agreement with the Bolsheviks can change nothing in our
relations with them. It is the very fact of the existence of
these relations which afflicts us.9

They knew very well the real intention of the
Soviet authorities: they were going to use everything
for their own perverse ends, even the charitable works
of the Church. Fr. Walsh, in charge of the Holy See’s
mission in Russia, quickly realized that the official
presence of the Church in Russia would be of benefit
to no one but the Bolshevik government, which made
him play its own game. Fr. Walsh rapidly perceived
the perversity of the communist strategy, which is
why he was accused by the communists of being the
cause of obstacles to the dialogue between Rome
and Moscow. He mentioned it explicitly to Cardinal
Gasparri, Pius XI’s Secretary of State:
In general, they want us to begin working, to assume
heavy expenses and to transport the greatest amount
possible of materiel onto Russian territory; then, when
the difficulties inevitably begin...we shall have no further
guarantee of protection beyond the normal rights granted
Russian citizens. Those of us who are familiar with the
death sentences, prison, exile, confiscation of property,
and many other fierce displays of vengeance and class
hatred which take place in Russia, know and take the
liberty of informing you that, in these conditions, our
work is impossible. Consequently, if I do not succeed in
obtaining an acceptable precise, written agreement, I see
no other alternative than the aid mission’s dignified and
immediate retreat.10

The Holy See decided to ignore Fr. Walsh’s
appeal and not only to continue the mission, but

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

also to engage in diplomatic relations with Moscow
in the person of the Jesuit Fr. d’Herbigny, a diplomat
highly appreciated by the Bolsheviks but viewed with
suspicion by Cardinal Pacelli, then Nuncio at Berlin.

The Vision of Tuy
The good God looked with pity upon His Church
being “used” by the Bolsheviks, who exploited
both the Holy Father’s aid missions to the martyred
Russian people and the imprudence of Vatican
diplomats; that is why He deigned to give Sister Lucy,
who was then in the novitiate of the Dorothean Sisters
at Tuy, a clear sign about the path to follow.
While the seer was in the chapel for a holy hour
on June 13, 1929, she beheld a marvelous apparition.
Above the altar she saw Jesus crucified and above
Him a dove and the face of a man; it was a theophany
of the Blessed Trinity. Then she saw suspended
before the crucifix a chalice and host, and on the
host there fell from Jesus’ face and side drops of His
precious blood, which ran down and collected in
the chalice. Beneath the right arm of the cross (thus
to Sister Lucy’s left) stood the Blessed Virgin with
her Immaculate Heart in her right hand. Beneath
the other arm of the cross, letters formed the words
“Grace and Mercy.”
Let us listen attentively to the narrative made by
Sister Lucy to Fr. Gonçalves:
Then our Lady said to me: “The moment has come
when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all
the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My
Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means....
Later on, by means of an interior communication, Our
Lord said to me, complaining: “They did not want to head
my request!...Like the King of France they will repent and
do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread
its errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church: the Holy Father will have
much to suffer.11

In this message, we find a great gift from Heaven:
God sees that His Church has taken the wrong way,
a way that not only will not stop the Communist
Revolution, but will allow the communists themselves
to infiltrate the Church. And so the Blessed Trinity
manifests once again a design of “Grace and Mercy”
for the world through the most Blessed Virgin and her
Immaculate Heart:
Faced with an eternal hell [shown to the three little
shepherds of Fatima on July 13, 1917, in the first part of
the secret], faced with the hell on earth of the Bolshevik
Gulag, God presents the Immaculate Heart of Mary to us
as the final recourse, the last hope of salvation for a world
on the way to perdition.12

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Sister Lucy, confiding in Fr. Fuentes, expressed
herself in the same vein, stating that it is the last plank
of salvation offered by Heaven, after which, if it is
refused, only chastisement will remain.
The salvation of the world, then, depends on the
conversion of Russia through the consecration of
this nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the
Holy Father and all the bishops in communion with
him. God’s design is very clear and unequivocal: it
is necessary to return to a Christian social order by
affirming apertis verbis the social kingship of our Lord
in the triumph of the Heart of His most holy Mother.
The Revolution must be countered by the Divine
Order; naturalist materialism by the supernatural;
the secularization of the temporal order by its
subordination to the supernatural.

Other Signs from Heaven
We know for a fact that the Pope learned of the
message of Tuy from Fr. Gonçalves and from the
bishop of Leiria, Msgr. da Silva, between July 1930
and August of the following year, yet he did not want
to comply with Heaven’s request that he consecrate
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In August 1931, Sister Lucy had another
revelation from Our Lord. Jesus told her that she
consoled Him very much by asking Him for the
conversion of Russia, Spain, and Portugal. He
asked her to beseech His Mother often to obtain the
consecration and to ask her also for the conversion of
Europe and the whole world. Then He said to Sister
Lucy:
Make it known to My ministers that given they follow
the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My request, that they will follow him into misfortune. It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus
and Mary.13

In this message, the reference to France recurs,
referring to King Louis XIV, of whom the Sacred
Heart asked, in 1689 by the intermediary of St.
Marguerite-Marie Alacoque, that he consecrate
himself and his court to the Sacred Heart and build
an edifice enshrining the image of the Sacred Heart,
which would also be placed upon the royal standard.
Jesus asked the Jesuit order to be the heralds of
devotion to the Sacred Heart and in particular to
advocate His specific request. Neither the king nor
the Jesuits heeded Heaven’s request: the French royal
dynasty ended tragically exactly a century later with
the decapitation of Louis XVI, while the Jesuit order
was suppressed in many European nations in the
second half of the 18th century and finally dissolved
by the pope in 1773!

24

After this severe rebuke, Our Lord added that
there was still time to have recourse to Him and
to His most holy Mother. That is why He sent two
other strong messages: the sad result of the Vatican’s
Ostpolitik and the Bolshevik Revolution in Spain. In
1933, the confidential secretary of Fr. d’Herbigny,
who had been made bishop, known as Fr. Deubner,
disappeared without a trace. All that is known is that
he was seen for the last time in Berlin in the company
of Clara Zetkin, an international agent of Moscow
and about whom it was learned—only too late!—that
she was Fr. Deubner’s aunt! The news shook up the
Secretariat of State and the Pope himself, who decided
to ask for Msgr. d’Herbigny’s resignation, which
was received on March 30, 1934, on which date the
Commission “Pro Russia” that he had founded was
also suppressed.
We cannot get into the Spanish Civil War here; it
suffices to underscore one key aspect: the revolution
in Spain failed because the Spanish episcopate and
the Holy Father wholeheartedly supported the antirevolutionary forces and denounced the lies and
injustices of the communists. It suffices to think of
Cardinal Goma, the archbishop of Toledo, who
openly preached the just anti-communist crusade
led by General Franco. It was not political motives
in the partisan sense of the word that pushed the
Church in this direction, but the awareness that the
rights of God and of the Church must be defended, if
necessary, even by the sword. It was Pius XI himself,
during an audience granted to Spanish refugees at
Castel Gandolfo (September 14, 1936) who blessed
this legitimate crusade: “Our blessing goes out in a
special manner to all those who have assumed the
difficult and perilous task of defending and restoring
the rights and honor of God and religion.”14 Faced
with a diabolical revolution that sowed death,
especially among the clergy and religious, in one
of the most Catholic nations of the world, the Holy
Father resolutely changed his attitude towards
communism, and on March 19, 1937, he published
the famous Encyclical Divini Redemptoris, in which
he called communism by its name, describing it as
“barbarism,” “diabolical,” and “intrinsically wrong,”
and stating that “no one who would save Christian
civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking
whatsoever.” Pius XI’s energetic tack was in
conformity with the good God’s directives; however,
it was only in regard to the negative part of Heaven’s
requests. He ought to have carried out the other
aspect, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate
Heart, an act that Pius XI, alas! did not have the
courage to accomplish.

And Pope Pius XII?
Obviously, in this article it is impossible to
analyze the relations between the Catholic Church

THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

Pope Pius XII

Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, Portugal

Pope Pius XI

and communism from 1917 to the present. We tarried
over the first phase conducted by Pius XI for it was
during this period that the signs of God’s will and the
disastrous consequences of disobedience to this will
became clear. Pope Ratti only responded to half of
Heaven’s requests.
Under Pius XII, in general a policy of noncollaboration with communism was maintained,
but neither did this Pontiff consecrate Russia in the
way requested by the Blessed Virgin. In this regard,
a digression is necessary. On October 22, 1940,
kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, Sister
Lucy heard Jesus address to her these words:
Pray for the Holy Father, sacrifice yourself so that
his courage does not succumb under the bitterness that
oppresses him. The tribulation will continue and augment.
I will punish the nations for their crimes by war, famine
and persecution of My Church, and this will weigh especially upon My Vicar on earth. His Holiness will obtain an
abbreviation of these days of tribulation if he takes heed
of my wishes by promulgating the Act of Consecration of
the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a
special mention of Russia.15

Let us remark that our Lord explicitly asks
that Russia be mentioned in a special way that
distinguishes it from the rest of the world. It is now
more than ever opportune to emphasize this detail, for
it concerns a blinding proof that the consecration of
the world that would be made almost forty years
later by Pope John Paul II did not correspond to
Heaven’s demands since the explicit mention of
the Russian nation does not figure in it.

