$4.45 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2011 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION INSIDE Fr. Marc Alain Nely Does Truth Exist? An interview with Fr. Christopher Pieroni The Last Battle of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange Brideshead Revisited: A Commentary by Dr. White Bishop Bernard Fellay: The Obedience of Two Saints: Mother Mary of the Cross and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Fr. De Chivré Spiritual Life Within Marriage A New Rosary • Ordination Sermon • Interview in Gabon • Comments on Assisi III The 12-Million RosaRy CRusad CRUSADE For the Church and the Consecrati on of Russia e POPE JOHN PAUL II Doubts About a Beatification By Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, FSSPX Preface by Bishop Bernard Fellay Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X “Santo subito !” “Sainthood now!” exclaimed the people assembled in St. Peter’s Square on the very day Pope John Paul II passed away. The crowd called for the immediate canonization of the deceased pope. To many, John Paul II was a hero. He traveled the world and inspired the multitudes. He caused the fall of the Berlin Wall. He invited Catholics to “be not afraid!” He was an intrepid defender of life, especially against abortion. The reality is not so simple. An in-depth study of the requirements for beatification and the examination of John Paul II’s pontificate in light of those requirements leads to amazement. Gray areas, sometimes extensive, come to light. The greatest of the Christian virtues—faith, hope, and charity—are not unscathed. Many of the Pope’s teachings and initiatives which for the wide public seem to be titles of glory prove to be in fact matters of grave reproach. Benedict XVI’s beatification of his predecessor on May 1, 2011, may indeed have been a serious mistake. 113 pp. Softcover. STK# 8526 ✱ $14.95 www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. New Offerings from Angelus Press Our Lady Book Catholic Girl’s Guide Fr. F.X. Lasance This book was Fr. Lasance’s effort to “cultivate among the faithful a tender and practical devotion to Our Lady.” Part I, Reflections, consists of meditations of her life, meditations for the month of May, and meditations also for every day of the year. Part II, Prayers and Devotions, includes Mass devotions for Our Lady, Litanies, Stations of the Cross, devotions for Communion, Confession, Vespers, and a wealth of other devotions to the Blessed Mother. Fr. F.X. Lasance A gentle, well-written, powerful guide for young ladies. This is every young Catholic girl’s best source for guidance, next to her own parents. Fr. Lasance provides instructions and devotions for young ladies on acquiring Catholic virtues. In this book Fr. Lasance counsels young ladies on choosing one’s state in life, provides prayers, novenas, a discussion on sodalities, and a devotion for every day in the month of May. 711 pp. Hardcover. STK# 8522 $33.00 680 pp. Hardcover. STK# 8525 $30.00 “His Holiness Pope Pius XI wishes that these volumes, which assuredly promote the spiritual life, may receive an ever-increasing welcome in all the Christian families of your great country.” (From a letter to Fr. Lasance written at the Pope’s direction, May 10, 1927) My Prayer Book Fr. F.X. Lasance This book by Fr. Lasance provides counsels and reflections on the pursuit of happiness, prayers and devotions for Holy Mass and throughout the day, and incentives for being generous and unselfish in the imitation of Christ. Replete with counsels, prayers, devotions, novenas, litanies, spiritual communions, prayers before and after Holy Communion, and prayers before and after Confession. There is hardly a prayerbook available which is more thorough, more complete than this. After nearly a century, it remains one of Fr. Lasance’s most popular books. 720 pp. Hardcover. STK# 8523 $30.00 Young Man’s Guide Fr. F.X. Lasance Fr. Lasance provides practical counsels, reflections and prayers for young Catholic men in high school and beyond. A tremendous resource for young men on a variety of subjects, including: how to conquer sin and the occasions of sin; virtues needed to fight in the battle for salvation; choosing one’s state in life; and guidance to various devotions for Mass, Confession and Holy Communion. Practical advice and aids for spiritual progress and sanctification for young men exposed to great dangers in a world hostile to virtue. 760 pp. Hardcover. STK# 8524 $30.00 The Blessed Sacrament Prayer Book Fr. F.X. Lasance The Blessed Sacrament Prayerbook is adapted to serve as a book of devotions for the faithful. It aims to cultivate the spirit of the contemplative life. That is, the spirit of prayer and penance and sacrifice for the interests of Holy Mother Church, for the sanctification and salvation of souls, and for the spread of Christ’s Kingdom among the nations of the world. This book is split into two parts, the first containing prayers needed throughout one’s day, including morning and evening prayers, the Ordinary of the Mass, the Propers for many common feasts and Masses, and a current chart of movable feasts. The second part of the book contains many novenas and prayers to a variety of different saints as well as some indulgenced prayers, and a special emphasis on all of the prayers necessary and recommended for devotional visits to Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament. This book is beautifully bound in a flexible leather cover with elegantly embossed gold lettering and image. It also features gilt edges and rounded corners with a satin ribbon page marker. 1248 pp. Leather cover. STK# 8462 $49.95 2011 Conference Christ the King From October 7-9, 2011, Angelus Press will host a conference on the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. The conference will be held at the Hilton Kansas City Airport. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St. Pius X will be the keynote speaker. The deadline is drawing near! Reserve your place before Sept. 16! Go to www.angeluspress.org/conference or request an information pamphlet. FRIDAY SATURDAY October 7 Registration Hotel Check-In October 8 2:00 PM Holy Mass at the Hilton Hotel 3:00 PM Welcome and Introductory Talk 6:00 PM Fr. Arnaud Rostand The conference will commence at the Hilton Hotel. Children ages 4-11 cannot be admitted into the conference room, but they may use the playroom, which will be monitored by babysitters. The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie SUNDAY October 9 7:00 AM Mass will be celebrated inside the conference room. Breakfast is included for Standard and Deluxe packages. A restaurant is located within the Hilton Hotel for those who purchase the Mini package. The Relationship of Church and State Pontifical High Mass at St. Vincent’s in Kansas City 9:00 AM A shuttle will be available for transporting our guests to St. Vincent de Paul Church in Kansas City. Brunch at St. Vincent’s after High Mass 9:00 AM Brian McCall, J.D. 7:00 PM Quas Primas: St. Vincent’s parish will host a brunch after the Pontifical High Mass. This meal is included with the Deluxe and Standard Packages. This meal can also be reserved in advance by calling St. Vincent’s Priory. Catholic Action: Whose Job Is It? Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara Pius XI on Christ the King A look at the Archbishop’s life from the perspective of the Roman Pontiffs during his lifetime, from Pius XI Fr. Daniel Themann and Quas Primas to John Paul II and the scandal at Assisi. 10:00 AM Dinner 11:00 AM Two different definitions of Catholic Action have been given by St. Pius X and Pius XI. Bishop Tissier will clarify this question, distinguishing and explaining the role of the clergy and laity. 12:30 PM A Call for Today’s Crusade 2:00 PM Fr. Gerard Beck The Errors 8:30 PM of the Modern World This buffet is provided for all the guests who have John Rao, Ph.D. purchased the Deluxe or Standard Packages. The Rosary and the Battle of Lepanto Lunch Dinner Archbishop Lefebvre: This buffet is provided for all the guests who have A Life for Christ the King purchased the Deluxe or Standard Packages. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais 3:30 PM Fr. Albert, O.P. Coffee Break 4:30 PM The Holy Rosary 5:30 PM Dinner with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais 6:30 PM The Cristeros and the Dinner Martyrs of the Mexican Revolution Christopher Check 3:00 PM Following Bishop Tissier’s doctrinal talk, this talk will be mainly practical. What can families do in the realm of Catholic Action today? Bishop Tissier will present Archbishop Lefebvre as a champion of the doctrine of Christ the King. The Queenship of Our Lady 2:00 PM Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais Conclusion and Summary 4:00 PM Fr. Arnaud Rostand Summary of the 3-day event. Announcement for the 2012 Angelus Press Conference with next year’s date and theme. Coffee Break and Farewell 4:30 PM The “Instaurare omnia in Christo — To restore all things in Christ.” ngelus Volume XXXIV, Number 8 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2011 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X PUBLISHER Fr. Arnaud Rostand Contents Motto of Pope St. Pius X 2 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR EDITOR Fr. Markus Heggenberger ASSISTANT EDITOR Fr. Markus Heggenberger, FSSPX 3 A NEW ROSARY CRUSADE Mr. James Vogel OPERATIONS MANAGER Mr. Michael Sestak Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, FSSPX 5 DOES TRUTH EXIST? Fr. Marc Alain Nely, FSSPX EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Miss Anne Stinnett DESIGN AND LAYOUT 12 THE OBEDIENCE OF TWO SAINTS: Mother Mary of the Cross & Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Mr. Simon Townshend Fr. Paul Robinson, FSSPX COMPTROLLER Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA CUSTOMER SERVICE Mr. John Rydholm 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. 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. ©2011 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts will be used at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. Mother Mary of the Cross 16 AN INTERVIEW WITH FR. CHRISTOPHER PIERONI 19 THE BATTLE FOR PURITY Fr. Xavier Beauvais, FSSPX Archbishop Lefebvre performs his last baptism. 21 CRISIS OF PATERNITY Fr. Yves le Roux, FSSPX 24 ORDINATION SERMON Bishop Bernard Fellay, FSSPX 30 INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY IN GABON, ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF SAINT PIUS X’S MISSION 33 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Theological Criteria for the Condemnation of the World Day of Prayer for Peace Assisi 1986-2011 The Missed Debate 44 NEITHER HOT NOR COLD...LUKEWARM Fr. Xavier Beauvais, FSSPX 46 SPIRITUAL LIFE WITHIN MARRIAGE Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. 48 THE LAST BATTLE OF GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE Fr. Albert, O.P. 63 BRIDESHEAD REVISITED, A COMMENTARY PART 6 Dr. David Allen White 70 CHURCH AND WORLD 76 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Dr. David Allen White Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX 78 THE LAST WORD Bishop Bernard Fellay, FSSPX ON OUR COVER: Bishop Bernard Fellay. Photograph by Fr. John Young, FSSPX. 2 T Letter from the Editor he next few months will be a busy time for Angelus Press. Allow me to share with you some of the changes which you will notice in the near future. First, on a personal note, I have received a new assignment as prior in Basel, Switzerland. This means, unfortunately, that this is my last letter as Editor of The Angelus. I would like to extend my gratitude to those who have so generously manifested their interest and continued support over the past three years. As we witness the decline of reading and writing–an essential part of Western culture–the work of Angelus Press is very important. Even amidst the recent economic recession, when so many lost their jobs or were thrown into uncertainty about their future, you have helped Angelus Press to operate as it has in the past and as it will continue in the future. As a parting thought, I would like to encourage all of you to be readers of real books rather than e-books. Whether the new machines like the iPad and the Kindle will be serious competition to classical books we do not yet know. Neither do we know whether they will increase the ability of the human mind to think correctly and reflect fruitfully, even if they are very practical. To use a literary parable: Will mankind develop towards a state of naivety and helplessness, like those (imaginary) people in the vision of The Time Machine, written in 1895 by H. G. Wells? Will there be a true progress of the individual or a regression? The atomic bomb certainly was a huge step forward in terms of technical achievement, but was it moral progress as well? Doubts are allowed. The moral instability of the modern age and the lack of reasonable standards do not foster great hopes for true moral progress. Will those who run the world in the future be those who tend towards the good and act morally? And what is morality if not the standard of the Gospel, the teaching of Jesus Christ, and the Ten Commandments? Such ideas are considered by modern free-thinkers as “Christian fundamentalism.” In other words it is a kind of secular “mortal sin,” if they would use such a vocabulary. According to the ideas of the socalled Enlightenment, the history of mankind is a continual progress towards a higher state. Looking back two or three thousand years for them means going back to some “primitive state” of the world. This idea of continual progress underlies the modern understanding of our own place in history and of many events which occurred during that history. But is it true? Modern barbarism does not, after all, exist only in some far-flung countries on foreign soil, but in our own Western societies also. What about killing innocent unborn children? What about prostitution? What about publicly supported vices like pornography? What about the destruction of families, where those who suffer most are so often the children? What about the “stolen childhood” of so many young people? Amidst so many threats to the human soul and so many challenges to the Christian Faith, the remedy given to mankind for their reestablishment and their salvation, Angelus Press is allowed to play a small role helping and supporting the truth, both natural and supernatural. With the grace of God it will continue to do so. Please pray for the continued growth of the apostolate of Angelus Press: to restore all things in Christ. Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Markus Heggenberger NOTICE FROM ANGELUS PRESS Concerning the above-mentioned changes: Fr. Rostand, the District Superior, will remain the Publisher of The Angelus. Instead of a single priest to replace Fr. Heggenberger as Editor, an editorial team is being formed which will advise Fr. Rostand regarding both the magazine and the books which Angelus Press publishes. Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, already in Kansas City, will lead this editorial team. James Vogel, after almost seven years as Assistant Editor, will be the new Editor. Among the duties of the editorial team will be: reviewing books to be published and making recommendations to Fr. Rostand for final decisions; advising Angelus Press regarding distributed titles from other THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org publishers; establishing regular columns and writers for The Angelus; and, last but not least, helping transform The Angelus into a larger, bi-monthly magazine. This last statement demands some explanation. We considered many options to make our magazine the best Catholic journal in America. What we concluded was that the ideal scenario involved a regular layout and division of topics so that every issue will touch on a variety of issues. Practically, this means that The Angelus will appear every other month, but will be 72 pages long. Every issue will have a theme, with several articles dedicated to that theme in particular. After that, there will be sections which will be featured on a regular basis. Further details will appear in the remaining issues of The Angelus for this year. The 12-M RosaRy C illio3n Rusade An Interview with Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, District Superior of France, on the Society’s Fourth Rosary Crusade A neW rosAry crusade on May 16, 2011, Fr. de Cacqueray introduced the new rosary Crusade launched before easter by Bishop Fellay, in which all Christians are invited to participate. the goal is 12 million rosaries. We are here to talk about the latest Rosary Crusade, but first would you please remind us about the three previous Rosary Crusades? Bishop Fellay began by inviting us to make the first of these crusades in 2006 toward the end of the year after the Lourdes pilgrimage. He invited all those who would like to– not only the faithful of the Society, but all Catholics were invited to participate–to say the 5-decade or even the 15-decade Rosary so as to offer a spiritual bouquet to the Blessed Virgin, to be remitted to the Pope. The purpose was to obtain a liberalization [of the restrictions on the celebration] of the Tridentine Mass. The result was the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007. Even if it only appeared as a first step, it came as a veritable response, partial but real, to the Rosary Crusade that had been undertaken. Thus it served to incite us to persevere in praying the Rosary. Encouraged by the first Rosary Crusade and the result it had met with, Bishop Fellay called for a second crusade in 2008, this time to obtain a declaration of nullity of the sanctions imposed after the 1988 For the Ch urch and the Conse cration o f Russia tinue to ask. This is what is behind the fourth crusade. episcopal consecrations on Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated. So there was another crusade, more ambitious in the number of Rosaries that were requested for the spiritual bouquet. And once again, following the Crusade, an impartial and insufficient result was obtained since the nullity of the excommunications was not recognized; but they were lifted. It is not the same thing, obviously, but it did represent a step toward rejecting the ostracism of Msgr. Lefebvre and the bishops. Bishop Fellay then decided upon a third crusade, which took place during 2009-2010, this time for the intention that the Pope, according to the request of Our Lady of Fatima, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Crusade had a lot of support and amply garnered the number of millions of Rosaries that had been asked for. On the other hand, the goal of this third crusade was not gained; but, I should say, that should only push us to persevere in prayer. Our Lord in the Gospel told us that sometimes one must knock several times, even till late in the day. So we must con- What are the intentions of the Crusade and how does one go about participating? Bishop Fellay explained in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #78 that this Crusade was to begin at Easter 2011 and go till Pentecost of 2012. I think it would be best if I were to give you the exact terms he used for the intentions: Let us ask our Heavenly Mother to intervene so that this terrible trial may be cut short, that the Modernist cape muffling the Church—at least since Vatican II—may be torn in two, and that the Authorities may perform their salvific duties for souls, that the Church may regain her spiritual splendor and beauty, that souls throughout the world may hear the Good News that converts, receive the Sacraments that save, and find the one sheepfold. Then he summarizes, as it were, the intentions so that they are not too complicated for anyone: We are counting on your generosity to collect once more a bouquet of at least twelve million rosaries for the intention that the Church may be delivered from the evils that oppress her or threaten her in the near future, that Russia may be consecrated and that the Triumph of the Immaculata may come soon. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 4 rosary crusade three intentions 1) the deliverance of the Church from the evils oppressing or threatening her 2) the consecration of Russia 3) the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary So, briefly, the three intentions are 1) the deliverance of the Church from the evils oppressing or threatening her, 2) the consecration of Russia, and 3) the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In the Crusade, is there a specific prayer for the success of the doctrinal discussions with Rome? No, that is not directly requested, even though when we speak of a resolution of the crisis in the Church that necessarily refers to the question of the doctrinal discussions since it is true that what was hoped for in the doctrinal talks is after all the return of Rome to the Tradition of the Church. Thus, indirectly it is included, though not explicitly. All Catholics who love the Blessed Virgin and want to pray to her are invited to participate. It is not limited to the faithful who frequent the chapels of the SSPX. To pray to the Blessed Virgin is a good thing, and it is gladdening to have a great many do so. To participate, then, the SSPX faithful should send the number of rosaries they’ve recited for the given period to their priories so that they can be tallied by the priors. This can also be done on La Porte Latine Web site–count is being kept there. Those who do not usually go to Society chapels or who never go, can get a chart through La Porte Latine, at the end of a year at the latest since it is going to last for a year. On the chart the number of rosaries said for the period should be recorded and the result forwarded either to a priory or to La Porte Latine. The persons who are going to recite their rosary during the coming year for the intentions expressed by Bishop Fellay fulfill the conditions. There are no others. They can count those chaplets in the spiritual bouquet, which at the end of the year will be given to the Pope. The Pope will be informed of the number of Rosaries that were offered for these intentions, and the Pope may or may not acknowledge receipt. In any case, there is one person who will certainly acknowledge receipt: the Blessed Virgin. Would you tell us something about the Rosary itself? The Rosary is first of all a prayer that was substantially given by the Blessed Virgin herself to St. Dominic at the beginning of the 13th century. St. Dominic had been combatting the heresy of the Albigensians, which had spread throughout the south of France, without much success. So he implored heaven and received from the Blessed Virgin this prayer, which became very popular. The Rosary has been called the Psalter of the Poor, as it is primarily composed of 150 Hail Marys, which correspond to the 150 Psalms of David. It is easier to say than the psalms; obviously, the psalms require more reflection to grasp all the nuances that are expressed therein, whereas the Rosary involves the recitation of the same prayer, the Hail Mary. This is not to say a merely external, mechanical repetition of the prayer. It really involves the adherence of one’s whole soul to the knowledge and love of the mysteries of Jesus Christ which are successively contemplated in 15 scenes during the Rosary. The Rosary is broken into 15 mysteries, like a fresco of the entire life of Our Lord from the Annunciation, the first mystery, to the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in heaven, the 15th mystery. For every decade, an Our Father, ten THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Hail Marys and one Glory be to the Father are recited. During the recitation of a decade, the faithful meditate on the scene; for example, they contemplate the first Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation, and also ask for the fruit of the mystery, that is, a virtue particularly associated with the mystery to be contemplated. Telling one’s beads is not at all the mere mechanical, external repetition of an Our Father, ten Hail Marys, and so on. Like every prayer, it is a prayer that is firstly interior, during which the soul truly seeks to be absorbed in the contemplation of the mystery and thereby to grow in the knowledge and love of our Lord. Great promises have been made by the Blessed Virgin to those who say the Rosary, in particular, to a Dominican named Alain de la Roche. Our Lady promised great blessings for the recitation of the rosary; to pray the rosary daily is a sign of predestination. Those who find the 15-decade rosary a bit too long can at least recite five decades every day. Great victories have also been gained by the Church thanks to the Rosary. The famous victory of Lepanto over the Turks comes to mind. St. Pius V had urged the whole of Christendom to kneel down and pray the Rosary, and the naval victory was won against great odds. It can indeed be said that it was thanks to the prayers of Christendom. So if there was Lepanto in 1571, we can hope for good things in our time by faithfully praying the Rosary. Transcribed and translated from an interview produced and conducted by Jean-Paul and Jacques Buffet for LaPorteLatine.org, the official website of the SSPX’s District of France. 5 Graduation sermon of Fr. Marc Alain nely, second Assistant to the superior General, given in st. Mary’s Academy and College, st. Marys, Kansas (2011) Does TruTh exist? W hat is truth? When we ask this question, how can we fail to remember the Gospel scene? Pilate, face to face with Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, after having questioned him several times and received remarkable answers full of compassion from Our Lord, came up with this last question in which he showed his offhand skepticism— for he did not even wait for an answer—but turned immediately to the Jews to deliver Jesus to them. Indeed, Pilate made light of vain philosophical quests and, in his opinion, it is a settled matter that it is impossible to know in what the truth consists. Consequently, the Truth does not answer him. We will ask this question differently today and will try to answer it. We will not try to know what is truth, but whether there is a truth–a fundamental question if ever there was one. Our consideration will be divided into three parts: 1) The usual objections, 2) Man is made for truth, and 3) Answers to the objections. The usual objections Today a general state of mind exists which necessarily has its repercussions on religious thought: it is the questioning of the very existence of any truth, especially concerning the issues which touch upon the meaning of human life. In a discussion upon the great issues of human existence, most of our contemporaries’ thoughts, or objections—once the viewpoints are made clear—boil down to this one single fundamental and preliminary question: is there an objective truth? Today, in many domains, men do not believe in a unique truth, valid for all, changeless through time, and having a value in itself. They do not even admit that, in case such a truth exists, their intelligences may worthily apprehend it. Without difficulty, they admit the existence of an objective truth www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 6 sermon in their private or professional life, whereas, in the intellectual domain, they do trust neither in the reality nor in the intelligence. Without even examining the issue, they behave as if all opinions were on an equal footing—meaning that none is any better than another except as the expression of an individual’s subjectivity. Though they are unable to realize it, such minds are already prisoners of a deep relativism. Indeed, our contemporaries think that logical categories, manners of reasoning and of perceiving reality vary according to cultures, as ethnology and sociology prove it. The truth that I perceive depends upon my origins, my natural environment, and my cultural accomplishment, which “color” my vision of things. Moreover, every man is full of unconscious prejudices, flowing from his family’s opinions, his social standing, his trade, and his country. On the other hand, differences of temperament multiply the ways of thinking. Often, mankind is divided into two classes: broad-minded but shallow persons and narrowminded but profound characters. Each category has its way of viewing things and each individual having his many characteristic facets, this produces endless personal conceptions. But our contemporaries do not merely deem truth to be relative according to persons; they are also imbued with the idea of evolution in time. Sc i e n t i f i c “ t r u t h ” ch a n g es. For proof of this, we have all the successive theories proposed by experimental sciences. Yesterday, we believed that the sun was going around the earth; today, we state that the earth goes around the sun. The day before yesterday, we claimed that light was a wave; yesterday it was an emission of corpuscles; and today that it is a mix- ture of both; what will we discover tomorrow? Political “truth” also changes, as social revolutions and putsches prove with their opposite ideological statements. At the time of the Revolution, to speak only of France, they went after the people of the Vendée. During the Restoration, they went after the revolutionaries and next after the legitimists during the Monarchy of July. Under the Empire, they went after the republicans and next after the Catholics, and during the Third Republic, after the conservatives. At the time of the French State, they went after Freemasons, during the Fourth Republic, after Petainists, and so on. Confronted with the continual evolution of these “truths,” whether of the scientific or political order, men end up believing that truth in itself changes with time, like the world and like man. For them, what was a truth the day before will become an error the next day; whereas what is an error today corresponds to a former truth, which has been given up, but may come back to the foreground. If we probe a little deeper into what we have said, we realize that our contemporaries are no longer interested in truth as such, in truth “in itself.” The “truth” they desire is only one which is productive and useful and will serve their personal projects. Even in the scientific domain, the underlying question that people ask is no longer “Is it true?” but “What is its use?” This quite pragmatic and utilitarian conception of the truth is profoundly linked to the absolutely quantitative evolution of our modern societies, in which the homo faber has long ago taken the place of the homo sapiens, as philosopher Marcel De Corte shows in a fundamental book, The Intelligence in Danger of Death. Karl Marx expressed this THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org state of mind in one of his theses about Feuerbach: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; what matters is to change it.” The influence of “marketing” is very important in this. In the old days, we devised a product answering a real need and next we sold it. Today, if we may put it in this way, we study the alleged desires of users and next we devise the corresponding product. Men have transferred this way of doing to other fields. Politics was contaminated first. Henceforward, we take the desires of the voters as the starting point to propose a political project. Quite simply, truth itself is made to serve man; it is no longer the other way round. This utilitarian contamination eventually reached the highest realities. To be aroused for the sake of truth is now meaningless. Yet our contemporaries do not always and only identify truth with mere practical usefulness. At other times, for them truth expresses the genuineness of a personal “account.” A work is judged by the worth of its living testimony and the richness of its sincerity. Its logical coherence, its intellectual meaning, and the value of its truth, all fall into the background. If truth is good only as the expression of a personal experience recounted with sincerity, the intelligible contents of a doctrine become indeed unimportant. This state of mind brought about a lack of trust towards a thinking process that raises problems and comes to a solution by referring merely to concepts and reasoning. The notion of a speculative truth expressing a relationship between the ideas we have of things and the things themselves gets warped into the relationship between man and himself. sermon The idea that our mind can manage to grasp an idea not bound with time and independent of man becomes utterly unthinkable. Truth is no longer a definitive acquisition for the intelligence, which may be transmitted by teaching throughout time, space, and various cultures, but merely the expression of a passing subjectivity. If truth is relative to various persons, if it changes with time, if it corresponds to what is useful, if it comes merely from the expression of “life experience,” then this truth cannot be the same for all. It cannot last through time, it does not deserve that we be attached to it, except inasmuch as it can be useful to us or enables us to communicate with another’s subjectivity. Today, men think that there are several viewpoints, various “approaches,” as they say nowadays, which all contain a “portion of truth.” We cannot lock reality into one rigid conception because this would mean “exclusion” of the other conceptions, which are equally true in their own order. This mindset is widely spread. Considering all statements as equally true, everyone rejects any interior or exterior authority and believes that, in the name of his own truth, he has the right to follow only his impulses or his viewpoint. We see how, at the religious level, the acceptation of one single and consequently exclusive religion is becoming unthinkable and even unbearable for most of our contemporaries. Such a claim is even the very apex of the intolerable! Eventually, in their minds, people have the idea that the various systems of thought resulting from various mentalities end up by reciprocally annulling each other or by melting into a vast syncretism. It becomes useless to trouble about an objective and stable truth. Hence the well-known statement: “You say this, but others speak differently!” They mean that the clash of opinions is merely the fruit of differences of temperaments and that there is no need to worry about their intelligible contents. Or, according to an expression that has become familiar: “Each one has his own truth.” Protagoras of Abdere, the sophist whom Plato so beautifully portrayed in the Theaetetis and in the dialogue bearing his name, had already given evidence of such a state of mind. “Man,” he said, “is the measure of all things, of those that exist and of their nature, and of those that do not exist and of the explanation of their non-existence.” He concluded that “the true is what seems to be so to each one” so that “the same object may be white for one and black for another.” In his time, this conception led Protagoras, like many of our contemporaries in our time, to agnosticism concerning the highest and most essential realities of human life. “About the gods,” he used to say, “I cannot say anything, neither that they exist, nor that they do not. Many things prevent us from knowing this. First, the obscurity of the issue and next the shortness of human life.” man Is made for Truth We have just reviewed a series of objections against a steady and objective truth, or, if this latter existed, against man’s possibility of knowing such a truth. We now have to answer these objections. But, in fact, the essential answer to these objections lies hidden in the answer to another question: What is man, and what must he become? In other words: what is his true destiny? When we have found this out, we will be able to state with some seriousness whether the quest for truth is of any worth to him. Genuine philosophy, as we can see when we study its first steps in 7 the history of mankind, starts from the observation of facts. This is what we are going to do now. When we observe all the minerals, plants, and animals around us, we notice that each spontaneously tends to become as much as possible what it is according to its constitution and definition. Its own task, its specific program seems to be to develop the virtualities of its nature and bring them to their full completion. A horse does not tend to be a donkey or an eagle, but a horse in all the fullness of its horse’s nature. Likewise, an eagle does not tend to be a horse or a donkey, but to reach the fullness of its eagle’s nature. Man is distinct from the horse, the tree, or the stone just as these beings are distinct from one another, for he also is of another species. Hence, by nature, he does not tend to become a horse, a tree, or a stone, but a man in the fullness of his human nature. Yet man is also distinct from the horse, the tree, or the stone because he finds in himself specific characteristics with which he alone is endowed. These characteristics both set him in opposition to the other beings in nature and isolate him from them. He alone can speak, can build houses, invent complex tools, and he alone practices a religion. It is impossible to confuse him with any other animal. Through all his history, man has been thinking over this oddity, which makes him unique in the universe and partly takes him out of this nature in which all other animals are immersed. He has tried to understand what in him had caused this rupture, this setting apart. The constant tradition of mankind has recognized that this difference, rightly called specific, came from his reason. True, man is an animal like the horse or the fox, but he is a reasonable animal, endowed with will and liberty. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 8 sermon What man has above and over other animals is mind, intelligence, and reason. Reason is not merely a particular part; it is especially what makes man as such, what establishes him as a man in his species. We cannot define man without taking this essential element as our starting point. Thus, man’s development is essentially related with reason, and will be radically distinct from all other animals. Hence, the aim of human life cannot consists in breathing, eating, and sleeping because we have all these in common with plants or animals, and consequently they could not be the proper task of man as man. The aim of human life cannot either be limited to sexual intercourse, in spite of what many of our contemporaries seem to think. Sexual reproduction is also common to us and to plants and other animals, and as such it cannot be a specifically human activity. Of course, it is not a matter of doing away with the fact that man breathes, eats, drinks, sleeps, or has sexual intercourse: this would be impossible and foolish. There is in us a vegetative part, which we have in common with plants and an animal part common to us and other animals. Yet these vegetative or animal actions cannot characterize man as man, except to the extent of saying, for instance, that he is neither a turnip nor a horse. The aim of human life cannot either consists in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, or in imagining and remembering, or lastly in moving around and stirring. These activities are not despicable, but we must bear in mind that man is not a wolf, a toad, or a lizard, but a man. As a rule, the life of a living being is revealed by the operation that is more specific to him than any other and towards which its main inclination drives it. The life of plants is defined by nutrition and generation. Animal life is defined by sense and movement. Man’s life is going to be defined by his characteristic faculty, i.e., reason. When, like other living beings, he tends to become what he is, man is not content with being a plant, or even a mere animal, but he must assume the reason that is in him. To be a man is not first of all eating, sleeping, seeing, hearing, experiencing pleasures, etc. It is to bring about the reign of reason in himself and around himself. This is becoming a man: to bring to full completion this nature of reasonable animal which is his, “animal rationalis,” and to develop the virtualities of his essential faculty: i.e., reason. However, as we have said previously, it is not a matter of annihilating his bodily part and making him an angel. Man is not pure reason or subsistent intelligence in itself. He carries a spark of spirit in a frail bodily and sensitive vessel. Consequently, he must develop harmoniously the whole of himself: body and mind, matter and reason, to become fully the reasonable animal he is by nature. This harmony will only be achieved when his dominant faculty, reason, will establish its reign over all his own nature. Thus man’s end consists in accomplishing man’s task, a task which is nothing else than the highest and most human of man’s activities and brings man to fulfill completely his own specificity, i.e., the activity of reason: “Creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam; ad imaginem Dei creavit eum.–And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him.” This last consideration, though for us Christians it is a certitude contained in Revelation, can be confirmed by what follows. Anthropologists and prehistorians do speak to us of the homo THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org sapiens, i.e. of the “wise man.” But this can be conceived only by comparison with a sapientia, a “wisdom” and an activity of the reason which both characterizes and defines man. Without reason, it is impossible to distinguish between man and the other animals even for sciences that are often so materialistic. Education–from the Latin educere–has no other objective than to “bring out,” to help a being endowed with a mind to get out of the purely animal condition. From the beginning man possesses an intelligence that enables him to see beyond matter, to turn to a higher world, and to discover the causes and the explanations of things. His truly human development will be achieved in so far as he will accomplish this project inscribed in its very nature. Some even claim that the word “anthropos,” which means man, might be a combination of ana, which means above, and of tropao, meaning to turn. This etymology may not prove to be exact, but at least it is enlightening: man is really the animal turned towards the things above, towards the spirit. Such is the true meaning of the famous saying of Antiquity, which expresses their moral ideal: Sequere naturam–follow nature. It is obviously concerned with the reasonable nature of man, which must be followed to find true happiness, i.e. the full achievement of man himself. At first sight, concrete and material achievement might seem to be the main objective of human reason. Just as the bird has a beak and the fish fins for their survival, man would have reason to ensure his survival. For instance, in the eyes of the philosopher Bergson, intelligence, which he belittles for the benefit of what he calls “intuition”–“this kind of intellectual sympathy”–is meant for what is steady and practical and, consequently, is essentially turned sermon towards the fashioning of tools and towards survival. Yet it is a serious reductionism thus to limit intelligence to a practical function. For first, we observe in man an inquisitiveness, a thirst for knowledge quite independent from the practical applications which may flow from it. In his book Life Everlasting, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange writes: Thus the child’s mind grows on a series of whys: Why does the bird fly? Because it is looking for food (its goal and purpose). To fly it needs wings (instrumental cause). Its nature requires wings (formal cause). It dies because it is composed of matter and hence corruptible. Now these raisons d’être, these sources and causes (final, efficient, formal, material) are accessible to reason only, not to sense and imagination. Reason alone knows the purpose as purpose…all this is inaccessible to the animal, but easily grasped by the child. As for animals, turned as they are towards practical action and the pleasures of the senses, they find their satisfaction in material goods. If you give grass to a horse, or meat to a dog, they do not desire anything more. But man does not live by bread alone or by other material goods, for he is turned towards knowledge and his heart is troubled, as St. Augustine so well expressed it, until it rests in a knowledge capable of satisfying him. As Aristotle says at the beginning of his Metaphysics, “By nature, all men desire to know and understand.” The real achievement for man resides in the knowledge of the real sought and possessed for its own sake and in the satisfaction of the desire to know that is inscribed in the very heart of his nature. The real is nourishment for his mind, just as food is for his body. Intelligence is made to know the real, just as lungs are made to breathe. A lion cannot feed on grass; it will end up dying of starvation. Man cannot either feed exclusively on what is sensitive or on practical action; he would end up by declining and undergoing an inner death. He is made for truth! Indeed, the fact for the mind, for the intelligence, and for the reason to know the real and to grasp it fittingly is called truth. In its first meaning, truth is indeed “the adequation of the intellect and a thing”: what the mind grasps, perceives, and understands corresponds adequately to what the thing is in fact. To know the real through reason is strictly tantamount to knowing the truth: the two words refer to the same reality. When we say that man is characterized by reason, that the proper object of this reason is to know the real, and that man’s development consists in the full use of his reason, hence to know the real more and more, we eventually say one thing: “Man is made for truth.” Now, nature does nothing in vain. It made cows for grass, and grass for cows. It made loam, water, and sun for the plants and the plants for loam, water, and sun. It made the gazelles to be food for the lions and the lions to rid the herd of sick or wounded gazelles. Likewise, nature has made man for truth, for the knowledge of the real. This tendency, which belongs to man’s essence, cannot be thwarted; it cannot fail to be achieved; it cannot fail to reach its goal without man himself ceasing to be a man. Hence, when he uses his reason correctly, man can really and ordinarily reach efficiently the truth for which he is naturally “programmed.” answers to objections Before our conclusion, we must now answer the objections raised against the possibility for man to reach the truth. 