The Episcopacy
Modern Regalism
The Problem with Collegiality
Consecration of a Bishop

January - February 2019

Through his ordination the bishop receives the power of order, but the power of
governing is given, outside the rite of ordination and directly by the pope. The power of
the bishop is twofold: a power of order or power of sanctifying, by validly realizing the
sacraments; and the power of jurisdiction or power of governing, by establishing laws.
“The rules of the holy fathers, the decrees, ordinances, or dispositions, reservations,
provisions, and apostolic mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause to
be observed by others. Heretics, schismatics, and rebels against our said pope or his
aforesaid successors I will, as far as I can, pursue and fight against.”
(Oath of Consecration of a Bishop-elect)

Letter
from the
Publisher
Dear Reader,
When he was still alive, a priest asked Archbishop Lefebvre a rather incongruous question. “Your Excellency, if, in this time of crisis, you were elected pope today, what would your
first preoccupation be in order to remedy the situation?” The Archbishop took up the quip
but gave it a serious turn, and answered gravely but without a moment’s hesitation: “Well!
If I were in charge, I would first of all make sure to provide good bishops and back them up
fully in their traditional endeavors.”
Christ’s Church indeed was founded on the twelve Apostles with St. Peter at their head.
And this has been continued till our own days with the pope as the absolute head of the
hierarchy, but assisted locally by bishops who enjoy full jurisdiction over their diocese with
the triple power of governing, teaching and sanctifying. If this is so, much of the visible holiness in the Church stems from the bishops who wield so much influence over the priests
and flock entrusted to them. In more ways than one, they are Fathers and shepherds and
channels of graces to the flock, or the very opposite of it.
And, given the depressing situation in which the Catholic Church finds herself, accused
from all sides with unspeakable crimes by the very media which do their utmost to spread
immorality, it is our intention in this issue of the Angelus to treat of the Episcopacy with examples of outstanding bishops, like St. Thomas Becket and our dear founder. An interesting insight is given in the oath and prayers of the Episcopal Consecration. Other perspectives allow us to form a more complete picture of the key role of these Princes of the Church
and their impact on history, especially in the dual between China and Rome today.
And so, as you roam through this latest Angelus magazine, you will certainly be repeating exactly what the Archbishop said when he was alive. And, before you think, you will utter
an earnest prayer, in order to speed a true restoration, that God will raise men of character
as leaders of His Church on earth.

Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Publisher

January - February 2019
Volume XLII, Number 1
Publisher
Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Editor-in-Chief
Mr. James Vogel
Managing Editor
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud
Assistant Editor
Mr. Gabriel Sanchez
Copy Editor
Miss Jane Carver
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: The Episcopacy
––The Choice of Bishops: A Right of the Church
––Good Bishops, Court Bishops, and Modern Regalism
––Letter to Future Bishops
––Recollection for 4 Future Bishops
––The Problem with Collegiality
––Consecration of a Bishop

6
11
15
18
22
26

Spirituality
––Bishop’s Oath and Examination
––The Good Shepherd and His Flock

33
36

Christian Culture
––An Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson
––The Cathedral of Rheims
––The Iron Wall Between Mao and Pius XII
––Politician to Prelate: Man Can Only Serve One Master
––Questions and Answers

38
46
50
59
68

“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.
©2018 BY ANGELUS PRESS. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

News from Tradition
––Church and World
––The Death Penalty According to Pope Francis
––The Last Word

72
78
87

Theme The Episcopacy

The Choice of Bishops

A Right of
the Church
by Fr. Pierre Duverger, SSPX

Many recent events which occupied the
headlines have one point in common. The
agreement between the Holy See and China, the
collective renunciation of the Chilean Bishops
and the dismissal of Bishop Martin Holley bring
up the question of the choice of bishops. What is
the Church teaching? What is the extension of the
pope’s rights? To what extend has this right been
claimed by the Church in the past? This article
will try to briefly answer these questions.

Only the pope can give
jurisdiction to a bishop
The power of the bishop is twofold: the
power of order or power of sanctifying, by
validly administering the sacraments; and the
6

The Angelus

January - February 2019

power of jurisdiction or power of governing, by
establishing laws.
Through his ordination, the bishop receives
the power of order, but the power of governing is
given, outside the rite of ordination and directly
by the pope.
Some bishops are destined to govern the
dioceses; they received jurisdiction over this
or that part of the Church. Others are ordained
to help those in authority in the task of
sanctifying, (in the case of a large diocese, the
auxiliary bishops); therefore, they do not receive
jurisdiction but only the power of order. Only
the pope can give to the bishops, by an act of his
own will, the canonical mission, the power of
governing.
This doctrine was considered as being part
of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church up to

the Second Vatican Council. The First Vatican
Council was indeed interrupted before being able
to solemnly define this question. The 1917 Code
of Canon Law clearly stated it. Pius XII will come
back on this point on three occasions: (Mystici
Corporis, 1943; Ad Sinarum Gentem, 1954 and
Ad Apostolorum Principis, 1958).
“The power of jurisdiction which is conferred
directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff
comes to bishops by that same right but only
through the successor of Peter…” (Sinarum
Gentem)
The bishops and the pope share equally the
power to sanctify; both receive it from Christ
directly through the episcopal consecration.
But, they do not share equally nor in the same
way the power of governing and teaching. The
pope receives a supreme and universal power,
the authority to feed the lambs and the sheep (Jn.
21:15-17), the entire flock of the Church; whereas

the bishops receive a subordinate authority
that is restricted to only one part of the flock.
Moreover, the pope receives this power directly
from Christ through his election, whereas the
bishops receive it from the pope through the
canonical mission.
Changes regarding this appeared in the
teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
“Episcopal consecration, together with the
office of sanctifying, also confers the office of
teaching and of governing, which, however, of its
very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical
communion with the head and the members of
the college” (Lumen Gentium, cap. III, #21).
The Council made the whole of episcopal
powers depending—by the consecration—
directly on Christ and not on the pope.

7

Theme The Episcopacy
Who chooses the bishops?
Through the centuries, the popes have had to
defend their right of choosing bishops mainly
against the pretenses of the secular power. The
Church had to affirm also that neither the clergy
nor the faithful have authority to choose the
bishop. Christ called and chose leaders for His
Church before any followers. It is to the leaders
that He entrusted the mission to gathering
followers.
Pius XII expressed it very clearly:
“The foundation of the Church as a society was
effected,…not from beneath, but from above, …
that is to say, that Christ,…did not confide to
the faithful the mission of Master, of Priest, and
of Pastor received by Him from His Father for
the salvation of the human race, but He gave it
and communicated it to a college of Apostles
or envoys, chosen by Him , so that by their
preaching, by their sacerdotal ministry, and the
social power of their office, they would effect the
entry in to the Church of a multitude of faithful
to sanctify them, to enlighten them, and to guide
them to the fullness of the following of Christ”
(Discourse to the Sacred Rota, 1945).
Pius IX had to condemned the intrusion of
civil authority in the nomination or deposition
of the bishops several times, however: “For
what concerns the exclusion of lay men from
the election of bishops, it is necessary,…to
distinguish with care the right to elect bishops
from the right to give testimony regarding the
life and conduct of those who are to be elected.
To recognize as belonging to the laity the right
to elect bishops would be to renew the false
positions of Luther and Calvin who stated
that this power belonged to the laity by divine
right. Now, no one is ignorant of the fact that
the Catholic Church has always reproved this
teaching, and that the people have never had,
either by divine right, or by ecclesiastical right,
the power to elect bishops or other ministers of
divine worship” (Quartus Supra, 1873).
Through the first centuries and up to the
Middle Ages, the popes did not always exercise
this right of choosing the bishops. It happened
that the candidates were nominated or elected
by the clergy or the faithful. The elections were
not always approved by the Sovereign Pontiff.
8

The Angelus

January - February 2019

Undoubtedly, the Roman emperors sometimes
intervened in these elections, exercising an
influence on the electors. From the beginning
of the 6th century the clergy and citizens
would nominate three candidates from whom
the metropolitan chose the bishop; later, the
bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed
the exclusive right of nominating the candidate.
Progressively however, the popes began to
reserve for themselves the nomination of the
bishops. In the West, the kings intervened
sometimes in these elections, notably in Spain
and Gaul, and even usurped the right of direct
nomination. This interference of princes
and emperors lasted until the quarrel about
Investitures, which was especially violent
in Germany, where from the 9th to the 11th
centuries, abbots and bishops had become real
temporal princes.
The Second Council of Lateran (1139) handed
over to the chapter of the cathedral the sole right
of choosing the candidates, and this legislation
was sanctioned by the Decretals. Through the
centuries, the popes did not stop to claim the
right to nominate the bishops directly, despite
the different favors granted by concordats. The
Concordat with Francis I in 1516 granted the king
of France the favor to nominate the candidates.
The actual discipline which reserves the
consecration of a bishop to the Holy See and
foresees excommunication of a bishop who will
consecrate a bishop without pontifical mandate,
was established by Pius XII when facing a
schismatic Church in China.
Through Church history however, cases of
necessity happened where, as during the first
centuries, the needs of the souls required the
bishops to transmit on their own decision the
episcopacy to others. So did St. Eusebius of
Samosata in the 4th century who consecrated
bishops when going through the Oriental
churches devastated by Arianism.

Extreme Cases in History
In the centuries-long fight to defend and
preserve this divine right to nominates bishops,
popes had to occasionally take extreme

measures.
After the French revolution, opening to a
schismatic clergy depending on the State and a
bloody persecution or exile for the clergy faithful
to Rome, France was in an extreme state of
desolation and hopeless confusion. It was the
time when St. Jean-Marie Vianney who would
become the Patron Saint of the parish priests,
could witness: “Leave a parish 20 years without
priests and they will worship beasts!”
To remedy this situation and save religion in
France, Pius VII reached a difficult agreement:
the Concordat with Napoleon in 1801. The
Catholic religion was to become once again
the religion of the State. To restore the clergy,
the pope accepted an extreme measure: All 81
bishops of France must renounce the Concordat
under pain of destitution. They will be replaced
by new ones, 12 of whom would be taken from the
Constitutional clergy from which some will not
even reject the principles of, nor their attachment
to the Civil Constitution that was declared
schismatic in 1792. Of the priests, a special
oath of fidelity was required in the hands of the
prefect, in the presence of the bishop.
One can understand what extraordinary spirit
of Faith was needed to accept these troubling
measures. It is interesting to notice that the
resistance to the agreement of Pius VII and its
consequences, the birth to the schismatic Petite
Eglise came first from the bishops, then the
priests and eventually the laypeople.
As imperfect as it has been, historians
acknowledge today that Pius VII’s Concordate
saved religion in France.
Another extreme measure which illustrated
the pope’s care for keeping the rights of the
Church (including the choice of bishops) was
the reactions of St. Pius X to the new crisis in
France in 1905. The new law of Separation of
Church and State broke the Napoleon Concordat
and regulated the cult per “Law of Association.”
Catholics had to be organized in locally elected
“cult associations,” regulated by statutes imposed
by the State which were virtually changing the
government of the Church. The pope judged it
was a question of principles and asked the clergy
to refuse the law. Consequently, the Church lost
all its assets, properties, schools and hospitals.

In 1906, the pope first condemned the
principle of separation of Church and State
by the Encyclical Vehementer Nos, then he
himself consecrated 14 bishops in Rome for the
French dioceses in one historical ceremony
and eventually rejected the “Cult Associations”
(Gravissimo Officio, 1906 and Une fois encore,
1907). There was no “Gallican” or “Republican”
schism, the clergy of France with no exception
heroically submitted to the decision of the pope.

End of Secular Intrusion
It is the Second Vatican Council which claimed
for the absolute freedom of the Church to choose
the bishops.
“…This sacred ecumenical synod declares
that the right of nominating and appointing
bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per
se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical
authority. …this holy council desires that in the
future, no more rights or privileges of election,
nomination, presentation, or designation for the
office of bishop be granted to civil authorities.
The civil authorities, …are most kindly requested
voluntarily to renounce the above-mentioned
rights and privileges which they presently enjoy
by reason of a treaty or custom, after discussing
the matter with the Apostolic See.”
All the concordats with the Catholic States
will be indeed reviewed after the council. The
error of religious freedom however, guiding the
Conciliar Declaration Dignitatis Humanæ, will
push the Holy See to request that the Catholic
States (Colombia, Valais, Spain, Peru and Italy)
renounce Catholicism as State religion. Spain,
Peru, Monaco and Haiti were the last states to
abandon the granted favors on the nomination of
the bishops.
Today, France is the only country with this
privilege for two episcopal sees: Strasbourg
and Metz. This is due to the complex heritage of
these lands. Alsace and Lorraine were owned by
France under Napoleon and were then regulated
by the 1801 Concordat. From 1871 to 1918 these
lands passed to Germany and did not have to
endure the Law of Separation of Church and
State. When Alsace and Lorraine came back
9

Theme The Episcopacy
to France after WWI, the special status of the
Catholic Church was maintained.

A Right Still Exercised Today
In recent events, Pope Francis’ personal
interventions have been noted as authoritative
and extreme. It is true that despite the new
principles of government including dialogue,
collegiality and synodality, the pope did not
renounce his power over the bishops. As he can
give jurisdiction, he can also take it away.
Similarly, in the crisis involving bishops and
sexual scandals, Catholics and non-Catholics at
large expect and seek from Rome and the pope’s
authority, acts of government which could begin
to solve the scandal. Some, indeed, question the
Sovereign Pontiff’s responsibility.
And even in the case of the still obscure
agreement with Communist China—which does
not seem to bring any progress to the expansion
of the Gospel—one of the main points of debate
is precisely the jurisdiction of the bishops, the
needed link for a bishop to be able to govern the
Catholic Church.
Communists and other enemies of the Church
know quite well that the right of choosing and
creating bishops is an exclusive and personal
right of the Sovereign Pontiff.

10

Good Bishops,
Court Bishops, and

Modern
Regalism
by Dr. John Rao

One of the most famous and exhilarating
confrontations between the agents of “the
world” and a serious man of God was that pitting
Modestus, the emissary of the Arian-friendly
Emperor Valens (364-378), against St. Basil the
Great (330-379), Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca
in Cappadocia. When Modestus expressed
astonishment at the audacity of Basil’s firm refusal
to toe the heretical imperial line, indicating that
no one had ever dared to address him in such a
manner, this courageous prelate calmly responded:
“perhaps that is because you have never spoken to
a bishop before.”
It is possible that St. Basil was being
absolutely straightforward with his comment, but,
knowing as he did that many of his colleagues
had already given in to Valens’ demands, I believe
that his answer reflected his realistic recognition

that there were all too many time-serving bishops
who seemed to think that their episcopal function
was to “sail with the secular imperial wind.” Such
“court bishops” had their classic model in the
Arian friendly Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339),
who, in works such as his Laudes, commemorating
the 30th anniversary of Constantine’s accession to
the throne, created the standard argument which,
mutatis mutandis, was destined to be employed to
justify all kinds of unwarranted State interference
in Church affairs:
“He believes that the Emperor is a human being
set apart from other human beings in that he is
‘perfect in wisdom, in goodness, in justice, in
courage, in piety, in devotion to God: the Emperor
truly and he alone is a philosopher, for he knows
himself, and he is fully aware that an abundance of
every blessing is showered on him from a source
11

Theme The Episcopacy
quite external to himself, even from heaven itself.’
Eusebius compares him to the sun: ‘Thus our
Emperor, like the radiant sun, illuminates the most
distant subjects of his empire through the presence
of his Caesars, as with the far piercing rays of his
own brightness.’ His Empire is ‘the imitation of
the monarchical power in Heaven,’ because he has
consciously modeled his government after that in
Heaven…. ‘Invested as he is with a semblance of
heavenly sovereignty, he directs his gaze above,
and frames his earthly government according to
the pattern of that Divine original, feeling strength
in its conformity to the monarchy of God. And this
conformity is granted by the Universal Sovereign
to one man alone of the creatures of this earth: for
He alone is the author of the sovereign power, Who
decreed that all should be subject to the rule of the
one’” (J. Rao, Black Legends, pp. 59-60).
A good bishop cannot help but be recognized
as “the real thing” by a man possessing any sense
whatsoever. This is why Modestus, reporting
back to the Emperor on his unexpected failure
with St. Basil, seems to have thought that their
Arian project, successful until then, was doomed.
In lamenting to Valens that “we stand defeated
by a leader of the Church,” he demonstrated that
one good bishop seriously trying to fulfill his
mission could perhaps overcome the inadequacy
of a myriad of other colleagues overwhelmed by
mundane secular fears and temptations.
Nevertheless, and sad to say, although good
bishops ready to stand up for the freedom and
exaltation of the Mystical Body of Christ have
never been lacking in post St. Basil times, they
have been less than numerous throughout the
entire history of the Church. Every age has been
plagued by the reality of powerful court bishops
ready to redefine what is Catholic so as to fit the
political program of the secular authorities, whose
persons and actions continue to be invested with a
Eusebius-like divine aura.
Although the term Caesaro-Papism, born
out of the Roman imperial experience, is often
popularly used to describe all such spiritualized
State interference in the Church’s affairs, it is
more accurate to employ the word “Regalism” to
identify it from the High Middle Ages onwards.
Regalism appeals to general—not just imperial—
“royal” rights to deal with spiritual matters,
12

The Angelus

January - February 2019

justified to begin with, with reference to historical
concessions wrung out of weak and harried
ecclesiastical authorities, and latter, with respect
to an Enlightenment definition of natural law
alone, without any particular concern for what the
proper custodians of the supernatural Christian
message had to say about them.
Given the name, people understandably
associate Regalism with monarchical governments.
And it certainly is the case that the court
bishops of post-Reformation Spain and France
mercilessly cultivated regalist claims, defusing any
complaints regarding secular abuse of authority by
emphasizing the supposedly special supernatural
protection offered them through their titles of
“Most Christian Kings” or “Catholic Majesties.”
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642) offers a particularly
frustrating example of the species from regalist
times. Always supportive of serious Tridentine
reform on a diocesan level, and tied in his early
career with Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle (1575-1629),
one of the finest and most spiritual-minded of
Catholic Reformation prelates, he nevertheless
was willing to ally France with Moslems against
fellow Catholics and press for the creation of a
French patriarchate with quasi-papal powers, so
long as dynastic glory and a quasi mystical vision
of “Reason of State” required it.
On the other hand, the Medieval, Renaissance,
and Reformation era Italian city-states were
among Regalism’s most blatant manipulators. The
Venetian Republic of the early 17th century was
probably the worst of the pre-revolutionary lot, its
bishops generally cowed into compliance when not
actually openly supporting justifications of state
power over spiritual matters so devoid of doctrinal,
rational, and moral considerations that they can
only be defined as nihilist in character. Napoleon
continued the regalist tradition in his revolutionary
imperial regime, perfecting an administrative and
police interference in Church affairs admired and
imitated by most of the legitimist governments of
the post-Napoleonic Restoration Era (1815-1848).
In fact, the functionary-like episcopacy operating
under the Concordat that Napoleon negotiated with
Pius VII (1800-1823), and strengthened in a regalist
direction by the Organic Articles he slipped into
the agreement on his own steam, was looked
upon by all 19th century Catholic reformers as a

model of the kind of subservient hierarchy that an
effective evangelism had to eliminate.
Despite its impressive tools for eliciting
adherence to Christendom’s “God-given” rulers
through the aid of innumerable bishops both
courtly and cowed, every era has seen St. Basillike prelates stand their ground for the liberty
and exaltation of Holy Mother the Church with at
least some ultimate success. They range from the
martyred St. Thomas a Becket of Canterbury (11181170) in combat with King Henry II (1154-1189) to
the more fortunate St. Charles Borromeo (15381584), constantly at odds with the Spanish agents
of Philip II (1556-1598) in Milan, to Clemens August
Droste zu Vischering (1773-1845), the Archbishop
of Cologne, whose battle against Prussian
interference with the Roman Church’s marriage
laws was turned by the great Catholic layman
Joseph Görres’ (1776-1848) work Athanasius
(1834) into perhaps the most powerful symbol of
how a good bishops overcomes the sins of court
bishops in the Restoration Era.
But Regalism in its long and varied history has
never been so rampantly and victoriously employed
as it has by the modern American pluralist-shaped
liberal democratic governments. Compliance
with the demands of their form of Regalism is the
general policy of court bishops and their cowed

fellow-prelates ruling the American Church,
and, for that matter, everywhere that pluralism’s
writ runs wild. And this is no wonder, since the
system created through it is designed to drive
men honestly seeking to be good bishops under its
command stark raving mad.
St. Basil was fortunate in this one regard,
namely, that the attack on Christ that he was
facing was straightforwardly doctrinal in
character, mercifully limited to one particular—
though admittedly deadly—heresy, and backed by
an open, obvious, physical threat from people who
took him so seriously as an opponent that they
were ready to incarcerate or kill him. Being by
nature rather cowardly and uncertain how I would
react to imprisonment or martyrdom, I in no way
wish to diminish respect for this great man in the
face of an imperial emissary threatening whips,
chains, and a hatchet. However, I must confess
that that punishment that faces the potential good
bishop in a pluralist regime is in many respects
much more demeaning to the mind and spirit and
perhaps much more difficult to resist.
American Pluralism proudly and ceaselessly
insists that Regalism simply cannot exist under
its aegis. Its commitment to religious freedom,
separation of the secular and the spiritual, and,
hence, a “free Church in a free State” utterly

Dialogue between St. Basil the Great and the Arian Prefect Modestus

13

Theme The Episcopacy
abolishes the problem forever. It supposedly
grants an institution like the Roman Catholic
Church the best conditions for evangelization that
it has ever experienced in history—in fact, the
only conditions under which it can operate in the
modern world. It guarantees the opposite to be
true, and this both on the practical as well as the
theoretical levels.
On the practical level, the exaltation of liberty
that it proclaims creates a “free supermarket of
ideas” that gives the same protection to religious
and philosophical absurdities that it does to
exalted principles. It makes them all seem equal in
value, “checking and balancing” the lot of them out
of any kind of influence over public life, which is
thereby rendered totally materialist and mundane
in consequence. On the theoretical level, the carte
blanche for “freedom” that it entails takes for
granted that a “free Church” must operate with
the same “live and let live” attitude as the State
allows, viewing any opposition to this principle
as a violation of true liberty, and one indicating
an unintelligible madness, given that religion has
“obviously” been liberated under the pluralist
system as never before!
Standing behind the supposedly religiously
neutral picture that is painted lies the mystic
depiction of the American Way as “the last, best
hope for mankind,” over whose Foundation God’s
Providence hovered and hovers ad saeculum
saecolorum. So well trained is the “laity” of what
amounts to a secularized Puritan Church nurturing
the vision of America as a “City on a Hill” with a
worldwide mission of enlightenment, that even its
Roman Catholic segment stops up its ears with
disbelief when a good bishop comes along crying
“fraud,” standing up for true Church freedom
to teach what she must, and contradicting the
doctrines of Pluralism in the process. It reacts like
the imperial magistrate of the early 3rd Century
who refused to entertain Christian arguments and
said: “I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to
people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion”
(Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p.17).
1,800 years apart, the bulk of the American
Catholic laity takes for granted a Divine Regalist
State whose shoes the Church is supposed to shine,
and whose lessons she is supposed to learn rather
14

The Angelus

January - February 2019

than to correct. Like the system it serves, it cannot
imagine why a good bishop would oppose “the
last best hope of mankind” and religious forces’
unquestionably” magnificent opportunity to take
advantage of its “live and let live” mentality. Under
such circumstances, a St. Basil the Great would
not be imprisoned or executed, but ignored or sent
for psychiatric help. Nothing substantive can be
taken seriously by liberal democratic Pluralism.
One man’s heresy is another man’s orthodoxy and
deserving of the same respect.
One way of summarizing the difference between
the idea of a good bishop and a court bishop in
all ages is by making mention of an incident that
I witnessed at a conference given by a prominent
American prelate. An old friend of mind asked
this star in the episcopal firmament a question
about rampant ecclesiastical abuses that any
traditional Catholic would understand needed to
be addressed. The organizer of the event leaped
up and squelched the query, basing his censorship
on the grounds that his job “was to protect His
Excellency.” He understood that that protection
meant preventing anyone from interfering with the
prelate’s work as a court bishop. This work was
centered around “protecting the divine pluralist
Zeitgeist.” “Funny,” my friend managed to respond
in a booming voice, “and yet since the time that I
was a child, I thought it was supposed to be the
bishop’s job to protect me!”
My friend was obviously correct. The bishop is
there to protect the Faith and the path of the laity
to eternal salvation. The most important way that a
bishop performs this task is by defending doctrine
and Catholic practice: in St. Basil’s day against the
Arians and Semi Arians; in St. Charles Borromeo’s
time against Spanish administrative pests; and in
the American regalist era against the idea that no
belief is important enough to take one’s energies
away from the pursuit of liberty and material
happiness
—and worshipping the idols that encourage the
mindlessness these entail.
St. Basil the Great, pray for good bishops in our
time!

