“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

Authority at Risk
Fatherly Authority
The Good of Authority
A Treacherous Dilemma

November - December 2017

The future Pope Benedict XVI explained that “the Council assimilated
the values of two centuries of liberal culture.” This affirmation is
dramatic! What was the Revolution of 1789? It was the proclamation
of the rights of man without God; from this, the exaltation of the
subjectivity of each one at the expense of objective truth, of all
religious ‘faiths’ before the Law. From this came the organization
of society without God, without Christ. One word describes this
monstrous theory: liberalism.
(Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, p. xvi)

Statue of Christ the King, Freiburg, Germany

Letter
from the
Publisher
Dear readers,
“Why would I have to do this? Can’t I do what I want with my time?” These and similar
reflections are commonly heard coming from the lips of teenagers, today, as yesterday.
Is this simply because of a generational gap? Is it indicative of a perennial difficulty elders
have in understanding their subjects? It seems to be rather the perennial paradox of harmonizing individual liberties with social authority.
Any sociologist will readily admit that no group can exist without some leader who,
ultimately, is responsible over it. Whether we are talking about a Saturday bicycle club
or an established nation, someone ultimately needs to make decisions and be made accountable for them. From the family unit under the father to the CEO of a big corporation,
running through the primary school teacher and the family business, we see all these
entities being managed by a superior in charge of subordinates. The subjects are always
better off when they tune in with their competent and dutiful leader.
Yet, this double line of communication has been encumbered with much static ever
since the 1950s. In the United States specifically, an onslaught raged against everyone
from the humble parental authority all the way to the presidential power. Just think of
the endless Hollywood movies degrading the father figure; think of the sexual revolution,
of unruly university students lobbying against teachers; of well-fed hippies speaking of
peace on the back of Prisoner of War.
The little we can surmise is that the “powers that be” are not targeting this or that
leader, this or that entity. What is at stake is the very existence of authority ruling over
man at all rungs of society, human and divine. Before we become the horrified witnesses
of our social structure sinking into anarchy, let us get back to basics and see the impact of
authority—or the lack thereof—in the various sections of human life. Perhaps then we can
better appreciate what is being eroded today.
Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Publisher

November - December 2017
Volume XL, Number 6
Publisher
Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Editor-in-Chief
Mr. James Vogel
Managing Editor
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud
Copy Editor
Mrs. Suzanne Hazan
Design and Layout
credo.creatie
(Eindhoven, The Netherlands)
Mr. Simon Townshend
Director of Operations
Mr. Brent Klaske

		
U.S.
Foreign Countries

Subscription Rates
1 year 2 years
3 years
$45.00 $85.00 $120.00
$65.00 $125.00 $180.00

(inc. Canada and Mexico)

All payments must be in U.S. funds only.
Online subscriptions: $20.00/year. To subscribe visit:
www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access
back issues 14 months and older. All subscribers to the print
version of the magazine have full access to the online version.

Contents
Letter from the Publisher

4

Theme: Authority at Risk
––Fatherly Authority
––“Learn from me”: Aspects of Authority in Frankenstein
––The Good of Authority
––Music on the Rocks
––A Treacherous Dilemma

6
10
13
18
23

Faith and Morals
––Feasts of Our Lady: The Immaculate Conception
––Cost Benefit Analysis
––Pope St. Pius X: Our Apostolic Mandate

30
34
38

Spirituality
––Secularism
––The Authority of the Benedictine Abbot
––Misacantano —A Poem

47
50
52

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published bi-monthly
under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary,
Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at
PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536.
PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
Manuscripts and letters to the editor are welcome
and will be used at the discretion of the editors.
The authors of the articles presented here are solely
responsible for their judgments and opinions.
Postmaster sends address changes to the address above.
©2017 BY ANGELUS PRESS. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

Christian Culture
––St. Andrew In Art
––Pious Mugging: Legitimate Authority, Arbitrary Power,
and Protestantism
––Questions and Answers

58
60
66

News from Tradition
––Church and World
––Canon Law and Pastoral Theology of Marriage
––The Last Word

71
77
87

Theme Authority at Risk

Fatherly
Authority
by Randall C. Flanery, Ph.D.

Catholic men have been assigned a dauntingly
impressive set of responsibilities. It is stated
unambiguously in the marriage ceremony. While
most men accept the obligations, the virtuous
exercise of paternal authority seems a struggle
for many of us. It is not because we haven’t been
told what we need to do. If the constant teaching
of the Church and the examples of other Catholic
fathers were not enough, the charitable and
necessary reminders from the wife should make
it clear. Despite all of the assistance, many of us
Catholic men labor to be authoritative fathers
and husbands.
What is that keeps us from being effective
fathers and loving husbands, fulfilling our
obligations? Psychological science has
demonstrated that effective parenting requires
in part being authoritative. However, at least
6

The Angelus

November - December 2017

two impediments interfere with achieving that
mission; we men don’t think we can do it well
enough and our culture is suspicious of men who
are authoritative within their families.

Effective Parenting
A large volume of psychological research has
identified a parenting style that is most likely
to result in raising healthy, high functioning
children. Two essential dimensions of parenting
are demandingness, and responsiveness.
Demandingness is essentially having moderately
high expectations of the child and holding them
accountable. Behavior is monitored and when
misbehavior occurs it is corrected in a firm,
warm manner. Positive disciplinary practices

are followed as much as possible, but negative
consequences are used as necessary, in a
measured, proportionate way.
Responsiveness is the second dimension. It
is discerning how the child is doing, and then
challenging or supporting the child as necessary.
It is a child-focused style of parenting. The give
and take of open communication allow parents to
discern what their children truly need and want,
and children have the opportunity to state their
views and perspectives, and even negotiate to
some degree.
Utilizing the two dimensions, parenting
styles have been categorized into four types:
authoritative, neglectful, permissive, and
authoritarian.
The healthiest parenting style, authoritative, is
both demanding and responsive. The household
has predictable structure and sufficient
communication that the child understands
what is expected of them and the parents know
the child’s strengths and weaknesses, and can
accurately discern the child’s perspective. While
expectations are high, they are tempered by the
capabilities and preferences of their child.
The most harmful style is neglectful, neither
demanding nor responsive. Parents neither have
many expectations nor know enough of their
children’s needs to be supportive. In general,
this style has little to do with characteristics of
the child or financial limitations; it can be due
to parental ignorance of the requirements of
childrearing or psychological difficulties, such as
depression or personality disorders which make
the parent unavailable to their children.
Permissive parenting is responsive to the
child’s wants, but little is expected. The child will
have many things, will be involved in activities,
but will not experience meeting expectations or
fulfilling commitments. The child will most likely
not understand self-discipline is a necessity for
accomplishment, and life is not all about him or
her.
Authoritarian parenting is highly demanding,
and not responsive. It is very parent-focused; the
child is to do as he or she is told. A premium is
placed on obedience but there is little nurturance
or accommodation to individual needs and
characteristics. In this style, the communication

is top down, with little information especially as
regards emotions flowing from child to parent.
Effective parenting is balanced, consisting in
large measures of orderliness and reciprocal,
mostly affectionate communication. Good
qualities are not pursued so emphatically that
it becomes disproportionate, that a good now
becomes its opposite. I especially hope that it is
apparent that it falls on the parents to provide
the structure and modeling the communication,
and that the exercise of authority is necessary
to accomplish those ends. More importantly,
authoritative parenting is entirely consistent with
Catholic teaching, emphasizing both the proper
order of things and charity towards each other.

The Role of the Catholic
Father in Parenting
A Catholic father, if he is to perform his
paternal duty, will strive to be an authoritative
parent for his children. As the head of the
household, he will not only model it himself,
but he will also cooperate with his wife to help
her carry out her part of the task. It will not be
a complete division of labor. That is, he will not
be the only one who assures compliance with
expectations nor will it be only his wife who is
nurturing and responsive to the child’s needs.
Exercising virtuous authority is one area
that Catholic men struggle to fulfill their
responsibilities. In particular I am going to focus
on what interferes with Catholic fathers being
authoritative regarding their children, since given
the research on good parenting practices that is
what would be best for their child.
The obstacles to being an authoritative
Catholic father, based in virtue, are numerous
but I will address two of the more serious ones.
One impediment is the father fears that the
responsibilities exceed his capabilities; he may
believe that he may be too flawed, self-centered,
and deficient in the requisite skills to adequately
exert authority. A second hurdle is that living in
a culture which is distrustful of a man asserting
leadership of his family can undermine his efforts
to be authoritative.
It is true that a careful inventory of the
7

Theme Authority at Risk
skills necessary to execute the responsibilities
of fatherhood would be lengthy. Paternal
authority will be moral, emotional, social, and
physical, in varying degrees depending upon the
circumstance, and the father has to operate in
each of these domains. Who of us is comfortable
in all of these ways?
Fathers must function at home in much the
same way that they function in the workplace.
They must plan ahead and have a vision of
what must be done. He is both a leader and a
follower. He needs to accurately judge the needs
and desires of those around him, and balance
the competing demands on resources. He must
imagine the possibilities of 10 years hence and
focus on the minutia of daily tasks. If you work,
you do have the skills.
You might feel inadequate and overwhelmed,
but do not succumb to the temptation to abdicate
your responsibilities as the family leader. To do
so means leaving it to others: wife, school, other
youth, and neighbors, to raise your children.
Be reassured that whatever you may need to do
as a father, you have performed similar tasks
in other situations. More importantly, the job
is so essential that simply showing up to do it
as best you can is vastly superior to not doing
it all. I can think of no better application of
Chesterton’s assertion that “if a thing is worth
doing, it is worth doing badly.” As a child clinical
psychologist, I can assure you that a wellintentioned and present father, even a lazy one, is
far superior to being absent.

exerting authority.
If the obligations are enumerated without
specifying that the father has “the right to give
orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience,”
few objections will be raised. If authority is
invoked, the complaint is that the woman
and children are relegated to being second
class members of the family and oppressed by
arbitrary, unbridled, masculine power. Authority
is little more than the power to coerce, not benign
in any way. Authority within the family is not
acknowledged as necessary to accomplish what
parents, and especially the father, are divinely
enjoined to do. The notion of the virtuous
exercise of authority at least as regards family
relations is not in the vocabulary of many in our
culture.
One must admit that there are examples
of paternal authority being used to justify
exploitation of family members, e.g. sexual,
physical, or emotional abuse, domestic violence,
narcissistic selfishness. Rather than being a
servant leader, the man is taking advantage of his
position to satisfy his creature comforts, even if
it does not constitute abuse. From the outside, it
can look innocent, it might appear authoritative.
Because we Catholic men believe true, virtuous
authority is so lacking in general, we are prone
to overlook when it is being exploited for dad’s
benefit.

Masculine Authority
in the Family

Whenever you despair of being an authoritative
leader of your family, recall that you can cultivate
existing skills to be a quality father. Be confident.
Look around. You know men, just like you, who
are assertive, capable heads of their families. If
they can do it, so can you. Listen to your family,
your priest, reflect and pray for help, allow
yourself to be humbled, and then think of St.
Joseph. He exercised authority, and we know
his Family was subject to him. Imagine the
challenge—a wife without sin and a Son who was
perfect.

Authority in general is viewed suspiciously
in our culture, and especially in the context
of family life. Most believe that parents and
certainly fathers should instruct their children
in appropriate behavior, and be willing to
demand that children act civilly towards
friends, teachers, other adults, and definitely
do not be disrespectful towards their mothers.
The obligation to see that children learn to act
appropriately and effectively is non-controversial
until you start describing it as an example of
8

The Angelus

November - December 2017

The Model of Virtuous
Authoritative Fatherhood

Jesus and St. Joseph, Church of Sablon, Brussels

Theme Authority at Risk

“Learn
from me”:
Aspects of Authority in Frankenstein

by Andrew J. Clarendon

In his Order and History, the philosopher Eric
Voegelin provides a useful symbolization of the
shift from the ancient and medieval worldview to
the modern one. The earlier society and order is
pictured as a “microcosmos”: man is an element
in a great chain of being that is hierarchically
ordered and rational. The early modern
period—as evidenced by the Renaissance and
Reformation—is macroanthropic: man is the
center and measure of all things, all order and
authority come from the individual who, in
Richard Weaver’s words, is now “his own priest
[and] his own professor of ethics.”
It is not surprising, then, that the modern
era evinces a general rejection of authority and
argues against limitations of liberty. With the
remarkable advance of scientific knowledge and
technological ability that is a further aspect of
10

The Angelus

November - December 2017

our age, this modern focus on the individual
has no less affected the scientist than others.
The headlines provide ample examples of
scientists—well meaning, no doubt—whose
research nevertheless involves troubling moral
questions: from cloning and embryonic stem
cell research to various genetic techniques that
open the Pandora’s box of eugenics. Implied in
the defense of some of these scientific pursuits is
that it is up to the individual scientist, or at best
the scientific community, to decide if and how a
certain technology should be developed. As our
culture wrestles with these questions, various
literary works provide images of the possible
consequences of technology unleashed. One of
the oldest is the first science-fiction novel, Mary’s
Shelley’s Frankenstein, which after nearly 200
years is still a useful way to contemplate the

dangers of scientific hubris.

Man’s Foolish Quest
to be Like God
Although originally conceived of as a ghost
story to pass the time, Shelley’s tale about a
scientist who discovers how to endue flesh
with life eventually grew into a short novel that
focuses upon the disastrous consequences that
result when one takes upon himself god-like
powers—the classical definition of hubris. In
her 1831 preface that discusses the origin of the
novel, Shelley gives the theme:
“[In my imagination] I saw the pale student
of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he
had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of
a man stretched out, and then on the working
of some powerful engine, show signs of life . .
. . Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful
would be the effect of any human endeavour to
mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator
of the world. His success would terrify the artist;

he would rush away from his odious handiwork,
horror-stricken.”
Frankenstein—who is the scientist, not the
monster—begins as an intelligent and ambitious
young man, a university student who pursues the
relatively new discipline of chemistry. Whatever
the fictional aspect of using electricity to endue
flesh with life, Frankenstein is an image of a
certain type of scientist who makes a great
discovery and then as quickly as possible desires
to put it into practice; as he says to his friend,
Robert Walton, “with how many things are we on
the brink of becoming acquainted, if cowardice
or carelessness did not restrain our enquires.”
This is a view that rejects all boundaries, all
authority except the individual’s, plunging head
long into unknown consequences. For all his
intelligence, Frankenstein has a remarkable
inability to anticipate the results of his actions;
after the monster escapes and is beyond his
control, the rest of Frankenstein’s life involves
a series of sorrows—abetted by his own
decisions—that destroy the people closest to
him.

11

Theme Authority at Risk
Authority and Parenthood
in the Novel

Anticipating the Great Issues
of the Modern World

The novel not only depicts a scientist who
decides to act upon his own authority, but also
involves an examination of the necessity of
parents. Frankenstein’s relationship with the
monster is not just that of creator and creation
but of father and child. He relates that at the
beginning of his project, he had thought that
“a new species would bless me as its creator
and source; many happy and excellent natures
would owe their being to me. No father could
claim the gratitude of his child so completely as
I should deserve theirs.” Unfortunately, once the
monster comes to life, Frankenstein is so filled
with horror that he runs from his chamber, only
returning when the monster has disappeared.
Since the monster’s later ability to speak and
reason clearly demonstrates a rational soul,
Frankenstein is not the creator of a brute animal
but rather an absentee father who leaves his
child to fend for himself in a harsh world. Shelley
makes her point more poignant by giving the
monster a kind and generous disposition before
interactions with terrified humans—who can
only see the monster’s exterior—lead first to
anger and then a desire for murderous revenge.
As the monster himself tells Frankenstein,
“Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be
thy Adam…I was benevolent and good; misery
made me a fiend.”
The point is well put by one commentator,
Johanna M. Smith, who in her Introduction to the
novel writes that Shelley “suggests that society
produces monsters not so much by systematic
oppression as by inept parenting.” As with the
technological theme, a defense of and regard
for the true authority of parents is of perennial
interest—and increasingly so today when,
as Sister Lucia of Fatima told Cardinal Carlo
Caffarra, “the final battle between the Lord and
the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the
family.”

Whatever the scientific or metaphysical
fictions featured in the plot, what is remarkable
about Shelley’s novel is how she anticipates
some of the great issues of today while also
exploring perennial ones. It is increasingly
clear that serious discussions need to continue
concerning scientific ethics; the question, of
course, is how to determine which technologies
ought to be pursued and in what manner.
Relying on individual scientists to regulate
themselves is problematic at best; Frankenstein
mentions his “almost supernatural enthusiasm,”
a burning desire to experiment until his goal
is achieved. It is only after the fact, while
recounting his disastrous career, that he
says: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts,
at least by my example, how dangerous is the
acquirement of knowledge and how much
happier that man is who believes his native town
to be the world, than he who aspires to become
greater than his nature will allow.”
The global community needs an authority
to make judgements on such matters. Gladly,
we have one such authority in the Church; all
men of good will ought to call on the Church
to exercise her God-given authority to teach
on faith and morals. It is equally true that
families and therefore society would benefit
from obedience to the Church’s wisdom in
terms of the authority of parents. The Church
teaches that true peace—for the individual and
society—is that tranquility of order that comes
from humility, recognizing one’s place in the
universe and acting accordingly. The source of
authority that is the solution to our problems
and questions is, as Shakespeare observes in
King Lear, that “countenance which [we] would
fain call master,” that of Christ the King.

Andrew J. Clarendon, M.A., holds a M.A. in
English Literature from the Catholic University
of America. In addition to being one of the
founding faculty members of Notre Dame de La
Salette Academy, he is now a professor at St.
Mary’s Academy and College.

12

The Angelus

November - December 2017

The Good of
Authority
by Brian M. McCall

This article is based upon Brian M. McCall, Why it is Good to Stop at a Red Light: The Basis of Legal
Authority, 55 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 83 (2016)
It is heart the Liberal Revolution of the past three centuries is an assault on the principle of authority.
The stated goal of the French Revolution was the overthrow of altar and throne, two symbols of the
totality of authority, religious and secular. We have lived so long under the tyranny of the Liberal
Revolution that errors concerning the true nature (and good) of authority are part of our intellectual
DNA. Almost from our birth we live in constant revolt against not only the individuals holding a position
of authority but against the concept of authority itself.

Liberalism Against Authority
Liberalism in its most extreme form
understands authority as an evil that must be
eradicated. At the heart of the Libertarian error is
the false idea that less authority is always better.
More moderate Liberals understand authority as

at best a necessary evil. Like Libertarians, they
dislike authority but they are more practical
and realize that without at least some authority,
life would be impractical. The ideal for the pure
Libertarian is anarchy, for the moderate Liberal
is constrained and minimalist authority. Both
are based on the error of Rousseau that
13

Theme Authority at Risk

14

Man was born free and all authority or restrain
is a corruption. The natural state of Man is
understood as a state of radical freedom (natural,
psychological, and moral). The moderate Liberal
at most tolerates authority as unfortunately
necessary. The delusional hope of the moderate
Liberal is a world without authority.
Catholicism is diametrically opposed to all
forms of Liberalism. Authority is not an evil,
necessary or otherwise. It is a positive aspect of
the good since it is an attribute of God. Authority
existed and was a good even before the Fall.
Authority is woven into our created nature.
St. Thomas begins his consideration of
authority in De Regno by considering Man’s
end. By doing such, he begins with the Eternal
and Natural Law. The Eternal Law establishes
the ends of Man’s nature. The Natural Law
provides general precepts guiding Men toward
the attainment of their last end. For example,
the Natural Law requires us to seek to preserve
life, procreate and educate children and love and
seek the truth. Contrary to Rousseau’s false idea
that Man is born free, Man is by nature a social
and political animal born under the authority
of the Eternal law. God decreed that Man must
live within society to realize the perfection of
his nature. Aristotle recognized that Man was
uniquely a social and political animal. He noted
that a being that did not live in society was either
a beast (below human nature) or God (above
human nature). The ideal according the Eternal
Law is not individuals living their own lives
and making their own decisions (the rugged
individualist of Liberal mythology) but Men living
peacefully under authority.

by allowing us to choose among possible means
to reach our end. For example, a father could
tell a son to clean out the garage or he could give
detailed instructions on every step of the process.
If he chooses the general direction, the son is
invited to participate in the decision making by
determining how to clean the garage; but the son
is not permitted to swim instead of cleaning the
garage.
The precepts of Natural Law are general
in nature. They require more particular
determinations of how we should pursue these
goods. Individuals can make some of those
elections, but others must be left temporal or
spiritual superiors. An aspect of Man’s ends is
living in society. The existence of communities
is therefore commensurate with human nature.
Man is meant to live in a society. Not only is
society natural but due to the indeterminacy of
Natural Law, a principle of authority participating
in God’s ultimate authority is also natural. The
need for authoritative determinations within
the framework of Natural and Divine Law is
also natural. God chose to leave this task, in a
sense, unfinished and thus intended the need
that authority satisfies. A shared participation
by some in the authority of God is legislated into
the universe by God through the Eternal Law.
Because it is willed by God, human cooperation
with His authority is not only useful or necessary
but good because God, the author of law, wishes
some Men to participate in the making of laws
that govern their communal activity. Authority
ultimately resides in God but is delegated and
shared with human agents, both secular and
ecclesiastical.

