$4.45

AUGUST 2010

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION

INSIDE

ORDINATION SERMON OF
BISHOP DE GALARRETA
Dr. White on Dante PART 4

An Audience with Pope St. Pius X

DOCTOR MOZART

LAMBS IN THE MIDST OF WOLVES:
Vatican II and Liberalism

A Modern Martyr

The Life of St. Théophane Vénard
The inspiring and little-known life of St. Théophane 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 who wrote the
following lines about him: “I like Théophane
Vénard even more than St. Louis de Gonzaga,
because the life of St. Louis de Gonzaga was
extraordinary and Théophane Vénard’s was quite
ordinary...my soul is like his. He is the one who
has best lived my way of spiritual childhood.”

200pp. Softcover. STK# 8341✱ $16.95

The Song of Bernadette

Franz Werfel
This is the classic work that tells the true story surrounding the miraculous visions of St. Bernadette
Soubirous at Lourdes, France, in 1858. Werfel,
a highly respected anti-Nazi writer from Vienna,
became a Jewish refugee who barely escaped
death in 1940, and wrote this moving story to
fulfill a promise he made to God. While hiding
in the little village of Lourdes, Werfel felt the
Nazi noose tightening, and realizing that he and
his wife might well be caught and executed, he
made a promise to God to write about the “song of Bernadette” that he had
been inspired by during his clandestine stay in Lourdes. Though Werfel was
Jewish, he was so deeply impressed by both Bernadette and the happenings
at Lourdes, that his writing has a profound sense of Catholic understanding.
605pp. Softcover. STK# 8426 $18.95

Christians Courageous

Aloysius Roche
Bold heroes of the Faith are brought vividly to life
in these stories about courageous Christians from
the earliest days of Christianity to modern times:
● The pagan actor whose mockery of the Faith led
him to convert and die a Christian martyr ● The
blind boy who became an adviser to great saints
● The brave bishop who successfully defended
the true Faith–against his fellow bishops and even
the Emperor! ● The monk who was martyred in
the Coliseum trying to stop the bloodshed of the
gladiators there ● The priest who suffered cruel deprivations to convert a
savage tribe–with a dictionary!

192pp. Softcover. STK# 8404✱ $14.95

Flame of White:
A Life of St. Pius X

William Hunermann
For youngsters 12 and up. The lessons given us by
the life of the only Saint-Pope in over 500 years
are in his poverty, charity and burning zeal for
souls that should animate all of us. The purpose
of this biography is to widen the circle of boys
and girls, men and women who know him better
and love him more.
269pp. Color hardcover. STK# 8276 $20.00

Why Do Catholics
Eat Fish on Fridays?

Michael P. Foley
Page after page on the surprising Catholic origin of
just about everything in holidays, entertainment,
the plants and animals, politics, and the English
language. An impressive body of fascinating study
proving the indelible yet often unrecognized mark
of Catholic belief in the present-day world, even in
non-Catholic societies like the US which resonate
with the influence of Catholic ways and words:
● The seven black spots on a LADYBUG symbolize
the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady ● “GOODBYE” is
an Old English variation of “God be with ye” ● GROUNDHOG DAY comes
from a Candlemas tradition ● CHAMPAGNE pioneered by Benedictines ●
St. Augustine, Father of SNACK FOOD ● THE TRINITY on the dollar bill ●

The game of LA CROSSE is derived from the French missionary word crozier.

214pp. Softcover. Indexed. STK# 8327 $12.95

Family Retreat DVD

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
This is the only retreat by Archbishop Fulton Sheen
recorded on video. He gives 12 conferences to
an audience of all ages on the following topics:
● Confession ● The Devil ● Love ● The Mass
● Making the Right Choice ● The Our Father ●

Youth and Sex ● “Wasting Your Life for Christ” ●
Our Lady ● Kenosis ● “Old Pots” ● The Cross.

Preached before a live audience toward the end
of Sheen’s active life. In this moving presentation, the Archbishop speaks
about topics that apply to everyone. Listen to the Archbishop as he treats, in
his usual thorough, articulate and humorous manner, each of these topics.

DVD, color, running time 6:04. STK# 8265 $19.95

Holding the Stirrup

Baroness Elisabeth von Guttenberg
In an older day it was customary for a woman
to hold her husband’s stirrup when he mounted
to go into battle. That gesture became a symbol
of her fidelity and courage while he was gone.
Baroness Elisabeth von Guttenberg for several
years held the stirrup for her husband, who died
in his lifelong fight against the evils of Hitler and
of Communism. Elisabeth’s life story reflects
world events from the turn of the century to the
present. It is a story of heroism and self-sacrifice.

270pp. Hardcover. STK# 8419 $22.00

The Soul of The
Apostolate

Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard
A favorite book of Pope St. Pius X. Outlines the
close connection between the active and contemplative life and shows how to integrate them.
Jesus as the only Source of divine life. Failure by
the apostle to realize this principle creates the
illusion that he can produce supernatural life in
himself and others without Jesus Christ. Learn: ●
dangers of the Active Life ● special temptations
of those working for Christ ● steps to grow in the
Interior Life ● usefulness of the Mass.
336pp. Softcover. STK# 8257✱ $12.50

The

“Instaurare omnia in Christo — To restore all things in Christ.”

ngelus
Volume XXXIII, Number 8

august 2010

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

Fr. Arnaud Rostand
EditOr

Fr. Markus Heggenberger
assistant EditOr

Mr. James Vogel

OPEratiOns managEr

Mr. Michael Sestak

Contents
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

2 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Fr. Markus Heggenberger, FSSPX

3 SERMON OF BISHOP ALFONSO DE GALARRETA
6 DOCTOR MOZART
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, FSSPX

EditOrial assistant

Miss Anne Stinnett

dEsign and layOut

READING AND COMMENTARY PART 4
Dr. David Allen White

Mr. Simon Townshend

cOmPtrOllEr

Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA
custOmEr sErVicE

Mr. John Rydholm
Miss Rebecca Heatwole
Miss Anne Craig

sHiPPing and Handling

Mr. Jon Rydholm

“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

SUBSCRIPTION RATES
US

Foreign Countries
(inc. Canada & Mexico)

1 year 2 years 3 years
$35.00 $65.00 $100.00
$55.00 $105.00 $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.

Bishop de Galarreta preaches
at the ordination ceremony in
Winona, MN.

11 DANTE’S INFERNO:

16 THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II QUESTIONED PART 8
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The Catechetical Teachings of St. Pius X PART 2
An Invitation to Return to the Sources:
A Contribution to Interreligious Dialogue

27 LAMBS AMONG WOLVES
Fr. Alvaro Calderon, FSSPX

31 THE LORD’S PRAYER PART 4
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX

34 AN AUDIENCE WITH POPE ST. PIUS X
Dwyer Quentin Wedvick

38 CHURCH AND WORLD
40 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX

Pope St.
Pius X

43 THE LAST WORD
Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, FSSPX
Bishop John
B. Delany

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) 7533150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
©2010 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts will be used
at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends
address changes to the address above.

ON OUR COVER: Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta. Winona, MN. 2010. Photo by Fr. John Young.

2

Letter
from
the
Editor

The Roman Catechism received its name from
the Council of Trent, the council held to reform the
Church after the Protestant crisis of the 16th century.
The purpose of this catechism was to formulate and
explain the Catholic Faith in a time of doubt and
ignorance.
The fact that catechetical teaching was an
important instrument in the movement of a true
reform had become clear through the catechisms of
St. Peter Canisius, one of the first Jesuits in Germany.
He made wide use of written instruction addressed to
the people in the form of questions and answers.
The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent
was intended for the use of the clergy. A later council,
Vatican I (1870-1) revived the idea of a catechism, not
only for the clergy, but for children and adults as well.
But while the idea was clearly set forth, its realization
was delayed because of the abrupt ending of the
Council by the Franco-Prussian War and subsequent
annexing of Rome by the Kingdom of Italy. The
Council could therefore only express its wish that this
catechetical work might be completed later.
It was one of the following popes (St. Pius X,
1903-14) who brought the project to a successful
end. He was the man for it because of his pastoral
background—for instance, he was the only pope in the
20th century who gave Sunday sermons every week.
As early as 1905 he began the publication of a revised
catechism. This was apparently a modified version of
an existing catechism which would become the norm
according to the will of the pope. The characteristics of
the catechism of Pius X were “simplicity of exposition
and depth of content.”
The mature version, into which he had put great
personal effort and which reflected a vast experience,
appeared later, in 1912.
It is interesting that the 1912 Catechism of St. Pius
X has been forgotten. Whereas his 1905 catechism has
been in print over the years, this was not the case with
the edition of 1912. Nevertheless it can be said that the
1912 edition is the latest Roman Catechism officially
published before Vatican II!
Three factors make this catechism especially
interesting and precious for the Society of St. Pius X:
1. This catechism is a result and illustration of
the application of the Neo-Scholastic method
to catechetical teaching.
2. The catechism was written as an instrument
of spiritual warfare against the danger of
modernism.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

3. It was published and partly written by a saint
canonized by the Catholic Church.
It is then not surprising that the Catechism of St.
Pius X was harshly criticized before Vatican II. It is a
work of clear and uncompromising Catholic doctrine–
not exactly what Vatican II is known for.
It has been necessary to decide which catechism
should be the general norm in the SSPX. The decision
has been made to use the Catechism of St. Pius X for
the reasons explained above. It was further decided to
re-translate the Italian version of 1912. The translation
from Italian into French has already been done and
the French version recently published. The translation
from Italian into English was started recently.
The catechism will be published for different age
groups so that schools will be able to use it at different
levels.
Some might ask whether the catechetical work
of St. Pius X is outdated. Cardinal Ratzinger himself
answered this question in 2003:
The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St.
Pius X’s catechism always retains its value….There can
be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St.
Pius X’s catechism....that Catechism stemmed from a text
that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he
was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose
characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of
content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might
have friends in the future. (Zenit Interview, May 2, 2003)

Another concern is the question of adaptation. In a
general way we may say that the principles are always
the same and will not change. The specifications
of a law, however, may change and will have to be
adapted. As an example, the law of the Eucharistic
fast has changed over time and will therefore not be
taken as it exists in the Catechism of St. Pius X; in this
point the catechism will be adapted. Another example
is the case of indulgences, which are not the same as
they were at the time of St. Pius X. They will thus also
have to be adapted.
A catechism is a tool which needs to be filled
with life and adapted to the situation of the day. As
Cardinal Ratzinger said above: “St. Pius X’s catechism
will have friends in the future!”

Instaurare Omnia in Christo,
Fr. Markus Heggenberger

3

ORDINATION

SERMON

BISHOP ALFONSO DE GALARRETA
st. thomas aquinas seminary, winona, minnesota (June 19, 2010)

Dear Fathers, Ordinands,
Seminarians, and Faithful,
One more year we are here for the beautiful
ceremony of ordinations to the diaconate and the
priesthood. Obviously, for us, it is the continuation
of the Catholic Church and the keeping of the
Catholic Faith by the faithful transmission of the
true Catholic priesthood. This is the end of the
Society of Saint Pius X. This is the end transmitted
to us by our venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre.
The continuity of the Catholic priesthood is
the continuity and presence of the Priesthood of
our Lord Jesus Christ. By means of the Catholic
priesthood, the mysteries and the fruits of the
mysteries of the Incarnation and the Resurrection
are present among us. When St. Thomas speaks
of the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says
it essentially consists in being a mediator between
God and men, between God and His people. This
is because the priest is he who transmits the divine
things, the things of God.
Priest, sacerdos, comes from sacra dans, “he who
transmits sacred things.” He is also the mediator of
men before God, offering the prayers of the people

and making reparation and satisfaction to God for
their sins.
In this double mediation consists the Priesthood
of Christ, the Catholic priesthood: In the first
place, the most important mediation, the priest
has permission to offer to God, in the name of the
faithful and of the Church, prayers and sacrifices.
The priest is the man of the “cult,” of the worship of
God. The priest is the religious par excellence. He has
to offer prayers to God continually, adore God, offer
sacrifices, and consecrate himself personally to the
service of God.
All of this is realized in the most perfect manner
as the work of the priest in the celebration of Holy
Mass. The priest must be penetrated by the spirit
and virtue contained in the Mass. He must have
the dispositions of the eternal High Priest, our Lord
Jesus Christ. Mass is the work par excellence of the
priest. It must be the essential form and model of
priestly spirituality.
As a consequence, the priest must transmit and
give generously what he has received gratuitously.
He must transmit the things of God, the sacred
things, the supernatural goods to souls.
First of all, he is thus a preacher of good
doctrine, a custodian of the integrity and purity of
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

4
the doctrine of the Faith. This first divine good must
be guarded and given abundantly to the faithful.
The priest is, secondly, the sanctifier, a supernatural
function to transmit the grace of God, to dispose
others to the reception of divine graces, to heal
spiritually souls, to elevate them by the grace of
God.
We have not understood the Catholic priesthood
unless it is from this supernatural point of view, from
the point of view of grace. The priest must guide,
direct, and rule; because of this, he is a pastor, or
shepherd. He must guide souls towards our Lord
Jesus Christ, towards grace, truth, and heaven. He
must lead the faithful towards our Lord, towards
God, towards eternity. No personal interest can
exist.
The end of the Catholic priesthood is the glory
of God. This glory is realized by the means of the
salvation of souls. The end of the priesthood is
the salvation of souls. But the glory of God is also
realized by the edification of Holy Mother Church.
The priest is a man of the Church who always edifies
it and is always concerned with the common good
of the Holy Church. He is not independent. He is
not a man commanded to do good in a solitary way.
He is a member of a hierarchy, of a body, whose
foundation and head is our Lord Jesus Christ, the
soul being the Holy Ghost. Its finality is to give
glory to God by establishing the reign of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
“Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The
glory of God, the reign of God, the will of God: all
are realized concretely by the primacy and the reign
of our Lord Jesus Christ. The priest is the apostle
of the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ whose only
desire is to restore all things in Christ—opportet illum
regnare. This is the essential finality of the Catholic
priesthood.
From these considerations of what the Catholic
priesthood truly is, and of the greatness and

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

sublimity of the Catholic priesthood, follows the
demand of holiness. The priest is an alter Christus,
another Christ. He is one with Christ in the priestly
action, in the powers in which he participates.
He is a visible presence of our Lord; he is the
personification of our Lord Jesus Christ. He must,
therefore, have a profound union with our Lord,
a union of thought, affections, desires, and will. If
the priest is the minister of God, he must imitate
and follow our Lord. The priest must be the image
of Christ. If he is a pastor at the service of the one
Good Shepherd, he must live of the life of Christ.
This is the conclusion St. Paul draws: “It is not I that
live, but Christ who lives in me.” This presupposes
a profound renunciation of our own selves. This is a
spiritual union of thought, will, affection, and action
with our Lord Jesus Christ. Our life is truly the life
of Christ; this is the ideal of priestly holiness, the
identification with our Lord Jesus Christ.
St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, says that
it was convenient that our priest be holy, innocent,
immaculate, separated from sin: this is the definition
of our Lord the Priest. But it is also the definition of
the Catholic priest. This is what he must be.
The true priestly spirit will be received with
the help and mediation of Our Lady. You know
the words of St. Bernard: “God has willed to give
us everything through the mediation of Mary. Let
us therefore seek grace, but seek it through the
mediation of Our Lady.” Let us therefore today ask
Our Lady to grant us this great grace, this grace of
graces: to live truly in our Lord Jesus Christ, to have
Him fully living in us. This is certainly a grace for
all Christians, but it is an absolutely necessary grace
to be faithful to the priesthood of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Let us therefore ask Our Lady to grant us priests
and ask her help to grow in the knowledge, love,
and imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Photographs from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary taken by Fr. John Young.

O

Ordinations 2010

5

By the end of June, the Society of Saint Pius X had 20 new priests worldwide. On June 19, eight deacons (seven Americans and
one Swiss) were ordained at the seminary in Winona (USA.) The ordinations there were done by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta.
On June 26, Bishop Bernard Fellay ordained three deacons in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The candidates came from the Czech
Republic, South Tyrol (in Italy) and Sweden. Fr. Sten Sandmark, the Swede, was a former Lutheran pastor who returned to the
bosom of the Catholic Church on July 30, 2006, in St. Nicholas-du-Chardonnet (Paris). He will celebrate his first Solemn Mass
there on August 15.
Finally, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, on July 29 at Ecône (Switzerland), ordained nine deacons, eight from France and one from
Switzerland.
These 20 new priests will be joined by five more in December, to be ordained at the seminary in La Reja, Argentina, where the
end of the school year is measured differently due to its being in the Southern Hemisphere.

winona, usa

Zaitzkofen, germany

Ecône, Switzerland

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

6

F r .

D o m i n i q u e

B o u r m a u d ,

F S S P X

Doctor Mozart
and Gregorian Chant
Most classical music lovers will have heard
of The Mozart Effect. Don Campbell, author of this
book, explains that music can help transform health,
education, and well-being. Music was found to
reduce stress, depression, or anxiety and improve
memory. Mozart was seen to drastically lessen
epileptic fits in a comatose state, help direct rats out
of a maze, and make cows yield more milk. The
tastiest results occurred when Japanese yeast listened
(!) to Mozart. The discoverer of the Mozart effect
comes from overseas. He has many reasons to be
given the title which we give him here of Doctor
Mozart.

The Tomatis Effect
Alfred Tomatis grew up in a musical family
in France. His father was an opera singer, and he
spent much of his childhood traveling with him and
watching his opera performances from the wings. At
an early age, however, he and his parents decided
he was not fit for the stage. He thus went into
medicine and eventually became an Ear, Nose, and
Throat doctor.
Soon after he began his practice, his father
began sending him opera colleagues with voice
problems. Alfred soon discovered that traditional
treatments did not work; further, there had been
very little research on the voice. Many of the
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

voice problems he diagnosed were really hearing
problems. He expressed his theory, now called, after
him, the “Tomatis Effect,” in three laws:
1) The voice does not produce what the ear does
not hear.
2) If the hearing is modified, the voice is
immediately and unconsciously modified.
3) Vocalization can be transformed permanently
when auditive stimulation is maintained over a
certain time.
He developed these theories by studying
patients at hand when he found out that the voices
of opera singers had damaged their own ears. While
the ear can be damaged with sounds of 80 or 90
decibels, a male opera singer often produced 150
decibels. With damaged hearing, they were forcing
their voices to produce sounds in registers they
could no longer hear. In his attempt to retrain the
singers, he developed his device, the Electronic Ear,
which used earphones and sound filters to enhance
the missing frequencies. The goal was to sensitize
them to the missing frequencies.
Tomatis began treating a number of other
problems with the same methods, including
reading problems, dyslexia, depression, severe
schizophrenia, and even autism. He was convinced
that many of these problems result from a failure
of communication, which has to do with listening
and the ear. The emerging knowledge of the

7
physiology of the ear showed that the ear starts
forming a few days after conception and that the
ear is fully developed by the fourth month of
pregnancy. Our doctor theorized that information
coming from the fetal ear stimulates and guides
the development of the brain. He believed that
autism is a communication problem that begins in
pregnancy, with the fetus not properly responding
to the voice of the mother. His most controversial
method attempts to lead autistic children to
recognize and respond to their mother’s voice. He
devised an apparatus to simulate the sound of the
mother’s voice as heard in the uterus, and to lead
the child gradually to accept and respond to her real
unfiltered voice. He reported that this method often
brought startling results, with children crying with
joy as they recognized their mother’s voice for the
first time.
In his autobiography, the doctor recounts
the many conflicts he had with the medical
establishment in both France and Canada, where
he later worked. He finally gave up and turned in
his medical license, admitting that he was practicing
very little medicine. He named his new field audiopsycho-phonology.