Letter to
Future
Bishops
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Adveniat Regnum Tuum
To: Fathers Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais,
Fellay, and de Galarreta
My Dear Friends,
The See of Peter and the posts of authority
in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the
destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being
rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body
here below; especially through the corruption
of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid
expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the
Cross, “Regnavit a Ligno Deus,” and the source
of the extension of His kingdom over souls and
over societies.
Hence the absolute need appears obvious of
ensuring the permanency and continuation of
15

Theme The Episcopacy
the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that
“His Kingdom come.”
The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought
the corruption of the priesthood and the
universal decadence of Faith in the Divinity of
Our Lord Jesus Christ.
God raised up the Priestly Society of Saint
Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of
His glorious and expiatory sacrifice within the
Church. He chose Himself some true priests
instructed in and convinced of these divine
mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to
prepare these Levites and to confer upon them
the grace of the priesthood for the continuation
of the true sacrifice according to the definition of
the Council of Trent.
This is what has brought down upon our
heads persecution by the Rome of the antiChrists. Since this Rome, Modernist and
Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction
of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the
confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on
Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained
by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the
Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order
that the Church and the Catholic priesthood
continue to subsist for the glory of God and for
the salvation of souls.
That is why, convinced that I am only carrying
out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing
this letter to ask you to agree to receive the
grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have
already conferred it on other priests in other
circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you,
confident that without too long a delay the See
of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter
who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands
you will be able to put back the grace of your
episcopacy so that he may confirm it.
The main purpose of my passing on the
episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders
be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Holy
Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the
Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon
children and upon the faithful who will ask you
for it.
I beseech you to remain attached to the See of
Peter, to the Roman Church, mother and mistress
of all the Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith,
16

The Angelus

January - February 2019

expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic
Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
in conformity with what you were taught in your
seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of
this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may
come.
Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to
the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, to remain
profoundly united amongst yourselves, in
submission to the Society’s Superior General,
in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering
this word of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8,9).
“Sed licet nos, aut angelus de caelo evangelizet
vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus
vobis, anathema sit. Sicut praediximus et
nunc iterum dico: si quis vobis evangelizaverit
praeter id, quod accepistis, anathem sit.”1
My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ
Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to
the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and
holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and
glory of Jesus in Heaven and upon earth, for the
salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own
soul.
In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you
and bless you.
Your father in Christ Jesus,
† Marcel Lefebvre
On the Feast of St. Augustine, August 29, 1987
1

“But even if we or an angel from Heaven were to teach you a
different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be
anathema. As we have said before, now again I say: if anyone
teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let
him be anathema!

“Among all the devotions approved
by the Church, none has been so
favored by so many miracles as the
devotion of the Most Holy Rosary”
St. Pius X

136 pp. – Color Softcover – STK# 8725 – $12.95

The Rosary With
Archbishop Lefebvre
If you are seeking a better understanding of the Rosary
in 2019 or to develop a deeper level of Faith through the
study of its mysteries, this book is for you!
Available at angeluspress.org

Theme The Episcopacy

Recollection
for 4 Future
Bishops
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Sierre June 26, 1988

Here we are at the dear priory of Sierre, below
the Lake of Geronde, in the beautiful, sunny
canton of Valais. During this recollection, take
some fresh air—you have the garden and the
shade trees. Pray very much in the chapel!
Dear bishop-elect let me open my heart to you,
to give you some novissima verba, some intimate
confidences, before your episcopal ordination in
five days at Ecône!
First of all, this morning, why your
consecrations?
In order to understand this, look with faith
upon the situation of the Church, or that of Rome.
This perspective of faith will render you strong,
as an armor, against the objections of “schism,” of
“rupture of the Apostolic episcopal succession.”
18

The Angelus

January - February 2019

It is not a matter of this: this is not the problem.
It is a matter of a gigantic combat between Satan
and Our Lord Jesus Christ. We have engaged
ourselves therein during these exceptional times,
which require exceptional solutions: Rome is
occupied by anti-Christs.
Your Grace, is it the Antichrist?
No, rather some (who are) “anti-Christ.” In
the sense where St. John, in his first epistle,
qualifies the apostates of his time, those who
have abandoned the faith, by saying: “Every spirit
which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh, is of God. And every spirit that dissolves
Jesus, is not of God: it is that of the Antichrist
(in Greek “anti-Christ”), of whom you have heard
that he is coming, and he is now already in the
world” (I Jn. 4: 2-3) in his precursors.

But Your Grace, what does this have to do
with the Modernists of today?
It is simple: Our modern “anti-Christ” accept,
theoretically, that Jesus is God, the Son of God,
but they refuse that He is King, King of civil
society, King of families, of schools...They thus
divide Christ, they dissolve Christ.
Monseigneur, where do they do this? In
the Council?
Of course, with Religious Liberty for example.
According to Dignitatis Humanae, God would
grant to the dignity of the human person the
right to deny Him publicly, by profession and the
public social cult of religion, which dictates his
conscience, or to which it binds his search for the
truth.
Your Grace, is it possible that a Council,

assisted by the Holy Spirit, has given so
many follies?
Contra factum, non fit argumentum: one is
truly obliged to see the facts; the quibbles cannot
do anything about it.
It is thus the denial, by the Church or of
those who hold Her place, the social reign of
Jesus Christ, which renders our episcopal
consecrations legitimate?
Yes. In the face of this apostasy that began
at the Council and has continued by the
post-conciliar reforms, for us June 30 will be
“operation survival of Tradition,” in order that the
Church continues outside of the apostasy. Do you
understand?
Yes, Your Grace, our consecration will
19

Theme The Episcopacy
be a survival operation of the work begun by
you at Fribourg in 1969 by the founding of the
priestly Society of Saint Pius X.
Oh, you know, when it became necessary for
me to begin this work, I truly assure you that I
had the conviction, a profound conviction, that
one could not snatch me away, that in order to
save the Church, to continue the Church, it was
necessary to have priests, holy priests, true
priests!

their aim was to lead us back to the Council, to
integrate us into the fold of the “Conciliar Church.”

“And also for Christian society?” asked
Father Tissier.
Yes. If we want to save souls, to save Christian
society, save Christian families, save what
remains of Christianity in the world and to
develop what remains of it, there is not another
solution than priests, true priests! But how this
would be accomplished, I knew not. This was
done day by day; despite all oppositions.*

Would you like to summarize the details of
this subject for us.
Here it is. First, I tried everything to reach the
pope, to persuade him of the state of necessity
in the Church, of the state of necessity in which
our faithful find themselves. Secondly, by this
consecration, I will transmit to you the “Power
of the Episcopal Order”: the power to give the
Sacrament of Confirmation and to transmit the
Sacrament of Holy Orders: to ordain the Major
and Minor Orders and the Priesthood. But I do
not pretend to confer a jurisdiction, any power
of government! Only the pope can give a fold to a
Shepherd, a Diocese to a bishop.
Thus, it is not a question of founding a parallel
Church! With Rome, only the Fraternity matters,
only its Superior General—even if not a bishop—
and to him alone, the concern of relations with
Rome.
And in a few years, when Rome has come back
from her present wanderings, you will depose
your episcopate between the hands of the pope,
saying to him, “Here we are, Holy Father, at your
disposal.”
Thus, I have absolutely not “broken with Rome;”
in this exceptional situation that we have not
created, I have estimated in all prudence to take
an urgent measure, in view of my advanced age,
and to present it in the form of a question to all the
superiors of the priestly and religious communities
who are our friends, as took place May 30th of this
year, at the priory of Pointet:

Good! Now, let’s pray Sext in the chapel;
let’s pray the Divine Office with the
conviction that this prayer of the Church is
always heard!

And after the meal, taken in silence, and a moment of rest
if desired, the Archbishop continued his explanations.

Why did we begin and then break off
dealings with Rome?
You know why. It was at Fatima, on August
22 of last year—1987—that we and some of the
superiors present at our pilgrimage celebrating
the 70th anniversary of the message of Our Lady
at Fatima, decided to try everything to receive
permission from Pope John Paul II for the
consecrations.
But in the course of the conferences of April
and May, he told us: “This bishop that you are
asking, you will not have need of him, once you are
recognized by the Holy See!”; and “Monseigneur,
the Church is one!”; as also, “We will see that at St.
Nicholas du Chardonnet, there will also be a parish
Mass!” In other words, the bi-ritual Novus Ordo/
Latin Mass! The atmosphere of these dealings, the
reactions of our interlocutors convinced me that
20

The Angelus

January - February 2019

And then, Your Grace, did you break ties
with Rome?
I stopped dealings, yes, but I didn’t break with
Rome! I took care during these past years to
conceive these episcopal consecrations, in order
that they would not engage us in a direction that
would indeed lead us into schism.

“Is it not necessary before all else to preserve
the family of Tradition, maintaining its strong
cohesion in faith and grace; considering that the
purely formal tie to Modernist Rome cannot be
placed in the balance with the protection of this

family which represents and in which dwells the
(illegible) Catholic Church?”

definition of the Immaculate Conception. You
will do the same in your sermons.

Asking clearly the question, it was there to
answer, wasn’t it, Your Grace?
June 30th will be “Operation Survival of
Tradition.” If we had continued, placing ourselves
in obedience of the present Rome, it would be
“Operation Suicide of Tradition.”

2. Then secondly the predication of the Faith.
–– On the occasion of ordinations and
confirmations, you will fortify the Faith of the
seminarians and the faithful. For this you have
the power, the munus docendi, by the grace of
your episcopate and the supplied jurisdiction of
the Church.
–– To us as to the Apostles, Our Lord tells us, “Go,
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost; teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you” (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Tradition does not belong to us, it is the Life
of Our Lord in souls. There is not a choice. All
the popes, dear friends, beg you to continue
their work; they see in you their continuation,
particularly St. Pius X.

A small meal was offered to the retreatants, though in
silence. Archbishop Lefebvre then gave some directives,
practical in fact, but full of solid principles.

Practical directives to the future bishops
Now with what dispositions should you
approach your episcopacy?
1. Before all else with a spirit of faith!
–– See all in the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
May Our Lord be the center of all your
thoughts, of your life; the unique object of your
meditations, the judgment you bring to all
things, persons, societies. Jesus is the measure
of all things: Omnia in ipso constant, By Him
all things consist (Col. 1:17).
–– You will preach Our Lord Jesus Christ with
all your heart. You will preach that outside of
His name there is no salvation for persons or
societies.
–– You will preach that obedience to the Faith has
priority especially in the Church.
–– The Faith is an obedience to the Word of God.
This Word is Truth; this Truth does not belong
to us, we are not teachers to speak nonsense!
It is a deposit confided by God to the Apostles
and ends at the death of the last among them.
The Church ought to simply transmit it, expose
it faithfully and infallibly, as taught Pope Pius
IX, along with the necessary explanations,
according as he also explained in his Bull of

Your Grace, Cardinal Pie said that the
Church has never had more light from the
deposit of the Faith than when it condemns
the errors that destroy it.
Yes. Read the Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy,
which stands as a testament of the Apostle to all
bishops to come:
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to
thy trust! Avoid the profane novelties of words, and
oppositions of knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim.
6:20).
“Preach the word! Be instant in season and out
of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience
and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to
their own desires, they will heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed
turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be
turned unto fables” (II Tim. 4: 2-4).
Following these counsels, you will be “the
recommendable doctors in the Church of God,”
as the Roman Pontifical States; you will heal
the wounds of lack of faith. You will be the good
Samaritans of the weak and the wounded. In
regard to the faithful who doubt, who are agitated,
communicate to them the divine serenity, be for
them a serene strength. It will be efficacious,
because that which does not come from us comes
from God Himself. If persecutions should strike
us, we will be like the first Christians, as the
martyrs. There is nothing new. It is normal. “Nolite
terreri—Do not panic!” (Lk. 21:9).
21

Theme The Episcopacy

The Problem
with
Collegiality
Interview with Fr. Dominque Bourmaud, SSPX

What does the SSPX have to object to the
decrees of Vatican II?
Among the most important objections we
have with the documents of Vatican II, we must
mention what Fr. Schmidberger described
as Three Time Bombs. In a nutshell, these
issues were: religious liberty, ecumenism and
collegiality.
As we are specifically working on the
episcopal element in the Church, we want
to focus on the last of the time bombs, set
at Vatican II, which exploded afterwards.
Would you mind giving us a rough definition
of what this term collegiality entails?
Collegiality broadly speaking is the power
exercised by a college as opposed to an
individual. In modern government, we would
22

The Angelus

January - February 2019

call it an aristocratic vs. a monarchical power.
Applied to the Catholic Church, this means that
the Apostolic College governed along with Peter
the pope, and that this exercise passed on to
their successor, the College of bishops.
In The Inside Story of Vatican II—
formerly called The Rhine flows into
the Tiber—Fr. Wiltgen explain that the
modernist elements at the Council felt this
was a decisive battle. Would you elaborate
on this?
Modernists like Rahner, Congar and Ratzinger
indeed put their own twist on collegiality. For
them, not only was there a communion in the
Magisterium, or Church teaching, there had to
be a Magisterium of communion. Said otherwise,
the pope was not the only supreme teacher.

He had to share his office with the College of
bishops. The Church was not a circle orbiting
around one center; it described an ellipse around
two centers.
Could you please explain the position
of the two main parties on the role of the
bishops’ College in the Church?
In the traditional interpretation, the bishops’
College exercised supreme authority merely
by human right. Hence, the pope alone enjoyed
supreme power by divine right and there was no
dual power.
Even if he acted along with the episcopal
college united in Council, he simply extended his
power to the College. The result was that there
was properly a single subject, whether exercised
with or without the episcopal college.
By contrast, the most liberal interpretation
considered that the subject of the supreme power
was the College of bishops together with its
head, the pope. The latter was simply primus
inter pares—first among equals—, bound in
conscience to follow the decisions of the college
as their head and representative. The pope’s
action was limited to playing the policeman
and keeping order among the other members.
Hence, the Church enjoyed a synarchic, not
longer a monarchic, power according to a thesis
condemned by the Church.
So, who finally won the battle at the
Council?
You might be right in calling the end result
a draw. But this did not happen without fierce
struggle. All the way to the end, the modernist
elements had the upper hand in writing the
various drafts. Although he had been forewarned,
the pope had given them free rein until the day
when one of the modernist experts put into
writing the interpretation which they planned to
draw after the Council was over. This paper fell
into the hands of the conservatives, who carried
it to the pope. Pope Paul, finally understanding
that he had been fooled, was greatly moved and
wept.
If I am correct, by that time, the text had
been fully endorsed by the Council Fathers?

Could the pope go ahead and promulgate a
text so ambiguous that it laid waste to the
divine constitution of the Church?
No, he could not allow this. And so, at the 11th
hour, the pope ordered a foreword to be added,
the Nota explicativa praevia which excluded
the heretical interpretation. This note explained
that the College “only occasionally…engages in
strictly collegiate activity, and that only with
the consent of its head.” The Catholic doctrine
had been saved, in extremis, at least as regards
the constitution of the Church. Nonetheless, the
existence of such a note remains an eloquent
testimony to the ambiguity of some conciliar
texts.
You mention the foreword. What about the
pertinent paragraph in the main text of the
decree Lumen Gentium #22?
It reads thus: “In virtue of his office, that
is, as Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the whole
Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme
and universal power over the Church. And he is
always free to exercise this power. The order of
bishops…is also the subject [subjectum quoque]
of supreme and full power over the universal
Church, provided we understand this body
together with its head the Roman Pontiff and
never without this head.”
I understand this does not have quite
the same tone as Vatican I explained, in
stressing mostly the papal power.
Certainly not. Here is the text of Vatican I
asserting Peter’s supreme and universal power:
“…to Peter alone, before the other apostles,
whether individually or all together, was confided
the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by
Christ.”
When we compare the doctrine on Church
power in Vatican II with Vatican I, are we
not simply talking about a clarification
and extension of the Church’s exercise of
authority?
Although the text of Lumen Gentium appears
rather innocuous, its ambiguity was officially
recognized by Monsignor Parente, the Council
relator whose role was to clarify its sense.
23

Theme The Episcopacy

24

Where exactly does the ambiguity lie?
The main problem concerns the subject of the
Primacy. Even if the Nota Explicativa implies
the essential harmony which must exist between
the pope acting with the episcopal College, yet
he is giving his placet to the acting College, and
behaves as a chairman simply consenting to the
college decisions? This, besides the pope acting
alone, constitutes properly and formally a second
subject of the primacy.

How extensive is this episcopal power?
In the light of Vatican II (LG #22), the episcopal
College enjoys universal and jurisdiction over the
church by divine right. This doctrine is repeated
in the new Code of Canon Law of 1983,
Canon 336: “The college of bishops, whose
head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose
members are bishops by virtue of sacramental
consecration and hierarchical communion with
the head and members of the college and in which

the apostolic body continues, together with its
head and never without it, is also the subject
of supreme and full power over the universal
Church.”

consecration... If the doctrine proposed in the
schema was correct, the Church would have lived
for centuries in direct opposition with the divine
right.”

What is wrong with this conception?
What is wrong here is indicated by Cardinal
Larraona : “The Church, from monarchical,
becomes episcopalian and collegial, and this
by divine right and in virtue of the episcopal

Can you spell out the Cardinal’s issues
with this text?
His first issue is that the Apostolic College, if it
ever existed, did not enjoy an existence by divine
right. Speaking of collegial act of the Apostles,

The Angelus

January - February 2019

Cardinal Ottaviani was fond of saying that the
first one was, during the Passion, when they all
fled.
The other problem is the amalgamation of
the power of the Apostles with that of Peter.
Although the Apostles and their successors, the
bishops, received also the powers of the keys (Mt.
18) given firstly to Peter (Mt. 16), these should not
be confused. Only St. Peter received this power
supremely and universally, whereas the apostles
enjoyed a subordinate and restricted power,
and more so their successors, the local bishops.
Even all of them put together do not equate the
universal and supreme power of the pope.
Finally, there is the ambiguity of the origin of
this collegial power, said to be “in virtue of the
episcopal consecration.”
What is wrong with a bishop having power
in virtue of his episcopal consecration?
This is an error in that, even prior to being
summoned by the pope to rule a diocese, a
bishop would already be enjoying jurisdiction.
In traditional teaching, these powers are distinct
and do not share the same extension. Likewise,
in civil court, the fact of having passed the bar
examination does not entitle a lawyer to act as
judge over a given district. But to confuse the
power of jurisdiction with that of Order leans
towards conciliarism.
What repercussions did these texts and
legislation bring about to the Church at
large?
After the Council, the Church practice has
brought about the synod of bishops which used
to meet every two years to shoulder, if not overshadow, the pope’s function. It has acted as a ram
to promote new Church teaching while seemingly
removing the blame and burden from the pope’s
shoulders.

pope reduced by collegial activity, but the local
bishops also, who enjoy also an authority by
divine right, are virtually paralyzed from above.
In his Iota Unum, Romano Amerio mentions the
remarks of some bishops which explain the de
facto sclerosis of the hierarchy. “As an individual
bishop I am absolutely powerless. Matters have
been so arranged in the Church today, that an
appeal by a bishop would be ridiculed as well as
going unheard.” (#234)
Did not Archbishop Lefebvre have to set
up episcopal conferences?
Indeed he did this. Yet, he gave fair warning
about their respective role, being safe the
bishop’s personal authority. In Madagascar,
where the bishops were already in the habit
of meeting, Archbishop Lefebvre said that he
encountered some difficulties with the very
active Jesuits. “I reminded them that the bishop
was to remain master in his own diocese, and
was free to accept or reject their suggestions.”
Any solution to get out of the tunnel?
It seems clear that it is impossible to govern
the Church except the way Christ set it up. Unless
the authority of the pope and, under his, that
of the local bishop, be fully restored, things no
solution is on the horizon. As long as we have a
shadow governor ruled by an anonymous and
amorphous irresponsible group, the Church is
not going to come out of the de facto sclerosis.
It is only a personal authority with individual
responsibility which can lead things properly.
The shepherd, in Christ’s mind, needs to render
account of his office and of his feeding the sheep
entrusted to him, before God and before men.