Two days after this communication from
heaven, Sister Lucy, interiorly moved by grace,
decided to write to the Holy Father. With Fr.
Gonçalves’s permission, Sister Lucy addressed
her letter to her superiors so that they might
forward it to Bishop da Silva, who in turn would
forward it to the bishop of Gurza.
Towards the end of November or the
beginning of December of that year, Bishop da
Silva replied to Sister Lucy, commanding her to
modify her letter. These are the most important
modifications:
The Secret. In the version written December
2, 1940, Sister Lucy must leave out two
fundamental parts of the secret: the first is the
explanation that the Second World War would
begin during the reign of Pius XI; the second is
the unbelievable suppression of these words of
the Virgin: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart
will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate
Russia to me, which will be converted, and some
time of peace will be granted to the world.”
The message of Tuy. Bishop da Silva makes
her remove these explicit words of the Blessed
Virgin: “The moment has come when God asks
the Holy Father to make, in union with all the
bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My
Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means”
and replace them by a paraphrase of this demand,
which, however, does not mention the requirement
that all the bishops of the world be united to the Holy
Father at the moment of the consecration!
Pius XII thus read a message that had been
mutilated in its essential parts; this may help to
explain the incomplete nature of the consecration
made by the Holy Father on October 31, 1942, which
only partially fulfilled the requests of Our Lord, as
Sister Lucy explained to her superiors the following
year. During this time, Pope Pacelli blessed and
favored every public initiative linked to Fatima.
In the month of May 1952, the Virgin appeared
once more to Sister Lucy, telling her: “Make it known
to the Holy Father that I still await the consecration
of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without this
consecration Russia cannot be converted, nor can the
world have peace.”16 And in fact, on July 7, 1952, the
Holy Father explicitly consecrated Russia, but this
time it was the other condition that was not fulfilled,
that is to say, union with all the bishops in the world.
That was the last major action Pius XII
accomplished in favor of the requests of the Blessed
Virgin at Fatima; afterwards the Sovereign Pontiff’s
fervor towards the message of Fatima waned. It is

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

likely that he was affected by the strong influence
of a series of “scientific” articles published in the
Nouvelle Revue Théologique under the pen of the Jesuit
Fr. Dhanis (who, as it happened, is quoted in the
document published by the Vatican in 2000), in
which, on the one hand, he diminished the scope of
the Fatima message, reducing it to a simple “private
revelation” that ought not in any case influence the
public decisions of the Church; and, on the other, he
raised doubts about the credibility of the continual
revelations received by Sister Lucy and of the visions
of the three shepherds.
Another factor that weighed heavily upon Pius
XII’s determination was the presence in the Secretariat
of State of Monsignor Montini, who believed in a
diplomatic solution with regards to communism.
Certainly, Pius XII adopted, on the contrary, an
intransigent stance thanks to, among other things,
his relations with the Primate of Hungary, Cardinal
Mindszenty.17 Pope Pacelli was considered as “antidemocratic” because of his hostility to communism,
1) approving, on July 1, 1949, the Holy Office’s decree of
excommunication against Catholics who supported atheistic communism; 2) warning the Catholics who, on their
own initiative, wanted to inaugurate a “dialogue” with the
communists...; and 3) vigorously protesting against the
bloody repression of the Hungarian revolution ordered
by Khrushchev.18

However, in the final years of his pontificate, Pope
Pius XII ended up bolstering, in a certain sense,
the worldwide expansion of communism because
he did not realize that the spreading “anti-colonial”
movement was nothing other than a strategy to
enable communism to expand in the Third World,
which in fact happened, provoking revolutions and
massacres.
		
(To be continued)

$2.00 per SiSiNoNo reprint. Please specify.

Shipping & Handling
USA

5-10 days

2-4 days

Up to $50.00
$4.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $6.00
Over $100.00
Free
Up to $50.00
$8.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $10.00
Over $100.00
$8.00

Flat fee!

Foreign
25% of
subtotal
($10.00 minimum)

48 Contiguous
States only.
UPS cannot
ship to
PO Boxes.

Available from:

ANGELUS PRESS
2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109 USA

Phone: 1-800-966-7337
www.angeluspress.org
Translated from Courrier de Rome, December 2008.
1

V. I. Lenin, Three Sources and Three Integral Parts of Marxism.
J. Daujat, Connaître le Communisme.
F. Engels, “Hegel, Feuerbach et la dialectique,” in C. Fabro, Matérialisme dialectique
et matérialisme historique (Brescia, 1962), p.212.
4
Ibid.
5
A. Rosenberg, Storia du Bolchevisme (Florence, 1969). The author was a member of
the Trilateral.
6
Daujat, Connaître le communisme, pp.51-52.
7
Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (March 19, 1937), §14.
8
A. Messineo, “Democracy and Religious Liberty” [Italian], La Civiltà Cattolica,
1951, c. 2420, p.135.
9
Quoted in Frère Michel de la S. Trinité, The Whole Truth about Fatima Vol. II: The
Secret and the Church (New York, 1989), p.564.
10
A. U. Floridi, Moscow and the Vatican: The Soviet Dissidents and “Dialogue” [Italian], (Milan 1976), p.20.
11
Frère Michel de la S. Trinité, The Whole Truth about Fatima, II, 464.
12
Ibid., p.493.
13
Ibid., pp.543-44.
14
Ibid., p.639.
15
Ibid., p.732.
16
Frère Michel, The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III: The Third Secret (New York,
1990), p.327.
17
Cf. J. Mindszenty, Mémoires (Milan, 1974).
18
Floridi, Moscow and the Vatican.
2
3

27

Pope
Benedict’s
Gesture
Tradition’s
Venture
F r .

P h i l i p p e

He did it, and did it quickly
without any real reciprocation
and despite the risks. On
January 21, Benedict XVI,
through the intermediary of
the Congregation for Bishops,
decreed the “lifting” of the
penalty of excommunication that
the four bishops of the Society
had incurred in the eyes of
Rome, and of Rome alone. The
deed was to the Pope’s credit.

T o u l z a

The news was leaked on January 22 and on the
24th it was confirmed. The events, the declarations,
the outcries and injustices of that week and the
following weeks—who could have missed them? For a
few weeks the world was interested in the Society–for
a time shorter than in 1988 on the occasion of the
episcopal consecrations, but in an orchestration of
feelings undoubtedly much more vehement. It was
the world of the media, the conciliar bishops, and
the politicians. It is not their judgment that should
impress us, or that of the simple people, excited
perhaps because too much under the influence of the
press and the vile media. For us, only God’s judgment
ought to count. It is as He judges that we should
strive to judge the recent events, and to do that, place
them in their historical context.

The Venture of Fidelity
For a century and a half, a way of thinking alien
to revealed truth tried to infiltrate the Catholic
Church. Despite the vigilance of the Sovereign
Pontiffs, it entered the sanctuary, gaining priests,
theologians, and finally bishops. At the end of the
sixties, the decisive element of the unfolding of
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

28
Vatican II was not the alliance of the Rhine bishops
and their theologians for the enactment of liberalism
by pontifical declarations; it was Pope Paul VI’s
sympathy for their ideas. What happened afterwards
is well known: the churchmen, supported by Peter’s
authority, ratified in 1965 what their predecessors
had condemned for centuries. A small group of
bishops who did not want to abandon the faith of
their fathers had formed, however, but the evil could
not be prevented.
That is why, in 1969, Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre raised the banner, not of revolt, but of
fidelity. At the invitation of young Levites, he began
to pursue the work of the Priestly Society of Saint
Pius X despite the successive sanctions. He “handed
on what he had received” (I Cor. 15).

Sanctions?
June 30, 1988, is a major date in this holy
enterprise: the Archbishop is no longer concerned
only with the continuation of the priesthood, as he
had been sine 1970, but of his own enterprise: he
must guarantee his own succession.
Let us not deceive ourselves. If John Paul II
“excommunicated” Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop
de Castro Mayer, and the consecrated bishops, it
was not ultimately because this consecration took
place without pontifical mandate and even against
the Pope’s will; but because, without realizing it,
he did not want a succession in the enterprise of
fidelity. The sanctions, a means given by Jesus
Christ to His vicar to correct those who imperil in
one way or other the common good of the Church,
paradoxically served to stigmatize those who did not
want to harm the same common good at any cost.
There was no fault to be found in them. There
was only merit. Their act was the only way to keep
the Faith, the sacraments, and hence charity. If no
fault is committed, what can the penalty be worth?
The natural chilling of relations between the
conciliar Church and Ecône–without any actual
rupture–between 1988 and 2000 was gradually
replaced by regular conversations after the Society’s
Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (in the year 2000). The
steps taken by Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos
and the correspondence of Bishop Bernard Fellay,
among others, revived the back and forth swing
between hopes of a solution and distrust that had
agitated the years 1987 and 1988.
The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to
the sovereign pontificate in 2005 undoubtedly
accelerated the process. The Motu Proprio of July
2007 was perceived as an encouraging sign of
goodwill since he granted, more or less, the first of
the Society’s preliminaries. In a letter of December
15, 2008, Bishop Fellay, in the name of the four
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

bishops, requested the withdrawal of the censures.
The decree came five weeks later.

Reasons to Rejoice
We readily admit that there are some who dare
not let themselves be pleased about it. Who could
really blame them? The son accustomed to his
father’s blows--blows which sometimes followed
smiles--does not easily relax when his father looks
like he’s mellowing. The smiles of Rome...who
has not benefited from them? Seminarians, priests,
and bishops have been charmed by these amiable
overtures. They believed, they said “yes”, and they
signed. And Rome could not, or did not want to, or
at any rate, did not give. For sweets, gall was given;
for hugs, blows with a stick.
Smiles, sweetness, sugar, the hugs: other words
for designating the opportunity to “conduct the
experiment of Tradition.” The blows, the gall,
the cudgels: metaphors to signify at best a drastic
reduction of ministry; at worst, and quite often, the
dilution, partial or total, of the combat of our former
traveling companions.
But these experiences do not justify our putting
on a long face and refusing to be glad: “There is a
time to weep and a time to laugh” (Eccl. 3:4). Today
is a time for mirth. Tradition is no longer considered
to be excommunicated: this is the fact that inspires
our joy and thanksgiving.
Tradition is indeed what it is all about, and
Tradition undiluted, for the Society has remained,
by the grace of God, faithful. Bishop Fellay recently
declared: “There is a dangerous current running
through the Council, and in this sense we reject it.”
Tradition was not excommunicated by the
past. And it still is not, in that there has been no
change. What has changed is that yesterday in
the eyes of men it appeared excommunicated
and today it no longer appears to them as such.
This is a great, twofold advantage. The advantage
is for the apostolate: for already some souls are
approaching priests of Tradition without any qualms.
The advantage is also for the truth: for there is an
injustice when, for example, Msgr. Bruguès, who
asserts that “the Christian belief in the divinity of
Jesus Christ and the Jewish negation of this divinity
are equally founded,” should be considered as
“in-communicated” while the four bishops who
profess the faith of Pius XII should be seen as
“ex-communicated.”