Sound Advice to
Psychological Problems
He believed that many speech problems were
caused by some trauma resulting from broken
relationships and poor communication. He found
that treatment of these maladies requires the
cooperation of the parents. One of his best-known
patients was Gerard Depardieu, the French actor.
Many moviegoers have heard Depardieu speak
with a mellifluous voice, but in the mid-1960s, he
was a tongue-tied young man still struggling to
become an actor. Coming from a background of
family difficulties, educational failures, and personal
sorrows, Depardieu could not express himself. He
could hardly speak. And the more he tried, the
worse his stammering became. Tomatis diagnosed
the cause of Depardieu’s voice and memory
problems as deeper emotional problems underlying
his physiological difficulties and told him that he
could help him. Depardieu asked what the treatment
would involve—surgery, medication, or speech
therapy. The doctor’s response astounded him:
For the next several weeks, I want you to come here
every day for two hours and listen to Mozart.

The next day Depardieu returned to the Tomatis
Center to don headphones and listen to Mozart. After
only a few sessions, he began to experience positive
changes in his daily routine. His appetite improved,
he slept better, and he found himself with more
energy. And soon he was speaking more clearly.
After several months, Depardieu returned to acting

school with new poise and confidence, and went
on to become one of the consummate actors of his
generation.
“Before Tomatis,” Depardieu says, looking back,
“I could not complete any of my sentences. He
helped give continuity to my thoughts, and he gave
me the power to synthesize and understand what I
was thinking.”1
This is one example out of thousands. But the
constant law seemed to be that audition could be
affected by emotion, and he even suggested it could
have been the case of Beethoven’s strange deafness.
It is not excluded that the fragility of Beethoven’s
audition could be explained by psychological mechanisms.
It is today an accepted idea that audition can be widely
influenced by the psyche, as more than 90% of the fibers
of the auditory nerve proceed from the brain in the
direction of the ear. In other words, this means that the ear
perceives only what it wants to hear. For that reason, when
interpersonal relationships are characterized by unbearable,
intolerable tensions, there is a way to avoid those difficult
encounters. To put an end to any verbal contact, one just has
to learn how not to listen. There is therefore a psychological
deafness. And this deafness can be selective. For example, a
child, at loggerheads with a father who treats him harshly,
who scares him with a very big voice and exercises over him
a very restricting authority, finds a refuge by suppressing the
frequency band corresponding to his father. He may lose
totally any desire to communicate with him. Unfortunately,
he will lose by the same token any desire to communicate
with other adults. He will have difficulties with language,
writing and reading. Furthermore, as he loses faith in his
father, he will lose faith in his future as well, as fathers
symbolize the future. We can observe this day after day
during psychological consultations, and the results are
without exception the same. They reveal all the distortions
that modify the communication, suppress the dialogue, and
disturb the behavior.2

Pourquoi Mozart?
This book, Pourquoi Mozart?—Why Mozart?,
which has had little impact in the English world,3
echoes the endless questions of his 100,000 patients
worldwide. He answers them as all children have
always done and will always do: “Parce que—
because…that is the way it is!” In other words,
his choice was Mozart because where all other
composers fail, he alone succeeds.
The author goes to great pains through 70 pages
of endless epithets and exclamation points to tell
us that Mozart was a precocious genius who had
already enjoyed a broad intra-uterine life of music,
and had no real problems with the world. Thus, he
brings us back to the state of pure innocence, which
was the state of his soul, childlike, spontaneous,
worriless and free from human burdens. Because
his music was the language by which he could best
express himself, he had to secrete it through and
through. He was, moreover, the only composer
ever to know he was the best in the world, having
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

8
traveled extensively to all the courts of Europe as a
child prodigy.
But, on a more profound “note,” Doctor Mozart
explains that man is an antenna, a ceaseless receptor
of the waves and rhythms in the universe.
Through our body, we resonate to the natural rhythms
of the Cosmos, captured by the nervous system. Ideally, the
biological and neuro-physiological rhythms are attuned to
and in balance with the cosmic rhythms that are beyond
human auditory perception. There are musical rhythms that
are felt as if they are blocking the rhythms of the body that
are preventing them from beating at their own pace, and
thus interfere with human automatisms and endanger the
processes of creativity.4

So ideally, we need someone who acts as “a
revealer” and can awaken the fundamental rhythms
existing in each of us. In this case, the rhythm of
the music and the rhythms of the body coincide.
Music is not felt as imposed upon us. Cardiac and
respiratory rhythms are freed. Movements are in
harmony with the totality of the deeper rhythms.
There is therefore a spontaneous consent that can
only be induced by a music that is equally “free,” a
music that does not try to impose its own rhythms to
the detriment of the vital rhythms of human beings.
Mozart is the only one I know who reached that level or,
more exactly, who never left it....He knew how to put man
in musical resonance with the universe. This is the Mozart
miracle. He knew how to adapt the eternal rhythms to our
neurons. So, if the music of Mozart awakens in ourselves the
musician, it is because it puts the rhythms of the cosmos and
the rhythms of the body-instrument in resonance, in tune,
so we can start to experience what Plato described as the
music of the spheres or the music of Heaven. His genius is to
make us aware of that universal harmony which is already
in us in a latent stage.5

Why Not Beethoven,
Bach, and Others?
Tomatis is alert to the questions of other
composers. His choice proceeds by elimination. We
shall only follow him with two of the most likely and
likable composers.
Beethoven requires that we know already how to listen.
Beethoven is for the music lover. Mozart allows the listener
to pass from hearing to listening. Mozart leads the listener
to discover music.…In this sense, he transforms him into
a musician, that is, someone who is able to perceive,
to discover music, including the music underlying any
linguistic structure. Mozart’s music invites the non-initiate
to enter into an unknown sphere. It encourages the nervous
system to integrate the music. In short, the listener’s ears
are opened to listening and are enabled to discriminate
frequencies.6
Bach is a born composer who shapes all the elements
brought by his inspiration in a quasi-mathematical form.
Mozart escapes the rigidity of any dogmatic structure. He
allows the inspiration to flow through him in its purest
form. He is always a child that benefits of what he finds and
perceives. He translates everything that goes through him
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

and integrates it into a unique language. He won’t have to
learn, like Bach, the rules of composition. He behaves like
a child who does not care for grammar before he starts to
talk. Bach provides us with a fantastic ladder to reach the
heights; Mozart is literally parachuted from above. The
work of Bach is the perfect model of a composition built
by a human being. It is very difficult to hope for better
music in terms of the architectural construction of the sonic
cathedrals that he designed. He carried on this task with an
extraordinary diligence and stubbornness, knowing how
to shape the music to a point of perfection. Mozart, on the
other hand, is totally different.7

What, then, defines properly the Mozartian
music? It is the tempo, structure, melodic and
harmonic consonance and predictability.8 Tomatis
explains that:
There is in Mozart an ineffable something that makes
him different from others. He has in himself, in his phrasing,
in the search of his rhythms, in his sequences, both a
plenitude and a liberty that allow us to breathe and think
at ease. He brings out in us the musician as if we were the
authors of what he writes. It seems as if the musical phrases
flow in us in a way that they could not be different.9

And, analyzing the spectrograms of different
composers, the author defines thus the specific
characteristics of Mozartian music:
Firstly, the loose aspect of the music phrase offers a fluid
flow, with no monotony, and this, in whichever work you
examine. Then, the great mobility of the sonorous bundles
contributes to secure this specifically vivid and joyful side
of the Mozartian compositions. Finally, the remarkable
rhythmic base is inscribed in a permanent tempo, truly a
downbeat of 120 pulsations per minute. This modulation
can be identified systematically and is found again in any
composition.10

Mozartherapy
Alfred Tomatis was by trade an ear doctor,
and could not but be very interested in the three
functions of the ear:11
1) The function of balance. The vestibule is a
part of the inner ear which informs the brain of the
slightest body movement; it intervenes therefore
in the control of posture and the maintenance of
balance–our vestibular system.
2) The function of Revitalization or Cortical
Charge. The ear is very necessary in causing the
cortex to be stimulated and recharged.
3) The function of hearing. When this function
is disrupted, difficulties in analysis, accommodation,
spatialization or auditive lateralization are caused.
The person experiences an influx of information,
but perceives it in a distorted manner affecting
comprehension, as well as impacting verbal
expression. The person becomes fatigued, irritable
and finally withdraws.
Tomatis analyzes also the diverse parts of
the internal ear, the vestibule (in charge of the
body movements and space) and the cochlea. The

t

9

“There is in Mozart an ineffable something
that makes him different from others. He has
in himself, in his phrasing, in the search of his
rhythms, in his sequences, both a plenitude
and a liberty that allow us to breathe and
think at ease. He brings out in us the musician
as if we were the authors of what he writes. It
seems as if the musical phrases flow in us in a
way that they could not be different.”

vestibule presumably deals with the ordering bodily
movements and spatial activity, the cochlea with the
organization and analysis. Be that as it may, it is
clear that the vestibule plays an important role in the
static posture and dynamic activity of the different
members of the body. No muscle moves without its
regulative activity. It also favors the body verticality
and reacts to the law of gravity by sending stimuli
to the nervous system. Hence, the more one is in
vertical posture the more he is dynamized. Likewise,
the more one is in good shape, the more he reaches
verticality.
Certainly the most striking function of the ear,
and yet the most neglected, is the dynamo-genetic
power of the brain, the generative principle of
the nervous energy. The ear insures the cortical
recharge. It generates energy.
For us, this notion is essential since it leads us to
understanding the musical phenomena registered today
in the world of sound technology. Among the energizing
effects, we can define those related to the recharging
sounds and those to the discharging ones. Here we need to
discriminate between the bass and the treble sounds. Let
us recall that, on the Corti element of the internal ear, the
sensory cells are distributed unevenly according as they
are in the zones of the bass sounds, of the medium or the
treble. Rare in the zone of the bass sounds (100), they are
more numerous among the middle range (500) and much
more numerous in the region of the treble (24,000). Hence,
the bass sounds are more easily integrated among the zones
of discharge, esp. the tam-tams. We all know that their
fastidious repetition leads the listeners to exhaustion. This
state could be called ‘hypnotic’ in that the body image is
lost as the vestibule is solicited but not its counterpart, the
cochlea, which gives the cortical projection. On the other
hand, the sharp sounds, in the proper zones and rhythms
and intensities, become perfect generators of energy. In this
case, the cortical charge surpasses greatly the body energy
loss and becomes positively recharging.12

Why Use Gregorian Chant
in Sound Therapy?
One could wonder why Tomatis evokes, in a
book dedicated to Mozart and therapy, the virtues
of Gregorian chant. What relation can there be
between such different styles of music? And yet,
they are intimately connected by their neurophysiological results. This is why the Chant is an
integral part of the therapy method.
Woe to us if we wish to present Church singing as a
therapeutic material. Yet, few works, besides Mozart’s,
have such a radical impact on the human being. Does it
raise the listener to a second state? Is it only music? No,
and that is why it would be abusive to use it as a mere cure.
In fact, the Gregorian chant does not cure, it saves. We
can cure thanks to some therapeutic methods, but to save
requires the concourse of an inspiration directly given by
the creation. A soul attuned to the chant starts to vibrate
to the first and essential rhythms. Gregorian chant allows
us to perceive this vibration of the soul when it reaches the
register of serenity. Then, man is involved in a timeless
communication and regains his natural breathing, that is,
unstressed and without gasping. Through the Gregorian
modulations, he discovers a privileged space where his
being momentarily can rest, aloof from the daily trials. To
tell the truth, Gregorian chant gives a glimpse of paradise
to those who wish it. Man is reintegrated into the creation
and sings the glory of the Creator. The Gregorian muse is
certainly a jewel which centuries have slowly elaborated.
In matters of religious singing, it is assuredly the summit
of what man can do in search of God. Obviously, there are
here and there some variations due to the temperament of
the composer or the requirement of the liturgy at a certain
period. But regardless of those variations, the Gregorian
pieces are universal in their musical and vibratory content.13

Why Use the Chant of Solesmes?
Are all Gregorian melodies apt to be used in this
sort of educational process? For decades now, the
Tomatis Center has selected Gregorian chant from
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

10
Solesmes for the same reason that, where others fail,
Solesmes works.
For the masters of Solesmes, Gregorian chant is the very
expression of the movements of the soul. It is permanently
sustained and controlled by a specific attitude. In fact, every
cadence, every rhythm is the translation of a response
corresponding to the capabilities of the entire nervous
system. A chant of such quality can only translate the
physiological rhythms that sustain life. But these are not
always perceived and are often disturbed by emotional
factors. For instance, changes in the way we breathe have
an immediate effect on the cardiac rhythm, just to mention
two of the major rhythms that can easily lose their own quiet
cadence. Under stress, for example, the breathing becomes
panting, and the diastole-systole cardiac cycle loses its
regular ticking. This type of irregularity rapidly changes the
functional balance of the body and has important neurophysiological repercussions.14

Not only are breathing and the heart beat
controlled by the proper performance of the sacred
Chant, but so are the body position and the timbre
of the voice, which acquires the fullness of emission.
Singing requires excellent listening skills, or to say it
better, an exceptional self-control. These requirements are
even more stringent for Gregorian chant. The ear must
therefore be able to listen perfectly to sing Gregorian chants
well. In fact, in order to be reproduced and controlled,
Gregorian chant requires verticality. Those who sing are
perfectly erect. In this position of true elongation, the vocal
emission takes immediately a specific color that is in fact
quite characteristic of the “bony voice.” It has a rich timbre,
is surprisingly light and endowed with a versatility that can
only be compared with the softness of emission. By this
process, one achieves the maximum vocal production with
the least effort. That bony sound is produced without any
muscular tension, just playing on the normal relations of
tension of the antagonists, that is, the flexor and extensor
muscles of the entire body. It creates an impression of great
relaxation. That dynamic relaxation that so many people
are looking for goes hand in hand with the type of breathing
described above, which also brings about a peaceful cardiac
rhythm. And so, thanks to that posture and to that type of
vocal emission, the resonance of the voice is amplified while
the muscles relax and psychological stress fades away.15

modulations of eternity. He did say at the end of his
life that he would have gladly renounced his entire
work for the joy of composing the Introit of the
Mass of the Dead. This confession is extraordinarily
humble, but it would have been a great loss for
humanity if it had been carried out. What this shows
is that Mozart discovered in Gregorian chant the
language of plenitude of the adult man, which is
fully reached in the heavens.

Conclusion: Sound Doc’s Advice
To finish, Tomatis does not leave the field of
music with the optimistic mood of the great music
composers of all times. He is wise enough to sound
the alarm bell confronted as he is by the modern
musical jungle around him.
May I be allowed to address a wish to those responsible
for the youth and who, too often, handle the sound
technique with utter carelessness. One does not play on
the nervous system of children with impunity, when one
is wont to educate them and turn them into mature adults.
Music is certainly the privileged path to instill language
and the whole process of communication. It is the basis
of singing, which intones the liberation of our being, too
often a prey to the anguish of life. Hence, music holds a
universal character at the service of all. If we have insisted
on the ordering power of the Mozartian music, it is because
we have been able to diagnose its exceptional and quasi
unique work. Every musical artist must keep in mind that
he does not compose only for himself or the few, but he is
meant to dispense this musical gift which he has generously
received. By his action, his care, his combats, he must
remain attuned to the musical laws whose universality is
the first criterion. Of course, I am alluding to these absurd
compositions, veritable sound drugs, which are destined
to enslave generations of youth by destroying, definitively
perhaps, their nervous system.17
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud has spent the past 25 years teaching at the Society
seminaries in America, Argentina, and Australia. He is presently stationed at
St. Vincent’s Priory, Kansas City, where he is in charge of the priests’ training program.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artcle/0,9171,9010601161147107,00.html.
Alfred Tomatis, Pourquoi Mozart? (Paris: Fixot editions, 1991), pp. 91-92.
3
It was given a rough English web version, http://www.tomatis.com/English/
Articles/why_mozart.htm.
4
Ibid., pp. 79-81 passim.
5
Ibid., pp. 81-82.
6
Ibid., pp. 82-83.
7
Ibid., pp. 107-108.
8
According to the British Epilepsy Organization, the Mozart K448 and K488
showed a clear decrease in epilepsy fits. And the same effect was found
with the Greek composer Yanni in his song Acroyali/Standing in motion,
which has precisely all the characteristics of the Mozartian music.
9
Ibid., p. 27.
10
Ibid., p. 182.
11
http://www.atotalapproach.com/docs/TomatisSoundTherapyTraining.pdf.
12
Ibid., pp. 143-145.
13
Ibid., pp. 126-129 passim, and 134.
14
Ibid., pp. 132-133.
15
Ibid., p. 136.
16
Ibid., p. 137.
17
Ibid., pp. 161-162.
1

Gregorian Chant and Mozart
Of all the sacred songs, the chant of the monks
is the one most deprived of any bodily expression,
since it does not make any reference to the feelings
that occur in life. It is directly plugged into creation,
facing its Creator, whose praises it sings. Gregorian
chant remains that celestial hymn and dance closely
linked to listening, and listening to the Most High.
Mozart too leads us towards that same ultimate
point.
His child’s heart vibrated with a fast and lively rhythm,
quite different from the rhythm of Gregorian chant. We
could even say that the Chant of Solesmes is rhythmically
Mozart’s rhythm divided by two.16

In fact, Mozart was not insensitive to this
timeless music that seems to carry to us the quiet
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

2

11

“Dante and Shakespeare
divide the world between
them; there is no third.”
–T.S. Eliot

DANTE

Dante’s Inferno : Reading and Commentary

PART 4

D r .

D a v i d

There is one aspect of Dante’s life that needs
to be kept in mind. It comes up repeatedly in the
Divine Comedy. The political situation in Florence at
that time was complicated and that situation helps
us to understand why the poet was exiled from his
own city. The main political divide of the day was
between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. This
division is manifested throughout Dante’s whole life
and in the work itself.
To get some sense of the distinction between
the two, the Guelphs believed in some form of
constitutional government and generally stood in
opposition to the Emperor. The Imperial States,
which covered northern Italy at the time, were ruled
from Germany/Austria. That remained the case for
centuries in that region. At the time, the Emperor
had a great deal of power and influence. The vision
was one of an authoritarian political system holding
Europe together as much as possible. The Guelph
party was looking for more regional, or localized,
control.
Curiously, they were not seeking to get away
from all authority; the Guelphs were very much
devoted to the Popes. So the general divide was
between those who sided with the Pope versus
those who sided with the Emperor. The Guelphs
can broadly be defined as a middle-class party,
emphasized by a focus on constitutional, localized

A l l e n

W h i t e

government, but looking to the Pope for support,
trying to shake off some of the imperial burden.
The Ghibellines were a more aristocratic party,
loyal to the Emperor, and opposing the growing
territorial power of the papacy in terms of politics.
Dante was a Guelph. Yet even inside the
Guelph party, there were divisions. To show how
complicated the political feuding had become, the
Guelphs had become divided into the Blacks and
the Whites. The Black Guelphs believed in strong
attachment to the Pope, particularly the reigning
Boniface VIII, and the White Guelphs, who were at
odds with the Pope, thus wanted a looser connection
with the papacy. The Black Guelphs had seized
control of the city of Florence. Dante and his family
belonged to the White Guelph party. The poet
had agreed to be part of a delegation that made an
embassy to Rome to see Boniface VIII. When they
returned to Florence, they found themselves locked
out of the city. He was told he was not welcome to
return to Florence.
Dante, for a long time, suspected that Pope
Boniface VIII had something to do with this. This
is why, in the Inferno, Boniface VIII is not highly
regarded. Much of this is, as you can see, political
intrigue. One can read the Divine Comedy solely in
terms of politics and history. These ideas mattered
very much to Dante; he was a man of his age with
great interest in these questions.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

12
As stated earlier, in the poem Virgil stands
for the great good of right reason, and yet, while
extremely important, the poem is about much more
than reason. There is a moment, when Virgil and
the Pilgrim come to the city of Dis, just beyond the
fifth circle. At the very end of Canto 8, there is a
parody of the city. Now, Dante thought highly of
the city; he thought very highly of Florence. He
believed the city in some sense represented civilized
man and civilized order—the best life had to offer.
Since everything in Hell is a parody of how things
should be, the parody of the city is a madhouse.
Dante comes to the gates:
And then at last we entered those deep moats
that circled all of this unhappy city
whose walls, it seemed to me, were made of iron.