The Proper Ordering
of Authority

Liberalism’s Instrumental
Use of Authority

God as Creator has the only authority to tell
us what we should do. As our creator he can
establish our purpose, our end. He has done this
in the precepts of the Eternal and Natural Law.
Yet, he chose to delegate some of his authority
to us. He chose to allow some Men to participate
in His authority not be allowing us to chose our
own end (which is fixed by the Eternal Law) but

Moderate Liberalism may accept authority
as instrumentally necessary to overcome
coordination problems but it is only instrumental.
A duty to obey an authority is likewise only
instrumentally good. Ideally it would be better,
according to the Liberal, if we could live without
obeying authority. Yet, Catholic teaching holds
that obeying the law is not only necessary but

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Moses, Basilica of Our Lady, Ottawa, Canada

Theme Authority at Risk
an authentic good commensurate with human
nature. Leo Strauss, in Natural Right and
History, argues that since Man is naturally
social, the restraint of freedom is natural to and
therefore good for Man. Man cannot associate
without restraint on freedom involved in a duty to
obey. He explains:
“Man is so built that he cannot achieve the
perfection of his humanity except by keeping
down his lower impulses. He cannot rule his
body by persuasion. . . . What is true of selfrestraint, self-coercion, and power over one’s self
applies in principle to the restraint and coercion
of others and to power over others. . . . To say
that power as such is evil or corrupting would
therefore amount to saying that virtue is evil or
corrupting.”
The dim view of restraint as unnatural and
evil is evident in Enlightenment authors such
as Rousseau. For this false view, restraint (and
therefore every virtue is corrupting of freedom.
Law involves restraint and this restrain is
unnatural, at best conventional. For the Catholic
tradition, however, restraint of action is on the
contrary good and natural.

Aristotle and Aquinas
on Obedience
The conforming of our individual actions
to the determinations of those, secular and
ecclesiastical, charged by the Eternal Law with
this responsibility of making determinations is
thus a fulfillment of an aspect of human nature.
Due to the social aspect of our nature, we have
a natural inclination to obey the law. Aristotle
in his Politics argues that good government
consists in two essential elements: good laws and
the obedience of citizens to the laws. St. Thomas
treats the virtue of obedience as a species of
the virtue of justice in the Summa. Obedience
is the virtue whereby individuals allow their
free determination of actions to be directed
by the command of another. Aquinas explains
the naturalness of obedience to authority thus:
“Wherefore just as in virtue of the divinely
established natural order the lower natural things
need to be subject to the movement of the higher,
16

The Angelus

November - December 2017

so too in human affairs, in virtue of the order of
natural and divine law, inferiors are bound to
obey their superiors.” Not only is the power to
make determinations affecting the common good
derived from the Eternal Law, but the obligation
to obey is also found in the Eternal Law through
the Natural Law which contains a secondary
precept that superiors ought to be obeyed within
the scope of their authority. Obedience to the law
is thus a good in and of itself because one who
obeys participates in the end of good government
of society. All laws which are just and ordained
to the common good are binding in conscience.
Obedience to legitimate commands is thus a
moral act. There is no such thing as purely penal
laws (laws which do not bind in conscience but
for which one must pay the price if caught) as
some modern theorists have suggested.
Because we have been born and bred in a
Liberal world we tend even if only subconsciously
to share the Liberal distrust and mere
toleration of authority. We tend to expand the
circumstances (that sadly in our world do exits)
in which the abuse of authority in commanding
what is contrary to our end justifies our
disobedience. We become too accustomed to
at first justifiably resisting an unjust exercise
of authority and slip into disobeying when the
determination of a legitimate is simply not to our
liking or what we would have decided. Because
of the influence of Liberalism on our psyche
we come to despise authority itself not only
its abuse. When we do this we become fellow
travelers with Liberalism whose ultimate goal
is the destruction of all authority, both altar and
throne.

Dr. Brian McCall, a professor of law at the
University of Oklahoma's College of Law, a
contributor to The Angelus, Catholic Family
News, and The Remnant, in addition to
other journals, as well as a speaker at the
2011 Angelus Press Conference for Catholic
Tradition on the Kingship of Christ.

108 pp.–Softcover–STK# 8601✱–$9.95

Advice for Successful Families
Fr. Alain Delagneau
We all want the perfect Catholic family life: regular prayer, leisure time, daily Rosary, a happy marriage
and happy, well-behaved children. That’s why Fr. Delagneau, a priest with over 30 years of pastoral
experience, wrote Advice for Successful Families. This book, while remaining deep and profound, cuts
straight to the heart of how to have a happy Catholic family.

106 pp.–Softcover–STK# 8598✱–$11.95

The Nature, Dignity,
and Mission of Woman
Fr. Karl Stehlin
In an age that rejects true femininity, drawing on over 25 years of pastoral experience, Fr. Karl Stehlin
(author of Who Are You, O Immaculata?) shows that a woman’s true dignity lies in submission to the
order established by God. Far from meaning that she is somehow less than man—a cruel caricature—
it shows that true womanhood is something created by God that gives her an incomparable dignity.

176 pp.–Softcover–STK# 8549✱–$9.95

The Young Man of Character
Bishop Tihamer Toth
“Few men are born to be conquerors. Few men are born to be leaders of countries. But to conquer the
realm of the soul, and to gain the crown of manly character, this lofty task awaits each one of us.” These
short words from Bishop Toth sum up the aim of this book: to create real, manly character in the souls
of the young. In this excellent work for boys, the good bishop examines, point by point, each aspect
necessary to develop that character.

108 pp.–Softcover–STK# 8601✱–$9.95

Christ and the Young Man
Bishop Tihamer Toth
Christ and the Young Man schools the reader in how to be victorious in the spiritual combat: Written specifically for boys • How to handle situations at home and at school • Fighting temptations • Prayer • Meditation • Spiritual Direction • Cultivating the life of the soul • Discerning a vocation • Learning to love the Lord Jesus and to follow Him.

Visit
Visit www.angeluspress.org
www.angeluspress.org —
— 1-800-966-7337
1-800-966-7337
Please
Please visit
visit our
our website
website to
to see
see our
our entire
entire selection
selection of
of books
books and
and music.
music.

Theme Authority at Risk

Music on
the Rocks
by Dr. Andrew Childs

“Speaking generally, we may say no man
loves isolation, solitude, loneliness, the life of a
hermit; on the other hand, while many dislike
the authority under which they live, no man
wishes for anarchy. What malcontents aim at is
a change...Even the professed anarchist regards
anarchy as a temporary expedient, a preparation
for his own advent to power.”—Catholic
Encyclopedia, “Civil Authority”
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder
acknowledgment to the very first radical: from
all our legends, mythology, and history (and
who is to know where mythology leaves off and
history begins—or which is which), the first
radical known to man who rebelled against the
establishment and did it so effectively that he
at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”—Saul
Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
18

The Angelus

November - December 2017

“Jesus is the rock, and He rolled my blues
away.”—Larry Norman, “Why should the Devil
have all the good music?”

Musical Rebellion
Rebellion, the resistance or defiance of
authority, begins in heaven and ends with Hell:
fallen nature makes us rebels. Though the “Devil
made me do it” defense lacks nuance and dies on
the doorstep of free will, it contains a great truth.
Due to Original sin, we remain both spiritual sons
of God, and natural brothers of the Devil, and
though God creates us in His image and likeness,
the non serviam defines the human condition—
the struggle to choose service of God as a free
act of the will, in defiance of defiance, for love of

Love. What follows will briefly consider examples
of cultural rebellion—Rock ’n Roll, and the subgenre of Christian Rock—by way of illustration,
and as a means of self-reflection: what and whom
do we serve, and how do the cultural choices we
make, more and less actively, reflect this?
The philosopher Richard Weaver writes in The
Ethics of Rhetoric,
“The scientific criticism of Greek mythology,
which may be likened to the scientific criticism
of the Bible in our own day, produces at best
‘a boorish sort of wisdom.’ It is a limitation to
suppose that the truth of the story lies in its
historicity. This ‘boorish sort of wisdom’ seeks
to supplant poetic allegation with fact, just as an
archeologist might look for the foundations of the
Garden of Eden. But while this search goes on the
truth flies off, on wings of imagination, and is not
recoverable until the searcher attains a higher
level of pursuit.”
If reasoning exists at all any longer, it tends to
be of this boorish type: science has supplanted
poetry. Add to this a sentimentality that fills the
void created by the absence of proper logic, and

the modern condition emerges, where anyone
can justify thought, word, and deed through
the application of a convenient raw fact—or
more often, a technical lack of error—and
imprimatur of positive feelings. The argument
for Christian Rock proceeds along these lines:
since no absolute prohibition exists, this means
that approval can exist. If it would make me feel
good for this approval to exist, it does: my good
feelings—de facto good fruit—bring me closer to
God.

Examining the Question
in the a New Era
The Devil grinds us down: a sort of fatigue
sets in when we hear familiar arguments against
our questionable instincts, yet in arguing against
Christian Rock, we must consider first the effects
of Vatican II in legitimizing the redefinition of
Christian, and second, face the effects of original
sin as the reason why Rock of any sort appeals
to us. Christian was Catholic until Luther;

19

Theme Authority at Risk
Catholic was Catholic until Vatican II. The
Church, subject as always to the mismanagement
of fallible men, retained Her marks throughout
history until Vatican II, which proposed not
only a redefinition of the Church, but of man as
well. Revelation and Doctrine, though at times
inconvenient in our opinion, remain untouchable
by our opinion. Protestant Justification by
Faith depends on our opinion, and confuses
the relationship between thought and feeling:
unbound by Doctrine, and “bound” to Scripture
only as subject to individual interpretation,
salvation becomes a matter of sentimental
acceptance. It feels good to be saved. Vatican II
seeks to remake the Church in the Protestant
mode, perhaps as an attempt to counter the
prevailing despair of the age; given, however, that
the despair inherent to the Modernist condition
results not from the perceived oppressive force
of Christian morality, but from a rejection and
ultimate denial of God, a less Godly Church will
provide no relief.
Impossible to define in musicological terms,
“Rock ’n Roll”—a euphemism for sexual
intercourse—represents more an atmosphere
than a quantifiable genre; this highly energetic
ethos, though not focused on immorality at all
times and in every case, nevertheless assumes
a liberation from restraint (often sexual) and
social norm. It is anti-hierarchical. And it
feels good. Defined in Webster’s Dictionary as
“A style of popular music of Afro-American
origin, characterized by an insistent, heavily
accented syncopated rhythm and an obsessive
repetition of short musical phrases, tending to
build up tension in an audience and induce a
state of group frenzy when played very loud,”
the actual music rests on a simple and sturdy
harmonic framework, similar to folk music,
and any attempt to make the music of Rock
the focus of prohibition will necessarily fail.
Though convenient, the insistence on the
“heavily accented syncopated rhythm” as the
malicious force in Rock fails to tell the whole
story: Beethoven does things with rhythm and
dissonance that would make a Metal-head swoon,
yet we know Beethoven is better, objectively
good, and of qualitative merit. Why? Truth,
Goodness, Beauty; Hierarchy, Proportion,
20

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Degree—existential absolutes that elude
scientific analysis.
Rock as a single thing defies definition: the
lines between Folk, Country, Gospel, Jazz,
Blues, Rockabilly, Swing, Big-Band, Pop,
New Age, etc., blur impossibly, like crossing
ripples made by multiple pebbles thrown into a
pond. All these forms have a common nature,
described by musicologist H. Wiley Hitchcock
as ‘vernacular’—low art. Some of the more
advanced Swing or Big Band music possesses
characteristics of higher art music, but this
still, as with all low art, tends more toward the
functional than the aesthetic, the formulaic
rather than distinctive or complex, and is written
to be immediately accessible to any audience. Its
ethos distinguishes Rock from other vernacular
forms: a spirit of liberation—from social norms,
parental and civil authority, and Christian
morality; a spirit that celebrates the hypersophistication and sexualization of children,
and perpetual adolescence for adults; a spirit
that, though perhaps not always overtly sinful, is
essentially vulgar.

Christian Rock is an Oxymoron
Common sense—certainly a sensus
Catholicus—tells us that Christian Rock is an
oxymoron. Any attempt to justify Christian
Rock begins with a lack of definition, both of
Christian, and of Rock, where justification ranges
from—at the least—the application of moral
neutrality to the musical experience, to—in
the positive extreme—an attribution of a type
of edifying capacity: a personal relationship
with God intensifies as the result of listening
to Christian Rock. But, can Rock be Christian?
This is a serious question, and very different
than asking if a Christian can listen to Rock.
The Christian Rock industry provides an answer
in that it avoids the term “Rock” altogether,
preferring instead Contemporary Christian Music
(CCM), but the music remains indistinguishable
from all but the most extreme forms of Rock—
sentimental down-tempo ballads, and driving
up-tempo songs. It differs from other forms
of Rock and Pop primarily in the sentiment of

the texts. Many lyrics contain genuinely pious
sentiments; the texts speak of God, certainly
of Christ, in a sincere manner, and the ballads
create an undeniable powerful emotional
atmosphere, but can this relative harmlessness
properly baptize a genre effectively antithetical
to Christianity? John Lennon mused in 1966,
“We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know
which will go first—rock ’n’ roll or Christianity.”
Certainly an authority on Rock, he recognized an
incompatibility.

Seeking Music That
Will Ennoble Us
Christian Rock can make you feel good, but
we know, somehow, that it isn’t great. The music
of Beethoven (or Bach, or Palestrina) has the
capacity to ennoble, despite our limited capacity
to understand it: like all great art, it possesses
a sort of Doctrinal character, certainly not
purposefully unattainable, but just as certainly
uncompromising. It is one thing to know that the
Sacraments, Doctrine, and artistic masterworks
are made for man, and not the reverse: it is quite
another to propose that since a particular man
feels disinclined to rise to a sufficient level of
understanding, the transcendent entity must
descend to meet him. This is the ecumenical
spirit of compromise, a one-way decline, and will
invariably lead to a “boorish” sort of justification
given the difficulty of quantifying good and bad.
A “scientific” consideration of a recognizable
masterwork yields few if any answers about
greatness, even if none can question the objective
merit: you may not like the B-minor Mass, but you
can’t seriously argue against it. Science exists
to consider WHAT—it cannot answer WHY.
The supposed objectivity of science is in fact
a potentially dangerous process of qualitative
leveling: subjective hierarchy—bad, good,
better, best—no longer exists. There are merely
different combinations of elements, all equally
valid, subject to an “objective” analytical process
disinterested in understanding.
What makes Rock bad? That which makes
it feel good? The non-Christian would accuse
the Church of many things as regards morality:

ignorance, oppression, hypocrisy, secret
perversion, a fear of physical pleasure, yet
the Church imposes morality because She
understands perfectly well the appeal of the
flesh, and the joys of physical pleasure. For love
of God and neighbor, however, She insists on a
self-knowledge, self-control, and self-sacrifice
that Rock came into being to deny. When we
become men and women, we must choose
to put away the things of the child. With one
who fails to recognize popular music in all its
forms as essentially childish, the argument
“against” Christian Rock remains quantitatively
unwinnable. It feels good in a way that sugar
tastes good; undeniably, yet those things which
we loved as children, though not offensive or
immoral, become cloying to us as adults—unless
we insist on maintaining childish tastes. Can
we quantify this development? The scientist,
ever-earthbound, will tell us the facts about
taste receptors and the hypothalamus, while
the truth—that we must leave behind childish
attachments and sentimentality in order to strive
for nobility—flies off. We must admit the good
feelings and positive sentimental rewards of
the Christian Rock experience, while charitably
and patiently providing the means for attaining
a “higher level of pursuit” of Truth, Goodness,
Beauty, and ultimately union with God.

Dr. Andrew Childs lives in St. Marys, Kansas, with his wife
and four children. He serves currently as Associate Dean
and Humanities Chair at St. Mary’s College, Head of the
Department of Music at St. Mary’s Academy, and as an assistant
to the Director of Education for the US District of the SSPX.
He has taught at Yale University, the University of California at
Irvine, Connecticut College, and Missouri State University.

21

12 Compact Disc Set – STK# 8711✱ – $59.95

2017: Fatima—Our Lady’s
Answer to Three Revolutions
1517: Protestantism • 1717: Freemasonry •
1917 Communism

To commemorate the centenary of Our Lady’s apparitions at Fatima Angelus Press once again
brought together some of the best Catholic thinkers, speakers, and writers to consider this
year’s topic and explore the three revolutions and how the message of Fatima can be seen
as Heaven’s response to these attacks. Learn what we can do to follow Our Lady and overcome these revolutionary influences in our lives. Conferences include: “Martin Luther: The
Person Behind Protestantism,” “Communist Principle Still Alive Today,” “Freemasonry: the
anti-Church,” Archbishop Lefebvre and the Three Revolutions,” “ Fatima and the Mass.” “St.
Maximilian Kolbe, the Militia Immaculata, and Communism.”

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

A
Treacherous
Dilemma
by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX

The summer of 1976 hit record temperatures.
The Catholic Church was having heated issues.
TV announcers, in discussing Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre, explained that insubordination was not
the privilege of hot headed teenagers. One bishop
had openly refused to go along with the drastic
move initiated at Vatican II by the whole Church
Body and was facing the ire of Pope Paul VI.
Earlier on, in 1974, upset by the scandalous
visit of Roman officials checking-in on his Swiss
seminary, he had written his November 21
Declaration:
“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our
soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic
Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve
this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom
and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and

have always refused to follow the Rome of neoModernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which
were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council
and, after the Council, in all the reforms which
issued from it.”
Wasn’t this rhetoric an act of rebellion against
the established authority? May one ever oppose
the established authority? Can the cutting the
branch on which we sit be done with impunity?
Is not scolding our lawful superiors an act of
insubordination against the very authority we
wished to safeguard? This situation is delicate
enough in civil affairs. When applied to the
Catholic Church, the case gains transcendental
dimensions, as we are dealing with God’s glory
and the salvation of souls. It is this dilemma which
this article wishes to address.
23

Theme Authority at Risk

24

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Ecclesiastical Authority
The Church, society of the faithful founded by
Christ, is divine and human. Being divine, it is
endowed with indefectibility and Papal infallibility
and even the mark of sanctity. Yet, being human,
the same Church is composed of fallible men who,
often enough, have failed in their God given duties.
This twin nature is exclusive to the true Church
of Christ and some properties flow from it. Some
are called necessary properties in that, if any of
these were missing in a given group, they would
disqualify it ipso facto. They are four: authority,
indefectibility, perpetuity, and visibility. Without
a visible authority, no society can exist, let alone
survive. Likewise, without indefectibility—or
said positively, without perpetuity—no church
can pretend to be divine since God would have
abandoned it!
Added to these necessary qualities, we
have exclusive properties. The Nicene Creed
enumerates them thus: “I believe…the Church,
one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” We call them
the marks of the Church because they are like sign
posts to recognize the true Church of Christ. The
last three marks describe what we could loosely
call the “outer” causes (efficience—apostolicity;
finality—sanctity; numbers—catholicity).
On the other hand, unity defines formally and
essentially the Catholic Church. We could dare say
that proper church unity is the mark of marks of
the Catholic Church. The Church is triply united.
It holds unity of government, of faith, and of
sacraments. Or, said eloquently by St. Jerome: “In
the Church there is only one altar, one faith, one
baptism. St. Paul teaches this. And the heretics
have abandoned this unity by raising many altars
and, far from appeasing God, this has added to the
number of their sins” (on Osea ch 8 v.12; PL XXV
888). It may be well to delve into each of these
three elements.
Christ as invisible Head of the Church instituted
it upon one visible person: “You are Peter (Rock)
and upon this rock, I shall build my Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Christ, who is One, founded one Church, and
intended to safeguard this unity through one Pope,
the rock and the visible head of this single society.
The Pope is no figure head. He enjoys papal

primacy with the universal power of jurisdiction—
from the Latin jus dicere: to set laws. We call it the
power of the keys from the words of Christ said
to Peter: “whatever you shall loosen on earth...”
And the Acts of the Apostles (ch. 1-11) make it
clear that St. Peter held the Church keys by taking
the initiative of all major decisions of the nascent
Church.
Along with the unity of government comes
the unity of the faith. St. Paul is the champion of
unity (I Cor. 1:10-12) Anathema to all who resist
the truth (II Tim. 3). The Church, throughout her
history, has always borne witness of this doctrinal
unity. Her works and her councils, her struggles
and persecutions have maintained the deposit
of her faith. She preferred to suffer persecution
than sacrifice the least of her dogmas. History
has shown time and again that the Church was
willing to have whole branches cut off and suffer
an temporary eclipse of her catholicity rather than
any loss of her doctrine.
The last element of Church unity is the
sacraments. There is a large diversity of Catholic
rituals adopted between the East and the West,
often rooted in apostolic times. And yet, despite
this legitimate variety, there is essential unity in
the sacramental system and the doctrine taught
through the rituals. Dom Guéranger explained, in
his Liturgical Institutions that the liturgy is the
most perfect expression of tradition, and gave the
axiom, repeated by Pius XII’s Mediator Dei: “ut
legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi”—“Let
the law of prayer fix the law of the faith.” Like the
communicating vases, they grow harmoniously
and sustain each other. There is is circular
connection between the faith which begets
liturgical prayer and the latter which expresses in
its purity that faith.