The Rights of Canon Law
In this regard, if we further examine the
canonical effects of the papal decision, we ought
to distinguish what it represents in the minds of
the Roman authorities and what it is in reality.

29
According to the way the churchmen today judge,
the censures incurred by the four bishops no longer
exist; they are henceforth remitted (or lifted), that is
to say, the concerned persons have been absolved.
The lifting is not a “withdrawal.” The term
“withdrawal” used by our Superior General denotes
a judgment of nullity on the censure inflicted in
1988: by granting it, Rome would have judged
that the censure had never existed despite the
appearances. “To remit” or “to lift” the censure (as
was done) assumes a double meaning: directly, it
means that the censure does not exist (as of January
21); but indirectly, that it did exist (before).
Bishop Fellay could not request the lifting of the
censure; that would have constituted an incoherence
(since we consider the censure as null) and an error
(since the censure was in fact null).
It would have been possible but extremely
difficult for Rome to “withdraw” the censure.
Possible, because in history we find analogous
judgments of nullity decreed by some pope on the
act of one of his predecessors. We might consider,
for example, that the brief Ambulate in Dilectione of
December 7, 1965, constitutes on Pope Paul VI’s
part not only the lifting of the excommunications
inflicted on the Orthodox, but a judgment of nullity
on the censure incurred in 1054. It is very difficult,
certainly, because no “canonical” framework exists
for a judgment of nullity on a previous sanction,
but especially because that would have constituted
both a disavowal of John Paul II (whose cause of
beatification Benedict XVI is sponsoring) and a
recognition of the legitimacy of the consecrations.
In other words, that would have amounted to
Rome’s approbation of the Society’s stance and a
renunciation of aggiornamento.
Bishop Fellay was no doubt aware of the
possibility and the difficulty. The possibility enabled
him to make the request; the difficulty probably left
him with few illusions on the likelihood of carrying
the day.

Without Suspension
Some may have been surprised that the Society
“acts as if” they had won the withdrawal. This
may just be a way to avoid entangling the faithful
in canonical arguments and to facilitate things
for Benedict XVI. Bad diplomacy exists, they
say. Quite true--but so does good. Moreover, we
should observe that Rome has not corrected the
equivalence (at first) made by the authorities of
Tradition between “withdrawal” and “lifting.”
But what is the truth of the matter, and not
just what appears to be in the eyes of the Roman
authorities? Neither Archbishop Lefebvre and
Bishop de Castro Mayer nor the four bishops
they consecrated were affected by the putative

penalties for the reasons explained above. These
same reasons, moreover, relieve of any penalty
the members of the Society, given that they
were inflicted in order to extinguish the flame of
resistance. The suppression of the Society in 1975 (in
a completely irregular procedure), the suspension
a divinis of July 22, 1976, etc., were only done to
induce the Archbishop to modernize the doctrinal
formation of his seminarians, to celebrate the New
Mass, or to adhere to the Council.
That is why today neither the priests nor the
bishops of the Society have incurred any penalty;
not even the suspension that some people wave
like a scarecrow: “The four bishops may not be
‘excommunicated,’ but they are still ‘suspended!’”
Rome has not pronounced on the subject, but
the Swiss Bishops’ Conference could not wait to
proclaim as much, doubtless referencing Canon
1359. From that perspective, the four bishops ought
to wait for “regularization” before exercising a
ministry. The prospect of the upcoming ordinations
( June 2009) with which the Society will proceed as
usual is frightening to some. But it doesn’t scare the
Society any more than it did its founder more than
30 years ago. The line of conduct is the same.

The Steps to Follow
What is this line of conduct? It is the one set by
Bishop Bernard Fellay in 2000, which he confirmed
in an interview with Fr. Alain Lorans. It comprises
two preliminary conditions which the Superior
General considers as granted. Then come the
famous “doctrinal discussions,” and only then the
question of the Society’s canonical status.
However, the clarity of the preliminary
conditions (universal freedom of the traditional
Mass acknowledged and the withdrawal of the
“excommunications”) contrasts with the necessarily
elastic character of the doctrinal discussions.
How far should the discussions progress before
regularization can be envisaged? In the same
interview, Bishop Fellay answered the question:
the preliminary conditions should create “a new
atmosphere” “allowing Tradition to recover its right
of citizenship in the Church and to prove itself in
field work,” to see “the experiment of Tradition at
work.” This experimental phase “will have to last
as long as is necessary for a right evaluation of the
results, neither Rome nor the Society would commit
themselves in any way. But at the end, Rome will be
able to judge the work accomplished by traditional
priests from the results.” The goal of this phase: “a
lesson given [to Rome] by the facts themselves.”
The logic and the pedagogy of this course
of action are unquestionable. The liberalization
of the Mass allows a gradual extension of the
traditional ministry (practical aspect); the absence
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

30
of the censures delivers the Society’s ministry
from a baseless opprobrium and so enhances its
development (practical aspect again); the doctrinal
conversations (doctrinal aspect), by the exposition of
principles, clarify what traditional practice proves.
How long will it take to reach the goal? “Some
time,” some might quip. “The regularization of
our canonical status must come last, as if to seal
an agreement previously achieved, at least in its
essentials, on the level of principles, thanks to the
facts observed by Rome.”

Possible Problems
Bishop Fellay explained: “To desire an
immediate canonical agreement at any cost would
expose us to seeing an immediate resurgence of the
problems opposing us to Rome and the agreement
would at once become null and void.” The Society is
not primarily seeking regularization, but the victory
of truth over error.
The bishops of France were quick to grasp this
common-sense truth: there is no point in seeking
an agreement if the parties do not agree. Cardinal
Ricard recognized this: “At some point, the question
of the actual texts of Vatican II as magisterial
documents of the highest importance must be
raised. It is fundamental.” Cardinal Vingt-Trois
also recognizes this: “The difficulties the history of
the Church is experiencing cannot be resolved by
decrees; they can only be resolved by a change of
heart...”
Let’s suppose that the roadmap traced by the
Society’s Superior General was not followed, and
that the stage of experience and of discussions was
not respected. Difficulties of every kind would arise.

The Sacraments
The Motu Proprio has certainly smoothed over,
at least in principle, a great many obstacles. One
may suppose that no structure could be acceptable
that did not provide for the exclusive usage of
the traditional liturgy and the exclusion of the
concelebration of the New Mass by the members of
the Society.
However, let’s entertain a pure hypothesis,
however unlikely. If, in the future, a seminarian
attended the Mass of Paul VI, what room to
maneuver would our superiors have in dealing
with the situation? Without an experimental phase
and discussions, in truth it would be very narrow.
No sanction, and a fortiori no exclusion, would be
possible.
Another example: when a couple obtains from
the diocesan authorities a declaration of the nullity
of their marriage because one of the spouses was
judged to be “not able to assume the essential
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

obligations of marriage for causes of a psychological
nature,” and one of them, remarried, approaches
the holy table, what will the priests of Tradition
do? Continuing to consider this cause of nullity to
be illegitimate, as they do today, they will be dutybound to refuse Holy Communion to the individual.
But he will be able to communicate in the conciliar
Church! For want of an experimental period and
discussions, conflict will be inevitable.
Or else, when an archbishop learns that a
bishop of the Society is administering confirmation
conditionally to souls who already received it with
the new rite, how will he react? If the experimental
stage and discussions have not taken place, Rome
will not be able to understand why traditional
bishops accept only olive oil as the remote matter of
this sacrament.
Lastly, when one of the faithful makes advance
arrangements for his cremation from practical
considerations, will the priests of Tradition be able
to refuse him a religious burial as they do today,
contrary to Canon 1184, §1, n. 2 (CIC 1983), which
on the contrary allows a cremated person to receive
an ecclesiastical burial?

Preaching
It is the domain of ecclesiastical ministry
that would prove the most troublesome without
a preparatory phase. What will become of the
poor priest who, through love of truth and souls,
denounces from the pulpit or in a conference—
with all due prudence—ecumenism, inter-religious
dialogue, secularism, religious freedom, and
democracy in the Church? Should the idea come
to him, in season and out of season, to point at the
Council, the illicit canons of the 1983 Code, or
even some episcopal declarations or encyclicals
of Benedict XVI, what can he expect? All kinds
of scenarios are imaginable; the lack of doctrinal
clarifications will bring the whole weight of the
conciliar line down on this man of God and on the
whole Society.

The Canonical Structure
Whatever the canonical structure that may be
devised for the Society, that too will not be without
difficulties if the experimental stage and discussions
are left out.
A personal prelature would not give the
members of the Society any right to a ministry
over the faithful (except member-faithful such
as tertiaries). How else would this ministry be
exercised, except by the granting of personal
parishes or territories, which would suppose the
local Ordinary’s blessing. Similar problems would

31
also arise if the structure were one of a society of
apostolic life (common life without vows).
An apostolic administration would pose other
difficulties if it concerned most of the regions of
the world, especially the manner of determining
whose authority the faithful were under...Other
matters to be resolved would also arise, such as the
establishment of seminaries. None would be simple
if the experimental stages and discussions were left
out.
The purpose of foreseeing these difficulties in
liturgy, teaching, and jurisdiction is not to frighten
ourselves, but to show the importance of this phase
of doctrinal discussions.