If collegeality tends to diminish the Papal
authority, does this not give more power to
the bishops?
In theory, yes. The problem is that between the
local bishop and the pope, there is now powerful
national episcopal conferences. So, at the end
of the game, not only is the divine right of the
25

Spirituality

Consecration
of a Bishop
by Fr. Christopher Danel

26

Introduction

Preliminaries of the Rite

The rite of Consecration of a bishop developed
from its germinal phase in the Apostolic age,
which one can glimpse even in the Acts of the
Apostles regarding the consecration of Sts. Paul
and Barnabas at Antioch. By the 10th century,
a few elements of Gallican origin had been
incorporated, which appear in the Pontificale
Romano-Germanicum. This edition was closely
followed by Monsignor Guillaume Durand (+1296)
in the compilation of his Pontifical which is
the immediate predecessor of the Tridentine
Pontifical. The gradual and organic development
of the rite over the centuries served to bring into
greater relief the importance and symbolism
of the various elements associated with the
Episcopal office and dignity.

It was long the custom at Rome that the pope
would consecrate bishops alone, while in other
parts of the Church provincial bishops would
assist. Thus the Consecrator alone is the essential
minister of the Sacrament, as reiterated in 1944
by Pope Pius XII in the Apostolic Constitution
Episcopalis Consecrationis, although the
Pontifical calls for two assistant bishops to be
present in ordinary circumstances. The matter
of the sacrament, likewise defined by Pius XII in
1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis, is the imposition
of hands (cheirotonía) by the Consecrator, and the
form of the sacrament is: Comple in Sacerdote tuo
ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius
glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti
rore santifica (Perfect in Thy priest the fullness
of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the

The Angelus

January - February 2019

ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him
with the Heavenly anointing).
The Consecration itself takes place after the
Gradual of the Mass. The Consecrator celebrates
Mass at the main altar, while the bishop-elect
celebrates the beginning of the Mass through the
Offertory in a side chapel or at a side altar. For
the remainder of the Mass, after his consecration,
he concelebrates the Mass standing on the side of
the Main altar.

The Postulation and Oath
At the beginning of the ceremony, the bishopelect, vested in white cope, is led to the main
altar between the two assistant bishops, and
is then seated at a little distance from the
Consecrator, facing him. The Postulation is made
by the senior assistant bishop: “Most Reverend
Father, our holy Mother the Catholic Church,
asks that you promote this priest here present
to the burden of the episcopate.” The reading of
the Mandate follows, and then the oath of fidelity
of the bishop-elect. The elect pledges fidelity
to blessed Peter the apostle, to the holy Roman
Church, and to the pope and his successors. He
pledges to pursue and fight against heretics and
schismatics. He pledges to make his ad limina
visits and to exercise a careful custody of the
ecclesiastical goods entrusted to him.

The Examination
The Consecrator then examines the bishopelect on his life, on his words and example,
his obedience, virtues, chastity, sobriety,
detachment from the world, humility, patience,
mercy, and charity. He proceeds to examine the
bishop-elect more specifically on matters of the
Catholic Faith, including precise questions on
the Holy Trinity and each Divine Person thereof,
and on the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The rejection of

some elements of Gnosticism and Manicheism
attest to the antiquity of the text, which dates
to the 5th or 6th century. The Consecrator
continues, “Do you believe that the holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church is the one true Church
in which there is but one true baptism and
the true remission of all sins?” “I believe.” “Do
you also anathematize every heresy that shall
arise against this holy Catholic Church?” “I do
anathematize it.” “Do you believe also that God
and the Lord Almighty is the sole author of the
New and Old Testaments, of the Law, and of the
Prophets, and of the Apostles?” “I do believe.”
The assistant bishops then lead the bishopelect to his side altar, where he is vested in
Pontifical vestments and celebrates the first part
of the Mass there.

27

Spirituality
Admonition and Litany
The Gradual being finished, the assistant
bishops again lead the bishop-elect to the
Consecrator, who gives him the admonition
regarding the Order he is to receive. This
occurs in ordinations to every rank, with the
admonitions of subdiaconate, diaconate, and
priesthood being extensive. The admonition
in this consecration rite is unusually terse,
consisting of only ten words; it is simply a
line taken from a letter of St. Isidore of Seville

(+636): “A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates,
ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.”
The Litany of the Saints is then sung, with
the bishop-elect lying prostrate before the altar.
Towards the end, the Consecrator rises, turns
towards the bishop-elect, holding the crozier in
his left hand and chants in the tone of the litanies,
first: That Thou wouldst vouchsafe to + bless this
Elect here present. He says a second time: That
Thou wouldst vouchsafe to + bless and + sanctify
this Elect here present. He says a third time: That
Thou wouldst vouchsafe to + bless and + sanctify
and + consecrate this Elect here present.
The litany finished, the bishop-elect kneels
before the Consecrator at the altar steps. The
Consecrator, with the aid of the assistant
bishops, taking the open book of the Gospels,
saying nothing, lays it upon the neck and
28

The Angelus

January - February 2019

shoulders of the bishop-elect, so that the printed
page touches the neck. One of the chaplains
kneels behind, supporting the book throughout
the remainder of the rite until it must be given
into the hands of the bishop-elect.

Matter and Form
Then the Consecrator touches with both
hands the head of the one to be consecrated
saying: “Receive the Holy Ghost.” The assistant

bishops then do and say likewise, and then quietly
pronounce the remainder of the rite along with
the Consecrator. The Consecrator then gives a
blessing and proceeds to chant the special Preface
which concludes with the form of the Sacrament.
“It is truly worthy and just, right and profitable
unto salvation that we should at all times and in
all places give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord,
Father Almighty, Eternal God, honor of all
dignities which serve unto Thy glory in sacred
orders.” He extolls the examples of Moses and
Aaron in the fulfillment of the ordinances of
God regarding divine worship. He continues,
“And therefore we beseech Thee, O Lord, give
bountifully this grace to this Thy servant, whom
Thou hast chosen to the ministry of the supreme
priesthood, so that what things soever those
vestments signify by the refulgence of gold, the

splendor of jewels, and the variety of diversified
works, these may shine forth in his character and
his actions. Perfect in Thy priest the fullness
of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the
ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify
him with the heavenly anointing.”

The Veni Creator is begun, and the head of

Give to him, O Lord, the keys of the kingdom of
Heaven […]. Let him who shall curse him, himself
be accursed, and let him who shall bless him be
filled with blessings. Let him be the faithful and
prudent servant whom Thou dost set, O Lord,
over Thy household, so that he may give them
food in due season, and prove himself a perfect
man. […] Let him not put light for darkness, nor
darkness for light: let him not call evil good, nor
good evil. […]Be his authority, be his power, be
his strength. Multiply upon him Thy + blessing

the bishop-elect is bound with a long linen strip.
The bishop-elect comes before the Consecrator,
who dips the thumb of his right hand in the holy
chrism and anoints the head of the bishop-elect
kneeling before him, making first the sign of the
cross on the crown, then anointing the rest of
the crown, saying in the meanwhile: “May thy
head be anointed and consecrated by heavenly
benediction in the pontifical order.”
Having completed the anointing, the
Consecrator continues in the same tone as
before, saying: “May this, O Lord, flow abundantly
upon his head, may this run down upon his
cheeks, may this extend unto the extremities of
his whole body, so that inwardly he may be filled
with the power of Thy spirit, and outwardly may
be clothed with that same spirit. May constant
faith, pure love, sincere piety abound in him. […]

and Thy grace, so that by Thy gift he may be fitted
for always obtaining Thy mercy, and by Thy grace
may be faithful.”
After an antiphon, Unguentum in capite,
another long linen strip is placed on the neck of
the bishop-elect. The Consecrator anoints with
chrism the hands of the bishop-elect in the form
of a cross, and afterwards he anoints the entire
palms of the bishop-elect, saying: “May these
hands be anointed with the sanctified oil and
the chrism of sanctification, as Samuel anointed
David to be King and Prophet; so may they be
anointed and consecrated. In the name of God
the + Father, and the + Son, and the Holy +
Ghost, making the image of the Holy cross of Our
Savior Jesus Christ, Who has redeemed us from
death and led us to the kingdom of Heaven. Hear
us, O loving, Almighty Father, Eternal God,

The Unctions

29

Spirituality
and grant that we may obtain what we ask for.
Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.”
Sitting down, he continues: “May God and
the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath
Himself willed to elevate thee to the dignity of
the Episcopate, bedew thee with chrism and
with the liquor of mystic ointment, and make
thee fruitful with the richness of spiritual +
benediction: Whatsoever you shall + bless may
it be blessed, and whatsoever you shall sanctify
may it be sanctified; and may the imposition of

joined, while the Consecrator says: “Receive
the staff of the pastoral office, so that in the
correction of vices you may be lovingly severe,
giving judgment without wrath, softening the
minds of your hearers whilst fostering virtues,
not neglecting strictness of discipline through
love of tranquility. Amen.”
The Consecrator blesses the new bishop’s ring,
saying: “O Lord, Creator and Preserver of the
human race, Giver of spiritual grace, Bestower
of eternal salvation, do Thou send forth Thy +

this consecrated hand or thumb be profitable
in all things unto salvation. Amen.” After this,
the one consecrated joins both hands, the right
resting upon the left, and places them upon the
cloth hanging from his neck.

blessing upon this ring; so that whosoever shall
be adorned with this sign of holiest fidelity, it may
avail him by the power of heavenly protection
unto eternal life. Through Christ Our Lord.
Amen.” He places the ring on the ring finger of
the right hand of the one consecrated, saying:
“Receive the ring, the symbol of fidelity, in order
that, adorned with unspotted faith, you may keep
inviolably the Spouse of God, namely, His Holy
Church. Amen.”
Then the Consecrator takes the book of
the Gospels from the shoulders of the one
consecrated, and with the aid of the assistant
bishops, hands it closed to the one consecrated,
the latter touching it without opening his hands,
whilst the Consecrator says: “Receive the Gospel
and go preach to the people committed to thee,
for God is powerful to increase his grace in thee,

The Crozier, Ring, and Gospels
The Consecrator then blesses the new bishop’s
crozier, saying: “O God, who dost sustain human
weakness, bless + this staff: and in the clemency
of Thy merciful kindness, operate inwardly in the
manners of this Thy servant, what it outwardly
designates. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.” He
confers it to the one consecrated, who is kneeling
before him, and who receives it between the
index and middle fingers, the hands remaining
30

The Angelus

January - February 2019

He who liveth and reigneth, world without end.
Amen.”
Finally the Consecrator receives the one
consecrated to the kiss of peace. The assistant
bishops each do likewise, saying to the one
consecrated: Pax tibi. Then the one consecrated,
between the assistant bishops, returns to his
side altar, where, while he is seated, his head and
hands are cleansed with some bread, lemon, and
with a clean cloth. Then he goes on with the Mass
up to the Offertory inclusive. The Consecrator

does the same at the main altar.

The Oblations
The Offertory having been said, the
Consecrator sits at the faldstool before the
middle of the altar, and the one consecrated,
coming from his side altar, kneels before the
Consecrator and offers to him two lighted
torches, two loaves of bread and two small
barrels of wine, and kisses reverently the hands
of the Consecrator receiving the above gifts.
The bread and the wine casks are ornamented,
two with silver decorations and two with gold,
bearing the escutcheons of the Consecrator and
of the bishop­elect.
Then the Consecrator goes to the altar and
the one consecrated also goes to the Epistle

side of the same altar: there, standing between
the assistant bishops, having before him his
Missal, he says and does with the Consecrator
everything as in the Missal. One host is prepared
to be consecrated for the Consecrator and the
one consecrated, and wine sufficient for both is
placed in the chalice.

Pax and Communion
After the Agnus Dei, the Consecrator gives
the Pax to the one consecrated and to the
assistant bishops. Then after the Consecrator
has consumed the Body of the Lord, he does
not entirely consume the blood, but only a
portion, and before he takes the purification, he
communicates the one consecrated, who stands
with bowed head and not genuflecting, first
giving him the Body and then the Blood. After the
ablutions, the one consecrated, with his assistant
bishops, goes to the other corner of the altar,
namely, the Gospel side, and there continues the
Mass while the Consecrator does the same at the
Epistle side.

Spirituality
The Mitre and Gloves
After the Ite Missa est and the blessing, the
Consecrator sits on the faldstool which has been
placed before the middle of the altar: the one
consecrated kneels before him. The Consecrator
blesses the mitre, and then places it on the
head of the one consecrated, saying: “We, O
Lord, place on the head of this Thy bishop and
champion, the helmet of protection and salvation,
so that his face being adorned and his head
armed with the horns of both testaments, he
may seem terrible to the opponents of truth, and
through the indulgence of Thy grace may be their
sturdy adversary, Thou Who didst mark with
the brightest rays of Thy splendor and truth the
countenance of Moses Thy servant, ornamented
from his fellowship with Thy word: and didst
order the tiara to be placed on the head of Aaron
thy high priest. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.”
Then the Consecrator blesses the gloves,
saying: “O Almighty Creator, Who hast given
to man fashioned after Thy image, hands
notable for their formation, as an organ of
intelligence for correct workmanship: which
Thou hast commanded to be kept clean, so that
the soul might worthily be carried in them and
Thy mysteries worthily consecrated by them,
vouchsafe to + bless and + sanctify these hand
coverings, so that whosoever of Thy ministers,
the holy Bishops, shall humbly wish to cover their
hands with these, Thy mercy shall accord to him
cleanness of heart as well as of deed. Through
Christ Our Lord. Amen.”
The Consecrator places the gloves on
the hands of the one consecrated, saying:
“Encompass, O Lord, the hands of this Thy
minister with the cleanness of the new man who
descended from Heaven, so that as Thy beloved
Jacob, his hands covered with the skins of
young goats, implored and received the paternal
benediction, having offered to his Father most
agreeable food and drink, so also this one may
deserve to implore and to receive the benediction
of Thy grace by means of the saving host offered
by his hands. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy
Son, who in the likeness of sinful flesh, offered
Himself to Thee for us.”

32

The Angelus

January - February 2019

Enthronement, Blessings,
and Conclusion
Then the Consecrator rises and takes the one
consecrated by the right hand, and the senior
assistant bishop takes him by the left, and they
enthrone him by placing him sitting on the
faldstool from which the Consecrator has risen,
or if the ceremony be performed in the Church
of the one consecrated, they enthrone him on
the throne, and the Consecrator places in his left
hand the pastoral staff.
Then the Consecrator intones the Te Deum. At
the beginning of the hymn, the one consecrated
is led by the assistant bishops around the Church,
and he blesses everyone.
Following the Te Deum, after one final
antiphon, Firmetur manus tua, the Consecrator
chants a prayer for the newly-consecrated bishop,
who then proceeds to give the blessing in the
Episcopal form for the first time, beginning with
Sit nomen Domini benedictum.
Then the new bishop gives a triple blessing
to the Consecrator in an usual form. As the
Consecrator stands at the Gospel corner, the one
consecrated advances to him from the Epistle
side, genuflecting thrice, and auguring each time
many years of life to the Consecrator: “Ad multos
annos!” This is followed by the kiss of peace and
the Mass concludes with the final procession, as
both Consecrator and consecrated recite the Last
Gospel as they recede.

Bishop’s
Oath and
Examination
Oath
“I, N, elect of the Church of N, from this hour
henceforward will be faithful and obedient to
blessed Peter the apostle, and to the holy Roman
Church, and to our lord, Pope N, and to his
Successors canonically elected. I will not advise,
or consent, or do anything that they may lose
life or member, or be taken by an evil deception,
or have hands violently laid upon them in any
way, or have injuries offered to them under any
pretense whatsoever. The counsel indeed which
they shall entrust to me, by themselves, or by
their messengers or letters, I will not, to their
harm, knowingly reveal to anyone. The Roman
Papacy and the Royalty of St. Peter I will help
them to retain and defend, without prejudice to
my order, against every man. The legate of the
apostolic see, in his going and returning, I will

treat honorably and help in his necessities. The
rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the
holy Roman Church, of our lord the pope, and
of his aforesaid successors, I will take care to
preserve, defend, increase, and promote. Nor will
I take part in any counsel, or deed, or working,
in which anything may be contrived against
the pope himself or the said Roman Church, to
the injury or prejudice of their persons, right,
honor, state, and power. And if I shall know
such things to be taken in hand or managed by
any whomsoever, I will hinder this as far as I
can; and as soon as I shall be able, will make it
known to our said pope, or to some other one by
whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules
of the holy fathers, the decrees, ordinances,
or dispositions, reservations, provisions, and
apostolic mandates, I will observe with all
33

Spirituality
my might, and cause to be observed by others.
Heretics, schismatics, and rebels against our said
pope or his aforesaid Successors I will, as far as
I can, pursue and fight against. When called to a
synod I will come, unless I shall be prevented by
a canonical impediment. I will myself personally
visit the thresholds of the apostles every three
(or four or five or ten) years; and I will render
to our pope and his aforesaid Successors an
account of my whole pastoral office, and of all
things in anywise pertaining to the state of my
Church, to the discipline of the clergy and people,
finally to the salvation of the souls committed
to my trust; and I will in turn humbly receive
and with the utmost diligence perform the
apostolic commands. But if I shall be detained
by a lawful impediment, I will perform all the
things aforesaid by a certain messenger specially
authorized for this purpose, one of my chapter, or
some other one placed in ecclesiastical dignity,

or else having a benefice; or, if these are lacking
to me, by a priest of the diocese; and if the clergy
are altogether lacking, by some other secular or
regular priest, of proven honesty and piety, well
instructed in all the above-named subjects. In
respect to an impediment of this sort, however, I
34

The Angelus

January - February 2019

will give information by legitimate proofs, to be
transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the
Cardinal proponent of the holy Roman Church
in the Congregation of the sacred Council.
Assuredly, the possessions belonging to my table
I will not sell, nor give away, nor pledge, nor
enfeoff anew, or in any way alienate, even with
the consent of the chapter of my Church, without
consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make
any alienation, I desire by that very act to incur
the penalties set forth in a certain constitution
published on this subject. So help me God, and
these holy Gospels of God.”

Examination
The Consecrator examines the bishop-elect,
beginning with the admonition: “The ancient
rule of the holy Fathers teaches and ordains that
he who is chosen to the order of bishop shall be
with all charity examined diligently beforehand
concerning his faith in the Holy Trinity, and shall
be questioned concerning the different objects
and rules which pertain to this government and
are to be observed, according to the word of the
apostle: “Impose hands hastily on no man.” This
is done in order that he who is to be ordained may
be instructed how it behooveth one placed under
this rule to conduct himself in the Church of God,
and also that they may be blameless who impose
on him the hands of ordination. Therefore, by the
same authority and commandment, with sincere
charity, we ask you, dearest brother, if you desire
to make your conduct harmonize, as far as your
nature allows, with the meaning of the divine
Scripture.” The bishop-elect answers: “With my
whole heart I wish in all things to consent and
obey.”
The Consecrator interrogates further, with
the bishop-elect responding: “Will you teach the
people for whom you are ordained, both by words
and by example, the things you understand from
the divine Scriptures?” “I will” [Volo, or It is my
will to do so].
“Will you receive, keep and teach with
reverence the traditions of the orthodox fathers
and the decretal constitutions of the Holy and

Apostolic See?” “I will.”
“Will you exhibit in all things fidelity,
submission, obedience, according to canonical
authority, to Blessed Peter the Apostle, to whom
was given by God the power of binding and of
loosing, and to his Vicar our Holy Father, Pope
N. and to his successors the Roman Pontiffs?” “I
will.”
“Will you refrain in all your ways from evil and,
as far as you are able, with the help of the Lord,
direct them to every good?” “I will.”
“Will you observe and teach, with the help of
God, chastity and sobriety?” “I will.”
“Will you, as far as your human frailty shall
allow, always be given up to divine affairs and
abstain from worldly matters or sordid gains?” “I
will.”
“Will you yourself observe, and likewise teach
others to observe humility and patience?” “I will.”
“Will you, for the Lord’s sake, be affable and
merciful to the poor and to pilgrims and all those
in need?” “I will.”
The Consecrator says to him: “May the Lord
bestow upon thee all these things and every other
good thing, and preserve thee and strengthen
thee in all goodness.” He then examines the
bishop-elect on matters of the Catholic Faith:
“Do you believe, according to your
understanding and the capacity of your mind,
in the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost, one God almighty and the
whole Godhead, in the Holy Trinity coessential,
consubstantial, coeternal, and coomnipotent,
of one will, power and majesty, the Creator of
all creatures, by whom are all things, through
whom are all things, and in whom are all things
in Heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
corporeal and spiritual?” “I assent and do so
believe.”
“Do you believe each single person of the Holy
Trinity is one God, true, full and perfect?” “I do
believe.”
“ Do you believe in the Son of God, the
Word of God eternally begotten of the Father,
consubstantial, coomnipotent and coequal in
all things to the Father in divinity, born in time
of the Holy Ghost from Mary ever Virgin, with a

rational soul, having two nativities, one eternal
from the Father, the other temporal from the
Mother, true God and true Man, proper and
perfect in both natures, not the adopted nor
the fantastic, but the sole and only Son of God
in two natures and of two natures, but in the
singleness of one person, incapable of suffering
and immortal in his divinity, but Who suffered in
his humanity for us and for our salvation, with
real suffering of the flesh, and was buried, and,
rising on the third day from the dead with a true
resurrection of the flesh, on the fortieth day after
resurrection, with the flesh wherein he rose and
with his soul, ascended into Heaven and sitteth
at the right hand of the Father, thence to come
to judge the living and the dead, and to render
to everyone according to his works as they shall
have been good or bad?” “I assent and so in all
things do I believe.”
“Do you believe also in the Holy Ghost, full
and perfect and true God, proceeding from the
Father and the Son, coequal and coessential,
coomnipotent and coeternal in all things with the
Father and the Son?” “I do believe.”
“Do you believe that this Holy Trinity is not
three Gods, but one God, almighty, eternal,
invisible and unchangeable?” “I do believe.”
“ Do you believe that the holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church is the one true Church in
which there is but one true baptism and the true
remission of all sins?” “I do believe.”
“Do you also anathematize every heresy that
shall arise against this holy Catholic Church?” “I
do anathematize it.”
“Do you believe also in the true resurrection of
this same flesh of yours, and in life everlasting?”
“I do believe.”
“Do you believe also that God and the Lord
Almighty is the sole author of the New and Old
Testaments, of the Law, and of the Prophets, and
of the Apostles?” “I do believe.”
Afterwards the Consecrator says: “May this
faith be increased in thee, by the Lord, unto true
and eternal happiness, dearest brother in Christ.”