Consequences of a Defective
Church Authority
The charismatics have falsely opposed the
Church of the institution from the spiritual
Church, the hierarchical Church and the
pneumatic Church. No! This divorce is suited for
nothing but the devil who divides and conquers:
both elements, the human and divine are meant
25

Theme Authority at Risk
to coexist and live. Going back to the question
at hand of the three elements of unity, we want
to know whether they are hierarchically joined.
It is axiomatic that there can be no coordination
without subordination. If we speak of a triple
unity, of government, of faith, and of sacraments,
there must be an ultimate unifying cause between
them all, and it is of the utmost importance to set
them in the proper order. Which, then, comes first:
government or faith and sacraments?
Once posed, the question is readily answered
for we soon realize that the governing power is
not an end in itself. Its purpose is to serve Christ’s
flock and guide it towards its supernatural destiny.
It does this by keeping the treasures handed over
by its Founder: the deposit of Revelation and the
sacraments. Hence, the unity of government,
which rests in the Pope, is at the service of the
unity of the Faith and the sacraments, and not the
other way around.
From this follow important consequences, for
both superiors and subjects. The superiors have
authority over Church members in all that pertains
to the spiritual good of the faithful and stimulates
their faith and the sacramental practice. This
their privilege and duty is correlative to the right
and duties of their subjects. The latter indeed are
duty bound to pay respect and obedience to their
legitimate superiors in spiritual matters. They
also enjoy also the right to be governed properly
by superiors whose office is—we can never stress
this enough—to teach them the faith, the morals
and the proper sacraments. Along with this, the
subjects have the right—nay, the duty!—to resist
those superiors who fail them in their office.
Indeed, what should we say of a prelate who would
be wielding his God given authority to deregulate
the sacraments and denigrate the faith? Worse
even if, under cover of his supreme infallible
authority, the pope were allegedly to teach the
opposite of what has always and everywhere been
believed and practiced. Not only should he not be
followed, but he should be publicly rebuked for
publicly misleading the flock.
Unfortunately, the question which we just
raised is not a purely academic debate. Church
history has been long enough to reveal to us these
human foibles common especially among high
ranking men, including Popes, acting more like
26

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Machiavellian politicians than saintly pastors.
History teaches too us that it took saints of the
highest teak to confront their failing superiors and
uphold the Gospel message against more powerful
men. Yet, this right for Catholics to request a
frank discussion from a superior, suspected of
failing in his religious duties, is like walking on
an alpine crest. If the superior is failing in his
authoritative duty, how can that society maintain
proper order? On the other hand, by what
authority may a subject scold his failing superior?
This was the delicate situation which Archbishop
Lefebvre faced in 1976. This is the situation which
traditionalists are still facing today.

Is Tradition Guilty of
Disobedience?
It is said that during the doctrinal meetings
between both the Roman and the SSPX theological
commissions in 2012, the Romans accused us of
being Protestant, and we retorted by accusing
them of being Modernists! On a more serious
note, the Traditionalist movement has steadily
been accused of being a sect, a schismatic group,
witness the paradoxical, if humoristic, title of an
Italian newspaper in the year 2000: “Six thousand
schismatics pray at St. Peter’s.”
What, we ask then, constitutes properly a
schism? Canon Law defines it as the pertinacious
rejection of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
This supposes the recognition that the man on
Peter’s throne is legitimately considered as Pope
but, along with it, the schismatics stubbornly
refuse to recognize his Papal authority over
them. Take the typical example of the Orthodox
churches which, although they maintain much
of the Revelation, stumble on the block of the
universal Papal authority power the Pope over
them, and prefer to give allegiance to a local
Patriarch in defiance of the Pope.
But, there can be less clear cases. Can we call
schismatic one who accepts the principle of the
papal authority but, for some strange reason,
refuses to recognize the man on Peter’s throne? It
does not seem so because, when he says that this
man is usurping the papacy, he has no problem
with the papacy itself but with the man using it. It

is like the son who, for some odd reason, thinks
this man is not his real father, and has no paternal
powers over him. He would love to be under
the authority of his real father, but he mistrusts
this man who pretends he is his father. Present
day sedevacantists, whichever their rationale,
de facto and always refuse him authority over
them, although they accept the principle of Papal
authority and will submit to the legitimate Pope
when he appears on the scene. For them, the man
on Peter’s throne is a usurper.
Another borderline case comes to mind. Can
we call schismatic someone who accepts the
papal power but refuses to obey him on one given
instance? No, because schism consists in the
rejection of the Papal authority absolutely, and not
only partially. Likewise, a son who refuses to obey
his father’s command does not break ties with
his family but simply disobeys here and there.
He recognizes his parents’ authority over him by
right, but chooses to disobey it in fact, although he
will have no problem obeying the next command.
Where do traditionalists stand in relation to
the Pope? Are they schismatics as the Orthodox
churches are, rejecting in principle the universal
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome? The answer
is clearly no. Are they, like the sedevacantists,
saying that the present man on Peter’s throne is
no Pope, but is a usurper? This is clearly not the
traditionalists position who do recognize Jorge
Bergoglio as legitimate Pope. Yet, do they not
refuse him the authority which is due to him? Do
they not sin by disobeying the rightful superior?
This case inded is like that of the son disobeying
his father’s order, and so, the traditionalists go
against the wishes of their lawful Pope. Yet,
they do so grounded on superior principles, the
protection of their faith and the sacraments.
They argue that the present Church situation,
ever since Vatican II, has seen the promotion of
the modernist agenda condemned by all Popes
from Pius X till Pius XII. They oppose a “Non
possumus” to a Pope who disrupts the faith and
life of the Church. As the Archbishop wrote 40
years ago, the masterstroke of Satan was to lead
the Church away from the faith under the guise of
obedience.
A bishop said one day to Archbishop Lefebvre:
“I would rather be wrong with the Pope than true

against him.” He replied that Christ was the truth,
and thus, he would rather be right with Christ
than wrong with the Pope. Confronted with the
formidable dilemma offered him: join Modernist
Rome or secede from Rome, the crestline held
by Archbishop has always been: “Neither heretic
nor schismatic.” This is no comfortable position:
to recognize a failing superior is like consulting
a contagiously sick doctor who alone can give
you the right prescription. You want to honor his
authority and good counsels and, yet, preserve
yourself from his lethal virus. Hence, Bishop
Bernard Fellay, in the footsteps of our founder,
has always responded to Rome’s call while making
clear demands so as to protect our traditional
identity.
There is a real danger for us as traditional
Catholics to ignore at least practically the
divinely constituted authority of the Pope and
bishops because we are comfortable in our
current situation and deem it inconvenient to
accommodate even the legitimate commands of
our ecclesiastical superiors. The danger of turning
our small communities into religious ghettos
lurks on the horizon, and this danger is prevalent
within the so-called resistance movement. Of
course, we can never cooperate in the errors
running rampant through the modern Church. Yet
at the same time, if we hesitate to acknowledge
the authority of the Pope as head of the Universal
Church, if we refuse to exhibit the proper respect,
reverence and obedience to our ecclesiastical
superiors, do we not practically deny our ties to
the Roman hierarchy in order to seek our own
secluded ease and personal convenience? Does
this attitude not draw near to a schismatic attitude
in its own right?
And, closer to home, the attitude of turning
on all sides every single word coming out of
the mouth of a Superior General can only raise
suspicion and the spirit of critique among
subordinates. Does this foment peace and
concord among souls? Is this really harmonizing
the simplicity of the dove with the prudence of
the serpent? Is this not rather ruining the vital
channels of grace for each one of us?

27

O most holy Virgin who didst find favor in God’s sight and hast
become His Mother; O Virgin, immaculate in body and soul, in thy
faith and in thy love, look down with pity on the wretched who in
our need seek thy powerful protection.
The evil serpent on whom was cast the primal curse continues,
alas, to attack and ensnare the poor children of Eve. But thou, our
Blessed Mother, our Queen and our Advocate, thou who from the
first instant of thy conception didst crush the head of this cruel
enemy, receive our prayers. United to thee with one heart, we
beseech thee to present them before the throne of God.
May we never be caught in the snares around us, but rather may
we all reach the harbor of salvation. Despite the awesome perils
which threaten, may God’s Church and all Christian society sing
out once again the hymn of deliverance, of victory and of peace.
Amen.
Pope Pius X (Immaculata fresco, unknown painter, Basilica del Carmine, Padua, Italy - Renata
Sedmakova-Shutterstock.com)

Immaculata fresco, unknown painter, Basilica del Carmine, Padua, Italy - Renata Sedmakova-Shutterstock.com

Faith and Morals

Feasts of Our Lady:

The
Immaculate
Conception
by Fr. Christopher Danel

“At length, on the distant horizon, rises, with a
soft and radiant light, the aurora of the Sun which
has been so long desired.” This poetic line of Dom
Guéranger refers to the dawn of our salvation,
the appearance of the immaculate ark which is to
enshrine the Most High, she who was preserved
from all stain, the Immaculata. Among the most
sublime feasts of the Blessed Virgin, we consider
that of the Immaculate Conception on the eighth
day of December.

In the East
The first origins of the feast are in the
Palestinian monasteries in the eighth century,
with the date of the feast on December 8 or
9, closely tied to the Nativity of Our Lady on
30

The Angelus

November - December 2017

September 8. In the ninth century the feast
is found on calendars in the southern Italian
peninsula, which was under Byzantine influence
at the time. It was called the Conception of
St. Anne, not so much in reference to the
exemption of Our Lady from Original Sin, but
rather in commemoration of her miraculous
conception. According to an apocryphal source,
for over twenty years Sts. Joachim and Anne
had been sterile and had hoped for offspring,
and after the annunciation of an angel Our
Lady was miraculously conceived, similarly to
the conception of Christ. At the same time, the
Greeks also celebrated the advent of Our Lady
herself, independently from the apocryphal
account of her conception. Around 740 A.D.
Bishop John of Eubea wrote, “In this day we
celebrate the Conception of Mary, the holy

Mother of God, whom Christ, the Son of God,
Himself edified with the blessing of the Father
and the cooperation of the life-giving Holy
Ghost.”

In the West
Some scholars attribute the introduction of
the feast in the West to the Irish. Various local
martyrologies from that time, such as that
of Tallaght, include it under the express title
Conceptio Mariae, but there is a misidentification
of the feast’s date (May 3) which leads many to
conclude that there was an equivocation with
the feast of St. Marianus on the same date. In
fact, the feast began to be celebrated in England
only in the eleventh century, and on December
8. It is included on that date on the calendars
of Winchester, Old Minster, New Minster, and
Exeter.
Within thirty years after the compilation of
these texts, however, came the Norman Conquest
of 1066. For whatever reason, the Normans
suppressed the feast. It was not long, however
before the feast was reintroduced. Elsin, Abbot
of Ramsay in the late eleventh century, was saved
miraculously from a shipwreck by Our Lady, and
due to his promise and her command, he began
anew to promote the feast of her Conception
which took root in several important dioceses. In
the early twelfth century, the English historian
Eadmer (+1126) wrote a short defense of the
feast, declaring the meaning was the exaltation
of Mary, who in the first moment of her creation
was exempt from any stain of corruption or sin
(corruptionis et peccati ruga discrete). Likewise
around AD 1120 Westminster Abbey’s Osbert of
Clare wrote, “We believe that it is not impossible
to God to have sanctified the Blessed Virgin
Mary in her conception from the prevarication
of Adam….Therefore the Most High sanctified
his tabernacle by His command of creation and
conception in her mother’s womb.”
Notwithstanding the previous suppression
of the feast in England at the time of William
the Conqueror, Our Lady used the very same
Normans as her instrument for spreading this
feast on the European continent. The feast is

found in records of the Archdiocese of Rouen and
in most of Normandy in the early twelfth century,
and throughout the medieval era, the feast was
popularly called the “Feast of the Normans.”
Throughout the rest of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the feast spread to Lyon and the rest
of France, Belgium and Germany. In the northern
half of the Italian peninsula the feast was
adopted first at Vercelli and Cremona, and spread
further due to a decision at the General Chapter
of the Franciscans in 1263 to observe the feast
throughout the Order.

Theological Controversy
The history of the feast in the West involves
the theological dispute between the Franciscans
and the Dominicans. One part of the controversy
involved the question of whether Our Lady was
immaculate at her conception, or whether she
was sanctified in the womb after animation. The
Dominican argument is the latter, as articulated
in the Summa (III, 27). On the contrary, the
Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians,
Cistercians, Benedictines and the secular
31

Faith and Morals
clergy held to the former tenet. The Franciscan
argument was advocated most notably by John
Duns Scotus (+1308), adhering to the principle
potuit, decuit, ergo fecit, meaning that the
most excellent privilege that could be given
to Our Lady, and which is in the power of God
to give, was therefore given by Him: that she
was preserved from Original Sin from the first
moment of her conception. From that point in
time, it can be said that above all others the
Franciscans have carried the torch for the
Immaculata.

Approval by Rome
Rome took more time to adopt the feast,
and it was not until around 1330 that it began
to be celebrated by the Papal Court, and this
due to French influence. The French Pope John
XXII at Avignon began to celebrate the feast at
the Carmelite church and soon incorporated
it into his own chapel with special solemnity.
Opponents of the feast considered it to be a
private devotion of the Pope and his court,
without any official approbation for the Church
at large. It was not until the fifteenth century
when the official decrees would be issued by
Pope Sixtus IV. The first was Prae excelsa in
1476, which not only approved the feast, but gave
it its own proper office and Mass, and enriched
it with indulgences. The second was Grave
nimis in 1483, which dealt with the theological
controversies of the time and dealt a severe
rebuke to the Dominican Vincent Bandelis
whose opposition to the feast was overly harsh.
With these two decrees, even if not including a
dogmatic definition, the official approval of the
Holy See was decisive and unquestionable. Roma
locuta est, causa finita est, or so it seemed.
The Dominicans officially accepted the feast,
but insisted on calling it the Sanctification of
the Blessed Virgin Mary as opposed to her
preservation from sin at conception. Pope
Gregory XV in 1622, following upon the actions
of his predecessor Paul V, issued a decree
abolishing this name and imposing silence
upon the Dominicans on this topic in writings
and in sermons, even if these be private. The
32

The Angelus

November - December 2017

controversy nevertheless continued to brew
behind the scenes until Alexander VII issued
the Apostolic Constitution Sollicitudo omnium
ecclesiarum on December 8, 1661. In this
constitution, the pontiff defined the terms of the
argument, declaring that the object of the feast
was specifically Our Lady’s preservation from
Original Sin at the moment of her conception:
“The devotion to the most Blessed Virgin Mary
is indeed of long standing among the faithful of
Christ who believe that her soul, from the first
instant of its creation and infusion into her body,
was preserved immune by a special grace and
privilege of God from the stain of original sin,
in view of the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ,
the Redeemer of our human race, and who,
in this sense, esteem and solemnly celebrate
the festivity of her conception[.] We renew the
Constitutions and decrees published by Roman
Pontiffs in favor of the opinion that asserts that
the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary at its creation,
and at its infusion into her body, was blessed by
the grace of the Holy Ghost and was preserved
from original sin” (DZ 1100). The decree was
successful and settled the issue definitively.
Innocent XII (+1700) elevated the feast to II class
and Leo XIII (+1903) elevated it to I class (viz.,
double second class and double first class), and
these popes furnished the feast with an octave
and a vigil, although in the United States, the
national calendar included a vigil for the feast
since 1847.

Dogmatic Definition
The final jewel in the crown of the Immaculata
was placed by Bl. Pius IX, when he made the
infallible dogmatic definition of the Immaculate
Conception with the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on
December 8, 1854. The bull was chiefly drafted by
Msgr. Luca Pacifici, secretary of Briefs to Princes,
and in beautiful terms it extolls the excellence of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, tam venerabilis mater,
then provides the material for the Roman Pontiff
to define the dogma as follows: “To the honor of
the Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the glory and
adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the
exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase

of the Christian religion, by the authority of
our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles,
Peter and Paul, and by Our own, We declare,
pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which
holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the
first instant of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the
merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human
race, was preserved immaculate from all stain
of original sin, has been revealed by God, and
on this account must be firmly and constantly
believed by all the faithful” (DZ 1641). Pope Pius
IX at that time also elevated the feast to a holy
day of obligation.

The Immaculate
Conception in Art
There is a particular history of the
representation of this dogma in iconography.
Such a mystery as the Immaculate Conception
could be represented only by symbols. The
representation over the centuries has been
categorized as initially historic, then symbolic,
and lastly contemplative.
The representation used throughout the Middle
Ages and up until the seventeenth century, which
we can call historic, is a representation of the
historical event of Our Lady’s conception: it
showed the chaste embrace of Ss. Joachim and
Anne meeting at the Golden Gate of Jerusalem.
Because this representation featured the
Blessed Virgin’s parents so prominently and thus
hearkened to the dubious apocryphal description
of her conception, it was finally condemned by
Pope Innocent XI in 1677.
A symbolic representation began to come
into prominence during the sixteenth century.
It showed the Blessed Virgin Mary with joined
hands, surrounded by several symbols related
to her various privileges, mainly symbols from
the Old Testament. Above her head, the Father
is seen looking down upon her. A related image
popular among the Franciscan artists showed
Our Lady in the same position with Fathers
and Doctors of the Church at her feet holding
scrolls with texts referring to the Immaculate
Conception.

In the 17th Century the well-known
contemplative image began to surface and slowly
gained popularity such that it took complete
precedence over any previous representation.
Pius IX gave it specific approval during his reign.
It is the representation given to St. John the
Apostle on Patmos and which is recorded in the
Apocalypse (12:1), a woman clothed with the sun
and the moon under her feet. A famous example
is the Immaculate Conception by the Sevillian
master Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (+1682), which
is preserved in the Prado. In later depictions,
artists added the crown of twelve stars, as
indicated in the same verse of the Apocalypse,
and the serpent whose head is being crushed
by Our Lady as prophesied in Genesis 3:15; the
serpent is often shown with the apple in his
mouth, representing the forbidden fruit sinfully
eaten by Adam and Eve.

Conclusion
The feast of the Immaculate Conception has
a complicated background, arising in Palestine,
spreading through the Byzantine Empire, taking
root in the British Isles, then spreading from
Normandy throughout France and across the
Alps, eventually to be embraced by Rome. At
the same time, the best theologians of history
debated the topic until the definitive seal was put
on it by the holder of the Keys of Kingdom, and
it was solemnly enshrined among the dogmas
of Holy Mother Church. The most touching
confirmation of the dogma, however, is much
less complex. It is indeed very simple, modest,
and pure. In 1858 at the Grotto of Massabielle
in Lourdes, the Blessed Mother of God herself
appeared to a humble peasant girl, St. Bernadette
Soubirous, and issued the confirmation of
heaven: I am the Immaculate Conception.

33

Faith and Morals

Cost Benefit
Analysis
by Robert Morrison

In the worlds of business and regulation, we often hear of so-called cost
benefit analyses, in which decision makers weigh the advantages (benefits)
and disadvantages (costs) of a proposal to determine the best path forward.
A business leader such as a CEO will use the cost benefit analysis not only to
forecast the most profitable decision for his company but also to evaluate past
decisions so as to learn from them. The CEO of a corporation must defend his
decisions to his board of directors, shareholders, regulators and the general
public. If he does well, he will receive the praise of his superiors and possibly a
raise. If he does poorly, he will risk losing his career.

Cost Benefit Analysis
We may be surprised if we hear during a retreat that St. Ignatius advocates
for a careful cost-benefit analysis when we face life decisions. Like the CEO,
we have limited resources: our time, energy, material goods, and talents.
Whereas the CEO must render an accounting to his company’s board of
directors, we must appear before our Lord to answer for how we have used the
34

The Angelus

November - December 2017

resources He has given us.
St. Ignatius provides us with an image of that fateful moment when God will
judge how we have used the spiritual and material goods He has given us. “The
time will be that at which you breathe your last sigh. Represent to yourself
your relatives and friends examining your lips and heart to find a breath or
a beat that may yet give token of life. While they are still asking whether you
belong to time or eternity, you are already before the tribunal of your Judge.
And where is this tribunal? In the room where you have just expired, beside
your deathbed, before your corpse, before those who surround your inanimate
remains and who assist at this terrible scene without desiring it and probably
without thinking of it.”
If at that moment Our Lord offered us one more week on Earth to serve
Him, how would we spend it? Consider the example of Venerable Mother
Mariana de Jesus Torres: “Standing before the Throne of God, she was judged
blameless and given a choice: to remain in the celestial Glory of Heaven—or
to return to earth to suffer as an expiatory victim for the shocking presence of
Satan’s influence that she was given to foresee would occur among the faithful
in the 20th century. Much disturbed, Mother Mariana chose the latter.”
If this blameless soul voluntarily chose to delay her entry into heaven so
that she could suffer for love of God and the faithful of our age, what will we
wish when we see clearly the consequences of our blameworthy lives? She was
given the option to enter heaven at that moment; will we merit to enter even
purgatory? But God likely will not grant us this extra week. Instead He has
granted us the time between now and when we breathe our last breaths. Even
if we have been blind until the eleventh hour of our life, we can still amend if
we recognize that we have been squandering our scarce opportunities to store
up treasures in heaven.

Weighing our Options
Given the importance of the choices we make in this life, it should come as
no surprise that Our Lord has instructed us on key aspects of how we ought
to weigh the competing interests. In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord tells
us to “lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven…for where thy treasure is,
there is thy heart also.” Whereas the CEO of a company must maximize profits
with every cost-benefit analysis, we must do our best to store up treasures in
heaven. Heaven’s currency is the only one that will count on judgment day.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre put it succinctly: “[E]very act and every thought
which are not Christian are without saving value, without merit for salvation.”
A CEO would be a fool to squander his company’s resources in pursuit of
an unprofitable endeavor, but we are even more foolish when we waste our
limited resources in the matters of our eternal salvation.
Christ also tells us “no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other.”
We cannot serve God and mammon. Here it seems that the critical point is that
if we think we can serve both God and mammon we end up serving mammon.
In that case we do not store up treasures in heaven and very likely end up with
less enduring success in the world than if we had served God alone.
35

Faith and Morals
Finally, we must seek “first the kingdom of God, and His justice” and then
God will provide for our material wants. If we seek first the material needs
of this world, we will not be serving God. What does it mean to seek first the
kingdom of God? In his first chapter of Christ the Ideal of the Monk, Dom
Marmion quotes “a soul who had understood how God is everything”: “I will
refuse nothing to Jesus Whose love urges me. You know how eloquent is the
voice of Jesus. Besides, no one is foolish enough to give up the whole for the
part. The love of Jesus, that is the whole; the rest, whatever one may think,
is but a negligible quantity, despicable even, in contrast with our unique
treasure.” We sometimes act as though we believed that we have done quite
a lot for God and need some time for ourselves. How do we suppose a CEO
would fare if he told his board of directors, “I have made some very wise
decisions with the resources you have given me to complete the project and
think I have earned the right to use the remainder of the project’s budget to
remodel my home”?