...
I saw more than a thousand fiendish angels
perching above the gates enraged, screaming:
“Who is the one approaching? Who, without death,
dares walk into the kingdom of the dead?”
And my wise teacher made some kind of signal
announcing he would speak to them in secret.
They managed to suppress their great resentment
enough to say: “You come, but he must go
who thought to walk so boldly through this realm.”

...
I could not hear what he proposed to them,
but they did not remain with him for long;
I saw them race each other back for home.
Our adversaries slammed the heavy gates
in my lord’s face, and he stood there outside,
then turned toward me and walked back very slowly
with eyes downcast, all self-assurance now
erased from his forehead—sighing, “Who are these
to forbid my entrance to the halls of grief!”
He spoke to me: “You need not be disturbed
by my vexation, for I shall win the contest,
no matter how they plot to keep us out!
This insolence of theirs is nothing new;
they used it once at a less secret gate
which is, and will forever be, unlocked....”

This is a reference to when Christ descended
and released the souls of the great Old Testament
figures from limbo. These same demons tried to
keep Christ out. Virgil, of course, doesn’t entirely

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

understand what that was all about, being a classical
figure.
“You saw the words of death inscribed above it:
already passing through, and with no guide,
descending, through the circles, down the slope
comes one by whom the city will be opened.”

In the beginning of Canto 9, an angel descends
and blasts open the gates of the infernal city so that
Virgil and Dante may go further below. The point
is that reason is powerless in the face of the insane
demonic power of these furies that keep the gates
closed. At this point, Virgil is powerless. He can
begin the journey, but he needs divine help at some
point. The City of Dis is really a perversion of the
City of God. It is a place of total disorder, controlled
entirely by demonic souls, filled with rage, passion,
and fury.
Most versions of the Inferno come with a chart or
diagram of some sort. It is important to understand
that the Inferno is divided into three main parts,
corresponding to different kinds of sins: sins of
concupiscence, violence, and fraud. The sins of
fraud are found among the lowest circles. The sins
of the flesh, then, come first. I mentioned in the
previous article Paolo and Francesca: they are in
these first circles for not controlling their fleshly
appetites. The circles of violence come in the
middle, filled with those who did not control their
actions, lashing out against their fellow men. Finally
come the sins of fraud. These circles are filled with
those who misused their intellect, who abused
reason. They corrupted that which defined them as
human in order to deceive, instead of using their
reason to stand for truth. Dante puts them at the
bottom.
You will notice Dante does not categorize
according to the standard seven cardinal sins. He
invents a different division, even though all seven
sins are, of course, found in the Inferno. Dante will
return to a more traditional division of the seven
deadly sins during the climb up Mount Purgatory; it
is how the rings of the mountain are ordered.
Also, it is interesting to note that heretics are
outside all three divisions in the Inferno. The heretics
have a separate little place all to themselves. After
all, heresy is not a sin of the flesh, nor is it a sin
against fellow men. It is, in a way, a perversion of
the intellect, but in a different way: it is a sin of the
intellect in a state of being, in the ideas held. Sins of
fraud are intellectual sins used to attack other men,
being externalized. This is Dante’s division.
Let me give you an example of the brilliance
of his poetic imagination as he gives us a vision of
what the sin is about. This is called contrapasso, in
which the punishment fits the sin: the sin committed

13

The two heads had already fused to one
and features from each flowed and blended into
one face where two were lost in one another...

in life is punished in an appropriate fashion. Some
examples are clearer than others.
For instance, Canto 25 opens with a grotesque
scene: Vanni Fucci makes an obscene gesture to
God Himself. He is suddenly attacked by a number
of snakes which coil about him so tightly that he
can no longer move. He is punished by demons
immediately after making the gesture. He flees,
only to be chased by a centaur with a fire-breathing
dragon on his back. This is grand stuff.
Before we get into the canto itself, it is good to
note that, in the century before Dante wrote, there
was a huge debate about whether or not one could
use the classical authors. It was a very real debate:
Should those writers who came before the time of
Christ be incorporated into Christian thought and
used in it? The battle was obviously won by the
defenders of the classical authors; one of the greatest
defenders was St. Thomas Aquinas, who not only
used Aristotle, but made very clear that Aristotle
was a source of wisdom. Thomas pointed out that
it would be foolish to close out a great thinker
who spoke great truths and who presented them
coherently only because he had not yet had the
benefit of knowing Christian teaching.
This battle was won in the 13th century.
Dante, thus, writing at the beginning of the 14th
century, avails himself of the classical tradition.
For instance, the very notion of the division of Hell
comes partially from Aristotle. More noticeable,
perhaps, are all the glorious mythological creatures
from Greek and Roman mythology. They show up
throughout the Inferno.
Back to Canto 25, after the above, we read the
following as demons attack Vanni Fucci:
The two heads had already fused to one
and features from each flowed and blended into
one face where two were lost in one another;
two arms of each were four blurred strips of flesh;
and thighs with legs, then stomach and the chest

sprouted limbs that human eyes have never seen.
Each former likeness now was blotted out:
both, and neither one it seemed—this picture
of deformity. And then it sneaked off slowly.
Just as a lizard darting from hedge to hedge,
under the stinging lash of the dog-days’ heat,
zips across the road, like a flash of lightning,
so, rushing toward the two remaining thieves,
aiming at their guts, a little serpent,
fiery with rage and black as pepper-corn,
shot up and sank its teeth in one of them,
right where the embryo receives its food,
then back it fell and lay stretched out before him.

These weird exchanges go on for the rest of the
Canto. In one instance, they even exchange forms.
What does this all mean? We are here in the canto of
the thieves. These creatures who paid no attention
to others’ property are now punished by losing their
very selves in Hell. Since they couldn’t distinguish
between mine and thine, they are transformed into
serpents who have neither “me” nor “thee.” In this
demonic realm, they keep shifting. They can’t even
call their personalities or even their forms their own.
That is the absolutely appropriate punishment for
the thieves.
Another example of a brilliant contrapasso: in
Canto 28, the Pilgrim meets the Provencal poet,
Bertrand de Born. De Born was a great poet from
whom Dante learned much about writing poetry.
In the ninth bolge, the bolges being little pockets
for special sinners, Dante encounters this poet he
admired. The ninth bolge contains the souls of those
who sowed scandal and schism so here we also
find Mohammed who walks around with his guts
spilled out. Bertram de Born had encouraged Prince
Henry, son of Henry II, to rebel against his father.
His act was a dis-joining not just of father and son,
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

14
but of a legitimate ruler and his heir. The heir would
supplant his father before the proper time. To advise
the prince to supplant his father was to promote the
removal of the “head” of the state; hence, Bertrand
de Born wanders through Hell with his head cut
off, carrying it in his own hand. It is a perfect
punishment to fit the sin, grisly but memorable.
Dante creates perfectly logical yet grotesque
punishments like these throughout the Inferno. It
must be said: one reason the Inferno is the most
often read of the three parts is because we love
hideous pictures of horror. Something about it is
sickly appealing. You will find standard opinion
stating that the Inferno is very exciting, the Purgatorio
is okay, and the Paradiso is boring. If anything this
reaction tells us more about our own fallen nature;
we respond to the grotesque in a very direct way.
Dorothy Sayers said those people who only read
the Inferno, and get bored in the early part of the
Purgatorio, then stop, are like people going to visit a
great city like Paris and only spending a few days in
the sewers, drains, and underground passageways,
never rising up to see the streets, let alone the
glorious monuments above the city. To only read the
Inferno is like only visiting the Paris sewers and then
exclaiming that one has visited Paris.
The Inferno is supposed to be dramatic,
horrifying, and unnerving. If you are reading it with
a clear understanding of punishment for sin, you will
find it neither pleasant nor attractive. Look at the
end of Canto 30, which considers the deceivers. This
comes after the thieves. Two souls are screaming
at each other towards the end of the canto. One,
Master Adamo, was a counterfeiter, someone who
deceived through false currency. The other is Sinon
the Greek, he who went inside Troy and lied so that
the Trojan Horse could be brought in. These two
begin to shout at one another:
“My words were false—so were the coins you made,”
said Sinon, “and I am here for one false act
but you for more than my fiend in hell!”
“The horse, recall the horse, you falsifier,”
the bloated paunch was quick to answer back,
“may it burn your guts that all the world
remembers!”
“May your guts burn with thirst that cracks your tongue,”
the Greek said, “may they burn with rotting humors
that swell your hedge of a paunch to block your
eyes!”
And then the money-man: “So there you go,
your evil mouth pours out its filth as usual;
for if I thirst, and humors swell me up,
you burn more, and your head is fit to split,
and it wouldn’t take much coaxing to convince you
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

to lap the mirror of Narcissus dry!”

Now we get Dante the Pilgrim:
I was listening, all absorbed in this debate,

There he is; he’s drawn into the scene.
When the master said to me: “Keep right on looking,
a little more, and I shall lose my patience.”

This is a glorious moment. Dante the Pilgrim is
absorbed by the horrors in Hell. Virgil is the voice
of reason.
I heard the note of anger in his voice
and turned to him: I was so full of shame
that it still haunts my memory today.

This whole scene reminds one of modern talk
shows. If you have any doubt that great literature
addresses the contemporary world, this is proof.
Talk shows today simply involve bringing together
two people who disagree, letting them shout at and
insult each other, and the audience tunes in to be
entertained by the rancor, by the grotesque souls
spewing venom at one another. There is nothing
to be gained from an argument like this; it is not
rational debate. This is not a way to spend precious
time.
Notice how Canto 30 ends. We get a strange
simile from Dante the Poet:
Like one asleep who dreams himself in trouble
and in his dream he wishes he were dreaming,
longing for that which is, as if were not,
just so I found myself: unable to speak,
longing to beg for pardon and already
begging for pardon, not knowing that I did.
“Less shame than yours would wash away a fault
greater than yours has been,” my master said,
“and so forget about it, do not be sad.
If ever again you should meet up with men
engaging in this kind of futile wrangling,
remember I am always at your side;
to have a taste for talk like this is vulgar!”

You can quote this next time someone tells you
about a talk show. Dante is timeless. He is showing
us something of our fallen nature. But reason is
always at our side to help us break free from the
attraction of these kinds of conversations. It is a
kind of spell that transfixes a man of greater intellect
and soul than we possess—it attracts even the great
Dante.

15
As Dante the Pilgrim and Virgil approach
the very pit of hell, three giants guard the way.
They have to be moved past before the two hit
the very bottom of Hell; the three giants are
named Nimrod, Ephialtes and Anteas. Each one
of them has a different character; if you will, each
represents a characteristic that leads to the very
center of Hell. Nimrod is a braggart who just spouts
idiocy, he speaks nonsense syllables, all language
gone and thus all reason gone, for the two are
inextricably bound together. He has his immense
strength but that is all he possesses. Ephialtes
is just senseless rage, lashing out at everything,
destroying everything. And finally, Anteas is just
brainless vanity. In a curious way, in the three giants
you get things that sadly characterize any hell-ish
time or all hell-ish disorder: total nonsense, the
abandonment of reason, nihilism (nothing matters,
just destroy, destroy, destroy), and, finally, triviality,
constant meaningless obsession with the self, with
silly meaningless little details. Should I wear three
ear rings through my nose or four? Should I get
another hole drilled in my lip? Should I have my
hands tattooed? Absolute triviality. And, triviality
somehow connected with the self is meaningless.
They’re giants, they’re massive, but they’re
immobile. They’re not going anywhere. They’re part
of that frozen world of hell that exists below them.
You slide past them cautiously for they can destroy
you in an instant. They are destructive forces but
they are stupid. They’re brainless. They are small in
nature if large in form. It is an astonishing scene.
At the very bottom of the Inferno, as we sink into
the lowest circle, the center of Hell, we encounter
Satan. Satan is frozen in ice. There is plenty of fire
and heat in Hell, of course, but the center is cold,

frozen, and dead. There is no warmth. It is the pit of
Hell, devoid of love. If charity is burning love, the
center of Hell is ice.
The first image we get of Satan from a distance
is of his great bat wings. They keep flapping up and
down mechanistically. He has three faces on one
head, a grotesque hideous parody of the Trinity.
We see him chewing on souls. Satan is immobile
save for his wings and mouth, the wings moving
mechanically, the mouth grinding pitilessly. There is
nothing “human” about him.
There are three souls in the lowest pit of Hell:
Brutus and Cassius from the classical world, men
who betrayed an Emperor, their just leader, and
murdered him. And, of course, there is Judas, who
betrayed God Himself. Dante here implies that we
have obligations to both God and Empire; one does
not betray either.
Dante the Pilgrim has made the complete
journey and has encountered all the sins that man
may commit, and thus, as he is a man, all the sins
that he might commit. He has learned through
his journey and now with Virgil still at his side
climbs out of Hell, preparing for the second stage
of his long pilgrimage that will take him up Mount
Purgatory and point the way to Paradise.
(To be continued.)

Dr. David Allen White taught World Literature at the Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland, for the better part of three decades. He gave many
seminars at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, including
one on which this article is based. He is the author of The Mouth of the Lion
and The Horn of the Unicorn. All quotes from The Divine Comedy are taken
from Mark Musa’s translation, published by Penguin Books. Illustrations by
Gustave Doré.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

16
a r c h b i s h o p

m a r c e l

l e f e b v r e

THE AUTHORITY OF

VATICAN
II
QUESTIONED

PART 8

The Magisterium, Faith, and
Obedience: Response to Paul VI’s
Objections
On September 11, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was received
in audience by Pope Paul VI at Castelgandolfo. In a
long letter dated October 11, Paul VI refused to grant
the founder of Ecône’s request that he encourage the
experiment of Tradition. The Pope reproached Archbishop
Lefebvre with rebellion against the authority of Vatican
II and claimed that his ecclesiology was warped in
essential points. In a spiritual conference given at Ecône
on October 18, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre responded
to these reproaches, showing how the notion of “living
Tradition” as understood by Vatican II is irreconcilable
with the idea of an authentic magisterium.–Fr. Gleize

Fr. Gleize is a professor of
ecclesiology at the seminary of
the SSPX in Ecône and now
a member of the commission
involved in the doctrinal
discussions with the Holy See.
In 2006, he compiled and
organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II.
It was published by the Institute
of St. Pius X, the university run
by the SSPX in Paris, France.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

After all is said and done, nothing has changed since
the recent visitation–not on the part of Rome’s visitors,
not on Rome’s, and not on ours. Nothing has changed
because, I think, nothing can change so long as the new
orientation adopted by the Roman authorities since the
Council does not correspond with what the Popes have
taught for centuries, but more particularly since the last
century and a half–let us say, from the French Revolution
till now. The whole problem is there. Either we desire
to be faithful to the Tradition defined by the Church’s
magisterium–the Church’s perennial magisterium, the
solemn, infallible magisterium of the Popes who spoke
solemnly, condemning the liberal errors, modernism, and
the synthesis of errors professed by very many Catholics,
priests, and bishops over the course of a century and a
half; or else we give up this magisterium in order to submit

17
to the orientations being given to us today, which
lead us towards those very errors and which require
us to accept these errors which lead us slowly but
surely to Protestantism.
So what is to be done? This is what I said to the
Holy Father during the audience: Holy Father, we
have only one desire, to follow you, to be able to
be absolutely in full agreement with you. But when
we are obliged to observe that the orientations
taken by the Church at present distance you from
your predecessors, we are faced with a dilemma
that confronts every Christian, priest, and bishop.
What should we do? forsake your predecessors,
distance ourselves from the doctrine taught by your
predecessors and submit to the new orientations
being given in the Church now? What is to be done?
Some choose these errors towards which churchmen
today are inclining, and others hold fast to Tradition
so as not to become Protestants or modernists.
The Pope did not respond to that. I am not going
to read you the entire letter,1 which is 18 pages
long…that would be impossible. The first part of
the letter is to convince me that my behavior is
contradictory, as they say:
You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that
disfigure the Church; you regret that authority in
the Church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to
safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial
priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial
and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit
Our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies
which, together with evangelization and the unity of
Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations
and of Our mission. But how can you at the same time,
in order to fulfil this role claim that you are obliged to
act contrary to the recent Council, in opposition to your
brethren in the Episcopate, to distrust the Holy See
itself–which you call the “Rome of the Neo-Modernist
and Neo-Protestant tendency”–and to set yourself up
in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work
“under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private
letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these
ambiguities and contradictions.2

But what provoked these ambiguities and
contradictions? It’s the Council, which is full of
ambiguities and contradictions. Moreover, they say
the same thing a bit farther on; they themselves
enumerate the list of things for which I reproach the
Council.
You say moreover that you do not always see how
to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain
dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the
Council into practice, with the wholesome Tradition of
the Church and in particular with the Council of Trent
or the affirmations of our Predecessors.