Benedict XVI
The Sovereign Pontiff himself desires these
discussions. He had this expressed by Cardinal Re
in the January 21st Decree. If he had the courage
to brave the wrath of the media, the bishops, and
politicians; if he kept his decision despite the threats
of apostasy brandished by Catholics as few in
number as they were prompt to make themselves
heard, it is because he would not allow himself to be
swayed in the matter.
On February 4 he did renew, however, more
than one invitation, an order given to the bishops
of the Society to recognize the Council. He
renewed it partly as a concession to pressures too
well orchestrated not to have emanated from the
Masonic lodges and partly from personal conviction.
For Benedict XVI, it seems, is not a man to say
what he does not think. He solemnly expressed
his attachment to the Council the day after his
election. He specified how he intended to interpret
the Council on December 22, 2005. Consequently,
on many occasions he did not make a mystery of
his intention to pursue the work of his predecessors
in continuity with Vatican II, especially as regards
ecumenism and the public rights of other religions.
It is true that some recent nominations, some
more traditional declarations, some returns to sacred
liturgical forms, the Motu Proprio and the Decree of
January 21 pose a question. The adherents of a total
modernism are sufficiently alarmed for us not to
be unaware of their worries. They can be summed
up in this question: What does Benedict XVI really
want? Where is he going?
A mystery envelops Benedict XVI. This pope
owns outright that he is attached to the Council
read “conservatively.” But some of his initiatives
have caused the ultra-modernists to fear that he is
progressively challenging the Council itself. Their
fear would be our hope. Is it well founded? With
prayer and penance, everything is possible. The
Rosary has twice demonstrated its incredible power.
Why not thrice? Nevertheless, nothing indicates that

that day has come. In this case, should we not opt
for the prudential solution? Our role concerning the
authorities won over to the novelties is to uphold
doctrine whatever the cost. Over this, we will not
compromise.

Negotiations?
One does not “negotiate” with Rome. Christ
did not constitute His Church in such a way that
negotiations between His vicar and the sheep would
be conceivable. This is true when the vicar follows
the voice of the Master and still true when he
follows the paths of modernity.
The communities of Tradition can concede
everything except faith and everything that is
closely related; they cannot, therefore, yield on the
Council. The authorities of the Church, for their
part, understand that they can concede everything
(including the lifting of censures), but the Council is
a given in their eyes. How can there be a meeting of
the minds by negotiation? There cannot be; the only
solution is that error yield to truth, for what lasting
unity can be formed without it?
Archbishop Lefebvre explained, roughly, to
Rome before 1988: “Let us conduct the experiment
of Tradition. We are ready to consider any canonical
structure that would leave us as we are.” After 1988,
he was more demanding: “First of all, recognize the
kingship of Jesus Christ over nations as well as the
uniqueness of the Church as means of salvation,
then we will consider a canonical structure.” Did
the Archbishop change his point of view? Not that
much, for the first condition is hardly conceivable
without the second; that is to say once more, without
error giving way to truth.
The language of the Society today is no
different: “Recognize, by practice and by the
examination of the contentious questions, the
contradiction between the magisterium of all time
and the innovations of the last fifty years, and then
we will be able to study a canonical framework.”
These words are bold when addressed to a
Sovereign Pontiff. Let us not believe that fidelity to
Tradition is for us the guarantee of a virtue above all
others. The simple relationship with them and the
discovery of our neighbor protect us from such a
pernicious delusion.
These words, though, are necessary. Will it bear
fruit? Experience demonstrates it: the recitation of
the Rosary will obtain what still looks like a
miracle bigger than all the other stages, however
necessary.
Fr. Philippe Toulza is the editor of Fideliter, the official French publication of
the SSPX and is in charge of Clovis, the French publishing house. Translated
from Fideliter (March-April 2009), pp.14-22.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

32

Society’s
strategy
F r .

R e g i s

d e

C a c q u e r a y

The

Talk of “strategy” may
surprise. Does the word’s
military connotation, the
tactical side it suggests, suit
an eminently religious and
supernatural combat like
ours? Doesn’t the word “faith”
express the alpha and the
omega of our plan of action?
But the fight justifies the
existence of a strategy.

Who will deny that the Society is a small army
charged with an immense fight, the fight of faith? In
this battle, as in any other kind, there are different
objectives to reach: the most effective means and
actions must be sought for attaining the goal. In the
first place, we are fighting to keep and to transmit the
Faith wherever it still exists. This is the most visible
work of the Society, the one its members ordinarily
pursue. But we are equally trying with our whole
heart to propagate this same faith to all souls through
missionary preaching. Finally, how could we not be
concerned by the state of decadence in which the
Church finds itself, deeply gnawed by heresy? How
could we not also have as a cherished goal to do all
that we can to pull the authorities of the Church out
of the rut of error and heresy in which they have
been more or less stranded? This duty towards them
is all the more imperious as the Society mysteriously
finds itself nearly the last to be able to clearly expose
the principal reasons for the generalized loss of faith.

THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

SSPX Church and priory, Liberville, Gabon, Africa

Modern Humanism
Nevertheless, if it is quite clear that the Society
has a duty to work for the extirpation of errors in
the Church and for the return of its hierarchy to
the whole of Catholic truth, it is equally clear to
everyone that such a work is extremely perilous.
Should the Society lose this fight, should it allows
itself to be contaminated by the doctrines of
error, there would seem to be no more hope for a
resolution of the crisis in the Church. Of course, we
believe that the good Lord is almighty and does not
need us to go where He will. But, that being so, He
does not want us to shirk our duty by neglecting to
go as far as we can by our own means and strength
under pretext that He is able to have recourse to
extraordinary means.

Three Rungs of the Ladder
The consideration of the necessity of this
profession of faith before the authorities of the

33
“conciliar” Church led the Society’s superiors in
2001 to define the main lines of the long-term plan
it would follow in its relations with Rome. This plan
included three stages. The first consisted in asking
from Rome “two preliminaries”: the first was that all
priests be allowed the right to freely celebrate the
Mass of St. Pius V, and the second, the withdrawal of
the 1988 decree of excommunications. As a second
step once these preliminaries had been granted,
the Society called for doctrinal discussions during
which would be taken up the major new liberal and
gravely erroneous theses of Vatican II, which are
the source of the evil undermining the Church from
within. Finally, only in a third and final stage, after

Archbishop Lefebvre, Liberville, Gabon, Africa (1934)

the successful conclusion of the doctrinal discussions,
would the canonical regularization of the Society and
friendly communities occur.
The Society chose to make this three-stage
plan public, to bring it to everyone’s knowledge,
both the priests and faithful of the Society as well
as the Church authorities. When it became known,
it scarcely interested either group, so remote and
unattainable it seemed. One could scarcely see
for what reasons Rome, in its settled opposition to
Tradition, would condescend to the requests of this
small Society officially excluded from the Church.
The Society was accused of imposing unheard-of
demands to camouflage its desire to isolate itself. In
truth, who among us in 2001 would have thought
that less than eight years later the Pope would have
accomplished two decisive acts corresponding to
these preliminaries?

A Strategy Emerges
When the Society made known its plan, Rome
could have disinterested itself completely or else
told the Society that they rejected it and made a

counter proposal. But, though at the start it elicited
a letter of protest form Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
to Bishop Fellay dated April 5, 2002, the road map
proposed by the Society in fact gradually came to be
a bench mark in the communications between the
Holy See and the Society. The years of John Paul II’s
pontificate concluded without any apparent result. It
was his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, who showed
his determination to make the Society’s road map his
own.
Everyone remembers the still recent event of
the Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007, which, following
the Rosary Crusade launched by our Superior
General, acknowledged that the Mass Archbishop
Lefebvre defended had never been forbidden. The
document contained many and serious imperfections,
but nonetheless constituted a decisive step in the
progressive rehabilitation of the Mass. Yet it was still
possible to think that this act, coming from a pope
whose interest in the liturgy is well known, coincided
with the Society’s first request without having been
granted in response to it.
After the Decree of January 21, 2009, it is no
longer possible to think so. The second act responded
to the second of the Society’s preliminaries, even
if, once again, it only corresponded imperfectly
and insufficiently. After it, we can only observe that
the strategy of 2001, never officially contested by
Rome when it was publicized, was taken up and
followed almost to the letter by the Holy See. We
could advance several reasons that would allow us
to explain it. However, we are well aware that all
these reasons would remain very insufficient without
evoking the powerful prayer of the Rosary.
Not only did the Decree of 21 January happen
within the context of the strategy proposed by the
Society, but it especially gave us the guarantee that
Rome agrees to continue to follow it in the future
as we desired. The Decree of January 21 indeed
recognizes that “necessary discussions” must take
place between Rome and the Society on “issues
still pending.” This is exactly what we asked for in
our second stage. We said that we wanted doctrinal
discussions because we deem them absolutely
indispensable for working to resolve the crisis in
the Church. We can only rejoice that Cardinal Re,
signatory of the decree in the Pope’s name, accepts
these discussions, considers them necessary as the
next step, and deems “still pending” the issues we
raise.

Change Strategy?
Some voices have been raised in Rome and
elsewhere suggesting that, in the situation in which
we find ourselves, it would be useful to modify our
strategy. They advise us to invert the order of the two
remaining steps, moving the third before the second,
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

34
the canonical regularization of the Society before
the doctrinal discussions. Among the arguments
they give, they emphasize the Pope’s benevolence
towards us: we should take advantage of it because
his years are numbered and we do not know what
will happen in the future! People also tell us that
these doctrinal conversations are doomed to failure.
We will certainly get bogged down and the canonical
regularization of the Society will never happen. Or
else they tell us that once the situation of the Society
has been regularized, the official place it will have
been granted will give it more weight vis-à-vis Rome
for defending its positions.
Certainly, the choice of one strategy over another
is not a matter of faith, and we do not contest
that this may be discussed. Indeed, aren’t the best
strategists the ones who are able to make whatever
changes are necessary as the situation evolves in
order to better follow the reality? Anxious not to
stick to a strategy from an obstinate attachment
or inability to re-examine our position, we shall
examine more closely the objections of those who
recommend an immediate canonical regularization.

After Benedict XVI
Certainly, the Pope shows an undeniable concern
about us. Should we fear that the same will not hold
true with his successors? Without closely scrutinizing
the changes that have been taking place in the Curia
and among the cardinals, it seems to us that the
Pope has already abundantly started a movement
in keeping with his choices. The progressive wing is
being gradually replaced by a more serious group,
alarmed and distressed by the crisis the Church is
undergoing and seeking solutions to bring it to an
end yet still incapable of daring the indispensable
reconsideration of the Council. Thus it seems to us
in fact that the more time passes the less our fate will
depend only upon the pope’s personal benevolence.