Contending with Life’s Challenges
Armed with Our Lord’s loving words, all ages have had to contend with
these challenges in their various forms. God gives us the saints as examples
of those who have wisely chosen to store up treasures in heaven. St. Paul said
he had given up the enticements of the world for the greater glory of God and
considered them but dung, but how do we fare? It is worth considering the
unique challenges presented in our time that conspire to make us choose dung
over heaven.
Clamor and Distraction. Without doubt, we can say that the level of noise,
pace and distractions of the modern world far exceeds that of any other age.
One prominent culprit, among many, is the so-called smart phone. Each little
device is like an all-you-can eat buffet of the most discordant foods, most of
which are unhealthy, that follows us everywhere we go. When we consider that
St. Ignatius emphasizes that we ought to make decisions at peace—away from
noise—we can see the problem caused by constant noise. How do we listen to
God if we choose to listen to the noise?
Comfort. Our Lord assured us that if we seek first the kingdom of God we
shall not be left wanting for food, drink, clothing and shelter. But He did not
promise us that He would sustain the relative luxury that even the poor take
for granted today. Two problems arise when we insist on pursuing undue
comfort. In the first place, we may believe that a holy life simply cannot deliver
what we mistakenly believe to be the minimum level of comfort. We can see
the consequences of this in the all too common decisions to unnecessarily
limit family sizes or avoid the traditional penances. The second problem is one
that affects our entire spiritual life: too much comfort makes us weak, so that
we judge even ordinary Christian duties to require “heroic virtue” that cannot
possibly bind us in conscience.
Worldliness. Our Lord makes it clear that neither He nor His disciples are
36

The Angelus

November - December 2017

“of the world” despite being in it. Owing in part to our perceived need for
luxury (masquerading as minimum comforts), we sometimes decide that we
must engage with the world on its terms. Our decisions to follow the world’s
lead on technologies and entertainments often flow from a fear that we, or
our families, will be left behind if we do not. We buy into the world’s narrative
about all the bad things that follow from being too different. But Our Lord has
said, “For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the
loss of his soul?”
Expanding Duty of State. One of the great aids to making correct decisions
is a proper appreciation of our duty of state. If we are following our duty of
state with charity, we no doubt store up treasures in heaven. But the modern
world encourages us to expand our conception of the duty of state to include
anything that plausibly supports our careers or other responsibilities. We
may reasonably believe that to perform our duties at work we need to be
alert, personable, and punctual. The problems arise, though, when we allow
the world to dictate the terms of these ancillary duties. So, for instance, we
might say: “I needed to go out bowling with my work colleagues on Friday.
Unfortunately I had to miss First Friday devotions and got home too late to
say the Rosary. I need to be alert for work so I caught up on my sleep Saturday,
missing First Saturday devotions as well.” Alas, the world will take as much
ground as it can get in the battle of what constitutes our proper duties of state.
Selfie Culture. An appropriate symbol of our times is the obsession with
taking “selfies” and sharing them on social media. While this can be relatively
innocuous, an increasing number of people act as though the purpose of their
lives is to document a series of experiences so that the world may deem them
to have worthy and fulfilling lives. Even if we avoid this extreme, the spirit of
the trend threatens to distort our decision making process by putting a thumb
on the scale in favor of options that the world will “like.” We should instead
make decisions to please God—Who always sees us as we are—even if it
means “unfollowing” the world.

Live as a Consistent Catholic
We may reject versus populum Masses because of their focus on man
rather than God (among other reasons), but if we do not preserve an ad
oreintem focus with respect to how we order our lives, so to speak, we may
find upon judgment that we have been monumental fools. We ought to consider
whether we can say with St. Ignatius: “Take, O Lord, and receive all my liberty,
my memory, my understanding, and my entire will, all that I have and possess.
Thou hast given all to me. To Thee, O Lord, I return it. All is Thine; dispose of
it wholly according to Thy will. Give me Thy love and Thy grace. With these I
am rich enough, and I ask for nothing more.”
If it seems to us that St. Ignatius’s words are too hard, perhaps we should
reconsider our spiritual cost-benefit analysis. What returns do we expect this
modern world to give us on our limited resources that Our Lord wants us to
instead devote to doing His will?
37

Faith and Morals

Pope St. Pius X

Our
Apostolic
Mandate
Excerpts from Our Apostolic Mandate by Pope St. Pius X

Editor’s Note: The following is an abridged version of Pope St. Pius X’s letter Notre Charge
Apostolique. A full version of the letter, along with notes, can be purchased from Angelus Press. In order
to maintain readability, the abridgement does not contain headings or notes where portions of the text
have been omitted. Moreover, while the particular movement that Pius X is concerned with, known as
the Sillon, has been deposited in the dustbin of history, its vision of creating a unified political movement
without regard to confessional differences or the truth that political authority comes from God, is not
foreign to our contemporary world.

Notre Charge Apostolique
It must be said, Venerable Brethren, that
our expectations have been frustrated in
large measure. The day came when perceptive
observers could discern alarming trends within
the Sillon; the Sillon was losing its way. Could
it have been otherwise? Its leaders were young,
full of enthusiasm and self-confidence. But they
were not adequately equipped with historical
38

The Angelus

November - December 2017

knowledge, sound philosophy, and solid
theology to tackle without danger the difficult
social problems in which their work and their
inclinations were involving them. They were not
sufficiently equipped to be on their guard against
the penetration of liberal and Protestant concepts
on doctrine and obedience.
They were given no small measure of advice.
Admonition came after the advice but, to Our
sorrow, both advice and reproaches ran off the

sheath of their elusive souls, and were of no avail.
Things came to such a pass that We should be
failing in Our duty if kept silence any longer. We
owe the truth to Our dear sons of the Sillon who
are carried away by their generous ardor along
the path strewn with errors and dangers. We
owe the truth to a large number of seminarists
and priests who have been drawn away by the
Sillon, if not from the authority, at least from the
guidance and influence of the bishops. We owe it
also to the Church in which the Sillon is sowing
discord and whose interests it endangers.
In the first place We must take up sharply the
pretension of the Sillon to escape the jurisdiction
of ecclesiastical authority. Indeed, the leaders
of the Sillon claim that they are working in a
field which is not that of the Church; they claim
that they are pursuing aims in the temporal
order only and not those of the spiritual order;
that the Sillonist is simply a Catholic devoted
to the betterment of the working class and to
democratic endeavors by drawing from the
practice of his faith the energy for his selfless
efforts. They claim that, neither more nor less
than a Catholic craftsman, farmer, economist
or politician, the Sillonist is subject to common
standards of behavior, yet without being bound in
a special manner by the authority of the Church.
To reply to these fallacies is only to easy; for
whom will they make believe that the Catholic
Sillonists, the priests and seminarists enrolled
in their ranks have in sight in their social work,
only the temporal interests of the working class?
To maintain this, We think, would be an insult
to them. The truth is that the Sillonist leaders
are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists;
they claim to regenerate the working class by
first elevating the conscience of Man; they have
a social doctrine, and they have religious and
philosophical principles for the reconstruction
of society upon new foundations; they have a
particular conception of human dignity, freedom,
justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to
justify their social dreams, they put forward
the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way;
and what is even more serious, they call to
witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted
Christ. Further, they teach these ideas in their
study groups, and inculcate them upon their

friends, and they also introduce them into their
working procedures. Therefore they are really
professors of social, civic, and religious morals;
and whatever modifications they may introduce
in the organization of the Sillonist movement,
we have the right to say that the aims of the
Sillon, its character and its action belong to the
field of morals which is the proper domain of
the Church. In view of all this, the Sillonist are
deceiving themselves when they believe that
they are working in a field that lies outside the
limits of Church authority and of its doctrinal and
directive power.
Even if their doctrines were free from errors,
it would still be a very serious breach of Catholic
discipline to decline obstinately the direction of
those who have received from heaven the mission
to guide individuals and communities along the
straight path of truth and goodness. But, as We
have already said, the evil lies far deeper; the
Sillon, carried away by an ill-conceived love for
the weak, has fallen into error.
Indeed, the Sillon proposes to raise up and
re-educate the working class. But in this respect
the principles of Catholic doctrine have been
defined, and the history of Christian civilization
bears witness to their beneficent fruitfulness.
Our Predecessor of happy memory re-affirmed
them in masterly documents, and all Catholics
dealing with social questions have the duty to
study them and to keep them in mind. He taught,
among other things, that “Christian Democracy
must preserve the diversity of classes which is
assuredly the attribute of a soundly constituted
State, and it must seek to give human society
the form and character which God, its Author,
has imparted to it.” Our Predecessor denounced
“A certain Democracy which goes so far in
wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people
and aims at the suppression of classes and their
leveling down.” At the same time, Leo XIII laid
down for Catholics a program of action, the only
program capable of putting society back onto
its centuries old Christian basis. But what have
the leaders of the Sillon done? Not only have
they adopted a program and teaching different
from that of Leo XIII (which would be of itself
a singularly audacious decision on the part of
laymen thus taking up, concurrent with the
39

Faith and Morals
Sovereign Pontiff, the role of director of social
action in the Church); but they have openly
rejected the program laid out by Leo XIII, and
have adopted another which is diametrically
opposed to it. Further, they reject the doctrine
recalled by Leo XIII on the essential principles
of society; they place authority in the people, or
gradually suppress it and strive, as their ideal,
to effect the leveling down of the classes. In
opposition to Catholic doctrine, therefore, they
are proceeding towards a condemned ideal.
We know well that they flatter themselves
with the idea of raising human dignity and the
discredited condition of the working class. We
know that they wish to render just and perfect the
labor laws and the relations between employers
and employees, thus causing a more complete
justice and a greater measure of charity to
prevail upon earth, and causing also a profound
and fruitful transformation in society by which
mankind would make an undreamed-of progress.
Certainly, We do not blame these efforts; they
would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist
did not forget that a person’s progress consists
in developing his natural abilities by fresh
motivations; that it consists also in permitting
these motivations to operate within the frame
of, and in conformity with, the laws of human
nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws
governing human nature and by breaking the
bounds within which they operate, the human
person is lead, not toward progress, but towards
death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do
with human society; they dream of changing its
natural and traditional foundations; they dream
of a Future City built on different principles, and
they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and
more beneficial than the principles upon which
the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with
the utmost energy in these times of social and
intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon
himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker –
the City cannot be built otherwise than as God
has built it; society cannot be setup unless the
Church lays the foundations and supervises the
work; no, civilization is not something yet to be
found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy
notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is
40

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has
only to be set up and restored continually against
the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers,
rebels and miscreants. Omnia instaurare in
Christo.
Now, lest We be accused of judging too hastily
and with unjustified rigor the social doctrines
of the Sillon, We wish to examine their essential
points.
The Sillon has a praise-worthy concern for
human dignity, but it understands human dignity
in the manner of some philosophers, of whom
the Church does not at all feel proud. The first
condition of that dignity is liberty, but viewed
in the sense that, except in religious matters,
each man is autonomous. This is the basis
principle from which the Sillon draws further
conclusions: today the people are in tutelage
under an authority distinct from themselves; they
must liberate themselves: political emancipation.
They are also dependent upon employers who
own the means of production, exploit, oppress
and degrade the workers; they must shake off the
yoke: economic emancipation. Finally, they are
ruled by a caste preponderance in the direction
of affairs. The people must break away from
this dominion: intellectual emancipation. The
leveling-down of differences from this three-fold
point of view will bring about equality among
men, and such equality is viewed as true human
justice. A socio-political set-up resting on these
two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which
Fraternity will presently be added), is what they
call Democracy.
However, liberty and equality are, so to speak,
no more than a negative side. The distinctive
and positive aspect of Democracy is to be found
in the largest possible participation of everyone
in the government of public affairs. And this,
in turn, comprises a three-fold aspect, namely
political, economical, and moral.
At first, the Sillon does not wish to abolish
political authority; on the contrary, it considers
it necessary; but it wishes to divide it, or rather
to multiply it in such a way that each citizen
will become a kind of king. Authority, so they
concede, comes from God, but it resides primarily
in the people and expresses itself by means of
elections or, better still, by selection. However,

it still remains in the hands of the people; it does
not escape their control. It will be an external
authority, yet only in appearance; in fact, it
will be internal because it will be an authority
assented to.
All other things being equal, the same
principle will apply to economics. Taken away
from a specific group, management will be so
well multiplied that each worker will himself
become a kind of employer. The system by which
the Sillon intends to actualize this economic
ideal is not Sillonism, they say; it is a system
of guilds in a number large enough to induce a
healthy competition and to protect the workers’
independence; in this manner, they will not be
bound to any guild in particular.
We come now to the principal aspect, the
moral aspect. Since, as we have seen, authority
is much reduced, another force is necessary
to supplement it and to provide a permanent
counterweight against individual selfishness.
This new principle, this force, is the love of
professional interest and of public interest,
that is to say, the love of the very end of the
profession and of society. Visualize a society
in which, in the soul of everyone, along with
the innate love of personal interest and family
welfare, prevails love for one’s occupation and
for the welfare of the community. Imagine this
society in which, in the conscience of everyone,
personal and family interests are so subordinate
that a superior interest always takes precedence
over them. Could not such a society almost do
without any authority? And would it not be the
embodiment of the ideal of human dignity, with
each citizen having the soul of a king, and each
worker the soul of a master? Snatched away from
the pettiness of private interests, and raised
up to the interests of the profession and, even
higher, to those of the whole nation and, higher
still, to those of the whole human race (for the
Sillon’s field of vision is not bound by the national
borders, it encompasses all men even to the ends
of the earth), the human heart, enlarged by the
love of the common-wealth, would embrace all
comrades of the same profession, all compatriots,
all men. Such is the ideal of human greatness
and nobility to be attained through the famous
popular trilogy: liberty, equality, fraternity.

These three elements, namely political,
economic, and moral, are inter-dependent and,
as We have said, the moral element is dominant.
Indeed, no political Democracy can survive if it
is not anchored to an economic Democracy. But
neither one nor the other is possible if it is not

rooted in awareness by the human conscience of
being invested with moral responsibilities and
energies mutually commensurate. But granted
the existence of that awareness, so created by
conscious responsibilities and moral forces,
the kind of Democracy arising from it will
41

Faith and Morals
naturally reflect in deeds the consciousness
and moral forces from which it flows. In the
same manner, political Democracy will also
issue from the trade-guild system. Thus, both
political and economic Democracies, the latter
bearing the former, will be fastened in the very
consciousness of the people to unshakable bases.
To sum up, such is the theory, one could say
the dream of the Sillon; and that is what its
teaching aims at, what it calls the democratic
education of the people, that is, raising to its
maximum the conscience and civic responsibility
of every one, from which will result economic
and political Democracy and the reign of justice,
liberty, equality, fraternity.
This brief explanation, Venerable Brethren,
will show you clearly how much reason We
have to say that the Sillon opposes doctrine to
doctrine, that it seeks to build its City on a theory
contrary to Catholic truth, and that falsifies the
basis and essential notions which regulate social
relations in any human society. The following
considerations will make this opposition even
more evident.
The Sillon places public authority primarily
in the people, from whom it then flows into the
government in such a manner, however, that
it continues to reside in the people. But Leo
XIII absolutely condemned this doctrine in
his Encyclical “Diuturnum Illud” on political
government in which he said:
“Modern writers in great numbers, following
in the footsteps of those who called themselves
philosophers in the last century, declare that
all power comes from the people; consequently
those who exercise power in society do not
exercise it from their own authority, but from an
authority delegated to them by the people and
on the condition that it can be revoked by the
will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite
contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold
that the right of government derives from God as
its natural and necessary principle.”
Admittedly, the Sillon holds that authority –
which first places in the people – descends from
God, but in such a way: “as to return from below
upwards, whilst in the organization of the Church
power descends from above downwards.”
But besides its being abnormal for the
42

The Angelus

November - December 2017

delegation of power to ascend, since it is in its
nature to descend, Leo XIII refuted in advance
this attempt to reconcile Catholic Doctrine with
the error of philosophism. For, he continues: “It is
necessary to remark here that those who preside
over the government of public affairs may indeed,
in certain cases, be chosen by the will and
judgment of the multitude without repugnance
or opposition to Catholic doctrine. But whilst
this choice marks out the ruler, it does not confer
upon him the authority to govern; it does not
delegate the power, it designates the person who
will be invested with it.”
For the rest, if the people remain the holders of
power, what becomes of authority? A shadow, a
myth; there is no more law properly so-called, no
more obedience. The Sillon acknowledges this:
indeed, since it demands that threefold political,
economic, and intellectual emancipation in
the name of human dignity, the Future City in
the formation of which it is engaged will have
no masters and no servants. All citizens will
be free; all comrades, all kings. A command, a
precept would be viewed as an attack upon their
freedom; subordination to any form of superiority
would be a diminishment of the human person,
and obedience a disgrace. Is it in this manner,
Venerable Brethren, that the traditional doctrine
of the Church represents social relations, even
in the most perfect society? Has not every
community of people, dependent and unequal
by nature, need of an authority to direct their
activity towards the common good and to enforce
its laws? And if perverse individuals are to be
found in a community (and there always are),
should not authority be all the stronger as the
selfishness of the wicked is more threatening?
Further, – unless one greatly deceives oneself
in the conception of liberty – can it be said with
an atom of reason that authority and liberty are
incompatible? Can one teach that obedience is
contrary to human dignity and that the ideal
would be to replace it by “accepted authority”?
Did not St. Paul the Apostle foresee human
society in all its possible stages of development
when he bade the faithful to be subject to
every authority? Does obedience to men as the
legitimate representatives of God, that is to say in
the final analysis, obedience to God, degrade Man

and reduce him to a level unworthy of himself?
Is the religious life which is based on obedience,
contrary to the ideal of human nature? Were the
Saints – the most obedient men, just slaves and
degenerates? Finally, can you imagine social
conditions in which Jesus Christ, if He returned
to earth, would not give an example of obedience
and, further, would no longer say: “Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God
the things that are God’s” ?
Teaching such doctrines, and applying them
to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore,
sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority,
liberty and obedience, among your Catholic
youth. The same is true of justice and equality;
the Sillon says that it is striving to establish an
era of equality which, by that very fact, would be
also an era of greater justice. Thus, to the Sillon,
every inequality of condition is an injustice, or
at least, a diminution of justice? Here we have a
principle that conflicts sharply with the nature
of things, a principle conducive to jealously,
injustice, and subversive to any social order.
Thus, Democracy alone will bring about the reign
of perfect justice! Is this not an insult to other
forms of government which are thereby debased
to the level of sterile makeshifts? Besides, the
Sillonists once again clash on this point with the
teaching of Leo XIII. In the Encyclical on political
government which We have already quoted, they
could have read this: “Justice being preserved,
it is not forbidden to the people to choose for
themselves the form of government which best
corresponds with their character or with the
institutions and customs handed down by their
forefathers.”
And the Encyclical alludes to the three wellknown forms of government, thus implying that
justice is compatible with any of them. And
does not the Encyclical on the condition of the
working class state clearly that justice can be
restored within the existing social set-up – since
it indicates the means of doing so? Undoubtedly,
Leo XIII did not mean to speak of some form of
justice, but of perfect justice. Therefore, when
he said that justice could be found in any of the
three aforesaid forms of government, he was
teaching that in this respect Democracy does
not enjoy a special privilege. The Sillonists who

maintain the opposite view, either turn a deaf
ear to the teaching of the Church or form for
themselves an idea of justice and equality which
is not Catholic.
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity
which they found on the love of common interest
or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on
the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing
with an equal love and tolerance all human
beings and their miseries, whether these are
intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But
Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty
of charity does not lie in the toleration of false
ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the
theoretical or practical indifference towards the
errors and vices in which we see our brethren
plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and
moral improvement as well as for their material
well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that
love for our neighbor flows from our love for God,
Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human
family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we
are, to the point that in doing good to others we
are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other
kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of
pagan and secular societies of ages past to show
that concern for common interests or affinities of
nature weigh very little against the passions and
wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren,
there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian
charity. Through the love of God and His Son
Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity
embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to
the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian
charity thus understood, Democracy, far from
being a progress, would mean a disastrous
step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire
with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of
well being for society and its members is to be
attained through fraternity or, as it is also called,
universal solidarity, all minds must be united
in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in
morality, and all hearts in the love of God and
His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable
only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic
charity alone can lead the people in the march of
progress towards the ideal civilization.
43

Stained Glass Window, St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York

296 pp. – Softcover – STK# BD374 – $16.95

To Build the City of God
Dr. Brian McCall​
Much has been written on the general outlines of Catholic social, economic, and political
thought, but what Catholics need today is a guide on how to live out these principles in their
daily lives. Chapters on marriage and the family, dress, education, profit and wealth, debt,
politics in the age of Obama, and more.