35

Spirituality

The Good
Shepherd and
His Flock
by a Benedictine monk

Whenever St. Benedict mentions in his Rule
the role of the bishop, he shows the monastery’s
need to be supported by an episcopal authority.
This seems to be true for the entire Church as
well as for the individual soul. We all need a
good shepherd to give us the sacraments, the
necessary spiritual food and to lead us to our
true Fatherland. One could easily be tempted to
lose the Faith because of today’s scandal in the
Catholic episcopate. It seems unthinkable that
the successors of Our Lord Jesus Christ could
actually abuse their authority to destroy their
flock or to protect priests that gravely harm their
parishioners. During the spiritual revolution of
the 1960s and 1970s, the bad example of bishops
and priests was commonplace. Many abandoned
their priesthood in order to marry and continue
their life without the Church and without God.
36

The Angelus

January - February 2019

For a Catholic to maintain his Faith, he had to
consider the divine element of the priesthood and
at the same time the fragile, human instrument.
It was no different in the Old Testament.
The two sons of Heli, the high priest, were
gravely abusing their authority as priests. They
offended God by stealing the sacrifices offered
to Him for their personal benefit and impeding
the faithful to offer their sacrifices. They even
abased themselves to the point of sinning against
chastity with the souls seeking God in the temple.
Although their father did not approve of their
conduct, he chose to correct them mildly and
to permit their abuses to continue. God chose
to punish them. The two sons, while carrying
the Ark of the Covenant into battle, were slain
and the Ark fell into the hands of the Philistines.
Upon learning the news, Heli fell over backwards,

struck his head and died. In those days all
seemed lost to the Israelites who wanted to serve
God. The Ark of the Covenant was God’s alliance
made with his people, and now that alliance was
lost to the Philistines and the high priest and
his sons were dead. It would seem that God had
abandoned His people.
Perhaps we can compare the unfaithful
priests and prelates of the past to the present.
Both received from God a sacred mission of
caring for souls and both fell into the trap of an
egotistical life, which caused the destruction
of their flock. The faithful have a right to ask
of their pastors the necessary gifts to establish
and strengthen the life of God in their souls.
They should be able to trust their shepherds. Our
Lord Jesus Christ confided the deposit of faith
to them. Their episcopal power was received
by an unbroken chain of consecrated bishops
going back to the apostles who were consecrated
by Christ Himself. This treasure belongs to the
entire Church and not to them personally. Every
baptized soul has a right to freely receive that,
which freely was given. Perhaps today’s bishops
could profit from St. Benedict’s advice to the
abbot on the manner of correcting his monks: “...
he must sternly rebuke the undisciplined and
restless; but the obedient, meek, and patient,
these he should exhort to advance in virtue. As
for the negligent and rebellious, we warn him
to reprimand and punish them. And let him not
shut his eyes to the faults of offenders; but as
soon as they begin to appear, let him, as he can,
cut them out by the roots, mindful of the fate of
Heli, the priest of Silo.” (Rule Ch. 2)
There seem to have always been sinful pastors,
charged with the care of souls throughout the
history of mankind, but by God’s grace, there are
good ones as well. When the sons of Heli were
destroying the faith of the chosen people of the
Old Testament, God was pleased with the prophet
Samuel who was only a child dwelling in the
temple. This child prophet maintained the light of
faith for the people during the very dark times of
scandal. Today, there are priests and prelates that
have caused grave scandal for the past 50 years
in the Church. In spite of the bad shepherds, there
are also those that are pleasing to Him. By their
fruits you shall know them. Archbishop Lefebvre

and the episcopal successors that continue his
work in the Society of Saint Pius X have been
attacked and condemned by the same priests and
prelates that are today the cause of great scandal.
The Archbishop’s only desire was to faithfully
hand on to his flock the deposit of faith that he
received as a bishop of the Catholic Church. He
often said that the modernist bishops may choose
to destroy the Church, but we choose to build it
up. By being faithful to tradition, it seems as if
God confided to him, in a certain way, the Ark of
the new covenant: the Holy Sacrifice of the True
Mass, the traditional observance of morality, Holy
Scripture and Catholic dogma. He founded the
seminaries of the Society of Saint Pius X where
he continues to form priests to bear this new Ark
of the Covenant upon their shoulders for future
generations. He passed onto his flock the Holy
Sacrifice of the True Mass, the gift of God to His
children.

37

Christian Culture

An Interview
with Fr. Paul
Robinson
Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX

Editor’s Note: The following is an interview
with Fr. Paul Robinson concerning his recent
book, The Realist’s Guide to Religion and
Science.
Father, it has now been nine months since
the publication of your book, and it seems to
have stirred up some controversy!
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the
book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it
might make some waves.
What has the controversy centered on?
Really, something that is a small part of the
entire work, namely, the contents of chapter 7
(there are 11 chapters all up). In that chapter,
I voice some strong objections to Young Earth
Creationism (YEC) and point out that Catholics are
38

The Angelus

January - February 2019

free to embrace the Big Bang Theory, if they wish.
Why do you object to YEC? Isn’t that the
safest of positions?
On the contrary, I find it to be quite dangerous.
It runs straight into theological, philosophical,
and scientific problems.
How so?
Well, it all starts with the assumptions that
the adherents of YEC make. The first assumption
is that of “biblicism,” namely, the idea that the
Bible is authoritative over all other sources
of knowledge, including science, reason, and
especially the Catholic Church. Based on this
assumption, they conclude that Genesis is meant
to teach truths about all areas of knowledge,
including science.

Then, they proceed to read Genesis as teaching
that the universe must be 6,000 years old. Since
this, in their minds, is the inspired sense of
Scripture, it cannot be wrong, regardless of
whatever evidence might counter that idea.
Like what evidence?
Such as, for instance, the entire body of
evidence brought to us by our high-powered
telescopes. They show that the light coming to
us from distant stars and galaxies is millions of
years old, not thousands of years old.
But isn’t that based on some assumptions?
Absolutely. For scientists to conclude that the
light coming from the stars is really millions of
years old, they have to assume a principle called
uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the laws
of nature are the same throughout the universe
(sameness in space) and for the entire history
of the universe (sameness in time). Scientists
have to make this assumption to even be able
to do science, since they are looking for laws of
the universe, and the universe cannot have laws
without this uniformity.
As I point out in The Realist Guide, this
assumption only makes sense if there is a
consistent God, outside of the universe, who
is able to establish laws for it and make it run
consistently. Let atheist scientists take note of the
implicit theism of their assumptions.
Couldn’t God have changed the speed of
light sometime in the past and so made it
that the light only looks old, but is not really
old?
Of course He could. And this question of yours
brings me to the second assumption of YEC
adherents. Because the universe appears old and
this contradicts their interpretation of the Bible,
they refuse the principle of uniformitarianism.
They claim that God periodically changes the
laws of nature and this is the reason why, for
example, the light from distant galaxies looks
old, but is not actually old. The laws for light now
are not the same as they were in the past.
Why do you find this problematic?
I have three problems with this. The first

problem is a theological one. A God who
periodically changes the laws of His own
universe is one who wants to prevent humans
from investigating it using their reason.
The modern scientist, for instance, makes
measurements of distant light, assumes
uniformitarianism is true, performs certain
mathematical calculations, and then reasons
that the light is a certain age. But, in actual fact,
his conclusion is false, if God has periodically
reconfigured the universe. If such is the case,
there is no way for the scientist to use natural
reason to discover the age of the light.
But doesn’t the Bible teach him that?
Well, that is precisely the claim of YEC, that
all knowledge comes from the Bible and thus that
the Bible is meant to teach us science. For them,
our senses and reason tell us that the universe
is old, while the Bible tells us that the universe
is young. Thus, we are meant to reject reason
for revelation. In other words, the YEC position
sets up an either-or situation for the believer: you
either take reason or revelation, but you cannot
accept both.
And you say this creates a theological
problem?
Yes, because it makes God out to be something
of a tyrant. He creates humans in His own
likeness by giving them a rational soul. Then,
they use their reason to discover fascinating facts
about the universe He created. But God steps in,
revealing to them that what their reason found is
false, because He made a world that only appears
old, but is not actually old.
Can’t such a choice be justified on the part
of God?
It can…for all the wrong reasons, especially
by someone like Martin Luther. You see, he saw
reason as an enemy of faith, because his was a
faith without reason, a faith held on the basis of
presumption, not on the basis of reasonableness.
This was why Luther attacked reason with his
typical vehemence. He thought that God shared
his own hatred of reason. Thus, he claimed that
God purposely reveals things in the Bible that
are against reason, so that humans will learn
39

Christian Culture
not to trust their reason. Through revelation,
believers learn to abandon their reason for the
glory of God.
Does this view also line up with sola
Scriptura and biblicism?
Yes. If God put all knowledge in the Bible,
then He needs to teach humans not to look for
knowledge in other areas. He has them think they
have learned something from the world around
them, then He steps in with a revelation from the
Bible to say, “No, that is only a trick of your mind.
If I was consistent, your inference would be true.
But I have not run the universe consistently, so
that you will learn not to trust reason and instead
will trust the Bible alone.”
For me, this is not a fatherly God, but an
overbearing God, one who gives a gift (reason)
for the purpose of taking it away. I blame much of
the modern world’s theophobia on this Protestant
idea of God.
I think I understand what you are saying.
But I am not following how that theology
follows from a young universe. Didn’t the
Fathers all agree that the universe was
young?
Yes, they did, but they did not have telescopes
and so did not have solid scientific evidence
indicating that the universe is ancient. Since their
science was primitive, Pope Leo XIII instructs us
in Providentissimus Deus that we do not have
to follow the Fathers in physical matters, where
they sometimes erred. We only have to follow
them in matters of faith and morals.
Besides, the Fathers did not have the biblicist
mentality that sets Scripture against reason
and all other forms of knowledge. Thus, we can
expect that they would have been willing to
accept evidence for an old universe, if the science
of their day was able to find that evidence.
Luther did not have telescopes, either.
This is true. But he did have the theology I have
described. Though he did not consider the Bible
as contradicting reason on the question of the age
of the universe, he did consider it contradicting
reason in other areas. My claim is that the YEC
movement, which has its origin with Protestant
40

The Angelus

January - February 2019

fundamentalism, embraces the same theology as
Luther. YECers admit that the universe appears
old; they just claim that God either directly
created a young universe with an old appearance,
or that He changed the laws of nature. Either way,
they are lining up with Luther’s theology.
But Catholics have to believe that God
created Adam and Eve directly. Wouldn’t this
entail the same conflict between faith and
reason?
Not at all, for two reasons. The first is that
Adam and Eve are just two individual persons,
not the whole universe. Even if God created
them with the appearance of having passed
through childhood, when they had not, this
would not spell the end of science. When God
creates the universe in a fully formed state,
with the appearance of being old, or when God
periodically changes the laws of the universe,
then we have a problem.
Secondly, we may presume, God did not create
Adam and Eve with the appearance of having
passed through infancy and childhood. Our first
parents would have concrete reasons to believe
what God was telling them by revelation, namely,
that He had created them as adults. They would
not have navels, they would not have memories
of childhood or adolescence, they would not have
memories of their putative parents, there would
be no other humans around, and so on.
So the problem is not really with God
creating something fully formed?
Exactly! The problem is God creating
something fully formed AND creating it in such a
way that it seems to have a long history, when it
doesn’t, and then telling us that He created it fully
formed. This is the scenario that the Reformers
wanted to project on the Christian God, in order
to turn Him into a Creator who hates the very gift
of reason that He gives man and so finds ways to
convince man to distrust reason.
You mentioned two other problems with
the YEC position.
Yes, a philosophical problem and a scientific
problem, both deriving from Protestant theology.
What we must realize is that the idea of a God

who is consistent in the running of the universe
and one who is not consistent are two very
different ideas of God. The inconsistent God is
more willful than reasonable. He is what is called
a “voluntarist” God, a God who does not have to
be reasonable in His activity.
The Reformers’ dislike of reason and the
Reformers’ corresponding desire that revelation
be the only source of human knowledge made
them see God in this way. For them, not only
must we expect God to be arbitrary, we must see
that He needs to be arbitrary. Only then will the
universe be unintelligible to reason.
How does that cause philosophical
problems?
It makes one gravitate towards a false
philosophical position called “nominalism.”
Nominalism denies the existence of natures
or essences outside the mind. An essence is a
distinct way of existing, like dogness or catness.
It indicates a nature that belongs to a certain
class of individuals that all exist in the same way.
All of the concepts in our minds are essences.
This is why there have to be essences really
existing outside of our mind for our ideas to tell
us anything about reality.
How does this connect with a voluntarist
God?
Well, if God were to give essences to things, it
would be because He has ideas in His own mind,
certain patterns according to which He creates
things. And if He has ideas according to which
He creates, then His will must conform to His
intellect in creating. William of Occam and the
Reformers two centuries later did not want there
to be any restriction on God’s will. Thus, they
held that God does not give essences to things.
The result is that humans must conclude
that the concepts they form from reality are not
actually true of reality. We have again a terrible
blow to reason, but the Reformers were more
than content to strike such a blow—it saved them
from seeing the irrationality of their rebellion
against God and His Church.
What about the scientific problem deriving
from YEC?

I explained above how uniformitarianism
is a necessary assumption to do science and
how YEC attacks that assumption. Allow me to
provide an example of how this destroys science.
Consider the work of Newton. The apple
(supposedly) plunked down on his head and
set him thinking about gravity. His insight was
that the law of gravity working on Earth also
applies in outer space, for the heavenly bodies.
This enabled him to describe the motion of the
planets around the sun using the same laws
that we observe on Earth. In other words, the
entire success of his three laws for planetary
motion depended on the assumption that the
laws of nature on Earth are the same as the
laws of nature in heaven, that they are uniform
throughout the whole universe.

41

Christian Culture
You also gave the example of light above.
Yes. That example shows how the historical
sciences rely on the laws of nature being
consistent throughout time, as well as space.
Looking into a telescope is like looking at the
history of the universe in the trails of light
coming from galaxies. The history is true,
however, only if the laws for light have remained
the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that
I can see here in Australia, for instance, would
seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed
the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my
calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000
years. The same would hold true for any other
calculations I would make about other galaxies.
It would be the death of astronomy.
And you are saying that is what the
YECers want?
No, I don’t think they want that necessarily,
but it is certainly what the Reformers wanted.
Regardless, YEC adherents must come to grips
with the fact that such is the result of their
theology, whether they like it or not. Their
position makes religion an enemy of science and
reason.
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not
fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not
just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper
harmony between religion and science, between
faith and reason. This has always been the
Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that
we must show the world that there is nothing
in our sacred books that conflicts with reason.
Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from
God and that He wants us to use it for His glory,
not destroy it for His glory.
So it is a respect for reason that pits you
against YEC?
Yes, certainly. But, in the end, my opposition to
YEC dates from my seminary formation, where
I was taught why Catholic exegetes reject YEC,
under the guidance of the Church. God willing,
I was also given a Catholic intellectual balance
in Scriptural matters which, in turn, I hope I
42

The Angelus

January - February 2019

communicate to my own students.
What else is in your book?
An explanation of how the Catholic Middle
Ages gave birth to modern science, why the
Allah of the Muslims is also a voluntarist God,
an in-depth criticism of atheistic science,
including Darwinian evolution, and much
more! The book also has a website with a blog,
therealistguide.com. There, readers can find
many resources related to the book.
How can people help get word out about
the book?
I would think things would have to start with
purchasing a copy from Angelus Press! Then,
after having some familiarity with the book, a
favorable reader could assist the book’s cause
by writing a positive review on Amazon, rating
the book on Goodreads, purchasing copies
for friends and family, and sending possible
reviewers my way. It’s a good cause!

A Bishop Speaks is a collection of key pivotal writings
that explain the actions the Archbishop took to save the
priesthood and, looking back, it is undeniable that those
steps did precisely that! A must read for all
those serious about understanding
the current situation in the Church.
Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

The Cathedral of Our Lady of Reims, France,
is built in the High Gothic style. The cathedral
replaced an older church which was destroyed by
fire in 1211. The older church had been built on the
site where Clovis I was baptized by Saint Remi,
Bishop of Reims in 496. Traditionally, the kings of
France were crowned in the cathedral of Reims.
According to Flodoard, St. Nicasius founded the
first church on the site of the current cathedral
probably in 401, on the site of a Gallo-Roman bath.
The church was dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
Clovis, King of the Franks, was baptized by St.
Remigius on Christmas Day some time between
496 and 499.

Christian Culture

The
Cathedral of
Rheims
by Dr. Marie-France Hilgar

It is easy to give the history of the cathedral
of Rheims because dates have been meticulously
kept. An early cathedral reared in honor of the
Blessed Virgin was built in 401. In 496, Clovis
and a great many of his warriors were baptized
by St. Remi; it sanctioned and strengthened the
Frankish conquest. Restoration work undertaken
after the World War I has revealed, by the north
tower outside the cathedral, a baptistry which
might have been the one used for Clovis’ baptism.
The baptistry stood outside the cathedral of the
time, a smaller one which rather looks like a
fortress, with thick walls, a shelter for Catholics
when in peril. Around 820, the building of the
second cathedral, the Carolingian one, took
place: it was completed in 862. In 1150, the choir
was reconstructed and the nave enlarged. But in
1210, the Carolingian cathedral burnt down by a
46

The Angelus

January - February 2019

conflagration that ruined also a large part of the
city. The following year, the present cathedral
was started. It was not yet completed when
the coronation of Charles VII took place, in the
presence of Joan of Arc. In 1481, the roof, the
central tower, the four pavilions of the transept
towers burnt down. The fire was due to the
remiss leas workers in the roofing of the edifice.
It destroyed the whole of the frame work. The
repairs were completed in 1515, but the central
tower and the four smaller ones surrounding
it were never rebuilt. During the Revolution,
the cathedral was turned into a “club,” the into
fodder stores. In 1824, the coronation of Charles
X took place; it was to be the last one. In 1914,
the cathedral was very damaged by incendiary
bombs. It was not before 1927 that the nave
was reopened to the congregation. In 1927, the

cathedral was re-consecrated and worship was
allowed in the whole building. In the present
cathedral, 24 kings of France were anointed,
from Louis VIII to Charles X.
The foundations of the cathedral are 24 feet
deep; they rest upon solid chalk. Here are some
of the main measurements: the total length is
452 feet, the length of the transept is 186 feet, the
width of the nave is 45 feet. The total area of the
building is 71,580 square feet.
It is in the glory of sunset the west porch can
be seen in its most sublime beauty. The façade
may be divided into four parts: the porch, the
great rose window, the kings’ gallery and the
towers. The vertical lines soar up powerfully
and yet nothing is heavy. The most striking fact
is the felicitous harmony of proportions and
of volumes, together with a unity in style. The
main center gable represents the Crowning of
the Virgin, the left gable the Crucifixion, the
right gable the Last Judgment. Between the two
doors of the great central porch there is a statue
of Our Lady with Jesus in her arms. Let us take
a good look at the great statues standing at the
splayings of the center arch; they represent three
scenes out of the life of Our Lady. On the right,
the Annunciation and the Visitation; the next
two statues represent Mary of the Incarnation
and her cousin Elizabeth. On the left, it is the
Presentation: Mary with the Child Jesus in her
arms, attended by St. Joseph, Simeon and the
prophetess Anne. At the head of the abutments
limiting the center door we find Salomon on the
right and on the left, queen Sheba. The left porch
suffered more from the 1914 fire, because the
proximity of the north tower. The identification
of the eleven statues cannot be made with
entire certainty. The angel on the left is the
celebrated “Smiling Angel.” You can buy medals
representing him in all the religious stores lining
the square in front of the cathedral. All these
statues were made circa 1250. The door of the
right porch has an immediate and striking effect
on the visitor due to its definitely more archaic
statuary, a treatment that is also to be found in
the porch of the north transept. The six statues
on the right are easily identified: Simeon with

the Christ Child; St. John the Baptist; Isaiah;
Moses with the brazen snake and the tables
of the law; Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac;
Samuel carrying a lamb. The statues on the left
date back to the 13th century. The curves of the
three arches constitute one of the most glorious
elements of this porch, due to their innumerable
statuettes disposed in five rows. The central
gable, a very slender one, adds to the beauty of
the whole statuary, and so do the two side gables.
The visitor should look up to examine the upper
story, with the great Rose Window in the center
of the front. Twelve colonnettes radiate from the
middle of the rose, supporting as many arches

whose tops meet the great outer circle. Just
above the great rose, a large bas-relief recalls
the fight between David and Goliath. Formerly,
these carvings were painted. The whole of the
third story is barred by the gallery of Kings, 54
of them plus Clotilde and St. Remy. From the
level of the street, one can hardly imagine their
enormous size. Their average size is 15 feet and
each one weighs more than 6 tons. The towers,
slender ones in open work, were to be deprived
of their spires forever. They are 247 feet high.
The visitor may climb 420 steps to their tops. At
the time of Charles’ VII coronation, the building
of the towers was in progress. The south tower
shelters two great bells. One was consecrated in
1570 and it is tuned to the note of F. It weighs 12
tons and is 7 feet in diameter. The second one is
much smaller. It only weighs 7 tons; it is tuned
47

Christian Culture
to the note of G. They are not used now for safety
reasons. But 14 smaller bells play 14 different
melodies according to the phases of the liturgical
year. The north transept has three doors whose
carvings are older than the rest of the edifice.
Below the spandrel, representing Christ, attended
by Our Lady and St. John the Baptist, can be
seen a procession along two files, of people rising
from the dead; virtues and vices; Satan leading
the damned to hell, among whom the satirical
sculptor included a king, a bishop and a priest.
The six statues against the wall are those of the
Apostles: St. John, St. Paul and St. James on the

right; St. Andrew, St. Peter and St. Bartholomew
on the left. The rose window, whose beauty can
be appreciated chiefly from the inside, is topped
on the outside by a gallery in open work with
seven 13th century statues representing the
Prophets. The life of St. Remi is developed across
the spandrel. The south front has no porch.
Regarding architectural design, it is scarcely
different from the north transept. The upper part
shows the Assumption of the Virgin. Visitors can
attend guided tours of the upper parts and roof of
the edifice. The side fronts of Rheims cathedral
are of exceptional beauty. They are remarkable
for their unity, their architectural line, their
balance. There reigns the same harmonious air in
the two stories of the edifice; windows with twin
openings, well balanced buttresses, octagonal
pinnacles rising above four rectangle shaped
48

The Angelus

January - February 2019

pyramids, their fronts supported by two slender
columns. Two superimposed flying buttresses
lean on counterforts at each abutment, thus
securing the strength of the whole building. The
fleurs-de-lys on the top are 4 feet high. Before
going inside, we should mention the graceful
smaller tower at the chevet of the cathedral. A
gilt angel, used as a weathercock, revolves on its
top, 270 feet above the ground.
Inside, the whole edifice is vaulted over
pointed arches. Replacing the semicircular
arch, the pointed arch enabled the architect to
increase the span of arches. The pointed arch is
triumphant, recalling two hands joined in prayer.
The pointed arches in Rheims look sharper than
in any great Gothic cathedral. Aisles, triforium,
upper story extend in harmonious regularity. In
the nave, the arches rest on detached pillars. The
supporting pillars, on the outer side of the aisles
are imbedded, one column being flanked by three
colonnettes on its right and left. The triforium
spreads its 12-foot-high gallery along the whole
length of the edifice. The pulpit made in the 18th
century, came from a church in Rheims that
was destroyed during the Revolution. The high
altar, standing at the cross of the transept, in
an advanced position per the requirements of
the Coronation Ceremonies, is made of precious
marble. The six candlesticks date back to the
Coronation of Charles X. There is a smaller altar
in the back. Both altars are 18th century works.
There are several apsidial chapels, two of
them on both sides of the transept, the other five
radiating; the middle one, called of the Blessed
Sacrament, is nine-sided and much larger. In the
south transept chapel is a beautiful Renaissance
Reredo, of the 16th century. In front, the flooring
is partially made from ancient Roman mosaic.
Along the aisle walls of the nave, precious
tapestries are displayed. Some of the tapestries
represent the life of Our Lady. They were used for
Coronation ceremonies and have been restored.
In 1914, all the larger tapestries were sheltered in
a safe place and preserved but the smaller ones
left in the Archbishop Palace were destroyed.