9 We have seen that man, a reasonable animal and a being defined firstly and essentially by his intelligence and his reason, is made for truth just as the fish is made for water. And since nature does nothing in vain, it is essentially possible for man to reach the truth even if in fact, for all kinds of reasons (laziness, weakness, lack of time, etc.) some men do not reach certain truths, or do not reach them by themselves. There are men who do not understand mathematics, yet man in general, or mankind as a whole, understands mathematics. The books written on this subject are sufficient proof of this. First objection: The idea that truth might be essentially relative to each person implies an unavoidable consequence: absolute incommunicability between men. If what I state can only be understood and admitted by me because another is too different by reason of his origins, his cultural knowledge, his prejudices, and his temperament to understand and admit it, consequently, mankind is made of small independent “monads” living in parallel and incommunicable worlds. But this alleged incommunicability is denied by any human life, by any human society, and by all human history. What does the typical saying mean: “No one is supposed to be ignorant of the law” except that the law is precisely understandable by all? What is the meaning of contracts (of sale, of rent, of insurance, of labor, of marriage, and so on) which are the very fabric of our daily lives, if not that all men can understand them and agree on solid truths (some contracts are signed for tens of years or even for centuries)? What does teaching mean under any form it may assume, if not that a man can hand down objective truths to another who can understand him? Why do we discuss www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 10 sermon with our friends, our acquaintances, our co-workers, unless we have the spontaneous conviction thus to be able to share some truths? Of course, differences of cultures, of temperament, and of history exist and partly color our judgments. Yet this is merely an accidental difference of secondary importance, whereas the human nature of reasonable animal is common to us all and is precisely the basis of the essential “communicability” of men between themselves. Hence it is false to deduce the existence of a complete incommunicability that would prevent truth from circulating between men because of real but accidental differences between them. Such an incommunicability is only of secondary importance, whereas rational nature is common to all and is the basis for the essential communicability of truth between men. If my memory serves me right, the second objection was that truth evolves essentially with time. This idea is confronted with an insurmountable dilemma. If I affirm as true the proposition “Truth evolves with time,” I affirm that this proposition itself will evolve. Hence there will come a time when it turns into this new proposition: “Truth does not evolve with time.” But then the proposition “Truth evolves with time” will not have been able to evolve with time. In other words, the two propositions are contradictory: “Truth evolves with time” and “Truth does not evolve with time” would be both true at the same time. This is radical absurdity. Funnily enough, to affirm that truth evolves with time is also a return to a very old theory. One of Aristotle’s main battles was precisely to fight the theory of evolving truth stemming from Heraclitus. In other words, one of the essential bases of experimental science (the most modern and that which rules all our life nowadays) consists in affirming that the laws of nature are absolutely immutable throughout time. For instance, research on the history of the cosmos would make no sense at all if the laws of nature ten thousands or a hundred thousand years ago were not exactly the same as today. Likewise, when we read the ancient philosophies, we understand them; we either adhere to them or, on the contrary, we reject their statements (from the viewpoint of truth). Thus their truth of yesterday becomes our truth of today. The Renaissance, the merits of which are daily praised because it supposedly had taken us out of the “darkness of the Middle Ages,” was never anything else, according to a humoristic sentence “than the rejection of the Elders to glorify the Ancients”; in a word, it considered that the philosophers of the 13th century A.D. were further removed from the truth than the philosophers of the 5th century B.C. To be sure, there exists an evolution for truth: when man, thanks to intellectual labor and his thought, goes from error to truth, or from a less-known truth to a better known truth. Conversely, through his laziness or by reason of outward circumstances (wars, natural catastrophes, etc.), man can go from a known truth to an unknown truth, or even to error. For instance, at the very beginning of the Middle Ages, because of the barbarian invasions, some truths known in Antiquity had been lost. Yet, if the perception of truth by man can vary according to circumstances, truth itself continues to exist in a steady manner. Truths of the mathematical order are always true whether men know them or not. Hence, it is not because a truth is old that it is worthless today. After all, the North Star is as old as the hills, THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org yet it nevertheless keeps on pointing to the north. The third objection stated that truth corresponds to what is useful. As we will see, the idea comes from an error concerning the hierarchy of goods. The useful, indeed, is what has its value not in itself, but as a means to reach another end and another good which is obviously better than the useful good, since this latter is placed at the service of the former. Thus a car is a useful good for me which I use to reach a higher good than it, for instance, visit my parents, or go to work. Consequently, what interests me is not the car in itself, but that it enables me to reach the goal I truly want: a visit to my parents or my job. Now, precisely, truth does not have in itself the status of useful good, but that of end, of final goal, which places useful goods at its own service. With his reason man seeks intelligible beauty, which consists in the apprehension of the order that rules the structure of beings and presides over their relationships. The aim of intellectual thought is the joy of admiring the beauty of the adequation of the parts with the whole, of the means with the end, etc. This joy is as useless or as useful as that born of the contemplation of a painting or a landscape. Consequently, the knowledge of truth, like art and love, is for man an end in itself, not a means to reach something else and thus it is not a “useful” good. We can realize this a contrario by the fact that we spontaneously feel ashamed to find ourselves in the wrong or in ignorance, even if this error or this ignorance has few unhappy practical consequences. Likewise, a lie, even slight and devoid of malice, is spontaneously distasteful to us and damages our good name with others if it is discov- sermon ered. This is quite simply because man is made for truth. Truth is not a mere useful means, but an end in itself, and to lack in truth because of error, ignorance, or lie is to miss partly the plenitude of one’s human nature. However, it is not a matter of concealing a certain useful aspect of the truth. Indeed, what is an end in itself can, under another respect, be used as a means to reach another aim. For instance, mathematics, the knowledge of which is an aim in itself for man, can also be used as a tool for physics. Here we have a supplementary benefit over which we must congratulate ourselves (inasmuch as this science remains within the bounds of its own order and does not claim to bring everything down to the level of quantity), but which does not change the intrinsic nature of truth as being in itself an end for man and an ultimate aim. Likewise, to look at a painting and enjoy its beauty is an end in itself for the art student, but he can secondarily add the acquisition of a necessary knowledge to graduate. This secondary use, this secondary usefulness, does not change the essential nature of truth, which is to be a goal and end in itself. In this sense, truth is “useless” because it is the very end of man and not a mere means to obtain something else. Another objection tended to affirm that truth derives its meaning and value only inasmuch as it is the expression of personal experience and is conveyed with veracity. This objection, quite common nowadays, is based on a confusion between two realities distinct in themselves, even if they should, as a rule, unite in the person who expresses himself: truth and sincerity. Truth is essentially the adequation of the intellect with the thing. On the other hand, sincerity is the adequation between the outer expression and the inner sentiment (in its broadest sense). I am in the true if my reason perceives what the thing is. I am sincere if my words express what my reason perceives. Normally, truth and sincerity should correspond to each other, and if man was infallible and naturally upright, they would in fact always correspond. But in reality, it can happen that they are contradictory, because of error and of lie (or hypocrisy). If a man is in the wrong, he may sincerely express something false. If a man is in the true, but if this truth bothers him, he can lie to express something false. To be sure, “personal experience” is an intimate reality that I can try to relate (to myself or to others) and which can become thus a certain truth when a mind is fitted for this reality by the knowledge it has of it. Given that “personal experience” is in itself and, as a rule, imperceptible to anyone but him who feels it, this truth can only be handed down by the sincerity of personal testimony. In this sense, sincerity is the basis of a part of human truths, those dealing with individuals’ subjectivity. But truth, for the greatest part, is independent from people’s sincerity. Millions of men have been wrong and keep being wrong sincerely about absolutely indisputable truths. On the contrary, hypocrites and perverse people have been and are in the right for a certain number of things. Last but not Least: Protagoras With his man who had become the measure of all things, with his truth identical with what seems to be so to each and everyone, with his acceptation of contradictory statements which are nevertheless both just as “true,” he has already shown us where this auto-destructive relativism leads: to carelessness, to slop- 11 piness in thought, to the increasing collapse of thought and of man himself. Indeed, relativism is a mental impotency, the most efficacious and best tried method to ruin the mind and make it sterile forever. Socrates, on the contrary, the healer of Greek intelligence, laid down his life to refute Protagoras. At the last moment, when he was waiting for the hemlock, he said of the sophists: “These people do not care to know what is true, but to manage to have their theses considered as true. As for you, believe me, do not busy yourself with what Socrates has said, but with the truth.” conclusion We have reached the end of these few considerations about the existence of truth and our ability to reach it. We will close with this sentence of Blaise Pascal, who said: “Man is neither angel nor beast; and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the beast.” Being composed of both, man is made not only to drink from earthly wellsprings, but also and mainly to contemplate everlasting Truth. This is his end, i.e., his perfect achievement, his raison d’être on this earth, his perfection, and his eternal bliss. St. John the Apostle says so quite simply: “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” And I add this too: “Rejoice, ye humble, and exult, ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God if only ye walk in the truth” (The Imitation of Christ, Bk. 3, Ch. 58, No. 10). He that hath ears to hear, let him hear! I thank you for your attention. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 12 The oBedIence of Two saInTs Mother Mary of the Cross and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Fr. Paul Robinson, FSSPX A nd Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. (1 Kings 15:22-23) Saints are necessarily similar. They adhere to the same faith, they acknowledge the same authority, they practice the same worship. But, most importantly, they follow the same Master, and in a heroic way. They all become Christlike. The differences in their lives, which make for a many-faceted jewel of holiness throughout the Church’s history, come from the way in which Providence arranges their path to Calvary. On October 17, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI elevated to the altars the first Australian saint, Mary MacKillop, in religion Mother Mary of the Cross. While it is completely outside the scope of this article to touch on the controversial nature of modern canonizations, the hero- ic virtue of Mother Mary will be strongly defended here, and placed side by side with that of one whose canonization all Traditional Catholics await: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Like the Archbishop, Mother Mary of the Cross’s way of the Cross came not from her enemies, but from her friends, notably ecclesiastics with an exaggerated notion of their own authority, who constantly used it to attempt to oblige Mother Mary to contravene her obligations to God. “At 29 she was excommunicated. At 34 she was held under house arrest in Bathurst. At 38 she was forced to withdraw all the 46 Sisters from Queensland, and at 40 she was banished from Adelaide and her Sisters were refused permission to leave that colony with her.”1 Each of these terrible trials came from poor decisions of diocesan bishops. Each of them was met with humility and submission on the part of Mother Mary, but without her deviating one iota from her duty to God. Rightfully, Mother Mary’s admirable fidelity to God before men on the one hand and her supernatural THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org spirit in this fidelity on the other are the focus of her biographers and most articles and commentaries on her life, this one included. However, it is only in joining this with her extraordinary charity and love of poverty that her picture is completed, and so some anecdotes from her Sisters are given on the side. Meanwhile, we pursue here a look at the excommunication leveled at her by Bishop Lawrence Sheil on September 22, 1871. Background history From her travels in rural Australia as a young girl, Mother Mary developed a deep-rooted sympathy for the many far-flung Catholic children who were receiving a purely secular education and only rare visits from a priest. “I saw so much of the evils,” she said, “attending a merely secular course of education, that all my desires seemed to centre in a wish to devote myself to poor children, and the afflicted poor in some very poor Order” (p. 46).2 It was in coupling this sympathy with an ardent desire to devote her life saInTs completely to God that gave Mother Mary her vocation. In 1860, at the age of 18, she met Fr. Julian Tenison Woods, the future founder of the Sisters of St. Joseph. Over the next three years, the then Mary MacKillop received spiritual direction from Fr. Woods, mainly by letter, while working as a governess in South Australia and Victoria (two of the seven Australian states). In October, 1863, she took up a position as teacher at the Catholic Denominational School in Portland, Victoria. Meanwhile, Fr. Woods, a man of many projects, proposed that Mary look to starting a free school in Penola, South Australia, which all the poor Catholic children could attend, some time in the future. This plan suited Mary perfectly, but by the time it was realized two years later, the plan had changed into an execution of Mary’s dream of starting a new order of religious sisters suited to the needs of Australia. These sisters would travel to the remote areas of the Australian bush and teach children for free, while themselves living a life of poverty and even deprivation of the Sacraments for months at a time. It was a bold scheme, but just what was needed. The Penola school began in January, 1866, and on March 19, under Fr. Woods’ direction, Mary donned a black dress as a sign of her intent to give her life to religion. On November 21, with two others, she put on a complete habit. Fr. Woods gave the three a short rule, appointed Mother Mary as superior, and thence began addressing each as “Sister” (p. 59). In June of 1867, the Institute of St. Joseph left Penola for Adelaide, the capital of South Australia. It was there that Mother Mary made her first religious profession on August 15, and her final profession just two years later on December 8, 1869. At this stage of irrevocable commitment, Mother Mary found herself as a young woman of 27 at the head of a new religious institute with its very uncertain future stretching before her. But, to all appearances, things were going along famously. The rule had been approved by the Adelaide Ordinary in December of 1868 and after only two years of existence, the Institute had 72 nuns directing 21 schools in Adelaide and the surrounding country districts (p. 70)! The Sisters were also engaged in many charitable works, such as visiting the sick and prisoners, caring for orphans, and running homes for girls in danger, aged poor people, and women off the streets. All of these enterprises were maintained solely through begging trips that formed part of the Sisters’ duties. In 1870, Mother Mary traveled to Brisbane to establish the Sisters in the northeastern state of Queensland. Though she and her nuns were treated very coldly by the Vicar General of the Brisbane Ordinary, who was attending Vatican I, the Sisters were soon running three schools there comprising a total of 300 students. There is only one way to explain this extraordinary success of the new group of Sisters with only five years of existence: a true imitation of Christ Crucified. Behind the impressive statistical growth were some serious trials: an extreme lack of prudence on the part of Fr. Woods, 13 leading to unpayable debts, poor direction of the Sisters, and hostility to the Sisters on the part of some priests; and outrageous behavior on the part of two nuns who claimed false visions while causing true divisions among the nuns. Meanwhile, Fr. Woods thought they were saints and favored them. But a greater cross still was reserved for Mother Mary of the Cross, one which was to become her glory: excommunication. excommunication Bishop Lawrence Sheil was appointed to the diocese of Adelaide in January, 1866, and enthroned in August the same year. He was an Irish Franciscan who had come to Australia in 1852, being appointed as Rector of St. Francis’ Seminary in Melbourne. After seven years there, he took up a position in Ballarat, where he remained until being appointed as bishop of Adelaide. Before leaving to attend the First Vatican Council and during the council itself, the Bishop showed a great enthusiasm for the new Institute. However, during his absence, there were developments that led him to change his opinion drastically upon his return. The first was the behavior of Fr. Woods mentioned above, and the second the opposition of Fr. Charles Horan, the Bishop’s right hand man and also an Irish Franciscan (p. 88). In April of 1870, some Sisters of St. Joseph in Kapunda, Fr. Horan’s parish, reported to the Vicar General the scandalous behavior of a Fr. Keating, Fr. Horan’s associate, involving sexual misconduct with children. This led to the expulsion of Fr. Keating and the enkindling of an implacable hatred in the breast of Fr. Horan against the Sisters. From that point, he was bent on their destruction. When Bishop Sheil returned to Adelaide from Rome on February 2, 1871, there was a written complaint against the Institute waiting for him. Fr. Horan had composed it www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 14 saInTs and garnered the signatures of half the priests of the diocese. Also, the Bishop had been commanded by Rome to look into the shenanigans of the two supposed visionaries, who among other things had once removed the Blessed Sacrament from the chapel during Holy Week and left blood stains on the altar cloths in order to create a drama. It seems that the Bishop decided his strategy in September of 1871. Rather than just remove these naughty Sisters and replace Fr. Woods as director, he would step in and completely revamp the Institute according to his own plans and wishes. With Fr. Horan at his side, he started dismissing and relocating Sisters. He announced that he was making a new Rule, and that the current nuns would be dispensed from their vows to the old Rule. When one of the Sisters asked to see a copy of this new Rule, which did not exist, her request was brushed aside as a feminine whim. It became clear to Mother Mary that Bishop Sheil intended to change the Institute beyond recognition. “There was to be a division into lay and choir Sisters, no superior, no principal house, no place of teacher training (not even a novitiate), groups of two and three were to be subject to the local priest, with the bishop over all” (p. 103). And while the Bishop had the power to change the Rule that he had previously approved, yet he could not “alter a vow already made and direct it to an end other than the one intended by the person who made the vow” (p. 101). Thus, Mother Mary found herself in a very fine predicament. She had committed her life to the service of God under the Rule and her episcopal superior was demanding her to give her life to a very different religious path. But Mother Mary did not have any illusions about the vocation to which God had called her. Mary composed a clear and firm letter to the bishop. Taking care to express her respect for his authority and her dependence on him, she declared that he had every right to change the Rule, just as he had approved it in the first place. She outlined the development of her own religious vocation, and concluded that should the Rule be changed in the manner he had indicated, she would choose not to remain in the Institute but to look for some opportunity to live the Rule elsewhere…[Later on] she said, “My first duty was to God and to the Rule which for His sake I had vowed to follow, no matter what obstacles might be thrown in its way.” (p. 101) Bishop Sheil reproached Mother Mary for this decision, which he knew she had every right to make. After this, she was repeatedly denied requests to see him and was left to working with Fr. Horan. Upon being asked by many of her sisters what they should do, her reply was to “seek only to know God’s will and to carry it out, and not to be influenced by the actions of others, even her own” (p. 103). Things came to a head on September 21. Fr. Horan met with Mother Mary, demanding that she go to St. John’s, a mission sufficiently distant from Adelaide for her to be out of the way. She did not refuse, but asked for some closure on the question of the new Rule. At 10:30 that night, Fr. Horan appeared at the convent, demanding that Mother Mary comply with the Bishop’s wishes lest she be excommunicated. Being ill in bed, she sent the reply by another Sister that she still wished to follow the old Rule. The next morning, Bishop Sheil called all of the nuns to the chapel. There, equipped with mitre and crozier, he pronounced excommunication on Mother Mary for disobedience and rebellion, and condemned her for spiritual pride and bringing wickedness into the convent. aftermath Foundress at 24. A booming order of Sisters five years later. Then excommunicated at 29 for fidelity to her Rule, and on the curb, cast off by her Ordinary and with seemingly no hope for her future. How did Mother Mary react to these events? THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Was not her life shattered, as well as the work of the past five years? Would the Institute come to naught then in one fell swoop? Was she now no longer a Catholic because she had disobeyed lawful authority? It is here that the lives of our two saints hum at the same frequency. Like the Archbishop after her, Mother Mary knew that she was not disobedient and that she was not excommunicated. On the contrary, she was upholding authority. Describing the excommunication later on, she stated: I seemed not to realize the presence of the Bishops and priests; I know I did not see them; but I felt, oh, such a love for their office, a love, a sort of reverence for the very sentence which I then knew was being in full force passed upon me.…I was intensely happy and felt nearer to God than I had ever felt before. (p. 105) Just as the Archbishop after his “excommunication” did not hesitate to conduct himself as a Catholic, so too Mother Mary. Though she kept out of the public eye, she continued to go to Mass and receive Communion from some of the many priests who knew that the sentence was bogus. Her apparent excommunication, she knew, was drawing her to a truer union with her Spouse. Her vocation and life were not stifled, but intensified. The affair was not a finish line, but a new take-off point. Just as the Archbishop cared nothing for the unjust sullying of his own name, but rather experienced great anguish over the Church’s terrible trial and the immense discredit weighing on the Pope’s shoulders, so too Mother Mary. Her great heart hardly spoke of its intense anguish, and she seemed not to regard her own reputation. The focus of her worry, seen in many letters and actions, was to ensure that others not “write one word against the Bishop or priests” and that she herself excuse the Bishop in every manner possible, by saying that he had been misled or that he was confused, both of which were true (p. 109). She knew that the affair was a scandal and that the Bishop’s repu- saInTs tation would suffer from the mistake he had made. And while Fr. Horan went about falsifying events, she refused to defend herself publicly. The heroism of the saints often lies hidden within their souls, apparent to God, but obscure to men, who have so little insight into the interior forum. But then Providence, wishing to display His handiwork, arranges a terrible crisis, and in the shadow of its immense darkness, the brilliance of the saint’s virtue shines so resplendently that none can mistake it. For St. Francis, the crisis was being disowned by his father. For Bl. Margaret of Castello, it was being disowned by both parents. For Mother Mary and Archbishop Lefebvre, it was being disowned by the Church’s hierarchy. This state of affairs could not last for long, however. Just five months later, Bishop Sheil found himself on his death bed, and finally realized that he had been greatly deceived about Mother Mary. Two of his last acts before passing to eternity on March 1, 1872, were to appoint a Fr. Reynolds instead of Fr. Horan as his post-mortem administrator and command that Mother Mary’s censure be lifted. The latter took place without any formal request on her part. As with the bishops of the Society, there was no penance imposed, retraction demanded, or preconditions laid down (p. 110). Just 15 months later in Rome, Pope Pius IX lovingly laid his hands on the head of Mother Mary, knowing about her terrible trials. A modified Rule, but one keeping intact the original spirit of the Institute, was approved by Rome on April 21, 1874. Mother Mary’s vocation, and the Institute, were saved. conclusion Everything is a grace. Our Heavenly Father arranges for each of us a path to sanctity, which infallibly leads there if we cooperate. In the name of obedience, Mother Mary of the Cross was commanded to give up the vows she had sworn to God. In the name of obedience, Archbishop Lefebvre was com- manded to give up the Mass of his ordination. Mother Mary was persecuted because her order exposed the moral errors of a priest. The Archbishop was persecuted for exposing the doctrinal errors of the vast majority of the hierarchy. Both were condemned as being rebellious and stubborn. Both suffered immensely for decades from authority gone outside its bounds against God and reason. One of them has now been raised to the altars by a Pope Benedict XVI. Just a few decades before, he had been a close witness and associate of the declaration of excommunication on one who refused a false obedience. It was Mother Mary’s true obedience that made her heroic; the Conciliar Church has recognized this heroism and declared her a saint. It was Archbishop Lefebvre’s true obedience that made him heroic; Holy Mother Church will one day declare him a saint for the same reason. in and said: “Gentlemen, my sister who is dying at Port Augusta, is constantly asking for me. If one of you will lend me a horse, I will ride there.” Chivalry was not quite dead in those Celtic hearts. Two or three jumped up…and drove her on that afternoon where she was in time to console the last moments of the dying Sister.–Srs. Patricia Campbell and Stanislaus Punyer (p. 7) On one occasion I threw out a very small crust of bread with some other scraps. Mother saw me from her place at table and she picked it up after I had gone out–I was out all day and that evening at tea Mother came into the refectory with the crust and quietly put it on my plate and told me to eat it, that food was too good for a wasteful novice. I do not think I have ever wasted a crumb of food since, and I really think that is why I cannot bear to see it wasted.–Sr. Sabina Lynch (p. 36) I remember her on one occasion visiting one of our convents where I happened to be a member of the community. The house was in a dilapidated condition and our food was poor and insufficient. In wet weather the rain poured into every room–the oratory where we had the privilege of having the Blessed Sacrament was the best room, and even there the roof leaked sometimes. When Mother Mary came and saw how we were placed she sat down and cried–but they were tears of joy not sorrow: “Sisters,” she said, “here I find you all well and very happy–good and generous–bearing your privations with a spirit of contentment and peace though I know you are often cold and hungry.”–Sr. Ethelburga Job (p. 64) Excerpts taken from Memories of Mary by Those Who Knew Her (Mulgrave, Victoria: John Garratt Publishing, 2010): A Sister was dying at Port Augusta. She was putting out a crude kerosene lamp in the church after evening devotions. The lamp burst and in a moment the poor Sister was in flames. She lingered for three or four days in great agony and each day kept asking for Mother Mary. (p. 7) Mother Mary was in Adelaide when she received the news that two of her children were dying and were calling for her. She started at once but found that the last train had left; also the boat. She hired a coach from one town to another undertaking the long journey by the quickest way through the rough bush country. It was over 300 miles but she came along without any unnecessary stopping until she reached Happy Valley about thirty miles from Port Augusta. (p. 21) She made fruitless efforts to get driven on; several farmers were in with their wheat, but all shook their sage heads at the prospect of driving to Port Augusta. They adjourned to the hotel and were having refreshments when Mother Mary walked 15 Fr. Paul Robinson was ordained in 2006 and is stationed at Holy Cross Seminary in Australia where he is a professor 1 Sr. Lynette Young, RSJ, in the December 2010 newsletter of the Cistercian monks of Tarrawarra. 2 All page numbers are taken from the official biography on Mother Mary, written by the postulator of her cause, Fr. Paul Gardiner, S.J. It is entitled Mary MacKillop, an Extraordinary Australian, and is available from www.marymackillopplace.org. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 16 An interview with Fr. Christopher Pieroni There are always priests searching for Tradition and the Mass. As an example, Fr. Christopher Pieroni, FSSPX, recently joined the Society of St. Pius X. Fr. Markus Heggenberger sat down with him to discuss his journey to Tradition. Father, can you give us some information about your upbringing? Were you raised a Catholic? I was raised in a Catholic family in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I come from a very devout family; both of my parents were practicing Catholics. My parents taught my sister and me the Faith, even though the 1960’s and ’70’s were a strange time to learn the Faith and why we were Catholics. All through my high school and college years, my parents were clear that religion was not an option; the Catholic Faith was the one true religion. My parents never put up with the silliness of the Novus Ordo either. It was very difficult for them. Our formation was very sound and we were very fortunate to grow up in a home where the Faith was primary, not secondary. We went to Mass every Sunday. We had maintained devotions like the Rosary, unlike so many in our generation. We knew the Faith. Concerning your vocation, when did you first think about the priesthood and the possibility of going to the seminary? My first inclination to the priesthood was when I was six years old. But, even though there were a number of things I wanted to do—I earned a degree in economics and was in the hotel business for a number of years— the thought of being a priest never left my mind. I became serious about my vocation when I was 28. I went to Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. I was ordained a deacon at the age of 30 and was ordained priest on May 22, 1999, at the age of 31. THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org InTervIew At that point, what did you think about the new things in the Church? Did you see tension between conservative and progressive seminarians? I was fortunate to go to a conservative seminary. But I did have problems with the documents of Vatican II. They never made sense to me; I could never understand why so much of the liberal mentality was accommodated. When I was in the seminary, the new theology never made sense to me. Did you have discussions about this? We discussed it a lot. For instance, we learned much about the Fathers; my personal favorite is St. Ignatius of Antioch. I remember reading his seven letters to the seven churches and thinking it was beautiful. We read the Didache. But then we would read some of the documents of Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen Gentium, for instance. I remember thinking that the mentality of these was totally different from the Catholic material I was used to reading. When I was in school, we studied Pascendi, Libertas, and Rerum Novarum. But when you compare these to something like Veritatis Splendor, there is a huge difference. Why is something like the latter so vague? At first, I could never understand what Pope John Paul II was trying to say. But then you see the liberalism there, and that was my biggest concern. Can you describe the first few years of your priesthood? My first assignment was to a parish in New Mexico with another priest and a well-established monsignor. We had 4,000 families in the parish. We had 500 children in catechism and 100 confirmations every year. A new school had recently been started. My second assignment, after 11 or 12 months, was as pastor to a parish of 600 people in a small town in New Mexico. I had to do a lot of things on my own, such as how to manage a parish. I was pastor there for a year. Immediately following that, I was made a pastor of 2 parishes and 11 missions in northern New Mexico. At that time, were you already thinking about the crisis in the Church? Yes. I could see very clearly that there were things being done and said by members of the hierarchy that were problematic. I saw what was allowed among the clergy, the way they would act and carry themselves. It was very strange. It concerned me. I had a hard time when I was disciplined by an ordinary for giving homilies on Catholic subjects and doing things unlike my predecessors. I never could understand the attraction of liberalism. But you did not yet have any contact with the Society at this point? My first contact with the Society of St. Pius X was from a book that was mailed to me called Priest, Where Is Thy Mass? Mass, Where Is Thy Priest? I received it during my third assignment. I had no idea who wrote it or where it came from. I read the whole thing and was extremely impressed. At the time, I assumed they were just diocesan priests saying the old Mass. Of course, most of them are friends of the Society. The interviews were very well-written. When I was still a diocesan priest, though, I wanted to be a traditional priest. I didn’t want to be a bachelor or a middle-class layman. So can you say that the book actually expressed some ideas which you already held? Yes. Without a doubt. 17 How did you then come into contact with the Society of St. Pius X? I was ordained in 1999. In 2003, I received word that I had been assigned by the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe to join the United States Army full-time. I had been a chaplain to the New Mexico Army National Guard from 20002003. In July 2004, I put my feet down in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. I was a commissioned officer and had already been through Chaplain Officer Basic. I was there from July through November, 2004. In the first week of December, just before the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I was deployed to Iraq. I was in Iraq from December 22, 2004, until the first week of May, 2005. In the meantime, someone had given me an old breviary, but with the Bea psalms. So I was looking for a different breviary, and someone recommended the 1962 version. From Iraq, I called Angelus Press. They recommended that I talk to Louis Tofari, who works for the District. I didn’t tell Mr. Tofari that I was a priest at first; I only told him I was a Captain in the Army. He sent me a box of books, the “New to Tradition Kit.” I read Open Letter to Confused Catholics and They Have Uncrowned Him by Archbishop Lefebvre. Finally, here was a Catholic bishop that made sense to me. I had never heard of him except for the rumors: “He led a little group of sedevacantist priests who broke away from the Catholic Church!” And then I came to find out that it was not true. When I was a seminarian, there was a reputation the Society had for being strict. But I didn’t know anything about them. It was reading these books that got me interested. So I decided to make a phone call. I knew a family in New Mexico who owned a religious goods store. They were www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 18 InTervIew friends of mine. I remember once mentioning Archbishop Lefebvre to them since they had a picture of him in their office; they went ballistic, telling me I didn’t know what I was talking about. So once I realized they were traditional Catholics, it was logical to call them. When I returned from Iraq, I went to dinner with them and asked their honest opinion. I wanted to know why they knew so much about Archbishop Lefebvre. They told me they had been going to the Society for Mass for years. I then met the pastor of the Society chapel in Albuquerque and we had a long talk. I went back to Iraq and realized the military life was not for me. I wrote a letter to my bishop and asked to be released from the military. When I returned, I was already going to the traditional Mass but I didn’t know how to say it yet. Things came together little by little. But then the Archbishop wanted me to attend a program for priests that was blatantly liberal. Why did he want you to go through that program? Did he know you were coming closer to Tradition? He felt that I had issues that needed to be corrected. I think he realized which direction I was inclined towards, even though I hadn’t yet told him. I was still trying to figure out what I was doing. But he knew it from my sermons. For instance, I preached about the social Kingship of Christ. But after ten days in the program, I went back and talked to the archbishop. It was the last time we spoke to one another. That was September, 2005. Did you immediately leave the diocese? I asked for a one-year leave of absence, which was granted. Of course, the bishop encouraged me to see a doctor. I told the doctor that I had no interest in seeing him; I knew the intention was a psychological re-tooling. During this year, I decided to investigate things more deeply. I contacted Fr. Fullerton, then the District Superior. We had a long talk. He invited me to spend a week in Kansas City. After that week, I returned to New Mexico and realized that the Society of St. Pius X was where I wanted to be. Fr. Fullerton told me that a priests’ program would be starting in 2006. I was the first one to join. Until the program started, I lived at the Society’s priory in Phoenix. I completed the program, was assigned a mission, and have been here ever since. Are you now a member of the Society of St. Pius X? I joined the Society of St. Pius X formally on the Feast of St. Pius X in September, 2009. It was a wonderful day. Do you have any advice for priests in the Novus Ordo who see a problem and wonder what to do? My first piece of advice to priests in this situation, and I think a lot of young priests especially fall into this category, is to trust in our Lord and our Lady that they won’t THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org be abandoned. Don’t worry about a pension. Don’t worry about a salary. Don’t worry about life insurance. Worry about being a holy Catholic priest. Trust in God and in His Providence, guiding you to living the priesthood we are all called to. Second, they must understand that if they want to be a traditional Catholic priest, it means avoiding compromise. I was once asked by a priest why I didn’t join the Fraternity of St. Peter. I told him that I wasn’t interested in going half-way. I will never say the New Mass again. I haven’t said it in six years. I’m not going to accept the New Catechism instead of that of Trent. I’m not going to pretend that a Protestant minister is a brother in Christ who doesn’t need to convert. No compromise. Third, realize that the sole purpose Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society was the priesthood. When those first seminarians approached the Archbishop, it wasn’t for an option. It was a question of necessity. And this necessity spawned the Society of St. Pius X. We have become a group of men living the Catholic priesthood. It is not a 9-5 job. We are priests on the plane, priests in the missions, priests while we’re out at dinner, and priests in our priories. In all honesty, if you think about it deeply, what should the priest follow to save his soul and become a saint? Should he do what the Church has always done or what the Church has done since 1969? “My first piece of advice to priests in this situation, and i think a lot of young priests especially fall into this category, is to trust in our Lord and our Lady that they won’t be abandoned. Don’t worry about a pension. Don’t worry about a salary. Don’t worry about life insurance. Worry about being a holy Catholic priest. trust in God and in his Providence, guiding you to living the priesthood we are all called to.” 19 The BaTTLe for PurITy Fr. Xavier Beauvais, FSSPX “Receive this white vestment and wear it without stain until you come before the Judgment Seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order that you may enter into eternal life”: These words, spoken of the white garment of baptism, most certainly refer to the purity of the soul. Read them and reread them many times over; they were pronounced by the priest on the day of your baptism. “Have I worn this garment without stain? Have I not rather soiled it with some impurity?” Remember also the day of your first Communion: the holy Church, our Mother, wished to strengthen and protect the virtue of purity in us by giving us Jesus Christ Himself as our unfailing aid, received on that day for the first time. Who even speaks of purity any more? And yet, it is perhaps the virtue most under siege in today’s corrupted world. It needs to be addressed—not harped on ad nauseam like some kind of unhealthy obsession, but spoken of nonetheless, because many Catholics, young people as well as adults, would do well to re-examine their ideas on the subject. Many Catholics, including you yourselves, dear Faithful, need to rethink the question of purity in what concerns fashions, books, movies, doubtful relationships (which, in many cases, look more like flirtation than Christian friendship), behavior during engagement, or unhealthy pastimes. The Church knows very well that this virtue is attacked on all sides, especially in our day, but she also knows that its victory or defeat often tips the balance between a stainless life and a life of sin. The virtue of purity does exist—it is possible to be pure—but the occasions of sinning against purity are more numerous than we might believe. Unfortunately, Catholics seem to be more and more naive in this matter, with a naiveté that is surely inspired by the naturalism and liberalism in the air we breathe. Fathers and mothers of families, you need to realize that the young lives of adolescents are like fragile vessels that have left the tranquil harbor of attentive parents, watching over their childhood years and forming them in virtue as their reason and sensibility awoke. You, parents, must continue to follow the progress of this vessel and not abandon it to itself simply because your son or daughter is 14 or 16. Your goal is not to spy. Beware of letting your children watch anything they want, do what they like, frequent whom they wish; beware of sending them to dances which, very often indeed if not always, are more an occasion of sin for them than a healthy recreation. You, parents, need to realize that this fragile vessel is headed toward the open sea, toward waters that can be extremely turbulent and that will toss the boat without pity. It falls to you to set them in the right direction; and you, the youth, have the duty to cling to the lessons you have received from your parents, who have the right and the duty to educate their children in these matters—discreetly, of course, but firmly. It falls to you, parents, to hold fast to the rudder, or the boat will surely capsize. Once again, many traditional parents hide their heads in the sand www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 20 famILy when it comes to this subject, either by lack of authority or because of their own worldliness. As a result, many young people enter this difficult period of their lives—the “ugly age”—with an obvious nonchalance. This kind of indifference is incompatible with a spirit of uprightness, affection, respect, and obedience toward authority. And yet, the whole life of a man or a woman depends on his adolescence. If it is lived with purity, the young people will be an honor to their families and pursue their route in a fully Catholic manner. Beware, Catholic parents; may our Lord, on the Day of Judgment, not have to say to one of your children: “It were better for him if he had not been born!” You need to examine the education that you have given to your adolescent children or that you will have to give in the future; consider whether or not you have taught your children to master themselves, or if you have let them float along with the tide of their emotions until their will has become atrophied, their intelligence darkened, and their imagination soiled. The triumph of purity demands the help of parents. Adolescence is a period when, more than ever, parents and priest should be guides along a route that is often dark and full of traps that the adolescent himself generally takes lightly and that are in reality tempting and attractive dangers. Sirens line the route, and their lying promises will send the distracted traveler down the wrong path. Do not let yourselves be taken in by such temptresses as these: “You have to be in fashion”; “You have to stay up to date”; “He is young—it will pass”; “You have to live in your time, be open-minded, etc.” It is therefore of the greatest importance that parents hold this virtue in esteem, for they are charged with the education of their children by the sacrament of marriage. May they practice this virtue in their married life and know that, with the grace of God, all is possible in a young soul. “Break the barriers of convention” was the rallying cry of those who wanted to free society from its “taboos.” Unfortunately, this little slogan has done a great deal of damage. Breaking so many barriers of convention inevitably leads to breaking barriers of divine law. To our great sadness, we meet fathers and mothers of families who, out of weakness or lack of energy, commit a grave sin by sitting by as their children frequent bad companions, flirt openly, and let their hearts be taken at so young an age—all of which cause to wilt in their soul that which one day could have been real human love. Therefore, Catholic parents, seek to earn the confidence of your children by speaking to them firmly, with decision and a healthy openness of mind, inculcating in them a true respect for life and what gives life its greatness, its beauty, and its nobility. Our Lord said that “There are demons that can only be chased out by prayer and fasting.” The same can be said of purity: it is only preserved with the help of the sacraments, most particularly by the purity of the Eucharist and by frequent confession. Every priest meets with a number of wasted human lives among the young people that confide in him; but he also encounters triumphant resurrections of penitents that are willing to change themselves, to struggle, and to nourish themselves with the Holy Eucharist. The victory over himself brings joy to the penitent—a joy that renders him generous and charitable, with the help of the sacraments and of the priest. It is a joy that frees his personality of that certain arrogance that nearly always accompanies vice. Young people should realize that purity is a virtue that is conquered by the sword, energetically, with a will strengthened by grace. Often, true purity calls for heroism—and what young person would refuse to be a hero? The devil has made impurity his favorite weapon for forcing his way into souls in the springtime of THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org their life, hiding it under the mask of licentious advertising, depraved educators, unhealthy newspapers and magazines, disturbing images and books, immodest and worldly fashions, and vulgar television. There are parents who think their children are capable of choosing healthy television programs all on their own. Do not be such dupes! To battle then, dear parents, dear young men and young women! Can well-born youth be frightened at the prospect of battle, especially when it realizes the beauty of what is at stake? Let us be sowers of purity in our parish, beginning with our way of dressing at Mass, where we see too many women in pants or else in the short skirts displayed by those who have caught the fever of the world. Let us be sowers of purity in our social gatherings, not by prudishness or puritanism, but by the virtue of purity; sowers of purity and not of something else in the souls of those around us and whom we encounter every day, beginning with our way of dressing, our way of holding ourselves, our language, our attitude, our advice, our conversations, and even our jokes. We must not tolerate these assaults against what should be the crowning jewel of a soul in the state of grace. Surround it with the thorns of mortification and inspire the same courage in souls that are tried and tormented by the attacks of their own nature. Remind yourselves also that purity is something that must be cultivated and protected with jealous attention. O how beautiful is the chaste generation with glory, for the memory thereof is immortal: because it is known both with God and with men. When it is present, they imitate it: and they desire it when it hath withdrawn itself. And it triumpheth crowned for ever, winning the reward of undefiled conflicts. (Wis. 4:1-2) Fr. Beauvais is the prior of St. Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, Paris, France. Translated exclusively by Angelus Press from the parish bulletin of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris, Le Chardonnet, No. 195, February 2004. 21 crIsIs of PaTernITy Fr. Yves le Roux, FSSPX Dear Friends and Benefactors, The French Revolution attacked the Throne to destroy the Altar. Indeed, the devil knows very well that the supernatural must exist incarnated. And as the supernatural completely escapes his power, he manages to undermine what is natural, bringing down the supernatural as if it were a fragile house of cards. Perhaps we do not take the trouble of reflecting on the proverb which tells us that “the supernatural does not destroy nature, but crowns it.” In fact, we must reflect with great care on the destruction of nature characteristic of our times, last avatar of the Revolution. It is now a question of destroying the image of God in man, reducing him to the level of a brute animal, led only by a wild instinct for pleasure. How can we restore the altar of the supernatural if we do not first rebuild the throne of nature? The rupture of the Church’s tradition, serious as it is, is not enough to explain the current disaster. The astonishing deficiencies that we notice in education oblige us to take into account another rupture which also relates to tradition, but on the natural level. In general, even in the bosom of their own families, children do not receive an education in which affection and firmness, that essential alliance, unite to help them to develop fully. The present decadence is the fruit of these two painful ruptures, each of which entails dire consequences. Permit me to dwell for a moment upon the crisis of authority from which we are presently suffering. It seems to me that an examination of this problem will help us to come to a better understanding of the profound evil which corrupts us and thereby to avoid the errors of judgment which we too frequently fall into when considering the present disaster. It would be dangerous to make a merely superficial study of the crisis of authority, reducing it to a few general considerations. By so doing, we risk being satisfied with lofty speeches devoid of action. It is insufficient simply to declare that the problem of today is above all a crisis of authority–we cannot continue repeating this now trite formula without doing something to correct the situation. The contempt of the authority is, in fact, one of the most certain causes of our loss. We must deal www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 22 famILy carefully with this problem and seek its cause, in order to be able to find a remedy for it which will restore to modern man the sense of authority, which is so vital. Today the very notion of authority is vilified: authority is considered, even by good men, as a more or less hidden expression of tyranny. But the truth is that authority is a sacred reality, an essential condition for the balance and development of man. Authority is a sacred reality because it is a participation in the divine Paternity. Modern man, child of the Revolution, does not know what divine Paternity is: he lives in a world marked with the seal of the Beast, a world in which the imprint of the divine attributes is no longer discernible. The Revolution, offspring of Satan, inevitably bears the traces of its filiation. Thus, it has made us brand every authority with the character of that pitiless tyranny of the Prince of Darkness. Modern man, living under this diabolical yoke, sees even legitimate authority as an infernal burden to be distrusted and opposed. Our times have so deeply wounded souls that it is insufficient to preach the divine Paternity: man cannot know the divine Paternity because he no longer acknowledges the paternity of the Church, of the forms of government, and of the father in the family. This is a terrible state, because earthly paternity must be a visible and tangible reality, obvious and visible, which leads man to the higher reality, which is the divine paternity. Man is dying because he is orphaned. The true crisis of today is a crisis of paternity. A few pages of history will help us to understand this problem more deeply. In The Ancient City, Fustel de Coulanges shows very clearly that the strength of pagan Rome rested upon its notion of the family and, particularly, upon the sacred role of the paterfamilias. Fustel considers that the major reason for Rome’s decline was the loss of this sacral sense of the paterfamilias. After the fall of the Roman Empire, men gathered around the abbeys and beneath the walls of the castles. This is easy to understand: to overcome the chaos of the Barbarian invasions, men put themselves under the paternal and supernatural benevolence of religious Abbots or acknowledged, by feudal allegiance, the natural paternity of their suzerains. At his consecration, the king of France became the lieutenant of God for the Realm, the image of the heavenly Father and His temporal representative. Looked at in this light, the assassination of Louis XVI was much more than a simple regicide: it was parricide. The Catholics of the Vendée instinctively understood this. France is dying, if she is not already dead, from this crime, which expressed the Revolution’s fundamental rejection of the paternity of God. The Revolution understood that its work would be null and void if it did not replace the father whom it had removed. Napoleon was the replacement necessary for strengthening the roots of the revolutionary principles. His soldiers had a filial affection for him and were even ready to make the supreme sacrifice of their lives for him. The Republic itself sacralized the state to survive. The very notion of State-Providence, the welfare state, is a ridiculous, if not odious, answer to the necessary search for filiation. Stalin obliged the Ukrainian peasants, whom he had cruelly starved before, to recite the Lord’s Prayer in their churches. His henchmen claimed that the divine silence which followed their requests for daily bread was a proof that God did not exist and that His paternity was a lie. They then proposed a new version of the Lord’s Prayer, addressed now to the “Little Father of the People,” Stalin himself! But, this time, the doors opened, bringing an immense quantity of bread sent by the “Little Father”! This brief–and inevitably incomplete–historical review may help us to THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org realize how much man needs a father to live: a man without a father is a being without defense, destined to disappear–he is a being without roots, without balance. Today, alas, we have the tangible proof of this. We live in a world in permanent revolution, a world born of Protestantism, which has profoundly distorted human nature, to the devil’s profit. Once the supernatural is deprived of a foundation, of a subject in which to be incarnated, nothing remains but a hideous mask–an appearance, but not the reality of the supernatural. Youth is particularly endangered. I had a surprising and painful demonstration of this during a summer camp in Europe. After a few days of camp, during which we attended ordinations at Écône, visited some monasteries, admired the Great Charterhouse amidst the splendid mountains, and made a pilgrimage to the shrine of La Salette, we met together to make a first assessment of the camp. To my great surprise, the young campers had been especially impressed by the two families who had received us. The intimacy existing between the parents and the children, although quite ordinary in itself, had been for them an extraordinary discovery. A boy in the camp, with whom the other participants were entirely in agreement, stated concisely the conclusion of our discussion: “The truth is, we do not have parents.” During the following two weeks I brought up this delicate subject again, with the group and with individuals. I realized that these young people could not count absolutely on their parents, who were nonetheless of a rare good will. Puritanism had devastated them, and these parents, unconsciously affected by this evil, did not know how to surround their children with a legitimate and necessary affection. The souls of these teenagers were painfully handicapped because they had never known a true love–that love which gives to one’s personality the balance required to confront this modern world, which is itself founded upon an adulterated love. I was like a cook who fails to make a sauce. The essential ingredi- famILy ents were not lacking. The problem was very different: quite simply, there was no bowl in which to make the sauce! The young people were unable to receive and to retain because of a defect of soul. Their qualities, which were in fact many, were only superficial, without roots. Nor was this due to any personal hypocrisy; rather, Protestantism had profoundly distorted their nature, leaving only the external appearances. The short sentence of our camper is accurate indeed, and the consequences of this absence of paternity and maternity are immense. As long as our children do not experience true affection, they will never become men. Even if they experience it, it is to be feared that they will not recognize or receive it, because they have not known it as children. To try to build a future without providing for this tragic deficiency would be like building a house on sand. The absence of a well-formed nature nullifies every effort of the will, no matter how much “goodwill” there is. The essential prerequisite for any supernatural formation is to rebuild nature by opening the soul with true affection. The lack of true affection–usually replaced, in the best of cases, by a nebulous and sporadic sentimentalism–makes it impossible for the father to exercise his authority: he uses it by fits and starts, according to his moods and whims, and this makes it difficult for the child to respect it, to recognize its need and to subject himself to it with intelligence. In this way, the teenager becomes a rebel, unwillingly obliged to yield before force, but secretly desiring to enjoy his freedom! He will perceive any form of authority as a personal attack, and this will provoke an internal reaction of rebellion. The children are the first to be marked by this spirit of permanent and hidden rebellion, a spirit which creates future revolutionaries. It is difficult to grasp the true extent of this catastrophe because this Puritanical error slips surreptitiously into souls wounded by original sin. Externally, the twenty-year-old man of today seems hardly different from his predecessors. This appearance is misleading: behind the facade is a great but unnoticed misery–and, unfortunately, too often it remains unnoticed! The schools do not compensate entirely for this absence of foundations. To supply for the absence, it would be necessary to begin education again at its base. The child must be taught that life is a combat against self; that this combat, however hard, is the key to his happiness; that the spirit of sacrifice is an elevation of the soul; that details should not be neglected because they are the subject in which the virtues are incarnated. But today, souls are lulled to sleep by the lies of materialism. They neglect the realm of being and focus on the realm of having. Parents no longer realize that the education of their children is only born of their own willingly accepted sacrifices. Thus, they fail to arm their children for tomorrow’s combat. They aim only for material success, so they can live in comfort and ease. Preoccupied with themselves and with their own comfort, these parents cannot love their children with a love of benevolence, a love comprising both affection and severity. Due to these major deficiencies which disfigure the soul of the youth, very few children today have had the grace to learn at their mothers’ knees to admire their fathers and to respect them with a filial love. This is for us a cause of keen sorrow, because it is only this first education which makes it possible for man to receive a real formation (which itself is nothing more than the harmonious completion of this first impression). Puritanism is the apex of Revolution–it is Revolution victorious. Revolution can only destroy the elite by its violence, but it cannot prevent future restorations: in spite of everything, nature and its imprescriptible laws remain. But Puritanism creates a new race of men. It chokes the profound nature of man by imposing on him an artificial nature in which truth is replaced by sincerity, happiness by pleasure, and charity by a sentimental philanthropy. Puritanism, because of the natural deficiencies that it causes, destroys any hope of restoration, but not any hope of resurrection! Nature is, indeed, unable to restore itself. 23 Only the supernatural can help it effectively. It is certain that nature will rediscover its harmony only by the presence of grace in the soul. This presence, to be efficacious, must be royal–that is, our life must be subject to the empire of grace. The training for this submission is the work of the priest. We can only repeat the words of Rev. Fr. de Chivré: “To remake a people, priests should be remade. And priests will be remade only by penance or martyrdom.” Our first effort must, therefore, be addressed to the Seminary. To remake these priests, whom we really need, it is necessary for us to take into account the deficiencies of our times. It seems to us that the way to engage ourselves in this task is to reinforce nature by subjecting the candidate to a human formation. But to avoid any confusion, let us specify that this human formation–even if it includes classical studies and certain rudiments of good manners, so as to teach our candidate to the priesthood that he must not be dominated by his flesh–is concerned above all with giving a major spiritual formation based on the spirit of faith. To quote Rev. Fr. de Chivré again: “Nothing humanizes life like the supernatural.” The young Giuseppe Sarto, the future St. Pius X, had to follow two years of Humanities at the beginning of his seminary years, and considering this, one can only be impressed by a comparison of the level of the studies, the balance of the respective generations and the Christian spirit of these two eras… Our hope remains intact because it is certain that the grace of God will raise up from the youth of our times– and is already raising up–a generation of priests ready to give to this world the sense of God, of His divine Paternity. Fr. Yves le Roux was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1990 and is currently Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where he also teaches Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Acts of the Magisterium, and Liturgy. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 24 BishoP BernArD FeLLAy ordination sermon Bishop Fellay’s sermon given during the ceremony of the ordinations, st. thomas Aquinas seminary, Winona, June 17, 2011 Dear and Reverend Fathers, dear candidates to the Priesthood and to the diaconate, dear seminarians, dear Sisters, my dear faithful: While we are still contemplating the great mystery of Pentecost, this marvelous and extraordinary intervention of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity in the world, in creation, in the birth of our dear Mother, the Catholic Church—yes, while we are still in this blessed Time, Divine Providence allows us to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders on future deacons and priests. When we speak of the Holy Ghost, we speak of a Person within the Most Holy Trinity Who has been sent to creation with a very special mission. This mission is to sanctify, to bring holiness to His creatures, to elevate them to the supernatural world, the world of God, and to transform this earth into a prelude of Heaven. Of course, here on earth we know that life is a daily struggle, for it is a period of trial. As we know, the name of the Church on earth is the Church Militant, and it must constantly fight to fulfill its mission, the mission of saving souls. The Church will constantly be under attack from the devil and his allies. Similarly, the members of the Church will be under attack: even more so those who are closer to Our Lord and have received a special mission in this battle. It is always impressive to see priests and deacons: Impressive because if we look at them solely with our human eyes, we do not see them as being much difTHE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org sermon ferent from other men. If we remain on this natural level, we may even see a cassock—something that distinguishes them from others—but that is still not a great difference. However, the only way to see correctly the reality of a priest and of a deacon is by seeing only with the eyes of faith. We need a supernatural vision to understand who they are, to understand the greatness of the ceremony that we are attending: a ceremony that surpasses any human activity. We are, dear brethren, present at something that is so breathtaking: God Himself will choose certain souls from all humanity, souls that He will touch and transform, imprinting on them something that only they can have—the Character of the priesthood. The deacon will already participate in the priesthood, though, of course, the priest will participate to a higher degree. The Church tells us that this Character is nothing other than a participation in what we call the Hypostatic Union. When we speak of the Hypostatic Union, we speak of the marvelous union between the human nature and the divine, a union that we find in Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Hypostatic Union is, in fact, precisely what makes Jesus a Priest. The priest is a mediator, one who stands in the middle, between God and man. Moreover, as Jesus is a partaker of both the human and divine nature, He is the only one who stands and can truly stand between God and man. Ambassador of man to God, He is the Mediator who was sent by the Father to save us. The action of salvation consists of a terrible reality: the Passion and Death of Our Lord. Our Lord, who is both Victim and Sovereign Priest, offered the sacrifice of His own death to pay for sin, to save us, to win for us God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness and ulti- mately Heaven. When God makes priests, He wants to give them such dignity that He makes them partakers of precisely what makes Jesus Priest. This union between the priest and the High Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ, is beyond all understanding! It makes the priest the most important man on earth, higher in rank than any political governor, prince, king, or president whatsoever. They busy themselves with the happenings of the world; the priest is absorbed with eternity. If there is anyone who is in charge of the destiny of mankind, it is the priest, who is chosen by God Himself. The priest stands daily before the Infinite Majesty of God, renewing the sacrifice of Our Lord Himself and, one might say, “doing business” with God concerning the salvation of souls. The priest offers to God the only sacrifice worthy of God, the only one that can pay for and repair the damage of man’s sin. God has entrusted the priest with the task of giving souls the treasures of the bounty of God, the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus Himself in the Holy Eucharist. However, once again, to grasp something of this mystery and to enter into it, we need faith. We look at the world today; we try to find this faith… Where is it? Even when you look to the Church, there is something appalling in the loss of understanding of all these mysteries that we have just described. If there is anyone who is unknown today, it is the priest. Even the official documents of the Church after the Council mention a crisis of the identity of the priest, which means that the priest no longer knows who he is…. How can that be? Where is the root of the problem? My dear brethren, I think we can say that it comes from a lack of awareness of God. Modern man no longer knows who God is. Man turns to his imagination, he invents 25 his gods, he makes up something in his little head. He no longer accepts this objective God, this God Who is our Creator, Who is outside our little world, Who is infinite, almighty, eternal, Divine Providence–a God who at every moment and for all time is the Sovereign, who is in control of everything, who dictates everything, who is infallible in His Providence. He is the God who, nevertheless, gave His creatures the freedom to merit with their actions; this means, my dear brethren, that whatever a man chooses to do will be either good or evil. A good action will be rewarded; an evil one will be punished. If we put God in His place, we must also put man in his place, and this correlation between man and God will be either a marvelous story or a tragedy. Or both. Because every time creatures perform good actions, they please God. If they do something evil, not only do they do something evil, but they also “violate” God’s commandment and offend God Himself, His majesty. This understanding of the terrible consequences of human actions—especially the behavior we call sin—is forgotten today. Modern man does not know what sin is; he is ignorant of the consequences, particularly of the most terrible consequences both here on earth and after this life. The consequence here on earth is death. The reason why death came into being—death awaits every one of us!—is because of the very first sin—only one sin, my dear brethren!—of our parents, Adam and Eve, and as a result every human being will die. And still we can tolerate sin so easily? We can disregard it? What about the consequences that are no longer mentioned—hell, the worst consequence of sin! They do not speak of it nowadays, and when they do, they say no one is there! This tragedy of an eternity of unhappiness, of suffering, is ter- www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 26 sermon rible! Separation from God for all eternity: this is called hell. This can easily be the end of man if he does not behave, if he does not follow God’s commandments. It is the mission of the Church to do what she can to take this destiny away from humankind, to bring souls to heaven and not to hell. It is not difficult: avoid sin, avoid offending God and do not presume, “Well, that’s not too serious!” or “It is so easy to get God’s forgiveness,” and so on. No, sin is serious! And when we understand that, we understand better the role of the priest who, every day, is exposed to this drama, yes, to the eternal destiny of man. To the priest has been given the power to open heaven, to free souls who are in the bonds of sin, in the claws of the devil. This is why we have priests, so we can be saved and go to heaven. If we do not have priests, woe to us! We cannot sufficiently appreciate the gift God gives us today by giving us more priests! We must thank God—oh, yes!—let us really thank God for giving us more priests who will renew the sacrifice of Our Lord, who will stand like Jesus on the Cross, begging for forgiveness, for God’s mercy, paying for sin and giving souls God’s grace. All this work is done with the Holy Ghost (we are in the Octave of the Holy Ghost), and when we speak of priests, we speak of a very special relationship between the Holy Ghost and the priest and the deacon. If there is an ordination in which we can see this to the highest THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org degree, it is, I think, in that of the deacon. In the form of the sacrament itself, while the bishop imposes his hand on the head of the deacon, he says, “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum– Receive the Holy Ghost.” “Ad robur– Be strengthened….” “Ad resistendum diabolo–to resist the devil” and his temptations. That is the perception of the Church. When she makes deacons, she calls for the help of the Holy Ghost to resist the devil and to fight against his temptations. This is the belief of the Church, not what they say today. And it continues in the form itself why and by which deacons are made deacons: “Emitte ignis”–send forth and place in them the gifts of the Holy Ghost, His sevenfold gifts. It is impressive, my dear brethren, to see this action. sermon We must reflect that it is God Himself, in the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, who is coming into each one of them and is transforming and supernaturally strengthening them for the superhuman fight against the fallen angels, this fight to save souls. For the priest, too, there is mention of the Holy Ghost, for this work of sanctification is the Holy Ghost’s work. Let us ask the angels and the Blessed Virgin Mary to give us a better and deeper understanding of this work of God and of how close He is to us. My dear brethren, you would certainly like to hear something about the Society’s present situation. Where do we stand? What’s going on? I would prefer to tell you that it’s all sunshine or all clouds, but I have to tell you what it’s like today: we have clouds and sun! This is the case to such an extent that, for the last two years, we have constantly faced contradiction. Already two years ago, in 2009, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, because of the difficulty of the contradictions that we are always facing. I do not exaggerate the word “contradiction.” What does it mean? It means that we receive from Rome contradictory messages; some will tell you this and some will tell you that. It’s not only divergence; it’s contradiction. Of course we think about it and ask why it is the case. Where does it come from? Our understanding is that, in Rome, as in the whole Church, there are different currents. To simplify, let’s call them the progressive and conservative currents. There are certain churchmen who are close to us and who like to see us be fostered. But there are others who hate us, this being the only phrase which correctly describes their behavior towards us. They hate us and they are in Rome. Some- times things come from them and sometimes from the others. Let me give you an example which took place last September. A priest who used to belong to a religious order and who had just joined us received a letter from his former superior. He was told that he was no longer a member of his order and that he was excommunicated. To this letter was joined a letter of confirmation from the Congregation in charge of religious in Rome, stating the following: “Father is indeed no longer member of your order because he is excommunicated as he has lost the Faith by joining the formal schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.” This letter was dated last September! So I went to Rome and asked the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission what this was all about. He did not even let me finish the passage which I was reading from this letter before he said: “I know already. We–the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–have told the Congregation for Religious that they do not have the right to say something like that. They are incompetent, and they have to revise their judgment.” He then continued: “This is what you have to do with this letter” and acted like he was throwing it away. That’s the gesture he made! In other words, take it and put it in the trash can. So one authority in Rome is asking me to throw away another Roman authority’s decision. Is that not a contradiction? He continued by saying the following: “You must tell your priests and faithful that not everything that comes from Rome comes from the pope!” I said to him: “It’s impossible. How do you want the faithful and the priests to be able to make that judgment? What comes from Rome comes from the pope! Or else one might say what pleases me comes from the pope and what 27 displeases me does not come from the pope!” With such an example, my dear brethren, you have to understand that there is a serious problem in Rome. If an authority tells us: “Be aware that not everything that comes from Rome comes from the pope,” where does it then come from? How is it possible? Rome, the Vatican, is supposed to be the right hand of the pope. This means that the pope is no longer in control. When I speak of contradiction, my dear brethren, I mean that certain people in Rome consider us as being outside the Church, excommunicated, and even as having lost the Faith and being heretics. But there are others who very clearly accept us as Catholics. When Bishop de Galarreta and our priests go to Rome for the doctrinal discussions, they say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. How can you have both attitudes at the same time? Do you see how strong this contradiction is? My dear brethren, that’s why you can understand that we are very cautious. We are not going to throw ourselves into this turmoil, however much we welcome the sun but hide ourselves from the clouds. Who is going to win in the Holy See? We have so many examples where we see that, when the pope wants to do something good, he’s blocked or paralyzed. I will give another of so many examples. The only Trappist abbot in Germany requested from the pope to return, not only to the Tridentine Mass, but to be able to restore the Rule and Constitutions that were in place prior to Vatican II. The pope granted it and, in order to make it possible, he removed him from the Benedictine Federation, which uses modern Rules, so that he could follow the old one. The pope placed the abbey directly under himself. Six months later, the abbot called a www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 28 sermon friend in Rome and asked him what was going on. “I have no news,” he said. His friend replied: “Write again to the Pope, but this time send the letter to me and I will personally take it to the Pope,” which he did. He brought the letter and asked the Holy Father what was happening with this abbey. The pope, very surprised, said: “I granted the permission six months ago!” An inquiry was made and they found out that someone–we know exactly who it was–had put the letter in a drawer at the Secretary of State’s office. This time, this friend–who told me the story personally, so there is no hearsay–said to the Holy Father: “Write concesso (“permission granted”) in the letter and I will take care of it. I will bring the news to the abbey.” By doing this, they went around the Secretary of State to give news of the Pope’s decision. This is just one example. To show you how limited the pope himself is in his actions, look at the recent text about the Tridentine Mass. This is yet again a beautiful example of the contradictory forces which are in Rome. On the one hand, it’s very obvious that there is a desire, with this text, to spread the Mass everywhere, to make it possible for every soul to have access to not only the old Mass, but to the old way the sacraments were given: all of the liturgical books are put at everyone’s disposal. But at the same time, there are surprising restrictions. The first restriction, which is very surprising, is that modern seminarians cannot have the old rite. Only those who are under the Ecclesia Dei Commission can be ordained according to the old way. Why then is it said that the pontifical which provides the old rite of ordination is put at their disposal? But I may say that there is something worse. On the one hand, you have this desire to put the old Mass at the disposal of all the souls in the whole world. But then you have Paragraph 19 which says that those who want to be the beneficiaries of this must neither belong to groups nor even help those who are against the New Mass. But 95 percent of those who want the old Mass are against the New Mass! Why do we want the old Mass? If we were satisfied with the New, we wouldn’t even think about the old one! Those who are against the validity or the legitimacy of the New Mass are deprived of the old one. For them: nothing! That is no longer an act of reconciliation; that’s an act of war! I think that the only way to explain how such divergences are possible in one text is precisely these divergences within the Vatican itself. Each party tries to get something. And, of course, we are in the middle of this mess. So you hear all kinds of rumors: absolutely everything possible and impossible! Please, my dear brethren, don’t run after these rumors. If we know something, we will tell you. We have never hid anything and we have no reason to hide what’s going on with us. If we don’t tell you anything, it’s because nothing is happening. Some people say that something is going to happen. No; this is not true! The truth is that Cardinal Levada has called me to Rome, and it appears that it will be around the middle of September. That’s the only thing I know. It’s about the discussions we had with Rome. After these discussions, it had been said that “the documents will be given to the higher authorities.” These are the exact words. That’s the only thing I know about the future. All the rest is made up. Please don’t run after these rumors. All this shows, my dear brethren, that the fight is continuing. THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org There are two dangers today, if I may say. The fi rst is to be under the illusion that everything is fine, everything is finished, the fight is over. That, however, is an enormous illusion. I can guarantee you, my dear brethren, that if and when Rome finally corrects this canonical situation, the fight will start. It will not be the end! But we are not there yet. How long do we have to wait? I don’t know; I have no idea! We will continue to say that there is a crisis in the Church. Sometimes it’s really frustrating because in Rome they give the impression that everything is fine, and the next day we talk to them it’s not. These are the words from the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “But you know, it’s the priests, it’s the bishops, it’s the Catholic universities: they are full of heresies!” That’s what the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith told us in June 2009! So they know that the situation in the Church is dramatic. If they are able to say that it is full of heresies everywhere, it really means something! At the same time, they act as if everything is fine. It is disappointing and confusing, my dear brethren, but that’s the situation. Therefore, don’t get caught up in all these illusions. But at the same time, don’t let discouragement touch you. It’s true that this fight is long, but we cannot change that. The devil remains the devil and we are not going to make peace with the him. It’s going to last as long as God wants, but we have all we need for this fight: grace and the support of God. So we must continue in this fight with serenity and without discouragement. It’s so clear that we are blessed by God. The traditional Mass that we are celebrating is nurturing the Christian spirit inside of us, the spirit of Christ, which teaches sermon us that we have to stay away from the world, to make moderate use of earthly goods, and that what is most important is not here on earth. What is most important is God, heaven, our eternal destiny. My dear brethren, if I call you to this Rosary Crusade, it’s precisely to help you get out of these traps, both of illusion and of discouragement. In this prayer, in this chain of roses which unites us to the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are sure to be under her protection and to be fighting the right fight. She will lead us! Do not fear; the good Mother is not going to abandon her children. Be generous, be really generous in these prayers. We cannot expect good things for the Church through human means. No, we expect them by supernatural means and prayer precisely is one of the mightiest means we have. So, my dear brethren, I invite you to pray the rosary and to pray it well. The quantity does not matter so much as the quality: the way you pray. Why did the Blessed Virgin Mary bring the rosary to St. Dominic? What was her purpose? It was to unite the faithful with God in contemplation by meditating upon the events in the life of our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s the purpose of the rosary. It’s not just to say 15 decades or a certain number of rosaries, but it’s like the melody, the background music which helps us meditate on the mysteries which unite us with Our Lord Jesus Christ and with the Blessed Virgin Mary. So let us pray well! A well-prayed rosary, we can be certain, is a very, 29 very powerful thing. Sister Lucy of Fatima dared to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave a special efficaciousness to this prayer in such a way that the rosary would be the solution to all problems. My dear brethren, in continuing this ceremony, let us place ourselves under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary and under the protection of the Holy Ghost, asking Him to set the world afire, to put the flame of charity more and more into these priests and deacons that they, in turn, set the world afire, the invincible fire of charity, the love of God and of one’s neighbor for the love of God. Amen. Taken from DICI, No. 237 ( June 25, 2011). Photographs by Fr. John Young, FSSPX. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 30 interview with Bishop Fellay in Gabon, on the 25th Anniversary of saint Pius X’s Mission Interview conducted by Professor Hugues Mouckaga Good morning, Your Excellency, and thank you infinitely for finding the time to free yourself from your many occupations to grant us this interview. To begin with, we hazard this question. This is the fifth time that you set foot in Gabon to confer the sacrament of Confirmation on the faithful of St. Pius X’s Mission. What sentiments especially touch you? ferent way than in other countries, because of this return to our roots. try, not only to recall but also to fill myself with the love with which he embraced you, a few decades ago. Each time it is very moving, in a dif- everywhere. In all our Society, we see all ages coming to be confirmed. But let me add that, when we administer Confirmation to the workers of the eleventh hour, it is always very This Confirmation ceremony was out of the ordinary because of the number of confirmandi: about a hundred, among whom we noticed some very young, but also some men and women well advanced in age, who have been faithful of the Mission for very many years now. May we know what you felt in A great joy at being able to find seeing this category of the faithful myself in the footsteps of our most venerated Founder, Archbishop pass in front of you? moving, for we see the Good Lord who passes and comes back. Sometimes the soul was not aware of this passage of the Good Lord who was knocking on the door. But then, in the end, she answers, and God can fill her with His graces. It is marvelous. During your homily, you decided to insist upon the essence and the effects of Confirmation. For the faithful who may not have followed what you said, but also for those absent, would it be possible for you It really was not much of a surto go over once again the important Marcel Lefebvre. I try, every time prise because I see the same thing points of the impact of this act? I set foot in your beautiful coun- THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org I will not repeat the sermon, which was quite long. I would just like to resume it. To do so, I will start with the first idea: the great- InTervIew ness of the Good Lord’s gifts, gifts that completely surpass us. And I will even go so far as to say and to claim without fear of being mistaken that a single Confirmation is for God greater than the creation of the whole universe. God had the goodness to lower Himself to our level and to give us sensible signs by which we can be certain that we receive these gifts. If these gifts surpass us, how can we be sure of them? The sacrament of Confirmation is a sign that permits us to know that He has given us His gifts. There are two things in the form of the sacrament: “I mark thee with the sign of the Cross” and “I confirm thee with the holy chrism.” There are the gifts of the Holy Ghost that God gives to the soul, and there is the character of this sacrament that makes us soldiers of Christ. There are therefore the gifts, but also the exigencies of Confirmation, as for the Apostles on Pentecost. presence will enhance tomorrow, on June 2, the festivities marking the 25th anniversary of the founding of St. Pius X’s Mission in Gabon, a moment that the faithful have been eagerly anticipating. Could you tell us, Your Excellency, your thoughts and feelings on this particular occasion? This too is moving. Twenty-five years is an extraordinary landmark. On the one hand it is little, on the other hand it is a lot. Twenty-five years is already a generation. Compared with a human life, it is sometimes less; compared with a society, it is relatively short, for example in a Church that is 2,000 years old. But in the present circumstances of the Church in crisis, seeing a work that started at zero and has developed magnificently, we have to thank the Good Lord. If Archbishop Lefebvre were here, he would be participating personally in these festivities, no doubt about it. But he is above, in Heaven, and he is helping us. You are his representative; what do you remember about the circumstances No. It is not a religious life, but of this foundation in 1986? Besides the confirmations that you have come to administer, your we see the beauty of this mission, we see that Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed follow Divine Providence. We know that the match was not won in advance, because of the crisis that was already brewing between the conciliar Church and the Society. For the history books, Your Excellency, what can we recall as the major factors that made it possible to plant St. Pius X’s Mission in Gabon? I think that at the outset there were those who remembered Archbishop Lefebvre. The older ones who remembered him, the Mass, the Gregorian chant. I remember, at the beginning, those seminarians who still knew the Mass by heart, who sang the chant propers by heart without rehearsing. That says a lot about the beginnings. It was necessary to have this soil that was ready. Some even say that the Presidency of the Republic of Gabon, and specifically the Head of State at the time, Omar Bongo, had to give his clearance first. Yesterday was a special event in the life of St. Pius X’s Mission: the elevation of two ladies to the rank of Third Order members. Can you tell us in what this consists? Is it a sort of religious life? it is the participation in certain elements of the religious life in the secular life. It is called the Third Order because it comes after the first and the second, which are religious orders. The third is the civil order. Those who are members of it cannot live in the religious life, but they can participate in the graces of the religious life. We have done the same sort of thing in the Society, at the request of the faithful. Those who are members choose to participate in the sanctification of the priests, but also to benefit from the graces that that confers. 31 Monseigneur could have chosen many places to start the apostolate in central Africa. There was already some work being done in southern Africa, but here there was nothing. Therefore he chose Gabon. He could have chosen to start in Dakar, or Senegal, where he had been archbishop, but he preferred Gabon. I should say that he had the support of Bishop Ndong and three bishops at the time. They were rather supportive. So there was an open door. I think that that is what prompted him to begin here. But Monseigneur followed the signs of Divine Providence. Providence dispenses graces as it wills; you have to follow the path. Twenty-five years later, when That is true. At one point there was a very close call, but it was an anxiety that was resolved. During Archbishop Lefebvre’s first trip the President was the one who made his personal airplane available so that he could travel to Franceville—or to Mouila, I don’t recall—so as to visit Bishop Ndong. In any case you see that there was benevolent support on the part of the Presidency. St. Pius X’s Mission is also Father Patrick Groche, whom everyone likes to acknowledge as the builder of this work. The little girls called him “Pappy Groche” and his shadow continues to hover over the Mission. Many people miss him, some even mourn him. Several years ago www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 32 InTervIew us to this crisis. We work for the restoration of the Church, but it may still last a decade or two. We need much courage and perseverance. Our situation might be solved tomorrow and it might be solved after tomorrow. Everything is in the hands of the Good Lord. Let us simply remain faithful. The second question regards your thoughts about the beatification of Pope John Paul II. Archbishop Lefebvre at the seminary in Libreville, Gabon (1934) he was transferred to Écône [in Switzerland], where he is said to be bored. Some people even talk about a pre-retirement position. What is your response to them? That he was transferred after staying for a long time here in Gabon. He needed to catch his breath for a while. This is why they gave him that position. But that is a temporary situation. This is certainly not the last we will hear about dear Father Groche. Twenty-five years is the silver jubilee. It is an occasion that is worth celebrating. As soon as this phase is completed, they will have to think about their golden anniversary, 50 years. In your opinion, what image should St. Pius X’s Mission reflect in 2036 when it celebrates its 50th anniversary? It is always difficult to play the prophet. And so I will try to avoid doing it. But one can always express one’s wishes. My first wish is always to do what the Good Lord wills. There is no reason to think that our dear Lord wants anything other than the development of this missionary work. One hopes that in 25 years they will have more priests and therefore more apostles available to the faithful; more centers, more parishes in Libreville, and elsewhere throughout Africa; that depends on the harvesters. Therefore we must ask our dear Lord to send laborers into the field, for the harvest is great. Your Excellency, allow me to finish with two questions. First, what can you say about the relations between the SSPX and Rome? Where are your contacts leading? Also, as an aside, can we hope for a normalization of the relationship in a not too distant future? The contacts are still ongoing. We have probably reached the end of a period of discussions. It is not yet totally clear. What is going to happen? What is going to be the result of this phase? Regarding your aside: What is Rome planning for us now? We cannot deceive ourselves: we are truly in a crisis of the Church. It is certainly not over. What is our destiny in this crisis? I believe that somehow the Good Lord has tied THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org I have very mixed feelings. There is an impression of a major hurry, despite all the rules that the Church provides before proceeding to such an act. There is a sense of imprudence. For example, when the Church wants to beatify or to canonize, she used to examine what was said or written by the candidate very closely. In this case, however, most of what has been written is still in the secret Vatican archives which have not been opened yet. Therefore we remain ill at ease. We fear a will to seal a cause that John Paul II began and wanted to follow during his pontificate, a cause for which he wanted to be the apostle. Your Excellency, a last word for the faithful. Above all, keep the Faith. “Be firm in the faith.” It is what St. Paul was already saying to his faithful. He also said: “Be faithful. Keep your traditions.” Nothing is new. The best vouch for the future, is the past. The past teaches us everything, helps us in the new situations. Today, in these difficult times, I invite everyone to put oneself under the protection and the mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her Immaculate Heart. In Fatima, she wished to introduce this devotion for the sake of the souls. Let us listen to her. Taken from DICI, No. 236, June 11, 2011. 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/September 2011 Reprint #99 Theological Criteria for the Condemnation of the World Day of Prayer for Peace After the Angelus of January 1, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI recalled the “25th anniversary of the World Day of Prayer which Venerable John Paul II convoked at Assisi in 1986.” For this occasion, the Pope announced his intention to go to Assisi in October, and he invited his “Christian brethren of various denominations, the exponents of the world’s religious traditions to join this Pilgrimage….[which] will aim to commemorate the historical action….” Without anticipating what precisely is going to be done at Assisi in October, especially since we do not yet know the program, we simply wish to reprint an article first published in the Courrier de Rome on the occasion of the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 and in SiSiNoNo, February 2002, under the title “What Should We Think of the False Ecumenical Worship of Assisi?” At Assisi, next October 27, not only will the Catholics gather at Assisi, but also “ the representatives of the world’s other religions” will join them in an assembly for peace.1 Those whom Pope John Paul II 33 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT has called “the representatives of the other religions” the Church has always more appropriately called infidels. “Broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; in the strict sense infidels are the unbaptized. They are divided into monotheists ( Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.”2 What Pope John Paul II has called the “other” religions, the Church has more properly called the false religions. A false religion is any non-Christian religion “in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false insofar as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation.”3 This having been said, in light of the Catholic Faith, the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to: 1) an insult to God; 2) a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption; 3) a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels; 4) a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and 5) a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission. 1. An Insult to God “In light of the Catholic Faith, the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to: 1) an insult to God, 2) a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption, 3) a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels, 4) a danger and a scandal to Catholics, and 5) a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission.” All prayer, including petition, is an act of worship.4 As such, it must be addressed to Whom it is due, and in the right way. To whom it is due: The one true God, Creator and Lord of all men, the one to whom the Lord Jesus Christ has brought them back (I Jn. 5:20) by confirming the first commandment of the Law. “I am the Lord thy God... Thou shalt not have strange gods before me....Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them...” (Ex. 20:2-5).5 In the right way: Thus, it must be prayer that corresponds to the fullness of Revelation without admixture of error: “But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him” ( Jn. 4:23). Prayer which is addressed to false gods or inspired by religious opinions differing in whole or in part from divine Revelation, is not an act of worship, but of superstition. It does not honor God; it offends Him. At least, objectively, it is a sin against 34 the first commandment.6 To whom are the persons to gather at Assisi going to pray, and in what way? Invited in their capacity as “representatives of the other religions,” “everyone will pray in his own way and customary style.” This was explained by Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions.7 This was confirmed last June 27 by Cardinal Etchegaray at a press conference published by Documentation Catholique of September 7-21, 1986, under the rubric “Acts of the Holy See”: “It involves respecting each one’s prayer, and allowing everyone to express himself in the fullness of his faith, of his belief.” On October 27 at Assisi, superstition will be widely practiced in its most serious forms, from the “false worship” of Jews who, during the era of grace, pretend to honor God by denying His Christ,8 to the idolatry of Hindus and Buddhists who offer a cult to creatures instead of to God.9 The Catholic hierarchy’s apparent approbation of this is especially insulting to God, for it supposes and allows it to be supposed that He looks with equal complacency upon acts of true worship and acts of superstition, upon manifestations of faith and manifestations of incredulity, upon the true religion and upon the false religions; in short, upon truth and upon error.10 2. Denial of the Universal Necessity of Redemption There is but one Mediator between God and men: the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and true man (I Tim. 2:5). By nature, men are “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3); by Him, they have been reconciled with the Father (Col. 1:20), and it is only by faith in Him that they can have the boldness to approach God with entire confidence (Eph. 3:12). To Him was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), and at His name every knee must bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10-11). No one goes to the Father save by Him ( Jn. 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org given to man by which he must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world ( Jn.1:9), and whoever does not follow Him wanders in darkness ( Jn. 8:12). Who is not with Him is against Him (Mt. 13:30), and who does not honor Him also dishonors His Father who sent Him (as the Jews do) ( Jn. 5:23). To Him has the Father given the judgment of men, but he who refuses belief has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the Only Son of God ( Jn. 3:18), nor in the Father who sent Him ( Jn. 17:3). He is, moreover, the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6),11 for divisions, conflicts, and wars are the bitter fruit of sin from which man cannot free himself by his own virtue, but only in virtue of the Redeemer’s blood. What place will the Lord Jesus Christ have at Assisi in the prayer of the “representatives of the other religions”? None; for to them He remains either unknown, or a stumbling block, or a sign of contradiction. The invitation that was addressed to them to pray for peace in the world supposes, and inevitably allows it to be supposed, that there are people–the Christians–who must approach God by the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ and in His name, and others–the rest of the human race–who can approach God directly and in their own name, without regard to the Mediator; that there are some men who must bend the knee before the Lord Jesus Christ, and some who are exempt; some men who must seek peace in the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, and others who can obtain peace outside His reign and even in opposing it. This is the idea that comes from the declarations of the two cardinals quoted above: “While for us Christians Christ is our peace, for all believers peace is a gift of God”12; “for Christians, prayer goes through Christ.”13 The “prayer meeting” of Assisi, then, is the public negation of the universal necessity of Redemption. 3. A Lack of Justice and Charity Towards the Infidels “Jesus Christ is not optional,” said Cardinal Pie. There are not some men who are justified by faith in Him, and others who are justified without regard to Him: Every man is either saved by Christ or is lost without Him. Nor are there any purely natural ends for which a man can opt instead of his unique supernatural end. If, gone astray in sin, he finds himself out of Christ, the unique Way ( Jn. 4:6) by which to attain the end for which he was created, all that is left him is everlasting ruin. Real faith, and not mere “good faith,” is the subjective condition for salvation for everyone, even for the pagans. Since it is a necessity of means, “if it is lacking (even involuntarily) it is absolutely impossible to effect eternal salvation.”14 Voluntary infidelity, St. Thomas explains, is a fault and involuntary infidelity is a punishment. In fact, the infidels who are not lost because of the sin of incredulity, that is, by the sin of not having believed in Christ about whom they never knew anything, are lost by their other sins, the remission of which cannot be given to anyone without the true faith.15 Nothing, then, is more important for man than to accept the Redeemer and union with the Mediator: it is a matter of eternal death or life. This is what the infidels have a right to hear announced by the Catholic Church, in conformity to the divine command,16 and this is what the Catholic Church has always announced to the infidels by praying, not with them, but for them. What will happen at Assisi? They certainly won t pray for the infidels, thus presuming implicitly and publicly that they no longer need the true faith. Instead of that, they will pray in union with them, or rather, according to the rabbinical subtlety of Radio Vatican, they will pray near them, presuming thus implicitly and publicly that prayer dictated by error is received by God as much as prayer made “in spirit and in truth.” “It involves respecting each one s prayer,” Cardinal Etchegaray explained in his brief declaration. That means that the infidels who will gather at Assisi, who, let us be clear, are not “savages brought up in the forest” who have “never known anything about the faith,” as the theologians hypothesize when discussing the problem of the salvation of infidels,17 will be “respectfully” left “in the darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk. 1:79). Authorized to pray in their distinctive costumes as “representatives of the other religions” and in conformity with their erroneous religious beliefs, they are even encouraged to persevere in sins, at least material, against the faith: infidelity, heresy, etc. Invited to pray for peace in the world, defined as a “fundamental” and “supreme” good,18 they are turned away from the eternal goods towards a temporal good, towards a secondary natural end, as if they didn t need to procure their supernatural last end, which really is fundamental and supreme: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Mt. 6:33). For all these reasons, the “prayer meeting” of Assisi THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 35 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT is, at least viewed from the outside, a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels. 4. A Danger and a Scandal to Catholics True faith is indispensable for salvation. Catholics are thus obliged to avoid every proximate danger to their faith. Among the exterior dangers is contact with infidels when it is not the result of genuine necessity. This contact is illicit in virtue of divine and natural law even without considering ecclesiastical law, and even in the case where ecclesiastical law does not prohibit it, for example in social relations: Haereticum hominem devita (Avoid the heretic) (Tit. 3:10). Moreover, out of maternal concern, the Church has always forbidden not only what might be a danger to the faith but also an occasion of scandal.19 As for the false religions, the Church has always refused them the right to public worship. She has tolerated it when it was necessary, but tolerance always means “in relation to an evil to be allowed for a proportionate reason.”20 In any case, she has always avoided and forbidden any apparent approval of nonCatholic rites. What is going to happen at Assisi? Catholics and infidels “will gather to pray” (even though it will not be “to pray together”...). That simply means that they will pray together at Assisi, first simultaneously in their own residences, and then, by turns when united at the closing ceremony before the basilica of Saint Francis. And this is not being done in order to protect the faith of Catholics or to at least avoid scandalizing them. Rather, it is to allow all to pray “according to their own manner and style,” and to “respect each one s prayer” and to “allow everyone to express himself in the fullness of his faith, of his belief.”21 All this constitutes at least an exterior approbation of: 1) false religions, to which the Church as always denied any right; and 2) religious subjectivism, which she has always condemned under the names of indifferentism or latitudinarianism, and which “seeks to justify itself under the pretended claims of liberty, failing to recognize the rights of objective truth which are made manifest either by the lights of reason or by Revelation.”22 Now, religious indifferentism, which is “one of the most deleterious heresies” and which “places all religions on an equal footing,” inevitably leads one to consider the truth of religious belief as merely a matter of utility for a well-regulated life: “One ends by considering religion as an entirely individual thing which can be adapted to the dispositions of each one, letting everyone form his own personal religion, and by concluding that all the religions are good even though they contradict each other.”23 But with this point of view we are outside the Catholic act of faith, and have reached something...like an act of incredulity towards divine Revelation. Revelation is a reality, a fact, a truth accredited by God by sure signs, because error in this domain would have had disastrous consequences for men.25 But “in the presence of an undeniable fact or of an evident truth, one cannot be tolerant to the point of approving the attitude of those who consider them to be non-existent or false. That would suppose that we do not really believe or are not fully convinced of the truth of our position, or that we are (or deem ourselves to be) dealing with a matter that is absolutely banal or indifferent, or that we would consider truth and error to be purely relative positions.”25 And since the “prayer meeting” is characterized by all of that, it is an occasion of scandal for Catholics and of grave danger to their faith. Because of ecumenism, they find themselves united to the infidels, but in their “common ruin.”26 “There is no power in the Church like Peter’s, but it is power as vicar, and as such, is no wise absolute, but limited by the divine right of Him whom he represents. ‘The Lord confided to Peter, not Peter’s sheep, but His own in order to pasture them, not in his own interest, but God’s.’ It is not within Peter’s power, therefore, to promote initiatives in disaccord with the mission of the Church.” 36 5. Betrayal of the Mission Confided to Peter and to the Church The Church’s mission is to announce to all nations that: 1) there is one true God, who revealed Himself for the benefit of all men in our Lord Jesus THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Christ; 2) that there is only one true religion, the only one by which God wishes to be honored, because He is Truth, and everything in the false religions which goes against the truth is repugnant to Him: doctrinal errors, immoral laws, unseemly rites; 3) that there is only one Mediator between God and men, by whom men can hope to be saved, because all are sinners and remain in their sin if they are deprived of the Blood of Christ; 4) that there is one true Church, the perpetual guardian of this Blood, and that “it is necessary to believe that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, which is the unique ark of salvation, and those who do not enter it will perish in the deluge”27; moreover, among their moral dispositions must be the desire, explicit or implicit, to fully accomplish the will of God, if their ignorance is truly invincible.28 The Church’s proper mission is to announce all this: “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). So that the Church could accomplish with assurance this mission throughout the centuries, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred on Saint Peter and his successors the mission of visibly representing Him (Mt. 16, 17-19; Jn. 21:15-17): The Vicar of Jesus Christ is not charged with establishing a new doctrine with the help of new revelations, nor of creating a new order of things, nor of instituting new sacraments: such is not his function. He represents Jesus Christ at the head of His Church, whose constitution has been finalized. This essential constitution, that is to say, the creation of the Church, was Jesus Christ’s proper task which He, Himself, had to conclude, and of which He said to the Father: “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” ( Jn. 17:4). Nothing more needs to be added; it only remains to maintain this creation, to assure the Church s work and preside over the functioning of its organs. Two things are necessary for this: govern it, and perpetuate the teaching of the truth. Vatican Council I reduced to these two points the supreme function of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Peter represents Jesus Christ under these two aspects.29 There is no power in the Church like Peter’s, but it is power as vicar, and as such, is no wise absolute, but limited by the divine right of Him whom he represents. “The Lord confided to Peter, not Peter’s sheep, but His own in order to pasture them, not in his own interest, but God’s.”30 It is not within Peter’s power, therefore, to promote initiatives in disaccord with the mission of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff, as clearly is the “prayer meeting” of Assisi. The Vicar of Him who said: “Begone, Satan, for it is written, ‘The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve’” (Mt. 4:10; Deut. 6:13), cannot invite “the representatives” of the false religions to pray to their false gods in places consecrated to the faith in the true God. The Successor of him who obtained the primacy by his act of faith when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16; cf. Jn. 6:69-70), cannot authorize anyone to treat Jesus Christ as irrelevant. The Successor of him who received the commission to confirm his brethren in the faith (Lk. 22:32), has no right to be a stumbling block for their faith. Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 26-27, 1986. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p. 813. Ibid. 4 Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 83. 5 Cf. Mt. 4:3-10; Jn. 17:3; Tim. 2:5. See also on this topic Pietro Cardinal Palazzini, Vita e virtu cristiane, p. 52, and Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione (Rome-Paris, 1918), I, 136. 6 Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, QQ. 92-96. 7 See L’Osservatore Romano, January 27-28, 1986, p. 4. 8 Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 92, Art. 2, ad 3, and I-II, Q. 10, Art. 11. 9 Cf. Acts 17:16. 10 Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 94, Art. 1. 11 Cf. Eph. 2:14 and Mich. 5:5. 12 Cardinal Willebrands in L’Osservatore Romano cited above. 13 Cardinal Etchegaray, cited above in Documentation Catholique. 14 Dizionario di teologia morale, p. 66. 15 See Mk. 16:15-16; Jn. 20:31; Heb. 11:6; Council of Trent in Denzinger 799 and 801; Vatican II, Dz. 1793. Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1. 16 Mk. 6:16; Mt. 28:19-20. 17 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, 11. 18 John Paul II and Cardinal Willebrands in L’Osservatore Romano, April 7-8, and Jan. 27-28, 1986, respectively. 19 See the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canons 1258 and 2316; and Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 10, Art. 9-11. 20 Dizionario de teologia morale, p. 1702. 21 See the declarations of Cardinals Willebrands and Etchegaray cited above. 22 Dizionario de teologia morale, p. 805. 23 Ibid. 24 Pope Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas, 1888. 25 Dizionario di teologia morale, p. 1703. 26 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950. 27 Pope Pius IX, Dz. 1647. 28 Ibid. 29 Dom Adrien Grea, De l’Église et de sa divine constitution; cf. Vatican I, constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4. 30 St. Augustine, Sermon 285, No. 3. 1 2 3 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 37 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Assisi 1986 – 2011 The year 2011 began with the Pope’s announcement of a new gathering of representatives of all the world’s religions at Assisi: I have had the opportunity to emphasize that the great religions can constitute an important factor of unity and peace for the human family. In this regard, moreover, I recalled that this year, 2011, is the 25th anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace which Venerable John Paul II convoked in Assisi in 1986. Therefore next October I shall go as a pilgrim to the town of St. Francis, inviting my Christian brethren of various denominations, the exponents of the world’s religious traditions to join this Pilgrimage and ideally all men and women of good will. It will aim to commemorate the historical action desired by my Predecessor and to solemnly renew the commitment of believers of every religion to live their own religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.1 It is not a secret that Cardinal Ratzinger opposed the 1986 gathering; his absence on that occasion did not go unnoticed. So what has happened? Has something changed? It would not be forthright, in this regard, to pass over the clarifications made on several occasions by Cardinal Ratzinger to minimize the risk of syncretism and relativism, going so far as to denounce, in these interreligious meetings, any objective danger of this kind. It is equally obvious that, in his announcement of the commemoration day next October, the Pope avoided speaking of “prayer”; indeed, the protestations made in 1986 by the Vatican that at Assisi “we will not pray together but will be together to pray” proved unconvincing. They came across as a preliminary and somewhat Byzantine attempt to answer the objections of “critics” and to soothe perplexed consciences. At the time of writing, we still do not know precisely what will happen at Assisi next October; therefore, we shall limit our 1 38 [On line at www.vatican.va/holy_father/ benedict_xvi/angelus/ 2011; emphasis added.] remarks to a few thoughts on its currently known aspects. Assisi ’86 constitutes without doubt one of the sorriest days in the history of the Church: thanks to the means of modern communication, the whole world was able to contemplate the representatives of all the religions assembled by the Pope to carry out their idolatrous worship in the churches of a town that symbolizes Catholicism. That historic day, willed by John Paul II, is unfortunately a major icon of his pontificate and of interreligious ecumenism. It is indelibly engraved in the memory of mankind, which has not read the documents of Vatican II–nor the theological considerations of Cardinal Ratzinger–but which saw the historic images. These images contributed decisively to sowing indifferentism and the idea that outside Christ there exist alternative ways to arrive at the Father and to obtain peace. If what happened 25 years ago were to be reproduced at Assisi, we could but reiterate our nullam partem in the same terms as were employed on that occasion. In case the current Sovereign Pontiff should really mean to give a different signification to this manifestation through a series of measures, distinctions, and “precautions,” then a few thoughts would spring to mind. While recognizing, in such a hypothesis, a will to apply the brakes and to rethink the event, it seems to us honestly impossible to rectify an event of the scope of Assisi ’86 without disavowing it. Here’s why: The Assisi meeting was an act intended by the Pope as an application and correct interpretation–on the practical level–of what the Council decreed in terms of ecumenism and dialogue: it was precisely by referring to the documents of the Council that this meeting was broadly justified in the columns of L’Osservatore Romano. To will in some way to redeem it without decrying the scandal it occasioned THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org seems inadequate; obviously, no one denies that this could be embarrassing and that it would take courage to disavow what happened in ’86, but the evil caused to souls and to the Church by that event calls for–objectively–a proportionate reparation, which cannot be evaded. This would be so, not to give the critics their due, but to restore Christ and His Church to their rightful place and to give souls a sufficiently clear signal in relation to the confusion generated by this catastrophic event. It looks to us like something analogous to the hermeneutic of continuity is happening: they are trying to correct the deviations without addressing their cause. Secondly, the Pope intends to celebrate an anniversary: he will journey to Assisi 25 years later so as “to commemorate the historical action desired by my Predecessor,” whose imminent beatification was announced in this context. It seems to us impossible to rectify the content of Assisi ’86 by celebrating its anniversary after beatifying the person who was its chief architect, that is, by evoking once again everything this event signified for the conscience of Christianity and of mankind: such is the objective consequence of celebrating an anniversary. Thirdly, no person of good will can fail to know that the interpretation of a major media event is not given by the theoretical distinctions that may accompany it, nor by the theological considerations the officials in charge may ascribe to it, but by the impact the event has, which can be assessed by the immediate reactions it provokes: this felt pastoral observation should be absolutely primary when a pastoral praxis provides the main inspiration: alas, Assisi is an historical fact, a real event, and not an academic text that can be corrected by a few footnotes. Moreover, along the same line, it seems appropriate to underline that beyond what may happen at any one ecumenical meeting, “the spirit of Assisi” subsequently held sway, just as after the Council “the spirit of the Council” prevailed. To return to Assisi 25 years afterward signifies, in the common perception, the reconfirmation of the spirit canonized by John Paul II on this occasion and in those inspired by it; it is this spirit, embodied in a henceforth common praxis, that sets the actual, public tone of the events linked to it. This is the spirit that, unfortunately, is not in the least being disavowed today. Lastly, no one denies that the Catholic hierarchy, which has de facto a universal moral authority, can and should work for peace, at the limit by involving the representatives of other religions: but this intention must remain on an eminently secular, and not religious, plane. From this standpoint, a pope speaking of peace before the representatives of the nations or an www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 emperor, for example, is perfectly consonant with an historical role from which the Church has never dispensed itself; but to edify peace with the specific contribution the major religions may furnish qua religions, abstracting from any other consideration, is to place the endeavor on a specifically religious plane, even though they do not pray together and even when every form of syncretism in the technical sense of the word has been avoided. Not only is this praxis novel, but it appears incompatible with the magisterium and constant practice of the Church. The words of Pius XI in the opening paragraphs of the encyclical Mortalium Animos seem to us in this regard enlightening and prophetic: Never perhaps in the past have the minds of men been so engrossed as they are today with the desire to strengthen and extend for the common good of mankind that tie of brotherhood–which binds us all so closely together. The world does not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace; on the contrary, dissensions old and new in various lands still issue in rebellions and conflict. Such disputes, affecting the tranquil prosperity of nations, can never be settled without the combined and active good will of those who are responsible for their government and hence it is easy to understand–especially now that the unity of mankind is no longer called into question–the widespread desire that all nations, in view of this universal kinship, should daily find closer union with one another. It is with a similar motive that efforts are being made by some in connection with the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. Assured that there exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they seem to ground on this belief a hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life. With this object, congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. Don David Pagliarani This editorial was published in Tradizione Cattolica, No. 1, 2011; translated from Courrier de Rome, April 2011. THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 39 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT The Missed Debate Msgr. Brunero Gherardini I n March 2009 appeared the very instructive and fine work by the theologian Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion, published by Casa Mariana Editrice. The book met with success: there was an immediate second printing and within a few months, a second edition; then came translation into French, followed by translation into English and German, then Spanish and Portuguese. Presented with this success, a few critical voices were raised which, instead of stimulating a healthy debate, unjustly and presumptuously criticized the theologian’s excellent work. The book had constituted a veritable stone tossed into the pond of discussions about the pastoral assembly that created so many problems before and after its occurrence, within and without the Church. The purpose of the essay was to stir the stagnant waters in which the manifest crisis of the Church has been bogged. “It was an appeal not only to those who decide the orientations of the Catholic Church, but also to the opinion-makers who, for various reasons, sometimes debatable, set the direction of the cultural world.”1 It was a matter, then, of initiating a wise 1 40 Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, Concilio Vaticano II: Il discorso mancato (Turin: Lindau, 2011), p. 9. [Page numbers of subsequent references to the critical discussion of a question that has remained without response for almost 50 years. Msgr. Gherardini’s desire was to put an end to the sterile and continual celebration of the Council, with its quasi obsessive connecting of every theme, whether sacred or profane, to the purportedly pastoral Council; and to have the Council’s 16 documents (4 Constitutions, 9 Decrees, and 3 Declarations) subjected at last to free and constructive analysis. Exactly two years (March 2011) after this book, a new, quite enlightening book has been published by this great theologian of the holy Roman Church in which the author expresses his sorrow and disappointment at the lack of attention to his appeal. The Two Powerhouses of Interpretation There are two centers guiding the Council’s interpretation, one offi cial, constant, and univocal in the reiteration of its basic orientation. [It] has emphasized the grandiose character of the event, its exceptional importance; its providential, opportune response to the expectations of the contemporary world, the Church placed at the service of book appear after the quote.] THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org man– albeit, obviously, of redeemed man–and even of his cult; its opening to dialogue with the dominant culture, as if this constituted the quintessence of the Church’s mission; its adoption of a protagonist’s role in ecumenical dialogue, as if this were the panacea for divided Christianity, and as if the Lord had asked us to dialogue and not to preach and to convert. (p. 10) The other center, lacking an official ecclesiastical character but followed by large numbers of churchmen and acting as the standardbearer of the progressive wing of Catholic culture, is the School of Bologna, founded by Professor Giuseppe Alberigo. It has certainly been the most effective school of study, analysis, and elaboration of the Council, providing a key to its interpretation in clean break with Tradition. According to this School, from the Council emerged a new Church, free from the “bonds” of the past. Tradition was pulverized, and from the Bologna School came forth, in both Europe and America, the masters of innovation. They began to ridicule not only the pre-conciliar rites and devotions, but also doctrinal content and teaching, starting with St. Thomas and his methodology: Church, and little mattered the disorientation of conscience endured by the simple faithful: euphoria dominated, as well as the irresistible fascination aroused by the new, by the modern, by the ideal of a Church in step with the times, more attentive to man than to God, more attentive to the poor than to the sacraments and prayer, more attentive to peace in the world than to the evangelization of peoples and nations, more attentive to progress than to the immemorial teachings she had always propounded with vigor, determination, and conviction. In this paradoxical scenario, in which churchmen and theologians fought against the Church out of their desire for emancipation and revolt, with the terrestrial, non-supernatural objective of getting closer to the world in order to be understood by it and to feel legitimated and accepted, thanks to aggiornamento, in every cultural, political, and social milieu. Ultimately, we witnessed a euphoric rebellion against age-old rules, of which the Roman Curia was the privileged target. Msgr. Gherardini maintains that the break with Tradition occurred during the Second Vatican Council from quite early on. One need only think of the rejection of the preparatory schemata–not a single one of them was saved. “I remember,” the author reveals, “Msgr. Gherardini reaches the following conclusions: The 16 documents of Vatican II, an authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, all express a conciliar magisterium not necessarily covered by the charism of infallibility.” The Magisterium–of which the business of the Encyclical Dignitatis Humanae is the most disturbing confirmation–was openly criticized, and, especially when it adopted the tone and the style of the past, the critics had the effrontery to deny it. In the simplistic and banal opposition between progressive and conservativetraditionalist was consummated the abolition of twenty centuries of history and evangelical witness, to make way for the novelty of the Conciliar Church. (p. 13) The Break with Tradition This revolutionary context greatly facilitated the penetration of the gospel message and ecclesiastical Tradition by rationalist, Enlightenment, positivist, existentialist and destructive tendencies. Then came the devastating effects of liturgical creativity, against which the Episcopal Conferences, “even if they had not been responsible themselves for the disorder created” (p. 14), did not know how to react. In short, it almost seemed as if 1965, the year the Council closed, was year zero in the the unquestioned fidelity to Tradition that characterized the schemata, without detracting from their balance between revealed content already defined by the Church, between exposition according to classical methodology and attention to the new problems of the moment. Some of them compelled recognition not only by their fidelity and doctrinal clarity, but also by the excellence of the exposition. The Church of all time shone in them. With these documents, the Church of all time could confront the cultural manifestations of the new Enlightenment. Once the Council began, this opposition came into the open. The new Enlightenment brought off an arrogant victory; this was understood immediately. The fate of the schemata THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 41 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand…2 was fixed the very moment they were put into the Council Fathers’ hands. (pp. 30-31) Debate during the Council was also fierce and disrespectful. One example will suffice: the episode in which the venerable Cardinal Ottaviani, in the midst of delivering an impassioned defense of the traditional Mass, was silenced at the end of the allotted fifteen-minute time for his speech when the microphone was turned off. At that moment, the Council was already progressing along a particular path, in declared rupture with the age-old Magisterium, summarized and updated in the contested schemata…. It was the beginning of an upheaval that, with time, was to become starker: theology became anthropology; man was elevated, as they said, in the divine design, to the rank of the first and ultimate value of all of creation; salvation progressively lost touch with the revelation of original sin, with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and Redemption, and with Christian hope of eternal life. (pp. 31-32) Thanks to its method of referencing preceding Councils, Vatican II strewed different citations in its documents, especially where the greatest innovations were introduced “in order to assure a link between yesterday’s knowledge and today’s, which in fact did not exist. These were sentences crafted to allay apprehension and uneasiness” (p. 33). Thanks to these lucid explanations, the author reaches the convincing conclusion that the spirit of the Council did not show up after the Council, but while it was ongoing. The spirit of the Council was denounced by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and today Benedict XVI, defender of the hermeneutic of continuity with the past, as “a sort of uninterrupted self-reform” (p. 25), and in this spirit, the Cardinal noticed the elements of a “gegen-Geist,” or counter-spirit. Against the Prophets of Gloom The Spirit of the Council, by the way, was already perceptible in the words pronounced by John XXIII in the Council’s opening discourse, in which he called for expressing unchanging Catholic doctrine with new forms. Gherardini asserts: “Yes, with his manner of affecting simplicity and playing the perpetual optimist, Pope Roncalli did not realize, because, among other reasons, he acted without preliminary contact with the world-wide episcopate, how untimely and inopportune a Council was in this particular juncture” (p. 27). The “enigmatic” Pope Roncalli, as Gherardini designates him, was very hard on the “prophets of gloom” who offended the Pope with their foreboding: In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much 42 The author observes, after an in-depth examination, that the “counterspirit” left its characteristic traces in the conciliar documents and is easily recognizable in some of them: Dei Verbum, Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Dignitatis Humanae. In his 2009 book, Msgr. Gherardini wished for sound, wholesome debates, studies, books, articles, in-depth critical studies… When, for example, he had in hand Ralph McInerny’s book with the promising title What Went Wrong with Vatican II? 3 he had hoped to find a serious study; instead, it was “an absolute disappointment.” Concerning Vatican II, McInerny repeated the common “vulgate” (p. 58), focusing his criticism on the post-conciliar period (p. 59). A Providential Whisper Msgr. Gherardini’s wish to be able to discuss Vatican II, not for the sake of vain polemics, but for the sake of constructive discussion and clarification, was answered by the Society of St. Pius X, which “understood and responded…and I say, “Thank you!” (p. 62). In the same vein, I would like to relate a very arresting statement made by a diocesan priest, as courageous as he is persecuted by his hierarchy, who told me recently: “Whoever wants to be in Tradition without Msgr. Lefebvre is wasting his time.” Well, in the world of Tradition, the only ones to have heeded Msgr. Gherardini’s appeal were the sons of Msgr. Lefebvre, who not only paid attention to the “much needed discussion,” but opened a debate with a long series of interventions and a congress, organized by the Courrier de Rome, which was held in Paris from January 8-10, 2010, the Acts of which have been published.4 Be that as it may, positive signs are cropping up everywhere, not boldly, but more like a whisper being spread: many priests, even if only secretly, Pope John’s Opening Speech, The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed. (Herder and Herder, 1966), p. 712. 