58 pp. – Softcover – STK# 5310 – $3.95

Our Apostolic Mandate
Pope St. Pius X
Originally directed to the bishops of France, Notre Charge Apostolique ("Our Apostolic Mandate") confronts the Sillionist movement. The movement sought, amongst other things,
to unite the Catholic faithful with unbelievers in an attempt to institute reforms in French
politics and society. Though some of its goals were laudable in the light of Catholic social
teaching, Pope St. Pius X saw clear socialist leanings within the Sillon. Moreover, he warned
against the movement's liberal idea that political authority derives solely from the people
rather than God.

200 pp – Softcover – Afterword – Bibliography – Index – STK# 8623 – $14.95

Removing the Blindfold
Dr. John Rao
Dr. Rao explains the conundrum Catholics face in dealing with the current socio-political climate and traces the roots of this problem back to the French Revolution. Shows how many
modern Catholics have embraced some form of revolutionary thought without even being
aware of it.

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Spirituality

Secularism
by Mrs. Elizabeth Spencer

“While I was with them, I kept them in Thy
Name. Those whom Thou hast given Me have I
kept and none of them is lost” (Jn. 17:12). These
particular words of Christ strongly resonate
in a parental heart, demonstrating how He
understands and is the Author of that one,
keenly innate, and fundamental desire of every
good parent for his children: “I kept them in
Thy Name…not one of them was lost.” It is the
persevering act of “keeping” that poses one of the
greatest challenges that a Christian parent will
ever undertake, living in this age of the American
Babylon, as author Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has
referred to it. The keeping of our children in His
Name is unquestionably an art which involves
an alert rejection of the secularization of our
families and an embrace of virtue and of the
supernatural.

The Doctrine of Secularism
Fr. Raoul Plus (1882-1958), a prolific Jesuit
with sound insight into what he called the
“secularism of Christians,” has relevant words
for families today:
“We are not concerned here with refuting the
doctrine of secularism. Every Christian ought to
know the mind of the Church on this subject; we
need not go back to ancient documents, either, to
discover it. It is enough to recall the Encyclical
Summi Pontificatus issued by Pius XII in 1939
at the beginning of the Second World War.
The problem now is to determine which of the
unfortunate species of secularism has invaded
me, my home, my habits…Of course, there is no
question of a denial of God or of Christ. But what
place do they hold in my family life? In my
47

Spirituality
daily life, in my profession, in my participation
in civic affairs? Has it not often happened that in
choosing schools or colleges for their children,
so-called Christian parents often evidence a
utilitarian, materialistic spirit; they give lame
reasons for choosing the secular colleges instead
of a Catholic college—the teachers are better, the
chances for success after graduation are more
certain … are they so sure? And even though they
neglected nothing of the essential practices of
their religion, was it not primarily mere formality
rather than solid convictions?…There was a great
disparity between their external actions, their
attitudes and real prayer, the living knowledge of
the gift of God.”

48

The Angelus

November - December 2017

For those concerned with keeping the hearts of
their children amidst a secular morass, these are
welcome and thought-provoking words!
Many of us have had to overcome deficits
in our own upbringing, forging ahead with a
combination of grace, instinct, and study, to
create what we imagine to be Catholic climates
in our homes. Author and professor Jonathan
Rummelsburg relates his own experience:
“I grew up in a secular humanist home with
highly ‘educated’ parents who were very much
the product of the modern age when it came to
morality. My parents were good folks, and when
I would ask for advice about a particular moral
quandary, they would invariably tell me to ‘pick a

course of action and make it work.’” This “secular
morality” accidentally lined up in several ways
with Christian morality, thus making the two
hard to differentiate.
Though some might deem such an ethical
schema salutary from a Christian point of view,
I ascribe the moral decay of this country, in
part, to the prevalence of secular morality. I
would argue that each successive generation
degenerates in virtue where the effort to cultivate
explicitly Christian virtues is absent.”

Examining the Different
Generations
Scanning the six generations that are presently
living today, ranging from the “GI Generation”
born between 1901 and 1926 through the “Gen
Z” or the Millennial Generation born loosely
between the early 1980s through the mid 1990s,
it isn’t difficult to subscribe to Rummelsburg’s
common sense conclusion. One Pew Research
poll conducted in 2013 describes the following
landscape: 32% of Americans aged 18-29 identify
as “not religious,” compared to 20% aged 30-49,
15% aged 50-64 and 9% of people 65 and older.
The decline in moral fiber stares us in the face,
and statistics related to the practice of the Faith
aren’t necessary for those in the daily fray.
Evil is palpable, and Secularism with its vapid
indifference to the supernatural has enveloped
the daily life of even many a Catholic family.
The conflict between Church and State
which surfaced in Hitler’s Germany typifies
this attempt to promote a secular morality
which numbs the practice of virtue in families
and societies. The “Lion of Munster,” the great
Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, roared
against this phenomenon with stirring words
from the pulpit on August 3, 1941. The backdrop
for his sermon was the poignant Gospel passage
in which Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem.
After enumerating the ways in which all of the
Ten Commandments were regularly scorned in
his own city of Munster and Germany as a whole,
Von Galen continued with the lament of our Lord:
“‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have
gathered your children together, as a hen gathers

her chicks beneath her wings, but you willed it
not!’ That is the great pain that presses on the
Heart of Jesus, that brings forth tears from His
eyes. I wanted what was best for you. But you
would not!”
Von Galen proceeds to present this polarity
between willing the solution and not willing
the solutions for our families’ peace and
preservation:
“Christians of Munster! Did the Son of God in
His omniscience that day see only Jerusalem and
its people? Did He weep only over Jerusalem?
Is the people of Israel the only people whom
God has embraced, protected, and gathered to
Himself with a father’s care and a mother’s love?
And that would not?…My Christians! I hope there
is still time, but the time is urgent! Time for us to
recognize, today, on this very day, that which will
serve for our peace.”

Before Time Runs Out
We know what befell Jerusalem when time ran
out. Flavius Josephus records that when Rome
plundered the city in 70 AD, “there was nothing
left to make those that came thither believe it had
ever been inhabited.” Quite literally, “not a stone
upon a stone remained.” (Lk. 21:6) Their prophets
in the mold of Fr. Raoul Plus and Bishop Von
Galen had been scorned as madmen and thrown
in prison, while their families continued on with
a heart for this world and blindness over the hour
of their visitation.
When Christ comes once again in judgement,
we ask ourselves intently, “will He find faith on
earth?” (Lk. 18:8) and will He find virtue in the
haven of our families? What will He hear in the
songs we sing and what will be the adornments
of our home? What will fill both leisure time
and empty space, if either of these is left? Will
this “living knowledge of the gift of God” that
Fr. Plus refers to, have died long ago, having been
relegated to a dusty bookshelf, half filled with
quaint literature and forgotten spiritual classics?
Only time will answer these questions. But with
hope, good parents press on, knowing that the
victory has already been secured, and that theirs
is the calling to make it efficacious.
49

Spirituality

The Authority of the

Benedictine
Abbot
by a Benedictine Monk

One of the most precious gifts that St.
Benedict left to his monasteries is his notion of
authority. In his Rule, the monastery looks like
the extension of the Catholic family. His concept
of the abbot’s authority is that of paternity. It is
to be firmly and gently exercised over the monks
who are his spiritual sons. Several chapters of the
Rule deal with spiritual or material corrections
and, if necessary, punishments administered
to those monks who refuse to submit to the
common rule of the house. Monks, like children,
are not always good! They need a father to help
them grow and to embrace their responsibilities
manfully. They need encouragement and
occasionally strong corrections for having made
bad choices.
The art of being a good father is to know
how to apply the proper correction to each soul
50

The Angelus

November - December 2017

that God has confided to him. In his chapter
concerning the abbot, St. Benedict describes
the souls that are in need of their father’s
attention. Some are “obedient, meek and patient,
these he should exhort to advance in virtue.”
Others are “... negligent and rebellious, we warn
him to reprimand and punish them.” All must
receive his instruction, but not all are equally
disposed. St. Benedict teaches the father to
be balanced in his relationship with his sons:
“He must adapt himself to circumstances, now
using severity and now persuasion, displaying
the rigor of a master or the loving kindness of
a father.” ... “Let him realize also how difficult
and arduous a task he has undertaken, of ruling
souls and adapting himself to many dispositions.
One he must humor, another rebuke, another
persuade, according to each one’s disposition and

understanding, and thus adapt and accommodate
himself to all in such a way, that he may not only
suffer no loss in the sheep committed to him; but
may even rejoice in the increase of a good flock
(Ch. 2).”
The authority of the abbot, according to St.
Benedict, is to be used for the good of the subject
and not for his personal gain. He is actually the
servant of his sons following the example that
Our Lord gave His disciples at the Last Supper
when He washed their feet. The father has a strict
obligation to show his children the example of
how to live according to the will of God. “The
abbot himself, however, should do all things
in the fear of God and observance of the Rule,
knowing that he will certainly have to render an
account of all his judgments to God, the most just
Judge (Ch. 3).”
In his chapter on ‘The appointment of the
Abbot’ St. Benedict shows some of the most
necessary qualities that the authority must
possess in order to be able to govern his subjects.
“Let him always set mercy above judgment, so
that he himself may obtain mercy. Let him hate
ill doing but love the brethren. In administering
correction let him act with prudent moderation,
lest being too zealous in removing the rust he
break the vessel. Let him always distrust his own
frailty and remember that the bruised reed is
not to be broken. By this we do not mean that he
should allow evils to grow, but that…he should
eradicate them prudently and with charity, in
the way that may seem best in each case. And
let him study rather to be loved than feared. Let
him not be turbulent or anxious, overbearing or
obstinate, jealous or too suspicious for otherwise
he will never be at rest.”
Modern man has essentially rejected God
and thus rejected the order established by
God. Today’s education develops individuality.
Slogans such as “be all you can be” and “develop
your self-potentiality” have replaced a spirit
of self-sacrifice for the beloved. Modern man
is taught that happiness is sensuality without
the responsibility of fatherhood. If a child is
conceived, the parents are permitted legally
to abort the child. They are taught that their
personal wellbeing is more important than
the family therefore divorce can sometimes be

necessary. To abandon the child to be raised by
a single parent is to reject one’s responsibility to
exercise paternal authority. The order established
by God has been reversed. Man seeks and loves
himself and rejects anything that may disturb his
self-love. Outside of God’s plan for authority, man
can find no peace.
The crisis of authority is most easily seen in

the father of the family, although it is not limited
to the material family, but extends to the spiritual
family as well. The paternity of the priest is also
severely attacked. Unfortunately it is the priest
himself that can be his worst enemy. He often
refuses to exercise his authority as a priest for
fear of offending his faithful. He is tempted to
listen to them, in order to say what they want to
hear rather than to preach the truth concerning
faith and morals.
The solution to this crisis is the same today
as in the time of St. Benedict. Those in authority
must love their subjects as a father loves his son.
They must eliminate the rust without breaking
vessel. The father of a family must make time to
be with his children and correct them through
charity. The priest in his parish must love his
faithful and correct them without destroying
them. Pray for priests and fathers of families. It is
through their authority that God transforms souls.
51

Spirituality

Misacantano
A Poem

by José de Valdivielso

José de Valdivielso (1560-1638) was a priest
who served as Mozarabic chaplain of the
Primatial Cathedral of Spain during most of
his life. The Mozarabs were Catholic Iberians
who maintained their culture, orthodoxy, and
the original Iberian liturgy of St. James that
was distinctly indebted to the See of Jerusalem,
who were forced to live under Arabic dominion
after the latter’s invasion in 711 A.D. until the
peninsula was finally reconquered over a period
of several centuries.
Valdivielso was very popular as a writer
and befriended many illustrious contemporary
artists, poets, and playwrights of the Spanish
Golden Age after the Council of Trent, such as el
Greco, Lope de Vega, Miguel de Cervantes, and
Luis de Gongora.
The following poem, that he entitled
52

The Angelus

November - December 2017

“Romance a Cristo Nuestro Señor, misacantano,”
is densely theological. His Castilian metered
verses cannot be literally translated into another
language without losing the rich connotations of
his words. Even the term “misacantano,” when
put into English, requires several words since
it designates a priest intoning his first Mass,
although in this poem it also refers to our Lord
musing as a new born infant about Himself
intoning the Mass that is one with His life as Man.
Along with profound allusions to dogmas, here
and there Valdivielso even makes indirect
references to his beloved, magnificent, ancient
primatial Cathedral in Toledo.
A remarkable example of the Catholic Baroque
imagination, the narrative describes to faithful,
both hearers and readers, the eternal intention of
the Second Person of the Trinity, now incarnate

as a new born Infant, to bring about the Salvation
of mankind and creation as He begins His
earthly journey towards His Passion, Death, and
Resurrection.
In truth, Valdivielso forged a marvelous
monstrance in verse so that faithful might
contemplate ever anew, throughout future
generations, the magnificent mystery of
Christmas.
This splendid poetic jewel from the Spanish
Golden Age, previously only available in

manuscripts, along with similar creations
dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament throughout
the centuries that were composed by other
authors in the great Primatial Diocesan See
of Toledo, Spain, are available again in the
valuable book authored by Dr. Elizabeth
Wilhelmsen, Cantores del Corpus Christi:
Antología de Poesía Lírica Toledana (New
York/Bern: Peter Lang, 1996).

Ballad to Christ Our Lord, the Eternal Priest’s First Mass-Singing
He wished that He ordain Himself for Mass
that divine Master,
Who in the schools of Infinite and Almighty God
apprehended all through Himself.

His Father wishes that he may go forth
to sing Mass to all His peoples,
for this have venerable elders
long and greatly desired.

The Holy Eternal Father ordained Him
to be Eternal Priest,
anointing Him with Chrism
of the Eternal Divine Paraclete.

And before He might intone it,
a servant was first sent
to see if in Holy Mary
they might give Him ornaments,
because it is this Holy Church
that is greatest above all things of earth,
wherein there is the precious Tabernacle,
in which would reside the supreme good that
excels all the world.

He granted unto Him fullness of power
on Earth and Heaven,
that He might administer
all seven Sacraments.

53

Spirituality
And they responded with gracious generosity
to said Messenger
Who then came to serve her,
for He is the Lord of all.

Raising on high the Host,
those revering struck their breasts with blows,
some as with stones
and others with small bells.

At the instant He descended
He was adorned with the ornaments most sacred
by the Eternal Three Persons of Heaven.

The Chalice was filled
with affliction immeasurable and Passion most
bitter,
while Mementos with profound devotion
were whispered for living and dead.

And He came forth from the sacristy,
yet without breaking the seal,
for He left it as intact
as it had been before He entered.
The royal chapel then,
with sonorous instruments began,
with sweet verses the Introit within the world.
Shepherds and Kings spoke to Him their
profession
confessing Him to be truly God,
though they saw Him to be equally Man.
On the altar of the crib
between two deacons placed,
were Mary and Joseph,
and the Gloria was chanted by Heaven.
He bespoke the Dominus vobiscum
after the Dominus tecum,
and with His eyes gazing Heavenward
He did say the prayer in the garden.
Saints Paul and John chanted
the Epistle and Gospel,
and all the Holy Apostles,
in tongues varied,
the Creed.
He then made the Offertory,
offering Himself,
His Blood verily to be drunk
and His Flesh consumed.
The Sanctus of that Mass
by nine angelic choirs was sung,
and the Benedictus
by pure voices of the folk.
54

The Angelus

November - December 2017

After He did say the Pater noster,
then a thief, adveniat regnum;
and John intoned Agnus Dei,
for to him it had first been taught.
Peace there was, except for Judas,
who, as dispenser of evil,
would betray that Sacrament Most Blessed
for thirty pieces of silver.
Yet He didst consume our sins
even unto death,
for in bespeaking Ite missa est,
He foretold consumatum est.
And extending His blessing
over all earth and heavens,
there came forth innumerable thanksgivings
for this first Mass-Singing.
It was truly the Mass of Salvation,
healing all the infirm,
even those in the sick-bed of Limbo
who arose now healthy and well.
And beholding His Venerable Mother,
font of His luminous deeds,
He voiced His tender affection
within her unending loving embrace.
And as there are so many invited,
may all who wish to partake with them
be granted this Holy Sustenance
with His Eternal Father forever in His Everlasting
Kingdom.
[translated by Dr. Michael Berton]

706 pp. – Flexible imitation leather cover with gold foil stamping and rounded corners – Sewn binding – 2 Ribbons – STK# 8680 – $39.95

A Young Catholic’s Daily Missal

The Young Catholic’s Daily Missal is designed to open up the spiritual treasures of the Mass for young Catholics
from the time of their First Communion up through their preteen years. This missal conforms to the rubrics and
norms of the 1962 Missale Romanum and includes the full Ordinary of the Mass in Latin and English; the Masses
for Sundays and Holydays in English with paraphrases of the Propers. For all the other days of the year there are
explanations, printed in smaller type, of the Introit, Epistle and Gospel. These, along with the Common of Saints,
make this missal ideal for daily use. Finally, this missal contains morning and evening prayers; instructions on the
meaning of the Mass; and an array of traditional devotions. Illustrated throughout.

42

ORDINARY OF THE MASS

INTROIT

43

280

PROPeR OF The SeASON

FIRST SUNDAy OF LeNT

281

LITANy OF The hOLy NAMe

must love your enemies and pray for those who do
you harm. Only then will you be the children of God;
for you will do as God does. You know that God does
good even to sinners. God makes His sun shine upon
the good and the bad. Be good like the good God.

SATURDAY AFTER ASH WEDNESDAY

INTROIT

THE PRIEST KISSES THE ALTAR

M

y God, the Priest walks up the steps
to the altar, and kisses it with respect.
I cannot do that; but yet I should like to
assist him. So while he prays aloud and
in Latin, I will say the very same thing to
myself in English. My God, Thou hast pardoned the Priest his sins; pardon me mine,
because I am sorry that I ever did them.
I know that I do not deserve Thy pardon; for I always begin again to offend
Thee. Do not think of me, but of the
Saints whose relics are inside the altar,
and of all the Saints in glory. For their
sakes pardon me all my sins.

Read this lntroit, if you have not one marked in your little
missal. It belongs to the feast of the Sacred Heart.

T

he divine Heart of Jesus loves us; He

has delivered us from the sin that kills
the souls, and He gives us His graces.
You must not think any more of yourself: think of Him Who is about to come
as a victim on the altar.
If you wish God to be very much
pleased with you, promise Him that you
will do everything as well as you can; so
that when He comes you may be able to
say to Him: My God, I intend to work for
Thee, in order to please Thee. Whatever I
do will be done for Thee. My Jesus, I give
Thee this day.

I NTROIT. God has heard Me and has had pity on
Me, says Jesus, upon the cross. With Jesus let us say:
I thank Thee, O God, because Thou hast delivered
me from my enemies.
COLLeCT. O God, hear our prayer, and help us
to keep all the days of fasting well, by making many
sacrifices, to cure our soul made sick by sin.
ePISTLe. If you are good to your neighbor, if you
are charitable, says Isaias, God will reward you. He
brought Jesus back to life after He was dead, and
placed Him in heaven; He will give life to your soul,
and give you heaven, if you do all you should to honor God, specially on Sundays.
Tract of Ash Wednesday, p. 277.

G OSPeL . It was dark at night; the Apostles were
in a boat upon the lake, and had great difficulty in
rowing, for the wind was high. Jesus came to them,
walking upon the water, when it was broad daylight. The Apostles thought they saw a ghost and
were afraid. He stepped into the boat and the wind
dropped. When they came ashore, people brought
the sick to Him and He healed them. Always have
confidence in Jesus, and He will always help you.

FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT
I N the city of Rome the Mass is said today in the
church of Saint John Lateran. The patrons of this
church are Jesus the Savior and Saint John the Baptist. Jesus, who was baptized by Saint John saves us

through baptism. And Lent is to prepare those who
are not yet Christians for the sacrament of baptism
after the font is blessed on Holy Saturday; and also
Christians for their confession, through which Jesus
saves souls that have fallen into great sins after their
baptism.

I NTROIT. With Jesus in the desert we
pray to God, for He has promised to help
us if we say our prayers well.
PRAyeRS. O God, every year we begin
the holy season of Lent on this day as the
Church wishes us to do. Grant that we
may be really good, and make our little
sacrifices generously.
ePISTLe. Saint Paul repeats what the
prophet Isaias said: Now is the right time
to do penance; do not let the chance slip
away. Now is the right time to correct our

VARIOUS DEVOTIONS
DEVOTIONS TO OUR LORD
Litany of the Holy Name

L ORD, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.
Jesus, hear us.
Jesus, graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on
us.
God, the Son, Redeemer of the world,
God the Holy Ghost,
Holy Trinity, one God,
Jesus, Son of the living God,

663

Jesus, splendor of the Father, have mercy
on us.
Jesus, brightness of eternal light,
Jesus, King of glory,
Jesus, sun of justice,
Jesus, Son of the Virgin Mary,
Jesus, most lovable,
Jesus, most admirable,
Jesus, mighty God,
Jesus, Father of the world to come,
Jesus, Angel of great counsel,
Jesus, most powerful,
Jesus, most patient,
Jesus, most obedient,
Jesus, meek and humble of heart,
Jesus, lover of chastity,
Jesus, lover of us,
Jesus, God of peace,
Jesus, author of life,
Jesus, example of virtues,
Jesus, zealous lover of souls,
Jesus, our God,
Jesus, our refuge,
Jesus, Father of the poor,
Jesus, treasure of the faithful,
Jesus, Good Shepherd,
Jesus, true light,
Jesus, eternal wisdom,
Jesus, infinite goodness,
Jesus, our way and our life,

662

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Saint Andrew was born according
to the Christian tradition in 6 B.C
in Galilee. The New Testament
states that Andrew was the brother
of Simon Peter. He was born in the
village of Bethsaida on the Sea of
Galilee. Both he and his brother
Peter were fishermen by trade, hence
the tradition that Jesus called them
to be his disciples by saying that he
will make them "fishers of men”.
Saint Andrew the apostle surrounded by dolphins, in
the byzantine basilica of St Vitalis, Ravenna, Italy.