The Weight of Recognition
Would we have more weight in the discussions
after the regularization of the Society? This is an
argument we hear often. However, looking at the
history of the combat for Tradition, it is manifest that
all those who accepted canonical regularization did
not succeed in obtaining these conversations. Once
regularized, their case was considered closed and
the discussions never took place. Straightforward
intimidations subsequently enjoined them to keep
silent if they tried to continue critiquing the Council.
We do not think, therefore, given that we are just
about the last to be able to point out the errors, that
we can run the risk of accepting a canonical status
without having obtained the moral certitude of
Rome’s doctrinal correction.
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

We ought to add that we should be loath to find
ourselves under the canonical umbrella held out to
us by a Rome that had not recovered its Tradition
and remained stuck in its impossible search for the
hermeneutic of continuity of Vatican II. We would
see it as an insult to truth and an additional risk of
confusing souls.

Later or Never?
Will the discussions necessarily bog down? We
know very well that, from a purely human outlook,
they are extremely difficult, for it is not only some
theological conclusions that separate us but, from
the outset, veritable unbridgeable philosophical
chasms. Yet what differences are to be found between
men! While some intellects are really lost in the
impenetrable thickets of modern thought, there are
healthier minds aspiring to the perennial philosophy.
Here and there the preciseness of Thomism and the
necessity of Scholasticism are recovering their former
esteem. We should not forget that many of us thought
that the two first requests of the Society would never
be answered. The recent events have demonstrated
to us the opposite. Therefore we should not despair
of what will follow.

Roman Confirmation
Moreover, we would be justified in thinking that
it is not the Pope’s settled wish that the canonical
regularization take place now. Indeed, in the Decree
of January 21, the Pope signed the lifting of the
purported excommunications, and he seems to have
indicated what he desires henceforth. But he does not
speak of the canonical regularization of the Society.
He says, on the contrary, that it is necessary to have
the doctrinal discussions that we have asked for.
Doubtless, he could in future express something else.
But as for us, we are satisfied to see him recognize
the need for doctrinal conversations before taking up
the canonical questions.
To conclude, we shall say that one does not
change a strategy that has earned its letters of
nobility. After the second preliminary was obtained,
there are even fewer reasons for changing it because
it functions well: first, make known to all our
objective; second, pound the terrain with the heavy
artillery of Rosaries; third and finally, advance
with the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ towards new
positions to conquer.
Fr. Regis de Cacqueray is the District Superior of France for the SSPX. Translated from Fideliter (March-April 2009), pp.23-27.

of

35

the Morality

video Games
J a c q u e s

d e l o r m e

“Classic Games and Video Games” (in the March 2009 issue of The Angelus)
covered the basic principles governing the morality of games in general.
Jacques Delorme applies these principles to commonly heard objections to
video games in order to reach a conclusion.
We are going to consider the morality of video
games principally in relation to young people, hence,
in a family setting. Adults will be able to employ the
following reflections themselves with the necessary
adaptations.
For parents, several attitudes towards video games
are possible. The first attitude is that, considered in
themselves, video games are morally dangerous (like
television, for example), and the surest thing is to
banish them from the house, pure and simple.
The second attitude (which can, moreover, be
added to the first) consists in deciding that children
cannot do everything, and choosing to help them
discover richer and more formative pastimes like
reading, art, sports, travel, nature study, etc.
These two attitudes are excellent, praiseworthy,
and, in our opinion, wiser. Video games being
absolutely unnecessary to the formation of the child,
and their usage being in fact very difficult to control
(like television or the Internet), the simplest and most
effective thing to do would be to afford them no
room in the home. This radical solution ultimately
seems to us the best and the most desirable, the
most recommendable, the most in conformity with
the spirit of faith and of Christian education rightly
understood.
Nevertheless, video games are like movies: not
being evil per se, a reasonable use in conformity with
morality is at least speculatively possible. It is in this
context that we shall offer some psychological and
moral reflections apt to guide parents who judge it
difficult or inopportune to banish all video games
from education, while being firmly decided to keep

their use within the limits of morality and Christian
life. The parents who have opted for banishing these
games from the home will find in our reflections
themes for personal educative meditations as well as
arguments apt to reinforce their decision.
We shall proceed in our exposition by formulating
objections to the use of video games and addressing
them. Of course, these will be considerations of
a general nature that will have to be adapted to
particular video games (which may come under
several different objections).

Immorality
It is often said, “Most of the time, video games
are immoral.” The objection is partly valid: a certain
number of immoral video games exist. Obviously,
bad video games or the circumstances [in which they
are played] should be rejected straight off, as would
be the case for any other form of game. There is no
question of accepting obscene or blasphemous games;
videos or not, such games cannot even be imagined in
a Christian family.
Moreover, children should be prevented from
playing video games (or non-video games, for that
matter) instead of doing their duty of state–for
example, instead of prayers or work; such conduct
constitutes a fault. Only inherently decent video
games (for example, a simulation of soccer) the child
plays during playtime can be theoretically considered
by a Christian family.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

36

Stupidity

Artificiality

People often say, “Video games are stupid
games.” This rather sweeping remark does not take
account of reality. Undoubtedly, of the thousands of
video games there are a certain number of completely
idiotic ones (not to mention immoral games). But
there are a good many other games which are not
devoid of interest and intelligence. It should even be
said that quite remarkable video games exist.
Even for those who have never frequented video
games, it is clear that a game of electronic chess is as
intelligent as a game of classic chess: the fact of its
being played through the medium of a screen does
not make it stupid. What’s more, a game of electronic
chess opens possibilities that classic chess does not–
for instance, the ability to replay for practice the
moves made during great world chess championships.
A good game of electronic chess, in effect, stores in
memory thousands of historic matches, just as it can
archive the games played by its owner.
Besides, there are a number of classic games that
do not shine by their intelligence or their subtleties.
It is not necessarily intelligence, after all, that is
demanded of a game, but the ability to relax the
mind. It often happens that we play some games that
are a little silly but which make us laugh (with our
family or friends), and which thus attain the very goal
of games, which is relaxation.

They likewise say, “In video games, everything
follows the rules of the game rather than real life.
You have to use the vocabulary of the game instead
of normal vocabulary; in short, the game departs
from life, it is artificial.” This objection is hardly
pertinent since it applies to most classic games.
Listening to football fans talk or reading the chess
match chronicles in the newspaper when one is not
an expert oneself is to feel oneself a foreigner to the
jargon and to very specific rules.
Here we touch on the paradox of games in
general: it is a voluntary activity destined for leisure,
yet it never stops becoming more complex, the great
joy of the players being to make the rules more
difficult so as to have the pleasure of beating them
anyway.

Aggressiveness
People also say, “In video games, the colors are
loud and the music aggressive.” First of all, this is
not true of all games. The games for young children
especially are often very pretty, with pastel colors,
soft music, etc. One can find a number of games
for adolescents and adults that are aesthetically
acceptable, and even agreeable.
Now it is true that too many video games are
aesthetically aggressive. Three reasons for this come
to mind. First, the general ambiance of our society:
the advertisements, the music in the supermarkets and
public places are also aggressive. Then, the fact that
the video game industry is a young industry that was
started by technology enthusiasts, often very young
and marginal, who naturally let their tastes show. But
little by little as this industry has evolved, its taste has
had a tendency to stabilize. Finally, a good part of
video games are aimed at teenagers, especially boys,
whose preference for green fruit over ripe is well
known, as Louis Veuillot observed. Just as the clothes
of teens are more colorful than those of adults, games
for teens (either real or video) are logically noisier,
faster, brighter, and, as a last resort, more aggressive.

THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

Fatigue
It is also said, “Game screens are a source of
visual fatigue and headaches for children.” In fact,
scientific studies have never demonstrated a link
between the normal use of a screen and (short-term)
ocular fatigue, nor even a (long-term) deterioration
of sight. These studies involve recent screens (less
than ten years old) subject to rather rigorous technical
specifications. On the other hand, it is clear that
prolonged utilization of a video screen for any activity
(professional work at a computer, Internet research,
television, or video games) naturally leads to fatigue.
Here, it is not the video game that is the cause, but its
duration. This can be compared to a car trip: a short
distance is not tiring, but a long trip can be wearing. It
is not the car that is the cause, but the duration of its
use.
It is therefore obvious that a prolonged use of
video games is not good for children’s health. But
this can be said of all their activities. I knew a child
who loved to read. Were it up to him, he would have
read eight to ten hours straight every day. Obviously,
his parents chased him out of the house, forbidding
him to take a book so that he would go run and play
outside for recreation and fresh air. His parents thus
spared him the misadventure that befell the young
Gueranger, who, during his seminary vacation, read
so much that he fell sick and had to give up all study
for a year to recuperate.

Excitement
People also say, “Video games are exciting, and
the children who play them can’t get to sleep.” It is
clear that video games fall among exciting activities
for three reasons: there is movement; this movement
is often quite rapid; the images and sound effects (or
music) are readily aggressive. Now, excitement is the
opposite of sleep, into which we fall by a progressive

37
cessation of activity and thought. Performing an
exciting activity just before going to bed is the best
way to take a long time falling asleep. The body calms
down slowly. But in this, video games do not stand
out from other exciting activities: going to bed just
after a soccer match where the adrenaline is rushing
is also a good way not to fall asleep. And the most
common activity before bedtime today for most
people, watching television, is a powerful insomniac
since its description is very close to that of a video
game (except that the spectator is passive). Thus it is
the hour at which the child plays video games that is
at issue here instead of the game itself.