3 Ralph McInerny, Ph.D., What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 1998), 170 pages. 4 Courrier de Rome, Vatican II: Un débat à ouvrir, Acts of the Ninth Theological Congress of Courrier de Rome (Versailles, 2010). 2 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org are reading, getting informed, studying… For example, there are priests who, without identifying themselves as such openly, call in to Radio Maria, congratulating and sustaining the cultural and religious movement that has been initiated thanks to, among others, the important books written by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini. Draining the Swamp The author then delivers a detailed and quite interesting analysis of certain movements such as the “neo-Pentecostalists” subsequently called “renewal in the Spirit” and the “neo-catechumenals,” which Gherardini defines as veritable “parallel churches.” A bishop to whom the theologian expressed his reservations about these realities smacking of heresy answered him: “‘But they pray a lot, so let them be.’…Apparently for the post-conciliar bishops, a prayer…is worth a heresy!”5 Equally interesting, but very painful, is what the author relates following up on the aberration of pedophilia. Msgr. Gherardini reports the official number of married priests: more than 100,000, that is, a quarter of the 408,000 priests incardinated in the dioceses; but their number is significantly less than the number of priests living more uxorio with a woman. And among these priests, as among religious, less numerous, “the atmosphere is polluted, and almost nobody notices”6 or else they pretend not to notice. On June 11, 2010, during the closing of the Year of the Priest, Benedict XVI said: The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented, as if it were no longer God’s gift, the precious pearl which we cannot let be taken from us. Even so, the rod must always become once again the shepherd’s staff–a staff which helps men and women to tread difficult paths and to follow the Lord.7 Gherardini characterizes the conduct unbecoming the sacerdotal life as “rubbish,” engendered and developed during the postconciliar period because this “counterspirit” went against the spirituality that had guided the Church from its beginning until 1962; against its dogmas, Ibid., p. 72. Ibid., p. 75. 7 English version online at www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/ homilies/2010/documents. reinterpreted not in accordance with theology, but according to the historical method; against its tradition, effaced as a source of Revelation and reinterpreted in light of ordinary experience. Msgr. Gherardini reaches the following conclusions: The 16 documents of Vatican II, an authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, all express a conciliar magisterium not necessarily covered by the charism of infallibility. The Church’s magisterium is involved precisely because the documents are issued by a solemn and supreme ecumenical council. However, the quality of its documents must be distinguished “because the solemn character of their teaching does not confer on them the same degree of importance, and does not entail per se their dogmatic, and hence infallible, validity” (p. 82). Moreover, the serious specialist, according to the distinguished representative of the glorious Roman School, must consider that the Council ought to be studied on four different levels: “(1) on the generic level of ecumenical council qua ecumenical council; (2) on the specific level of its pastoral character; (3) on the level of its reference to other councils; (4) on the level of its innovations.” The last level separated the Church of Tradition from the Church of “the new Pentecost.” The dramas indeed were instigated by the innovators and the liberalizing currents imbued with modernism. It was these currents that led to the free fall towards rotten, corrupt morals. The “much needed discussion” that Msgr. Gherardini has promoted about the laxist, relativist overtures of the Council and the post-conciliar Church continues to develop, inasmuch as “the truth will make you free” ( Jn. 8:32)–and not dissimulation or, worse, mendacity, with the danger of worsening an already precarious situation. Sooner or later it will be necessary to shine a light in such a way that the stagnant pond into which the stone tossed by this theologian of the holy Roman Church dries up and is replaced by crystalline waters in which Heaven can be reflected. Cristina Siccardi Translated from Courrier de Rome, April 2011, pp. 2-4. 5 6 www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 43 44 Fr. Xavier Beauvais, FSSPX T neither hot nor CoLD…LuKeWArM here are certain Catholics with an odd mentality: they sit enviously watching pleasure-seekers. It is true that living the Catholic Faith to the full is not very satisfying for those who prefer to give free rein to their natural tendencies. If they do not want to be constantly frustrated, they would do well to distance themselves from the Church as soon as possible; but they can never quite decide to take the step, in one direction or the other: they do not want to compromise themselves, but at the same time they would love to be plunged into the dark, seductive abyss of pleasure. Those who cannot resolve themselves to act or who stop halfway are a scandal: Jesus Christ has rejected them, and the Apocalypse bears witness: “Because thou art lukewarm, neither hot, nor cold, I shall vomit thee out of My mouth.” Those who are mediocre, who would like to enjoy the advantages of both kingdoms, certainly do not have much power to draw those who are far from Jesus Christ. How many souls, because of them, have never darkened the threshold of a church or have established themselves for good in a worldly mediocrity! Catholicism demands the entire personality: the mind, the heart, and all the faculties of body and soul. Only when a Christian has given himself entirely can he receive the profound conviction that he need not envy those who taste the venom of sin and that the commandments of God are for him a solid protection. We have an abundance of “confessions” left by men who drank deeply from the cup of pleasure. Not one of them found there the serenity of happiness. Baudelaire confessed as much in his Flowers of Evil and his Artificial Paradise, where THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org he sings the intoxication of a certain refined pleasure. He exhausted it and was left with dullness and insipidity. Nietzsche later mocked him and called him “nothing but a sick man bit by a serpent.” Ultimately, no pleasure-seeker escapes a certain sadness, a kind of melancholy, with remorse and even nausea (an abjection that is moral rather than physical). He tries to distract himself in a thousand ways, but to little effect. Whoever abandons God cannot find peace. Inversely, sincere practice of the Christian faith always brings happiness; it gives no pleasure to the senses, but it is joy, peace and charity, and, through Jesus Christ, it raises us to the level of sons of God in a splendor already granted in this life and for all eternity. A man is only truly human when he is master of himself, ruling over his instincts rather than letting them dominate, and directing sPIrITuaL LIfe his life according to reason enlightened by the truth with a will firmly given over to the service of good. He acquires a strong personality with an interior harmony whose foundation is in God. Whoever is in a state of grace has the happiness of knowing that God dwells in his soul. He is not a prey to solitude, sadness or abandon because God, who is in him, strengthens him with His all-powerful love and gives him an unshakable security. In these times of acute crisis in the Church, one of the missions that we need to fulfill toward those far from her is the apostolate of our own serenity, fruit of joy. When we firmly adopt such an attitude, we know that we are not setting life aside, even as we renounce certain forms of enjoyment. Someone who wallows in the material will ultimately be frustrated, since his happiness melts away as soon as the pleasure has been exhausted. In the long run, a purely human satisfaction cannot fill the emptiness of the heart. A Christian renounces that kind of satisfaction in order to follow a higher good. He wants to preserve his dignity and to submit to the empire of the faith rather than drifting with every tide. He knows by experience that renouncement for love of God will not make him poorer, but will shower him with riches, since it will ennoble him and raise him up. The only way to assure the progress of a civilization and elevate society is for each one to find the force of self-renouncement, in the spirit of Christian asceticism. An ideal demands an effort to overcome nature; the highest are only attained at the price of heroism, which consists in annihilating our selfishness. If we want to let the truth shine before those who have abandoned the faith, we have to give a living 45 example: the example of sacrifice. Jesus Christ, our head, renounced everything, even His life, and He was glorified; He renounced everything in order to be raised above mediocrity and receive the divine treasure. The world is hungry for pleasure and succumbs to every temptation. Our mission as Catholics is to prove to the world that poverty of spirit is the greatest of riches. In order to offer this testimony, we first have to understand that human happiness is founded on sacrifice, which is a source of joy, contrary to the belief of those who only seek a selfish enjoyment. The world does not understand things in this way; may we understand it ever more deeply. Fr. Beauvais is the prior of St. Nicolas-duChardonnet, Paris, France. Translated from Le Chardonnet, No. 197, April 2004, pp. 1-2. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 46 Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivre, O.P. Spiritual Life Within Marriage A ny more than the priesthood, marriage cannot escape the definitive intrusion of God into two souls. The unhappiness of many couples arises from their ignorance of that intrusion, or from the little importance granted to the recourse which they ought to have to the Sacrament. The situation is all the more regrettable that the two spouses seemed in agreement with this definitive and daily divine participation by their “I do,” pronounced two times before God and engaging them as a threesome, not a twosome, in an adventure to be played out by two but to be shared by a third divine Person, on the condition that they call upon Him. If God intervenes in marriage, even without this intervention’s bringing to the spouses something of God, that something nonetheless remains at the disposal of the spouses until their death, in the interest of the task which they have undertaken. The complexity of that task will only be simplified by the constant communication of a grace, sufficiently one and sufficiently consistent to communicate to the diversity of situations the unity of an attitude worthy of Love. In what consists the substantial fusion of two human consents with the divine approval if not in a certainty that in ratifying the definitive of a reciprocal choice, God engages Himself to communicate to that choice all that is necessary to keep it definitive. God always acts a little bit on the level of His nature, inexhaustible in Its power and in Its love. He remains inexhaustible in the communication of His aid, in order to raise us up from our ineffectualities to the instinct of spiritual fidelities. Here, spouses are usually ignorant of the secret of love. It dwells in those human regions capable of being touched by the unshakable; consequently, capable of rising up, permanent and faithful, throughout the variability of circumstances, within the superior faculties of the mind and the will—the only regions where God can touch us for always. Many spouses are unhappy because of a refusal to know their own soul, and for not having wanted to know the soul of their partner. The obstinacy of wanting to prove that marriage is such a natural affair that it can succeed by nature alone betrays a naivety and a weakness of reasoning which show how insufficient love is when God is not involved. A stalk without flowers, just roots, has no beauty or charm. It is a plant, but it is not a success. A love without an expression perpetually attached to the inexhaustible delicacy of grace is an authentic love, with indisputable roots, but with a stalk whose growth is more and more scrawny. There is a lack of completeness, of gaiety and openness and enthusiasm. There is what I will call a necessary or forced THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org success, that is, a lack of completeness, a love that is still [in development], with the temptation and the danger of shrinking in on itself and becoming stunted. The spiritual life between the spouses completes the Sacrament which immobilizes them in a definitive choice, but which bears in its substance inalterable elements to nourish, reinforce, and renew that choice by attitudes and consents, in which sensibility is not enough. Marriage brings with it the natural results of the social function it represents: the peopling of the home. There is, in this peopling, a cause of natural happiness due to the spontaneous joy inspired by the arrival of the child, but there are also the inevitable consequences of anything natural: on the one hand, deficiencies; on the other hand, force of habit, with, in addition, the unforeseeable circumstances which are capable of compromising its quality or its equilibrium and which place the happiness of the spouses before hard alternatives unlikely to promote or even to inspire happiness did a current of superior life not animate what is natural or habitual. Happiness requires a kind of daily resurrection, as the dawn of every morning rejuvenates the creation of the day before. Spouses must be assured a source of refreshment. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: “Give Me to drink.” The woman with her five husbands certainly knew the word “to refresh” as she drew near the marrIaGe well, of which she would ask the indispensable refreshment of water; but she did not know that there are profound dispositions in the heart of man and of woman which ask for a water of such a quality that it neither wearies nor disgusts because it arises from the inexhaustible delicacy of God. This spiritual refreshment maintains between spouses a lucidity of judgment in their mutual responsibilities; a generosity of determination in the repetition of fidelities; a superior vision of social relations in the day-to-day monotony; the necessary beauty maintained in the supernatural education of children, over and above the material and temporal cares it involves. The grace of God between the spouses consists in maintaining this superior state of rational and deliberate confidence which judges every difficulty as a potential cause and source of increased love. God is altitude; marriage too quickly becomes materialism and naturalism. God is Spirit; marriage too willingly becomes delectation and abuse of pleasure, and as soon as man descends the scale of values, he no longer finds the inexhaustible equilibrium which conserves his liberty of attitude and his joy in living. When God has united two young people, it is because He intends to live in common with them: the prayer of each one ending in the need to pray in common; the examination of conscience of each of them creating the confidence of a common resolution; the secret victories of each one of them freeing the need for a common ideal; the secret sufferings of each one opening into the need for help in common. God seeks to fuse minds and hearts to lead them to act with such a sense of unity that the home is victorious in advance over all division and opposition. Such a fusion supposes in each one the decision of a spiritual life to which he holds firm, in the common interest of the life of the home. Each one will maintain his personal call to the type of spiritual life which God asks of him: more or less frequent confession, recollection, sacrifices, prayer, more or less numerous communions; but all of this will not produce an individual result, isolated from the human context which is the home. It will become a shared result, since each one will benefit by the communication of the best of the other. It is therefore necessary in marriage to conquer a certain spiritual human respect, just as it is necessary not to fall into the widespread error of criticizing or neutralizing the spiritual life of one’s spouse under the pretext that you are married. Such would be to impoverish oneself of the affection you seek from the other. There are spiritual activities which can be to the benefit of the home, of the conjugal life, of the education of children, and which find expression in a moral enthusiasm that throws itself wholeheartedly into the job to be done, each one glad to lighten the load of the other. These activities could call into play the mind by reading and by conferences; or the liturgy, by spending Sunday together and by emphasizing at home the great feast days with human joy; the sacramen- 47 tal life lived officially by a shared participation in the important anniversaries of family events... The sacrament of marriage is meant to maintain within the mentality of the man and the woman the desire and the need to interest God disinterestedly in their home life, by the sole joy of feeling themselves in harmony with the “I do,” perhaps now very old, pronounced once and for ever. To offer God His rightful place in a human love is to gain the certainty of better appreciating one another. The sacrament of marriage is the most solid answer and the most absolute guarantee which we can oppose to the objections that are forged by fear of loving and that preach out of cowardice a purely natural union, for a longer or shorter time, abandoned to the coldness of selfishness and to the cruelty of individualism. Published as “La Vie Spirituelle dans le Mariage,” Carnets Spirituels, No. 3, Association du R. P. de Chivré, February 2005. Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. was ordained in 1930. He was an ardent Thomist, student of Scripture, retreat master, and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre. He died in 1984. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 48 The LasT BaTTLe of GarrIGou-LaGranGe O n October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII pronounced in his discourse inaugurating the Second Vatican Council these words so heavy with consequences: Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure [of the doctrine of the faith], as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but earnestly and fearlessly to dedicate ourselves to the work our age demands of us….The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has been repeatedly taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not needed. But from renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church…the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a leap forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences…. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into consideration—with patience if need Fr. Albert, O.P. be—while weighing everything in the forms and statements of a teaching activity that is predominantly pastoral in character.1 When he relates this text, Fr. Giuseppe Alberigo, in his History of the Council, perceives its importance, for he comments: This was an important methodological guideline, since it situated the work of the Council Fathers at the heart of the Christian message, while at the same time urging them to present this message to the world in an updated way.2 Translation taken from History of Vatican II, Vol. II, The Formation of the Council’s Identity, First Period and Intersession, October 1962-September 1963, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo, English version edited by Joseph A. Komonchak (Maryknoll/Leuven: Orbis/ Peeters, 1997), p. 17. 2 Ibid. He adds the immediate reaction of Fr. Chenu, who points out in the discourse of the pope “its strong protest against the pessimists” and “its rebuke of discussions about established doctrines, the truth of which must of course be reasserted, but formulated to meet the needs of the age” (ibid., p. 18). A. Wenger quotes a similar reaction of Jean Guitton, noted French writer and friend of Paul VI: “As for the feeling of Jean Guitton, M. Pélissier had reported it in La Croix of October 14-15, 1962. ‘This discourse,’ said M. Guitton, ‘has an historical importance. It indicates the axis of the Council and fixes, perhaps not its matter, but at least its form.’ How is that? ‘The substance of the ancient 1 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org This, then, is the famous “pastoral character” of the Council which is recognized today as being one of its most important elements. This is the opinion, for example, of G. Ruggieri in an article on the discussion of the schema De fontibus revelationis in November 1962, discussion that was the turning point of the whole Council: The principal point at stake during the debate on the document De fontibus wasn’t this or that aspect of the relations between Scripture and tradition, or the interpretation of Scripture, its inerrancy, historicity, etc., but the character of doctrine itself in the Church, that is to say, using the terms of Pope Roncalli, its “pastorality.”3 doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.’ M. Guitton discerned in this passage a secret relationship with his own thought formulated some time before the Council in an interview given to La Croix: ‘There is,’ he said, ‘an effort of language to be made. Language isn’t truth, but it envelops the truth. It is necessary to ask ourselves whether, in the habitual, usual, traditional language by which we express the eternal truths, there aren’t historical elements which shock needlessly, that scandalize painfully, that alienate durably.’ And he added: ‘These thoughts are also those of Cardinal Bea.’” A. Wenger, Vatican II: Première session (Paris, 1963), pp. 48-50. 3 Giuseppe Ruggieri, “La discussione sullo vaTIcan II The purpose of this present article is to present a text, or rather a series of texts, of Fr. GarrigouLagrange that treat precisely of this idea that one can, or even one must, “reclothe” 4 the truths of the faith with a language that is acceptable to modern man, idea that was at the basis of the aggiornamento that took place at Vatican II. The first of these texts is the famous article: “The New Theology: Where Is It Going?” which appeared in the review Angelicum in 1946, and was followed by seven others in the same review where Fr. Garrigou defended himself against attacks provoked by this first article. We will see: 1) the history of the first article: its origin and the story of the controversy it sparked; 2) the substance of the ensuing debate, which concerns precisely this question of the “pastorality” of doctrine; and 3) finally, a summary conclusion of the debate and the consequences of the defeat suffered at the Council of the position defended by Garrigou-Lagrange in these articles. The “atomic Bomb” of fr. Garrigou-Lagrange In the period just after the end of World War II in the Church in France there appeared a progressivist movement more and more openly opposed to the official magisterium in Rome. With the growth of the audaciousness of the reformers, a confrontation became inevitable: it will finally happen with the publication of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s article. The incident that led to this outbreak of open war was an article published in April 1946 by Fr. Danielou (whom Paul VI later created schema Constitutionis dogmaticae De fontibus revelationis,” in the book edited by Étienne Fouilloux, Vatican II commence…: Approches Francophones (Leuven, 1993), p. 315 4 The key phrase in the discourse of John XXIII says, in fact, in the original Italian, that it is a matter of changing, not the substance of Catholic doctrine but simply: “la formulazione del suo rivestimento–the formulation of its reclothing.” 49 theological rationalism. Moreover, the excesses of the critics, of Loisy in particular, created around Biblical studies an atmosphere of suspicion that only the recent encyclical (Divino afflante Spiritu) has finally begun to dissipate. Now one must say it, this atmosphere of fear, this perpetual danger of denunciation, is paralysing the work of Christian researchers; several men who are the honour of the Church since the beginning of this century have been, during their lives, more or less under suspicion, and the so regrettable misunderstanding between the Christian intellectual elite and the hierarchy is far from being totally resolved. To tell the truth, this provisional severity was necessary. It was a matter of warding off the dangers created by Modernism. NeoThomism and the Biblical Commission were these safety railings.5 5 cardinal) in Les Études, the review of the French Jesuits. It contains, indeed, some very daring statements. Modernism, according to Fr. Danielou, had proposed bad solutions to real problems that must still be dealt with, in particular the problem of the gap between the modern world and the Church: and in order to resolve these problems it is necessary to finish once and for all with the “rigidity” caused by the reaction against Modernism which paralyzes everything. He writes: The feeling of a rupture between theology and life was experienced in an acute way not long ago by the generation in which was born the movement that was called Modernism. As in all religious crises, what was questionable about Modernism was not the problem it raised but the solution it gave to it. For this problem was certainly real.… By its very excesses, as is often the case, [Modernism] impeded, rather than helped, the renewal of religious thought. Instead of a renewal, it brought on a stiffening. Before the danger of agnosticism, neo-Thomism displayed a This phrase expresses the same thought that Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, will enounce 50 years later in his introduction to a document on the magisterium and theologians published by his congregation in 1990: “Here [in the document he is prefacing] it is affirmed—perhaps for the first time so clearly—that there are some decisions of the magisterium that don’t constitute the last word on a particular subject as such, but a substantial encouragement with regard to the question, and above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of temporary measure. Their substance remains valid, but the details upon which the circumstances of time exercised an influence can need ulterior rectifications. In regard to this, one can think of the declarations of the popes in the last century on religious liberty, as well as the antimodernist measures at the beginning of this century, in particular the decisions of the Biblical Commission at that time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a personality like Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the antimodernist decisions of the Church rendered him the great service of preserving him from sinking into the liberalbourgeois world. But in the details relative to their content, they have been left behind, after having accomplished their pastoral duty at a precise moment.” L’Osservatore Romano en Langue Française, 10 July 1990, p. 9. At the beginning of this same text he says, speaking of the period before the Council: “The liturgical, biblical, and ecumenical movements, as well as a strong Marian movement, created a new cultural climate which gave birth to a new theology that brought forth its fruits for the whole Church at the Second Vatican www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 50 vaTIcan II But it is very clear that safety railings are not answers. I will quote here again a phrase of Father de Montcheuil: “Modernism will not be eliminated as long as satisfaction will not have been given in theological methods to the exigencies from which Modernism was born.”… Theology will be living only if it responds to these aspirations. “These two abysses, After having explained the efforts to respond to this need by a historicity and living theology in exegesis, patrology and liturgy, he treats of speculasubjectivity…oblige tive theology, which, he says, must theological thought, “dilate itself” “by contact with modern thought.” To be noted in partherefore, to dilate ticular is the idea of a distinction itself. It is very clear, between truth and its “vestment,” which John XXIII will take up later ...that Scholastic and that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange will call the fundamental error of the theology is foreign new theology. to these categories. If present theological thought roots itself once more in the solid Its world is the and nourishing soil of the Bible, the Fathers, and liturgy, still, in immobile world of order to be a living theology, it will also have to enrich itself by contact Greek thought in with contemporary thought. It is the which its mission proper function of the theologian to pass, like the angels on Jacob’s was to incarnate the ladder, between eternity and time and to weave between them links Christian message.... that are always new. Now the human universe that Nietzche, Dostoïevsky it leaves no room for and Kierkegaard have revealed to history....it is ignorant us, the material universe that opens to our imaginations the depths of the of the dramatic history of the earth and outer space, oblige theological thought to dilate world of persons, of itself according to their measure. And the temptation here would be concrete universals the laziness that makes us take the vestment of truth for the truth itself, that transcend all and because the words of Christ do not pass away, would persuade us to essences....Now dispense ourselves from modifying theology has begun the forms in which we must express them. to align itself to these dimensions of modern Council.” Ibid., p. 1. The usage of the precise term “new theology” by the Cardinal is certhought.” tainly voluntary. As for the “strong Marian movement,” he would have more accurately –Fr. Danielou called it “a strong anti-Marian movement” if he is referring to anything that “gave birth to the new theology” (cf. for example, Yves Congar’s complaints about “mariolatry” in his journal of the Council). THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Consequently, explains Fr. Danielou, theological thought can no longer restrict itself to Scholasticism, which is immobile and doesn’t take into account the two principal aspects of modern thought: historicity and subjectivity. He cites, as an example of what should be done, the work of Teilhard de Chardin. These two abysses, historicity and subjectivity…oblige theological thought, therefore, to dilate itself. It is very clear, in fact, that Scholastic theology is foreign to these categories. Its world is the immobile world of Greek thought in which its mission was to incarnate the Christian message. This conception retains a permanent and always valid truth in so far, at least, as it consists in affi rming that the decision of the liberty of man or the transformation he accomplishes of his conditions of life are not an absolute beginning by which he creates himself, but a response to a vocation from God of which the world of essences is the expression. Nevertheless, it leaves no room for history. And, at the same time, by putting reality more in essences than in real subjects, it is ignorant of the dramatic world of persons, of concrete universals that transcend all essences and are distinguished only by existence, that is, no longer according to what is intelligible and intellection, but according to value and love, or hate. Now theology has begun to align itself to these dimensions of modern thought. And first of all in what concerns the sense of history. This is the service rendered here by Fr. Teilhard de Chardin by audaciously tackling the problem and endeavouring to think Christianity while taking into account the perspectives opened up by evolution. Even if one or the other of his views appears contestable, still his work was a ferment, hidden but active, whose influence on the theology of our times was considerable. And the great outlines of his system, according to which history progressively rises from the world of life to that of thought, and from the world of thought to that of Christ, and which also fits with the views of the vaTIcan II Fathers, has now become something undisputed. The first reaction to this manifesto of Fr. Danielou comes from the Dominicans of Toulouse, who publish a series of articles in the Revue Thomiste in order to defend Scholasticism. The adversary that the innovators are truly worried about, however, is Rome, and so, as a precautionary measure, the Jesuits at the Gregorian do not put in circulation the issue containing the article.6 The pope, nevertheless, soon hears about it, and the historian Étienne Fouilloux even poses the question of whether the article “could have incited Pius XII to intervene and to make Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange intervene.”7 The plot thickens when, in May, the Archbishop of Toulouse, Cardinal Saliège, visiting Rome with Bruno de Solages, rector of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse, gives a talk at the French embassy in which he praises the Jesuits of Fourvière and “French Catholic thought”: Theology is easily accused of being separated from life, of occupying itself with antique problems and neglecting problems of the present time. It isn’t completely true. There are groups of theologians that I know who are doing good work: the group at Lyons, composed of professors of the theological faculty of the Catholic Institute and the scholasticate of Fourvière, the group at Saulchoir.…The way of presenting religious truth renders it impossible to assimilate for many minds.… There is an adaptation that must be made which calls for a deepening of doctrine: this is what French Catholic thought is doing.8 Information furnished by the journal of Congar, cited by Étienne Fouilloux, Une Église en quête de liberté: La penseé catholique française entre modernisme et Vatican II (1914-1962) (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1998), p. 280. 7 Étienne Fouilloux, Les catholiques et l’unité chrétienne du XIXe au XXe siècle: Itinéraires européens d’expression française (Paris: Centurion, 1982), p. 890. He admits, however: “We have no other proof than the chronology and the published texts.” 8 Fouilloux, Une Église, p. 280. 6 This talk did not pass unnoticed by the Vatican, as is proved by a letter of Cardinal Saliège to Fr. de Lubac (one of this “group” at Fourvière) where he writes: “Did you know that the nuncio isn’t happy that at Rome I cited ‘the scholasticate of Fourvière,’ whose doctrine he claims is questionable?”9 The pope finally reacts in two discourses, September 17 and 22, to the general congregations of the Jesuits and the Dominicans respectively.10 He issues a warning against these novelties: “And where is this new theology going with its new masters which inspire it? Where is it going, if not in the way of skepticism, fantasy and heresy?…Where is the new theology going? It is going back to Modernism.” –Fr. GarrigouLagrange Too much has been said and in a way that is not sufficiently researched, with regard to the “new theology” which must evolve as everything evolves, and be always in progress without ever fixing itself. If one had to embrace such an opinion, what would become of the immutable doctrines of the Catholic Church, what would become of the unity and stability of the faith?…That which in theology has the sound of something entirely new must be examined with precaution and vigilance. It is at this point that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange takes his pen and writes the article whose effect was so explosive that his Dominican confrères at Rome called it “an atomic bomb.” M. Fouilloux suspects that Fr. Garrigou was even associated in the redaction of the interventions of the pope. What is certain is that, basing himself on these words of the Henri de Lubac, Mémoire sur l’occasion de mes écrits, p. 241, quoted by É. Fouilloux. The nuncio he refers to is Msgr. Roncalli, apostolic nuncio in France at that time. One sees by this that the future Pope John XXIII had a first hand knowledge of this whole controversy and thus knew perfectly well what he was talking about in his discourse at the beginning of the Council. 10 Documentation catholique, November 24, 1946, col. 1313-1324. Étienne Fouilloux writes that these discourses “were perhaps not sufficiently noted by observers, but retrospectively they would reveal all their meaning some years later when the urgent and solemn warning of Humani Generis took place.” Les catholiques, p. 887. He also underlines their very Thomistic and “pessimistic character” (“it doesn’t enlarge the possibilities of adaptation of the message”). 51 pope, he sounds the alarm against the grave danger represented, in his eyes, by this new theology, which he doesn’t hesitate to call by its name: Modernism. Citing the texts of the innovators themselves, he shows the similarity between their doctrine and that condemned by St. Pius X and concludes: And where is this new theology going with its new masters which inspire it? Where is it going, if not in the way of skepticism, fantasy and heresy?…Where is the new theology going? It is going back to Modernism.11 9 This shrill cry of alarm is not at all the normal style of this great Dominican, who is usually so calm in his way of speaking, even if he is engaged in controversy. If he cries out like this, it is because he 11 Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “La nouvelle théologie: où va-t-elle?” Angelicum, XXIII (1946), pp. 134, 143. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 52 vaTIcan II sees a grave danger to which he feels he must draw attention. “It is a strict obligation in conscience,” he writes, “for traditional theologians to respond. Otherwise they gravely fail in their duty and will have to answer for it before God.” Fighting against Modernism wasn’t anything new for Fr. Garrigou. On the contrary, Louis Jugnet will write in Itinéraires just after his death: “All his life, the dear and regretted Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange considered Modernism as the number one danger for the Catholic Church.” He quotes as evidence an article in L’Ami du clergé (May 7, 1964) in which the author writes of him: He felt called in conscience to refute Modernism and all its applications.…It would be false to say that he was inclined by nature to combat. But he had such a love of truth that he could not see it put in danger without going to battle for it with all his courage and all his talent. The reaction of his adversaries wasn’t long in coming. In the Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique of AprilJune 1947, Msgr. de Solages writes an article entitled “For the Honour of Theology: The Misinterpretations of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange” in which he accuses him of wielding “Thomism constantly as a sledge hammer to crush his enemies.” He declares, in conclusion, that the Dominican “is in the camp of those who had St. Thomas condemned.” He also sends a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani to complain about the article, which he closes a bit pompously by saying: “Moreover, I cannot hide from you, Your Excellency, that articles like that of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, professor at Rome in a pontifical university, singularly damage the prestige of Rome in the circles that create opinion.” Garrigou-Lagrange defends himself: It is said, apparently, that if we had lived in the thirteenth century we would have condemned Saint Thomas! That presupposes that this or that modern theologian, whose conclusions we cannot accept, is the Saint Thomas of our time. We will see in a century or two what the judgment of history will be about that. At any rate, these two Saint Thomases will hardly agree with each other.12 Others respond, in their turn, to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and thus begins a battle that will continue right up until 1950 when the encyclical Humani generis will come down on the side of the Dominican and silence, for a time, his adversaries. Moreover, the article of Garrigou-Lagrange sparks the outbreak of a war of large-scale proportions. The Dominicans of Toulouse continue their debate with the scholasticate of the Jesuits of Fourvière who respond, in their turn, with the help of their friends. “The aggression against Fourvière,” writes M. Fouilloux, precipitates a bipolarisation: the Jesuits receive the support of men who share their views…or do not resign themselves to capitulate before what Fr. Chenu calls “the totalitarian demands of speculative theology.” Mentor and spokesman for French theology, B. de Solages intervenes again [by exchanging letters with Fr. Nicolas of the Revue Thomiste]. In a Catholicism that has not yet accepted a veritable pluralism of theological approaches and methods, it is their right to speak and to exist intellectually that the theologians involved defend. Since Saint-Maximin doesn’t let up…the fight becomes general.13 Indeed, the fight becomes general, and even world-wide. In Rome, in September 1948, an entire “theology week” is consecrated to the refutation of the theses of the “new theology”; a year later, another similar one takes place in Spain: it is attacked in Great Britain and in the United States. The response of the accused, as usual in such cases, is to “Vérité et immutabilité du dogme,” Angelicum, XXIV (1947), p. 137. 13 Les catholiques, p. 891. 