Christian Culture

St. Andrew
In Art
by Dr. Marie-France Hilgar

St. Andrew, son of John or Jonah, was born
in Bethsaida, Galilee, three years B. C. He was
at first a follower of St. John the Baptist, who
told him to follow Christ, and was the brother of
Peter. It is said that he is the one who introduced
Peter to Our Lord. Both brothers were fishermen.
Jesus told them they were going to become
fishers of men. According to the Gospel of John,
it was Andrew who told Christ about the boy with
the fishes and loaves. Andrew was one of the
four disciples who was on the Mount of Olives.
After the Ascension, he preached in Scythia,
went as far as Kiev and Novgorod, is said to have
founded the See of Byzantium. He is usually
shown carrying a cross X shaped, on which he
was crucified in Patras, not nailed but tied to the
cross, agonizing for two days. Until his death, on
November 30, 60 A D, he continued to preach. He
58

The Angelus

November - December 2017

is the patron Saint of several counties and cities.
Some of his relics were sent to the town of St.
Andrews in Scotland whose flag represents his
cross which is also found on the Coat of Arms
of the King of Spain, as well as on the flags of
Alabama and Florida!

Historic Representations in Art
The oldest representations of Saint Andrew
are found in 6th Century mosaics in a basilica
in Croatia and in Ravenna, Italy. It is one of the
earliest images of Saint Andrew with the wild
hair that became a frequent characteristic of
his portraits. A 12th Century representation is
found in the Palatine Chapel in Palermo, the royal
chapel of the Norman kings in Sicily. The artist

has tamed most of the saint’s typical wild hair but
left a few errant tufts to identify him. A mosaic
dating from 1220 is found in the Basilica of Saint
Paul outside the walls in Rome. Simone Martini,
an Italian artist, also represented St. Andrew.
Back to Sicily and the 12-13th centuries,
St. Andrew is present in the Cathedral of the
Assumption. A stone relief dated 1329 shows the
saint in the church of St. Andrea della Zirada.
Jesus is shown taking the two apostles out of
their boat. In 1420-1430 a beautiful altarpiece was
created with Saint Andrew at its center. It was
first in Catalunya and is now in the Cloisters in
New York. Dating from 1426 and now in the Getty
Museum is the painting done by the artist of the
Renaissance, the Italian Masaccio. It is worth
taking some time describing it. It is tempera
and gold leaf on a panel. St. Andrew is depicted
from the waist up and he is portrayed holding a
traditional cross and a book; he is wrapped in
a large green mantle modeled by large fields of
color lighted up wisely. The face is bearded, the
gaze is steady and looking in the distance. Some
details, like the perspective of the cross and the
saint’s solid posture suggest the artist’s intention
to optimize these shapes for a view from below.
Masaccio’s treatment of flesh and drapes has a
vigorous and sculptured approach with varying
colors, thick and sharp folds making the robe
vaporous and heavy. Andrew’s fingers are solid
and square. One form of art which was very much
appreciated during the Middle Ages and before
the printing press was that of enluminures. Jean
Fouquet is well known for his “heures.” In those
of Etienne Chevalier is found a representation of
St. Andrew.
Isenbrant is a Flemish artist from Bruges,
Belgium, ca. 1500-1551, who, on his canvas,
represents in the forefront, St. Michael, St.
Andrew and St. Francis of Assisi while the
crucifixion with two women is in the background.
Around 1519-1521, Holbein the Younger designed a
stained-glass window of St. Andrew with all four
of the saint’s attributes: wild hair, long beard, the
cross saltire and the book. 1514, the saint is found
in Venice, in the church of Saint Stephano. Also
in Venice, but in the church of St. John, we find
our saint in the nave and again in Venice we find
him in the Morosini Chapel of the church of Saint

George the Major. That painting is by Tintoretto.
14-foot marble statues of the twelve apostles
were made for the church of Saint John Lateran
in Rome in 1708-1709.
Of course, St. Andrew is represented in many
other churches, would it be only in Paris, in the
8th arrondissement. They are not included in the
“artistic” renderings of the saint, as he depictions
have been judged as too young and not “artistic”
enough.

The Crucifixion of st. Andrew the apostle in church Basilica di
Sant Andrea della Valle by Mattia Preti (1613 - 1699)

59

Christian Culture

Pious
Mugging:
Legitimate Authority, Arbitrary Power, and Protestantism

by Dr. John Rao

Legitimate authority is a rational and good thing, beneficial both for the maintenance of temporal
societies as well as for the flourishing and even the sanctification of all their individual members. The
power wielded by a mugger over his victims is quite a different matter: egotistical, irrational, arbitrary,
and devastating to the dignity of every human person, the criminal included. Traditional Catholic
Christendom, using both supernatural and natural tools, taught the meaning of legitimate authority very
clearly and promoted its proper use at all levels of social organization. Dominant modern naturalism,
in contrast, teaches and promotes the art of an anti-social and anti-individual mugging as the height of
human progress.

Targeting Legitimate Authority
If the men and women of the ascendant
Christian society of the past had been told of the
victim fate that was in store for them should they
swallow the full message of modernity they might
well have instantly spat it out of their mouths
like a piece of tainted meat. Alas, many of them
60

The Angelus

November - December 2017

gorged on this poison instead. They were tempted
to do so because of the sugar coating applied to
it in the early stages of its confection by Martin
Luther and his progeny. For Luther and Company
made the path to becoming mugging victims seem
downright lovely, by associating it with their
understanding of a true Christian piety; one that
was said to be rejected by the wicked Papists. In

short, he and his Protestant followers promoted
a social vision sanctioning a “pious mugging,”
with legitimate authority in a Catholic Christian
sense as its first intellectual target, and with each
and every society, along with all of its individual
members, as its ultimate day-to-day victims.
This is not the place for a full discussion of the
Catholic understanding of legitimate authority,
which was itself heavily influenced by prior
rational Greek influences. Suffice it to say for the
moment—and this with reference not just to preReformation thought but also to the insights of
nineteenth and twentieth century writings dealing
with the question in the aftermath of Luther, the
Enlightenment, and the French Revolution—that
Catholics understood legitimate authority to be
valuable for two complementary reasons. On the
one hand, the ravages of sin indicated to them the
individual’s “negative” need for social guidance
and correction to fend off the evils he inflicted
upon himself and his fellow man. On the other,
the reality of a Redemption that was offered to
men only through their incorporation into Christ’s
Mystical Body demonstrated to Catholic thinkers
the individual’s “positive” dependency upon social
authority for his personal perfection and eternal
wellbeing. If there were no submission to Christ
and His Mystical Body there would be no passage
to becoming sons of God. And if there were no
submission to the complex mesh of temporal
social institutions capable of imitation of the
example of Christ and His Mystical Body, there
would be no recognition that the Incarnation
confirmed the crucial importance of all things
natural, and the role that the authorities of
the entire “society of societies” constituting
Christendom, from family to state, was meant to
play in teaching men their duties and leading them
to heaven.

Christianity Under Attack
From the Start
A Catholic understanding of the value of all of
nature—society and social authority included—
had its enemies from the first moments of Church
History. These became ever more vocal as the
full meaning of a complex Christian society came

into focus, along with all of the mistakes, sins,
and hypocritical actions of Church leaders and
believers claiming to promote it. And yet despite
such deep roots, it was only when “all those
anti-intellectualist, anti-institutional forces that
had plagued and hindered the medieval Church
for centuries” were “institutionalized in the new
reformed Christian Church” that they truly were to
begin to “have their fling” (P. Hughes, A History of
the Church, Sheed & Ward, 1949, III, 529).
There are two major reasons explaining
this long gestation, the first of which was the
fact that the original anti-incarnational attack
was a Manichean one, based upon an outright
condemnation of a material Creation whose
goodness was confirmed by God through the
Incarnation and Redemption. This assault was too
shockingly direct to get a serious grip on Catholic
spirits. It went straight for the jugular, in a way
that St. Francis of Assisi, with his popularization
of such practices as that of the construction of a
Christmas crèche—something the anti-materialist
Manicheans with their loathing of the body were
bound to despise—was able to defuse.

Luther’s Approach
What Luther did was to present the principle of
the wickedness of life as the product of Original
Sin, thereby placing the responsibility for the total
depravity of the world squarely on the shoulders
of men rather than the Christian God. Man had
to be humiliated so that God could be exalted. It
was this much less radical, much more “pious”
sounding, God-friendly and sinful-man-flaying
argument that guaranteed him a hearing from late
medieval believers overwhelmed by the seemingly
incurable evils around them but still convinced
that Creation was the product of a supremely good
Trinity.
Luther’s “pious” incarnation of what was
actually a deadly, anti-Christian vision of the
total depravity of the man-corrupted natural
world could not help but undermine the validity
of temporal social institutions of all kinds. After
all, the human authorities guiding them would
logically have to be considered subject to the same
hopeless corruption as men engaged in other
61

Christian Culture
endeavors from the very outset of their activity.
And yet this supposed exaltation of God and
humbling of human pretensions was to prove to be
the key to unleashing that truly sinful, irrational,
individual willfulness, long festering in the
bowels of the medieval western world alongside
the attack on the Incarnation, and ensuring the
modern replacement of legitimate authority with
the arbitrary power of the mugger.
The second reason for the long gestation was
the fact that Luther simply happened to be the
right man in the right place at the right time. In
fact, the broad strokes of what was to happen
were already crystal clear in the thought of some
of the fourteenth century precursors of Luther
and his progeny, from whom much of their “pious
mugging” ideas and practices was taken. The
precursors in question were Marsilius of Padua (c.
1275-c.1342), the Nominalist philosopher William
of Ockham (c. 1287-1347), and the mystical and
millennial-minded group of Franciscans called the
Spirituals, all of them embittered by the worldly
actions of a wicked Papacy abusing Christendom
in the name of transformation in Christ.
Their alliance appeared to encourage a deeply
pious concern for the majesty and rights of a
God whose clear and simple will, supposedly
grasped quite easily by the apostolic church,
had been obscured by a naturalist perversion of
things spiritual, manifested in rationalist, legalist,
and theological and philosophical speculation,
manipulated by impious popes and their arrogant,
earth-focused minions. Moreover, it coupled
this concern for a return to spiritual purity by a
call for intercession on behalf of God’s thwarted
will through the work of the pious Holy Roman
Emperor; the man that Marsilius’s most famous
book labeled The Defender of the Peace.

The Exaltation of the Will
Unfortunately for the cause of Truth, the
alliance in question eliminated from the
intellectual baggage of the supposedly pious
Emperor everything from speculative theology,
philosophy, and basic logic that could identify the
divine will in a manner that might require some
change of the human will of the “defender of the
62

The Angelus

November - December 2017

peace”, or even merely distinguish the former from
the latter. The will of God thus clearly became
whatever its earthly agent decreed that it was,
with no consideration of the broader judgments
of Faith and Reason regarding the divine plan
recorded through the ages.
Just to make matters more complicated for the
inevitably more pious world to come, an imperial
will that for all practical purposes had become
indistinguishable from the will of God was then
said to be dependent upon still other willful
earthly forces. The appeal to the pious imperial
will was itself justified with reference to an
underlying grant of imperial authority emerging
from “the Roman People”. Furthermore, this
“People” was then shown to be “formed” to provide
the desired imperial authorization through the
work of the Emperor’s intellectual and mystical
advisors; men who, however, were equally stripped
of theological, philosophical, and logical blocks
to the equation of their arbitrary judgment with
“God’s” clear and simple will.
Nominalists like Ockham and politicos like
Marsilius saw themselves as “no nonsense” men,
and this made them contemptuous of authorities
lacking demonstrable physical power. Given such
circumstances, it seems that identification of
the “clear and simple will of God” inevitably had
to fall into the hands of whatever earthly power
happened to be the momentarily strongest. The
intellectual and mystical forces opposed to the
arrogant, naturalist, speculative Catholic vision
would ally themselves with this “strongest force”
and then justify its tyranny, “forming” the “People”
to understand that its victimization was actually
just what they always wanted and that they must
happily accept it.
Such an argument meant that insofar as
concern for some sort of overriding Christian
order remained vivid in believers’ minds—and
it did—the possessor of pure physical power,
however parochial his willful desires might
actually be, nevertheless still had to be justified
by the more intellectual and spiritual members
of a Triple Irrational Alliance as a God-friendly
“Defender of the Peace.” In short, in a world still
touched by aspects of the Christian message, the
intellectual word merchant, the mystic, and the
thug ultimately needed one another to go about

their willful work, so as to rationalize an irrational
victory. But the results might not be exactly what
any of the parties to the arrangement fully wanted,
and they might, in consequence, constantly be
on the lookout for a better deal with changed
partners.

Three Ways to Undermine
the Incarnation
It was this supposedly pious union of the
intellectual word merchant, the mystic, and the
thug—whose victory historical circumstances had
rendered hopeless in the fourteenth century—that
was effectively incarnated through the Protestant
Reformation. That incarnation was effected in
three steps. First of all, Luther’s God-exalting,

man-humbling, anti-rational, and ultimately antiincarnational Nominalist philosophical training
was transformed by his conversion to the use of
Humanist methodology. It was then transmitted to
the world in a rhetorically charged and vulgarized
form, exuding conviction of its godly, apostolic
teaching regarding the total depravity of sinful
humanity. Secondly, Luther’s anti-incarnational
position not only met with opposition from the
Roman Church, but also immediately unleashed a
tidal wave of totally logical deductions concerning
the wickedness of man and nature that he
personally considered stark raving mad. This
led him to wish to impose his individual, quite
illogical and rather conservative will on the logic
of the revolutionary movement he had generated,
and simultaneously to reject both the Catholic
position as well as the radical interpretation of
63

Christian Culture
his principles by his opponents.
Finally, stymying the “Papists” and the
“enthusiasts”—as he called the wild men—while
protecting his own “limited” but always potentially
explosive radicalism (i.e., his “conservatism”)
required the help of practical physical force. The
current emperor, Charles V—Marsilius’s favored
“Defender of the Peace”—was of no value in this
regard. He had made his anti-Lutheran Catholic
convictions all too clear. On the other hand, many
German princes, terrified by the unusually great
strength of the contemporary Empire, and on the
hunt for some justification for opposing it, were
more than pleased to become what Luther called
“necessity bishops” and to take the steps required
to construct a new and more pious Christian
world. These involved crushing the wicked Roman
Church with its incarnational vision, appropriating
the lands of the Whore of Babylon to build up their
own anti-imperial power in the process, and also
happily eliminating the various radicals that the
more conservative reformer detested.

Pushing the Boundaries
Beyond Luther
But the German princes were also ready to
call halt to any of Luther’s projects that did not fit
with their own now liberated, parochial, political
willfulness. They became his “Defenders of the
Peace” in the common project of enforcing God’s
“clear and simple will,” by tugging him down
directions he did not necessarily wish to go, and
with the international imperial authority that
the “conservative” Luther actually still somehow
respected rendered more and more impotent and
unable to control them in the process.
Moreover, while bitterly upset by various
princes’ manipulation of his message to suit their
own parochial material purposes, Luther’s own
teaching demonstrated that his bile was, once
again, ultimately illogical in character. For he
himself had logically deduced that the totally
depraved natural world had to be controlled
by the arbitrary will of the state authorities to
prevent what he personally deemed to be an
unacceptable anarchy. And, despite his eagerness
to unleash these princes to call a halt to religious
64

The Angelus

November - December 2017

developments he disliked, he nevertheless
continued firmly to maintain the basic antiincarnational principle that allowed the radicals
to drive home their more logical commitment to
its full implications. This guaranteed the survival
of radical insistence on the total depravity of the
very state power that was being used against
them. It guaranteed their continued hunt for
protection of their “pious” cause from different
thugs whose power they would, in turn, be unable
logically to defend when still more logical and
more radical forces “piously” opposed to their will
condemned them. And the unfolding of the social
consequences of the anti-incarnational principle
of total depravity would then continue---as we
know that it has continued---until all the legitimate
authorities of all legitimate societies open to
correction and transformation in Christ were
assaulted, with a myriad of different thugs, backed
by their intellectual and mystical propagandists,
all convinced of their “piety” (or its equivalent
naturalist virtue), emerging to replace them.
Philip Hughes, in the same passage briefly
cited above illustrating the effects of Luther’s
incarnation of the anti-incarnational principle long
gestating in medieval Christendom, accurately
notes what it is upon which our modern naturalist
world is firmly constructed: “Enthronement of
the will as the supreme human faculty; hostility
to the activity of the intelligence in spiritual
matters and in doctrine; denial of the truth that
Christianity, like man, is a social thing; all the
crude, backwoods, obscurantist theories bred
of the degrading pride that comes with chosen
ignorance, the pride of men ignorant because
unable to be wise except through the wisdom of
others….”
And it is this construction that makes it obvious
that when Christ is not King of the Universe,
with His earthly reign guided through legitimate
societies ruled over by legitimate authorities
ranging from the Church through the State and
down to the family, that His throne is usurped by
muggers and whatever time serving intellectuals
and mystics willing to work in union with them to
do the necessary work of praising the “piety” of
their man-destroying tyranny.
Martin Luther: thanks, but no thanks.

by Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara, SSPX

Is it sinful to smoke marijuana?
Almost everyone agrees that it is not morally
permissible to use drugs such as cocaine, heroin,
crack, ecstasy, etc., due to their damaging effects
on body and mind. But there is today a growing
lack of agreement on the morality of marijuana
use – even among us, from easy permissiveness
to unbearable rigor.
Matters are not helped by the fact that much
of the research that is easily available appears
to focus on neurobiological effects (i.e. brain

chemistry) of marijuana abuse, rather than on
its implications for personal morality and the
social common good. The results of such focused
research are necessarily partial and misleading.
For example, if considered solely under the
aspect of physical damage and addiction,
tobacco appears as a more dangerous drug
than marijuana – an assessment that must be
corrected when we consider their consequences
for the moral life of the subject. Such results also
favor the present trend towards the legalization
of use, possession and trade of marijuana –
65

Christian Culture
increasing confusion, for in the minds of many
“legality” is equal to “moral goodness.”
What is marijuana? What are its effects?

Marijuana (cannabis sativa) has an active
chemical, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol),
which affects the nerve cells in the brain, and
requires a longer elimination time, in comparison
with other drugs. Its effects are variable, due to
different circumstances, for example: the variable
concentrations of THC found in cannabis;
whether it is taken together with alcohol or other
drugs (illegal, prescription, over-the-counter);
how much is used, how often, for how long; preexisting medical or psychiatric conditions, etc.
In the short term, it increases the heart rate
and relaxes the muscles, but, more importantly,
it affects areas of the brain associated with
movement control and coordination; at
high doses, it may lead to loss of voluntary
coordination of movement. It has also
psychoactive effects, producing a feeling of
well-being, relaxation, while also distorting the
perception of time and space and affecting areas
of the brain associated with learning, memory
and the higher cognitive functions, and with
emotional responses and fears.
In the long term, its use may lead to
irreversible cognitive impairment in adolescents,
an increased risk of depression, and may lead to
addiction.
Its effects may last for about 3-4 hours,
depending on how much is taken, but as THC
is stored in fat cells (as the brain cells), it is
expelled from the body over a period of days or
weeks, depending on the frequency of use and
amount used.
A general moral principle.

Man does not have absolute dominion over his
body and faculties, but stewardship, their use and
administration according to the design of God,
that is, in a manner convenient to the attainment
of the end for which he has been created. It is
commonly understood, though, that the steward
of any property has the power to manage it,
by performing the actions that are necessary
for preserving that property in existence, and
for its well-being. In fact, it is the intention and
66

The Angelus

November - December 2017

expectation of the rightful owner – God! – that he
will do so.
The only limits to this power of disposal are
established by the natural finality of the faculties
and forces of his human nature: “In forming man,
God regulated each of his functions, assigning
them to the various organs….At the same time,
God fixed, prescribed and limited the use of
each organ. He cannot therefore allow man
now to arrange his life and the functions of
his organs according to his own taste, and in a
manner contrary to the intrinsic and immanent
function assigned to them” (Pius XII). Any risk
for life and health may be undertaken only with
a proportionately grave motive, for the better
preservation and administration of the whole.
Therefore, marijuana use is a sin.