Virtual Reality
People also say, “Video games make the child live
in a purely virtual, imaginary world cutting him off
from the real and preventing him from experiencing
the reality of the world.” In itself, games (since it is
question of an activity that purposely takes us out
of the flux of normal life for relaxation) always have
a dimension of virtuality and imagination. Taking
care of a doll, playing with toy horses, or playing
Monopoly is not “real” life.
Where the objection does hit home is for the
troubling mixture of virtual and real in video games.
When a child plays with dolls or toy soldiers, the
child keeps in the back of its mind that it is just play.
Video games, on the contrary, tend towards realism:
the greater “the feeling of being there,” the better the
video game. From this fact, the boundary between the
real and the imaginary, between life and play, tends
to dissolve. The phenomenon is even stronger in the
latest versions of online games like “Second Life,”
since the real life (virtually) intrudes in virtual reality.
How can one help not feeling oneself to be in real life
(although one is only playing) when you can browse
in stores, newspapers, and political kiosks, etc., which
are being managed by real enterprises or parties and
which try to conduct real commerce or real politics,
but within a world that is purely virtual? The games
that are really videos are at the same time those that
will have the strongest influence on a child’s psyche,
which already does not distinguish as perfectly as an
adult what is the fruit of its imagination from what is
real.
There are certain advantages to this “virtuality”:
notably because one can learn and try things without
risk. A car-driving simulator enables the learner to
acquire the basics of driving without fear of accidents.
But, on the other hand, can it be said that someone
who has only driven on a simulator really knows how
to drive in reality a car made of matter?
The ever increasing number of things children
(and adults) can do in their little cocoons in front
of the screen without ever suffering real, physical
consequences, without ever feeling the objective
counter punch, opens the door to a “de-realizing” of

the world of scarcely imaginable consequences. Even
if it involves an extreme consequence, some murders
committed by children have shown that they did not
perceive the gravity of their action simply because
they were used to seeing murders and deaths on
television and in video games without it having any
consequences (for them).

Addiction
The last objection we shall entertain is also, in our
view, the strongest. It involves the powerful addiction
that video-game use too often engenders. This is an
easily observable phenomenon, which is also to be
found with the twin brothers of video games, namely,
television and the Internet: it is difficult to tear oneself
away, and one can spend long hours at it without
realizing it.
The virtual world, which increasingly offers
the appearance of reality and which offers a quasi
unlimited food for the senses and spirit, captivates and
imprisons the player, especially when he is young, and
keeps him from breaking away from this hypnosis.
Even with the best will in the world, even with iron
discipline, even with draconian surveillance, it is in
fact very difficult if not impossible to confine the usage
of video games within rational and Christian limits.
Like television (and everyone who has one at home
ought to recognize it honestly), video games tend to
invade the children’s time, their interest, and their
attention, and finally to obsess them more and more.
It is principally for this reason that the solution of
radically banning video games from the home seems
to us to be the best and the wisest.

Summary
We recognize that video games are not immoral
per se. We have shown that a number of objections
against them are not well founded or else can be
directed against classic games or else ought to admit
of some nuances. But after conceding all of that,
it remains that in practice within family life and
education, it is in reality more or less impossible
to make a good use of video games, to utilize them
according to the principles of St. Thomas on the
morality of games. In these conditions, since in most
cases and for most children and families, video games
will be harmful regardless of the precautions taken,
it is morally wise and opportune to banish them
definitively from a Christian home.
Translated from Fideliter (May-June 2007), pp.74-79.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

PART 23

38

F r .

M a t t h i a s

G a u d r o n

“The Catechism of the Crisis” continues with a
treatment of the sacraments. Special emphasis is
given to certain modern notions of the sacraments.

Catechism
Of the Crisis
In the Church

84) What is a sacrament?

A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ
to give us His grace.

l Why would Christ give grace
by means of visible signs?
Jesus Christ linked the giving of (invisible) grace
to visible signs because He took into account human
nature. Everything man knows comes through his
five senses. Man stands in need of perceptible,
outward signs even for grasping and communicating
spiritual realities.
l Are the sacraments symbols of grace?
The sacraments are symbols, but not only
symbols; for they really effect in the soul what they
show by outward signs.
l Can you give an example
of this sacramental efficacy?
In baptism, the water poured on the forehead
signifies that the soul is purified from sin. But at
the same time, baptism effects this purification of
the soul by giving it sanctifying grace. It makes of a
person a child of God.
l How many sacraments did Jesus Christ institute?
Jesus Christ instituted seven sacraments:
baptism, confirmation, the holy Eucharist, penance,
extreme unction, holy orders, and marriage.
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

85) Has the way in which
the sacraments are conceived
today changed?

In modern catechesis the sacraments are rarely
considered as efficient causes of grace. They are
made to be signs that manifest redemption and the
fact that we are once again pleasing to God. People
no longer know for sure if they really transmit the
grace of redemption or whether they merely recall
what has already been worked in us. According to
this concept, baptism, for example, does not have
as effects deliverance from original sin and our
adoption as children of God: It is only a sign that
God has pardoned us our sins in Christ Jesus and
is once again favorable towards us. Thus baptism
is no longer necessary for transmitting the grace of
redemption since all men are already saved (the
theory of universal salvation).

l Who were the first to deny
the efficacy of the sacraments?
The Protestants were the first to deny the
efficacy of the sacraments. In general, they
considered them to be means of expressing and
fortifying faith only. The modernists, condemned
by St. Pius X at the beginning of the 20th century,
upheld a similar theory. They considered the

39
sacraments to be but an expression of faith and a
means of sustaining it.
l Do modern theologians also deny
the efficacy of the sacraments?
What Rahner says of the sacraments does not
seem much different, although the language is more
complicated:
When the Church, faced with an existentially decisive
human situation, totally commits herself by proclaiming
herself the primordial sacrament and the principal and
victorious answer of God for the world and for every
man, this is what in Christian language we call the
sacraments.

Speaking of confession, the same Rahner writes:
This word of pardon [of God in Jesus Christ] is again
promised by the Church to everyone in a special manner
each time someone—remaining a sinner even after
baptism and capable of falling again into grave faults—
confesses his great fault and misery to the Church before
its representative; or else, in certain circumstances,
brings them before God and his Christ in the collective
confession of a community [here he is speaking of
penance services]. When this word of divine pardon has
been pronounced by an authorized representative of the
Church after a baptized person’s confession, this action
of the word of God, which effects the pardon, we call the
administration of the sacrament of penance.

l What should we notice
in these passages of Rahner’s?
Here it is especially a question of commitment
and promise. God in Jesus Christ has made a
commitment of Himself towards the world, and this
promise is renewed towards men by the Church.
Whether something is really worked in man is not
said. Moreover, in the quotation above, a penance
service and confession are essentially placed on the
same level. Finally, it seems that the priest does not
forgive sins as a representative of the Church, but
of Christ in whose name he pronounces the word of
pardon.
l Has Rahner developed these same ideas elsewhere?
Rahner is not always easy to understand, but
the same ideas are always to be found. We read, for
example, under the word “sacrament” in the lexicon
Sacramentum Mundi:
[The sacraments] are the real personal and concrete
symbols of the personal life which stems eternally from
God the Father, gives itself to man by God’s Word
and Spirit and is to be accepted by man personally
in the Church and responded to gratefully. It is an
exchange “between” God and man “by means of” the
sacraments. By virtue of the Christ-event, all being
and life must be analysed and understood in the light
of faith in this event. This leads to the theologically
fundamental truth that all the reality of created being—
“natural” and “supernatural”—is ipso facto constituted

as coming from the Father through the Word of God
and as ordained to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Since,
therefore, it exists through the Word and in the Word,
it is itself—by participation—word, and as such each
creature “symbolizes” and “proclaims” both itself and
others (persons and things) in various particular ways,
ultimately symbolizing and proclaiming God himself....
The Christ-event means the mystery of redemption, and
this presupposes creation, the grace of original justice
and sin, all within the horizon of salvation-history.

Christ Acts Through
the Sacraments

Fr. A.M. Roguet, O.P.
Used and recommended by a teaching order of
Catholic Tradition. First available in 1954. THREE
PARTS: 1) a commentary on sacramental doctrine
made easy and engaging; 2) a treatment of each
sacrament explaining the ceremonies showing how
they are not to be isolated but made the fabric of
the whole Catholic life; 3) sacramental spirituality
in life, by grace, with Our Lady, and from the Cross.
Useful for personal study, classrooms, study groups.
For advanced junior high and up.
183pp. 7" x 5". Softcover. STK# 8310 $12.00

The Sacraments
Fr. Demetrius Manousos
This book really needs to be seen to be believed.
There is nothing better to explain the Sacraments
to children. Not only excellent for children, but
useful for adult converts. All seven sacraments are
covered creatively in full color with one’s Guardian
Angel as your guide. A great “family read.”
64pp. 7" x 10". Softcover. Full color.
STK# 8281✱ $9.95

l What does this passage mean?
Under the verbiage we find the idea that the
sacraments are symbols by means of which men
should recognize and experience that they are once
again pleasing to God. As for knowing whether the
sacraments really effect this return to grace with
God is not specified. But it is rather doubtful
since the sacraments are but intermediaries among
others.
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 from the second edition
(Schloß Jaidhof, Austria: Rex Regum Verlag, 1999) as translated, revised, and
edited by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé in collaboration with the author,
with their added subdivisions.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

40

Homage to Pius XII,
Seventy Years After
His Election
After the celebration of the 50th
anniversary of the death of Pius
XI I (1939-58) in October 2008,
L’Osservatore Romano, in its March
2, 2009 edition, rendered a new
homage to Pius XII elected pope on
March 2, 1939. Gian Maria Vian,
director of the daily of the Holy
See, devoted the editorial to the
“last Roman pope,” considering the
Pontificate of Pius XII “one of the
most important in the 20th century.”
The journalist and historian mentioned the “unique experience” of
this pope concerning “the Church”
as well as “international affairs.” And
he called to mind “the abyss of the
war and its inexpressible horrors,
and first of all the Holocaust, which
Pacelli, as disarmed as his Church,
confronted, indefatigably repeating
words of peace and working silently
to save as many human lives as
possible.” “This work in favor of
peace...was at first acknowledged,
and later forgotten, even darkened
by polemics used purposely, and
deprived of any historical basis.”
Yet, he added: “Seventy years after
the election of Eugenio Pacelli, a
wide and better balanced consensus
concerning his action during the war
and the importance of his pontificate
seem to be coming back.”
Two full pages were devoted to
the anniversary of the election of
Pius XII and offered to the readers his first message on radio on
March 3, 1939, the day following
his election, together with excerpts
from his first Encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, of October 20, 1939. In an
article devoted to the “reactions of
the international press” of the time,
L’Osservatore Romano also called to
mind the “indignation of the Nazis
and the approval of the Communists.”
As Benedict XVI will be visiting
Israel in May, the figure of Pius XII
THE ANGELUS • May 2009 www.angeluspress.org