12 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org pretend that no one adheres to this new heresy: Fr. Congar speaks of a “tarasque,” a mythical animal that no one has ever seen.14 Étienne Fouilloux underlines the importance of these disputes in which, for the first time since the condemnation of Modernism, those who had Modernist tendencies dared raise up their heads in public and defend themselves: All these polemics opposed those who held to a “speculative” theology based on Thomism, to which Rome had once more given its support, and those who held to a “positive” theology based on the sources of Revelation or the tradition of the Church, including St. Thomas: theology judged to be more useful in the dialogue with contemporary thought than the new Scholastic Thomism. This debate, which excites and divides not only a restricted group of specialists but many intellectual circles, is the first great theological debate in France since the outlawing of Modernism: it took thirty years of silence and work so that a real pluralism could reappear at this level. The crux of the debate This brief history suffices to put in their context these articles of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and show their extreme importance. It is obvious that the question treated in these texts is at the very heart of the crisis that has tormented the Church for over 50 years now: let us try now to understand exactly what they say. We cannot see everything, but we will quote at length several of the most pertinent passages in order to benefit from the light of one of the 14 Les catholiques, pp. 892-893. Louis Jugnet describes this maneuver very well in the article quoted earlier. Speaking of Loisy, who claimed that the Modernism condemned in Pascendi was a construction of Roman syllogistic deductions, he writes: “This procedure has been known since the heresies of the first centuries. Arius, as everyone knows, wasn’t Arian, neither was Nestorius Nestorian. And the Jansenists weren’t Jansenists. Why should it surprise us, then, that there were never any Modernists?” Itinéraires, September-October, 1964, p. 41. vaTIcan II greatest theologians of the 20th century on a subject that he considered (and rightly, as subsequent history showed) the most important problem of his time.15 In order to fight against the neo-Modernism that is triumphant today, we need the help of the great veterans like GarrigouLagrange who had fought and refuted it at the time of its apparition. If we follow closely this controversy we will learn a lot about how to fight it now in our time. The first article (the “atomic bomb”) begins with a quote from Fr. Henri Bouillard, S.J.: When the mind evolves, an immutable truth cannot be maintained except thanks to a simultaneous and correlative evolution of all its notions, which maintain among themselves the same relation. A theology that wouldn’t be current would be a false theology. Now, according to Fr. Bouillard, the notions of the Aristotelian system are no longer current because it has been necessary to renounce the physics of Aristotle. It appears, then, says Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, that the theology of St. Thomas, who uses these notions, is no longer current, and therefore is false. It is this conclusion (which Fr. Bouillard is careful not to state explicitly, but which follows from his premises) that GarrigouLagrange attacks first, recalling the fact that the popes and canon law impose the theology of St. Thomas as mandatory for all theologians. Then he goes to the bottom of the question and refutes the philosophical error contained in the claim of Fr. Bouillard that dogmatic affirmations can remain immutable in their substance, even if one replaces the notions they contain, as long as the same relation which existed 15 Let us repeat the affirmation of Louis Jugnet that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange “all his life, considered Modernism as the number one danger for the Catholic Church.…He felt called in conscience to refute Modernism and all its applications.” Itinéraires, Sept.-Oct. 1964, p. 53. between the old notions is maintained: How can “an immutable truth” be maintained if the two notions it unites by the verb is are essentially variable? telian notion, nor even a theological notion conceived under the influence of Aristotle. It simply wanted to affirm, against the Protestants, that justification is an interior renovation.…It utilised for this purpose notions common in the theology of that time. But one can substitute others for them without modifying the sense of its teaching.16 An immutable relation is conceivable only if there is something immutable in the two terms that it unites. Otherwise, one might as well say that an iron clamp can immoblise the waves of the sea. No doubt the two notions that are united in the immutable affirmation are first confused and then distinct, like the notions of nature, person, substance, accident, transubstantiation, real presence, sin, original sin, grace, etc. But if in that which is fundamental in them these notions are not immutable, how can the affirmation that unites them by the verb is be immutable? How can we maintain that the real presence of the substance of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist requires transubstantiation if these notions are essentially variable? How can we maintain that original sin in us depends on a voluntary fault of the first man if the notion of original sin is essentially unstable? How can we maintain that the particular judgment after death is irrevocable for eternity if these notions are called to change? And how, finally, can we maintain that all these propositions are immutably true if the very notion of truth must change, and if it is necessary to substitute for the traditional notion of truth (the conformity of our judgment to external reality) the definition proposed these last years by the philosophy of action: the conformity of our judgment with the exigencies of action or the life of man that is constantly evolving? Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange responds: Fr. Bouillard himself gives an example to illustrate what he means: The Council of Trent, sess. 6, cap. 7, can. 10, for example, used, in its teaching on justification, the notion of formal cause. Did it not, by that very fact, consecrate this usage and confer to the notion of grace-form a definitive character? Not at all. It was certainly not in the intention of the Council to canonize an Aristo- 53 No doubt the Council did not canonize the Aristotelian notion of form with all its relations to other notions in the Aristotelian system. But it approved it as a stable human notion, in the sense in which we all speak of that which formally constitutes something (here, justification). In this sense it speaks of sanctifying grace as distinct from actual grace, saying that it is a supernatural, infused gift that inheres in the soul and by which man is formally justified (Cf. Denzinger, 799, 821). But how can we maintain the sense of this teaching of the Council of Trent that “sanctifying grace is the formal cause of justification” if “one substitutes another notion for that of formal cause”? I do not say “if one substitutes a verbal equivalent”; I say with Fr. H. Bouillard, “if one substitutes another notion.” If it is other, it is no longer that of formal cause. Then it is no longer true to say with the Council: “sanctifying grace is the formal cause of justification.” One must content oneself with saying that grace was conceived of at the time of the Council of Trent as being the formal cause of justification, but today we must conceive of it differently, this past conception is no longer current and therefore it is no longer true, for a doctrine that is no longer current, it has been said, is a false doctrine. It will be responded: one can substitute for the notion of formal cause another equivalent notion. Here one plays with words (by first insisting on another and afterwards on equivalent), because it is not simply a matter of verbal equivalence, since 16 Ibid., p. 128. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 54 vaTIcan II it is another notion. What becomes of the very notion of truth? Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange takes another example of the new notion of truth in a new definition of theology (taken from a writing of MarieDominique Chenu, an old student of his, whom he refrains from naming however): “Theology is nothing but a spirituality or religious experience that has found its intellectual expression.…If theology can help us understand spirituality, spirituality, in turn, will, in many cases, burst our theological categories and oblige us to conceive of other types of theology.…To every great spirituality corresponds a great theology.” Does that mean that two theologies can be true, even if they contradict each other in their primary theses? One will answer no, if one maintains the traditional definition of truth. One will say yes, if one adopts the new definition of truth conceived, not in relation to being and its immutable laws, but in relation to different religious experiences. That brings us very close to Modernism.17 the Second Vatican Council: errors concerning original sin, the distinction between nature and grace, the incarnation, the Eucharist, etc. On this last point, he quotes a text of one of the innovators about the term transubstantiation: This word is not without causing problems, just like the expression “original sin.” It corresponds to the way in which Scholastics conceived of this transformation and their conception is inadmissible.18 Ibid., p. 131. With regard to this, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange quotes two propositions condemned by the Holy Office in 1924 (DC, Vol. 13, No. 283, March 28, 1925, pp. 771-773): “5. The truth is not found in any particular act of the intellect which is conformed to its object, as the Scholastics say, but truth is always becoming, and consists in the progressive adequation of the intellect and life, that is to say, in a certain perpetual movement by which the intellect evolves and strives to express that which experience brings forth and action requires ; this occurs, however, in such a way that in this whole progression one never arrives at anything definitive or fixed.” “12. Even after having received the faith, man must not rest in the dogmas of religion and adhere to them in a fixed and immutable manner, but he must always remain anxious to progress to an ulterior truth, by an evolution that finds new meanings for what he believes and even corrects what he believed before.” [The faith] is reduced to constantly varying opinions that no longer have any value. What remains of the word of God given to the world for the salvation of souls?19 In conclusion he underlines the fact that at bottom it is a question of the definition of truth itself 20: Where is the new theology going? It is going back to Modernism because it has accepted the proposition that was made to it: that of substituting for the traditional definition of truth–adæquatio rei et intellectus21–as if it were chimerical, the subjective definition: adæquatio realis mentis et vitae.… The truth is no longer the conformity of the judgment with external reality and its immutable laws, but the conformity of the judgment with the exigencies of action and human life which is constantly evolving. In place of the philosophy of being or ontology is put the philosophy of action that defines truth no longer in function of being, but of action. Thus we return to the Modernist position: “Veritas non est immutabilis plus quam ipse homo, quippe quae cum ipso, in ipso et per ipsum evolvitur”22 (Denz. 2058). Also, Pius X used to say of the Modernists “æternam veritatis notionem pervertunt” (Denz. 2080).23 After having remarked that the Council of Trent said that this term expresses “aptissime” the mystery of the conversion accomplished at Mass, Fr. Garrigou quotes again from the same text: “In the perspective of the Scholastics where the reality of a thing is ‘the substance,’ the thing cannot really change unless the substance changes…by transubstantiation. In our present perspective…when, in virtue of the offering made of it according to the rite established by Christ, the bread and the wine have become the efficacious symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, and, consequently, of his spiritual presence, their religious being has changed…. That is what we can designate by transubstantiation.” In the rest of this first article, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange gives several examples of the consequences of this new theology that are basically the same as those that will be condemned by the encyclical Humani generis in 1950 and also by the document De fide custodiendo prepared by the theological commission for 17 And then he sums up his criticism saying : Fr. Garrigou comments: It is clear that this is no longer the transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent: “conversio totius substantiae panis in Corpus et totius substantiae vini in Sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini” (Denz. 884). It is obvious that the sense of the Council is not maintained by the introduction of these new notions. The bread and wine have become merely “the efficacious symbol of the spiritual presence of Christ.” That brings us very close to the modernist position that does not affirm the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, but just says from a practical and religious point of view: act towards the Eucharist as you would act towards the humanity of Christ. 18 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Ibid., pp. 140-141. The controversy that followed the publication of this article gives Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange the occasion to supply several useful explanations in responding to the objections Ibid., p. 137. In this regard he quotes a theologian who writes: “The debate is centered, indeed, on the very notion of truth and, without realizing it, one returns to Modernism….” Ibid., p. 142. 21 “The conformity between the thing and the intellect.” 22 “Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it evolves with him, in him and through him.” 23 Ibid., p. 143. He adds: “This is what our teacher Fr. M. B. Schwalm had foreseen.…But many thought Fr. Schwalm was exaggerating….” Similarly, he said earlier that the same lot was likely to befall him: “No doubt it will be said that we are exaggerating…” (p. 134). And in fact, that is just what happened. 19 20 vaTIcan II made to him by his adversaries. Let us see some of them that are related to this central question of the new notion of truth. In the second article of the series of eight that he wrote during this controversy, Fr. Garrigou attacks, first of all, M. Blondel . We will just cite his response to the criticism about Blondel’s new definition of truth: Our criticism remains: can one call “chimerical” the traditional definition, and must we “substitute” for it another: the conformity of the mind with the exigencies of life and action?… The traditional definition of truth according to the conformity to reality and to its immutable laws is commonly accepted for the truth of the first principles, for the conclusion of the proofs of the existence of God,24 for the affirmation of the fact of revelation and the conclusive force of miracles, for the truth of revealed dogmas.25 If this traditional definition of truth is declared “chimerical” and if one must “substitute” another one for it, what value do the conciliar definitions that presuppose it have? Must one be satisfied for all these truths with the conformity of the mind or the judgment with the exigencies of life and human action that are always evolving? There is then a very important section entitled “The Immutablity of Dogmatic Formulas” that leads us to the heart of the whole debate.26 It begins with a quote of Msgr. de Solages, who writes to defend Fr. Bouillard: “[Fr. Bouillard] does not in any way affirm this monstrosity that a theology that was true at any given moment becomes objectively false They do not just have a subjective certitude that is subjectively sufficient, like the Kantian proof of the existence of God, but a certitude that is objectively sufficient by the strength of the argument itself independently of the exigencies of action. (Author’s note) 25 It is affirmed propter auctoritatem Dei revelantis (on the authority of God who reveals) that Jesus is God and not only because we have to comport ourselves towards Him as if He were God. (Author’s note) 26 Ibid., pp. 131-134. 24 55 ‘when the mind evolves,’ but that it would be subjectively false, that is to say, interpreted in a false sense by a mind that would no longer give the same sense to the various notions used by this theology.” Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange responds that the statements of Fr. Bouillard are not so anodyne as that: I reply: If Fr. Bouillard didn’t want to say anything but that, he expressed himself very badly in a very grave matter where it is necessary to be very careful about the correctness of the terms one uses. Moreover, that would end up just stating the obvious: a theology that is no longer current is badly understood by those who don’t comprehend its notions. In reality, Fr. Bouillard, page 224, says: “In order that a theology continue to offer a meaning to the mind, and fecundate it and progress with it, it is necessary that it renounce these notions.” He means: as we have renounced the astronomical system of Ptolemy. In a defense of this position in Recherches de sciences religieuses,27 Fr. Bouillard will insist that it is Msgr. de Solages who understood what he meant to say and not Fr. GarrigouLagrange: “If an author is qualified to judge his interpreters, I can say that I recognize precisely my thought in the explanations of Msgr. de Solages.” He does not respond, however, to the arguments of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange that demonstrate the opposite. For in reality, as the Dominican will show, Fr. Bouillard does not just say that it is necessary to change the expression of the same notions so that they might be understood, but that it is necessary to change the notions themselves. A passage in his article manifests the extent of the confusion in the mind of the Jesuit on this key point. After having affirmed already several times that the notions of dogmatic truths change,28 he attacks 27 28 Vol. XXXV, April-May 1948, pp. 251-271. For example, on p. 253 he writes: “If the notions...change with time, the affirmations they contain remain.” “It is clear that this is no longer the transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent.... It is obvious that the sense of the Council is not maintained by the introduction of these new notions. The bread and wine have become merely ‘the efficacious symbol of the spiritual presence of Christ.’ That brings us very close to the modernist position that does not affirm the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist....” –Fr. GarrigouLagrange Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange for having accused him of saying that these notions are “essentially changing”: But I have never said that the notions are essentially changing. It is perfectly obvious that the various notions to which different theologians have recourse in order to express the same truth are equivalent notions, otherwise they would www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 56 vaTIcan II not be apt to sustain the same affirmation. He speaks to us of the relativity of the notion of formal cause that “modern thought has abandoned when it gave up Aristotelian physics” (p. 224). But if one had to give up this notion which is found everywhere in the theology of St. Thomas, this theology would be objectively false, and not only in several of its most important parts, but in its totality, for according to St. Thomas, no nature would then be conceivable, neither that of sensible beings, nor that of angels, nor that of God. One could no longer speak of what constitutes them formally.… Nevertheless he goes on immediately to write (the italics are ours): I wrote: “When the spirit evolves, an immutable truth is not maintained except thanks to a simultaneous and correlative evolution of all the notions, maintaining between them the same relation.” This relation is not the verb “is”…but what St. Thomas calls the proportio, the foundation of analogy. It refers precisely to the invariable element common to the diverse notions used by theologians in order to express the same truth.…Declare that the same affirmation can subsist through notions that evolve is to declare at the same time that through the change on the surface, a profound element, the essential element, remains. In other words, the reality that is aimed at always remains the same.29 All the elasticity of a modern mind was required to be able to write these lines which seem, at the beginning, to recognize the truth at the bottom of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s criticism (saying that, obviously, the notions must be “equivalent” notions, otherwise they would not be apt to sustain the same affirmation) and then reaffirming, immediately after, that “an immutable truth” is maintained “thanks to a simultaneous and correlative evolution of all the notions.” Before such intellectual disarray one is tempted to renounce all discussion. We will see what must be thought about this idea that affirmations can be equivalent even if the notions that compose them vary, but let it be clear at least that that is, indeed, what Fr. Bouillard is affirming, even though he writes, at the beginning, here that the notions are equivalent. In reality, the change that Fr. Bouillard envisages is much deeper than his “authorized interpreter” claims. To prove it, Fr. GarrigouLagrange returns to the example of formal causality and justification. 29 Ibid., pp. 254-255. The third article returns once more to this central question of analogy and goes into it more deeply. Fr. Bouillard, in a response to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s article, claims that the successive notions by which dogmatic truth expresses itself are equivalent and analogous. He writes: This immutable thing is expressed differently according to the system one chooses. That is the law of analogy that no Thomist can ignore. When the same revealed truth is expressed in different systems (Augustinian, Thomistic, Suarezian, etc.), the diverse notions utilised in order to translate it are neither equivocal (otherwise, one wouldn’t be speaking of the same thing), nor univocal (otherwise the systems would be identical), but analogical, that is to say they express in a different way the same reality.31 And he explains that the solution proposed by Fr. Bouillard in order to conserve the immutable sense of dogmas, while at the same time renouncing “obsolete” notions like “formal cause,” is not acceptable because it is based on a false notion of analogy: How can one maintain the meaning of this teaching of the Council: “sanctifying grace is the formal cause of justification” if one must renounce the notion of formal cause and if one substitutes for it another, even if it is analogous to it (the uncreated gift of the Holy Ghost is analogous to the created gift, 30 nevertheless one cannot say that habitual grace is the uncreated gift of God). If one substitutes another notion for the one used by the Council, the meaning of the affirmation is no longer the same. One must settle for saying: grace was conceived of as the formal cause of justification at the time of the Council of Trent, but today we must conceive of it differently.…This former conception is no longer current, and therefore it is no longer true, for a doctrine that is no longer current, it was said, is a false doctrine “that no longer offers a meaning to the mind,” that can “fecundate it and progress with it”; it can no longer be accepted, therefore, as an adolescent can no longer wear the clothes of a child, and as we can no longer accept ancient astronomy. 30 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org That is, the created gift of sanctifying grace. Garrigou-Lagrange responds: There is here, according to us, an abuse of analogy. It is now long ago that we have written on this subject, and we can say that, according to St. Thomas, the notions that are truly analogical refer not to the same realities, but to different realities that are similar according to a certain proportion, for example: the being of God and that of a creature, the being of a created substance and that of accidents. St. Thomas cites also the different manifestations of the health of man by his complexion, his pulse, etc. On the contrary, different notions of a same reality can differ only as a confused concept and a distinct concept of the same thing, and in that case they are univocal…. He stops here and gravely adds a phrase that is almost prophetic: “The problem must be considered in itself very attentively. If it 31 Quoted by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, ibid., p. 218. In fact, he is quoting from an unpublished collective text in which each of the Jesuits accused by the Dominican’s article defend themselves (cf. Étienne Fouilloux, Les catholiques, p. 889, n. 96). In the article already quoted in Recherches de sciences religieuses, Fr. Bouillard will respond to this third article of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and publish in extenso the text quoted here. vaTIcan II isn’t done today, it will be posed again tomorrow and its gravity is evident.”32 We find in this passage, in technical, philosophical language, all the difference between the traditional doctrine of the development of dogma, which takes place by the clarification of notions that are less distinct into notions that are univocal with these first notions but more distinct than they are, and the Modernist doctrine, according to which this development takes place by new notions which are said to be “analogous” with the first notions. According to the Modernist doctrine, therefore, there will be a real difference between the new doctrine and the old one, to the point where the new doctrine will “correct” the old one. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange comes back again to this central point, speaking again of the example of justification as defined by the Council of Trent: One cannot keep the sense of the Council by substituting for the notion of formal cause another notion said to be equivalent or analogous. This would already be another sense, since the predicate of the conciliar proposition would no longer be the same…. One objects: it is necessary to conceive it in an analogous and equivalent manner, according to the law of analogy. There is an abuse of analogy here. Two analogous notions do not express in different ways the same reality, but express realities that are different and similar according to a proportion, for example: the being of God and that of a creature, the being of a created substance and that of an accident, or again this sign of health which is the complexion and this other which is the pulse. When, on the contrary, two theological notions express differently one same reality, they can be univocal if there is no other difference between them than that between what is confused and what is distinct. Thus St. Augustine says that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, not as a body is in a place, but spiritualiter; St. Thomas later says much more distinctly per modum substantiae, for he had seen that a substance, even a corporal substance, is completely in the whole and in each of its parts. There where St. Augustine had only a confused concept, St. Thomas has a distinct concept. Similarly, St. Augustine conceives of habitual grace from the psychological and moral point of view, while St. Thomas conceives of it also from a metaphysical point of view or the point of view of being, as an accident, an infused quality that inheres in the soul. But the metaphysical concept was already present in a confused way in St. Augustine; there is just the passage here from the confused to what is distinct for the same notion; there are not two notions that are different and analogous, it is the same notion that has become more explicit and distinct. 32 He then refers the reader to the very important phrase of Vatican I which says: “The sense of sacred dogmas that is always to be preserved is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared and from which one must never deviate under the pretext and in the name of a deeper understanding.” (Denz. 1800) To give up the notion of formal cause, or of what constitutes a thing formally, would be to give up the notion of essence and the first principles that suppose this notion. It would be to fall into relativism, and the teaching Church herself would fall into it, if it wanted to follow this road which her discernment stops her from taking. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange indicates to us here the philosophical error that is at the basis of the doctrinal crisis which began to enter officially into the Church with the discourse Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae on October 11, 1962. Let it be remembered that it was precisely the discovery of the formal cause by Plato and the deepening and correction of his doctrine by his student Aristotle in his Metaphysics, that permitted philosophy to emerge from the swamp of materialism where it was floundering. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange continues to pursue his prey: In the fifth article of the series33 Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange comes back yet again to this question: If the notion of formal cause is obsolete, then the affirmation that is based on this notion is also obsolete. If one must “give up” this notion, it is necessary, whether one wants to or not, to give up as well this assertion, just as we gave up the astronomical hypothesis of Ptolemy that wasn’t a true conception, conformed to reality, but merely a practical representation that gave a provisional classification to the phenomena that had been observed up to that time.34 And he adds in a note another prophetic statement: “L’immutabilité des vérités définies et le surnaturel,” Angelicum, XXV (1948), pp. 285-298, which responds to the article of Fr. Bouillard in Recherches de sciences religieuses mentioned earlier. The fourth article, consecrated to the question of the definition of truth in Blondel, is less important for our purpose and can be omitted here. 34 Ibid., p. 290. 33 57 Fr. H. Bouillard, does he or does he not think that the “notion” of formal cause “remains” after the ruin of what was decrepit in Aristotelian cosmology?…Is it a stable philosophical notion approved as such for ever by the superior light of the Council? Or is it not just an hypothesis like those of the positive sciences, accepted provisionally by the Council as long as it will be accepted by philosophy and theology, acceptation that will no longer be valid when this hypothesis, judged as obsolete, will no longer be accepted by philosophers and theologians? In the second case it will be necessary for the Church to accept then provisionally another notion [called analogous], and then the sense of the Council that accepted the first notion will no longer be maintained, since the Church will no longer accept it. But she will make another judgment to accept another notion which will be equally temporary. In this way, the teaching Church will never know exactly what the role of sanctifying grace is in sanctification. This role never varies in itself, but one will be able to know it only www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 58 vaTIcan II in a variable way.35 This role will have been called “formal cause” at a certain epoch and at another epoch it will be designated by “another notion” and not just by words that are equivalent. One must carefully distinguish between the changing of “notions” and the recourse to other equivalent words in order to express the same notion.36 We return, then, to this very important point. Fr. Bouillard, as we saw, confuses these two things: the changing of notions and the use of other words to express the same notion. The worst of it is that he seems to do this in good faith, not understanding what is going on, no doubt because he is much more an historian than a philosopher. That a man with a philosophical formation that is so patently defective dare confront in public debate a theologian who has passed his whole life studying these questions is a sign of that ridiculous pride that St. Pius X identified as the foundation and root of Modernism. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange then explains that one can find equivalent words in order to explain technical theological terms because these technical terms are the same concepts clarified by the work of theologians carried on for centuries. He adds, nonetheless, that it is theological precision that must take precedence (a refutation in advance of the “pastorality” of Vatican II): poraries are especially attentive to the adaptation of concepts to the cultivated men of our time. They are sometimes bothered by several concepts of classical theology, like transubstantiation, hypostatic union; nevertheless, this difficulty is not at all insurmountable if in the study of traditional philosophy and theology one makes the effort to pass methodically from the confused concept expressed by the nominal definition to the distinct concept that has been made more precise with the progress of philosophy or that of sacred science. Moreover, one must not forget that theology has as its first mission, above any apologetic endeavours, to determine and conserve the exact sense of the truths revealed by God. In order to do that, it must use concepts that are truly universal, valid everywhere and always, like those necessary for the understanding of the first principles. It must be very vigilant, then, to avoid slipping towards even unconscious relativism, to which nominalism would lead it.37 In the seventh article,39 which treats of relativistic philosophical systems, two passages are particularly important because they speak of the two doctrines which are at the base of Modernism: agnosticism and immanentism. The first passage explains that the immutability of dogma can not be maintained if one denies that the dogmatic formulas veritably express the reality of God, even if this truth that they express is imperfect. The question then presents itself: Would one maintain the immutability of dogma as it was conceived of by the Church if one simply said: In our analogical and always imperfect knowledge of God, the adaequatio rei et intellectus, the correspondence between the dogmatic formula and the divine reality, is nothing but a limit towards which one tends, but which one never attains here below, for to attain it, it would be necessary to have the immediate vision of the divine essence that only the blessed possess?40 A final text of Fr. Bouillard quoted here and its refutation by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange manifest perfectly the complete opposition of these two positions: Fr. H. Bouillard in the same book, page 213, writes in speaking of the authors of theological manuals and more erudite works: “If the authors know that theology has not always existed in its actual state in the knowledge of theologians, they at least unconsciously imagine that it was already given as such in the domain of eternal truths and that the discursive intelligence just has to discover it, to reconstruct it bit by bit. A historical study reveals, on the contrary, to what an extent theology is bound to time, to the flux of the human mind.” But traditional theologians are not mistaken in thinking that the perfect theological knowledge exists in the domain of the eternal truths in the divine intelligence, in that of theologians who have arrived at the beatific vision, and that this theological knowledge was There are verbal equivalents that make comprehensible the term “formal cause” but this notion is maintained, it is not replaced by another. All that is accessible to intelligences of every age. One understands very well that apologists occupied above all in the communication of Christian and Catholic doctrine to our contemFr. H. Bouillard writes in his book, p. 220: “A new concept is introduced that will preside at the organization of a new system. Divine truth is never accessible within any contingent notion. It is the law of incarnation.” This whole page 220 is to be read attentively. (Note of the author). 36 Ibid., pp. 290-291. in an imperfect state, but already immutable on many points, in the intelligence of a St. Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians already while they were still here below.38 35 37 THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Ibid., p. 292. Ibid., pp. 293-294. “Le relativisme et l’immutabilité du dogme,” Angelicum, XXVII (1950), pp. 219-246. The sixth article of the series, which we have had to omit in order not to be too long, treats of the doctrine of Günther and its condemnation by Vatican I. 40 In fact, this certainly seems to be the position of Fr. Bouillard when he says, for example, as we saw: “To declare that the same affirmation can subsist through notions that evolve is to declare at the same time that through the change on the surface, a profound element, the essential element, remains. In other words, the reality that is aimed at always remains the same.” (Recherches de sciences religieuses, Vol. XXXV, April-May 1948), pp. 254-255) And also: “The divine truth is never accessible on this side of any contingent notion. It is the law of the incarnation.” Conversion et grâce chez saint Thomas d’Aquin, 1944, p. 220, quoted by Garrigou-Lagrange, “L’immutabilité des vérités définies et le surnaturel,” Angelicum, XXV (1948), p. 291. It is the same doctrine that is behind the assertion that was just quoted where he rejects the idea that theological knowledge consists in discovering truths which exist already “as such in the domain of eternal truths.” For Fr. Bouillard one does not 38 39 vaTIcan II Is it sufficient to say: the immutable truth of dogma is a limit towards which the Church is always tending, but which she never attains here below? Günther in the nineteenth century accepted that in his relativism, and the Vatican Council found that it was not sufficient. No doubt our analogical concepts are always inadequate and incapable of expressing the divine reality as it is in itself. But, let us not forget, the truth is formally, not in the concepts, but in the judgment. The truth consists in affirming that which is and in denying that which is not. In this sense the truth of a judgment is the correspondence between the judgment itself and the thing that is judged.41 That is to say, the truth of dogmatic formulas does not consist in the fact that the concepts they use are perfectly conformed to the divine realities they refer to, but in the conformity of the judgment formed by the union of these concepts to the divine reality. These concepts are certainly very imperfect, but the judgment formed by their conjunction is already true, even if it doesn’t express all the divine reality which is its object. And then it is a matter of knowing (something that is at the same time very simple and very profound, like the Pater Noster) if the truth of the judgments, of the dogmas infallibly proposed by the Church as revealed by God, is a truth that is already absolutely certain and immutable, and not just a limit that is aimed at, towards which the intelligence of the believer is always tending but which it never attains here below. It is a matter of knowing if the judgments or dogmatic propositions, in spite of the imperfection of our analogical concepts, are certainly conformed already now to the divine reality by an infallible certitude, because of the authority of God who reveals them. It is clear that for us believers to ask the question is to answer it affirmatively. For this it is necessary know divine truth by the dogmatic formulas and that is why one can replace them by other ones. 41 Ibid., pp. 222-224. 59 the magisterium of the Church.42 He writes: also that the analogical notions that express the immutable dogmatic truth have a real validity (ontological and transcendental) and that they be themselves immutable and not only provisional. It is not a matter here of making a simple analysis of this document…, but of bringing out the principal error from which all the others derive and by opposition show the fundamental truth that makes it possible to avoid these deviations….Now, when one examines philosophically and theologically this encyclical, one sees that the fundamental error that it condemns is philosophical relativism, which leads to dogmatic relativism, from which necessarily derives the whole stream of deviations that are mentioned. The second passage shows the consequence of this agnosticism: if the dogmatic formulas do not make us know the truth about God, they are but the expression of the immanent experience of man. As for the revealed mysteries, [according to relativism] our notions of nature, substance, person, cannot make us know even analogically, for these notions have only a phenomenal validity, they don’t have an ontological validity, and even less a transcendental validity.…Nevertheless, the relativists tell us, there remains a certain religious experience….This religious experience then seeks to think itself out; it expresses itself, then, in popular formulas, then in formulas that are called dogmatic, or approved by the religious authorities. But these formulas without ontological or transcendental validity cannot express God and the divine realities with truth and certitude; they only express the subjective experience of the believer; they are a conceptualisation of this experience, an intellectual expression of the religious sentiment that evolves. Not having any ontological validity, and even less any transcendental validity, these formulas, termed dogmatic, are always relative to the evolution of the religious sentiment, relative also to the actual state of science and philosophy. Thus they are always provisional; the concepts they use can always be replaced by other analogical ones, as long as a certain basis of religious experience remains. This basis is what is called here revelation, which proceeds from the subconscious . He quotes the encyclical against this philosophical relativism: What does it tell us first about relativism in the philosophical domain and then in that of dogma? It says (III, i): “Reason can arrive at the certain knowledge of the existence of God and the certain signs of divine Revelation.” Nevertheless “it will never be able to function in this way rightly and surely unless it has been properly formed; that is to say unless it has been penetrated by this healthy philosophy that we have received as a patrimony from the centuries of Christendom which have preceded us: patrimony that has been constituted over a long period of time, and that has attained to this superior degree of authority precisely because the very magisterium of the Church has submitted to the norms of divine Revelation itself its principles and its principal assertions which such grand minds have little by little discovered and defined. This philosophy received and commonly accepted in the Church defends the authentic and exact 42 Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concludes this long series of articles with one last one entitled: “The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis,” the pontifical document which constitutes the triumph of his doctrine by the approbation of “La structure de l’encyclique Humani generis,” Angelicum, XXVII (1951), pp. 3-17. The close study of this whole controversy and the exact correspondence (which at times is even verbal) between the position taken by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and the doctrine proposed by the encyclical, cannot but lead one to think that the Dominican had a hand in the composition of the papal document or was perhaps even its principal author. This internal evidence would have to be corroborated by external proofs, but already on its own it has a considerable weight. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 60 vaTIcan II validity of human reason, the unshakable principles of metaphysics—the principle of sufficient reason, of causality, of finality—finally the capacity to arrive at a certain and immutable truth.” … The encyclical Humani generis adds (III): “Some hold today that our philosophy affirms wrongly the possibility of a metaphysics that is absolutely true….They seem to insinuate that no matter what philosophy, by means, if necessary, of some corrections and additions, can be in harmony with the Catholic faith. This is absolutely false.” Finally, he quotes the encyclical’s condemnation of the dogmatic relativism that follows from this philosophical relativism. Pius XII writes: “It is clear according to what we have said that these (doctrines) do not only lead to dogmatic relativism, but already contain it in act; the contempt of the doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it expressed itself are already too close to it.