Marijuana, as other psychoactive drugs,
damages physical health and impairs the normal
use of the higher faculties of the rational soul.
The proof of this proposition is to be found in the
description of the physiological and psychotropic
effects of marijuana listed above.
This being the case, marijuana abuse – i.e.
its use without a proportionately grave motive
– both negates the absolute dominion of God
over our whole being, and violates our duties of
stewardship over the body and faculties received
from God. The only “proportionately grave
motive” is its use for the therapeutic effects,
under the guidance of a physician.
The marijuana user, by consuming a drug
with such effects on health and behavior,
violates the natural finality of his faculties and
forces. The intention of the user is to induce a
state of euphoria, to get “high”, i.e. to alter his
consciousness – thus impairing his ability to
make choices that are rational, virtuous and
free – which, in turn, are necessary to attain the
end for which he has been created. Scripture,
in talking about drunkenness (Eph 5:18, Rom
13:13, Lk 21), strongly condemns such voluntary
diminution of one’s ability to act reasonably,
simply for the sake of the pleasure to be had.
Users may object that their intention is simply
to attain a pleasurable relaxation, not to alter his
consciousness or impair his rationality, and that,
if marijuana is used with moderation, its effects

would not be different or less acceptable than
having a beer. The answer is that, whatever the
good intentions of the user might be, it cannot
be used moderately, as it directly and lastingly
affects the control of rational functions. In fact, if
the aim is to relax, a beer would be less damaging
and dangerous than smoking a “joint”…
In consequence, marijuana use is a grave
sin, but accidentally—if there is question of
an episodic, transitory use of a small quantity,
causing only minimal effects for self and others—
it could constitute only a venial sin. Please note
that it is not the other way round: marijuana
use is not a minor fault that accidentally could
become mortal because of the damages inflicted.
It is a grave fault because the precept violated
implies a grave obligation.
Now, although in the abstract we admit
the possibility of its use being a venial sin,
in the concrete, however, it is not always so,
for different reasons. There is usually certain
frequency or regularity in the use of the drug,
which thus potentiates its effects. Frequently, the
available marijuana is of far higher grade, and
frequently also mixed with other drugs, of which
the user is unaware, thus rendering the damaging
effects greater and somehow unforeseeable.
Moreover, the circumstances may add to the
malice of the action: breaking the law (as
marijuana is still illegal in most places), its use
together with other drugs (especially alcohol), the
access and exposure to more gravely damaging
drugs, the scandal given or the distress caused
to family and friends, etc. Finally, as it has been
said above, the effects may vary according to the
persons and even from one drug intake to the
other, thus making difficult to foresee the damage
that its use in the present case may cause.

Should we receive
communion frequently?
Yes! It was the practice in the Church since
the earliest times and, after many historical
vicissitudes, it has been officially restored and
recommended by St. Pius X.
In the early Church and in the patristic period,
the faithful were expected to communicate as
often as the Mass was celebrated, but it was not
imposed as an obligation. Gradually, the custom
weakened and in the Middle Ages (paradoxically
the “ages of Faith”), communion was less
frequent than in any other period in the Church’s
history, so much so that even Saints received it
rarely. Consequently, the Fourth Lateran Council
(1213) imposed the obligation of receiving
communion at least once a year. For their part,
the theologians consistently insisted on frequent,
even daily communion (Summa Theologica,
III, q. 80, a. 10), and various reformers, intent
on spiritually revitalizing the Church, as St.
Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer,
advocated the return to frequent communion.
After the Council of Trent and the indefatigable
work of St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Philip
Neri, the practice was revived, but always
understanding it as requiring regular confession
and serious preparation. Alas! the practice soon
was opposed by the Jansenist heresy which,
considering the Eucharist as a reward for the
spiritual perfection attained by the communicant,
rather than as the nourishment for our spiritual
growth, demanded a previous, severe penance for
past sins and an almost unattainable pure love of
God for worthily receiving communion.
One of the early Fathers, St. John Cassian,
had denounced such attitude already in the
5th century: “We must not avoid communion
because we deem ourselves to be sinful. We
must approach it more often for the healing of
the soul and the purification of the spirit, but
with such humility and faith that considering
ourselves unworthy we would desire even more
the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is
impossible to receive communion once a year, as
certain people do considering the sanctification
of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints.
It is better to think that by giving us grace, the
67

Christian Culture
sacrament makes us pure and holy. Such people
manifest more pride than humility for when they
receive, they think of themselves as worthy. It is
much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that
we are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we
would receive them every Sunday for the healing
of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride,
think that after one year we become worthy of
receiving them.”
The Jansenist error was promptly condemned,
but it left a long-lasting influence on the life of
the faithful, again rendering communion less and
less frequent.
The matter was definitively put to rest with
the decree “Sacra Tridentina Synodus,” issued in
1905 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council,
following the directives of St. Pius X. The decree
acknowledges that frequent and even daily
Communion is a practice most earnestly desired
by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church,
and that by it union with Christ is strengthened,
the spiritual life more abundantly sustained,
the soul more richly endowed with virtues,
and the pledge of everlasting happiness
more securely bestowed on the recipient.
Consequently, it lays down the conditions for
worthily receiving communion:
To be in the state of grace – that is, to be free
from mortal sin, with the purpose of never
sinning in the future. Moreover, although it is
not imposed as an obligation, it would be fitting
that those who receive Communion frequently
or daily should be free from venial sins, at least
from such as are fully deliberate, and from any
affection.
To have the right intention, i.e. that he who
approaches the Holy Table should do so, not
out of routine, or vain glory, or human respect,
but that he wish to please God, to be more
closely united with Him by charity, and to have
recourse to this divine remedy for his weakness
and defects.
To be properly prepared for the reception
of the sacrament, and to give thanks to God
afterwards, for although the sacraments infallibly
produce their effect, nevertheless, they produce
a great effect in proportion as the dispositions
of the recipient are better, therefore, one should
take care that Holy Communion be preceded
68

The Angelus

November - December 2017

by careful preparation, and followed by an
appropriate thanksgiving, according to each
one’s strength, circumstances and duties.
To observe the legal rules of fasting before
receiving communion.
Nonetheless, the encouragement given to
frequent communion must not make us forget
that it is a sacrament to be received with due
preparation, in a state of grace, and in a state
of life that accords with Catholic doctrine. We
must avoid routine communions, made almost
mindlessly, out of habit or of human respect, and
usually without an preparation or without and
adequate thanksgiving, thus avoiding the sad
spectacle of the rush to the church door by those
who have just received the Body and Blood of
Our Lord.

158 pp.—Flexible hardcover—STK# 8698—$16.95

Luther’s True Face
by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX

Written by French scholar and clergyman, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, of the Society of Saint
Pius X, Luther’s True Face provides an in-depth look at the “Father of Protestantism.” More
than just a theological analysis, Fr. Gleize’s study offers crucial historical details about
Luther’s life, the times in which he lived, and the state of the Catholic Church in the early
16th century. Also included in this first English edition of Luther’s True Face is an introduction by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, several appendices, and a copy of Pope Pius
XI’s landmark encyclical Mortalium Animos (on religious unity). While Fr. Gleize approaches
his subject matter through a Thomistic lens and delves deeply into Luther’s doctrine, this
volume is accessible to all Catholics who wish to learn about the origins of Protestantism
and come away with a deeper understanding of what continues to divide Catholics and
Protestants to this very day.

152 pp.—Softcover—Photographs—STK# 8699—$12.95

St Thérèse of Lisieux
Letters to Her Spiritual Brothers

Correspondence between St. Thérèse of Lisieux and missionaries Fr. Adolphe Roulland
and Fr. Maurice Bellière covering the practical and spiritual aspects of religious, clerical,
and missionary life in the 19th century. They offer a unique glimpse into the soul of one of
the most beloved saints in recent history. Although more than a century has passed since
they were written, these letters confront perennial themes familiar to all Christians. Every
Catholic, whether clerical, religious, or lay, will discover immense spiritual benefits in this
unique collection.

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Just one Request
Dear Master for this coming year
Just one request I bring:
I do not pray for happiness,
Or any earthly thing—
I do not ask to understand
The way Thou leadest me,
But this I ask: Teach me to do
The thing that pleaseth Thee.
I want to know Thy guiding voice,
To walk with Thee each day.
Dear Master make me swift to hear
And ready to obey.
And thus the year I now begin
A happy year will be—
If I am seeking just to do
The thing that pleaseth Thee.
Unknown Author

News from Tradition
A Purge of Faithful Catholic Intellectuals?
On 31 August 2017, Archbishop Victor Manuel
Fernández of Granada (Spain) effectively fired
Professor Josef Seifert from the position of a
founding member of the Pontifical Academy for
Life over which the Archbishop had control.
Additionally, Archbishop Fernández had in the
weeks prior removed Professor Seifert from
teaching the seminarians of the Archdiocese of
Granada. The charge against Professor Seifert?
Daring to question certain aspects of Pope
Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Only recently, the Austrian born Professor
Seifert wrote an article in which he begged the
Holy Father to correct a certain passage of Amoris
Laetitia which he saw as undermining the entirety
of Catholic moral theology. According to Professor
Seifert, Amoris Laetitia :
Besides calling an objective state of grave sin,
euphemistically, “not yet fully the objective ideal,”
AL [Amoris Laetitia] says that we can know
with “a certain moral security” that God himself
asks us to continue to commit intrinsically wrong
acts, such as adultery or active homosexuality.
I ask: Can pure Logic fail to ask us under this
assumption: If only one case of an intrinsically
immoral act can be permitted and even willed by
God, must this not apply to all acts considered
‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can
want an adulterous couple to live in adultery,
should then not also the commandment ‘Do not
commit adultery!’ be reformulated: ‘If in your
situation adultery is not the lesser evil, do not
commit it! If it is, continue living it!’?
Must then not also the other nine
commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium
Vitae, and all past and present or future Church
documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the
existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? Is it
then not any more intrinsically wrong to use
contraceptives and is not Humanae Vitae in error
that states unambiguously that it can never happen
that contraception in any situation is morally
justified, let alone commanded by God?
Must then not, to begin with, the new
commission on Humanae Vitae Pope Francis
instituted, conclude that using contraception can
in some situations be good or even obligatory and
72

The Angelus

November - December 2017

willed by God? Can then not also abortions, as
Mons. Fisichella, then President of the Pontifical
Academy for Life, claimed, be justified in some
cases and ‘be what God himself is asking amid the
concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not
fully the objective ideal’?
Must then not from pure logic euthanasia,
suicide, or assistance to it, lies, thefts, perjuries,
negations or betrayals of Christ, like that of St.
Peter, or murder, under some circumstances
and after proper “discernment,” be good and

praiseworthy because of the complexity of a
concrete situation (or because of a lack of ethical
knowledge or strength of will)? Can then not God
also demand that a Sicilian, who feels obligated
to extinguish the innocent family members of a
family, whose head has murdered a member of his
own family and whose brother would murder four
families if he does not kill one, go ahead with his
murder, because his act is, under his conditions
“what God himself is asking amid the concrete
complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the
objective ideal”? Does not pure logic demand that
we draw this consequence from this proposition of
Pope Francis?
For this questioning, Archbishop Fernández
stated that Professor Seifert “damages the
communion of the Church…confuses the faith of
the faithful… [and] sows distrust in the successor
of Peter,” The Archbishop makes no mention of the
fact that a number of Cardinals and Bishops have
issued statements that have asked the Holy Father
for clarifications of certain passages of Amoris
Laetitia.
It has become obvious that, under Pope Francis,

the only members of the Church who do not
have a right to “enter into dialogue” are those
who uphold the millennial teaching of Our Lord
and His Church. While Pope Francis continually
asks’ “Who am I to judge?” his toadies within the
hierarchy continue to do just that: make judgments
against those who dare to ask legitimate questions
of the Holy Father.

Professor Seifert, although a faithful Catholic
regarding faith and morals, is a philosophical
child of Edmund Husserl and his school of
Phenomenology and therefore he does not espouse
the philosophy of St. Thomas. Nevertheless, he
clearly embraces the importance of Aristotelian
logic and objective Truth, both of which are sorely
lacking in the Rome of Pope Francis.

New Altar in Honor of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
As has been mentioned in past installments of
Church in the World, the Archdiocese of New York
has, for the past number of years, been involved
in extensive renovation work in St. Patrick’s
Cathedral. Although use of the word “renovation”
of any church or cathedral often brings chills up
the spine of Traditional Catholics, in the case of

The new St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Altar

location by the architect of the cathedral James
Renwick, Jr. Its design is Gothic with relief
panels and statues designed by Sister Margaret
Beaudette, S.C. who was a devoted teacher and
renowned sculptor whose artwork for the Altar
was her last commission before her death on
March 12, 2017. She was a member of the Sisters
of Charity (the order founded by St. Elizabeth
Ann Seton). The panels and statues are of a more
modern design, but the altar itself blends very well
with the interior of the cathedral, especially when
compared to the 1970s shrine. The center statue

St. Patrick’s the renovation has actually brought
about some very significant improvements. One
of the latest is the new side altar in honor of St.
Elizabeth Ann Seton, which replaces a “shrine”
(not an altar) erected in the 1970s around the time
of her canonization.
The new altar is based upon the plans for this

The 1970s Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton

is of St. Elizabeth and the side statues are of St.
Vincent de Paul and St. Louise de Marillac (the
founders of the Daughters of
Charity from whose statutes St. Elizabeth
modeled the statutes of the Sisters of Charity). The
relief panels depict the sisters performing the two
works they are most well known for in New York:
education and health care. It should be noted that
the sisters portrayed in the panels are wearing the
traditional habit of the Sisters of Charity which
was, most unfortunately, abandoned in the years
following Vatican II.
73

News from Tradition
The Slaughter of Christians in the Middle East Continues
It seems that Pope Francis’ continuing forays
into politics is not sitting well with his Italian
flock. A recent report shows that only 32 percent
of Italians are now supporting the Church
through their taxes (this does not entail the
individuals paying more tax, they simply tick off
a box on their return to indicate that a donation
is made to the Church). This represents a loss
of nearly 1 million donors in the last year.
Although there is no specific reasons given for
the decline, most pundits attribute the loss to
Pope Francis’ statements on open immigration,
particularly from the Muslim world, is not
sitting well with many Italians. The recent
continuing terrorist attacks across Europe is
certainly fueling this resentment of the Pope’s
“open door” policy.
Recently Pope Francis asked, in a document
released for the “Day of the Migrant,” that
children of illegal immigrants who are born
in the new country, be given citizenship
automatically (referred to as ius soli). An
Italian politician, Matteo Salvini responded by
stating: If Pope Francis wants the ius soli in the
Vatican, let him have it. Mr. Salvini also noted

that Italy grants 200,000 citizenships a year,
while the Vatican grants very few citizenships.
Another politician from Salvini’s party added:
Pope Francis went to Lampedusa with open
arms inviting the desperate from all over the
world to Italy. From now on, anyone who arrives
here shall be sent directly to the Vatican at the
expense of the Church and the Pontiff. What
surely adds to the consternation is that the
Vatican recently erected cement barriers around
St. Peter’s Square to protect against Muslim
terrorist attacks of the kind seen in France,
Great Britain, Spain and Belgium.
In addition to the decline in revenue and
Italian politicians speaking out against the
Pope’s political leanings, the residents of
Rome are speaking clearly with their actions.
Although St. Peter’s Square has traditionally
been full (during previous pontificates) for
the Angelus on Sundays, over recent months
the Square has been less than half full. This,
according to Vatican watchers, means that
while tourists are still present, the usual crowds
of Romans have been staying away.

Traditional Carmelite Nuns return to Philadelphia
Since 1902, the Carmel of St. Joseph and St.
Anne located in Philadelphia, PA. has been a
power house of prayer as the spiritual daughters
of St. Teresa of Avila chanted the Divine Office
and offered innumerable prayers and sacrifices
for the good of the Church. In the years following
Vatican II, the number of nuns at the Carmel
steadily declined until in recent days the Carmel
was preparing to close due to the aging of the nuns
and no vocations. Thankfully, at the invitation of
the Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput,
the Carmel has found new life with 10 nuns
moving to Philadelphia from two traditional
Carmels. Archbishop Chaput recently made this
announcement welcoming the nuns to their new
monastery:
“Dear Friends, I’m sharing some joyful news.
74

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Today, our Archdiocese welcomed six nuns from
the Carmelite Monastery of Valparaiso, Nebraska,
and four nuns from the Carmelite Monastery of
Elysburg, Pennsylvania. They are transferring to
the Carmelite Monastery of Saint Joseph and Saint
Anne here in Philadelphia.
As a result of these transfers, there is now a
community of twelve nuns in the Philadelphia
Carmel, which was founded in 1902. Since that
time it has been home to generations of Discalced
Carmelite nuns who have dedicated themselves
to a cloistered life of contemplation and prayer for
the good of us all. The Carmel is also welcoming a
new chaplain, Father William Allen, FSSP.
Tomorrow, Wednesday, July 26th, the Feast
of Saints Joachim and Anne, all are invited to a
Solemn High Mass at the Carmel and welcome to

greet the new sisters in the “speakroom” of the
convent following the liturgy.”
Although Archbishop Chaput has not offered
the Traditional Mass, he has been generous in
allowing the Mass of the Ages to be celebrated
throughout the Archdiocese. On 14 September,
the 10th anniversary of the coming into force
of Summorum Pontificum, he gave permission
for Bishop Joseph Perry (an auxiliary bishop of

Chicago) to offer a Pontifical High Mass at the
Throne in the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter
and Paul. Normally, a visiting bishop would not
be permitted to celebrate from “the throne” or
the cathedra of the ordinary of the diocese.
This concession by Archbishop Chaput was
a significant gesture on his part to welcome
traditional Catholics to his cathedral.

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, RIP
His Eminence, Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, the
emeritus Archbishop of Bologna and one of the
four Cardinals who presented Pope Francis with
“dubia” concerning the Apostolic Exhortation
Amores Latitia died unexpectedly on
September 6, 2017. With his death, there are only
two remaining “dubia Cardinals” remaining:
Raymond Cardinal Burke who is 69 years of age
and Walter Cardinal Brandmueller who is 89.
In addition to his pastoral work as
Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Caffarra was
also a moral theologian who worked to maintain
the traditional moral teachings of the Church,
particularly in the areas of life and the family.
In 1981, at the request of Pope John Paul II, he
founded the John Paul II Institute for Studies
on Marriage and Family. At the beginning of
this work, His Eminence wrote to Fatima seer
Sr. Lucia requesting her prayers for the success
of this new endeavor. To his surprise, Sr. Lucia
personally answered his letter assuring him
of her prayers and also stating (according to
Cardinal Caffarra’s testimony) that the final
battle between the Lord and Satan would be
over marriage and the family. She also reminded
him that Our Lady had already “crushed the
head” of Satan.
It should be noted that Pope Francis has
recently “reorganized” the Institute and thereby
weakened its strong and traditional position
on moral questions concerning marriage and
the family. This was accomplished through the
Motu Proprio Summa Familiae Cura issued on
19 September 2017, and renamed the Pontifical

John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage
and Family Sciences. The Vatican stated the
new Institute will carry forward the work
of the two recent Synods of Bishops and the
apostolic exhortation that came from those
meetings, Amoris Laetitia. The Motu Proprio
was signed by Pope Francis only a few days
following the death of Cardinal Caffarra.
Cardinal Caffarra was also known to have
publicly celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass
and was scheduled to offer the Traditional
Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on 16 September for
the International Pilgrimage in thanksgiving
for Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum which came into force 10 years ago
on 14 September 2007.
May he rest in peace.

75

News from Tradition
The Political Pope

76

It seems that Pope Francis’ continuing forays
into politics is not sitting well with his Italian
flock. A recent report shows that only 32 percent
of Italians are now supporting the Church through
their taxes (this does not entail the individuals
paying more tax, they simply tick off a box on their
return to indicate that a donation is made to the
Church). This represents a loss of nearly 1 million
donors in the last year. Although there is no
specific reasons given for the decline, most pundits
attribute the loss to Pope Francis’ statements on
open immigration, particularly from the Muslim
world, is not sitting well with many Italians. The
recent continuing terrorist attacks across Europe
is certainly fueling this resentment of the Pope’s
“open door” policy.

have it. Mr. Salvini also noted that Italy grants
200,000 citizenships a year, while the Vatican
grants very few citizenships. Another politician
from Salvini’s party added: Pope Francis went to
Lampedusa with open arms inviting the desperate
from all over the world to Italy. From now on,
anyone who arrives here shall be sent directly to
the Vatican at the expense of the Church and the
Pontiff. What surely adds to the consternation is
that the Vatican recently erected cement barriers
around St. Peter’s Square to protect against
Muslim terrorist attacks of the kind seen in
France, Great Britain, Spain and Belgium.
In addition to the decline in revenue and
Italian politicians speaking out against the Pope’s
political leanings, the residents of Rome are

Recently Pope Francis asked, in a document
released for the “Day of the Migrant,” that children
of illegal immigrants who are born in the new
country, be given citizenship automatically
(referred to as ius soli). An Italian politician,
Matteo Salvini responded by stating: If Pope
Francis wants the ius soli in the Vatican, let him

speaking clearly with their actions. Although St.
Peter’s Square has traditionally been full (during
previous pontificates) for the Angelus on Sundays,
over recent months the Square has been less than
half full. This, according to Vatican watchers,
means that while tourists are still present, the
usual crowds of Romans have been staying away.

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Theological Studies

Canon Law
and Pastoral
Theology of
Marriage
by Fr. François Knittel, SSPX

On April 4, 2017, the Vatican published a document dated March 27 concerning marriages celebrated by the priests of the Society of Saint
Pius X (SSPX). In it, at the instruction of Pope
Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller—Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—and
Archbishop Guido Pozzo—Secretary of the Ecclesia
Dei Commission—invited bishops to facilitate the
celebration of these marriages in their respective
dioceses.
The document recalls that, in the traditional rite,
the exchange of consent precedes the celebration
of Mass. In all cases, the priests of the Society are
authorized to celebrate the nuptial Mass according
to the traditional rite.
On the other hand, the exchange of consent can
be received either by a priest mandated for this purpose by the diocesan bishop or by the priest of the

Society who in that case receives delegation from
him directly.