Church a
and his alleged “silence” before the
extermination of the Jews caused
new tensions between the Jewish
community and Rome last October.
Benedict XVI stated again his wish
that the cause of beatification of the
Pope of the Second World War was
to “be carried on without incident,”
a beatification which is criticized by
numerous Jews (see DICI, No. 183).
Later on, the Vatican specified
that Pius XII would probably not
be beatified before the full opening of the archives of his pontificate, emphasizing that this latter
would demand at least six to seven
years of work to classify all the
documents. The insistent homage
rendered by Rome lately gives us
to understand that the outcome
of the cause of beatification will
be successful (see DICI, No. 186).
On March 4, Fr. Peter Gumpel,
S.J., relator of the cause of beatification of Pope Eugenio Pacelli,
declared on Radio Vatican that a
new document testifies to Pius XII’s
action in favor of the Jews during
the last war. The document, dated
November 1943, was in the “Memorial of the Augustinian Sisters of the
Monastery of the Four Crowned
Saints” in Rome, and bears the following note: “The Holy Father wants
to save his Children, including the
Jews, and gives orders to the monastery to grant hospitality to those
persecuted.” Fr. Gumpel stressed
the importance of the document,
because such written testimonies
are rare for security reasons. This
gave the opportunity to some who
continue to attack Pius XII, saying
that there are no documents proving that the Sovereign Pontiff helped
the Jews. Indeed, the “rescue operation” undertaken by the Pope “was
performed by personal messengers,
priests who were sent to the various
institutions and Catholic houses here
in Rome, to universities, seminaries,
parishes, or convents of Sisters,” Fr.
Gumpel explained.
(dici, 3/27/2009)

Interview of Bishop
Bernard Fellay
in Le Courrier of
February 26, 2009

Complete text of an Interview conducted by Rachad Armanios. Le
Courrier is an independent newspaper in Switzerland.

The lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Priestly
Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) does
not mean its “integration” into the
Church, but is an open door “for dialogue,” the Secretariat of State specified on February 4, in response to the
polemic created by the revisionist
statements of one of the bishops
restored to favor, Bishop Williamson
(who has returned to Great Britain).
Now Rome sets as condition of this
integration the “full recognition of
the Second Vatican Council,” as well
as of the “Magisterium of Popes John
XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John
Paul II, and Benedict XVI himself.”
No problem for the second point, but
the schismatic Society is entrenched
in its positions regarding its virulent
denunciation of the Council in the
name of its combat for the “restoration of Tradition.” According to the
Society, there is as yet no schedule
for the meetings in view of a dialogue, but both parties are working on it. We give below an interview with the Superior of the SSPX,
Bishop Bernard Fellay—successor of
the late Archbishop Lefebvre.

The condition set by Rome for a reintegration of the Society into the Church
is the recognition of the Second Vatican
Council. Is the Society ready to take
this step?

No. The Vatican acknowledged
the necessity of preliminary discussions to deal with the root questions which come precisely from the
Second Vatican Council. To make
of the recognition of the Council a
preliminary condition is putting the
cart before the horse.

nd World
You stated that in your discussions
with the Roman authorities in view of
a reintegration you wanted to obtain a
lasting restoration of the Church. Do you
then hope that the Church will give up
the gains of Vatican II?

Yes, because those gains are
pure losses: the fruits of the Council
were the emptying of seminaries,
novitiates, and churches. Thousands
of priests left the priesthood, and
millions of faithful ceased to practice
or turned to sects. The beliefs of the
faithful have been denatured. Really,
those are queer gains!

In this respect, is the Society still hostile
to freedom of conscience in religious
matters, to ecumenism and to interreligious dialogue?

It is very obvious that adhering to a religion demands a free
act. And hence it is often said that
the Society is against freedom of
conscience in religious matters, and
a theory is ascribed to the Society
which this latter does not profess.
Conscience is the ultimate judgment on the goodness of our action.
And in this sense, no one may act
against his conscience without sinning. However, conscience is not
an absolute; it depends upon the
objective good and truth, and hence
every man is duty bound to form and
rightly train his conscience. Thus
the Church must be a responsible
mother who enlightens and guides
our narrow and often hazy intelligences. Concerning ecumenism or
interreligious dialogue, everything
depends upon the meaning given
to the words. A great confusion is
reigning in most minds on this subject. Obviously, like any human
being and for the sake of the good
of society, we wish to live in peace
with all men, our fellow creatures.
On the religious level, we ardently
wish to respond to the desire of Our
Lord: “That they may all be one”
so that there will be “one fold and
one pastor.” If by ecumenism we
mean the pursuit of this very noble

goal, we are obviously favorable
to it. If, on the contrary, it is seen
as a path which does not seek this
fundamental unity, a unity which
perforce implies an examination
of the truth—something which the
Catholic Church still claims today
to be the only one to possess in
its integrality!—then we protest.
In fact, we presently see that
ecumenism remains on a very superficial level of understanding and of
life in society, but does not examine
things deep down.

What kind of status might be granted to
the Society within the Church?

We will consider this if the doctrinal discussions lead to a positive
result. May God grant it be so!
(dici, 3/13/2009)

Benedict XVI
Rises Up Against
Multiplication
of Marriage
Annulments
As he does every year at the
opening of the judiciary year, the
Pope addressed the Tribunal of the
Roman Rota. During an audience
accorded on January 29, 2009,
Benedict XVI spoke before the 150
members of the Tribunal which deals
with the requests for recognition of
nullity of marriage.
Benedict XVI began by calling
to mind the fact that his predecessor had established “the criteria in
matters of psychiatric or psychological expertise, but also those permitting the judiciary definition of
causes.” The Pope spoke out against
the “exaggerated and nearly automatic” multiplication of declarations
of nullity of marriage, “under the
pretext of a supposed immaturity
or psychological weakness of the
one contracting,” the which weakness “remains an exception to the
natural principle of the capacity

41

allowing one to understand, decide
and realize the gift of self which
creates the conjugal bond.” The
Pope went on to denounce “certain
anthropological, humanistic trends
oriented toward self-realization
and egocentric self-transcendence.”
These trends so idealize marriage
and the human person that they
ultimately deny the psychological
capacity of a great many persons by
basing it on elements which do not
correspond to the essential demands
of the conjugal bond, the sovereign
pontiff explained.
Benedict XVI then reminded
his listeners that the case for nullity due to psychological incapacity
demands that the judge call upon
experts to verify the existence of
a genuine incapacity. He likewise
warned against the risk of falling
into an “anthropological pessimism
which, in the light of the present
cultural situation, considers that it
is nearly impossible to marry.” The
Pope insisted on the need to “reaffirm the innate human capacity for
marriage [which] is the starting point
to helping the spouses grasp the
genuine nature of marriage, as well
as its importance in the economy of
salvation. What is at stake is the very
truth of marriage and its intrinsic
juridical nature, the indispensable
preliminary for an understanding
and an appreciation of the conditions of marriage.”
The Tribunal of the Roman
Rota, together with the Apostolic
Penitentiary and the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, form
the Tribunals of the Holy See, whose
offices are located in the Apostolic
Palace of the Chancery in the Vatican. Only the ecclesiastical tribunal
of the third instance–the Roman
Rota–may judge at the appellate
level the requests for recognition of
nullity of marriage which have been
judged in the first instance by diocesan tribunals. The Rota is assisted
by 3,000 tribunals of first and second
instance throughout the world. It
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

42

is possible, however, to appeal
directly to the Rota after an affirmative or negative judgment in the
first instance. A request for declaration of nullity always begins before
diocesan tribunals. Only princes
and heads of state have the right to
appeal directly to the Roman Rota
in order to have their marriage
declared null, officially so that they
might not put any pressure on local
ecclesiastical tribunals.
(dici, 3/13/2009)

United States:
Cardinal Speaks
about Possibility of
Married Priests

added, believing that it might
be good to make
a decision based on
geography and culture,
rather than a universal decision. He observed that the priests
in the churches of the Eastern rite—
like the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, the Melkite or the
Maronite churches—enjoyed the
possibility of being married “without any problem whatsoever.” We
can guess, through his words, that
the American prelate would like to
move from priests’ marriage as a
legitimate subject of discussion…
to their legitimate marriage without
any discussion whatsoever.
(dici, 3/13/2009)

Cardinal Edward M. Egan,
former archbishop of New York,
declared during a radio broadcast
with journalist Fred Dicker, from
the New York Post, that priestly celibacy was a topic for a “perfectly
legitimate discussion.” “I think
we must examine” this issue, he

Thine Eyes–A
Witness to the
March for Life

Wa s h i n g t o n ,
D.C., March for
Life, premiered on
Tuesday, April 21 at
7pm in Overland Park,
Kansas.
The high-definition film was
shot on location by a six-camera
crew to share the spirit of the January 22nd event, which marks the
Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade
decision to override state abortion
laws, and mourns the more than
50 million unborn Americans who
have died as a result.
The 36th annual March for Life
in Washington, D.C., boasted of
record attendance, some 300,000
people, yet the event made headlines virtually nowhere. Painfully
few in the major media paid any
real attention to the March for Life
this year despite the event’s massive
size and obvious relevance.
Find more information on www.thineeyes.org.