That is correct.
These are for example: the responsibility of the
College of Bishops united with the Sovereign Pontiff—

That is to say, collegiality, this business of
collegiality which is nothing neither more nor less
than the introduction of democracy into the Church.
…the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism–

Yes, that’s true.
…religious freedom–

Exactly.
…the attitude of dialogue–

Yes, because the attitude of dialogue with error
and thus with all the false religions, the attitude of
dialogue as it is conceived of by them puts us on
the same footing. Dialogue presupposes the equality
of the two religions, that there is no difference
between error and truth, so that dialogue involves
compromise. But that is not the kind of dialogue
the Church has undertaken with those who do not
believe; they are asked to convert….
Evangelization in the modern world–

Yes, that’s true.
The response is simply “It is not the place, in this
letter, to deal with each of these problems.”3
But this is precisely the problem… So you see,
“it is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each
of these problems, but you are against authority,
authority, authority”… They have a notion of the
Church which is absolutely hard to believe–let us
say, absolutely false.
But behind these questions and other similar ones,
which we shall examine later on in detail, it is truly
necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the
problem is theological.4

Precisely, the crux of the matter is theological,
absolutely. Then for a page they remind me what
the Constitution Pastor Aeternus teaches about papal
infallibility, the primacy of Peter, the authority of
Peter. But I agree completely. But they forget to
include the part of Pastor Aeternus that I put in my
Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 9. Well, I said,
it is not hard when you leave out the main point of
a text, obviously. It can no longer be understood.
The main part is the passage in which it is said that
the pope’s authority was not given him to teach
new truths, but to hand on faithfully and exactly the
deposit of faith. So that is why the authority of the
pope has been given. It is in Pastor Aeternus: “…not…
that they might disclose new doctrine….”
You say that you are subject to the Church and faithful
to Tradition, by the sole fact that you obey certain norms
of the past that were decreed by the Predecessor of Him
to whom God has today conferred the powers given to
Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of
‘Tradition’ that you invoke is distorted.5

“The concept of ‘Tradition’….”: take your
theology books–what is Tradition? Tradition
is the Church’s infallible and, in a certain way
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

18
consequently, immutable magisterium. When
something has been solemnly defined by the
Councils or by the Sovereign Pontiffs, it is
immutable; even in its terms it is immutable. It can
be explained, but the truth itself is immutable.
Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a
certain static sort which at a given moment of history
blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church,
that is, the Mystical Body of Christ.6

This is hard to believe. Granted, the Church
is a living body, a living mystical body to which
members are added century after century, generation
after generation. But the truth itself, revelation, was
concluded with the death of the last Apostle. The
revelation our Lord came to bring us was closed after
the death of the last of the Apostles; this is what the
Church teaches. Afterward, the Church’s mandate is
to hand on the deposit of revelation that is found in
Scripture and Tradition. Revelation is thus manifested
by Tradition and by Sacred Scripture, because
Tradition encompasses Sacred Scripture in the sense
that Tradition began before Sacred Scripture. The
Apostles first spoke before writing, and then they
wrote. Subsequently it is up to Tradition, to the
magisterium of the Church, consequently, to explain
what Scripture means and to give Scripture as the
Church conceives it. Hence Tradition in this sense is
more important than Scripture. Revelation consists
in this, but revelation had been concluded with the
death of the last Apostle. Afterward, the Church has
only to hand on faithfully and exactly the deposit of
revelation, that is to say, the truths that have been
revealed.
When a pope defines something after the death
of the last Apostle, when they have defined in the
councils and in their official acts, they have always
said: these truths we are defining originate, are
implicitly or explicitly contained in the revealed
deposit, therefore they were already contained in
revelation, which existed before the death of the
last Apostle. This is obvious. So they have always,
always, always repeated. So the Church is not dead–
that’s obvious: the Church of the past is not dead, it
is still living because truth is God; so when a truth
is defined, it is as if, I would say, one were defining
something in God, therefore something immutable.
The Truth, God, is immutable, unchangeable.
But because our understanding is weak, limited,
restricted, we fail to understand the truth all in one
block and in a single apprehension, as we will in the
beatific vision. Then we shall see God for all eternity;
we shall have the truth before us; then we shall see
that it is immutable. But here below, revelation is
given to us in a definitive way until the death of the
last Apostle, and then the popes have the duty to
explain it to us, to specify what this revelation is, but
always in reference to what the Apostles taught and
what Tradition teaches.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

So when we judge correctly, they tell us: “You
have no right to appeal to one pope to judge
another.” But it is not we who judge, but the
deceased pope who judges; it is Tradition that judges;
it is the definitive writings that have been given
that judge what is being said at present. They say:
“Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a
certain static sort”–but yes, it is static! The definitions
are static, the definitions are definitive; the Credo is
something definitive, the Credo cannot be changed.
“It is up to the Pope and the Councils to exercise
judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the
Church….”7 Here they are changing the subject,
you see: the discussion is not about traditions,
but Tradition. Tradition is the magisterium of the
Church; traditions are something else. They are the
customs that have been introduced into the Church,
which can eventually be changed–that is certainly
possible, but not Tradition.
…They seem to be saying that nobody in the
Church can judge what is true or what is not true.
But it is up to every Christian, every Catholic, to
judge what is true. He is taught the truth, he knows
the truth–it is in his catechism. He knows how
to read like everyone else; he is quite capable of
reading the Acts of the Councils, he is quite capable
of understanding and of knowing what the truth is
that is taught in the catechism and in his Bible and to
realize that what is now being preached by his parish
priests, or even by the bishop, is not in conformity
with what is said in his old catechism or with what he
was taught. It is up to every Catholic to defend his
faith when it is attacked. One cannot tell him: “Oh,
but he has no say, he has only to obey. Only the
pope and the bishops in union with the pope can say
what is of faith and what is not of faith.” This is too
much, this is not possible. Catholics cannot address
the Pope to ask him whether what their pastor is
saying is correct; they are quite capable of knowing it
themselves.
(To be continued.)
Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône
and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions
with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the
university run by the SSPX in Paris, France. Although slightly edited, the spoken
style has been preserved.
The text of the letter, translated by the Catholic Information Office of
England and Wales and published on December 11, 1976, is reproduced
with commentary by Michael Davies in his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre:
1905-1976 (Angelus Press, 1979), pp. 303-343.
2
Ibid., pp. 315-16.
3
Ibid., pp. 324-25.
4
Ibid., p. 316.
5
Ibid., p. 320.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid., p. 321.
1

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)

●

August 2010

Reprint #93

The Catechetical
Teachings of
Pope St. Pius X

PART 2

St. Pius X is justly known for many things: his fight against Modernism,
the lowering of the age of First Communion, and the formulation of the
Code of Canon Law among them. What is perhaps less known today is
his intense catechetical work. This article, written in 1953 by Don Silvio
Riva, provides some insight into this aspect of his life and pontificate.
The Pope of Catechists
The collaboration of laymen in the catechetical
ministry of priests is not recent. St. Charles
Borromeo organized his catechetical edifice–the
Schools of Christian Doctrine–on numerous lay
personnel: “fishermen,” correctors, assistant teachers,
priors and vice-priors, etc., directly subordinate to the
hierarchical authority: the bishop and parish priest.
In confiding to the laity a form of collaboration, the
saint did not go beyond the disciplinary aspect, the
seeking of new pupils for the “schools,” and, at most,
allowing experienced laymen to go over the usual
notions of the catechism, of which only the priest
is the master in the full sense of the word, for he
alone can explain, comment, and illustrate, however
briefly, Christian doctrine as provided for in the rules
of St. Charles Borromeo.
Pope Pius X was intuitive and brave: he
understood that the number of priests was inferior

to the quantity of work, and that the organization
he desired and prescribed in his encyclical on
catechism–a purely academic organization with
classes, professors, courses, curricula, textbooks–
required a well-prepared body of teachers specially
trained to collaborate with pastors of souls.
In the Encyclical Acerbo Nimis of 1905, for the
first time in the Church and from the mouth of the
Sovereign Pontiff, from the See of Peter, an appeal
was made to the Catholic laity for lay helpers in the
catechetical ministry:
In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established.
Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places
where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in
the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of
imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God
and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by
the Sovereign Pontiffs.

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

In the letter to Cardinal Respighi promulgating
“his” catechism, Pius X wrote:
We pray God that just as today the increasing numbers and
power of the enemies of the Faith propagate error by every
means, so also will arise great numbers of souls desirous of
zealously assisting the pastors, teachers, and Christian parents
in the teaching of the catechism, a work as noble and fruitful
as it is necessary.

Pius X summons the laity to teach Christian
Doctrine. He had the courage to believe in laymen
and in their potential as collaborators subordinate
to the hierarchy. He was the Pontiff who opened
a magnificent horizon and a fruitful apostolate
to laymen, procuring at the same time good
collaborators for priests responsible for souls.
But Pius X reminds us of the two foundations of
their preparation and formation: religious piety
and catechetical culture, adding to these the
recommendation to understand the child’s soul.
He is the one to officially mark the debut and
development of a new militia in the Church: lay
catechists. For them, he will give a form and a new
soul to an outworn catechetical institution which,
from the time of St. Charles Borromeo, experienced
years of vigorous fervor and influential activity: the
Congregation for Christian Doctrine, which was to
become in some way the Parish Catechetical Office in
which lay catechists and other persons devoted to the
cause of catechism would have their place, specific
functions, and activities.
Pius X, in all truth, ought to be remembered
as the Pope of Catechists because he had faith in
laymen, in the teaching mission flowing from their
collaboration in the hierarchical apostolate.
At Venice, when he was Patriarch, he contributed
to the formation of many catechists. In his letters to
the clergy, he insistently reaffirmed the need to train
lay catechists. In the third appendix of his catechism,
he included wise “counsels to parents and Christian
educators” which still today are a fine summary of
catechetical formation worthy of study, meditation,
and application by all teachers of Christian Doctrine,
priests and laymen, parents and catechists.
I consider it a duty in conscience to offer these
rules here, limiting myself to following them with a
few remarks to enable the pontifical instructions to
be placed in the context of today’s catechetical and
scholastic environment.
To teach catechism is to instruct in the faith and morals of
Jesus Christ; it is to give the children of God consciousness
of their origin, their dignity, and their destiny, and also their
duties; it is to place and develop in their minds the principles
and reasons for religion, virtue, and holiness on earth, and
thus of happiness in heaven.

20

These are but a few lines, but they contain a
rational treatise of the motivation for the catechetical
apostolate, which specifies first of all the notion of
religious instruction and relates it to its final end,
which is to impart a Christian conscience to men
by means of education and to remind them of their
destiny here below in terms of the hereafter. From
these fundamental notions, the trainers of catechists
can develop a cycle of religious considerations
founded on solid doctrine apt to convey the true
meaning of apostolic collaboration in catechesis.
The teaching of catechism is therefore the most beneficial
and necessary thing for individuals, the Church, and civil
society; it is the fundamental instruction at the basis of
Christian life, and if it is lacking or has been badly imparted,
Christian life is weak, vacillating, and even likely to expire.

Pius X had a global vision of catechesis, not only
in the domain of evangelization, but also in its social
and civic, humane and individual, communitarian
and cultural, functions. In his apostolic conception,
the Catechism is something essential and great.
He does not hesitate to subordinate to it social
and Christian order, which flourishes where the
knowledge of revealed truths is elevated and
enjoys a necessary prestige. This is a warning and
a reminder to today’s educators, priests and laity,
who, overburdened by their concern for pressing
new works, underestimate the function of catechesis,
postponing or even suppressing it in order to leave
room for other initiatives of a contingent and limited
nature. Corporeal charity is certainly a paramount
work in the Church’s strategy for evangelization, but
if it is not immediately and concurrently accompanied
by the intellectual charity of truth, it becomes sterile.
The social apostolate must have the Catechism as its
foundation and code if it is to be able to lay claim to
the name and spirit of Christian.
Just as Christian parents are the first and principal educators of their children, so also ought they to be their first and
principal catechists: the first, because they should instill the
doctrine received from the Church in their children in early
childhood; the principal, because theirs is the duty to make
the children learn by heart at home the rudiments of the
Faith, beginning with their first prayers, and to have them
repeat them every day so that gradually they will permeate
their children’s souls. Should it happen, as is often the case,
that they are obliged to be assisted by others in this education, they should remember their holy duty to choose the
institutions and persons who can and will conscientiously
fulfill for them so grave a duty. Indifference in this matter
has caused the irreparable loss of very many children. What
an accounting one will have to render to God!

In the hierarchy of lay catechists, parents, their
children’s teachers by nature and grace, hold the
first place. Nature has given them specific gifts for
penetrating their children’s minds and reaching into
their little hearts and touching their weak wills.
If one thinks, for example, of the wealth of feeling
enclosed within a mother’s heart; of the ease and

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

suppleness of a mother’s language, capable of being
effortlessly understood even by the youngest as if by
a continuation of the identification of the child with
its mother, one can have a fair idea of the efficacy of
this initial catechesis. It is an irreplaceable catechesis
because other persons, even consecrated to the
formation of young children, lack the efficacy of a
mother. Nature and grace make teachers of parents:
the sacrament of marriage gives them the right to
special graces for fulfilling the educative mission with
which God has invested them. Pius X then descends
into the details of this gentle maternal magisterium,
and his rules should be continually repeated to
contemporary parents. This is an important aspect of
pastors of souls’ ministry of forming the new couple
and young parents who feel the responsibility for their
family and the protection of the new lives entrusted to
their care.
To teach fruitfully, it is necessary to know Christian doctrine; it is necessary to expound it and explain it in a way
adapted to the capacity of the pupils, and, since it concerns
practical doctrine, it is especially necessary to live it.
Doctrine must be known well, for how can one instruct
without being instructed? Hence the parents’ and educators’
duty to review the Catechism and to fully sound its truths
with the aid of broader explanations by priests destined for
adults, by asking competent persons, and by reading, if they
can, appropriate books.

It is an act of honesty and justice for whoever
teaches catechism, even in humble rural schools,
to possess the science one teaches. It should even
be known twice: once for oneself and once for the
others, for it is one thing to know, and another to
teach. Teaching requires culture, in particular in the
domain of Christian doctrine, for which incertitude
of knowledge would bring discredit and contempt
upon the most elevated science, since it comes from
God, was revealed by Jesus Christ, and has been
safeguarded and transmitted by the Catholic Church.
Catechetical culture is not something static which
allows one to stop learning, but is dynamic and
consequently demands being revitalized, increased,
and deepened by means of classes, books, and
journals.
Christian doctrine should be taught in a way adapted to
the pupils, that is to say, with intelligence and love, so that the
children will no longer be disgusted and bored by the teacher
and by the doctrine. That its why it is fitting to put it within
their reach, to use common and simple terms, to awaken
their minds by comparisons and appropriate examples, and
to touch the feelings of their hearts; to exercise the utmost
discretion and measure so as not to tire them; to progress
gradually, without wearying of repetition, and, with patience
and gentleness, to be indulgent for the agitations, distractions,
impertinences, and other defects of this age. One should
especially avoid rote learning, which constrains and leaves
the mind stunted, bringing into play the memory only without
appeal to the mind or heart.

This addresses, in summary, the didactic
problem and the pedagogical problem expressed in
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

a simple way that even the humblest catechists can
understand. About this problem illustrious names
and top authorities in the domain of education have
written books and treatises, and continue to do so.
St. Pius X expressed the essence of the immense
problem, and with grace and simplicity exposes it
to Catholic catechists so that they can understand
it and resolve it by means of the brief but very wise
rules he suggests. The didactics of catechism, apart
from the scientific definitions that have been given
and which could be given, amounts to this: to make
oneself understood by children when speaking to
them and to understand children when they speak
to us. Today, after discussing pedagogy at length,
it is necessary to render to didactics–which is not
something apart or distinct from pedagogy, but is
rather a constitutive element of pedagogy and linked
to it–its role in catechism class, but without slipping
into “didacticism,” which diminishes the dignity of
school, depriving it of its soul to reduce it to a batch of
formulas and techniques. The success of catechetical
schools today is partly due to a healthy didactic,
serene and active, linked to the value of children’s
language as the instrument of communication for
the science. The rules of pedagogy dictated in these
counsels call to mind St. John Bosco and his ardent yet
gentle spirit.
Finally, live the faith and morals one teaches, or else how
will one have the courage to teach the children the religion
one does not practice, the commandments and precepts one
neglects before their very eyes? In such a case, what fruit
can be hoped for? On the contrary, the parents will discredit
themselves and will accustom their children to indifference
toward contempt of the most necessary principles and the
holiest duties of life.

To teach well, more than knowledge is required;
it demands coherence between knowledge and life,
between school and the teacher’s personal conduct.
The first lesson of the catechism is not “spoken,” but
lived. The first textbook is not between the children’s
hands, but is the person of the catechist who, by his
presence, deportment, life and works, teaches even
before speaking. It scarcely needs to be said that the
catechetical teaching given to children and grown-ups
is not limited to imparting theoretical knowledge of
religious notions, but is only complete when it helps
the catechumens to believe the truths they have learned
and to live them in their daily life. The catechism is
not only culture but knowledge for life, a moral code,
an itinerary of faith, and a directory of graces.
And since today there is a generalized atmosphere of incredulity fatal to the spiritual life and that militates against every
idea of a superior authority, of God, of revelation, of a future
life, of mortification, parents and educators must inculcate the
fundamental truths of the first notions of the catechism with

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

apostolates of our time. St. Pius X thought and saw
with the eyes of saints, which are the eyes of Christ.
utmost care. They must inspire the children with the Christian notion of life, the sense of their responsibility for all of
their actions before the supreme Judge, who is everywhere,
who knows all and sees all, and they must infuse in them the
holy fear of God, the love of Christ and the Church, a taste
for charity and solid piety, and esteem for the virtues and
Christian practices. Only then will the education of children
be founded, not on the sand of shifting ideas and human
respect, but on the rock of supernatural convictions that will
not be shaken for their whole life despite the tempests.

The Catechism is a summary of Christian
doctrine; however, Pius X takes pains to specify
which “chapters” must be held to be essential for the
formation of the Christian of our days, and he sets out
a short doctrinal itinerary: 1) the Christian notion of
life; 2) the sense of our responsibility for every one
of our acts before Almighty God, who knows all and
sees all; 3) the fear of God; 4) love of Christ and the
Church; 5) a taste for charity, piety, and esteem for
the virtues and Christian practices.
At nearly a century’s remove from the articulation
of these rules, we are in a position to evaluate their
importance and essential character: generations of
Christians have been formed by the Catechism of
St. Pius X. These are the generations that gave the
impetus to the works of Catholic Action and the
secular religious institutes that miraculously flourished
in the Church, and which provided and still provide
the men and ideas for the social and caritative

For all of this one must have a lively faith, a profound
esteem of the value of souls and spiritual goods, and the wise
love that strives to assure above all the eternal happiness of
the souls of those one holds dear. One must also have a special grace to understand the character of children and to find
the path to their minds and their hearts. Christian parents,
by virtue of the sacrament of marriage well received, have a
right to the graces of their state and thus to those necessary
for the Christian education of their children. Moreover, they
can by humble prayer obtain even more abundant graces for
this same end, for it is a work particularly agreeable to God
that they rear adorers and obedient and pious children. Let
them do so, then, whatever the sacrifices: it is question of the
eternal salvation of their children’s souls and of their own.
God will bless their faith and their love in this work of capital importance, and will reward them by the pre-eminently
desirable gift of holy children eternally happy with them in
heaven.

These rules are addressed firstly to Christian
parents, but they do not exclude the category of
teachers and parish catechists who conceive of their
school as a community and a spiritual family. These
Pius X reminds of their educative responsibility,
but he also reminds them of the graces and divine
assistance, concluding with the thought of heaven,
which is the school’s prize and highest and most
desirable reward.
Translated from the Courrier de Rome, January 2010, pp. 6-8

An Invitation to Return to the Sources:
A Contribution to Interreligious Dialogue
Discussion with non-Catholic
institutions is not an invention
of Vatican II, as a reading of
some passages of the New
Testament shows. The first Pope
to enter a synagogue, after
all, was not John Paul II…
Those who think that before the Council,
Catholicism never experienced debate or opposition

22

are mistaken. They are also mistaken who think that
in the past the Church was no match for those who
did not consider themselves to be her children.
Discussion, which is the basic instrument of
intercourse with others, whether individuals or
groups, has always been employed since the dawn of
Christianity, beginning with the Lord Himself, who,
the model of every perfection, is also the model of
relations with the world of His time, with the civil and
religious institutions with which He was in contact
and which He confronted in Palestine two thousand
years ago. What originated with the Council, on the
contrary, is a new and atypical way of establishing
relations with the institutions of our time, whether
religious or not. This change is radical because the
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

:

goal of dialogue and relations with contemporary
interlocutors seems to be radically different.
Given that this shift, as all the conciliar shifts,
is presented as a return to the primitive spirit of
Christianity, quite obviously betrayed by medieval,
Tridentine, and post-Tridentine clericalism, we have
interrogated the sources themselves, giving preference
to the most ancient. And as the Tradition of the
Church is sometimes opposed to holy Scripture, of
which it was not always the faithful sister, we have
looked for satisfactory responses to our questions only
in Sacred Scripture, and more precisely in certain
passages of the Gospel according to St. Luke, the
author also of the Acts of the Apostles, the interpreter
and faithful companion of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Naturally, at the time of the Apostles there
were no Protestants, Orthodox, or Muslims. It was
inevitable that Jesus and the Apostles should be in
contact primarily with the local religion of Palestine
and the communities of the Diaspora. But how was
the confrontation with the Synagogue of the era
envisaged? We have selected three significant passages
in which our Lord, St. Peter, and St. Stephen furnish
us more than satisfactory indications. We shall leave
the reader to draw his own conclusions, limiting
ourselves to a brief commentary.