49

Christian Culture

The Iron Wall
Between Mao
and Pius XII
by Fr. Alain Toulza, SSPX. Translated by Miss Jane Carver

The Homeric struggle between communist
China and the Catholic Church in the time of Mao
Tse-toung is rich in lessons for understanding
the challenges to religion today in the most
populated country in the world.

A History of Undermining
the Church
When the manifestations of Catholic resistance
at Zikawei were taking place, the government
obtained signatures of priests from Chekiang on
a document approving of their politics; another
attempt was then made to seduce the Catholic
clergy. The government set its sights upon the
vast province of Kiangnan in which Nankinth—
the ancient capital—was the archbishopric.
50

The Angelus

January - February 2019

The Bureau of Religious Affairs had gathered a
core of Catholic “patriots” around the previous
vicar general, Fr. Li, whom the communists
considered to be the sole cleric responsible for
the archbishopric. He was, in this case, assigned
the title of “pro-archbishop” (even though this
apostolic administration had been assigned by
the nuncio to the bishop of Shanghai).
Fr. Li sent an invitation to 18 priests for a
banquet. 13 priests came, but at the end of the
meal, when the conversations intensified, 12
from among them withdrew. Even with this
setback, the Bureau of Religious Affairs did not
back down; it gave out a new invitation to all
priests of Kiangnan for a banquet in the best
hotel of Nankin on June 16. For the most part, the
priests did not dare refuse, but once there, the
communists declared that the priests would not

leave the premises without having studied the
significance of the anti-imperialist movement—
for the love of the country and the Church.
Similar sessions of indoctrination were held
simultaneously in other nearby regions. Finally,
in the month of August, the communists lead,
under escort, about 50 priests to Nankin to have a
council that would last about 10 days.
A text containing 10 articles was proposed
and debated. It included, this time, a sizeable
innovation; it was thankful, for the first time,
for the authority of the sovereign pontiff
concerning the organization of the Faith. It
avoided attacking the ecclesiastical authority
of bishops and deliberately excluded the words
“Triple Autonomy.” [Editor’s note: This created
a schism on the Chinese mainland. The Church
would make all decisions with no Vatican
intervention]. It did not refrain of course, from
condemning—without citing names—the “antipatriotic” attitudes under the cover of religion
and principally the submission of religion to
the “imperialist” interests. The vague language
used in the document made it possible for the
authorities to incriminate priests according to
their own judgement. It was a major concession,
designed to facilitate reconciliation between
Church and State and the priests in attendance
were made to feel strongly that this was the last
chance to bring about peace in their ministry,
without which, war would become definitive and
totally destructive.
There were however, two articles liable to
prick their conscience: one which condemned the
refusal of communion to members of the Neodemocratic Youth, and another which decreed
that in the case of conflict between governmental
and ecclesiastical authority, one must obey the
government. But in the end, the last clerics who
resisted, finally surrendered on these issues and
signed the document because they feared that
any further delay in negotiations would have
disastrous consequences. All but three clerics
signed to “save the Church” while protesting
their fidelity to the pope, but when the pseudo
pro-archbishop invited them to a solemn high
Mass in “his” cathedral, they almost unanimously
refused communio in sacris with someone who
had been excommunicated. Only four priests

recognized his authority as “prelate.”
Upon returning to their homes and recovering
little by little their spirit, one after the other,
with a few exceptions, either immediately or
under the pressure of their faithful, the clergy
ended up sending the authorities an official
retraction of their signatures. One from among
them who strongly pushed his confreres to
retract their signatures went so far as to ask for
the authorization to make public reparation in
Shanghai (which was not his diocese, but where
he was well known). In one of the large churches,
he made the Stations of the Cross. Before
beginning, he took the Cross, publicly admitted
his fault in order to repair the scandal caused,
and humbly asked the Christians to pray for him.

Running Hot and Cold
This was one of the most serious attacks
against Chinese Communism. A signal was sent
to the other “Patriotic Ecclesiastical Congresses.”
Several of these congresses were likewise held in
many cities in China. This “anti-patriotic” signal
was so clearly perceived that the government felt
forced to return to harsh methods of persecution.
From February to March 1954, a new wave of
arrests and assassinations of priests occurred.
In Chunking, for example, many resistant priests
were shot and others imprisoned even though
their parish churches were closed to the public.
In Hankow, three priests were detained by the
police and their churches were devastated. Even
in Beijing on Ash Wednesday, 28 priests were
incarcerated and their chapels were occupied
by the police. After a three-month respite from
violence in view of the new and vain attempt at
“reconciliation,” the persecutions began again
with extreme violence and intensity using torture
of varying kinds in most cases. The major
seminary of Zikawei, in particular, became one of
the most feared police interrogation centers.
Autumn of 1954 brought with it a very short
truce, at least in Shanghai: the reopening of the
residence of Zikawei, the buildings of Christ
the King and of the Catholic supply store of
the Franciscan Fathers and of the liberation of
the priests who were interned there (unlike
51

Christian Culture
those who were imprisoned) as well as fewer
arrests of the faithful. Even the parish life grew:
(there were 13 baptisms of adults at Easter as
was needed in the absence of priests), evening
prayers, discreet catechism formation, all night
adoration and instructional meetings. But a
perverse and worrisome phenomenon began to
affect lay people: the laying off of Catholics, their
exclusion from schools, eliminations from official
organizations, hospitals, and many other jobs. It
was because of this that the encyclical letter of
Pope Pius XII Ad Sinarum Gentem (October 7,
1954) was sent to Chinese Catholics. It reminded
them that the entire Church supported them
in their sufferings and exhorted them to throw
away the false association between fidelity to the
hierarchical Church of Christ and an unpatriotic
attitude. The Church renewed, at the same time,
the condemnation of apostates: “those cannot be
considered or honored as Catholics who profess
or teach doctrines other that those exposed by
Us above. It is the case, for example, of those
who adhered to the adverse principles called the
“Three Autonomies” or to the principles of the
same genre…” The encyclical came as a comfort
to those faithful whom the communists pursued
for their refusal to adhere to the “patriotic”
Church.

Red September or the Hallali
This respite had only been a lull: the renewal
of general persecution was undertaken within
the framework of a second campaign, called
“the repression against the revolution” (Agency
Hsin Hwa July 29, 1955). In the month of
August, the arrests of the “Anti-revolutionaries
of the Association of the Christian Youth
continued, who have insulted the Christian
patriots favorable to the movement of the Three
Autonomies by treating them as rebels.” (Agency
Hsin Hwa August 28, 1955). A wave of arrests
fell upon all of China under the same pretexts.
The night of September 8th, 1955 marked the
arrest of Monsignor Kiung in Shanghai, the soul
of the Catholic resistance in China. During the
same night, 7 Chinese priests of the diocese, 14
Chinese Jesuits, 2 Carmelites and 300 Christians
52

The Angelus

January - February 2019

were apprehended who constituted the “sinister
band of criminals Kiung P’in-mei”: thus were they
conveniently named from then on. Four other
bishops (from the dioceses of Taizhou, Hankou,
Guangzhou and Baoding) along with some of
their faithful were also imprisoned.
The government, eager to have the offers of
peace forgotten that were being made by the
bishop of Shanghai, applied to him, as well as his
“accomplices,” the epithet of “international spies.”
The daily Hsin Wen-pao wrote: “This group of
criminals, with Kiun P’ in-mei as their leader,
on the payroll of imperialist spies and under
the cover of the religious habit, is hiding behind
the organization of the Catholic Church and has
extended its actions to all of China to gather
information. They have stolen important military,
administrative and economic information from
the nation, and have transmitted it to imperialist
spy organizations.” (Jean Lefeuvre, op. cit., p.
360).
In order to provide evidence for these
fantasies, the authorities of a government
“that never makes mistakes” spread enormous
lies: “They have created a revolutionary party
of public salvation, a committee of young
Chinese revolutionaries as well as other diverse
organizations.”
A new assault was made on September 26th.
Seventeen “criminals” of the group who were
arrested on September 8th had already been
shot. The Communist government implemented
the same tactics which had been used five years
previously: denunciations, false witnesses, mob
meetings and popular judgements. This second
wave was even more powerful: 10 other secular
priests and 8 other Jesuits, 38 seminarians,
5 religious and 600 more Christians were
apprehended. The newspaper “Sin Wen Je Pao”
in Shanghai on September 17th reported: “A
series of prosecutions were held in Shanghai
on September 12th which tried 1,900 Catholics.
Throughout the 22 districts in other parts
of China, similar prosecutions were held on
September 13, 14th and 15th. Altogether, the
sessions were attended by more than 30,000
Catholics.” In the provinces of Tchekiang,
Kiangsu and Fukien, people from all social
classes and the Catholics themselves, organized

a meeting in order to denounce the criminal
activities of the clique Kiung P’in mei” (Albert
Galter, op. cit., pp. 159-160).

The Communist Replacements
Having now imprisoned almost all of the
Chinese priests responsible for parishes,
and having thrown the most engaged part
of the Shanghai clergy into their dungeons,
the henchmen of the communist authorities
proceeded to occupy the churches of the city.
These churches were attended by nearly 100,000
Christians but they had become the centers
where the government could now gather its
1,000 “Catholic patriots.” This usurpation was
undertaken in every city where there was a
faithful Catholic community.
In 1957, the People’s Republic of China
established the association of Chinese Catholic
Patriots (ACCP) according to similar principles as
those of the TSPM [Translator’s note: Movement
of the Three Autonomies] founded upon
Protestantism. In response, Pius XII published
his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis on July
29, 1958, in which he condemned the activities
of the ACCP and declared that the bishops who
participated in the consecration of new bishops
chosen by the ACCP were excommunicated.
From 1966 to 1976, the “cultural revolution”
was orchestrated by president Mao, and the
priests, religious, faithful and Catholic churches
were attacked by the young communists called
“red guards.” The churches were ridded of their
religious symbolism, seized by the government
and remodeled for profane usage. Thousands of
anonymous Catholics were imprisoned, sent to
labor camps or executed.
Born in Shanghai in 1937, a former student
of the Jesuits, the “rebel” Harry Wu spend 19
years of his life in 12 camps of “re-education”
i.e. “work and reform” in Laogai. Freed in 1979,
he was able to seek exile in the United States in
1985. Since then, he has returned to China four
times to investigate the prison camps. He was
detained in 1995 and condemned to 15 years in
prison, but under international pressure and
through the intervention of Hillary Clinton, he

was finally set free. Since then, the Chinese
Solzhenitsyn [Editor’s note: Solzhenitsyn was
arrested, imprisoned and exiled for criticizing
Stalin] devotes his time to explaining the realities
of this other archipelago of Communist terror to
the west, less commonly known than the wellinvestigated USSR. He has published a book on
this topic: Retour au Laogai (French edition
Belfond). Interviewed by Bruno de Cessole in no.
420 of the Spectacle du Monde (March 1997), he
revealed the means used to “reform” individuals.

Persecution Today
It is impossible to provide a credible account
of the population who remained faithful to
the true Catholic Church and it is even more
difficult to ascertain the number of those who
converted to the “patriotic” Church. One can
have absolutely no confidence in the fabricated
statistics from the Bureau of Religious Affairs,
which had a tendency to pretend that the two
Catholic communities were roughly equal in size:
it is evident that in the new phase of their sordid
dealings with the Vatican, the government was
interested in exaggerating the numbers belonging
to the “patriotic” Church and reducing as much as
possible the number of true Catholics. We don’t
know, on the other hand, how many thousands
– or tens of thousands are currently in prison or
in centers of “re-education.” It is clear that the
community of faithful Catholics is superior in
number to the other community (the report 50
years ago was at least a 1000:1 ratio). According
to the Holy Spirit Study Center in Hong Kong,
there were approximately 12 million Catholics.
This number included the number of registered
and unregistered (clandestine) Catholics.
However, in the more remote central regions of
China, the estimations of faithful vary from 10 –
30 million. The unregistered Chinese Catholics
represent between one third and two thirds of the
total population of Catholics who attend Mass
regularly.
These remote regions represent a community
in which priests exercise their ministry in a
semi-clandestine manner, with some of them
being completely clandestine, 17 bishops in
53

Christian Culture
particular and an indefinite number of priests,
with certain among them being ordained in
secret. To date, only 7 “patriotic” bishops have
not been recognized by the Holy See. Between
60 and 70 official bishops (of the “patriotic
Church”) were recognized by Pope Benedict
XVI who were thus defined in a Letter of
May 27, 2007 to the Chinese Catholics whose
situation : “…other pastors, pushed by their
own particular circumstances, consented to
receive the episcopal ordination without a
pontifical mandate.” Certain of these have asked
thereafter for “the possibility to be received into
communion with the successor of Peter and with
their other brothers in the episcopacy” and they
obtained from the pope “the full and legitimate
exercise of episcopal jurisdiction.”
It should be noted that the clandestine bishops
“constrained by particular circumstances,” had
also been consecrated “without a pontifical
mandate.” But their consecration and the
ordinations that they performed thereafter were
evidently valid and licit since they had been
carried out for the safeguarding of the Roman
Church under circumstances of exceptional
ecclesiastical emergency. But for them, there
have not been to this day, the validation by the
communist authorities, by way of exchange, of
the validation by Rome of the 70 bishops that Pius
XII considered excommunicated. ...Will the circus
continue?
While the crucial question remained of the
attachment of the Chinese Church to the pope
or, of its status as a Marxist mouthpiece in
disguise, the “patriotic” Church began to take a
turn that risked terrible consequences for true
Catholics. The negotiations in question under
the cover of “regularizations” were in place to
accord Roman acceptance of the schismatics,
and therefore, to betray the Roman Catholics in
their fidelity to the pope! Five examples of events
following the Letter of Benedict XVI illustrate the
consequences of this dilemma:
April 2013 – April 17th marked the death of
the “official” bishop of Shanghai, Monsignor
Aloysius Jin Luxian (known as Monsignor Jin).
From 1951 – 1955 he was one of the priests of
Monsignor Kiung. In 1955, he was a member
of the group of priests that were arrested and
54

The Angelus

January - February 2019

he was condemned to five years in prison, a
condemnation prolonged to 15 years in 1960. He
was released in 1972, but kept under surveillance
until 1982. He who, according to the rumor,
became a “friend” of the regime was chosen
by the government of Deng Xiaoping to reopen
the seminary of Sheshan (in which the future
cardinal Zen himself became a professor). In
1985, he was designated by the authorities as
auxiliary bishop of Shanghai without a pontifical
mandate. In 1988, the titular bishop in the same
conditions, the true bishop according to the pope,
was Monsignor Joseph Fan Zhongliang. In 2005,
“reconciled with Rome,” Monsignor Jin was seen
confirmed by the Holy Father as auxiliary, and
Monsignor Joesph Fan Zhongliang as the titular
bishop even though he was elderly and ill. The
question remained to know who would preside
over the funeral of Monsignor Jin, titular bishop
for Beijing and auxiliary bishop for Rome. For
the Vatican, it was Monsignor Thaddeus Ma
Daqin, consecrated bishop coadjutor July 7,
2013 but this bishop having decided to leave the
association of “patriotic” priests was silenced
by the government in the seminary of SheShan.
The Vatican yielded: this would be the third
“patriotic” bishop recognized by the People’s
Republic who would officiate.
September 2016 – The coadjutor bishop of
Wenzhou, Monsignor Shao Zhumin, had been
stopped by the police on September 8th (feast of
the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin) and taken “on a
trip” to the northeast of the country, even though
he was busy making preparations for the funeral
of his bishop who died the day before, Monsignor
Vincent Zhu Weifang (originally a priest of the
official Church). The objective of removing the
bishop was: to prevent him from succeeding
Monsignor Weifang because he wasn’t a member
of the official Church. His secretary, also a priest
of the clandestine Church and chancellor of
the diocese, had been sent into Yunnan. Having
returned to his diocese, Monsignor Shao Zhumin
had been detained three more times up until
May 18, 2017 and for the duration of 7 months, he
underwent pressure to integrate into the patriotic
association (the official Church) i.e. pressure
to sign a document containing four conditions
that would have allowed him to be recognized by

the Party: to recognize the independence of the
Church vis-à-vis the Holy Father; to admit the
nomination of bishops by the Chinese authorities;
concelebrate the Mass with a bishop that is not
recognized by the Vatican; and to respect the
dispositions surrounding other religions. The
enforcement of this program was scheduled for
February 1, 2018. The bishop held on heroically in
the refusal of these conditions. This decision put
his life in danger on a daily basis. He was finally
set free January 3, 2018, under international
pressure and thanks to the intervention of the

faithful): the new bishop, Monsignor John Baptist
Wang Xiaoxun was recognized by the Communist
power and received a mandate from the pope
(which he read privately before the Mass). The
six bishops present were both recognized by the
power and by Rome at the same time…
The second consecration, on the other hand,
took place in the Cathedral of the Immaculate
Conception of Chengdu (a large diocese of
100,000 faithful) under even more “critical”
conditions: the principle bishop who performed
the consecration, Monsignor Fang Xingyao, was

Cardinal Joseph Zen speaks during a news conference in Hong Kong. The retired archbishop of Hong Kong opposes the Holy
See’s negotiations with Beijing as a “catastrophe.” The cardinal states that these negotiations will bring suffering to millions of
Catholics. The dispute inside the Roman Catholic Church over its future in China escalates in a dramatic fashion. (AP Photo/Kin
Cheung, File)

ambassador of Germany, Mr. Michael Claus,
who had dared to post a message regarding this
injustice on the Embassy website.
In November 2016, two consecrations of
“patriotic” bishops took place on the 30th of the
month.
The first took place at the cathedral of the
Sacred Heart in Ankang (a remote diocese of the
province of Shaanxi, comprising nearly 5,000

recognized by Rome even though his proximity
with the regime was well-known. But, even more
seriously, the second co-consecrating bishop was
already excommunicated, because he himself
was consecrated without a pontifical mandate.
The faithful even tried to prevent the latter from
coming by blocking the entrance to the cathedral,
but the bishop came in and took his place under
the protection of the police.
55

Christian Culture
January 2018 – From the Asia News we
heard again: At the insistence of the Chinese
government, Pope Francis ordered two bishops
to resign from their charge to make way for two
bishops that were consecrated without a Roman
mandate, and therefore, excommunicated, but
recognized thereafter. Ordained in secret in 2006,
the bishop of Shantou, Monsignor Peter Zhuang
Jianjian received a letter on October 26, 2017. This
intimated him to give up his seat to “Monsignor”
Huang Bingzhang, a pion of the communist
regime, long-disputed at the Popular National
Congress. Monsignor Zhuang Jianjian refused to
be led to the “Patriotic Association of Chinese
Catholics.” He likewise refused to attend the
alleged Conference of Chinese Bishops in order
to find out who was responsible there—three
bishops of whom two were not recognized by the
Holy See. All of this made sense. The next day,
he was taken to another location where another
bishop was waiting for him. Monsignor Celli, a
Vatican diplomat, who, in order to convince him
to resign, assured him that he would give the
bishop three names from whom to choose his
successor. This successor could then choose the
vicar general. The bishop broke down into tears.
The delegate of the Vatican then went to Fujian
to make the offer to Monsignor Vincent Zhan Silu,
the bishop of the semi-clandestine Church, (one
of the seven that were until then not recognized
by Rome). This bishop took Monsignor Zhuang
Jianjian’s place…
One can guess the pain of the two regular
bishops and the disarray of the faithful invited
to receive the sacraments from then on from the
vassal prelates of a government who persecuted
them. How did they not feel profoundly shaken
because they could not feel anything other than
treason from the Vatican? Cardinal Zen, bishop
emeritus of Hong Kong and, in a certain way, the
patriarch of the Chinese Church, came to Rome
on January 10th to meet the pope. We do not
know the result of this meeting.
February 2018 – The Cross, the bells, the
statues and all religious decorations were
removed from the façade of the Catholic Church
of Yining (Xinjang): inside, the Stations of the
Cross were likewise removed and all of the
painted Crosses were erased—because the Cross
56

The Angelus

January - February 2019

represents a “foreign religious infiltration.” On
February 27th and 28th, Asia News explained, “a
few weeks after a meeting between the Chinese
and a Vatican delegate, a “historical” project of
agreement resulted in the nomination of bishops
in the Catholic Church of China.” Since February
1st, the cult was not permitted within the Church
except on Sundays at times fixed by the civil
authorities; it is forbidden to all groups (2 or more
persons) to pray elsewhere, including private
homes, and each church must post this decree at
its entrance: “Entrance forbidden to minors under
18 years old.” The article, signed by the director
of Asia News (organ of the pontifical institute
of foreign missions) finished with this citation
of one of the faithful; “I am very sad that the
Vatican is making these compromises with the
government. Thus, it becomes an accomplice to
those who desire our annihilation.”