Thine Eyes, a first-ever prolife documentary on the annual

Iota Unum

A study of changes in the Catholic Church in
the 20th century
Romano Amerio
Archbishop Lefebvre on Iota Unum: “In my opinion, it is
the most perfect book that has been written since the
Council on the Council, its consequences, and everything
that has been happening in the Church since. He examines every subject with a truly remarkable perfection. I
was stupefied to see with what serenity he discusses
everything, without the passion of polemics, but with
untouchable arguments.... I do not see how the current
attitudes of Rome can still persist after the appearance of such a book. They are radically,
definitively condemned, and with such precision, for he only uses their own texts....The
whole is absolutely magnificent.
“One could base an entire course on this book, on the pre-Council, the Council, and postCouncil....The Popes take a licking...but he recounts their deeds, their words, everything. They
stand condemned. In his epilogue he shows how the consequence is the dissolution of the
Catholic religion....there must be a remnant; after all, the good God said that the Church
will
not perish,
there must be a...remnant that will keep the faith and tradition.”
THE
ANGELUS
• Maytherefore
2009 www.angeluspress.org
816pp. Softcover. STK# 6700✱ $23.95

Color Hardcover. STK# 6700H✱ $33.95

Infant Homicides
by Contraceptives
Dr. Bogomir M. Kuhar

A Catholic pharmacist tells how most contraceptives do not prevent pregnancy, but actually
abort children shortly after conception. For
Protestants who are “pro-life” but practice
contraception and to “cafeteria Catholics.”
58pp. 4" x 7½". Softcover. STK# 8251✱ $3.00

F R .

p e t e r

Do I have to pray for Pope Benedict XVI’s
intentions to gain indulgences?

It is certainly very true that one of the conditions
imposed by the Church for gaining any indulgence
is that one prays for the intentions of the Sovereign
Pontiff. This is perfectly reasonable and licit, since
an indulgence is a special favor of the pope himself,
using his power to loose and bind, by which he
applies the treasury of the Church—that is, the merits
of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints to
loosen a part or all of the temporal punishment due
for sin.
Some might object by saying that the pope’s
personal intentions might be, at least to some extent,
detrimental to the Church, since they are on a
purely natural level and promote ecumenism; the
recognition of the values of liberty, fraternity, and
equality of the Enlightenment that build up a new
humanity; and the promotion of the feeling that
salvation is possible through all religions. Examples
of this are given in the special prayer intentions of
Pope Benedict XVI for each month, for example, for
March 2008: “That the importance of forgiveness
and reconciliation between individuals and peoples
may be understood and that through her testimony
the Church may spread Christ’s love, the source
of new humanity”; for June 2008: “That Christians
may use literature, art, and the media to greater
advantage to favor a culture which defends and
promotes the values of the human person”; and for
August 2008: “That the human family may learn to
respect God’s plan for the world and become ever
more aware that Creation is God’s great gift.”
However, when we pray for the intentions of
the Sovereign Pontiff, this does not mean that we
pray for his personal intentions, as defective as
they can be, the pope being human. We pray for
the intentions of the pope as Vicar of Christ and
Sovereign Pontiff, as Christ’s representative in
the government and teaching of the Church, not
inasmuch as he is a private individual. This was
clearly explained by Fr. Hagedorn in 1924 in his
General Legislation on Indulgences, p.119:
Obviously the intentio pontificis [the intention of the pope]
refers to the mind of the pope, not as an individual, but
to the purposes that are near his heart as the Vicar of
Christ and the visible head of the Church.

It is for this reason that the intentions we
pray for are fixed and determined, as declared
by the Authentic Decree of the Congregation of
Indulgences quoted in Prummer, Manuale Theologiae
Moralis, III, §556:
The intention of the Sovereign Pontiff, for which prayers
are to be recited, is: the exaltation of Holy Mother the
Church, the extirpation of heresies, the propagation of

R .

43

s c o t t

the Faith, the conversion of sinners, and pax amongst
Christian leaders. But it is not required that anyone
explicitly have all these special intentions in his mind; it
suffices that he pray in general according to the intention
of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Other moral theologians state the same—e.g.,
Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, III, §674,
who nevertheless summarizes these intentions a little
differently: “for the exaltation and prosperity of the
Catholic Church, for the extirpation of heresies and
conversion of all those in error, and for peace and
unity of the entire Christian people.” Consequently,
we ought to pray for the Holy Father’s intention to
gain the plenary indulgence attached to the Way of
the Cross or our family rosary. The Church does
not generally determine which prayers are said, and
the current legislation (Norm 10) published in 1969
states:
The condition of praying for the Supreme Pontiff’s
intentions is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father
and one Hail Mary; nevertheless the individual faithful
are free to recite any other prayer according to their own
piety and devotion toward the Supreme Pontiff.

In doing this, we have the general intention of
praying for the true good of the Church of which the
pope is the visible head, and not for any particular
intention of this particular pope. We ought,
therefore, to have no scruples in accomplishing
this condition to gain indulgences, although we are
fully aware that Benedict XVI’s personal intentions
are the introduction of the principles of the French
Revolution (e.g., liberty for all religions) and of
ecumenism that are destroying the Church from
within.
Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, US District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross
Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, he is presently Headmaster of Our Lady of
Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, Ontario, Canada. Those wishing answers
may please send their questions to Q &A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest
Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109.

The New Regulations
on Indulgences
Fr. Winfrid Herbst
Explains indulgences and the new regulations
governing them. 27 prayers and good works
for plenary indulgences plus 46 ways to gain
a partial indulgence. And a Q&A section on
indulgences.
47pp. Softcover. STK# 8072✱ $3.00

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • May 2009

From ANGELUS PRESS

Brand New Titles
A Modern Martyr

The inspiring and little-known life of St. Theophane is recounted
through his own letter-writing from deep within the savagery
of Vietnam where the young priest was cruelly butchered. The
favorite priest of St. Therese.

Softcover. STK# 8341✱ $16.95
rom
new felus
ang ss
pr e

Dr. David Allen White
Edwin Faust Dr. John
Rao Michael Matt John
Vennari Joseph O’Brien
Michael Larson Mary Ann
Kreitzer Dr. Andrew Childs
Richard Cowden Guido Brian
Douglass Dr. Kenton Craven

••

••
• • • • •
•
•

Love in the Ruins

Fourteen personal accounts from Roman Catholics who
have discovered or rediscovered the riches of the Latin
Mass and the traditions of Holy Mother Church.

Softcover. STK# 8340✱ $14.95

Motherhood
and Family

Sixteen essays about femininity
and motherhood that bring timeless
advice to ladies. This is the book for
women of all ages who look to enjoy
the privilege of being a woman,
or who are prayerfully desiring to
discover it or to recover it.

Softcover. STK# 8335✱ $11.95

The Greatest Catholic President

The story of Gabriel Garcia Moreno, the brave Catholic
statesman who briefly re-established Christendom in a small
corner of the world during the 19th century. His exemplary
role is so significant that the Blessed Virgin Mary foretold
his presidency two centuries before his birth.

Softcover. STK# 8342✱ $5.95

rom
new felus
ang ss
pr e

new from ANGELUS PRESS

SSPX Pamphlets

10
STK#

16D STK# 1016A

STK# 1016B

STK#

1016

C

The famous tell-it-all SSPX pamphlets are back, updated with better
content and graphics. Fr. Rostand wants every family to have a generous
share of all. Answers all the questions family, friends, and acquaintances
have. Available for 50¢ each or 10-pack (of any one) for $4.00.

new

feature title

The book our readers wanted. The best questions and
the best answers of 30 years of The Angelus are printed
in this hardback edition. This will be a family’s heirloom
reference book for everyday Catholic living to match the
Catholic Faith it believes and the Latin Mass it attends.

Hardcover. STK# 8343✱ $23.95

Over 300 answers classified under 30 subtitles, authored
by Frs. Pulvermacher, Cooper, Doran, Scott, and Boyle,
SSPX:
Marriage, Parenting, Family Life and Rearing Children
Science and Medical Matters Lives After Death
Catholic Citizenship Catholic Vocabulary Church
Practices and Customs Canon Law The Papacy and the
Church Teachings Bible and Biblical Matters Trinity,
Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary, Angels, and Saints Mass and the
Liturgy SSPX and the Crisis Religious Orders and Lives

••

•

••
•

•

•
• •
•
•

NEW EDITION
FEATURES:

 SEWN pages,

 printed HARDCOVER,
 high quality CREAM

colored text pages!

 A family heirloom

to last generations!

The Church’s Year
Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels

Fr. Leonard Goffine
The perfect book for family reading. Part I: texts and commentaries for
the Epistles, Gospels, and most other Mass prayers (e.g., Introit, Collect, Gradual, etc.) for every Sunday and Holy Day of the liturgical year.
Part II: The Saints–Epistles and Gospels. Focuses on teaching doctrine
and morals through the liturgy. Question and Answer format. Almsgiving
 Manner of Following Mass at Home  Bible and Tradition  Blessings
 Process of Canonization  Excommunication  Detraction  Education
of Children  Consolation in Sickness  Love of Enemies  Indulgences
 Holy Orders  Why Christ Spoke in Parables  The Rosary
 Processions  Relics  Holy Water  Temptation
 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass  Ceremonies
 Regarding the Spirit of the Liturgical Seasons
 Miracles  Sacraments  Origins of Church
Feasts  Drunkenness  Good Intention  more
Hows? Whys? and What-fors?
The Church’s Year follows the calendar in effect
at the time it was first published (1880), yet
all of it is applicable with the use of the 1962
Missal. Totally retypeset. Keepsake edition. “It
will bring blessings on any house in which it is
kept and used” (Wm. Henry Elder, Archbishop
of Cincinnati, 1884).

814pp. 6" x 9". Printed hardcover,
sewn pages. STK# 6720✱ $37.95

#1054

b est r
s e lle

Shipping & Handling

5-10 days

2-4 days

USA

Foreign

Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

$4.00
$6.00
Free

25% of
subtotal

Up to $50.00
$50.01 to $100.00
Over $100.00

$8.00
$10.00
$8.00

Flat fee!

($10.00 minimum)

48 Contiguous
States only.
UPS cannot
ship to
PO Boxes.

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

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.