Jesus’ Visit to the Synagogue of
Nazareth: The Gospel According
to St. Luke, 4:14-30
Let us first remark that, contrary to a widespread
opinion, the first Christian religious leader to enter
a synagogue was not John Paul II in 1986, but Jesus
himself, whose example was followed by the Apostles
and in particular St. Paul.
Let us note also that Jesus enters a synagogue to
announce the Gospel, the New Covenant: He applies
unequivocally to Himself one of the most famous
Messianic passages of the Prophet Isaias. This way
of proceeding contains a very important message:
Jesus shows that the Old Testament spoke of Him,
that it has a meaning in relation to Himself, and that
the prophecies it contains became reality with His
Incarnation. Consequently, after the Incarnation, a
reading of the Old Testament that would prescind
from our Lord would be not only incomplete, but
wayward and injurious, somewhat like a cloak
designed, woven, and made for Christ Himself but
placed on the shoulders of someone else.
The reaction of Jesus’ compatriots is well
described by St. Luke. On the one hand they are
taken aback by His knowledge and wisdom; on
the other hand, they refuse to recognize Him as
the Messias. “While the wisdom shown by Jesus
should have attracted them to the faith, it became
for them, on the contrary, a stumbling block.
Blinded by their prejudices, they did not want to
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

acknowledge that the Messias could be a carpenter’s
son; and they argue from Jesus’ obscure birth to the
rejection of His doctrine, saying contemptuously: ‘Is
not this the son of Joseph?’” (Fr. M. Sales, O.P., The
New Testament, I, 234).
Then Jesus openly reproaches them for their lack
of faith (for the demand for new miracles is caused
by incredulity) and the Nazarenes even decide to kill
Him. But He miraculously slips away. A certain initial
enthusiasm is succeeded by a tragic end.
The visits of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to
the Synagogue of Rome certainly have an historical
dimension, but the tenor of the dialogue, the content
of the speeches, and the specific finality of the events
were radically different and, in a certain sense,
diametrically opposed: He who had been the object
of the first evangelization is practically missing from
the official speeches, and the episode resulted in a
general climate of eirenism. The recent visits did
not constitute a new fact, but the spirit and goal that
characterized them were new: the Gospel is no longer
announced, and the validity and irrevocability of the
Old Covenant, the one Jesus replaced in word and
in deed as surely as Jacob supplanted Esau his elder
brother, were reconfirmed.
Unfortunately, we did not hear in the Synagogue
of Rome the gentle, irresistible words with which
Jesus introduced Himself to the Synagogue of
Nazareth: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me.
Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel
to the poor: he hath sent me to heal the contrite of
heart, to preach deliverance to the captives and sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to
preach the acceptable year of the Lord and the day
of reward…. This day is fulfilled this scripture in your
ears.”
From a theological standpoint, the exclusion
of Jews today from the preaching of the New
Covenant paradoxically stands out as a new form of
discrimination and anti-Semitism. Faced with this
danger, Jesus explicitly imposes on us the duty not to
exclude anyone from the preaching of His Kingdom
and to invite every man, however recalcitrant, to
convert: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations:
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt.
28: 19-20). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned”
(Mk. 16:16).
Jesus Himself teaches us in the gospel passage of
St. Luke to carry out this necessary evangelization
even at the risk of our life for our neighbor’s sake.

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Peter Before the Sanhedrin: The
Acts of the Apostles, 4:5-21
This passage of the Acts has considerable
testimonial value. Not only is it a very ancient text
contained in Sacred Scripture, but it contains one of
the first speeches of the first Pope pronounced after
Pentecost. It is a matter of the Petrine magisterium in
the most literal and authentic sense of the term.
The speech is clear, concise, simple, and
unambiguous. It contains an unequivocal invitation to
convert based on the absolute necessity of adhering
to our Lord for salvation. Let us note that St. Peter is
speaking to Jewish doctors; the principle holds for all
and above all for them as the first interlocutors of the
Apostles: the Old Covenant is hence replaced by the
New. Let us note lastly that St. Peter is in a position of
inferiority: he is convoked by the Sanhedrin, which
might not let him go. Confronted by the Sanhedrin’s
threats, he does not back down: It is impossible for
him to keep quiet about what he has seen and heard
without disobeying God. In effect, the proclamation
of the Lord and of the New and Eternal Covenant
to the Jewish people is not an option, but a necessity
because it flows from the need to adhere to it in order
to be saved.

The Judgment and Martyrdom
of St. Stephen: The Acts of the
Apostles, 6:8-10, 7:54-60
We invite the reader to read the debate between
St. Stephen and the Synagogue. In particular, we
point out a very important detail. There is a statement
made by St. Stephen after which the dialogue is
brusquely broken off. It is the crucial affirmation of
the New Testament, the ultimate content of every
Christian affirmation, the first source of all truth: the
assertion of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Any discussion, dialogue, or debate with any
interlocutor only has meaning if it leads to this crucial
assertion. Without this supreme end, nothing we say
or witness to has any meaning. The Synagogue of the
era grasped very well the centrality and in particular
the implications of this affirmation. Hearing it, the
Jews stopped up their ears; the dialogue was over,
and there were only two options left: conversion or
crime. Unfortunately, they chose the second, but
later, one of theirs, Saul, chose the first, for the calls
of our Lord to conversion and the possibility of
regeneration by His grace never cease.
This is what we would also like to remind every
man on earth, whatever religion he may have, and–if
needs be–churchmen, too.

24

But rather than accept the error that anyone–
whatever nation he may belong to–can be saved
without entering into the New and Eternal Covenant
established by Jesus, sealed by His blood and marked
by His cross, we prefer martyrdom: “Extra Ecclesiam
nulla salus.”

The Validity of the Old Covenant
in Light of Contemporary
Official Documents
On this vexed question (which in reality did not
become vexed until the Council), we decided to
interrogate a very recent source: the [new] Catechism
of the Catholic Church, which provides us some
indications in paragraphs 839-840. Since it concerns a
current topic about which some interest is expressed
by Catholics as well as by Jews, it seemed necessary
to us to make an effort to understand what the official
line today is on this crucial point. To begin with, the
matter is neither simple nor clear. For, on the one
hand it is reaffirmed that the Old Covenant is an
irrevocable gift and thus still valid; and on the other,
it is often reiterated today–for example, in official
speeches–that Jesus Christ is the only Savior for all
men; reminders of this in the Encyclical Dominus
Jesus occur frequently. We find ourselves before one
of these paradoxes from which, in an authentically
Hegelian vision, is supposed to surge the dynamism
of truth–a “living” truth for which contradictions are
not an obstacle and which is constantly measured
against them so as to outstrip them and confront new
ones in a dialectical process that will terminate only
at the end of History.
Let us examine this fundamental text:

The Church and non-Christians
839. “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are
related to the People of God in various ways” [Lumen Gentium 16].
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When
she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of
God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish
People [cf. Nostra Aetate 4], “the first to hear the Word of God”
[Roman Missal, Good Friday, General Intercessions, VI]. The
Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already
a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the
Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving
of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong
the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the
Christ” [Rom. 9:4-5], “for the gifts and the call of God are
irrevocable” [Rom. 11:29].
840. And when one considers the future, God’s People of
the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards
similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of
the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who
died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and
Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose
features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter
waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of
misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

In this official text we find satisfactory responses
to our questions, especially in light of the second
paragraph. Let us begin with the irrevocability of the
gifts made by God to Israel.
The Old Covenant would still be valid at present
in its salvific function, for it is considered as an
irrevocable gift by the Jewish people independently of
the kind of response historically given it by the latter.
Consequently, the fact that it had been established by
God with Israel to prepare the coming of the Savior
Jesus, who was not recognized, would not annul its
salvific worth today. It would seem to be the only pact
in history that remains valid even though one of the
parties does not respect the terms of the pact.
The traditional interpretation, with particular
reference to Romans 11:29, is completely different:
God will not abandon His people, for one day He will
also convert it to Christ and thus save it, but this will
not happen by virtue of a still-valid Old Covenant, but
thanks to the tardy integration of the Jewish people
into the New and Eternal Covenant.
Here is how a learned exegete explained it:
God will not abandon his people, enriched by so many
gifts and privileges, but one day He will show them mercy
and He will convert them en masse to the faith….The Apostle
particularly calls it a vocation not only because it is the first
privilege, but also because in it are contained all the others.
These gifts are without repentance because God has sworn it
to the Patriarchs, so that, though by its infidelity Israel is now
rejected so that in the mean time the Gentiles may enter the
Church, God will not fail in His promise, and one day He will
convert it and show that He has not abandoned His people.
(Fr. M. Sales, O.P., New Testament, II, 79)

The two perspectives are opposite and irreducible,
and their divergence is not the result of a homo­
geneous development of dogma but of a break with
Tradition: Here the hermeneutic of continuity compels
us to refuse the new doctrine.
As regards the contradiction between the
necessity of adhering to Christ for salvation and the
current validity of the Old Covenant, paragraph 840
is masterly: while the Christians await the second
coming of the Messias whom they have already
recognized in the person of Jesus, the Jewish people
await him for the first time because currently “his
features remain hidden,” he is still not known to them
and they are in a state of ignorance. Thus Christians
and Jews “tend toward similar goals”; even though
they believe in different things, they converge
toward the same goal. In other words, the Jews are
also currently waiting for Christ without knowing it;
consequently, they are also saved, but–unlike the rest
of common mortals–by doing without the Church, the
society of those who have already recognized Him.
The ingeniousness is only apparent.
First, Jesus made Himself known universally, and
He began to do so in the midst of the Jewish people
to whom the Messias had first been promised: That is
why the shepherds of Bethlehem and the first Apostles
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

and disciples were all Jews without exception; it was
in the midst of His own people that Jesus met with the
first acceptances as well as the first refusals.
Secondly, it does not seem fair to the Jews to
qualify them as ignorant about this point. They know
very well the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, and
it is precisely for that reason that they refuse to descry
in Him the traits of the Messias. This is because,
quite simply, the historical figure of Jesus does not
correspond to the messianic canons proper to the
Judaism of today nor to those of official Judaism two
thousand years ago.
From an historical view point, there is no people
in the world that has been so closely in contact with
Christ and Christianity over the last two thousand
years as the Jewish people. This contact has allowed
the Jews a sufficiently developed knowledge of
Jesus and of Catholicism, and has given them the
opportunity to elaborate and expound conscious
motivations for non-adherence to Jesus Christ.
There could be an unconscious expectation of
Christ where real ignorance exists (something like
what occurs in Virgil’s famous Eclogue IV), but there
cannot be expectation of someone where there subsists an
explicit refusal of that person. The root of the error is
logical even before being theological. For example,
it can happen that a girl is waiting for the ideal man
of her life whom she does not yet know and whom
she hopes to meet one day; but it is unthinkable that
she should both await and reject the same man (who
obviously is known, in order to be rejected).
Finally, to describe the Jews as ignorant risks
betraying a touch of hypocrisy for a simple reason:
When someone’s ignorance is recognized, the moral
duty remains to instruct that person in the thing of
which he is ignorant, especially if the knowledge
lacking is fairly important. If churchmen today were
sincere and consistent, they would do all they could
to try to evangelize and convert those who do not
yet know Christ, whosoever they might be, in order
to lead them to His Church. Contrariwise, on the
one hand they characterize the Jews as ignorant,
and on the other they declare that “there is not, in
the strongest terms, any change in the attitude the
Catholic Church has developed toward Jews, above
all beginning with the Second Vatican Council,” and
“it is not the intention of the Catholic Church to
operate actively for the conversion of Jews” (Cardinal
Bagnasco, September 22, 2009, Zenit.org).
All the related affirmations, and the contradictions
linked to them, are instruments serving to justify
the new theology and the new attitude inherent to
the vexed question. We shall only cite one, which is

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

quoted by the text we have examined. It is question
of the famous Good Friday prayer contained in
the Missal of Paul VI: for the Jews, conversion to
Catholicism is not sought, but rather progress in
fidelity to a covenant (the old one) which Catholic
doctrine considers to have ended since the day the
Church, the new Israel, was born: “That they may
continue to grow in the love of his name and in
faithfulness to his covenant.” Clearly, the prayer
makes reference to the covenant to which the Jews
lay claim today.
It may seem to be a quibble, but such a view is
tantamount to recognition that the Synagogue has
a legitimate, complete, and efficacious mission for
the salvation of souls: precisely what churchmen do
not recognize the Society of St. Pius X to have. This
paradox perfectly explains the unease the Jewish
world experiences over the eventuality of discussing
some parts of Vatican II to which it shows itself very
attached; this surprising attachment of the Jewish
world to the teachings of an Ecumenical Council has
no precedent in the Church’s history.
To return to paragraph 840, the theory of
“convergent bimessianism”–if we may call it thus–is
a theological alteration that links together and makes
coincide a thing and its negation, being and nonbeing, Christ and the Negation of Christ.
Assuredly, the Jewish people will also recognize
Jesus at the end of time, but this will happen thanks
to a genuine conversion and not to an unconsciously
convergent dynamism toward Christ already at work:
this dynamism only exists in the minds of those who
desire an idealist unity that no longer adheres to the
Truth, the Gospel, or Reality.
The theory of “convergent bimessianism”
is absurd and does not correspond to any

26

$2.00 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.

SHIPPING & HANDLING

5-10 days

2-4 days

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

USA

For eign

$4.00
$6.00
FREE

25% of
subtotal

Up to $50.00
$8.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $10.00
Over $100.00
$8.00

FLAT FEE!

($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

authentically Catholic thought, nor authentically
Jewish thought, nor authentically logical thought.
It cannot function as a solid platform for a
serious and dispassionate confrontation with
Judaism. To present it as a Catholic doctrine
does not seem to us to be fair to Catholics or
Jews or, above all, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Don David Pagliarani
Translated from the Courrier de Rome, April 2010, pp. 1-6. The article was first
published in La Tradizione Cattolica, No. 1, 2010.

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

27
F r .

A l v a r o

C a l d e r o n

Like Lambs
in the Midst
of Wolves
Liberalism and the Second Vatican Council

From the political standpoint, the liberal divorce occurring
between the Church and States that were once Catholic
is usually considered the liberation from Jesus Christ’s
easy yoke. But we must go to the ecclesiastical side to
comprehend the liberalism that triumphed in the latest
Council. This shift in outlook serves for understanding and
forgiving it, at least a little.
We speak of divorce because the union between political and ecclesiastical power, which
is more properly compared to the union between body and soul, can also be likened to the
union in matrimony. Political power would fulfill functions similar to a mother’s, tending to
the immediate needs of the interior of the home. Ecclesiastical power would fulfill the father’s
functions, mindful of the family’s ultimate purpose.
But this has always been a difficult matrimony since the pope—who is like the father of the
entire Church as the bishops are for each diocese—has the spiritual powers of truth and grace.
Meanwhile the chief of state—the mother—holds the temporal power of money and weapons. In
a Catholic nation, spiritual power is so effective that there were popes who came to destitute
great monarchs. But political power is very effective over the flesh and continues in force even
if the faith is extinguished. St. John the Baptist lost his head for telling Herod that it wasn’t
lawful for him to take his brother’s wife, and Our Lord was crucified. The list of martyrs among
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

28

“Quo vadis, Domine?”
(oil painting by Annibale Carraci)

the first several popes is impressive. No, it was
never easy to do good to political leaders or to lend
stability to their states. Jesus Christ already warned
his Apostles, “I send you like sheep in the midst of
wolves. Be, therefore, wise as serpents, and guileless
as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you
up to councils, and scourge you in their synagogues.
You will be brought before governors and kings for
my sake, for a witness to them and to the Gentiles”
(Mt. 10:16-18). The strength of the medieval Catholic
kingdoms, united in Christianity under the spiritual
authority of the popes, was achieved by blood and
preserved through tears.
Don’t ask me why—although it is the main issue—
but the history of liberal divorce begins in the 14th
century. On November 18, 1302, Boniface VIII was
the last pope to demand of sovereigns the duty of
obedience to the Church through the Bull Unam
Sanctam. But the King of France, Philip the Fair,
instead of kissing the hand that threatened him with
excommunication, sent his troops and took the Pope
prisoner, who died from indignation a month later.
From then on a kind of separation began under the
same roof. The wife—the States—no longer wanted to
obey out of respect for authority, but only when it
suited her.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

But kings forgot that the well-being of their own
authority was based on obedience to the Church.
Two centuries later this legal divorce was formalized
in half of Christianity through the Protestant
Reformation, when many rulers took their people
out of the Church. In this way they not only stopped
supporting the influence of the Church’s authority
over their subjects, indirectly but effectively at any
rate, but they could also place the new religious
leaders at their service. Let two more centuries go
by and the children of this divorce would then cut
off Daddy’s and Mommy’s heads. The expression is
no longer metaphorical but rather literal. With the
French Revolution, heads of kings and priests would
fall, and anonymous step-mothers would begin to
govern the house, whose faces nobody could see
anymore.
But let us backtrack. We left a wife—the States—
who no longer obeyed, except as it suited her. What
about the husband? Today, unfortunately, many
of my readers will know from experience that the
husband is going to debate between temptation and
duty: the duty to tolerate this humiliating situation
in silence for the unity of the family, while waiting
for better times. The temptation is to abandon any
attempt of an understanding, dividing duties in regard
to offspring and thus recovering the freedom of the
single state. “If the agreement were good, at least
there would be peace.” This is the story of what has
happened. For 500 years popes kept silence in longsuffering, but temptation gnawed at them until they
fell in Vatican II.
The temptation came from the advisors. Since
the marriage, as we have said, was very difficult
from the beginning, there were always theologians
who advised the complete separation of political and
ecclesiastical operations, feeling they would thus
achieve the good of peace. His advisors were the ones
who pressured St. Peter to abandon Rome during
Nero’s persecution: “Let the emperor manage his
empire and let the Holy Father save his life in order
to govern ecclesiastical things in peace.” But he had
gone barely a few steps from the walls of the Eternal
City when St. Peter saw Jesus Christ walking in the
opposite direction carrying the Cross. “Quo vadis,
Domine? Where are you going, Lord?” “I am going
to Rome to be crucified again.” (A little chapel on
the Appian Way commemorates that encounter.) No,
St. Peter should not abandon the emperor to his own
devices. He should die for him at his own hands. And
250 years later—how few in historical time—one of
Nero’s successors was baptized by a successor of St.
Peter.
But the temptation was always there and bad
advice was never lacking. It became more persistent
in the 14th century with Boniface’s misfortune and
more sophisticated through theological progress. The
preferred argument that began to flourish then was