The False Chinese Springtime
A long night extended itself over China.
Impressed by a sort of economic liberalism
introduced by the successor of Mao Tse-toung
(who died on September 9, 1976) the “Little
Helmsman” Deng Xiaoping—who succeeded
him in 1977 after having eliminated the famous
“Gang of Four” [Editor’s note: Group of influential
Chinese communist party figures] comprising the
widow of Mao etc.—… The westerners wanted
to believe that a grand new idea of social life
would sway the Chinese continent. Already in
Mao’s time, Deng Xia, the vice-premier minister
in charge of the economy and finances, spearheaded a campaign of the “Three Liberties” in
1969. He learned from the utter failure of the
campaign “The Great Front Bond” initiated by
“The Great Witness” in 1958 and he was greatly
moved by a famine affecting 19 million Chinese.
This campaign marked a de-collectivization of
lands following the “70 Articles on Industrial
Work.” But his appetite for economic reform
didn’t prevent him, in the summer of 1957,
from becoming the inflexible enforcer of the
repression of the liberal movement called the
“100 flowers” and to send to Laogai the Chinese
Goulag, hundreds of millions of persons. He is

the same person who on June 4th, 1989, ordered
the evacuation of the local protestors from the
Tien Anmen [public square] of Beijing occupied
by thousands of youth promoting the “5th
Modernization,” that is to say, the democracy. The
massacre that followed thereafter put an end to
the “Springtime of Beijing” and to the illusions of
the naïve observers.
In the communist leader’s mind, economic
modernization must be distinct from all other
liberalization and cannot contradict the
fundamentals of the Marxist regime, particularly
in its materialistic and atheistic conception
of man and his rights. Opening the country to
foreign investors was wanted by the latest of the
Marxists Mandarins, Xi Jinping. But this doesn’t
mean anything for the population of the country
in the way of an alleviation of the constraints of
the communist ideology, but simply the coherent
choice of the best way to assure international
supremacy to communist China.
For the faithful Christians, the election of
Xia Baolong, former secretary of the party of
Xinjang from 2012-2017, whom Xi Jinping elected
vice president of the National Assembly and
Secretary General of the Chinese Advisory Policy
Conference on March 14th, was a cause for worry
in the anticipation of further persecution. During
the course of four years, Xia collaborated with
Xi Jinping when he was the secretary of the
party in the province. It was he who launched a
campaign of destruction of crosses and churches
in the province for three years in the name of
the “necessities of urbanism.” In the course
of his campaign, which had its debut near the
end of 2013 and was finished toward April 2016,
approximately 500 churches were destroyed, of
which a great number were Protestant. Dozens
of pastors and lay faithful who wanted to defend
their Faith were stopped, menaced and judged.
The authorities were likewise followed by the
government and the lawyers who defended the
Christian communities were condemned.
No concessions are to be expected from the
new Chinese government after the amendment
of the constitution. This has resulted in
concentrating the authority over the vital sectors
of the Party and the army in the hands of Xi
Jinping—assuring the renewed vigor of his

power. However, in his inauguration speech, the
new Chinese emperor did not hide his visceral
attachment to communist ideology and his
intention to give the party a very strong role in
the control of religion and its “Chinese-ation.”
His refusal to meet the pope who invited him
to Rome and his sudden radicalization in the
negotiations of the nomination of bishops speak
volumes. Will the pope continue to sympathize
with his interlocutor until he denies Catholics
who have remained faithful to the Catholic
Church?
Warnings were given to the Roman authorities
by Cardinal Mindzenty and Monsignor Kiun
among many others, who told them of the double
language systematically used by the communist
interlocutors and their disrespect of contractual
commitments. The communist strategy in the
matter had been described magisterially by
the best analyst of Marxist praxis, Fr. Dufay,
concerning the foreign missions of Paris in In
China, the Star against the Cross (1954), a
work that should be highly recommended to
the members of the secretary of the Vatican
state (p. 58): “Extend the hand to Catholics
today and destroy tomorrow those who will
not compromise, just as the alliance with
Nazism was followed by a ferocious war. These
are the moments of evolution, the different
moments of class struggle, consecutive levels
of revolutions, and therefore different moments
of truth…Universals are absent, hence the
absence of norms that are valid everywhere
and always, and heterogeneous notions of the
truth. All of this makes it possible to grasp the
metaphysical impossibility of dialogue with
Communism: words cover different concepts
such that all common grounds of understanding
vanish. Dialogue is not only impossible in a
country submitted to the red dictatorship, but
it is synonymous with suicide. Because, when
Marxism is in power, it necessarily imposes its
interpretation of words and ideas…the individual
is infallibly trapped.”

57

How Catholic Priests Helped
Build And Can Help Rebuild
Western Civilization

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

Politician
to Prelate:
Man Can Only Serve One Master

by Benjamin Bielinski

Model Bishop for Clerics
If we could hear the voices of history which
voice would echo through the ages? Which voice
would be able to guide us through the difficulties
of our modern time? There is one voice, one man
above the rest, whose heroic words, actions and
life provide an answer to the most persistent
questions and dilemmas that plague Catholics in
our modern era. That man was lowly born and
impoverished, but through grace, intelligence and
effort he climbed to the highest position of civil
government and thrived in that role. But it was
just a role. After years of excellent civil service,
he left politics to defend the Church against the
very government he helped create. This heroic
defense of Holy Mother Church cost him not only
his career, power, and social standing, but also
his life. This man is the saintly Archbishop of

Canterbury, Thomas Becket.

Becket the Politician
Ambition, Skill & Talent
Born in 1119, Thomas Becket was the son
of Gilbert and Matilda Becket who lived in
Cheapside, London. His parents were devout and
gave frequently to the poor. His father Gilbert
was a knight of the lower class gentry and held
a number of properties throughout the city that
could have sustained an elevated future for his
son. However, a devastating fire reduced the
family to poverty and Thomas was compelled
to earn his living as a clerk in the house of a
wealthy family friend. He quickly demonstrated
his aptitude for running the large household’s
59

Christian Culture
affairs and it was here that his future career
began to take shape. His prodigious talent did
not go unnoticed and when a position in the
household of Theobald of Bec, Archbishop of
Canterbury became vacant, he was recommended
for the role.
This position proved pivotal as it allowed
Thomas to develop his knowledge of the law
and politics. After a number of years in service,
Archbishop Theobald, realizing Becket’s potential,
sent him to France to study civil and ecclesiastical
law. Upon his return to England, Becket’s
intelligence and knowledge of law was quickly put
to the test on the level of national importance. The
heir to the throne of England was in question and
murmurs of rebellion where everywhere. It was
this case that brought Thomas into proximity with
the future King of England, Henry II.
When King Henry I died, he left no male heir,
so the throne passed to his brother Stephen.
Stephen was a terrible king who had no skill for
ruling. He spent the next 10 years, the entirety
of his reign, in constant fear of other nobles
usurping his crown. As a consequence, the
country fell into chaos, London became decrepit,
and his citizens came to hate him. But Henry’s
daughter had a son, and when he came of age
it was proposed that he be crowned king in
Stephen’s place and in place of his heirs. Stephen
fought violently against this suggestion.
In the middle of this political turmoil, Thomas
approached the king and suggested two options:
Either the Archbishop of Canterbury would
forcibly remove Stephen’s crown and anoint the
young Henry; or Stephen could appoint Henry as
his successor when he died. Stephen reluctantly
chose to remain king for the rest of his life and
made the announcement that Henry would be
his adopted son and would continue the line of
succession. Upon this treaty being realized, “The
popular voice did not hesitate to attribute this
happy result to Thomas Becket and Archbishop
Theobald was among the first to do honor to his
young counsellor, who had really inspired and
directed all the negotiations, and had therein
shown his superiority by the elevation and
justice of his views, the pliancy and decision of
his character, and by his prudence and zeal.”
(Monsignor Demimuid, St. Thomas A Becket, p.
60

The Angelus

January - February 2019

31., 1909) It is clear that without the considerable
political skill exhibited on the part of Becket,
Henry II would never have been crowned king.
In recognition of this feat, Archbishop Theobald
made Thomas Archdeacon of Canterbury in 1154.
After Thomas had been ordained, it was but
a matter of weeks when King Stephen died and
Henry II was crowned king. Henry immediately
choose Thomas Becket as his new Chancellor
and Archbishop Theobald gave his full support.
Thus it was that Thomas Becket, a man born
of meager means, so quickly gained a position
in England that was second only to the king
himself. Much can be said of Becket’s character
at this point. Moving from his lowly status to that
of Chancellor is by any natural understanding
impossible. But Becket was a man of principle
who inspired loyalty and impressed all with
his intellectual abilities. While God’s grace and
providential plan was certainly at work, it is by
his strength of character that Thomas Becket
achieved so much with so little.

Becket the Chancellor
Strength, Power & Vanity
“From the moment Thomas appeared at
the royal Council, he eclipsed everyone else;
his unrivalled capacity, [and] the irresistible
fascination of his person, had soon acquired for
him the confidence and friendship of Henry, who
by degrees gave him so great a share in all his
affairs, and loaded him with so many honours,
that he virtually made him the first among the
ministers and dignitaries of his Court.” (idem)
The kingdom in 1155, after years of the
contested reign, was totally in shambles.
Virtually every aspect of the court and all
municipal buildings were in neglect. The
transformative nature of the rebuilding under
Chancellor Becket was nothing short of
astonishing. But even these marvellous feats in
England were further surpassed by the political
and strategic alliances that Becket forged abroad
on Henry’s behalf, especially in France, making
Becket indispensable to the king and his crown.
It must be mentioned that Becket, while still
being a moral man, was not immune to the

vanities of his position. Remember at this time,
he was still the Archdeacon of Canterbury,
and yet nothing about his current public role
nor his manner of dress indicated that he was
a deacon of the Church. It is said that a prior
happened upon him playing chess while he was
lavishly dressed in highly fashionable and ornate
clothing. “How can you wear such dress. It
would be suitable for a falconer; you are a cleric
and so by Order and Jurisdiction, and moreover

Becket the Archbishop

Archdeacon of Canterbury, Dean of Hastings,
Provost of Beverley, Canon of several cathedrals,
Administrator of the Archbishopric and soon
perhaps to be Archbishop.” (idem) Becket may
have been vain, but nothing he did as Chancellor
contradicted his future actions as bishop. He
was at all times chaste and just, keeping both the
interests of the nation and the Church in mind.

well and was fully aware of his desire to control
everything in his realm including the Church.
The following prophetic statement was made
with chilling clarity by Becket to the king. “You
will ask concessions from me which it will be my
duty to refuse; your enemies and my detractors
will profit by this to excite you against me; you
will withdraw your friendship, and, in its place

Consecration, Obligation & Duty
After Becket had been Chancellor to the
king for almost eight years, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Theobald of Bec, died. It is unknown
when the king first devised the plan to make
Becket an Archbishop but it is well know that, as
soon as the king’s intentions were made public,
Becket was against them. Becket knew the king

61

Christian Culture
will entertain for me a mortal hatred.” (idem) The
king persisted with his intention to have Becket
made Archbishop of Canterbury which was
not surprising. The king never suspected that
Becket’s loyalty to the throne was the principled
result of Becket’s fine character and not, as the
king vainly assumed, mere loyalty to his own
person. Becket’s friendship with the king must
have been grounded in virtue as we will see its
outcome. On the contrary, the king’s friendship
was rooted not in virtue but in personal loyalty.
It was precisely this flawed friendship on his
part that would eventually be so wounded by
the virtuous actions of Becket even though they
were in fact the only right course of action. This
difference sets Becket apart from many bishops
of our day. A cleric living according to his
ordination could never compromise the truth out
of love for a person, as this would be disordered
and an eternal disservice to them both.
Upon his consecration as Archbishop of
Canterbury in 1162, the transformation of the
man was as miraculous as his restoration of
London. The man who once quite literally ran the
politics of the nation and dressed like a courtier
was now irrevocably a high servant of the King of
Kings. It is no easy thing to change the course of
one’s life and orient oneself around a new pivotal
purpose. Becket’s fine character responded
immediately to his new duties and everything of
note in his previous life, both friendship for the
king and the respect of court became less than
secondary. The center of Becket’s life was no
longer the throne, the kingdom or the king, but
rather the Magisterium, the Church and the pope
and this pivotal shift was apparent from the first
moment he was made Archbishop of Canterbury.

War Against the
Catholic Church
Civil Authority vs. Divine Authority
To more fully understand the following battle
between Church and State we must understand
the nature of a king’s authority. The authority by
which any king may rightfully rule is bestowed
by Holy Mother Church through the Pontiff
and delegated through his ministers. So then,
62

The Angelus

January - February 2019

the papal authority after having granted the
civil authority its power, cannot be subject to
that same civil power, without in some way
compromising the Church’s divine authority.

First Attack & First Rebuttal
Taxation of the Catholic Church by the Crown
The Council of Woodstock was the first
attempt to place a direct tax on the Catholic
Church by the King of England. It began by the
abuse of a custom. It was the custom of the time
that local sheriffs be paid two shillings, by the
Church, for every hide of land. The king argued
that the money would be given directly to the
king for his own purse. “The archbishop resisted
him, to his face, saying “Not from us, should this
be given as revenue, my lord the king, saving
your pleasure. But if we have been served by
the sheriffs in a worthy manner. . .we will not
withhold contribution to their aid.” The king
enraged by the archbishop’s words replied, “By
the eyes of God, it will be recorded as the king’s
revenue. Nor is the (your) right to contradict me.”
The archbishop responded, “by the reverence of
the eyes which you have sworn, my lord the king,
from the whole my land and by the right of the
Church, not a single penny will be given.” (James
Craigie Robertson, Materials for the History
of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury,
p. 273, 1885). It was the custom of the time that
a stipend be given by churches to sheriffs for
protection of property. But this stipend was only
given after the Church decided that protection
had indeed taken place. This incident emphasises
how important the point of civil taxation of
churches was to the saint as it was the very first
time Becket had ever publicly disagreed with the
king. This was a moment in which the strength of
one man changed the course of history. This act,
this one virtuous choice in time, created a chain
of events that could have enslaved the Church
had a man of lesser virtue been given the choice.
Becket’s choice was so immediate and firm it
is doubtful that he ever saw a choice at all but
simply did what he knew was right regardless of
the consequences.

Second Attack
Charging of Criminal Clerics by Civil Court
The delicate balance between civil and
ecclesiastical authority has always been
precarious. King Henry’s pretense for this second
attack was that the ecclesiastical courts of the
Church were too lenient on criminal clerics. This
excuse resonates with Catholics in the world
today, as we too are faced, not only with bad
clerics, but also a hierarchy that refuses to take
definitive action. Modern bishops seem to forget
the responsibilities of their ecclesiastical role. We
find elevated members of the clergy pandering
to the whims of the media and relinquishing the
Church’s authority to the civil government. But
our situation isn’t new and weak bishops have
plagued the Church from its conception. As early
as the year 325, St. Athanasius illustrated this
fact with his famous example: “The floor of hell
is paved with the skulls of bishops.” Becket’s
example is one that both protects the Church
from civil control and bad clerics.
The following is the description of the case
of two clerics who were accused of crimes and
tried by Becket himself. In 1163, the royal judges
tried several times to contest the sole right of
the Church to judge clerics. On one occasion,
two clerics were accused of homicide. Thomas
Becket immediately summoned them to appear
and be judged before the ecclesiastical court.
“One of them, a clerk in the diocese of Worcester,
against whom, as far as we can judge from
history, no decisive proof was alleged, was
[still] condemned. The other was pronounced
innocent.” (Monsignor Demimuid, St. Thomas
A Becket, p. 88, 1909) These cases coupled with
others created what the king then thought was
an opportunity to establish precedent for civil
intervention. The king summoned the prelates of
England and demanded that those who had been
found guilty must at least be tried again in civil
court. The bishops of England, frightened by the
words of the king were prepared to surrender
until Becket fiercely corrected them for their
weakness. “I see,” he exclaimed, “that you easily
choose the part of feebleness and indolence, and
that provided you call these [actions] by the false
name of prudence, you are quite resigned to let
the liberty of the Church be stifled. Who then has

been able to fascinate you to such a degree, rash
prelates? What use is it to try to disguise under a
borrowed title, that which is manifestly iniquity
on your part? Is it wisdom to consent to the total
ruin of the Church of Christ?” (p. 92 idem) The
clerics at this time sided with Becket. The king
retaliated by seizing all of Becket’s goods and
property with far worse to come. These are the
actions of a prince of the Church.
Aware of the fallen nature of man, aware that
evil men can enter the Church, Becket protected
the Church by castigating bad clerics and thereby
removing the pretense, created by their clerical
abuse, for a civil government to intervene. In
our day, the question arises, “How can we trust
today’s ecclesiastical hierarchy to rightly judge
and condemn bad clerics when it is the very
same hierarchy that gave these bad clerics their
power to begin with?” The answer is simple.
Today’s hierarchy is at fault but that doesn’t mean
tomorrow’s will be. The only other ruling body is
the civil government, but as this is not a system
ruled by Catholic principles, we would effectively
be enslaving Holy Mother Church to a body of
men that consistently fail to understand even the
most basic tenants of morality. Consequently,
once the precedent is set for civil intervention
against bad clerics, what is to prevent the
government from stepping in against good clerics
that don’t agree with the laws of the land on
homosexuality, abortion and the like?

Third Attack
The Constitutions of Clarendon
In the year 1164, the king convened the lords
of the realm as well as all bishops and prelates of
the kingdom to the castle of Clarendon. Without
warning, he then commanded that all present
acknowledge and adhere to all previous customs
of the land concerning relations between Church
and crown. Becket, after having stipulated that the
interests of the Church would be protected, swore
to uphold the customs of the land as did all the
other bishops. Unfortunately, these “customs of
the land” were never written down and certainly
never enforced as no one was obliged, until now,
to follow them by law. The king, having acquired
63

Christian Culture
the good-faith oath of Becket and the clergy,
proceeded to “summarize” these customs into 16
articles and codify them into law.
The 16 articles, known as the Constitutions
of Clarendon, gave ultimate authority to the
crown. They severed the tie between the
bishops of England and the pope. They limited
the powers of Church prelates by taking away
their authority to settle disputes, collect debts,
excommunicate and elect bishops or prelates.
Furthermore, all ecclesiastical seats that would
become vacant in the future would henceforth
be owned by the king and consequently all
revenue they created would be the king’s own.
All ecclesiastical ministers would not be allowed
to leave the country without consent of the king
nor would visiting prelates be allowed to visit
or move about the kingdom without the express
permission of the king. These 16 points are truly
frightening in their scope. If they had ever been
fully implemented, they would have essentially
created an English “church” similar to the future
Anglican Church or Chinese Patriotic Catholic
Association, created by the governing communist
party in 1957, both of which reject the authority
of the Holy See and appoint their own bishops.
One cannot help but see the reflection of our
modern crisis in this lesson from history. The
Church is already enslaved in China as a direct
result of the civil authority gaining power over
the Church’s clerics. Without courageous bishops,
what other countries will gain control of the
Church by limiting its powers and eventually
assimilating it entirely?

fled the country to seek counsel from Pope
Alexander III. The pope fully supported Becket’s
innocence and repudiated the actions of Henry
II. Alexander wrote the king numerous times,
both exhorting and warning him of the danger of
excommunication should his actions continue.
These despotic actions of Henry were
not ignored by the court and, like Henry’s
predecessor King Stephen, there were rumors
of rebellion among the nobles. Henry, to avoid
a possible uprising, decided to have his son
Henry III crowned king. But the coronation of an
English king can only take place with the express
permission of the pope and be officiated by the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Since the archbishop
was now in exile, Henry foolishly forced a hasty
coronation expressly against the wishes of the
pope. This rash act was sufficient to incur an
extreme penalty. With the permission of the pope,
Becket formally pronounced all those who took
part in the coronation, both laymen and clergy
alike, excommunicated. While Becket’s course
was clear, to excommunicate a friend, even a bad
one, is a terrible thing with terrible consequences
for those receiving it. However strong any natural
friendship was between Thomas and the king it
was clearly never an impediment to virtue. True
charity, on the part of all men but especially
clerics, is to admonish sinners so that they might
abjure their wrong actions, repent and enjoy their
eternal reward. This is true friendship, not as the
world defines it, but as Christ wills it to be.

Martyrdom
Final Attack
Flight of Becket and Illegitimate Coronation of
Henry III
Soon after these articles were published,
Becket was accused by the king of unpaid
debts to the crown. This accusation was
completely fabricated by the king and only
partially supported by his newly-ratified
articles. Numerous appearances were made
by Becket in court, all of which ending in him
being found guilty, being given a sentence of
“imprisonment until all debts were paid.” Becket
64

The Angelus

January - February 2019

Lasting Example of the Saintly Archbishop
Soon after the pronunciation of
excommunication, the king made it known that
Becket was allowed to return to his episcopal
seat. It is unclear whether the excommunication
created in the king a desire for peace or if he was
simply plotting to ease the return of Becket and
thereby hasten his demise. Regardless, Becket
came home and Canterbury’s people and clerics
rejoiced.
It was but a few short weeks after
Thomas’ return that Henry requested that
the excommunication be lifted immediately.