…The expressions that, during the course of several centuries, were established by a common consent of Catholic doctors in order to arrive at some understanding of dogma surely do not rest on such a fragile foundation. They rest, in fact, on principles and notions taken from the true knowledge of created things; in the research of these notions revealed truth enlightened the human mind like a star by means of the Church. That is why it is not surprising that some of these notions have not only been used in ecumenical Councils but have received such a sanction that it is not permitted to distance oneself from them. Thus it is very imprudent to substitute for them floating and vague notions and expressions of a new philosophy that are used today and will disappear tomorrow like the flowers of the field; this would be to make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. In fact, unfortunately these lovers of novelty easily pass from contempt of Scholastic theology to a lack of respect for and even contempt of the magisterium of the Church which has so strongly supported this theology by its authority.” summary: conclusion of the debate Let us try now, finally, to summarize the debate carried on in these articles and draw a conclusion. It is a question, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange tells us, of truth: the fundamental error of the new theology (and, consequently of the Second Vatican Council, where this theology was imposed on the whole Church) is a philosophical error. The new theologians want to replace the traditional definition of truth, the conformity of the intelligence to reality, with a correspondence between the mind and life. For them, the intelligence is incapable of attaining reality directly: its affirmations do not express reality itself, but only its own ideas, sentiments, experiences, etc. That is why these affirmations must be changed when, and in as much as, these sentiments and experiences change. “Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it evolves with him, in him and through him” (Denz. 2058). Applied to theology, this doctrine teaches that dogmatic formulas are merely the expression of the religious experience of believers and, consequently, are as variable as these experiences. The long dispute with Fr. Bouillard on the question of analogy made it possible to understand more deeply the precise nature of this fundamental error of the new theology and expose its artifices. Fr. Bouillard says that theological notions can and must change with the times, while at the same time he denies that dogmatic affirmations change, maintaining that they remain stable and thus claiming not to reject the traditional definition of truth. When Fr. GarrigouLagrange objects that a change in the notions must necessarily result in a change in the affirmations (since they are composed by the conjunction of these notions) Fr. Bouillard responds that the affirmations stay the same, because these new notions are analogous. He writes: THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org When the same revealed truth is expressed in different systems (Augustinian, Thomistic, Suarezian, etc.), the diverse notions utilised in order to translate it are neither equivocal (otherwise, one wouldn’t be speaking of the same thing), nor univocal (otherwise the systems would be identical), but analogical, that is to say they express in a different way the same reality. To which Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange responds that analogous notions do not express the same reality, but different realities which are similar according to a certain proportion, as, for example, the analogous notion of “being” expresses the being of substance and the being of accidents, which are not at all the same thing but are similar according to the similar proportion that exists between the substance and its being and an accident and its being, which proportion permits these two different things to be called by the same name analogically. For Fr. Bouillard this proportion is rather between the notions, and he claims that this proportion is the same in the different affirmations that are formed by these different notions. I wrote: “When the mind evolves, an immutable truth cannot be maintained except thanks to a simultaneous and correlative evolution of all its notions, which maintain among themselves the same relation” (Conversion et grâce, p. 219). This relation is not the verb “is,” the copula, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange seems to have understood, but what St. Thomas calls the proportio, the foundation of analogy. It indicates precisely the invariable element common to the diverse notions used by theologians to express the same truth. He doesn’t tell us where he got this new theory of analogy, apparently because he invented it for the needs of his polemic. The question of analogy is one of the most difficult and most important questions that is treated in philosophy, and it is sometimes difficult to determine whether it is a matter of a propor- vaTIcan II tion that exists between a reality expressed by a certain term (reality which is called the “first analogate”) and other realities expressed by the same term because of this proportion (analogy of proportion or attribution) or rather of a similitude according to a certain proportion between different realities which are called, because of this similitude, by the same term (analogy of proportionality). What is nevertheless clear is that no one—until the advent of Fr. Bouillard—says that it is a matter of a proportion between different notions in different affirmations, which affirmations would express the same thing because of this similar proportion between these different notions. It is quite difficult to imagine even what this would mean, and Fr. Bouillard doesn’t give any examples other than that of these supposed equivalent dogmatic formulas which he tries to justify by this new theory of analogy: but their legitimacy is precisely what has to be shown. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is much clearer when he says that different notions can express the same reality, not according to a proportion between them which is difficult to define, but simply in a way that is more or less distinct. In this case they are not analogical but univocal, that is to say, they say the same thing but more or less clearly. Thus obscure notions that one has difficulty understanding are clarified by others: it is a matter of saying the same thing more explicitly.43 This is perhaps all Fr. Bouillard wants to say, finally, by his different notions that have the same proportion between them, but his theory reveals a surprising lack of understanding of the basic principles of 43 Thus we respond to Fr. Bouillard about the different theological “systems” that, if they are all true, they are univocal, but they are not identical because they are distinguished by a greater or lesser clarity (as in the example given by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange of the explanation of the Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas). logic. An affirmation is not a proportion between the notions which are its predicate and subject; it is their union. And Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is perfectly right to say that if the notions united in an affirmation by the verb “is” are changed, that is, if the new notions are not the same as the previous ones, if they are not univocal with them, at least according to a greater or lesser clarity, the new affirmation formed by them will not be the same as the previous one. “Otherwise, one might as well say that an iron clamp can immobilise the waves of the sea.”44 If one uses, as Fr. Bouillard wants to, notions that are truly different (and not just clearer) one doesn’t say the same thing: and this is the source of the slipping and sliding in dogmatic formulas which has been going on ever since John XXIII opened the door to this way of seeing things at the beginning of the Council. The development of dogma no longer conserves “the same dogma, the same sense, the same affirmation,” according to the consecrated formula of St. Vincent of Lérins, but it has become analogical. This means that there is a real change, since the affirmations made before and those made after are no longer univocal with each other but only analogical, and, therefore, equivocal, since, as any first year logic student knows, analogical notions are a species of equivocal notions. One no longer says the same thing as before, and the door is open to everything. The examples given by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange show this clearly (without even speaking of what happened after the Council, where the exact same samples show up, in fact). Thus the notion of transubstantiation is considered by the new theologians as “an inadmissible conception” and having to be replaced by another according to which in the Eucharist “the bread and wine have become the efficacious symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, and, consequently of his spiritual presence.” Similarly, the Incarnation becomes a moment in universal evolution, original sin is the result of the faults of men that have influenced humanity, etc.45 But already in the writings of Fr. Bouillard himself during this controversy one finds an example of this changing of meaning in dogmatic affirmations in the case of the example with which the first article of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange begins, that of justification. To conclude, then, let us recapitulate the dispute on this very revealing point. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange quotes the book of Fr. Bouillard where he affirms that the Council of Trent, in saying that the formal cause of justification is grace, had in no way the intention of canonizing an Aristotelian notion, but “it simply wanted to affirm, against the Protestants, that justification is an interior renovation.” 46 Fr. GarrigouLagrange replies that, obviously, the Council did not want to canonize the notion of Aristotle in so far as it is a part of his philosophical system, but simply approved it as a stable human notion that has a meaning for every one. In his response, Fr. Bouillard comes back and repeats his phrase and insists: “What [the Council] teaches is that justification is an interior renovation and not just an imputation of the merits of Christ.”47 But the Council, in fact, wanted to say more than that, and the confused philosophy of Fr. Bouillard stops him from seeing it. For, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains, the Council did not just say that justification is an interior renovation, but that this interior renovation is constituted in itself by a very precise reality (that is to say, has this real45 46 47 44 “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?” Angelicum, XXII (1946), p. 127. 61 Ibid., p. 136. Ibid., p. 128. “Notions conciliaires et analogie de la vérité,” Recherches de sciences religieuses, XXXV (1948), p. 261. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 62 vaTIcan II ity as its formal cause), namely, by divine grace: “It is very important to know that this interior renovation is formally constituted not by some interior principle other than grace, but by habitual grace that inheres in the soul, which is a participation of the divine nature and the germ in us of eternal life.” And in his response to the article of Fr. Bouillard he drives home his point even more and draws out of this example the general conclusion that is at the bottom of his criticism of the new theology: It is necessary to note that the Council of Trent did not content itself with using terms found in Scripture; it stated precisely that the formal cause of justification is not only the imputation of the merits of Christ, or the favour of God, nor an interior renovation that would take place merely by infused faith or infused hope that can exist in the state of mortal sin, but an interior renovation that is accomplished by sanctifying grace and charity. How can one maintain the sense of this affirmation of the Council if one must “give up” the notion of formal cause and substitute for it another one that is analogical to it? One will arrive, in this way, we said, at another affirmation: that of the Council will not be maintained, for the immutable truth of a judgment necessarily depends on the immutable value of the notions it unites by the verb “is.” about the changes that happened after the Council: I remember this new idea that was presented to us at the time of the Council, the idea of the “Historical Method.”48 I remember the day I accepted that principle. doctrinal relativism against which Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was trying to fight (and which his adversaries pretended didn’t exist49): The director of studies [at the seminary at Lyons] counselled those who were the most interested in theology to start by reading the first two chapters of Surnaturel by Henri de Lubac—the most forbidden of the “forbidden books”!—then his Corpus Mysticum, in order to understand that equivalent theological propositions could, in different times and in other contexts, receive an entirely different meaning. 2) A seminarian of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, who later became the Superior-General of this congregation, explaining the position of his community: We aren’t Vatican I, nor Vatican III, we’re Vatican II! 3) Another seminarian of this same congregation who also later became its Superior-General, disputing with a confrère who was criticizing certain novelties of Vatican II: But you can’t say that! The Church has changed! (His confrère asks him: “In what exactly?”) I don’t know! It is the Church that has to tell us that. But at least this is clear, the Church has changed! 4) Finally, a famous phrase of Msgr. Henrici in Communio about the book of Fr. de Lubac, which, quoted in full, contains explicitly the 48 The consequences of doctrinal relativism In order to see the consequences of the defeat suffered at the Second Vatican Council by the position defended in these articles of Garrigou-Lagrange which we have just examined and its rejection of the doctrine taught by the encyclical Humani generis, it suffices to listen a little to the clerics who occupy positions of authority in the Conciliar Church. One could multiply indefinitely such quotes, but here are a few that give the essential idea: 1) Cardinal Ambrozic, Archbishop of Toronto, Canada, to a seminarian who questioned him THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org It is interesting to read, with regard to this remark, the words of Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, one of the greatest promoters of this “Historical Method,” in an interview 20 years after the Council: “I still remember the mental shock that I experienced when I situated this historicity, not only in the literary context of this Scholasticism, but in the very object of theology: theology is not a coordinated assembly of principles extracted from the Word of God, it is first of all this Word itself, in act in history.…Without doubt that is my fundamental position: God has entered into history, and it is in history that I have the understanding of his mystery. Before conceptualized faith there is lived faith, the first source of theology. It was this position that got me in trouble with the Roman theologians, whose detemporalized theology rejected this substantial relation to history. From there came the accusations made against my pamphlet Une école de théologie. Le Saulchoir. I was only rehabilitated by the Second Vatican Council, which, according to the words of Cardinal Marty, gave back to the Church, to the Word of God, its historic dimension. The word historia, absent until then in the vocabulary of the magisterium, is pronounced 63 times in the texts of the Council. This is what has gained for me the fact to be listed, not without generosity, among the theologians of the Council.” L’actualité religieuse, January 1985, pp. 21-22. Here then is the result of the defeat of the position defended so valiantly by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange in the years that preceded the Council: “The Church has changed.” The seal is broken, everything becomes possible. It is the “Solve” of the program of the Freemasons, the stage of destruction that had to precede the “Coagula” of the new ecclesiastical order. It was necessary to begin with this philosophical bombardment in order to be able to carry out without resistance the invasion and occupation of the Church which was the purpose of the Council. Fr. Albert Kallio is a traditional Dominican priest ordained by Bishop Fellay and presently working with the Society of St. Pius X in the United States. 49 Testimonies like that of Msgr. Henrici make us doubt the sincerity of the indignant protestations of Fr. Bouillard against the accusations of relativism made by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, especially when we hear this same Fr. Bouillard say in an intervention at the inauguration of the Centre d’Archives Maurice Blondel at Louvain March 30-31, 1973, what we read in the following text: “After having recognized the influence on the ‘New Theology’ of the philosophy of Blondel, who ‘contributed in the most decisive manner in the renewal of fundamental theology,’ the Jesuit Bouillard declares that ‘the thought of Blondel progressively and in its essential theses has become victorious’: the theses defeated by Blondel are ‘today obsolete’ and the errors he held today ‘seem to go without saying’ (“Journées d’inauguration, March 30-31, 1973: Textes des interventions,” p. 43).” La “Nouvelle Theologie” ou “Ceux qui pensent avoir gagné” (Publication of Courrier de Rome, 1994), p. 29. 63 Brideshead Revisited a commentary Part 6 Dr. David Allen White in Part 6 of Dr. White’s lecture on Brideshead revisited, he continues his analysis of the novel, focusing on character development and the artistic depth of the plot. T his part is going to focus on the whole question of art and architecture within the novel. And of course, this is absolutely central in the obvious ways. The title of the book is about a very large family estate and particularly that castle, Brideshead. And our hero’s vocation is that of an artist. Given those two facts as Waugh constructs the novel, it is clear his interests must be in art and architecture because they are central to so many different aspects of the novel. When I was giving you a brief history of his life [see Part 3 in the May 2011 issue], I made the point that he started out wanting to be an artist and was an illustrator. In fact, he did many of the jacket covers for his first novels; and he himself did some illustrations for them. You can find these drawings; they are really quite remarkable. He was extremely talented. He could have pursued that, I think, and been successful at it. But instead of being an artist, he winds up being a writer–a shifted vocation. Waugh’s interest in art began when he was quite a young man, when he was still in his teens. In fact, when he was www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 64 LITeraTure only about 14 years old, he made the discovery of art and was going to some of the museums that were available to him in London, and was particularly fond of modern art. At the age of 14, he writes a little essay called “In Defense of Cubism,” in which he praises the glories of the Spanish artist Pablo Picasso. He loved post-impressionism. He loved futurism. He loved anything that was modern. And part of this, of course, would impel him then into that association with the bright young people of London, who loved all things modern. And also, when he starts out in Oxford, he is very much concerned with the movements in modern art–being up to date, being progressive, what’s the latest, what are the new artists doing, and praising them for it. By 1947, just three years after Brideshead is written, he is signing many of his letters with the catch-phrase, “Death to Picasso.” So we can say there has been a change over the 30 years from the time he is a young man until his later years. But while he was bold and forthright in that little closing salutation–you find it in many of his letters–he wasn’t just attacking to no purpose. He wrote to a friend at one point explaining his dislike of Picasso and particularly cubism and everything associated with modern art: “There is an Easter sense in which all things are made new in the Risen Christ. A tiny gleam of this is reflected in all true art.” What he believed the artist was doing was representing nature and allowing us by looking at the painting, if it was true art, to see that glimpse of the “Risen Christ,” a tiny gleam of it that would allow us to look to the painting, back to the real world of nature, and appreciate it in a new way. This is an idea of the artist as teacher, and what the artist is doing is teaching the eye; and through a great painting or even a good paint- ing helping us to understand what that world of nature is about so that when we turn back to it, we turn back with an educated eye and can see that more clearly. What had happened–and I’ll just take Picasso as the example–with the coming of cubism, of course, is that the cubist artist takes the human face or a pitcher, some oranges, apples, some musical instruments, and looks at what the artist calls the “planes of light,” the way the light hits and then fragments that face, those objects, so that we are not seeing the whole. We are simply seeing a shattered, fragmented version of it, in which chunks are put together, jigsawpuzzle-like, but completely out of kilter with anything from nature. And what we are looking at is the brilliance of the artist, and you cannot in any way turn from that back to the world of nature and see more clearly. What Waugh came to believe is that that sort of painting assaulted the eye; it taught the eye nothing. There is nothing one could learn from that. It was in no way tending toward the beautiful, the representational, and this became an obsession with him: that the painting had to show something, attempt to be a picture of something. He spoke out in defense of the whole school of Victorian painters who had fallen out of favor because at least they had subject matter. They were painting pictures that were recognizable and even had a little story in it; we’ll see one such moment in Brideshead. He uses one of those paintings in Brideshead for an express purpose. We’ll come to that later. Waugh said that tumultuous, aesthetic heresies had come from all over the continent to destroy all that previous generations had understood as art. He referred to it as a kind of heresy. In fact at one point in another of his letters he went even further and said, “Per- THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org haps in the Providence of God, the unqualified hideousity of modern art has been sent to us to scourge us for just this aberration of confusing art with religion.” And of course what was happening at the same time, and it had begun in the 19th century, was the belief that since no one had faith any longer, no one could believe in those old religious ideas, you would substitute art. Art became the religion; the artist became god. You find it in music in Richard Wagner, who builds the shrine to himself at Bayreuth and writes his sacred, religious drama festival Parsifal, where those who love him can go and worship with his music the man–a false god. You get it in James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and in a way, Brideshead is an anti-portrait of the artist as a young man. Joyce’s artist, Stephen Dedalus, deserts his family, leaves his country, abandons God, and places himself in the godlike position of the artist recreating the world. In this book, Charles Ryder finds family, comes to appreciate his country, and indeed paints it as some of the old structures that are vanishing, and comes to know, love, and serve God. It is an “anti-portrait of the artist as a young man,” it is antiJoyce if you will, and Waugh was fully aware of what he was doing. It’s everywhere in the arts: the artist as God, art as the substitute for religion. Now, Waugh had fallen into this for some time as a young man. He was very much aware of it. There were certain artistic theories about that he had held to in his youth, that he came to remove himself from and thoroughly disbelieve in two names. They show up in the novel: Clive Bell and Roger Fry, who were theorists of art, writing books on aesthetics, and we’ll see he actually quotes one of them at one point. And he had bought into this. You’ll find it stated in the novel: it’s what is called the “Theory of Significant Form.” It LITeraTure went basically like this: if you look at a canvas, the canvas can raise some sort of high emotion in you. That is, art is basically emotional in nature and is creating an aesthetic response. It is doing so through form, color, shapes, design, but there is no need for any subject matter. Subject matter is not necessary. What you are getting on the canvas is simply a matter of design, color, and form that can be a medieval Madonna and Child, because that’s color, that’s form; there is some design. Or a Jackson Pollock, where he literally just threw and dripped paint on the canvas. It’s accidental, but we end up with color and form and he’s designing as he drips and they are the same thing and they are to be examined the same way. Waugh quotes a lecture that Fry once gave in which he was doing an analysis of a painting of the Crucifixion of our Lord. I don’t know which painting it was, but he had a slide of it up on the screen. He was talking to his students and pointed to the body of our Lord on the Cross and supposedly said, “You see this important mass of color here?” And of course in saying that, what he is saying is that that “mass of color” could be anything. It could be the body of our Lord, it could be one of Cézanne’s apples, or it could just be a blob of paint put on a canvas next to another blob of paint, and what is important is the form and arrangement of the color, not the subject matter! So that even in a great religious painting, the body of Our Lord is “this important mass of color.” Now, this was a seductive idea at the time and one that Waugh fell into until some of the people that he met at Oxford jarred him out of it. Turn to page 28 in the novel: This is a tiny moment, but it’s hugely significant in terms of what’s happening in the book. It was indeed at Oxford that Waugh had this nonsense knocked out of him, and very quickly. And he had it knocked out of him, indeed, by some of his friends–one in particular, Harold Acton, who is one of the models for Anthony Blanche, who becomes very important in teaching Charles aesthetics. But there were others as well, and Waugh puts the basic attack on Clive Bell in the mouth of Sebastian. “At Sebastian’s approach, these grey figures seemed quietly to fade into the landscape and vanish, like highland sheep in the misty heather” (p. 28). That’s all those old theories of art he had with the people he was hanging out with. Collins had exposed the fallacy of modern aesthetics to me: “...The whole argument from Significant Form stands or falls by volume. If you allow Cézanne to represent a third dimension on his two-dimensional canvas, then you must allow Landseer his gleam of loyalty in the spaniel’s eye—” (p. 28) So it’s being shaken a bit, okay? If we can say we’re pretending to see a third dimension in Cézanne, who’s drawing in two dimensions, then why not say that the spaniel is a real object?–it’s representing a spaniel, and the gleam in the spaniel’s eye has real meaning. What is it? It’s a dog with a gleam in its eye! Why can’t we say that? And if we look at simply the number of paintings that have been representational, they far outweigh (what he means by volume) the number of paintings that have been done with just “blobs of color” on a canvas. So he was leaning that way: but it was not until Sebastian, idly turning the page of Clyde Bell’s Art, read: “‘Does anyone feel the same kind of emotion for a butterfly or a flower that he feels for a cathedral or a picture?’ Yes. I do,” that my eyes were opened. The notion is that aesthetics are not just about created objects, cathedrals, paintings; that art is somehow superior to nature; that art is separated from nature, superior to 65 nature, and the artistic object, whatever it is, raises an aesthetic response that is far superior to anything we can find out in the world. Sebastian teaches a very simple lesson. Does anyone feel the same kind of emotion for a butterfly or a flower that he feels for a cathedral or a picture? “Yes. I do,” says Sebastian–I love a butterfly! A flower can move me as much as a painting–and Charles says his eyes were opened. This may seem silly, but this is hugely important. What does it mean? It means that Charles can finally, in having his eyes opened, literally see the world around him and respond to it. There’s a world out there! It’s a world of beauty. It is an enormous first step on the road to truth, to be able to see what’s there. And not just to assume it’s a created thing and the created thing is the only thing that can draw up emotion from inside of us. Now, if Collins gave him a bit of a hint there, at the same time, Collins becomes part of the problem on page 44. (Collins is dismissed early on; we don’t hear much of him later.) We find out that Collins made notes for a little thesis pointing out the inferiority of the original mosaics to their photographs. Collins has gone nuts too, okay? The picture of the art is superior to the art itself. Waugh wrote a fascinating little essay in which he talked about how photography destroyed painting; that, once any idiot could pick up a camera and pretend to capture reality with a camera and say it was a work of art, there was no longer any need for the artist. The artist felt incapable of representing reality as accurately as the photographer did and stopped trying; and therefore, in order to do something different, starts throwing blobs of paint at a canvas because no photograph can capture that because it’s just sheer mess, if you will. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 66 LITeraTure Now we learn as well that as a result of this, there is a complete collapse in the study of art. Charles (p. 152), once he’s been in Paris studying and trying to train, to learn to be an artist, he talks [to Sebastian] about the other students: “I told him about...the art school, and how good the old teachers were and how bad the students.” The old teachers are still teaching art in Paris, but the students are bad. “They never go near the Louvre,” [Charles] said, “or, if they do, it’s only because one of their absurd reviews has suddenly ‘discovered’ a master who fits in with that month’s aesthetic theory. Half of them are out to make a popular splash like Picabia; the other half quite simply want to earn their living doing advertisements for Vogue and decorating night clubs. And the teachers still go on trying to make them paint like Delacroix.” There has been a total collapse. Art itself is not being learned, it’s not being studied, the students don’t want to find out about it. They either want to be hugely popular– the reason for art is not the art, but so you can make a name for yourself–or make a whole lot of money in some way. And then comes the glorious moment. “Charles,” said Cordelia, “Modern art is all bosh isn’t it?” “Great bosh.” “Oh, I’m so glad! I had an argument with one of our nuns and she said we shouldn’t try and criticize what we didn’t understand. Now I shall tell her I have had it straight from a real artist, and snubs to her.” But what we get there of course, is that Charles does know something about art. He has been trained. He is trying to learn to represent on the canvas something real that the eye can respond to, that will allow one then to look and see what is out there more clearly. This means that the first step, then, is to break away from modern theory, finally freeing oneself from all the crackpot, modern theory that really requires no academic training–you just pick up the theory in the air and spout it, no real training, no real study, and it will allow you to appreciate anything. And, by the way, that whole idiocy is why primitive art becomes hugely popular. Because all you have there is a form. It’s just a form, it can be anything. It can be hacked out of a hunk of wood by a savage, but it’s a form and therefore it has meaning, and we can talk about it as an object that creates some sort of aesthetic response. Now, it’s really a lousy, old piece of primitive art and Waugh would reject it out of hand. After Charles goes to the first luncheon at Sebastian’s, he comes and redoes his room. One of the things he does–he has a screen that has a Fry painting on it, you know, whatever–and he sends it off. The wonderful thing is that his scout Lunt, as he takes it out, says, “Well, I never liked it much anyway.” And you have a wonderful sense of the sort of common sense on the part of Lunt. ...Waugh is not one to praise the common man, but he does have an awareness that there is common sense in anybody. And Lunt didn’t like that screen, and out goes the screen as well. And he’s going to replace it with different objects. The point: distrust theory, get free from whatever is the contemporary academic jargon and vogue, because it’s probably meaningless; the simple sense of recognizing what the function and purpose of art is: to make us see the world better, but also being able to appreciate the world on its own, to look clearly at it and to see that. So there is a purpose to art. There is a reason for it. The world that we’re entering in the prologue to the novel shows the two dangers, if you will; …and we have a sense of both art and THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org architecture falling into disrepair. It is a time of collapse. “The camp stood where, until quite lately, had been pasture and ploughland; the farm-house still stood in a fold of the hill and had served us for battalion offices” (p. 3). Please notice wherever the battalion moves, they take over what’s there. They took over the farmhouse; we move to Brideshead, and they’ve taken over Brideshead. They’re taking over these buildings. “...Ivy still supported part of what had once been the walls of a fruit garden; half an acre of mutilated old trees behind the wash-houses survived of an old orchard.” That sense of arranging nature, building structures to contain nature, which is sort of a step between nature and architecture– it’s mutilated, it’s gone, all of that is fallen. “The smoke from the cookhouses drifted away in the mist and the camp lay revealed as a planless maze of short-cuts, superimposed on the unfinished housing scheme” (p. 7). We don’t have an actual city, we don’t have a place where people can live in an organized era of some beauty. By the way, Waugh once said, “The single greatest work of art ever created in the world is not a painting or a novel, it’s the city of Venice.” Wonderful idea. The greatest work of art in the world is the city of Venice. And he had a sense of– Because what you have there is a thing of great beauty that had been built for people to live in. It was a city, it was a community... “The camp lay revealed as a planless maze of short-cuts…” There’s the modern world, “…superimposed on the unfinished housing-scheme, as though disinterred at a much later date by a party of archaeologists.” It looks like something old that’s been dug up from the past. And then we get an imaginary description of what they’ll say when they dig it up. “The Pollock dig- LITeraTure gings…”–there’s a little jibe at Jackson Pollock– haunted late years began to take flight. (p. 15) …provide a valuable link between the citizen-slave communities of the twentieth century and the tribal anarchy which succeeded them. Here you see a people of advanced culture, capable of an elaborate draining system and the construction of permanent highways, overrun by a race of the lowest type. The measure of the newcomers may be taken by the facts that their women were devoid of all personal adornment and that their dead were removed to burying places a great distance from the settlement—a sure sign of primitive taboo. (p. 7) I just had to read that because I love it. That’s beautiful, beautifully written prose! However, he’s come back to Brideshead, it’s there. The memories come flooding back. The response is overwhelming, but notice the description. The word “Brideshead” is a conjuror’s name. We are calling something up, we are calling up memory. A conjuror does not conjure up anything real, and that’s our first little warning. There’s a second one. He is walking through the valley; there it is, he sees it: “Beyond and about us, more familiar still, lay an exquisite man-made landscape” (pp. 15-16). It is a case where, beautifully arranged, man has gone in and arranged the landscape and made something beautiful out of it. It’s wonderful, it’s funny. But again, please note, what have we got? We’ve got a comic tone on serious ideas. One: the city, which I talked about last night. Here we have no permanent city; nevertheless, we can build cities of beauty which are habitable. And the whole notion of death, and what happens at the moment of death and following death as being an indication of the level of civilization in any given time and place. This is the moment… They’ve arrived in the night, he doesn’t know where he is. He shaves, comes out in the morning, walks out the door of the little hut he’s stationed in. And he asks the second-in-command, “What’s this place called?” He doesn’t know where he is. He told me and, on the instant, it was as though someone had switched off the wireless, and a voice that had been bawling in my ears, incessantly, fatuously, for days beyond number, had been suddenly cut short; an immense silence followed, empty at first, but gradually, as my outraged sense regained authority, full of a multitude of sweet and natural and long-forgotten sounds—for he had spoken a name that was so familiar to me, a conjuror’s name of such ancient power, that, at its mere sound, the phantoms of those It was a sequestered place, enclosed and embraced in a single, winding valley. Our camp lay along one gentle slope; opposite us the ground led, still unravished, to the neighbourly horizon, and between us flowed a stream—it was named the Bride and rose not two miles away at a farm called Bridesprings, where we used sometimes to walk to tea; it became a considerable river lower down before it joined the Avon– which had been dammed here to form three lakes…. (p. 16) It’s lovely, but that flowing river, the Bride, has been dammed up, the water has stopped. Watch through the novel when water is flowing and when water is stopped, when we have fountains running and fountains stopped, when we have springs bubbling up or the image of springs bubbling up and then they run dry. But of course, the Bride comes from Bridesprings and is where the original Brideshead was built, and there’s no mistaking it: who the Bride is–it’s that ultimate Bride in a sense, the Bride of Christ: we’re talking about the Church. It 67 somehow has become dammed up and isn’t reaching anymore where it should, and then we find out that Brideshead has been moved. It no longer stands where it used to stand. We are told (by Sebastian) that they moved the house about 250 years ago. They took it down and moved it and rebuilt it stone by stone, here rather than where it originally stood. Of course they made some changes, and they built it a slightly different way. And now the place where the original house stood, Brideshead near Bridesprings on the Bride, is waste land, we learn. There’s nothing there now, it’s overgrown waste land. Of course, we get the other reference to waste land, that’s the poem that Anthony Blanche shouts out the window at Sebastian’s luncheon. It is a vision of waste land everywhere in England because that old structure near the Bride, if you will, that old Church, that true Church, was taken down and rebuilt in a different spot in a different way. It’s very clear what’s going on; we get an architectural parallel to the apostasy of England that quite literally took apart the old Church, pretended to build a new church, but it’s all “higgelty-piggelty” now. They moved it, they set it someplace else, and they moved it away from the Bride. And it’s still called “Brideshead,” but it’s in a different spot, and it’s a magnificent palace, but it’s become a palace of art. And Charles’s first attraction to it is the sheer beauty of it, and Charles will be seduced by Brideshead and the artistic beauty of Brideshead before eventually he can get back to the real source: The Bride, that is, the Church itself, by his conversion at the end of the novel. We get a warning right at the start of the dangers of worshipping art in that little phrase, “…opposite us the ground led, still unravished, to the neighbourly horizon….” It’s www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 68 LITeraTure a direct quotation from the first line of John Keats’ Ode on a Grecian Urn. “Thou still unravished bride of quietness”; the Ode on a Grecian Urn is a magnificent ode in praise of art and making the claim that art is what is eternal. Man fades, man dies, but art goes on forever. And as Keats looks at that Grecian urn and the little stories that are on it, he compares the permanence of art with the temporary nature of man and sings the praises of art. It is a beautiful poem. It does touch on the fact that art lasts longer than man. But in quoting that little phrase, Waugh is giving us a warning, because Waugh is going to make a very different point. We are going to be seduced by the romanticism of this novel just as Charles is seduced by the romanticism of Brideshead and the beauty of this wonderful palace he can wander through, and the wonderful vision of romance that opens up to him first with Sebastian and then with Julia. But whenever he falls for a false love, he ends up back at Brideshead. That’s the place where that false love is somehow fulfilled. That glorious summer with Sebastian, frolicking around the grounds, bringing the wine up from below, and he says, “I thought I had been given a little bit of heaven.” Well, it’s not heaven; it’s a false heaven, not the real heaven. And when he is in this adulterous relationship with Julia, they take possession of Brideshead. They’re wandering through Brideshead. We learn they’re living there for two years. And it should be absolutely wonderful and some sense that it is everything Charles could possibly dream of, and yet somehow, it’s not enough. And Julia herself at one point talks about hoping to find “some peace”: “I want to marry you.” “One day; why now?” “War…this year, next year, sometime soon. I want a day or two with you of real peace.” And Charles says, “Isn’t this peace?” And Julia doesn’t answer. She already knows it’s phony, that life there cannot last. What they have there cannot last, it’s not possible. And having learned that, it comes back again when Charles says to her, at the time her father is lying dying, “Can’t they even let him die in peace?” And Julia says, “They mean something so different by peace.” Clear reference to, “My peace I give to you, not as the world gives.” That only peace is the peace that comes from above. (It’s a mistaken assumption that many people have about that quotation from Our Lady’s message at Fatima. I was talking just yesterday with Michael Mancuso about this, the notion that “My Immaculate Heart will triumph and peace will be granted to the world”: well, if peace is granted to the world, it won’t mean that there’s not going to be a lot of wars breaking out. So it’s going to be a period of true peace, which means, the world’s going to have to be Catholic. The world is going to have to worship Christ the way it’s supposed to. An astonishing promise, not peace as the world gives.) The peace Julia is seeking is not the peace of living comfortably at Brideshead. In that beautiful palace, with that beautiful art, and all the wine that you want, all the wonderful meals…no. She’s seeking for a different kind of peace. And she knows that her father needs a different kind of peace, a higher peace. But Charles is seduced; he thinks he’s found it. He’s fallen, if you will, for the Grecian urn nonsense which is, and I quote the end of the poem: “When old age shall this generation waste, / Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe / Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st, / ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’–that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”; and Waugh is saying, “Not by a long shot.” THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Art is not adequate. It is beautiful, there are some truths that are to be found there. But it is not “all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.” It’s the reason why, when Charles describes first arriving with Sebastian to see Brideshead, walking up to it the first time: “I have been here before,” I said; I had been there before; first with Sebastian more than twenty years ago on a cloudless day in June, when the ditches were white with fool’sparsley.... (p. 21) I love it. Charles first walks up to the house and there’s beauty all around him in nature, and as he’s walking to Brideshead, what’s around him? Fool’s-parsley. It’s wonderful; it’s nature and it’s beautiful, but that’s not accidental: …and meadowsweet and the air heavy with all the scents of summer; it was a day of peculiar splendour, such as our climate affords once or twice a year, when leaf and flower and bird and sun-lit stone and shadow seem all to proclaim the glory of God. That is the converted Charles writing afterward. He has made that huge change in his life. He first comes thinking he’s going to find art. It’s a beautiful day around him, but what is it all proclaiming? It’s proclaiming the glory of God, and there he’s quoting Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, a different poet. We can’t quite call him romantic, because what Fr. Hopkins is looking at is a very different order of beauty. And in the space of that first paragraph in Chapter One, we go from, if you will, the initial view of the fool’s-parsley to all of nature proclaiming the glory of God. And that’s going to be the shape of the whole book. Charles will first be a fool for art, a fool for love, make huge mistakes, but at the end he will come to recognize there is that greater glory. That’s what nature is LITeraTure proclaiming. That’s what art should proclaim, because that is the only thing permanent, real, and lasting. Art itself is going to go. How do we know it? At the end of the book, he goes back, and the very paintings he has done for the house are destroyed, heads knocked off statues, the fountain is shut down, no water running there. There’s nothing; the house is desolate. The house is absolutely desolate. He still finds something there. It’s when he goes into the chapel and he sees the red light burning, meaning that that which is permanent and lasting in the house is there. They may have torn the house down, and they may have moved the house, and they may have loaded it with art, and the soldiers may have come, and they may have shut the house down and knocked the heads off the statues, but despite all of that and despite the passage of centuries and the passage of time, and the chapel even being shut for a while–there’s the red light burning again. That’s where we’re going to end, that’s what we’re moving toward, that is the lesson he must learn. By the way, there’s another wonderful thing in that long paragraph on page 16, with the quotation from Keats, at the very end: From where I stood the house was hidden by a green spur, but I knew well how and where it lay, couched among the lime trees like a hind in the bracken. Which was the mirage, which the palpable earth? The reference to the hind is an allusion to another great English poem–I’ll stop here, I’m not going to do all the poetry references in Brideshead; it’s packed with them– but that is a reference to a very great and unknown poem that you should know called The Hind and the Panther, by John Dryden, written after his conversion from the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church, in which the Hind becomes a beautiful image of Mother Church. So we go in that same paragraph from the Keats reference: “art is everything, art is eternal,” to the end of the paragraph in the reference to the Hind coming from Dryden, a poet who converted and found there was something more important than poetry, and something more important than the Anglican Church, and comes to the truth, and writes a wonderful poem about it. The Hind and the Panther, I recommend the poem; nobody knows it. You’ll be ahead of all English Lit. scholars. As I mentioned it to His Excellency this afternoon, he said, “Well, written by a Roman Catholic convert, a great English poet, they sent it down the sinkhole.” And that’s exactly what happened. For that reason, nobody reads it; nobody knows it. But I recommend it to you. It’s a beautiful poem. Waugh knew it. The reference to the “hind” at that moment is a reference to Roman Catholic conversion, and that’s what is going to happen to Charles again at the end. Now, let’s move for a moment to Anthony Blanche, because Anthony in a sense is the representative of the Keats point of view: that art is everything. Anthony, for all his peculiarities, would not fall into the trap of bad, sentimental, popular, romantic rock music: “All You Need Is Love.” Anthony would change it and say, “All You Need Is Art.” Insofar as Anthony Blanche is a representative of some of those æsthetes that Waugh met at Oxford, who did teach him something, we get an Anthony Blanche, a man who is at the same time very off-putting. He’s not someone you want to go out to dinner with, and at the same time, he’s very funny and, in some ways, very appealing. And he is a truth-teller in one area–criticism and aesthetics. When he passes a judgment, he passes a judgment and he means it. So this is the first time they’re together; he’s gone out to dinner 69 with Charles. “I want to introduce you to a lot of my friends. I have told Cocteau about you. He is all agog.” He is a French writer, a bad French writer. He is all agog. You see, my dear Charles, you are that very rare thing, An Artist. Oh yes, you must not look bashful. Behind that cold, English, phlegmatic exterior you are An Artist. I have seen those little drawings you keep hidden away in your room. They are exquisite. And you, dear Charles, if you will understand me, are not exquisite; but not at all. Artists are not exquisite. I am; Sebastian, in a kind of way, is exquisite; but the artist is an eternal type, solid, purposeful, observant–and, beneath it all, p-p-passionate, eh, Charles? (p. 52) Notice the way Waugh uses rhythm of language to create a character. It’s brilliant. Anthony has his own rhythms, his own patterns. But Anthony Blanche knows art. When he says to Charles, “You’re an artist,” notice it’s based on the fact: I saw some of your work. He’s not flattering him, he’s seen his work. That’s real work, he says. But personalitywise, you’re nothing, is basically what he says, you have no personality! Nevertheless, you have talent. Notice the definition here; we could take this as real. This is Waugh’s definition of the artist: solid, purposeful, observant, and beneath it all, passionate. That’s just magnificent. That is a fascinating combination of characteristics. I don’t have time to go into it, but let’s just say, we get a very real definition of art there and a definition of art that will continue throughout the novel. 