29
as follows: “The pope should seek the supernatural
end, that is, the eternal salvation of souls. And to that
end he should use theology and spiritual means such
as prayer and the sacraments. Meanwhile seeking the
natural end belongs to kings, that is, the temporal
well-being of the political society. To that end they
should use philosophy and material means.” What
good does this division of ends offer? It seemed
to outline two realms where both ecclesiastics and
politicians could move without bothering each other
or being bothered. The pope was still the master
of the theological realm, so that neither kings nor
emperors could stick their noses into his councils and
definitions as had formerly happened. And kings were
left to manage the philosophical realm, in light of their
natural reason, so they no longer had to consult the
pope’s theological Magisterium about anything. If they
wanted to be saved, let them attend the theologians’
school. But when they wanted to govern, let them
meditate on Aristotle’s Politics.
Dante, who put Boniface in hell in his Divine
Comedy and didn’t let many pages go by without
mistreating him, echoed this agreement in his treatise
On Monarchy. But he was not the first to propose it
and wouldn’t be the last; nor was he a theologian
or advisor to the popes. The problem was that, fed
up with conflicts with rulers who called themselves
Catholic but were less so by the minute, important
theologians fell into the temptation of applying
Solomon’s solution: divide the child (the Catholic
States) in half and give the soul to the pope (the
ecclesiastics) and the body to the mother (the
politicians). The great Dominican humanist Francis of
Vitoria, who converted from Nominalism to Thomism,
taught this solution to the great Jesuit theologian
Francis Suarez, who from a Thomist turned into a
Suarezian.
How I would prefer not to speak ill of them, who
were worthy ecclesiastics in many ways! But I shall
in this concept, which has been the cause of much
damage. Since the Jesuits became the popes’ defenders
and advisors during the struggle for modern times, this
evil advice has resounded in pontifical ears for a long
time: “Holy Father, don’t go dogmatizing on political
matters. It’s up to rulers to be guided by natural
reason. Don’t try to get them to pursue heretics or
organize crusades against communism or Islam. At
the most, give them a little reasonable advice and they
will let us ecclesiastics live in peace.”
Leo XIII was the first pope after Boniface VIII
who dared address politicians to remind them of
their duty. Then came the above-mentioned advice,
although only in what was legitimate: he spoke
using apologetics, arguing from the natural order
to encourage them to return to the Church of Jesus
Christ. Pius XI recalled the basic political truth: that
Jesus Christ is King not only of the spiritual order—as
Vitoria and Suarez had sustained in their time—but

also of the temporal order. He did it through an
encyclical addressed not to politicians but to faithful
Catholics, with the purpose of instituting the Feast of
Christ the King. Didn’t these attitudes involve some
weakness? Shouldn’t they have reminded rulers that,
just as popes were the Vicars of Christ in the spiritual
order, rulers were His Vicars in the temporal order?
That they should govern not only as philosophers, but
also as Christians, according to Christ and for Christ?
The times were already very evil and prudence was
necessary: “I send you like sheep in the midst of
wolves. Be, therefore, wise as serpents, and guileless
as doves.” The teaching of these popes was pure and
true, although partial, and it is not up to us to judge.
But—and we finally reach our topic—the liberal
temptation had deeply infected the fabric of the
Church, and too many theologians and bishops had
taken those errors to their origins. After a complex
situation created by the condemnation of the “Action
Française”1 (French Action), the liberal Catholic
doctrine predominated in the highly intellectual
church in France, whose spokesman was Maritain with
his Integral Humanism. In the very practical church
in the United States the same liberal agreement was
imposed by the force of events.2 French intelligentsia,
Yankee practicality and—I feel I ought to add—the
tenacity of the German church, that had co-existed
with heresy for too long, ended up imposing on the
latest Council the already ancient agreement that
promised peace between the Church and the new
political order that was rising behind the mask of
democracy.

Pope Boniface VIII
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

30
The conciliar version of liberalism comes
enveloped in a fog of subjectivism proper to modern
thought. It is presented as just another element in
the huge package of a “new humanism,” which is
made up of a jumble of subtle sophisms having the
appearance of a solid system that I have tried to
uncover in a new little book about to come out.3 But
in essence it is the same agreement that has been
proposed since the Renaissance. They have extracted
some of its consequences, but not the final ones.
The final ones will be coming out all by themselves.
Therefore, Benedict XVI is partially correct in
maintaining that the Council is in continuity with
tradition. It is in continuity with a tradition of middleof-the-road liberalism. That is, with a toned-down
liberalism that already has been in existence for
several centuries.
The essence of the agreement is that rulers and
everyone who belongs to the political realm must
necessarily move in the light of natural reason alone,
being incompetent on issues of faith and religion.
Therefore—a marvelous conclusion!—they should not
declare themselves atheists, nor should they persecute
the Church, which would already mean taking a stand
on the religious issue. Moreover, a good philosopher
such as Kant knows there are things that transcend
the reach of natural reason alone, which should leave
room for faith. And so, the State should not persecute
any religion, but rather give all of them a place to
make progress, by proclaiming the law of “religious
freedom.” If the State is necessarily a philosopher
and intrinsically hindered from believing in Jesus
Christ, the consequence that the Council brings forth
is coherent.
But the intention of my article was not to accuse
the Council or to explain it sufficiently—I suggest my
little book for that—but rather to forgive it. I think
the main reason that the Council itself has welcomed
the liberal agreement, thus denying Jesus Christ
(not to use euphemisms), was not the desire for
worldly power that moved Caiaphas, or Herod’s lazy
sensuality, or Judas’ desire for thirty pieces of silver,
although there could have been a little of all the
above. I think it was fear—the fear that moved Peter
to deny his Master three times, in spite of believing in
Him and loving Him.
They have been sent like lambs in the midst of
wolves, and fear has made them lose the simplicity
of doves to attempt to maintain the guile of serpents.
The dove is the Holy Ghost and we already know
who the serpent is. Peter, who was alarmed at the
maid-servant’s accusation, after Pentecost bore
the indignation of the synagogue and the Roman
emperor, was scourged, imprisoned and finally
crucified up-side down. But since Boniface’s
misfortune, fear has been growing again.
Seated at my desk in the tranquility of the
seminary, it is easy to see that liberalism is directly
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

opposed to the Faith and that there will be no wellbeing for the Church and for States until Christ the
King is preached once more. But the first bishop who,
in the name of Jesus Christ, tells the President what is
not lawful for him to do, from then on must be careful
when crossing the street or drinking a cup of tea. Who
dares repeat the story of Cardinal Mindszenty? What
would happen today if Benedict XVI would remind
the Jews of the problem they have concerning the
Messiah? We have a very recent example among us.
The fear of martyrdom! I think this is the main
reason for conciliar liberalism. But Our Lord spoke
clearly to his Apostles, “No servant is greater than
his master. If they have persecuted me, they will
persecute you also” (St. John 15:20). The martyr’s
fortitude is a gift of the Holy Ghost, which Jesus
Christ secures for us through the sacrament of
Confirmation. If anyone does not have the courage
for it, I will not be the one to judge him. But then
let him not receive the episcopate, since the main
condition the Church requires of the bishop is to give
his life for the flock: “The good shepherd lays down
his life for his sheep” ( Jn. 10:11). The world abhors
Jesus Christ: “If the world hates you, know that it has
hated me before you” ( Jn. 15:18), and the only way to
overcome that is to be willing to ascend the cross with
Him. A worse terror awaits him who dares not face
the threat of martyrdom, because the world is ruled
by a very cruel prince, whose hate is not extinguished
by concessions.
The Council has proposed a pact of peace to the
masters of this world: “Leave us in peace, while we
declare freedom for every religion, and we will not
move religious passion against you; at the most we
will make a tiny observation based on democratic
grounds.” But the vision of Fatima seems to warn
us that this sin of ecclesiastic cowardliness will be
purified by a worse persecution than what they
wanted to avoid:
Having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at
the foot of the big Cross he [Our Holy Father] was killed by a
group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in
the same way there died one after another the other Bishops,
Priests, Religious men and women, and various lay people
of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the
Cross there were two Angels, each with a crystal aspersorium
in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the
Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making
their way to God.
Rev. Fr. Alvaro Calderón, a native of Argentina, was ordained in 1986 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since then, he has been teaching Dogmatic Theology
at the Society of St. Pius X’s Seminary in Argentina.
Influential right-wing anti-republican pro-monarchic group in early 20thcentury France
2
See Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara, “La americanización de la Iglesia Católica [The
Americanization of the Catholic Church], Jesus Christus, No. 114.
3
Fr. Álvaro Calderón, Prometeo: La religión del hombre. Ensayo de una
hermenéutica del Concilio Váticano II [Prometheus: The religion of man.
An essay on Vatican II hermeneutics.)
1

31
F r .
T h o m a s
J a t z k o w s k i ,
F S S P X

“THE LORD’S
PRAYER”
“Thy Kingdom Come”

Part 4 of 10
1) Introduction
2) Our Father
who art in heaven,
3) hallowed be
Thy name;
4) Thy kingdom come;
5) Thy will be done,
on earth as it is
in heaven!
6) Give us this day
our daily bread
7) and forgive us
our trespasses,
8) as we forgive those
who trespass
against us,
9) and lead us not into
temptation, but
deliver us from evil.
10) Amen.

“Thy kingdom come.” We are all witnesses of rampant
dechristianization, secularization, and open atheism. The kingdom of
Jesus Christ no longer reigns; today it is the absolute freedom of self.
Secularism is endorsed everywhere and must, in its consequence,
lead to atheism as the state religion. Atheist-dominated states
consistently pursue a policy without God. Modern man does not
seek the kingdom of Jesus Christ but instead prestige and power,
and he adores technology. Modern man does not need redemption
because he wants to redeem himself through medicine, technology,
and pleasure; rather than looking to a heavenly paradise and his
salvation, modern man is eagerly occupied in building an earthly
paradise that no longer needs redemption and the sacrifice of the
Cross. But we want to say: “Thy kingdom come!”
Today we witness how the mass media ridicule what is Catholic
and denounce it as mere hypocrisy. For decades, the mass media
have glorified and spread misconceptions and false ideas that
have shaken the foundations of society and family. Not even the
unconditional protection of life bestowed by the Creator from
conception until natural death is sacred. One often can read between
the lines: “Away with the Church!” Thus we should ask all the more
intensely, “Thy kingdom come!” The religious activity of the small
group of remaining Christians is unfortunately often characterized
by a lack of missionary zeal. We once again have to take this request
of the Our Father seriously and transform this world by apostolic
and missionary zeal. Full of concern for the preservation of Christian
Faith and the spread of the kingdom of Jesus Christ in this neo-pagan
world, we can still pray with comforting certainty and hope: “Thy
kingdom come!”
Which Kingdom?
The mission of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth is irreversibly
associated with the kingship of Jesus Christ. Although the
importance of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is quite clear in the New
Testament—it is mentioned in St. Matthew’s Gospel alone nearly
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

32
40 times–it is now popular to argue away this
unpleasant aspect of an authentic, lived Christianity
by referring to outdated political ideas from the
ancient world and the “dark Middle Ages.”
“The kingdom of God is within you” (Lk. 17:21):
This is a very concrete statement and is neither a
metaphor nor a mere apocalyptic expectation to be
fulfilled at the return of Jesus Christ. Again we see
the ideological minimization of the relevance and
importance of the kingdom of God for the future.
We clearly must oppose this: the kingdom of God
has both a present and a future meaning! In the
original Greek, “kingdom” is expressed by basileia
which is “rule of a king”; those are the words of our
Master. Do we have a right to put into His mouth
instead something politically correct in keeping with
the times?
Our Lord and Master uses, in His description
of the kingdom of God, the well-known parable
of the supper in which those who were invited did
not come and others were invited; the parable of
the mustard seed, which is the least of all seeds and
grows to a large tree; the parable of the leaven, of
the field which received good seed and cockle...
Common to all these beautiful parables is the
revelation of the unassuming, yet powerful force of
the kingdom of God that acts in secrecy and silence.
God is working in a mysterious and not humanly
predictable way.
Why Should We Pray for
the Kingdom of God?
Why pray for the coming of the kingdom of
God? Has it not been from eternity, and is God
not omnipotent? Our Lord and Master teaches us
to pray for God’s kingdom because the kingdom
of God exists but is not recognized, accepted, and
loved by all people. Because: “My kingdom,” Jesus
answered Pilate, “is not of this world” ( Jn. 18:36).
Following the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas
there are three aspects in this prayer of the Our
Father (see Comp. Theol. II:9):
1) Exercise of the power of dominion. The
actual practice and application of the law of the
kingdom of God is affected by the refusal of man
to accept the kingdom and serve him faithfully and
willingly. The praying soul asks for the propagation
and acceptance of the kingdom of God.
2) Attainment of eternal salvation. God’s will is
that all men be saved. Because of human freedom
this ideal situation will often not be achieved; with
every sin, the kingdom of God is diminished. Only
in the glory of heaven will the full unity with the
government of God be established.
3) No bondage by sin. Where the kingdom
of God exists, sin has no room. Where sin has
influence, man is enslaved by sin.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Hope for the Kingdom of God
Through progressive secularization, and by
excessive adaptation of the Church, a noticeable loss
of a vibrant and sustainable hope for the kingdom of
God has taken place.
The kingdom of Jesus Christ is not a program
for autonomous and narcissistic individuals; it
always has a social character, i.e., it is founded and
promoted in society. The “members” of the kingdom
of Christ are all placed in the selfless service to the
truth, and the members of the Mystical Body of
Christ are the first servants of God who first have the
common good in mind.
An unbalanced individualization of the
kingdom of God exists sometimes if preaching
and pastoral activity in the Church think and
act only individually. If everything revolved
around a possible individual, in order to comfort
him personally, this would mean a distorted
understanding of sin, as if sin were a mere personal
debt without any impact in the social order. The
members of the Mystical Body of Christ sin through
their personal sins against the whole body of Christ.
In other words: our time, our society, is as good or
as bad as any of us individually. Talk of “bad times”
or “the evil world” often has the tendency to dismiss
the speaker from responsibility for others and
absolve him from any guilt and participation.
The kingdom of God serves not only my
personal and private salvation, but it has a
fundamental and constitutive social dimension
and meaning as well. The kingdom of God is not a
consumer product for our well-being, but rather a
commitment to every child of God to wrestle for its
propagation and to pray for it.
No Sterile, Apocalyptic Bubble
Again and again we encounter an ideologically
motivated shift of the kingdom of God towards the
final coming of the kingdom of God at the end of
time. In particular, a contemporary theology of the
kingdom of God projected the kingdom of God in
a sterile and outdated manner into the other world
and into the future under the pretext of eschatology.
According to this view, this request of the Our
Father is dealing exclusively with the coming of the
kingdom of God at the coming of Christ. It suggests
in other words that we should think of the future
and of the other world, and not of responsibility for
the present here on earth.
This projection of the kingdom of God to a
distant and transcendent future is fatal; the lives of
the children of God today risk being devoid of any
commitment to work for the propagation of Christ’s
kingdom. Souls are not made aware of the kingdom
of God. In this conception, the kingdom of God is
something which we may perhaps expect at some

33
time, but has no importance for our daily life. All
those wonderful parables of the “salt of the earth”
or the “leaven” would be then mere imaginations
without any practical relevance. We spend our
earthly life in a comfortable way and do not care
about spiritual warfare, about the propagation,
strengthening, and victory of Christ’s kingdom.
Whoever speaks about “missionary work” will,
in this perspective, easily become a fanatic and
a fundamentalist. Faith in the true strength and
dynamism of the kingdom of God in this time has
been abandoned.
Missionary Commitment
The risen Lord clearly and unequivocally gave
to the apostles a missionary order: “As the Father
has sent me, I also send you” ( Jn. 20:21); and:
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt.
28:19-20).
The missionary command is a big difficulty for
the post-conciliar Church; it has been demonstrated
to us masterfully how, through humanistic excuses,
one can escape the missionary order of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Practical missionary work has been
converted into practical social work and help for
the Third World; this happened on the principle
that you should not force anybody to accept the
Faith! After all, there is religious freedom. The
word “missionary” has meanwhile mutated into
a politically incorrect taboo. How should nonbelievers decide for or against a religion in the
name of religious freedom if they do not even
know the true faith, if the Church does not even
want to fulfill its missionary commitment? The
Church and the Apostolic See are tirelessly calling
to resume missionary activity, particularly the new
evangelization of Western Civilization, but often
these important calls are without consequences. The
new evangelization of Europe and America and the
(first) evangelization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
are urgently needed given the fact that, in those
countries, two thirds of the population do not know
the true faith!
Suffering and Persevering
for the Kingdom of God
Of course, the children of God, in their zeal for
the kingdom of God, will not have an easy life. St.
Paul the Apostle speaks very impressively of thus
suffering for the kingdom of God: that you may be
counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which
also you suffer” (2 Thess. 1:5). The kingdom of
God does not promise us quick results, reputation,
or authority, but joy is always mixed with sorrow.

Convent of the Pater Noster in Jerusalem

Sustaining and enduring suffering and persecution
for the kingdom of God is a part of it. Thus, on
the one hand, fidelity is revealed in faith; on the
other hand we might realize on the Last Day
that everything depressing and all persecutions
might have fulfilled an important purpose for the
propagation of the kingdom of God.
Let us ask ourselves: How far away are we from
the kingdom of God? Are we concerned in the first
place to come closer to the kingdom of God? Or
are there other things which are more important
to us? If we only have a theoretical knowledge of
the basic truths of faith, we are not yet promoting
the kingdom of God. The knowledge of Catholic
doctrine has to be internalized and lived; knowledge
has to be a practical knowledge in the practice of
everyday life where it is reflected.
What must we do to serve the kingdom of
God? Are we inspired by a missionary zeal for the
kingdom of God? “Seek ye first the kingdom of
God and his justice” (Mt. 6:33) shows us clearly
the nature of a practical call to action with highest
priority. Is Jesus Christ king and ruler over us? A
minimum of religion is not enough!
Those want to interpret the kingdom of God
in an exclusively eschatological way can honestly
forget this request in the Our Father.
To be continued.)
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX, was ordained in 2004, and is currently prior
of St. Teresa of Avila Priory, Hamburg, Germany.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

34
D w y e r

Q u e n t i n

W e d v i c k

A N AUDIENCE
WITH ST. PIUS X

THE VISIT OF JOHN B. DELANY, D.D.,
BISHOP OF M ANCHESTER, NEW H AMPSHIRE
TO POPE ST. PIUS X (NOVEMBER 30, 1904).
This brief historical essay gives an insight into the
man who was St. Pius X. The first-hand account of
an American bishop will be of special interest to
American readers. It also gives some insight into the
Church in early 20th-century America.

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

35
Bishop John Bernard Delany, D.D., (18641906) was appointed to the See of Manchester,
comprising the State of New Hampshire, by Pope
Pius X on April 18, 1904, as its second bishop, and
was consecrated by Archbishop Diomede Falconio,
Apostolic Delegate to the US on September 8, 1904.
One month after his consecration, Bishop Delany
sailed for Europe on a trip to Rome in response
to an invitation of the Holy Father to assist at
the ceremonies of the jubilee, at the tomb of the
apostles, of the 50th anniversary of the definition of
the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. He was
accompanied by his two sisters and his secretary,
Fr. Joseph Anderson (subsequently an auxiliary
bishop of Boston). Arriving in Rome, Bishop Delany
had an appointment with Girolamo Cardinal
Gotti, Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda [now the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], to be
followed by a private audience with the Pope on the
30th of November 19041, 2. What follows are extracts
of his diary2:

first glance. His feature are regular, his forehead
very high and ample, and his little scarlet skull cap
covers a crown of snowy white. He wore a simple
black cassock trimmed with red, and a plain pectoral
cross. He spoke with the gentlest, sweetest voice,
and sat me down beside him on a sofa. He is a man
in whose presence anyone would feel at ease. After
the usual exchange of courtesies, he inquired where
I was stopping in Rome, how long I was to remain,
and proffered to get me an audience with the Holy
Father. I made a few requests, to which he listened
with the greatest consideration and then asked me
to put them in writing. He told me he would be
pleased to see me at any time during my stay. I then
introduced Fr. Anderson, my “secretaire provisor”–as
the cardinal smilingly called him. After a few more
words of good wishes and a pleasant visit, with a
good night and an au revoir, we retired.
And this is the man who, after the Pope, bears
the burden of the universal Church.
May God lighten his load! It were a pity to
break so good, so gentle, so lovable a soul as his.