Without hesitation, Thomas Becket made it
clear that only the pope could absolve the
crimes committed by the king. It was after the
intentions of Becket were made known that the
king uttered those ill-fated words: “Will no one
rid me of this troublesome priest?” Four knights
left the king’s presence that day and began the
journey to Canterbury. It is unclear if murder was
their initial intent, but it was certainly the final
result. The archbishop gave a sermon Christmas
morning which showed that there was little doubt
as to the end that would soon be his.
“Dear children of God, my sermon this
morning will be a very short one. I wish only
that you should ponder and meditate the deep
meaning and mystery of our Masses of Christmas
Day. For whenever Mass is said, we re-enact
the passion and death of Our Lord; and on
this Christmas Day we do this in celebration
of His Birth. So that at the same moment we
rejoice in His coming for the salvation of men,
and offer again to God His Body and Blood in
sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins
of the whole world. ...Reflect now, how Our
Lord Himself spoke of peace. He said to His
disciples, ‘My peace I leave with you, my peace
I give unto you.’ Did He mean peace as we think
of it: the kingdom of England at peace with its
neighbors…? Those men His disciples knew no
such things: they went forth to journey afar, to
suffer by land and sea... What then did He mean?
If you ask that, remember then that He said also,
‘Not as the world gives, give I unto you.’ So then,
He gave to His disciples peace, but not peace
as the world gives. . . Is it an accident, do you
think, that the day of the first martyr follows
immediately the date of the birth of Christ?…
I have spoken to you today, dear children of
God, of the martyrs of the past, asking you to
remember especially our martyr of Canterbury,
the blessed Archbishop Elphege; because it is
fitting, on Christ’s birthday, to remember what is
that peace which He brought; and because, dear
children, I do not think I shall ever preach to you
again; and because it is possible that in a short
time you may have yet another martyr, and that
one perhaps not the last. I would have you keep
in your hearts these words that I say, and think of
them at another time. In the Name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” St.
Thomas Becket thus addressed his faithful for
the last time knowing well what lay ahead. The
words of this of saintly archbishop echo through
the centuries long after the halls in which they
were uttered have fallen and the men who
first heard them had vanished from the earth.
They speak of a man who lived a life defined by
principle and not popularity. A man who loved
sinner’s enough to rebuke them for their errors
instead of tolerating their sin to the detriment
of the Church and the loss of their eternal souls.
The world cannot measure St. Thomas Becket’s
life because he fully rejected it even after he had
achieved all it had to offer. This man, this bishop,
living in light of his consecration, secured peace
for the Catholic Church in England for centuries.
He created a shining example for the modern era
of what a true bishop can be if only he remembers
that his sacred duties are to the Church and
not to any other people, government or ruling
authority on earth. We must call on the clerics
of our time to return to their sacred obligations.
These clerical obligations include the punishment
and defrocking of those that abuse their sacred
office, vows and holy orders while continuing
to encourage and support those clerics who are
struggling to bring these pernicious bishops and
priests to true justice within the confines of the
ecclesiastical court.
Saint Thomas Becket’s death so horrified
all of Catholic Europe that within weeks King
Henry II was compelled to do public penance by
monastic flagellation and make a formal public
renunciation of his errors. The king also recanted
all 16 Articles of Clarendon and relinquished
all customs of the realm that might in anyway
limit the authority of the Church, before Pope
Alexander III. This act acknowledged the
absolute and universal authority of the Church
over souls, the very thing St. Thomas Becket laid
down his life to defend.

65

Not only did angels and prophets, the
shepherds and His parents, bear witness to
the birth of the Lord, but the old men and the
righteous. As it is said, and, behold, there was
a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon,
and he was a just man, and one who feared
God. For scarcely is righteousness preserved
without fear, I mean not that fear which dreads
the loss of worldly goods, (which perfect love
casts out), but that holy fear of the Lord which
abides for ever, by which the righteous man,
the more ardent his love to God, is so much the
more careful not to offend Him.
St. Ambrose

Christian Culture

by Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara, SSPX

Is it the sin of gossip if I talk to
my wife about the people who
have done some wrong to me?
Catholic moral doctrine teaches us that one
of the most important things a person possesses
is his reputation, as it is the basis on which we
relate to one another in our social interactions.
St. Thomas lists (II-IIae, qq. 72-76) all the
ways in we may harm our neighbor with our
words, that is, how we may unjustly damage the
reputation or honor of a person, who usually is
68

The Angelus

January - February 2019

not present, either by telling lies about him or
by inappropriately sharing truths about him.
Backbiting is to talk behind somebody’s back,
injuring his good name. Calumny is to tell lies
that harm somebody’s reputation. Detraction is
to reveal certain truths about somebody, which,
although true, are not to be shared and which
in fact diminish or harm that person’s good
name before others. Derision is to make fun of
a person, in such a manner that it diminishes his
honor and good standing in the eyes of others.
Cursing is the spoken wish that some person

may suffer some evil or harm.
All these sins of speech are gathered, in our
common language, under the name of “gossip.”
The gravity of these sins is variable, according
to the degree of harm caused by our words, to the
circumstances in which such words are uttered
(where, when, in whose presence, what kind of
language, etc.), and, most importantly, according
to the intention of the person who thus speaks.
Certainly, it is always forbidden to tell lies,
and much more if those lies cause any harm
to a person’s reputation. It is also forbidden to
unnecessarily reveal truths about someone,
truths that the person would prefer not to be
widely known. Obviously, there may be times
when it is necessary to share certain truths about
others, in order to avoid the possible damage to
a third party—but such disclosure must be made
with discretion, that is, only to those who need
to know, telling only what is certainly the truth
and only the truth that needs to be revealed, not
everything else about that person…
Nonetheless, there are times when we need
to talk about the defects or the idiosyncrasies of
people who are not present—for example, when
we seek advice on how to deal with some person
or with the consequences of what that person has
done to us, or when we need encouragement in a
difficult situation in which someone has landed
us, or when we simply need to get something “of
our chest” before it leads to resentment or other
uncharitable acts…
In those cases, and keeping as much discretion
as possible, we may speak to someone who
we judge to be trustworthy and capable of
providing help in the way of reasonable advice or
sympathetic support. If I am married, there should
be no one closer to me than my wife, no one more
trustworthy and supportive in my time of need.
In such circumstances, my words about
someone else—even if they are damaging to his
reputation—are not gossip, as long as I relay
what is certainly true, and do not seek to harm
the other’s reputation, and find no joy in exposing
his faults, and have no intention of what is said
being spread to anyone else. But, still, we must
be very careful with this kind of speech, as too
easily we may fall into sin.

Are we obliged, always,
in all circumstances, to
tell the truth and nothing
but the whole truth?
Moralists begin to give an answer to this
question by first making a distinction between
positive and negative precepts.
Negative precepts oblige always, in all
circumstances, as they forbid the performance
of intrinsically evil acts. For example, the Fifth
Commandment indicates that there is simply no
possible case in which we could be allowed to kill
an innocent.
On the other hand, positive precepts oblige
always, but not in every circumstance of our
lives. They require the performance of good acts;
they are always binding, but not always operative,
due to a lack of capacity, or of suitable occasion,
or of fitting circumstances… Their application is
flexible, because some positive obligations often
conflict with other positive obligations. Thus,
the precept of loving our neighbor as ourselves
indicates that—for example—we must give alms
to those in need, but it does not demand from us
to give away all our money, because we have the
duty to support our own family…
Now, telling the truth is a positive precept
and, as such, it does not oblige always. Most
certainly, it is never permissible to lie. But that
does not mean that we have to tell the truth,
the whole truth, always, on every occasion, in
every circumstance… We may choose to remain
silent, because telling the truth may conflict with
another positive obligation—for example, to keep
a secret, to protect a reputation, to preserve the
common good…
Therefore, sometimes it is licit to hide the
truth. St. Thomas (II-IIae, q. 110, a. 3, ad 4um)
69

Christian Culture
teaches that although it is never licit to tell a lie,
“sometimes it is licit to prudently hide the truth”
– that is, sometimes the truth may be hidden for
an honest end, to protect goods important for the
welfare of soul or body.
But to hide the truth is forbidden if another
precept (faith, charity, justice, etc.) demands
telling it. In such cases, if the truth is hidden,
two sins would be committed, one against
truthfulness and the other against the other
virtue affected. Thus, it is forbidden to hide
the truth when we are urged by the precept
of confessing the Faith; or when ex officio
(on account of our office or function) there
is an obligation to teach the truth to another
(especially if we are paid for it); or when a judge
who has the right to know the truth legitimately
interrogates us; or when a religious superior
interrogates his subjects about those things
pertaining to their government; or when a
confessor interrogates his penitent about things
necessary to judge rightly the state of soul…
Conversely, outside these cases and with a
sufficiently proportionate cause, it is permissible
to hide the truth from the person who questions.

Was Pope Pius IX
originally a liberal?
I have read some modern historians who say
that Pius IX was a liberal, intent of great liberal
reforms of the Papacy and the Church, and that
only afterwards he was pressured and frightened
into becoming a “reactionary” opposing any
liberal concessions or any accommodation with
the modern world. Is that true?
Any lie, however outlandish, if sufficiently
repeated, will be believed and survive. Thus, by
sheer force of repetition, a sharp division of Pius
IX’s pontificate into two periods has become a
dogma of historiography—first, a period of liberal
openness to the modern world, up to 1848, and

344 pp.–Hardcover–STK# 8343✱–$25.55

The Best of Questions
and Answers
The best questions and the best answers of 30 years of The Angelus. This will be a family’s
heirloom reference book for everyday Catholic living to match the Catholic Faith we believe
and the Latin Mass we attend. Over 300 answers classified under 30 subtitles.
–– Marriage, Parenting, Family Life
and Child Rearing
–– Science and Medical Matters

–– The Bible and Biblical Matters
–– The Trinity, Jesus Christ, The Virgin
Mary, Angels, and Saints

–– Life After Death

–– The Mass and the Liturgy

–– Church Practices and Customs

–– The SSPX and the Crisis

–– The Papacy and the Church Teachings

then, for the rest of the pontificate, a sudden
and unexpected betrayal, “an authoritarian
and reactionary involution.” In fact, there was
only continuity. Pius IX was always himself, no
separation whatever between his being and his
action—he was pope, and even as a politician, he
acted as pope.
Throughout the 19th century, the turn of
events had made clear for the popes that the
revolutionary movements in Europe and Italy
were not simply the expressions of legitimate
desires of independence and freedom, but were
guided by a precise intent of de-Christianization.
Thus, in the two first years of his pontificate,
Pius IX undertook most of those concrete
reforms that, although termed “liberal,” were
compatible with Catholic principles and his
mission as pope, but he never wavered in the
principles themselves, and his essential mission
was never compromised.
In those first two years, he enjoyed a
great popularity, but much of it was based in
misunderstandings that had been carefully
prepared and orchestrated by the revolutionaries’
manipulation of public opinion. The people
had to be kept rejoicing for the first reforms,
not so much for what they objectively were, but
for being considered as the first steps towards
greater liberal concessions—making the people
believe that such greater concessions were
possible, that the pope intended to yield to them,
and was impeded only by the reactionaries in
the College of Cardinals, in the Curia, in the
government… The aim was not so much to make
the pope yield to the demands of liberalization
coming from all quarters—something that the
true revolutionaries well knew that Pius IX will
not do—but to provoke the disappointment of
the people, after so many dreams and hopes, a
disappointment that could be easily turned into
revolution…
Pius IX’s political action had very precise
limits, determined by Catholic principles,
which he would not trespass to accommodate
revolutionary demands. His position was clear,
for all those who wanted to see, in his very first
encyclical, Qui Pluribus, which already exposes
the principles that he will develop years later in
the “Syllabus.”

“As a result of the filthy medley of errors which
creeps in from every side, and as the result of the
unbridled license to think, speak and write, We
see the following: morals deteriorated, Christ’s
most holy religion despised, the majesty of divine
worship rejected, the power of this Apostolic See
plundered, the authority of the Church attacked
and reduced to base slavery, the rights of bishops
trampled on, the sanctity of marriage infringed,
the rule of every government violently shaken
and many other losses for both the Christian
and civil commonwealth—We hope that political
leaders will keep in mind that the kingly power
has been conferred on them not only for ruling
the world but especially for the protection of the
Church. We hope that with their aid and authority
they will support the objects, plans and pursuits
which we have in common, and that they will also
defend the liberty and safety of the Church, so
that the right hand of God may also defend their
rule.”
Thus, Pius IX was one of the less “political”
or “liberal” popes that have ever existed, and
one of the most deeply faithful to the spiritual
mission of the Church. He judged everything
from a religious point of view—distinguishing in
every occasion the part of man, who in certain
circumstances cannot act but in a certain way,
determined by his duty and the oaths taken,
and the part of God, Who can confound human
expectations and make even the most holy
desires to remain unfulfilled.

71

News from Tradition
Annual Meeting of the Bishops of the United States
Following what some have called the “Summer
of Shame” in which it became clear that many of
the nation’s bishops and cardinals had covered
up sexual abuse, the bishops of the United States
(USCCB) held their annual meeting in Baltimore,
Maryland this past November. At the top of the
agenda, two proposals were voted upon which
would have created a “code of conduct” for bishops
when investigating claims of sexual abuse as well
as the creation of an investigative board made up
of competent lay people to investigate the bishops
themselves.
It was at the opening session of the meeting that
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the USCCB,
made a surprising and startling announcement.
Rome had, through the Congregation for Bishops,
ordered the USCCB not to bring the two proposals
up for a vote. This order was particularly strange
in that Pope Francis has been insisting on the
various bishops’ conferences taking on a more
prominent role in deciding issues, even dogmatic
ones (so called “synodality”). Though the majority
of bishops acquiesced with barely a murmur, a
number did show consternation at the order from
Rome expressing concern as to how Catholics
in this country would react to this seeming
“stonewalling” of reform. It must be said that the
two proposals would, even if passed, have been
little more than grandstanding on the part of the
bishops: Sacred Scripture, Church dogma and
Canon Law are all that are necessary to clearly
show bishops how to respond to claims of sexual
abuse committed by any cleric and also what not
to do.
Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop of Tyler
Texas, called upon his fellow bishops to be clear
concerning the Church’s teaching on homosexual
activity. He said, in part: It’s part of our deposit
of faith that we believe homosexual activity
is immoral… The people, those that we label
‘homosexual,’ are children of God, and they need
our great care, but to me that real care comes
from acknowledging the sin, and the reality that
all of us are sinners called from sin to virtue…
How did this happen [the entire McCarrick
affair] if we really believe that what was going
72

The Angelus

January - February 2019

on was wrong?… There seem to be questions
about that, [McCarrick being promoted to the
Archdiocese of Newark, then Washington, then to
the College of Cardinals] And I think we have to
face that directly—Do we believe the doctrine of
the Church, or not?…There’s a priest that travels
around now basically saying that he doesn’t
believe the doctrine of the Church, and he seems
to be very well promoted in various places.
Brothers, I think part of the fraternal correction,
or the fraternal support, we offer each other is to
say, ‘Can that be presented in our diocese? That
same-sex ‘marriage’ is just fine, and the Church
will one day grow to understand that. That’s
not what we teach, and I think we really have
to ask those serious questions. Although Bishop
Strickland did not mention the priest by name,

it is clear he was referencing Jesuit Fr. James
Martin, who not only has been giving conferences
throughout the United States but was also invited
by the Vatican to give a conference at the World
Meeting of Families in 2018.
During the time the USCCB was meeting,
approximately 3,000 Catholics from across the
United States held a rally opposite the hotel where
the bishops were holding their discussions. The
“Silence Stops Now” was a call for the bishops
of the United States to “come clean” about the
homosexual network within the Church. Michael
Voris (of Church Militant) claimed that the USCCB

had made an attempt in the weeks leading up to
the meeting to change the venue so as not to be
near the rally—this attempt failed as no other
hotel was available. The bishops did, however,
hire additional security and alert the Baltimore
police of the rally fearing a disruption—this also
according to Voris. One of the few, and possibly
the only bishop who came over to meet with the
rally participants, was Bishop Joseph Strickland.
It should be noted that the rally was an entirely
peaceful event.
The USCCB membership was also presented
with a proposal to request the full Vatican
documentation regarding the McCarrick affair
from the Vatican. This proposal was clearly put
forward as a result of the revelations made in
Archbishop Viganò in his testimonies released in
the late summer of 2018. The text of the proposal
read: Recognizing the ongoing investigation
of the Holy See into the case of Archbishop
McCarrick, be it resolved that the bishops
of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops encourage the Holy See to release
all the documentation that can be released
consistent with canon and civil law regarding
the misconduct of Archbishop McCarrick. The
proposal was defeated in a vote of 137 to 83.
Sadly, the results of the vote indicate that the
majority of United States bishops prefer to keep
the entire issue under wraps or, even more likely,
feared retribution from Pope Francis’ Vatican.
Bishop Michael Fors Olson of the Diocese of Fort
Worth, Texas said the entire proposal would serve
to make the USCCB “appear like we are doing
something when we are not.”
Another puzzling aspect of this year’s USCCB
meeting was the presence of Cardinals Wuerl
and Mahoney, both of whom covered up abuse
allegations and/or moved known abusers from
parish to parish. One observer noted that both
cardinals were moving about freely amongst the
bishops and “holding court.” Wuerl’s resignation
as Archbishop of Washington was finally accepted
by Pope Francis in late summer of 2018. Mahoney
was forbidden by the current Archbishop of Los
Angeles from exercising public ministry due to his
role in handling abusive clerics.
In addition to dealing with the public outcry
concerning the “Summer of Shame,” the United

States bishops are also dealing with the very real
possibility of heavy fines, removal of tax exempt
status and even prison time for their malfeasance
in dealing with and/or covering up sexual abuse
in their diocese. Aside from the numerous States’
Attorney Generals who have convened Grand
Juries to investigate the Catholic dioceses within
their states (similar to the Pennsylvania Grand
Jury), U.S. Attorney William McSwain sent a sevenpage letter to Cardinal DiNArdo on October 9th
of 2018. In this letter, McSwain asked Cardinal
DiNardo to communicate to all the bishops
that they are ordered not to alter or destroy any
documents pertaining to sexual abuse in chancery
files—including those in the “secret archives”
all bishops are required to maintain. He wrote:
I request that these documents be preserved in
their current form and condition, and not be
destroyed, discarded, disposed of, deleted, or
altered in any way.
This move by the Justice Department is seen
as the first step in opening a full-scale RICO1
investigation. RICO would be invoked since many
abusive priests were knowingly sent across State
lines by their bishops, thus violating the statute.
With the letter from the U.S. Attorney, bishops all
across the country have been “lawyering up” in
preparation for lengthy litigation—a move that will
cost millions of dollars on top of the billions paid
out to victims since 2002.

73

News from Tradition
A Tale of Two Congregations of Nuns
In what has become standard operating
procedure when faced with legitimate questions
or concerns, Pope Francis used his homily at his
daily Mass to attack his critics circumspectly.
He told A Tale of Two Congregations of Nuns:
In 1639, a small group of Ursuline sisters
led by Mother Mary of the Incarnation (now
a canonized saint) arrived in New France
and established their monastery in Quebec.
The monastery grew over the centuries as
more young women came to join the order to
continue the work begun by this original brave
band of religious women. Since that time,
at least up until the late 1960s, the Ursuline
sisters (originally founded by St. Angela
Merici), worked tirelessly to educate children,
care for orphans and perform other works of
charity.
Sadly, this past October, the last of the
Ursuline sisters left this convent to move to
an assisted care facility. It seems that there
are no longer any vocations coming to this
once thriving order. The oldest of the group
of 50 sisters who moved was 102 years old.
The average age of the group was 88. The
monastery will now be used as a museum and
a cultural center (the Marie-de-l’Incarnation
Center).

Ursuline Sr. Cecile Dionne speaks to Sr. Pauline
Duchesne and Sr. Celine Bergeron inside Quebec City’s
Ursuline monastery chapel about the closure of the
monastery.

74

The Angelus

January - February 2019

The tragic end to this once vibrant religious
community has been repeated time and time
again over the past 30 years to countless other
communities of nuns. The thing all these
communities had in common was the giving
up of a religious habit along with a genuine
common life. By embracing the secular world,
they destroyed their religious congregations.

The Ursuline Sisters in the Monastery Chapel circa
1950s

The other congregations of sisters to be
mentioned are the Petites Sœurs de Marie,
Mère du Rédempteur (the Little Sisters of
Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer). The sisters
were founded in 1949 by Mother Marie de la
Croix and had convents in a number of French
dioceses. Their apostolate includes the care
of the elderly, and assist in parishes. The
spirituality of the Little Sisters includes the love
of Eucharistic Adoration and devotion to Our
Lady. Following the Second Vatican Council,
the sisters adopted the Novus Ordo Missae as
they believed was required of them. In 2012, the
sisters voted to return to the Traditional Mass
and Breviary (as was permitted by Benedict
XVI’s Summorum Pontificum).
In 2016 and 2018 the sisters received a
“canonical visitation” from Rome after the
Bishop of Laval did not like the order’s return
to Tradition. Following these visitations, the
sisters were told that they must implement the
“new theology of consecrated life” (i.e., reject
Tradition). The majority of the sisters (34

out of 39) refused to accept this requirement
and, given no other choice, have asked to be
released from their vows. In a statement, the
34 sisters said: We are 34 out of 39 sisters who

Petites Sœurs de Marie, Mère du Rédempteur

have requested the release from the Order’s
Congregation. We do not make this sacrifice
lightly: we wish to remain in communion
with the Church, but we can show neither
clearer nor more painfully that it is
impossible for us, for reasons of conscience,
to obey what we have been forced to do.
This was a young, growing religious order
that was destroyed by the Rome of Pope
Francis just as was done to the Franciscan
Friars of the Immaculate all out of hatred for
Tradition.
Two religious communities: one dying out as
a result of leaving behind traditional religious
life, the other young and growing being
destroyed for being faithful to Tradition.