1. Doctrinal and Canonical Context
1.1 The Decree of the Council of Trent
Until the Council of Trent, couples who exchanged
their consent in the absence of any witness—priest
or laymen—validly contracted marriage. This practice was not contrary to the doctrine of the Church,
because the future spouses are ministers of the
sacrament and the consent given and received constitutes the matter and the form of the sacrament
although the practice created difficulties.
Prior to their exchange, the intended spouses
could prove to be unfit to contract a marriage by
reason of an impediment. Now on the one hand,
there can be no dispensation from certain im-

77

Theological Studies
pediments and, on the other hand, obtaining the dispensation is a necessary prerequisite for the validity
of the consent in the case of a diriment impediment.
After their exchange, one of the spouses could
claim to have given his or her consent under constraint or conditionally. In the absence of witnesses,
this affirmation was difficult to verify and prove.
The persistent uncertainty that hung over the
validity of clandestine marriages was a serious danger for the contracting parties and for the Church.
Scrupulous about the social dimension of marriage,
the Council of Trent requires henceforth the presence of a witness who is authorized to receive the
consents and declares clandestine marriages null
and void in its Decree Tametsi dated November 11,
1563: “The Holy Council now renders incapable of
marriage any who may attempt to contract marriage
otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest
or another priest, with the permission of the parish
priest or the Ordinary, and two or three witnesses;
and it decrees that such contracts are null and
invalid and renders them so by this Decree.”
1.2 The Decree of St. Pius X
St. Pius X confirms this discipline in the Decree
Ne temere published by the Congregation of the
Council on August 2, 1907: “Only those marriages
are valid that are contracted in the presence of the
pastor or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated
by either one of the two, and at least two witnesses”
(no. III).
The Decree makes sure however that respect
for the rule is not enforced to the detriment of the
spiritual good of the future spouses:
In case of danger of death: “If the danger of death
is imminent, when the pastor or local Ordinary, or a
priest delegated by either one of the two, cannot be
obtained, out of consideration for the conscience of
the betrothed and if occasion warrants for legitimizing offspring, marriage can be validly and licitly
contracted in the presence of any priest and two
witnesses” (no. VII).
In the prolonged absence of any authorized witness: “If it happens that in some region the pastor or local Ordinary or priest delegated by them,
before whom marriage can be celebrated, cannot be
obtained and this state of affairs has now endured
for a month, the marriage can be validly and licitly
entered upon after a formal consent has been given
78

The Angelus

November - December 2017

by the betrothed before two witnesses” (no. VIII).
Since the presence of two witnesses for the validity of the marriage allows no exception, clandestine
marriages remain invalid.
1.3 The 1917 Code of Canon Law
Prepared by St. Pius X and published by Benedict
XV, the 1917 Code of Canon Law repeats and clarifies the earlier canonical discipline with regard to
the exchange of consent with a view to marriage.
The principle spelled out by the Tridentine Decree
is reaffirmed: “Only those marriages are valid that
are contracted in the presence of the pastor or the
local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either one of
the two, and two witnesses, according to the rules
expressed in the following canons...” (can. 1094).
The exceptions foreseen by the Decree of Pius X are
also repeated: “If the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest who assists at marriage according to
the norm of Canons 1095 and 1096 cannot be had or
cannot be present without grave inconvenience:
“1. In danger of death marriage is contracted
validly and licitly in the presence only of witnesses;
and outside of danger of death provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition will perdure for
one month;
“2. In either case, if another priest can be present, he shall be called and together with the witnesses must assist at marriage, with due regard for
conjugal validity solely in the presence of witnesses”
(can. 1098).
Compared to the earlier discipline, the 1917 Code
of Canon Law modifies in two points the rules for the
exception foreseen outside of danger of death:
Whereas formerly it was necessary that the absence of the authorized witness should be certified
for a month, it is now enough for it to be foreseeable.
Notwithstanding the validity of exchange of consent
in the presence of only two witnesses, the presence
of a priest—even one without ordinary or delegated
jurisdiction to assist at the marriage—is henceforth
recommended. The priest can thus prepare the
fiancés, verify the absence of any impediment, if
necessary ask for the dispensations, and make sure
that the consent is free and unconditional.
1.4 The 1983 Code of Canon Law
The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 substantially repeats the 1917 discipline:

As for the principle: “Only those marriages are
valid which are contracted in the presence of the
local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or
deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the
presence of two witnesses, assists....” (can. 1108 §1).
As for the exceptions: Ҥ1. If one who, in accordance
with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience,
those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly
and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses
only: 1. in danger of death; 2. apart from danger of
death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this
state of affairs will continue for a month.
Ҥ2. In either case, if another priest or deacon is
at hand who can be present, he must be called upon
and, together with the witnesses, be present at the
celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the
validity of the marriage in the presence of only the
witnesses” (can. 1116).
The only novelty in the discipline promulgated in
1983 is the fact that a deacon can be the Church’s
authorized witness.
1.5 The Social Character of Marriage
Marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to confer or
increase divine life in souls.
Ordinarily, the minister and the beneficiary of the
sacrament are not identical: one person baptizes or
confirms, and another is baptized or is confirmed.
In the specific case of marriage, the ministers of the
sacrament are also those who benefit from it: the
betrothed who exchange their consent.
That said, since the Council of Trent, the Church
has demanded for the validity of the consent not
only the presence of two witnesses, but also the
presence of an authorized witness—the bishop, the
pastor, or their delegate.
The social character of marriage is thus highlighted and the uncertainties connected with clandestine
marriages are avoided. Since the supreme law of
the Church is the salvation of souls, the canonical
discipline allows two exceptions to the rule: the case
of danger of death and persistent difficulty in finding
an authorized witness. In these circumstances, the
exchange of consent is licit and valid in the presence
of only two witnesses. The assistance of a priest—
without ordinary or delegated jurisdiction—is nevertheless recommended.

2. Historical Context
The recent letter from the Ecclesia Dei
Commission relating to marriages celebrated by
the priests of the SSPX is situated in this doctrinal
and canonical context. But it is also situated in an
historical context that is advisable to recall briefly.
2.1 The Crisis in the Church
The convocation and the conduct of Vatican
Council II were the occasion for Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre to measure the depth and the extent of
the crisis into which the Church was sinking. The
priesthood, religious life, the apostolate, the liturgy,
catechism, social doctrine, natural-law and Gospel
morality, the exercise of authority—no area of
Catholic life escaped from being called into question
and shipwrecked.
Romano Amerio documents this in his masterpiece Iota Unum, subtitled A Study of Changes in the
Catholic Church in the XXth Century. Far from giving
in to fatalism, Lefebvre seized every opportunity to
influence the course of events and to alert Catholics.
Besides his role in the Coetus Internationalis
Patrum [International Group of Fathers] during the
Council, he increased his oral and written warnings
to Church authorities, to his confreres, and to the
faithful.
We mention for the record his interventions at
the Council published in I Accuse the Council, his
article To Remain a Good Catholic Must One Become
Protestant? composed on October 11, 1964, and
published on June 5, 1970, his letter to Cardinal
Ottaviani dated December 20, 1966, and his participation in the composition of the Short Critical
Examination of the New Mass published in Spring
1969.
2.2 A Priestly Work
Certain that the priesthood was an important
means of overcoming the crisis, encouraged by the
faithful, and begged by candidates to the priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre decided to found a work,
the ultimate purpose of which is “the priesthood and
all that pertains to it and nothing but what concerns
it; i.e., the priesthood as Our Lord Jesus Christ
willed it when He said: ‘Do this in memory of Me’”
(Statutes of the Society of Saint Pius X, no. II-1).
The SSPX became a work of the Church by
virtue of the approval received from Bishop
79

Theological Studies
François Charrière, Bishop of Fribourg, Geneva, and
Lausanne, on November 1, 1970.
Once formed and ordained, the priests of the
Society are intended to conduct their apostolate
in the dioceses that are willing to welcome them:
“Parish ministry, preaching parish missions, without
geographical limits, are other works to which the
Society is devoted. These ministries will be the
subject of contracts with the local Ordinaries so as
to permit the Society to carry out its apostolate according to its particular grace” (ibid., no. III-5).
In contrast to all those who expected a renewal of
the Church through the combined effect of the liturgical reform and the conciliar documents, Lefebvre
and his work stood by the traditional liturgy and rejected the conciliar novelties (ecumenism, religious
liberty, and collegiality).
This attitude earned for the seminary in Écône
a canonical visitation initiated by Pope Paul VI
(November 11-13, 1974), which resulted in the illicit
suppression of the Society by Bishop Mamie on May
6, 1975.
2.3 A State of Emergency
The consequences of this first injustice were
swift.
First, Cardinal Jean Villot commanded diocesan
bishops to deny all incardination to the seminarians
in Écône. Lacking affiliation with a diocese or a religious congregation in good standing, these seminarians could not be ordained licitly. If they disregarded
the interdict, they would incur suspension a divinis
(i.e. be forbidden to celebrate Mass and to administer the sacraments) and the one who ordained them
would incur suspension a collatione ordinum (be
forbidden to ordain). That is what happened after
the ordinations on June 29, 1976.
Second, no diocese agreed to entrust an apostolate to the priests ordained by Lefebvre, because
of the canonical penalty imposed on them. At the
same time, many of the faithful who were devoted
to the traditional liturgy and Catholic doctrine found
themselves without a pastor, wandering from parish
to parish in search of liturgy, preaching, catechesis,
and pastoral ministry that were in keeping with the
traditional practice of the Church. Logically, the
shepherds without sheep and the sheep without
shepherds would join forces within the framework of
a substitute apostolate, while awaiting better times.
80

The Angelus

November - December 2017

Third, after hoping for a long time for the help
of other bishops to ordain his seminarians and to
confirm the faithful, Abp. Lefebvre saw that he was
forced by necessity to provide himself with successors. He proceeded to the episcopal consecrations
on June 30, 1988, which incurred for the consecrators and those who were consecrated the penalty
of excommunication and for all those who followed
them—priests and faithful—the suspicion of being
schismatic.
2.4 Marriage and the State of Necessity
This painful situation led traditional priests and
faithful to wonder about the canonical framework
for marriages. Faithful to the precepts of the Council
of Trent, initially they turned to the rare benevolent
pastors who still held appointments. Some of them
agreed to receive personally the consent of the
spouses, while others delegated the priests of the
SSPX for this purpose.
But the gradual disappearance of these pastors
definitively shut the door to traditional marriages
celebrated in the presence of an authorized witness.
Couples then found themselves in the situation
where it was impossible to find within a reasonable
interval a priest with jurisdiction who would prepare
them for marriage according to the doctrine of the
Church and would celebrate the Mass according to
the traditional rite.
As authorized by the 1917 and 1983 Codes of
Canon Law, they then exchanged their consent in
the presence of two witnesses, while making sure
that a priest of the Society made the canonical
inquest, provided marriage preparation, assisted
at their engagement, and celebrated their wedding
Mass. A document attesting to this and signed by
the betrothed and the priest was included in the
marriage file.

3. The Content of the Holy See’s Letter
During the 1970s and 80s, relations between the
Vatican and the SSPX were dominated by a logic of
confrontation. Although it had been erected canonically on November 1, 1970, by Bishop Charrière, the
work of Archbishop Lefebvre was deprived of that
recognition by Bishop Mamie on May 6, 1975.
First consequence: the ordination of the semi-

narians was deemed illicit and the ordinands were
threatened with suspension a divinis.
Second consequence: no diocesan bishop
entrusted an apostolate to these priests who were
reputedly irregular.
Third consequence: the ministry that these
priests conducted was considered illicit.
3.1 A Logic of Acceptance
Since the election of Pope Francis, the authorities
of the Church have changed their approach. Without
going over the past again, the Church authorities
have gradually recognized the liceity and the validity of the ministry performed by the priests of the
SSPX.
First, Confession: “Through my own disposition,
I establish that those who during the Holy Year of
Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity
of Saint Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of
Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins” (Francis, Letter to Archbishop
Fisichella, September 1, 2015).
These arrangements were extended beyond the
Year of Mercy: “For the pastoral benefit of these
faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests
to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally
decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee
Year, until further provisions are made” (Francis,
Apostolic Letter Misericordia et miseria, November
20, 2016, no. 12).
Next, priestly ordination: “This summer it was
confirmed that the Superior General can freely ordain the priests of the Society without having to ask
permission from the local bishop” (Bishop Fellay,
Interview with TV Libertés, January 29, 2017).
Finally, marriage: “Despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for
the time being the Society of Saint Pius X finds
itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to
authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant
faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society”
(Ecclesia Dei Commission, Letter to Ordinaries, March
27, 2017).
A logic of confrontation is giving way to a logic
of acceptance in which the mere appearance of

canonical irregularity is not enough to vitiate the
ordinations performed by the bishops of the Society
nor disqualify the ministry performed by its priests.
3.2 The Interventions of the Bishops
Wishing to see the diocesan bishops join in this
step, the Ecclesia Dei Commission “has decided to
authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant
faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society”
(ibid.). Two situations are considered:
“Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to
grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to
a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully
regular priest), such that the priest may receive the
consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo,
by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated
by a priest of the Society.
“Where the above is not possible, or if there are
no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent
of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary
faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to
celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty
to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan
Curia as soon as possible” (ibid.).
The role attributed to the diocesan bishops
in the celebration of marriages by the faithful of
the Society may cause astonishment or perhaps
uneasiness because the arrangements made by
Pope Francis concerning confession did not mention
them. How can they be seen as anything but a bad
omen for the works of Tradition while at the same
time they are being lured with the possibility of a
personal prelature?
In truth, Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the
Church on the Apostles and the bishops who succeed them. To them the Lord entrusted the mission
to teach, sanctify and govern (Mt 28:19). Ordinarily,
the apostolate performed by priests who do not belong to the diocese also require the approval of the
diocesan bishop. Because of its social dimension,
marriage is more directly ordained to the common
good of the Church than a sacrament with an individual significance such as Penance. Therefore the
celebration of this sacrament is of capital interest
to the one who is charged with the common good
in the diocese. The recent measures concerning
the sacraments administered by the bishops
81

Theological Studies
and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have
a temporary character. If the works of Tradition
were to be integrated someday into an episcopal
structure, they would then receive from their prelate
the authority to hear confessions and to assist at
marriages.
3.3 An End to the Crisis?
In the wake of the Council, the adoption of the
liturgical reform, and adherence to the conciliar novelties were viewed as criteria for catholicity. Unless
they conformed to them, the faithful were doomed
to second-class citizenship and the priests became
targets of canonical censures.
In order to respond to the state of necessity that
was thus created, a substitute apostolate was set
up by the priests for the benefit of the faithful. This
state of necessity started to recede with the Motu
proprio dated July 7, 2007, in which Benedict XVI
acknowledged that the Traditional Mass had never
been abrogated.
The decisions by Pope Francis relating to the
apostolate of the priests of the SSPX accentuate
this trend. Logically, the state of necessity is destined to disappear.
Nevertheless, the crisis raging in the Church is far
from finished. The question of the degree of authority of the conciliar documents has not been resolved. The responsibility of Vatican Council II in the
acceleration of the crisis remains to be evaluated.
The reform of the liturgical reform is not yet in sight.
And the apparent authorization to admit divorcedand-remarried persons to Holy Communion under
certain circumstances only increases the confusion.
To say that the state of necessity is tending
to disappear does not mean that the crisis in the
Church is over. The transmission of the faith is still
problematic, the liturgy—mutilated, confession—neglected, Holy Communion—demeaned. Moreover,
contraception is still practiced, preaching is weak,
the priesthood and religious life are anemic. In this
regard, the priests of the SSPX—whose apostolate
is now recognized—have a position and a know-how
that could prove to be invaluable in renewing the
Christian spirit throughout the Church.
Source: Father François Knittel (SSPX)/Letter of
Saint-Florent - June/July/August 2017

82

The Angelus

November - December 2017

172 pp – Softcover – 12 pages of photographs and illustrations – STK# 8700 – $14.95

Fatima:
The Message for Our Times

The 20th and 21st centuries must be understood in the light of Fatima. Mary’s visit to this
little hamlet in Portugal is a fact that is part of contemporary history. The Message of Fatima
concerns all of us. Its blessed influence can touch all of us, touch families, touch nations: “If
what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”
This book brings to life the extraordinary marvels of Fatima

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

13-month calendar – 12" x 12" – STK# CAL2018 – $12.95

The Creed
2018 Liturgical calendar

The Apostles’ Creed, one of the Church’s great professions of faith, was once
known by heart by Catholics all over the world. Often incorporated into morning and evening prayers, this creed simply but powerfully calls to mind the core
tenets of the Faith while orienting the heart and mind to God. To bring the Apostles’
Creed’s centrality to the forefront, reminding us of the creed’s truth and vigorous beauty, Angelus Press has chosen it as the theme for the 2018 calendar. Each
month features an artistic depiction of one of the articles of the Creed.

80 pp – 12" x 9" – Gold-embossed hardcover with color dust jacket – STK# 8697 – $35.00

First Steps—St. Thomas
Aquinas Seminary
Having outgrown its home of over 25 years in Winona, Minnesota, 2016 saw the St. Thomas Aquinas
Seminary relocate to a newly constructed facility in
Buckinghan, Virginia where they will be able to continue
their mission of forming Catholic priests for generations to come.
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, First Steps In Virginia
depicts in vivid detail the construction of the new Seminary, its inauguration and the entire moving process,
with all the labor and excitement that a project of this
magnitude entails.

100 pp – 12" x 9" – Gold-embossed hardcover with color dust jacket – STK# 8674 – $35.00

Saint Thomas Aquinas
Seminary (1988-2016)—
The Winona Years
For over 25 years, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in
Winona has formed Catholic priests to spread the Faith
in its fullness throughout the entire world. In honor of
this legacy, the seminary is pleased to announce the
publication of this book. Hundreds of color photographs, captions, facts and figures, anecdotes, quotes,
and trivia will capture the essence of seminary life
and chronical the events and people that shaped this
extraordinary community. Topics include the history
of the building, seminary life, liturgy, and the seminary
project in Virginia

A portion of all proceeds from these books goes toward the new seminary project in Virginia

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Simply the Best Journal of
Catholic Tradition Available!
“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

For over three decades, The Angelus has stood for
Catholic truth, goodness, and beauty against a
world gone mad. Our goal has always been the
same: to show the glories of the Catholic Faith and
to bear witness to the constant teaching of the
Church in the midst of the modern crisis in which
we find ourselves.
Each issue contains:
• A unique theme focusing on doctrinal and
practical issues that matter to you, the
reader
• Regular columns, from History to Family
Life, Spirituality and more
• Some of the best and brightest Catholic
thinkers and writers in the English-speaking
world
• An intellectual formation to strengthen
your faith in an increasingly hostile world

Subscribe Today
Don’t let another year go by without reading
the foremost journal of Catholic Tradition.

PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS
Name______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
City______________________________ State______________ ZIP______________ Country_______________________
 CHECK  VISA  MASTERCARD  AMEX  DISCOVER  MONEY ORDER
Card #_______________________________________________________ Exp. Date______________________________
Phone # _____________________________________E-mail_________________________________________________
Mail to: Angelus Press, PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536, USA

PLEASE CHECK ONE
United States
 1 year $45.00
 2 years $85.00
 3 years $120.00

Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico)

 1 year
 2 years
 3 years

$65.00
$125.00
$180.00

All payments must be in US funds only.

ONLINE ONLY SUBSCRIPTIONS
To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org.
Everyone has FREE access to every article from issues of The Angelus over two years old, and selected articles from recent issues.
All magazine subscribers have full access to the online version of the magazine (a $20 Value)!

The
Last
Word
Dear readers,
Authority Begins at Home
As “charity begins at home,” so does authority. It will be no doubt one of the first concepts
that the little infant will learn: someone is over him, governs him, and this is all for his own good.
It will indeed take many years for him to know the word authority, but its objective reality will be
manifest from his very birth. And related to this authority will be his own spirit of submission.
If he sees that mother and father are always united in their exercise of authority, that although they are two, nevertheless they are of one will, he will have no option but to eventually
submit and obey. Thus he will grow, which is the purpose of authority, a word coming from
the Latin “to grow,” augere, auctus. Any human authority is a little participation in God’s own
authority and should make both the one endowed with it grow, since all talents should make us
grow, as well those under authority when it is exercised properly.
Wounded by Original Sin, the child, still at a very young age, may try to create a conflict between his father and his mother, he will seek the weaker of the two: if mother says no, perhaps
father will say yes! Parents must be acutely aware of this danger. I was even told by a mother
that her little but clever daughter almost provoked the divorce of her parents, until they discovered her game.
This is a fundamental element of education which many parents, and not just the younger
ones, often do not fully understand.
This unity between the bearers of authority is not needed only at home. Parents share their
authority with the school teacher. And they must be aware that the old wound will certainly
show its ugly face again: the child will try to oppose teachers and parents. If parents give in
always defending the child against the teacher—often without knowing the whole story—it is
their own authority which they undermine in fact, because “all authority comes from God.”
Lastly, and here it is even more delicate, parents must be careful not to criticize their own
priests, especially in front of their children. Such an attitude could kill the growth of a vocation
in a young soul. What responsibility!
“Give an account of your authority!”
Fr. Daniel Couture

The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life
without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it.
The main goal of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic
faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues.
Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its
primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls.
The Angelus aims at forming the whole man: we aspire to help deepen your
spiritual life, nourish your studies, understand the history of Christendom,
and restore Christian culture in every aspect.

$ 9.00
RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: THE ANGELUS, 480 MCKENZIE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R2W 5B9