THE ROME OF
POPE PIUS X, 1904

Audience with the Pope

Bishop Delany Speaks
I had fitted myself out au fait, in Roman
costume; the great broad hat with its green tassels,
such as is worn by bishops (the saturno or cappello
romano3, 6; the little purple skull cap (zucchetto3) worn
under it at the same time; a silk purple feriola or
mantle (the ferraiolo was mandatory for all papal
audiences until 1969 3); cross and all; and I presented
myself at the Propaganda to pay my respects to His
Eminence Cardinal Gotti. I sent in my card and,
after a little delay, was ushered into a beautiful
reception room. There at a table sat a handsome
old gentleman. He wore a red zucchetta and a large
pectoral cross. I advanced towards him, made my
best bow, saluted him as “Your Eminence,” and
began to tell him how pleased and honored I was to
meet him, when the personage in question rose and
prevented me kissing his hand, said in the Queen’s
own English, “Why, man alive, I am only a poor
little bishop like yourself!” It was Bishop Brindle of
Nottingham.
Well, I got out of the predicament as best I could
by telling him he looked as fine and as venerable as
any cardinal.
A few moments after, I was in the presence
of the real cardinal. No mistaking him this time,
so much he resembles his familiar picture. He has
a face ever to be remembered. Intelligence and
benignity are the dominant traits that strike one at

November 30. This is a never-to-be-forgotten
day for us, for this day we have seen the Pope. What
a happy privilege! To come into the presence of the
highest representative of Christ on earth, the very
head and center of the Catholic Church, to talk with
him whom hundreds of millions revere and love, to
touch and kiss his ring, to hear from his lips words
of affection, and to carry away with us his blessing
for ourselves, our friends, and for all those who
asked for a share in his prayers! This was our joy
today.
That is really all there is to tell, but I know
that every detail of the visit will be of surpassing
interest to our friends at home, and so I will give the
particulars of it all.
Courtesy demands that a bishop from a
missionary country such as ours pay his first visit
to the Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda, and the
second visit to the Holy Father. The audience is
arranged by the Maistre di Camera, at present the
affable Mgr. Bisletti, and notice is sent to one’s city
address, usually the day before the one appointed
for the reception. Mine came last evening. In it was
stated that the Holy Father would receive me at
11:30 today and that I would be accompanied by
my secretary and my two sisters. There was a little
flurry of preparation. Etiquette requires ladies to
wear black dresses and a black veil or mantle. We
had many beads, crosses, pictures, to be blessed, and
these had to be got in order. What we were to say,
what we were to do–for it was a private audience
that was accorded us–was a source of preoccupation
all the evening previous. This at last was the end of
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

D w y e r

Q u e n t i n

W e d v i c k

36
our long travel; for this especially had we come; and now the
long-looked-for event was at hand.
The morning was bright and crisp. It was the day of the
opening of the Italian parliament. The streets were filled with
soldiers. The procession looked like a medieval pageant. The
carriages of the officials were rich, and ornamented with gold
trappings; that of the king was drawn by six horses caparisoned
and mounted by out riders in elaborate uniforms. On the
carriage behind rode the footmen, in red, with white wigs and
three-cornered hats. A double file of soldiers lined the streets
from the Quirinal to the Parliament House, and between these,
in a closed carriage, passed the king, bowing right and left.
There was little enthusiasm. Hats were lifted as the king and
queen passed, and that was all. We enjoyed the sight, but it was
not for that we had come. It was to see a greater being that we
were on our road this day.
Arrived at the Vatican, we passed through the various
antechambers. These were rich and beautiful. The Swiss
guards in their multi-colored uniforms and their long halberts,
presented arms as we passed. Pages in red velvet attended
to our wraps, and led the way. In the waiting chamber was a
throne and a dais where the Pope receives in state.
Here were a number of bishops and priests from all parts
of the world. An Irish bishop told me there were waiting with
him a bishop from Norway, one from South Africa, and one
from Patagonia, “and,” he added with his native humor, “the
one from Patagonia isn’t a bit savage, either.” Here, too, were
gathered in picturesque groups members of the Noble Guard,
distinguished by their helmets and great horse-hair plumes;
counts with their court costume of black and gold, and their
decorations of many orders. In a few minutes our turn came.
I was ushered alone into what seemed to be a private study
or library of the Pope. The Holy Father was alone in the great
room, and sat behind a desk near the door. As I entered, he
arose and came toward me. He was all in white, from the white
silk skull cap to the white slippers embroidered with gold. His
face was as white as the cassock he wore, but his eyes beamed
a warm, kindly welcome. Taking my hand in his after I had
kissed it, he led me to a chair beside his own and bade me be
seated. I spoke to him in Latin, told him who I was, that I had
been consecrated on our Lady’s Nativity day, and had come to
thank him for the honor he had conferred upon me in making
me a bishop of the Church, and to assist at the great Feast of
the Immaculate Conception. As I spoke my thanks, he raised
his hand in protestation. I begged his blessing for myself, my
family, my priests and religious, and my people. He forestalled
my petition and said, oh so tenderly and devoutly: “I bless
them all, and all to whom you shall bring my blessing.” He
then asked me how many Catholics there are in my diocese. I
told him, and added that their number is about one-third of the
population.
“You must strive to make the remaining two-thirds
Catholics also,” he said. He asked me the names of the religious
communities in the diocese.
“Are your people good Catholics?” he pursued.
“Good Catholics, Holy Father,” I answered.
“And your priests?” he added.
“Faithful and devoted,” I assured him.
THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Pope St. Pius X

The blazon or description of the
Pope’s coat of arms: Azure, a three
tined anchor in pale above waves
of the sea proper, a six pointed star
or in chief, a chief of Venice: Argent,
a lion passant winged and nimbed
proper, holding in his right paw an
open book with the words “Pax Tibi
Marce Evangelista Meus.”

Bishop Delany

Coat of Arms of Bishop Delany
Blazon: ( description of the arms)
Quarterly: 1 and 4: Argent a man’s
heart girt with a crown of thorns
and distilling drops of blood proper
ensigned with flames also proper
and issuant from them a Latin
cross sable; 2 and 3: Sable three fish
naiant in pale argent

37
“Deo gratias,” he said devoutly.
He asked me my age. [Bishop Delany was 40
years old at this audience.] I told him I thought I
was the youngest bishop in the United States, to
which he replied “Forsitan in tota ecclesia–perhaps in
the entire Church.”
I then asked His Holiness for some special
blessings–for Trinity College, Washington, for the
Carmelite Convent in Boston, for a few devoted
friends of Fr. Anderson, who was with me, and then
asked him to sign his name to his picture. This he
did most graciously, adding a few words of prayer
besides. Instead of using blotting paper, as we do
at home, he used a little box of fine sand, which he
sprinkled on the wet ink.
I then presented him with a bound volume
of The Guidon, our diocesan magazine. I told him
I was its founder, and its editor until my present
appointment. He looked it over with interest, and
exclaimed with a smile when he saw a picture of
himself and the account of his coronation. I showed
him our dear dead Bishop’s picture [Bishop Denis
William Mary Bradley, first Bishop of Manchester,
1884-1903, and Bishop Delany’s mentor], that of the
cathedral and residence, and, as I began again to
ask his blessings, he again forestalled me, saying: “I
bless the editor, the writers, the readers, and I pray
God to prosper the work.”
I then begged our Holy Father to allow me to
present Fr. Anderson and my sisters, who were
waiting without. He said, “Assuredly,” and they
came in. We all knelt. His Holiness arose again,
and, giving his hand to each, said: “I bless you all,
all that you have in your hands, all that you have in
your hearts and in your minds.” Bidding us “Addio!
Addio!” and bowing gently, he then brought our
interview to an end.
Once outside the room, the first expression of all
was–“How pale he looks, how tired, but how kind
and gentle!” What wonder he should look weary
and careworn with the weight he bears and the
responsibility of the Church of the world upon him!
Finis!

Bishop Delany Biography
John Bernard Delany was born on August 9,
1864, in Lowell, Massachusetts, to Thomas and
Catherine Fox Delany. He was educated at Holy
Cross College, Worcester, MA, and the Seminary
of St. Sulpice, in Paris, France. He was ordained
May 23, 1891, by Cardinal Richard, Archbishop of
Paris. Fr. Delany was assigned to pastoral work in
the Diocese of Manchester upon ordination until
mid-1898 when Bishop Bradley appointed him as
Chancellor of the Diocese and as his secretary. Fr.
Delany was also founder-editor of the diocesan

journal The Guidon and remained in these positions
until Bishop Bradley’s death in December 1903.
He was appointed by Pope St. Pius X to be
the second Bishop of the See of Manchester, New
Hampshire, on April 18, 1904, and consecrated by
Archbishop Falconio, Apostolic Delegate to the US
on September 8, 1904. Early in his episcopacy, he
made a visit to Rome and had a private audience
with the future Saint, Pope Pius X, which thrilled
him to no end. He was considered so capable that
great things were expected of him, but it was not to
be as he died of acute appendicitis. An incident from
the time to be noted is that the diocese was split
between two large groups of Irish-American and of
French-Canadian families. Bishop Delany had thus
appointed two personal physicians, one from each
group, though it seems neither one could diagnose
the problem as appendicitis until very late in the
game. Eventually a specialist was called in from
Boston who confirmed the correct diagnosis, but it
was too late as peritonitis had set in. Bishop Delany
died at age 42, on June 11, 1906, with only two years
as Bishop.1, 2, 4
Dwyer Quentin Wedvick, KCN, FSA Scot., was born on April 23, 1940.
He was a soldier, a sometime Captain in the US Army, served in Korea
(1966-67) and Vietnam (1969-71). He pursues his hobby as a student of
heraldry. He is a Roman Catholic and parishioner at Christ the King
Church in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Sources, Notes, and Credits
Bro. Gerard Brassard, A. A., Armorial of the American Hierarchy, Volume
III, The New England States (Worcester: The Stobbs Press, 1955), pp. 24-25
(Anderson) and 78-79 (Delany).
2
The Life and Writings of the Right Reverend John Bernard Delany, D.D.,
G.C.D., ed. (Lowell, Mass.: The Lawless Printing Co, 1911).
3
James-Charles Noonan, Jr., The Visible Church (New York: Viking, 1996);
for cappello romano see p. 327; ferraiolo, p. 313; and zucchetto, p. 325.
4
Msgr. Wilfrid H. Paradis, Upon This Granite (Portsmouth: Peter E. Randall
Publisher, 1998).
5
Wedvick Armorial private papers: 068a, Delany, 20080921.
6
We give thanks and credit to the Rev. Fr. Guy Selvester for his assistance
with his expertise in ecclesiastical and pontifical hats.
7
Artwork for the coat of arms of the Pope and Bishop are renditions by John
Hamilton Gaylor.
8
Photo credit: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII (New York: Robert
Appleton Company, 1911), p. 138.

1

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

Church an

38

Austria: Bishops
Claim That the
Vatican Should
Debate Celibacy
Assembled for a three-day congress around Ascension Thursday,
the Austrian bishops opined that
the Vatican should allow a debate
on priestly celibacy. As cited by
the French Press Agency (AFP), the
Ordinary of Carinthia in the southern part of the country, Bishop
Alois Schwarz, declared that “As
bishops we hear talk about it and we
are telling Rome that we have this
problem.” He also underscored that
this debate should not be ignored
but rather “amplified” in the Catholic Church throughout the world.
Without explicitly mentioning
the pedophilia scandals that are
spattering the Church, the Austrian

bishops called during their meeting for “major reforms” within the
Church, in particular emphasizing
the need to speak about the role
of women. Several days earlier,
in an interview with the daily Die
Presse, the Ordinary of Eisenstadt,
Bishop Paul Iby, had said that he
was in favor of abolishing priestly
celibacy “so as to deal with the lack
of vocations.”
(Source: DICI)

France: Half of
Diocesan Priests
Are Older than 75
According to a statistical study
published by La Croix of May 22,
half of the 14,000 diocesan priests
in France are more than 75 years
old. On average there is one priest

Oberammergau Passion Play
to Be Changed Again?

T

he Oberammergau Passion Play has been performed
since 1634 as a tradition by the inhabitants of the village
of Oberammergau in Bavaria, Germany. The town’s
residents vowed that if God were to spare them from the
effects of a plague ravaging the region, they would perform a
play every ten years thereafter for all time depicting the life
and death of Jesus. The play was first performed in 1634. The
most recent performances took place in 2000 and the next
will be in 2010.
The play has often been criticized for its alleged anti-Semitism.
Abe Foxman said: “If it’s about a crucifixion in which the Jews
kill Christ, you can never clean it up enough.” Consequently, in
2000, the biblical line, “His blood be upon us and our children”
(from Matthew 27:25) was suppressed.
This year, again, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is trying
to push for changes in the script of the play. They announced
a “major study” of the Play by “leading scholars on ChristianJewish relations.” The study was instituted by the ADL and
the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations (CCJR),
and was supported by the American Jewish Committee, B’nai
B’rith International, and the National Council of Synagogues.
(Source: The Remnant)

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

for every 5,200 inhabitants, but
certain dioceses are already in
the position of mission dioceses,
such as St. Denis, in the Parisian
region, where there is only one
priest for more than 20,000 inhabitants. The number of annual ordinations recedes each year: only 89
new priests in 2004. By contrast,
the number of permanent deacons
and foreign priests increases, thus
in Pontoise, 62 diocesan priests
are assisted by 51 foreign (mainly
Polish and African) priests.
(Source: DICI)

Quebec: Secularization Continues
“Not a week goes by without
talk of closing and selling churches
or of demolishing convents,” claims
Luc Noppen, a specialist in urban

and World
patrimony at the University of
Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) and
author of several works on the subject.
The latest religious edifice to
have been sold is the imposing
Monastery of the Precious Blood,
at Trois-Rivières, which will be
transformed into a residential build-

ing by a private company. In the
sale of their convent, the Sisters of
the Precious Blood did not require
any particular clause as is often the
case for the sale of a church or a
monastery. Luc Noppen is hardly
surprised: if ten years ago the sale of
a church was exceptional, “today it
has become a part of our everyday

39

life.” Jocelyn Groulx, director of the
Council of Religious Patrimony of
Quebec, points out for his part that
every year about twenty churches
are closed in Quebec, “for lack
of faithful and money to maintain
them, while the priests are all in
their seventies.”

continued on p. 42

A Film Shows the Essential Role
of Pope Pius XII in Rome in 1943

O

n the evening of April 9, in
Castel Gandolfo, Benedict XVI
attended the first screening
of the film on Pius XII entitled Sotto il
Cielo di Roma (Beneath the Roman sky),
“which depicts the essential role played
by Pius XII in protecting Rome and many
persecuted people between 1943 and
1944.”This sort of art, the Pope declared,
has “particular value especially for the
younger generations. Films like this one
can be useful and stimulating and can help
someone who has studied certain events
in school, or perhaps has heard of them,
to become acquainted with a period that
is not so distant in time, even though the
never-ending stream of events in recent
history and a fragmented culture may
cause some to forget them.”
At the end of the screening, the Holy
Father underscored the essential role of
Pius XII, “the pope who, like a father for
all, presided in charity in Rome and in
the world, particularly during the difficult
period of the Second World War.” Pius XII,
“the pope of our youth…, knew how to
speak to the people of his time, showing
the way of truth by his teaching,” Benedict
XVI added, speaking to members of the
Secretariat of State and representatives
from the Italian television network RAI,
which produced the film. In conclusion
he called Pope Pius XII a “great master
of faith, hope, and charity,” and noted
that “with great wisdom he was able to
orient the Church toward the horizon
of the third millennium.”

Released in Italy, Sotto il Cielo di Roma
takes place in Rome during World War
II, under the Nazi occupation, when
10,000 Jews had taken refuge in the
churches and convents of Rome after
the 1943 round-up in the ghetto of the
Italian capital.
On March 25, theVatican announced the
online publication of official documents
dating back to World War II, during the
pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958).Thus
thousands of pages are now available at
the official website, www.vatican.va, for
the express purpose of contributing to
“research and information on the history
and activities of the Holy See,” since the
position of the pope at that time is the
subject of controversy. A note from the
Press Office of the Holy See translated
into six languages explains that “these
texts represent a documentary resource
of inestimable value that is now at the
disposal of scholars and all interested
persons, free of charge. It is a great
contribution to research and information
on the history and activities of the Holy
See.”
Accessible until now in printed form,
these thousands of documents in Latin,
French, or Italian can now be found
on the website of the Holy See in the
“Resource Library” section; they can
also be accessed from the home page
of the website under the heading of Acta
Sanctae Sedis. Furthermore the Vatican
website recommends the 12 volumes
of the Actes et documents du Saint-Siège

relatifs à la Seconde Guerre mondiale [Acts
and documents of the Holy See relating
to the Second World War], which were
collected from the secretVatican archives
and edited by four Jesuits: Frs. Pierre
Blet, Angelo Martini, Robert Graham
and Burkhart Schneider at the request
of Paul VI (1963-1978).The volumes had
been published serially between 1965
and 1981.
The decision to post these materials
on the Internet, which was deliberately
publicized by the Vatican, occurs at a
time when some Jewish leaders are
continuing to demand that the Holy See
open its archives from the period of the
pontificate of Pius XII, after the decision
of Benedict XVI last December to allow
the beatification of his predecessor to
advance by acknowledging his “heroic
virtues.”
(Source: DICI)
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

F R .

40

Is it permissible to make copies of
CDs and DVDs that are subject to
copyright?

p e t e r

QUESTIONS AN

The Church has always defended the right of
private ownership, as guaranteed by the natural
life, and entirely necessary for the common good
of society. This right does not only include material
objects, commonly known as private property,
but also includes such spiritual things as a man’s
reputation. It consequently also includes the fruit
of one’s invention, hard work, creativity, such as
books, music, and manuscripts at least before they
have been made public. It is quite simply theft to
take and copy such items without the authorization
of the author, who has ownership over them.
However, the usual difficulty arises over such
books, articles, conferences, music, and movies
that have already been made public. The common
opinion of the theologians is that in the natural law
they still remain subject to private ownership, and
that consequently they cannot be simply pirated.
However, it would be contrary to the common good
if they would remain perpetually subject to private
ownership and control. Positive civil law recognizes
this and admits the existence of copyright laws
that forbid copying of such articles, music, movies
and the like without the requisite authorization
of the person who owns the copyright. However,
for the common good there is a limitation on the
duration of a copyright if it is not renewed, after
which time the intellectual work enters the public
domain. These laws are just and consequently bind
in conscience, so that a person who deliberately
infringes them commits a sin against justice which is
either mortal or venial, depending on the gravity of
the matter.
This being said, the permission of the copyright
owner can be presumed if the copy is for a small
item and for only a single copy or a small number
of copies, which copies will not deprive the owner
of any significant income. In such a case, it would
not be reasonable for him to object. Thus it is
permissible to photocopy one or several pages of a
book that is under copyright and still in print, but
it is not permissible to photocopy the entire book,
thus depriving the bookseller of the sale of a book.
In like manner it is permissible to copy one or other
song, or a part of a program or CD or DVD. It is
not, however, permissible to copy entire CDs or
complete DVDs that are under copyright and still
available for purchase without authorization of the
owner. In general it would only be light matter
and a venial sin, but to do it in large quantity and

make a business of it would certainly be a grievous
sin as well as a criminal act. It would be different,
however, if the items were already in the public
domain or if the copyright owner’s intention was
to allow some limited access to this copyrighted
material.
The downloading of programs, music, and
material from the Internet needs to be considered
according to the intentions of the owner of the
website. In general, it can be presumed that if
the material is put up on the Internet without any
restriction and by a person who has a right to
the material, then he is by the very fact making
it publicly available. In general, it is permissible
to download and use such information, since it
can easily be limited by passwords, credit card
requirements, and the like so that unauthorized
persons cannot access it. Consequently, if the
website does not expressly forbid copying the music,
articles, and other items, then it can be copied
without scruple.