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. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 Church an 70 humors and rumors On June 10 an Italian website announced: “A proposal issued directly by the Holy Father is supposed to appear before the end of the month to offer the Society of St. Pius X an official status in the Church.” The “information” was repeated the following day by an American website. And that same day, in a French online forum, one could read: “The rumor is being clarified.” The author of the message said that he had learned “through priests of the Society” that Bishop Fellay had traveled that week “to Rome with his two assistants for a very important meeting.” He might just as well have said that the Swiss bishop, who was in Menzingen (Switzerland) at the time, had the gift of bilocation! On June 17, the website of the United States District of the Soci- ety of St. Pius X noted that, in his sermon for the priestly ordinations at the seminary in Winona, Bishop Fellay had denied the rumors claiming that there were plans in the making for an agreement between Rome and the Society. Hence on June 20 the same Italian website corrected the “information” posted on the 10th, acknowledging that there was no substance to the rumors that it had caught wind of... On June 18 a sedevacantist website, reprinting an article that had appeared on June 17 in Le Figaro Online, declared: “The doctrinal discussions between Rome and Écône are over. Betrayal [and accomplishment (?!)] by the authorities of the SSPX, who knew what they were doing and accept.” [Translator’s note: Careless grammar in original French newspaper]. Whereas a Roman news agency, commenting on the same article, wrote on June 20 that “some voices in Rome do not hesitate to speak about a failure at the conclusion of the meetings between theologians” from the Vatican and Écône. Rumors are the reflection of the good or bad humors of those who spread them. (Source: Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX, DICI) saturday, may 28, 2011: Bishop rifan concelebrates a mass in rio (Brazil) The concelebration was organized for the inauguration of a replica of Our Lady of Fatima’s Chapel in the city of Rio de Janeiro Father Aulagnier once denied the veracity of our report and waxed indignant that anyone might so much as think that Bishop Rifan could have or would, someday, concelebrate! for cardinal Tauran, the Three monotheistic faiths must unite C Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran ardinal Jean-Louis Tauran has called the religious leaders of the three monotheistic religions to “unite to spread an education for dialogue that can bridge differences.”The President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue spoke on June 15, 2011, during the announcement of the 32nd annual Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples organized by the Italian Communion and Liberation movement, which this year will be held from August 21-27 in Rimini (Italy). Quoted by the new agency I.Media, the French prelate said that “schools, universities, but also synagogues, churches, mosques, with their rites and the languages, contribute to the cohesion of human society…. There is no other solution but to live out our cultures and religions in respect for the specific character of each and in fulfilling our duty of solidarity.” He also explained that “forming a single family around the lake of monotheistic religions that is the Mediterranean Sea implies a willingness to oppose xenophobia, the closing of frontiers and ideologies that spread hatred.” Invited by the press to evaluate the first months of the “Arab Spring,” the French cardinal found it “very interesting…that at the origin of these events there are no Islamists or terrorists, but young people who want freedom, dignity and work.” In his view, “it would be a catastrophe if these aspirations came to nought.” The Syrian bishops do not agree with the irenic analysis of Cardinal Tauran. They, it is true, are right there on site. (Source: DICI, No. 237) THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org and World 71 The socIeTy of saInT PIus X ordInaTIons 2011 20 New Priests ÉCÔne, sWITZerLanD ( June 29, 2011): 10 Frenchmen, 1 Italian, 1 Madagascan ZaITZkOFen, gerManY ( July 2, 2011): 1 Austrian, 1 Belgian, 1 Pole, 1 Swiss WInOna, u.s.a. ( June 17, 2011): 1 American, 1 Canadian, 1 Frenchman, 1 Indian 21 New Deacons: WInOna: 8 Americans, 1 Frenchman ÉCÔne: 10 Frenchmen ZaITZkOFen: 1 German, 1 Czech www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 Church an 72 archbishop Bruguès deplores the collapse of christian culture “The Christian culture is massively collapsing, not only in the social mentality, but also in the very spirit of the believers.” This is what Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, at the Catholic University of Buenos Aires, deplores. In an article published on May 27 by the Argentinean newspaper La Nación, the high-ranking French prelate also observed that “in the Western countries, clearly negative clues would seem to confirm the weakening of Christendom, maybe even its possible extinction.” Archbishop Bruguès also revealed that, “in the traditionally Catholic countries, such as Spain, France, Belgium, Quebec or Ireland, a culture of mockery and contempt for Christianity is developing.” He asks his audience: “Should not the law also sanction christianophobic manifestations in the same way that it already condemns anti-Semitism or islamophobia?” (Source: DICI, No. 236) syria: some Bishops dread the rise of Islamism I n Syria, several bishops are publicly supporting President Bachar el-Assad.The Archbishop of Damascus, Abp. Gregoire Elias Tabé, and the Chaldean Archbishop of Alep, Abp. Antoine Audo, have particularly criticized foreign repor ting on the troubles in the country. Thus Abp.Tabé declared to the Italian Catholic news agency SIR: “We want an evolution and not a revolution.” The Archbishop does not conceal the fact that he fears negative consequences for Christians in the event of dramatic changes. “Presently we are President Bachar witnessing a major international game against Syria,” el-Assad since, according to him, “the violence is predominantly the result of terrorists who have infi ltrated from abroad.” For Abp. Tabé, there is no doubt that “the majority of the population is behind Assad.” As for Abp. Audo, a Jesuit, when asked by the magazine of the Englishspeaking branch of Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), he warned about potential problems like those of Iraq after the American invasion, if Bachar el-Assad is overthrown. “We do not want to become like Iraq. We do not want the insecurity, nor the Islamization, nor the danger caused by an Islamic takeover. Syria must defend itself against attempts at destabilization,” the bishop of Alep added. “The fanatics talk about liberty and democracy for Syria, but that is not their goal. They are trying to divide the Arab nations, to control them and sell them arms,” he also warned, while assuring the interviewer that “Syria will defend itself. Eighty percent of the population, in particular the Christians, are behind the government.” Abp. Audo denounces a “war of [dis]information against Syria. The international reports are not objective. We must defend the truth, both as Syrians and as Christians.” (Source: DICI, No. 237) THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org Pakistan: over 700 christian women abducted, forcibly married and converted to Islam each year More than 700 young Christian women are abducted, compelled to marry Muslims and to convert to Islam each year in Pakistan. Many others are not included in this estimate because no complaint is filed about their abduction. This was reported to the French news agency Fides by local sources involved in the fi ght against these violent acts. Currently a campaign is being launched concerning the case of Farah Hatim, a young Catholic woman who was abducted, converted and forced to contract an Islamic marriage in the city of Rahim Yar Khan, to the south of Punjab (in Eastern Pakistan). Activists are in the process of mobilizing the Christian community of the country and of civil society so as to raise consciousness in the institutions. The Farah case has already gone international, since the Canadian Congress is informed about the affair and is currently supporting a diplomatic initiative by the Canadian government directed toward the Pakistani government. In Italy, several members of parliament likewise intend to bring the affair to the attention of Italian and European institutions. (Source: DICI, No. 237) and World 73 Pentecost Pilgrimage from chartres to Paris (June 11-13, 2011) Six thousand pilgrims were enrolled in the pilgrimage the morning of the departure from Chartres. In his opening remarks, Fr. Bernard de Lacoste, director of the Pilgrimage, congratulated the pilgrims, who had come in large numbers from all of France, Europe, the United States and Asia. Elaborating on the pilgrimage’s theme, “True King through the Eucharist,” he recalled that the Hebrews, who wandered for 40 years in the desert, received manna from God for the sustenance of their bodies; but we Catholics have more substantial nourishment, the Holy Eucharist, which fortifies our souls. For the pilgrimage of the baptized must reach its destination, not in the Promised Land, but in the heavenly Jerusalem, the true fatherland of those who journey, often more than 40 years, through the spiritual desert of a hedonistic, consumerist world. (DICI.org) Bishop de Galarreta, an auxiliary bishop of the SSPX, celebrated the pontifical high Mass on Sunday afternoon at the bivouac near St-Vincent de Villepreux. The communicants were so numerous that for the first time during this event, the priests were obliged to divide a large quantity of hosts so that all the pilgrims could communicate. This year, those who watched admiringly as the pilgrims marched by showed their surprise at the thousands of young people who were sacrificing three days of their “vacation” to pray and do penance… More than 500 choir boys processed through the streets of Paris, something that has not been seen since Vatican II’s “house cleaning.” Preceding the chariot bearing in triumph the Eucharistic Lord, children from all over France led the procession of some 10,000 pilgrims, more than 120 priests, and as many monks and nuns from all the traditional communities. The pilgrimage showed that Tradition is indeed alive and well, for which we should give thanks and redouble our efforts for the restoration of the Church. Church an 74 rome–ssPX doctrinal discussions over, assessment set for september Rome, June 20, 2011 (Apic). The meetings of the Commission for Doctrinal Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Society of St. Pius X have concluded, reported I.Media. While several Roman sources allege that the doctrinal discussions between Rome and the Lefebvrists were unsuccessful, other close sources assert that it is too soon to tell, and have announced an upcoming meeting between those in charge on both sides to evaluate the two years of work. The meeting is scheduled for mid-September. vatican: msgr. Pozzo speaks of the Theological discussions At the end of the interview granted to the website Nouvelles de France, on June 8, 2011, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission “ecclesia Dei,” answered three of journalist Pierre de Bellerive’s questions on the discussions between roman theologians and those of the society of st. Pius X. for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the end, conclusive summaries of the positions of both parties are written. The themes under discussion are known: primacy and episcopal collegiality, relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions, religious liberty, the Missal of Paul VI. At the end of the talks, the results of the discussions will be submitted to the respective authorized levels for an overall evaluation. The content of the discussions that take place between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X is secret, but what points do they touch and in what manner do they progress? The essential point is of a doctrinal nature. In order to reach a true reconciliation, it is necessary to pass over certain doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the current fracture. In the ongoing talks, there is a confrontation of arguments between the experts chosen by the Society of St. Pius X and the experts chosen by the Congregation It does not seem conceivable that a call into question of the Second Vatican Council may happen. Therefore, where might these discussions lead? To a better understanding of this? They concern a clarification of points that detail the exact meaning of the teaching of the Council. It is what the Holy Father started to do on December 22, 2005, by interpreting the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity. Nevertheless, there are certain SSPX objections that do make sense, because there has been an interpre- THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org tation of rupture. The objective is to show that we must interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of these discussions for nearly 20 years. Does he still follow the progress now as Pope? First, there is the role of the secretary, which is that of organizing and taking care of the good development of the discussions. The evaluation of these is the responsibility of the Holy Father, who follows the discussions, with Cardinal Levada; he is informed of them and gives his opinion. The same goes regarding all points with which the Congregation deals. COMMENTARY We see in Cardinal Pozzo’s answers that the results of these theological discussions must be submitted to “respective authorized authorities for an overall evaluation” [Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay–Editor’s note] and that “certain objections from the Society of St. Pius X” to Vatican Council II are not senseless. and World On June 17, journalist JeanMarie Guénois of Le Figaro wrote on his Religio blog: “In Rome as in Ecône, it is radio silence. There is no question of commenting on the state of the doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre. But the discussions are over. “This discretion is intentional, on both sides, so as not to put pressure on the outcome of very delicate conversations that have united, since October 2009 and according to the will of the Pope, a commission of theologians from 75 both horizons to draw up a meticulous and soundly argued inventory of the points on which there is an agreement and of the points of contention, essentially concerning Vatican Council II. “But this ‘phase’ of work, according to several authorized and corroborating sources, is considered accomplished. ‘The contact continues. We are probably coming to the end of a phase of discussion,’� Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X, gave to understand on June 1 of this year, in Libreville, Gabon.” [See DICI #236, from June 11, 2011.] And he addes: “…The theological technicians have simply formulated–speaking together directly around a table, which is a new thing and beyond compare– the state of affairs. But this theological cartography, in itself, resolves nothing.…On both sides, indeed, it is recognized that in spite of this elucidation in which each knows on what and why he is opposed, ‘nothing is clear yet ’ for the future.... In any case, the ball is in the hands of the two deciders–and not of the commentators–in this case and matter, Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay.” ssPX faithful not excommuncated T wenty years ago in January 1991, a canonical decree of excommunication was issued in Honolulu, Hawaii, against six lay persons by the local bishop of that diocese. Their supposed crime was attending the SSPX’s Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in that city and engaging one of the Society’s bishops for conferring the sacrament of confirmation. Two years later in 1993, this decree was overturned by none other Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, one of the first actions he would take in favor of Tradition. This landmark canonical case–which earned the moniker of “The Hawaii Six”–was an important and crucial one for Catholic Tradition, as it proved beyond a doubt that the faithful who attend the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, or receive the sacraments from its clergy (either bishops or priests), are neither schismatic nor excommunicated for doing so–thus proving the claims made by the SSPX for many years. On January 18, 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, the local Ordinary of Honolulu (now deceased), served the Hawaii Six a formal canonical warning, threatening them with excommunication. On May 1, 1991, they were formally declared to be excommunicated, mainly for this reason contained in the canonical warning: “Whereas you performed,” Bishop Ferrario said, “a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services” of Bishop Williamson to perform confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, “but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication.” The “Excommunicated Six” immediately appealed the case to Rome. Finally, in a letter dated June 28, 1993, the U.S. Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, Archbishop Cacciavillan, declared on Cardinal Ratzinger’s behalf: From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity. This is a declaration that the automatic (ipso facto) excommunication claimed by Bishop Ferrario for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre is in fact non-existent. (Source: SSPX.org) www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 76 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Fr. Peter R. Scott, FSSPX What constitutes martyrdom? The word martyr is taken from the Greek and means a witness. However, a martyr, as acknowledged by the Catholic Church, is a special kind of witness, and martyrdom the act of giving one’s life in doing so. The definition of martyrdom is in fact given by St. Thomas Aquinas when he asks the question of whether or not it is the Faith alone which is the cause of martyrdom, or whether the defense of other virtues also can be the cause of martyrdom (IIaIIae, Q. 124, Art. 5). There he defines martyrs as those who by physical suffering unto death bear witness to the truth; not indeed to any truth, but to the truth that is according to piety, which was revealed to us by Christ [a truth of faith]: wherefore Christ’s martyrs are His witnesses….Wherefore the cause of all martyrdom is the truth of faith. Analyzing this defi nition, we can determine the three conditions that must be fulfilled for the full and true nature of martyrdom to be accomplished (see Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, II, §623). There are of course many other heroic acts of the virtue of fortitude, but the honor of the crown of martyrdom is only given to those souls whose lives fully realize all three conditions: 1) True physical death is required, for this is the greatest sacrifice a man can make and the most perfect testimony to the truth of the Catholic Faith. Thus St. John the Evangelist, who was boiled in hot oil and miraculously delivered, is not in the strict sense a martyr, nor the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross, although spiritually and through her fullness of grace she is the Queen of Martyrs. 2) The death must be inflicted out of hatred of Catholic Truth. St. Thomas Aquinas (ibid.) points out that the death must be a profession of the truth of the Catholic Faith, either in the form of words or by actions. Clearly heretics cannot be martyrs, but a man can be a martyr for his actions, and not just for his words. St. Thomas also points out that a man can be a martyr not only for defending a dogma of Faith, but also for defending moral truths of the supernatural order that depend upon the Faith, or which are referred to God in a supernatural sense. Thus it is that St. John the Baptist is rightly considered as a martyr in the strict sense, as is St. Thomas à Becket in defending the rights of the Church and St. Thomas More in defending papal primacy over the Church in England. Likewise is St. Maria Goretti rightly considered a martyr by dying for purity. St. Thomas Aquinas also points out that those who die for their country can also be considered as martyrs if the human good of the nation is referred to God Himself. Thus Garcia Moreno, the President of Ecuador, can rightly be considered a martyr, as also could St. Joan of Arc (although she is not usually honored as such). 3) The death must be accepted voluntarily, that is without resistance. Thus it is that St. Maurice and his Theban legion of 2,000 men became martyrs by offering no resistance. However, infants and those who are asleep cannot be considered martyrs in the true sense. To the objection of the Holy Innocents, St. Thomas replies that there is no evidence that God gave them free will, but rather that they obtained by a special grace of God, along with baptism of blood, what is normally merited by free will (ibid., 124, 1, ad 1). Consequently, there are many persons who die holy deaths but who are not strictly martyrs. This happens if the persecutor does not know THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 www.angeluspress.org that a person is Catholic or does not kill him because he is Catholic, or because he holds to some supernaturally revealed Catholic truth, but for some other reason. Thus it is that St. Maximilian Kolbe, as heroic as was his death, is not rightly considered a martyr. Nor was Edith Stein (St. Maria Benedicta), for she was put to death for her Jewish origins rather than for her Catholic faith. Another case of a man who died a holy death but who is not a martyr is St. Damian De Veuster, who died on account of the leprosy contracted at Molokai in Hawaii. For as heroic as was his life, his death was still by natural causes. It also follows that any persons who die for natural truths, that is for truths of the natural law, are not martyrs. Any persons who would be killed for standing up against abortion or euthanasia, for example, would be performing a great act and obtaining many merits if done for supernatural reasons. But the inviolability of human life and the immorality of killing the innocent are in themselves truths of the natural law, shared by many non-Catholics. Dying for them would not make a person a martyr. May I immunize my children with vaccines developed from cell lines that were originally derived from an aborted fetus? It is clear that if a Catholic has a choice in the matter, he is bound to choose a vaccine that is not derived from a fetal cell line, for he does not want any kind of participation in the crime of a voluntary abortion, even one done nearly 50 years ago. However, this question has become a very difficult one from 77 the fact that several vaccines are not available in any other form but that derived from an aborted fetus, in particular rubella (contained in the MMR), chicken pox and hepatitis A. Is one morally obliged to forgo such a vaccination, otherwise necessary for health? Also, if one is bound by civil law to receive or give such a vaccination, must one refuse under pain of sin? This question was very well resolved by the Pontifical Academy for Life in a document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated June 9, 2005. (It can be viewed at www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm). This document makes the necessary distinctions. The first is between formal and material cooperation. It is never permitted, for any reason, to cooperate formally in another’s immoral action, in this case the abortion. Examples of formal cooperation include the staff who willingly help with the abortion or the original researchers who requested the aborted fetal tissue for their research. However, those who simply use the products of the cell line do not cooperate formally in the abortion. Material cooperation exists when a person shares in some way in an evil action, for example by taking advantage of its consequences, but without sharing its evil intent. Examples of material cooperation include the staff who prepare the operating theater or the nurse who prepares the patient, neither of them knowing the exact nature of the procedure to be performed. Material cooperation can be immoral if done without sufficient reason, or moral if done for a good and proportionately grave reason, in proportion to the gravity of the evil and the proximity of cooperation in it. The principles of double effect must be applied, namely provided that the good effect (in this case the use of the vaccine) does not come directly from the bad effect (the murder of the innocent), but is simply a by-product of this immoral act. Moreover, the material cooperation can be immediate, as in the nurse who takes care of the patient before or after the procedure, or it can be mediate because not directly involved in the abortion. Moreover this mediate material cooperation can also be very remote, and far removed from the abortion itself, as in the case of those who use vaccines that were developed from a fetal cell line some 50 years old. In cases of remote material cooperation, it is not such a grave reason that is required for there to be a proportionate reason for the material cooperation. This is not to deny the very grave evil of abortion, but simply because the material cooperation, is extremely far removed from the abortion done so many years ago. The absence of any other vaccine and the need of the vaccine for one’s health would suffice. The reason for this given by the above-mentioned document is that in this case, given the remoteness of the material cooperation, “the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.” Danger to health or problems with civil law constitute such a grave inconvenience. This being said, the development of vaccines from fetal cell lines is gravely immoral, and we have the duty to actively oppose it as much as we can, in order to avoid any formal cooperation. This is how the above mentioned document describes this grave obligation: Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available….They should oppose by all means…the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not con- nected with the abortion of a human fetus.… Nevertheless, it would be excessive and wrong to deny that the material cooperation in the use of such vaccines is very remote, so that where there is no alternative to such vaccines, and where the health of children or of the community at large requires it, it is not only permissible to use such vaccines for which there is no alternative, but sometimes even obligatory. This would be the case of a woman planning to marry who had never been vaccinated against rubella and who did not have any natural immunity. It would be a moral obligation to receive the vaccine, even derived from fetal cell line, in order to protect her own unborn children from the possibility of serious deformities due to infection with the rubella virus. Her duty to protect her unborn children is the grave reason that permits and, where there is no alternative even makes obligatory, the very remote mediate material cooperation involved. In the case of routine vaccine of children with MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) there is certainly no obligation to have the vaccine, since it is not strictly necessary. It would certainly be best to request the measles and mumps portions separately from the rubella, thus making a statement of moral principle, and this should be done whenever possible. However, if the MMR combination is the only one offered, and if one has good reason to give this vaccine (as is generally the case), then a parent is not to be troubled in conscience by allowing it to be administered to his children. Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, U.S. 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. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • August/September 2011 THELASTWORD Bishop Bernard Fellay, FSSPX Bishop Fellay’s Comments on Assisi III Remarks during a sermon given at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris on the Solemnity of the Epiphany, January 9, 2011 After explaining the arrival of the three Magi who traveled from the farthest ends of the pagan world to adore our Lord Jesus Christ, Bishop Fellay contrasts this example of the Faith of the Magi with the unbelief of herod and of the priests and the announcement of the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in october 2011. I n theory they know, in theory they believe. But in reality, do they believe? Do they really believe that Our Lord is God? Do they really believe that peace among men, among nations, is in His hand? Do they really believe in all the immediate, direct consequences of His divinity? …Are they all going, like the Magi, the Three Kings, to adore the true God and to look to Him for that peace and to ask Him for it? Are they going to the King of Peace: Rex Pacificus? Oh, how history repeats itself, alas! Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time [of the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986], we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery! Yes, to adore: what does that mean? To adore means first of all: to recognize the divinity. Adoration is given to God alone. And recognizing His divinity immediately implies submission, a declaration of submission to the sovereignty of God. It is to recognize that God has every right over us, that we are really entirely dependent, absolutely dependent upon God for our existence, our life, our ability to act, think, desire, and will. Every good, every good thing that happens to us, er, He is truly God! He is true God, sent by the mercy of the good God to save us. For He was made man, and in becoming a man he became the Savior, and His name, given by God Himself, is Jesus: the Savior! The only name that has been given under heaven by which we can be saved. The only Savior! The only Holy One, “Tu solus Sanctus” [as we say in the Gloria], who comes to bring us something unheard of: the invitation to God’s eternal happiness. How can people hope to be able to receive His blessings when they insult Him, when they ignore Him, when they diminish Him? It is Bishop Bernard Fellay, FSSPX madness! How can anyone hope for peace among men when he makes comes from the goodness of God. a mockery of God? And this is true not only for believAnd here modern thinking ers, not only for Christians—this is makes truly bizarre sorts of projectrue for every creature, absolutely tions: it pretends that all religions, every creature. ultimately, adore one and the same God, the Creator of all things, true God. That is absolutely false; it visible and invisible, is also the One is even in Revelation; we find it alwho governs this world, the One ready in the psalms, in Psalm 96:5: who sustains all things by the power “All the gods of the Gentiles are devof His Word, the One in whom ev- ils!” They are devils. And Assisi will erything has its stability! Lord of be full of devils! This is Revelation, life and death, of individuals and of this is the Faith of the Church; this nations! Almighty, eternal God, to is the teaching of the Church! whom all honor and glory is due! Now where is continuity? Now Yes, to adore is to put oneself in this where is rupture? What a mystery! posture of humility which acknowlYes, my dear brothers, if we edges God’s rights. want to be saved, there is only one Let us go, then, let us go to way, and that is the way of Our Lord Our Lord; even though He hides Jesus Christ… His Divinity, even though He is a tiny Child in the arms of His Moth- (Source: “The Pastor’s Corner,” www.sspx.org) THE www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS ANGELUS • • August/September August/September 2011 2011 www.angeluspress.org THE PILGRIM’S GUIDE TO ROME’S PRINCIPAL CHURCHES Illustrated Guided Tours of Fifty-One of the Most Important Churches in Rome This monumental work is back in print after more than 15 years. Updated and checked for accuracy by the author. A must-have if you plan to visit Rome. Each detailed church tour includes the history of the building, numbered floor plan, color photographs, and details of the church’s spiritual, architectural, and artistic treasures. JOSEPH N. TYLENDA, S.J., has spent a good part of his professional life in Rome. He is a member of the Historical Institute of the Society of Jesus. 448pp. Sewn Softcover with rounded corners. Maps, floor plans and 310 color photographs. STK# 8481✱ $29.95 “You don’t have to visit Rome to experience the Holy City.” • • • FULLY REVISED 51 CHURCHES 310 COLOR PHOTOS Audio Books from Angelus Press “I do not rely on my own strength, but on the strength of Him who defeated the power of Hell and of the world through the Cross.” A Modern Martyr: The Life of St. Theophane Venard (audiobook) The inspiring life of St. Theophane Venard is now available for the first time in audiobook format! The complete, unabridged life of this great martyr will enthrall children and adults alike. The letters of Theophane will bring the forests of Vietnam alive, and listeners will discover both the joys and the sufferings required of those who strive to win the martyr’s crown. The 6 hour and 52 minute recording is available on one compact disc in MP3 format. 1 MP3 CD. 6 hours, 52 minutes. STK# 8528✱ $19.95 MP3 CDs play on computers, most DVD players, portable music devices, and CD players marked MP3. They will not play on standard CD players that do not have MP3 CD compatibility. Anecdotes & Examples for the Catechism Fr. Francis SpiragoToday, examples are more necessary than ever. Our Lord taught the multitudes through stories and examples.In The Commandments of God, you will hear and understand the catechism in the same manner Our Lord Jesus Christ preached on earth. Listen in the car or at home to 186 riveting stories which help to illustrate the meaning and importance of the Ten Commandments. Both children and adults will love this professional—and highly entertaining—recording. This audiobook makes the perfect gift for your family or your friends. Every Catholic family should own this audio gem. 4 CDs (almost 5 hours of listening!). STK# 8408 $29.95 Henry VIII and the Anglican Schism “THE DECADENT KING WHO DIVIDED THE CHURCH.” What brought Saint Thomas More to the scaffold? What tore England from Catholic Europe? A woman. Lady Anne Boleyn. Yet even today, Anglican apologists for Henry’s cruel treatment of his wife, Catherine of Aragon, argue that the king’s motives, while perhaps not admirable, were merely political: the stability of the Tudor line and of the whole realm demanded a male heir. This lecture, as told by Christopher Check, exposes that dishonest defense, lays bare Henry’s true motives in divorcing Catherine, identifies the sinister operators behind the scenes, unwinds the convoluted legal arguments with which Henry attempted to justify his actions, and names the painful and widespread effects of the divorce we feel yet today. Henry VIII’s divorce is among mankind’s most consequential tragedies. An incredible history and a thought-provoking lecture by Christopher Check, Vice President of the Rockford Institute. A must-have for home-schooling families and those wishing to deepen their knowledge of the great Anglican schism! 1 CD. 55 minutes. STK# 8527✱ $9.95 Audio Books from Angelus Press The Cristeros and the Martyrs of the Mexican Revolution Christopher Check The average American’s understanding of Mexican history is incomplete. American Catholics, however, should know Mexican history because, unlike our own history, much of Mexican history is Catholic history. In the early part of the 20th century, Masonic, Marxist revolutionaries, who were nothing less than the enemies of Jesus Christ, seized control of the government of Mexico and attempted to destroy the Church. They very nearly succeeded. In the midst of the terror, courageous priests clandestinely made their way through the countryside dispensing the sacraments and ministering to the Mexican faithful. Many received the crown of martyrdom; the most famous is Blessed Miguel Pro. As these holy priests fulfilled the duties of their divine vocations, an army of laymen rose up and challenged the godless government. They were the Cristeros. Their battle cry was “Viva Cristo Rey!” Their tale is one of the great Catholic war stories of all time. 1 CD. 44 minutes. STK# 8499✱ $9.95 Lepanto: The Battle That Saved the West Christopher Check On October 7, 1571, the most important sea battle in history was fought near the mouth of what is today called the Gulf of Patras, then the Gulf of Lepanto. On one side were the war galleys of the Holy League and on the other, those of the Ottoman Turks, rowed by tens of thousands of Christian galley slaves. Although the battle decided the future of Europe, few Europeans, and even fewer European-Americans, know the story, much less how close Western Europe came to suffering an Islamic conquest. G. K. Chesterton honored the battle with what is perhaps the greatest ballad of the 20th century. He wrote this extraordinary poem while the postman impatiently waited for the copy. It was instantly popular and remained so for years. The ballad is no less inspiring today and is more timely than ever, as the West faces the growing threat of Islam. In the brand new CD Set Lepanto: The Battle That Saved the West, Christopher Check tells the exhilarating story of Lepanto, first in his own words and then through the poem of G. K. Chesterton. The Audio Book 3 Compact Disc Set. STK# 8458. $27.95 Open Letter to Confused Catholics Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Archbishop Lefebvre’s popular study of the crisis in the Church written for all to understand. Covers the Mass, Sacraments, Priesthood, the New Catechisms, Ecumenism, etc., and demonstrates the new spirit in the Church which has caused doubt and confusion among the faithful. Has served as a beacon for thousands; certain to become a classic. 6 CDs (over 6½ hours). STK# 8477 $29.95 The Defense of Tradition as transmitted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Over the weekend of October 15-17, 2010, Angelus Press hosted its first annual conference in Kansas City, Missouri. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X, nearly 700 people convened at the Hilton Hotel near the Kansas City airport for three days of talks, socializing, and mutual support. Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society, was the keynote speaker and offered a pontifical High Mass Sunday morning at the historic St. Vincent de Paul Church. 2010 Conference Audio set: The Defense of Tradition. STK# 8492 $49.95 9 CDs , h o GENUINE LEATHER edition ngelus Press announces the fourth printing of the first totally retypeset, 1962 Latin-English daily missal for the laity since Vatican II. This is the most complete missal ever produced in the English language. We have included everything in a missal that is affordable while being of the highest durability. The Roman Catholic Daily Missal will become your life-long liturgical companion—at church, at home, and on the road.  All new typesetting—not a photographic reproduction. Clear and crisp type.  According to the 1962 juxta typica edition of the Missale Romanum  1,980 pages  All liturgical texts in Latin and English (both Propers and Ordinary)  All readings in English (Douay-Rheims) and Latin  All music in Gregorian notation  Ordinary with rubrics in RED  Gilt edges  5 liturgically-colored ribbons  Smythe sewn, rounded back binding with durable cover (genuine leather or leather-like Skivertex polymer)  Rounded corners on pages and cover  Reinforced 80 lb. resinimpregnated endsheets for extreme durability (which will not tear like printed paper endsheets)  Fully and thoroughly Indexed  Printed and bound in the USA  The finest ivory Bible paper. A 1980pp. Sewn binding. Gold-embossed GENUINE LEATHER cover. STK# 8043L $68.00 (Limited Supply! Retail orders only.) “I’ve used many of the pre-Vatican II missals, such as the New Marian Missal, the St. Andrew’s Daily Missal, The Roman Missal by Fr. Lasance, and the St. Joseph’s Missal. But I like this one better than all of them. It’s very clear and easy to follow. It has an easy-to-read index and useful explanations throughout the Mass.” “I like to read the brief commentary for each day. I never heard of some of these saints before! I can’t imagine my spiritual life without this book. It is unfortunate that it took me so long to find it.” “This missal is so comprehensive. It contains a summary of Catholic doctrines, common prayers, litanies, rites, sacraments, blessings, votive collects...the list goes on (the table of contents is 42 pages!). It’s like having a library in the palm of your hand!” 2 012 LIT U R G I CAL CAL E N DA R December 2011-January 2013 The Mysteries of the Rosary The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette in Lourdes holding the Rosary in her hand. The 2012 Angelus Press calendar depicts the mysteries of the rosary using the artwork found in the fifteen chapels of the Rosary Basilica in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, France. 12" x 12" Calendar, STK# CAL2012✱ $12.95 nth o M 14- endar Cal SHIPPING & HANDLING 5-10 days 2-4 days 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 $10.00 FLAT FEE! ($10.00 minimum) 48 Contiguous States only. UPS cannot ship to PO Boxes. angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.