Q

What are we to think
of independent priests?

Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic
Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of
Holy Orders. The first reason for this is that only
the bishop receives the fullness of the power of holy
orders, so that a priest’s exercise of this power is
necessarily limited. Furthermore, the exercise of the
power of holy orders, being a power of the mystical
body of Christ, is necessarily limited by the power
of government, or jurisdiction, given to the Church’s
hierarchy. It is by jurisdiction that the Church is
bound into one visible body. It is for this reason that
a priest is forbidden to exercise his power of holy
orders unless he has received “faculties,” namely
the authority to do so from his religious superior or
his ordinary. To deny this is to deny the Church’s
hierarchical structure and to reduce it to the level of
a Protestant sect.
From the earliest ages of the Church,
consequently, clerics were not to be ordained
except for service in a definite territory or diocese.
Unattached clerics were called headless (“acephali ”)
and were forbidden to exercise the sacred ministry.
During the Middle Ages the abuse of clerics
unattached to a bishop or to a superior developed,
with considerable scandal and detriment to the
Church. Hence the Council of Trent (Session XXIII,
Chapter XVI; July 15, 1563) decreed

A

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

R

that no one shall in the future be ordained who is not
assigned to that church or pious place for the need or

e r

R .

s c o t t

41

AND ANSWERS
utility of which he is promoted, where he may discharge
his duties and not wander about without any fi xed
abode.

This is called the title of ordination, still strictly
required to this very day. The holy Council
continues to determine what shall be the
consequence if a priest abandons that title, namely
his bishop or his superior, to go it alone:
But if he shall desert that place without consulting the
bishop, he shall be forbidden the exercise of the sacred
orders. Furthermore, no cleric who is a stranger shall,
without commendatory letters from his Ordinary, be
admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries
and to administer the sacraments.

A priest’s submission to his bishop or to his
religious superior, called in both cases his ordinary,
since he has ordinary jurisdiction over him,
remains strictly obligatory in canon law. It is called
incardination. It is contained in the 1917 Code of
Canon Law, Canon 111, §1 which states: “Every
cleric must be incardinated in a diocese or religious
community, so that unattached clerics are in no
way to be accepted.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law
repeats the same (Can. 265).
Before Vatican II, this principle was everywhere
accepted. A priest who left his diocese or religious
community knew full well that he could not preach,
administer the sacraments (outside of danger of
death), or publicly celebrate Mass until such time
as he found a new religious superior or bishop to
incardinate him and to give him the authority to
do so. The breakdown of the Church’s authority
structure in the wake of Vatican II has caused quite
some confusion on this issue.
There were many older priests who were
unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared
suspended or even excommunicated. Such
sentences, being manifestly unjust, were canonically
null and void. Consequently, such traditional priests
continued, rightly, their pastoral administration
of the sacraments and the celebration of Mass. In
justice they retained their incardination, whether
it be in their diocese from which they had been
unjustly excluded, or likewise in their religious
community to whose rule they alone remained
attached. In case of need the Church supplied
jurisdiction and they administered the sacraments
validly and licitly. However, most importantly the
“independence” of such priests was purely apparent,
due to the crisis of authority and their rejection by
their own superiors. They remained attached for life
to their diocese or religious community. However,
most of these older priests have passed to their

eternal reward, and few traditional priests remain in
this situation.
Entirely different is the situation of the new
generation of “independent” priests, who have been
ordained by rogue bishops such as sedevacantists
and Old Catholics without any canonical attachment
at all. They set up their chapels where they can
find a few faithful and set up their churches in
the same way that a Protestant pastor would
gather a congregation around him. They are in
no way attached to the Church’s hierarchy. It is
consequently forbidden for them to celebrate Mass
or administer the sacraments, and likewise for the
faithful to assist at their Masses, or to receive the
sacraments from them, except in case of danger of
death.
Many such priests allege as the justification
for their behavior the crisis in the Church, and
certainly with some degree of credibility. However,
the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a
justification for bypassing the entire authority
structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by
doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure
even more. Here it is a question of the divine
institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ
Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as
distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the
Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense
with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did
not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates
of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is
impossible, being directly opposed to the words of
God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are
nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of
the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to
set up their own congregation as if it were a private
business.
Some folks will respond to this by saying that
given the fact that there are no traditional dioceses,
future priests and the faithful have no choice but
to choose the independent, acephalous, unattached
option. God would never reduce the Church to such
limits that would deny her very nature, and even in
these desperate circumstances has provided religious
communities and clerical congregations, correctly
and canonically established, with superiors who are
ordinaries (at least for their members), to provide
for the spiritual necessities of the faithful. These are
such communities as the Society of St. Pius X and
the associated Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine,
and many other communities world wide. All are
just as attached to the holy virtue of obedience
upon which the Catholic Church is built as they are
continued on p. 40
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

42

continued from p. 41

opposed to the horrible illusion of an “independent”
priesthood.
Consequently, the faithful have always the right
to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties,
or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or
a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many
years in a religious community or diocese, who is
persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be
any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly
constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius
X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a
question, but consider that the faithful have the right
to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his
superior and his community, through which he is
attached to the Church.
However, there are some priests who will refuse
to answer the question, and who will be indignant that
it is even asked. The faithful are forbidden to attend
the Masses of such priests. These are the priests, usu-

ally Feeneyites, Sedevacantists, or Old Catholics, who
have no attachment to the Catholic Church at all, who
are either without superior or bishop, or who have as
their “bishop” a non-Catholic, schismatic, sedevacantist
bishop who himself has no attachment to the Catholic
Church. They will make every effort to compare their
false bishops (if they have any) to the Society’s bishops. However, the difference is manifest. The Society’s
bishops have their attachment to the Church through
the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established
community of which they are but auxiliary bishops,
and through which they receive their entire authority
to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy
orders.
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.

Church and World
In Roberval, in the administrative region of Saguenay-Lac-SaintJean, the church of St. John de
Brebeuf, closed since October 26,
2008, will also be transformed into
a residential building. Eleven “condominiums” will be constructed
there during the next few months.
The transformation of this neogothic edifice will cost about one
million Canadian dollars. The real
estate developers have promised to
“respect the religious mark of the
place”… The church, constructed
in 1930, was placed under the
patronage of the Canadian martyrs–of whom Fr. John de Brebeuf is
one–canonized June 29, 1930.
At present there are still some
3,000 churches and a thousand
convents in Quebec, the heritage
of a Catholic past that was once
the pride of the inhabitants of the
Belle Province. These inhabitants,
however, are neglecting their heritage more and more year after year,
especially since the “Quiet Revolution” of the sixties, which was
marked by a separation of the State
and the Catholic Church, which
was once present in all the spheres
of society.
(Source: DICI)

THE ANGELUS • August 2010 www.angeluspress.org

continued from p. 39

Italy: The Body of
Padre Pio Translated

O

n April 19, the body of Padre Pio
de Pietrelcina (1887-1968) was
translated from the crypt of the
sanctuary of San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, to
the lower church, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, built
by the architect Renzo Piano.The translation,
authorized by the Roman Congregation for
the Causes of the Saints, took place on the
fifth anniversary of Benedict XVI’s election to
the papacy and the opening of the provincial
chapter of the Capuchins, which elected its
new superior.
The new church of pilgrimage in honor of
Pio da Pietrelcina, in service since 2004, is
the second largest religious building in Italy,
after St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Fr. Aldo Broccato, Provincial of the Capuchins,
specified at the time of the dedication of the church six years ago that no relic
had been deposited in the altar. The new vault was blessed on June 21, 2009, by
Pope Benedict XVI. Msgr. Michele Castoro, Archbishop of Manfredonia-ViesteSan Giovanni Rotondo, consecrated the altar before the Mass was celebrated
there on April 19.
At the time of the exposition of the body of Padre Pio, on the occasion of
the 40th anniversary of his death, a great controversy had taken place on this
subject. Many members of the Association of the Friends of Padre Pio had
strongly protested against the translation of his mortal remains into this building.
For them, it would be to ignore the will of the Capuchin who wished to rest
in the little church of Santa Maria delle Grazie.
(Source: DICI)

TheLastWord

43
Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, FSSPX

Pope Benedict XVI’s Way of the Cross
After hunting for another, we
can find no better comparison for
the hue and cry being raised against
this old man than the Passion of our
Lord Jesus Christ. The whole world
seems to be in league against him to
insult him, to sign his media deathwarrant, and to unleash against
him such rage that no one knows
exactly where it will end. We would
like to find a different comparison
than the Passion of Christ, which is
not entirely satisfying because the
world’s rejoicing when interreligious
gestures are made or when the death
of the Catholic State is justified by a
papal speech ill suit the person of our
Lord. Yet, what else can we choose?
If we are the heart-stricken spectators of this hot pursuit which none
of Benedict XVI’s three predecessors had to undergo, we should
inquire as to the further reasons for
such decided verdicts. They can be
found in the judgments made by
the same adulators of this world: to
indict the first five years of the current pontificate, the media cites the
measures of restoration, from the
freeing of the traditional Mass to
the lifting of the official “censures”
laid on the bishops of the Society
of St. Pius X, two measures which,
in their eyes, favored the defenders of uncompromising faith and
morals. Even more particularly, they
reproach the Sovereign Pontiff for
his firm and repeated condemnation
of abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions–the sorry standards
that have become the prerogatives
of those who desire to build a society
without God.
Even without many illusions
about the difficulties that awaited
him five years ago when he was
elected pope, Benedict XVI probably did not imagine that his pontificate would be such a way of the
cross. Without enjoying the same

aura as his predecessor, he might
have lived a few years on the benefits of his prestige. Had he wanted
to, it would not have been difficult
for him to find a few supplementary
concessions to make to modernity
and to the great of this world so as
not to risk being the one who would
become their punching bag. Nevertheless, this man is certainly not
moved by the desire to please his
fellow-men. If he did not ask to be
pope, he wants to do his duty whatever it may cost.
Unfortunately, he received the
formation received by all the priests
of his generation during a particularly troubled period. It is in truth
very regrettable that such a man
drank at poisoned philosophical and
theological sources–those of Karl
Rahner or Hans Urs von Balthasar–
which finally shaped the depths of
his mind. Therefore one cannot but
be nonplussed by this pope, who
sometimes admirably overcomes
the squalls of a hateful world against
the Church and yet who sometimes
wins the applause of the same intelligentsia because his gestures caress
the designs of a world in search of
solidarity without God. However,
trial and woe are sometimes our
best friends for bringing us back to
the light of truth, and we should not
despair of his spiritual progress.
From this crisis within the crisis
a greater good should emerge. Never
in man’s memory has the Vicar of
Christ been so mistreated and ridiculed in his lifetime and this simply
because he was defending Catholic morality. One would have to go
back to the figure of Pius XII, the
last pope from before the Council, to
find such an outcry against a Sovereign Pontiff and what he represents.
The old dream of aggiornamento, of
adaptation to a world that should
be tamed when it hates us, is mani-

Fr. Régis de Cacqueray

festly breaking down. We ought to
redouble our prayers that the authorities of the Church might comprehend that the periodic rejoicings of
a God-hating world when they seem
to please it are a disquieting anomaly
and even contrary to the nature of
the Church.
Today we remain banished by
the Church. But the Pope himself
finds himself as it were mysteriously transported into the exiles’
camp. Undoubtedly, as yet it only
involves official banishment from
Godless civil societies. But no one
knows what will come next. It is
well-known that even friends make
themselves scarce when the storm
picks up. Like Christ at the onset of
the Passion, the empty space around
the Pope may become impressive
because soon there will be only
blows to be received at his sides.
We ask for ourselves the grace
not to abandon in his misfortune
one whose name can already be
inscribed on the roster of persecuted pontiffs. We ask for him, if
he must continue to experience
the bitter trial of isolation, that he
may be able to perceive that those
who have been banished from the
Church were indeed his friends and
his most faithful sons.
Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, FSSPX, is the district
superior of France.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • August 2010

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION JUDGED
BY REASON AND FAITH
The Catholic Church VS. The Planet of the Apes

Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini

205pp. Cloth Hardcover with
color dustjacket. 8½" x 5½".
STK# 8338✱ $19.00.

This newly republished classic
by Cardinal Ruffini, a personal
friend and collaborator of
Archbishop Lefebvre. Here’s
one of the best books highlighting Scripture, the Fathers,
and Doctors of the Church in
support of Intelligent Design,
against Evolution. Starting
with its so-called proofs,
Ruffini convincingly shreds
all varieties of the Evolution
hypothesis blow-by-blow.
Uses schemas and diagrams.
Complete.
Cardinal Ruffini collaborated with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Coetus
Internationalis Patrum (CIP) during Vatican II. The Cardinal is mentioned
four times in H.E. Tissier de Mallerais’s Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (Angelus Press) as one of five co-founders of the CIP and a backer of
Archbishop Lefebvre’s interventions at the Council. He was a member of the
Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Cardinal uses the findings of embryology,
anatomy, physiology, genetics, paleontology, etc., against the positions favoring
evolution of both body and soul.
Archbishop Lefebvre (circled) with members
of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, which
included the author of this book, Cardinal Ruffini.

Catechism of the
Council of Trent
For more than four centuries it was
known simply as “The Roman Catechism”–the source, guide and standard
for all other catechisms. Commissioned
by the Council of Trent, written under
the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, and promulgated by St. Pius V in
1566, it was the most comprehensive
and authoritative statement of Catholic
doctrine ever published.

650pp. Foil-stamped sewn hardcover.
Index. STK# 7087✱ $39.95

Catechism of the
Summa Theologica

Fr. R. P. Pegues
Pope Benedict XV enthusiastically
endorsed this book which aims to
put the heart of St. Thomas Aquinas’s
Summa Theologica into the hands of
the laity. In the familiar Q&A catechism
format, but the difference is that the
answers are from the Angelic Doctor himself. Cross-referenced to the
Summa for those wishing to study
further.
315pp. Hardcover. STK# 5906✱ $I9.95

www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Newest Distributed Titles
Black Robes in Paraguay

William F. Jaenike
This historical saga of love, savage violence, and betrayal chronicles the Jesuit mission work among the Guarani
people of South America. Written for armchair historians it is the story of the Jesuit’ defense of the Guarani in
the mission communities as the Portuguese and Spanish slavers descended on Paraguay. The Jesuits resistance
efforts to protect stone-age Indians in their missions added to political problems of the Church with Catholic
monarchs back in Europe. Under pressure from the monarchs a frightened Pope abolished the Jesuit order. In
the long, tortured history of European colonization of the Americas, these Jesuit Black Robes in Paraguay stood
out as a breed apart, even from their fellow Jesuits elsewhere. Leaders of the anti-Catholic, anti-Jesuit Enlightenment such as Voltaire and Raynal rallied to the side of these extraordinary Paraguay missionaries. Raynal wrote
that never has so much good been done for mankind with so little evil. Ironically, the heretic monarchs of Russia
and Prussia invited hundreds of the former Jesuits to run their colleges. In doing so, they inadvertently saved
these outcasts to become the nucleus around which a reinvigorated papacy would re-establish the Jesuit order
forty years after its abolition.

320 pp. Softcover. STK# 8467 $25.00

The Crusaders: The Struggle for the Holy Land

Regine Pernoud
There is no shortage of stories about the crusades, or of biographies of those who played the leading roles
in this, the greatest epic of the Middle Ages. But there has been no book in which we could find, recreated,
the way of life, the world view, the everyday social organization of those who tempted adventure. They were
kings and paupers, barons, clerks, women, and merchants. Some were driven by their faith, others by the
spirit of conquest, and some by a hunger for greatness and wealth. Régine Pernoud presents for us a living
picture in which we can view, first hand, the awe of the Christians as they beheld the Muslim world, the
myriad ordeals they sustained while traveling for years in unknown lands, and the remarkable way in which
they managed to adapt, to colonize, to erect churches and fortresses, and to abide for centuries in the face
of an adversary far greater in number. Here, an unrecognized page in our history finally reveals itself. A great
historian and writer brings this colorful period alive.

320 pp. Softcover. STK# 8468 $17.95

The Story of the Trapp Family Singers

Maria Augusta Trapp
With nearly 1,500 Broadway performances, six Tony Awards, more than three million albums sold, and five Academy
Awards, The Sound of Music, based on the lives of Maria, the baron, and their singing children, is as familiar to most
of us as our own family history. But much about the real-life woman and her family was left untold. Here, Baroness
Maria Augusta Trapp tells in her own beautiful, simple words the extraordinary story of her romance with the baron,
their escape from Nazi-occupied Austria, and their life in America. Now with photographs from the original edition.

330 pp. Softcover. STK# 8431 $13.99

The Biblical Basis of Purgatory

John Salza
The Biblical basis of purgatory. Jesus taught us about it, and for centuries the Church has faithfully defined and
defended it. Protestants deny it even exists, while many Catholics fundamentally misunderstand it. It is purgatory:
that place of purifying penance where souls saved by Christ are made perfect and acceptable to spend life eternal
in heaven. In The Biblical Basis for Purgatory, author and apologist John Salza (Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons)
offers the definitive scriptural explanation of this distinctively Catholic doctrine. Building on the teachings of Christ
and St. Paul, he shows how the existence of a place of temporal punishment after death is not only a logical
extension of what we know about the reality of sin and God's justice, but is also a supreme expression of God's
love and mercy. Although purgatory is a place of mercy, its pains are real, and they are severe. This book does
more than defend and explain purgatory; it provides a solid plan, drawn from the Church’s perennial wisdom, for
conquering our sins by God’s grace, while still on earth.

236pp. Softcover. STK# 8453✱ $14.95

2010
Conference
The Defense of Tr adition
as tr ansmitted by archbishop Lefebvre

3-Day Conference
Friday to Sunday Event

From October 15-17, 2010, Angelus Press will host a conference on the
occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X’s founding
on November 1, 1970. The theme is: The defense of Catholic Tradition
as transmitted by Archbishop Lefebvre. This will be reflected in various
talks from different perspectives: from the history of the Archbishop’s
works and interventions during the Council to the rejection of liturgical
and doctrinal novelties after the Council. The answer of the Archbishop
was the foundation of the priestly Society of St. Pius X to keep the Faith
alive in the Church.

Hilton KC Airport
October 15 - 17
The conference will be held at the Hilton Kansas City Airport.
Complimentary shuttles will provide transport to and from the hotel. A
formal dinner with limited seating will be available on Saturday evening,
with a slide-show presentation of the history of the Society. Accommodations
are available for children during the talks themselves. In addition to the
speakers, various apostolates of the SSPX and religious orders will be in
attendance to provide information and answer questions.

Bishop Bernard Fellay
Keynote Speaker

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, will be
the keynote speaker. On Sunday morning, a pontifical High Mass will be
celebrated at St. Vincent de Paul’s, the historic church of the SSPX in
Kansas City.

SHIPPING & HANDLING

5-10 days

2-4 days

To learn more about our
upcoming conference, visit our website:

www.angeluspress.org

USA

For eign

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