Travel Restrictions Placed on Burke and Schneider
GloriaTV is reporting that: The Vatican has
asked Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider
not to leave Astana archdiocese for more than 30
days a year, Schneider told katholisch.de.
The nuncio in Washington D.C. told the
American bishops not to invite people like
Cardinal Raymond Burke for talks, and when
Burke’s presence cannot be avoided, they should
not take part in such events, Marco Tossati
reported on November 6.
Both Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider have
been prominent fixtures on the lecture circuit of
conservative and traditionally minded groups.
In these talks, Burke has been openly critical
of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia—it should be
recalled that he was one of the four cardinals who
presented the so called Dubia to Pope Francis
regarding the document. Burke also has been
promising for almost two years the issuance of a
“formal correction” to Amoris Laetitia. Bishop
Schneider has also been outspoken in his criticism
of the errors coming forth from Pope Francis and
a strong supporter of the Traditional Mass.
These unofficial restrictions come as no
surprise. Although Pope Francis continually
speaks of mercy and dialogue, he has been

documented (https://onepeterfive.com/dictatorpope-must-read-book-available-now/) as being
extremely dictatorial and vindictive.

75

The Gospels point out how, from the beginning
of His ministry, Jesus called to Himself some
Jews, and by a very diligent instruction and
formation, made them His disciples. After some
time, in the Galilean ministry, He selected
twelve whom, as Mark (3:14) and Luke (6:13)
say, “He also named Apostles.” The origin of the
Apostolate lies therefore in a special vocation, a
formal appointment of the Lord to a determined
office, with connected authority and duties.

Theological Studies

The Death
Penalty
According to Pope Francis

by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX

1. “We must strongly affirm that capital punishment is an inhumane measure, which wounds
personal dignity, whatever the operative mode of
the penalty. Voluntarily deciding to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the
Creator, and of which God is the final and true judge
and guarantor, is in itself contrary to the Gospel.”1
Thus Pope Francis recently expressed himself on
the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the publication of the New Catechism. This reflection is not
new. The discourse of October 2017 simply summarizes the ideas largely developed by the Sovereign
Pontiff in a letter from 2015, 2 which references two
other documents from 2014.3
2. Francis believes that his predecessor John
Paul II had already condemned the death penalty
in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (in No. 56)

78

The Angelus

January - February 2019

as well as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in
No. 2267).4 He includes in this condemnation that
of a life sentence in prison, which he said was “a
death sentence in disguise.”5 This is why the recent
discourse of October 2017 does not encourage a
revision of the New Catechism of 1992. It simply
underlines that this disapproval of the death penalty
finds in the Catechism of John Paul II “a more appropriate and more fitting place” with the finality of
doctrine, which must be placed in “everlasting love.”
If there is a revision, it ought to consist in developing
the doctrine in order to preserve it, and in “abandoning statements related to these arguments that
now seem in reality contrary to a new understanding of the truth.” This position and these arguments
experienced their hour of glory during the period
prior to the Second Vatican Council, but they are
now contrary to the “evolution of the conscience of

Theological Studies
the Christian people, which is moving away from a
consenting attitude toward a penalty which heavily
wounds human dignity.”
3. We can reduce to four the fundamental arguments that the pope uses to justify this evolution of
conscience.6 First, “human life is sacred because
from its beginning, from the first instant of its conception, it is the fruit of the creative action of God
and, from that moment, man, the unique creature
on earth that God has willed to belong to Himself, is
an object of the personal love of God. […] Life, and
especially human life, belongs only to God. Even he
who kills does not lose his personal dignity and God
Himself is the guarantor.” The proof which is given is
that God did not wish to punish Cain for his murder
by taking away his life. From this point of view, the
death penalty would logically appear to be contrary
to the Fifth Commandment.
4. Second, the infliction of death on one who is
guilty could not amount to just punishment for two
reasons. First of all, the death penalty cannot be
justified as a “legitimate defense” on the part of society, by analogy with legitimate self-defense; indeed,
“when the death penalty is applied, we kill persons
not for current assaults, but for wrongs committed
in the past” and this is why self-defense would not
pertain here, since it would be applied “to persons
whose capacity to commit crime is not actual, since
they have already been rendered incapable, and who
have been deprived of their liberty.” Subsequently,
the death penalty cannot be justified as an act which
reestablishes the order damaged by the injustice, as
“we will never do justice by killing a human being…
The death penalty does not restore justice to the
victims, but only elicits a desire for revenge.”
5. Third, the death penalty is contrary to the
Divine Mercy. “By the application of capital punishment, the convict is denied the possibility of reparation, or of correcting the injury caused; the possibility of confession, by which man expresses his interior
conversion; and contrition, passage towards repentance and atonement, in order to reach an encounter
with the Merciful Love of God which heals.” In this
line of thought, the death penalty also implies “a
cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, just like
the anguish which precedes the moment of execu-

tion and the terrible wait between the moment of the
sentence and the application of the penalty.”
6. Fourth, “it is impossible to imagine that today
States do not have another method than capital
punishment to defend the lives of others against an
unjust aggressor” 7 because “there are means to
effectively punish crime without permanently depriving the person who has committed it of the possibility to redeem himself.”8
7. Finally, let us add the reason why a life sentence in prison is a “hidden” or “disguised” death
penalty. The pope sees it as an attack on hope: “A
life in prison, as well as sentences which, by their
duration, make it impossible for the condemned to
imagine a future of liberty, can be considered as hidden death penalties since one does not deprive the
culpable party of his freedom by these means, but
seeks to deprive him of hope.” This is why “recently,
in the Vatican Penal Code, life imprisonment has
disappeared.”9
8. To sum it up, the death penalty is considered
“inadmissible,” in the eyes of Pope Francis, for reasons of a double argument of authority (it is condemned by the New Catechism and by the Encyclical
Evangelium Vitae) and because of a fourfold argument of reason: it violates the sanctity of created
life; it is unfair and ineffective in reestablishing
justice; it is constituted as an obstacle to mercy; and
other means of punishment are already sufficient.
The Death Penalty According to Traditional
Catholic Doctrine. 10
9. Yet, it is an evident fact that it was always
held as just, even in the most Christian societies,
except by a certain number of generally modern
theorists, that the political authority punish certain
crimes with death. The proof of Revelation confirms
this natural sense of the common good. When the
Decalogue forbids killing,11 it implies unjust killing.
We see clearly that the Old Testament prescribes the
death penalty in many instances.12 On this point, the
New Testament has not abolished the Old. St. Paul,
speaking of political authority, refers to the sword,
instrument of the death penalty: “Authority is for
thee the minister of God, for the sake of good. But if
thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not

79

Theological Studies
the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: charged
to chastise him that doth evil.”13 In the City of God,
St. Augustine commented on these passages of
Scripture as follows: “The same divine authority who
says: Thou shalt not kill has established certain exceptions in defense of killing man. God then ordains,
whether by the general law, or by a temporary and
private precept, that the death penalty be applied.
However, this is not truly homicide, which owes its
administration to authority; the minister of the penalty is only an instrument, like the sword with which
he strikes. Also, they have in no way violated the
commandment Thou shalt not kill, those who, by order of God have declared war, or who, in the exercise
of public authority have, in conformity to the divine
laws, that is to say in conformity to the decision of
the most just reasons, punished criminals.”14
10. Thus Pope Innocent III only defends a biblical
and traditional truth when he proposes to heretics
who wish to enter into the Church a profession of
faith holding, among other truths, that “secular
power may, without mortal sin, exercise a judgment
of death provided it chastises by righteousness and
not by hatred, with wisdom and not with haste.”15
Leo X similarly condemns Luther’s proposition that
“burning heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy
Ghost.”16 Leo XIII, when condemning duels, recognizes the right of public authority to inflict the death
penalty.17 Finally, Pius XII declares with an extremely
remarkable precision: “Even when it comes to
executing one condemned to death, the State does
not have rights over the life of the individual. It is
then reserved to the public authority to deprive the
condemned of the possession of life, in expiation of
his fault, after which, by his crime, he has already
renounced his right to life.”18
11. St. Thomas19 thought that the death penalty
could be legitimized, even by natural law, without
calling upon the proof of supernatural revelation.
This legitimization results from two principles, each
absolutely necessary to the other. The first20 is the
necessity of the common good. Just as one may,
in order to save the body, amputate a putrid limb
which threatens the whole, so too, for the good of
all, can one amputate from the social body one of its
particular members when this member is a danger
for all, if only because of the type of crime which

80

The Angelus

January - February 2019

his example allows if he is not sufficiently punished.
It is true that, in the social body, those who are
referred to analogically as the “members” of society
are persons and, hence, they are not part of society, which is a whole of order, in the same way that
members are part of the body, which is a physical
whole. 21 Indeed, this good, which is their life, belongs
firstly to God, and not to the State, except to the
extent that the authority presiding over the State
is the minister of God. It follows that the law of the
State cannot prevail over that of God, which is the
foundation of all laws, and Who has given life to each
individual. If we wish to justify the death penalty,
we must introduce another principle, 22 according to
which, by crime, man is deprived of his dignity of being endowed with reason and freedom: “By sin man
departs from the order prescribed by reason; this is
why he falls from his human dignity which consists
in being born free and existing for himself; he thus
falls into servitude which is similar to that of the
beasts, so that one may dispose of him according
as he is useful to others.” In using his liberty against
nature and against God, man leads an inauthentic
life. He therefore deserves a punishment in the very
order of what he has corrupted. It then belongs not
only to God, but also to human authority, who is
the minister of God, to deprive him of the good of
corporal life, of which he has lost the use. It is indeed
a principle underlined by St. Thomas that “all those
who rebel against an order of things must normally
be repressed by that order and by its principle.”23
Consequently, the one that seriously endangers the
life of others merits to be himself deprived of life.
12. As we have shown above, Pius XII speaks differently, by calling a “right to life,” of which the criminal would be deprived prior to the intervention of
the authority which would then deprive him only of
his life: “It is reserved to public authority to deprive
the condemned of the good of life, in expiation of his
fault, after his crime has already deprived himself of
his right to life.” In 1952, we (were) in the aftermath
of the World Wars and the birth of totalitarianism. In
these times of Cold War, the Holy Father (intended)
to defend individuals against State control. He uses
language appropriated to the circumstances. It
remains true, with this, that in all rigor of terms, no
individual has a “right” in the strict sense over his
life. For life is a gift from God and man possesses

Theological Studies
only the use of it. Eight years earlier, the same Pius
XII declared: “Man is not the owner, the absolute
master of his body, he is only the usufructuary”24 […]
“As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable; thus, all acts tending directly to destroy it are
illicit, whether that destruction is understood as an
end or a means for that purpose, whether it is an
embryonic life or one in full development, or one
already arrived at its end. God alone is master of the
life of a man who is not culpable of a fault leading to
the death penalty.”25 Authority, as minister of God,
becomes, in turn, master of a man’s life only when
he is guilty of such faults. But this restriction is not
based on a strict and absolutely fundamental right
that the individual possesses over his own life. It is
explained because it is above all God who gives life
to man, not the State. “Without doubt, man is by
his nature destined to live in society, but, as reason teaches, in principle, society is made for man
and not man for society. Not from it, but from the
Creator, man holds the right over his own body and
his life, and it is to the Creator that he will give an
account for the use he has made of it. It follows that
society cannot directly deprive one of this right, as
long as he has not incurred such punishment as a
sanction for a serious crime proportionate to that
punishment.”26 This privilege (and not this right,
in the strict sense) that man possesses, he holds
directly from God, and not from the State. And it is
thus God and not the State, who can decide in what
measure it is appropriate to take it from him. This
being said, circumstances led the pope to speak of
a “right” in a broader sense, to protect the individual
against the emergence of totalitarianism in the first
half of the 20th century.
13. The doctrine of the Church, confirmed by the
enlightenment of theological reason, establishes
neither more nor less than, because of natural law,
public authority has the right to inflict the death
penalty. This does not mean that the same natural
law requires the authority to exercise this right, let
alone determine the cases where this exercise would
be enforced. In practical terms, the death penalty
will always be, in the context of legislation, a determination of the positive human law, of the civil law,
subjected consequently to modification, evolution,
and limitation. It is therefore possible, and it would
not be illegitimate, to argue that this type of punish-

ment is not appropriate in a given context, even to
claim, in terms of civil law, the abolition of it. All of
this is a matter of prudence. But the fact remains
that the public authority still has the duty to maintain the death penalty or to return to it, if there is
need to do so. And if the circumstances request that
it not be exercised, it belongs to the same authority
to make that call. Nevertheless, those who argue in
favor of the abolition of the death penalty have the
difficulty of trying to prove that it is contrary to the
natural law, or at least, when they do not have a very
clear idea of this law (which is frequent), what they
call the dignity of the human person or the unconditional value of life, as a “right” understood this time
in a subjective sense, far removed from the thought
of Pius XII. These arguments are not correct. The
death penalty is in conformity with the natural law.
By contrast, there is the positive determination of
this law which takes place with the civil law. If it is
not illegitimate to call for the abolition of the death
penalty, it would be wrong and worthy of condemnation to do so in the name of the natural law itself,
or in the name of the Gospel and of charity, which
cannot deny this natural law.
What to Think of the Vision of Francis?
14. It cannot validate itself upon the teachings of
John Paul II. These distinguish between the legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty and the
opportunity of its exercise in the context of modern societies. Number 56 of Evangelium Vitae says
precisely: “It is clear that the measure and quality
of the punishment ought to be attentively evaluated
and determined; they must not lead to an extreme
measure in the suppression of the culpable person,
except in cases of absolute necessity, when the
protection of society cannot be possible otherwise.
Today, however, following an ever more efficient
organization of the penal institution, these cases are
now rather rare, if not even practically non-existent.”
According to No. 2267 of the New Catechism (also
cited by Evangelium Vitae) it states that “if nonbloody means suffice to defend human lives against
the aggressor and to protect public order and the
security of persons, the authority will hold to these
means, because they correspond better to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more
conformed to the dignity of the human person.”
Certainly, we will not go so far as to say that this
81

Theological Studies
teaching of John Paul II is a perfectly satisfactory
echo of the Tradition of the Church. On the one hand
in fact, the echo is even weakened, as the distinction between the legitimacy of the principle and the
opportunity to exercise it, if it is present, remains
solely implicit and John Paul II does not recall that
the death penalty receives its legitimacy from the
natural law because of the double principle indicated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand,
it seems even naive or irenic—in any case barely
credible—to justify the abolition of the death penalty
in an epoch when abortion, infanticide, terrorism, or
human trafficking are on the front page of the press
almost daily. When it comes to the argument of substitute punishments, it is not universally accepted.
Moreover, it is doubtful if it belongs to the Church to
proclaim in a manner so explicit and categorical, to
decide on the circumstances of the death penalty in
terms of the positive law and civil law. One cannot
fail to be struck by the great sobriety with which the
popes before Vatican II have treated this question,
even at the beginning of the modern era: they most
often limit themselves to recall the principle of the
legitimacy of the death penalty at the level of the
natural law, and for the rest leave a free range to
prudence for the civil governments. This is what
really shows the limits and the weaknesses of the
preaching of John Paul II. However, it must be admitted that there is only an insufficiency, which, even if
it proves to be serious, and even if it leans sharply
(and indiscreetly) in favor of abolition, does not go
so far as to allow the radical questioning undertaken
by Pope Francis.
15. As for the four arguments of reason, in the
light of the principles recalled by Saint Thomas,
and used again by Pius XII, they prove ineffective
and sophisticated. The first rests on the inalienable dignity of the person as well as the sacred and
inviolable character of human life. It forgets that,
for having been guilty of certain sins, which jeopardize the common good, man deserves to see his life
taken away. It omits the essential distinction which
exists between the ontological dignity, inadmissible,
and the moral dignity, which is lost when man makes
a bad use of his liberty. “If it is wrong in itself,” says
St. Thomas, “to kill a man who retains his dignity, it
could be a good action to put to death a sinner, entirely as one kills an animal; one may even say with
82

The Angelus

January - February 2019

Aristotle that a bad man is worse than an animal and
is more harmful.”27
16. The second argument is that the death penalty cannot be a legitimate defense and that it cannot restore the order injured by injustice. It confuses
the death penalty and self-defense. Self-defense
implies a sentence of death, but the death penalty
is not limited to self-defense, in the strict sense of
the reaction of a victim in regard to his aggressor in
the context of an actual assault. On the other hand,
the death penalty may not only be defensive, but
also preventive and dissuasive. When it comes to
justice, it consists precisely in rendering to each one
what is his due, and not solely in repairing a material
damage. The death of a criminal does not materially
repair his crime (it does not resuscitate his victims),
but it does justice. For when a sinner harms the social order by choosing something to which he is not
entitled, there is compensation by removing what
he has chosen by his free will: “He who by sin has
unduly followed his will, suffers something contrary
to this.”28 The termination of life is in this way a just
reparation and it is required by the common good of
the social order.
17. The third argument forgets that mercy
consists in remitting the fault committed, but not
necessarily the punishment. Sacramental pardon
is, moreover, accompanied by a penance, that is to
say a punishment voluntarily accepted. The death
penalty could be just this and could give to the
condemned the occasion to redeem himself. The
examples of this sort of situation are sufficiently
known, starting with that of the good thief. Eternal
life is incomparably more precious that temporal
life.
18. The fourth argument could eventually conclude that the death penalty is no longer appropriate, but not that it is illegitimate.
What More Can Be Said?
19. First, the vision of the current pope represents
an impiety in regard to the Tradition of the Church,
accused to have odiously betrayed the Gospel.
Second, it ignores the gravity of sin, which deprives
the person of their moral human dignity and merits
proportionate chastisement. Third, it neglects the

primacy of the common good of society and of the
Church, which is much more important than all
personal goods. Fourth, it confuses the legitimacy of
the principle and the opportunity of applying it, and
thus makes morality dependent upon the evolution
of the conscience of the Christian people. Fifth, and
finally, it stands out even from the line hitherto followed by his predecessors since Vatican II.
20. For today’s Catholics, it is unfortunately an
additional scandal after the questioning of the morality of marriage and the rehabilitation of Luther.

1

Francis, Discourse to the participants of the meeting organized
by the Pontifical Council for the promotion of the New
Evangelization, Wednesday, October 11, 2017.

2

ID, Letter to the President of the International Commission
against the death penalty, March 20, 2015 (DC No. 2519, p. 94-96).

3

ID, Letter to the participants of the 19th Congress of the
International Association of the Death Penalty and of Criminology,
May 30, 2014 and Discourse to a delegation of the International
Association of the Death Penalty, Thursday, October 23, 2014.

4

Letter of October 23, 2014.

5

Letters of October 23, 2014 and March 20, 2015.

6

They are detailed in the letter of March 20, 2015.

7

Letter of October 23, 2014.

8

Letter of March 20, 2015.

9

Letter of October 23, 2014.

10

Michel-Marie Labourdette, Course of Moral Theology, “Justice,”
p. 100-105 (on question 2a2æ 64, article 2), Toulouse, 1960-1961;
Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word, t. I The
Apostolic Hierarchy, Desclée, 1955 (2nd edition, reviewed and
augmented), p. 356-358.

11

Ex. 20:13.

12

Lev. 20:2; 20:9-10; 20:27; 24:16-17.

13

Rom. 13:4.

14

St. Augustine, City of God, Book I, Chapter 21, Migne Latin, t. XLI,
col. 35.

15

Innocent III (1198-1215), Letter Ejus Exemplo addressed to the
Archbishop of Tarragon, on December 18,1208, DS 795.

16

Leo X (1510-1522), Bull Exsurge Domine of June 15,1520, DS 1483

17

Leo XIII (1878-1903), Letter Pastoralis Officii to the Bishops
of Germany and Austria, on September 12, 1891, DS 3272. The
Pope indeed said that “ the two divine laws, that which has been
proclaimed by the light of natural reason and that which has been
composed in the Scriptures under the divine influence, formally
defend that no one, outside of public cause, wound or kill a man.”

18

Pius XII (1939-1958), Address to the Histo-Pathology Congress, on

September 13, 1952, Papal Teachings by the Monks of Solesmes,
“The Human Body,” No. 375.
19

Summa Theologica, 1a2æ, question 94, article 5, ad 2; question
100, article 8, ad 3; 2a2æ, question 64, article 2.

20

2a2æ, question 64, article 2, corpus.

21

Cf. PIUS XII (1939-1958), Address to the Bio-Medical Union Saint
Luke, on November 12, 1944, Papal Teachings by the Monks of
Solesmes, “The Human Body,” No. 52.

22

2a2æ, question 64, article 2, ad 3.

23

1a2æ pars, question 87, article 1, corpus.

24

Pius XII (1939-1958), Address to the Bio-Medical Union Saint Luke,
on November 12, 1944, Papal Teachings by the Monks of Solesmes,
“The Human Body,” No. 48.

25

Pius XII, ibidem, n° 58.

26

Pius XII, ibidem, n° 51.

27

2a2ae, question 64, article 2, ad 3. 28. 2a2ae, question 108, article 4,
corpus.

28

2a2ae, question 108, article 4, corpus.

83

Consecrate your family to the
Sacred and Immaculate Heart this
year. Now it is more important than
ever to consecrate your home to
God and His Holy Mother!

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

Angelus Press is the means by which
the Apostolate of Society of
Saint Pius X reaches the world.
Without the continued
support of you, the
reader, this apostolate
couldn’t survive.
Spread the Word
and help restore
the Church to
its former
greatness.
Donate
today!

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 Englishspeaking 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,
Every morning at the office of Prime, we read the martyrology, the book of martyrs.
However, on certain days, it could very well be called an “episcopology,” the book of bishops,
because of the great number of canonized bishops mentioned in it. And many of them were
the first bishops of their city.
These first bishops, and they are legion, be they called, Apolinarius (Ravenna), Ireneus
(Lyon), Augustine (Canterbury) or François de Laval (Québec), did what they were sent
to do: to expand the Kingdom of God, to radiate the four marks of the Church, with that of
Romanity. They were truly “made a pattern of the flock from the heart” (I Pet. 5:3). They
were saints, and, many of them, martyrs.
Reading the stories of these great men can make one desire to become a bishop. Indeed
St. Paul even says, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (I Tim.
3:1).
However, the Angelic Doctor, with a smile, warns those who have such a desire:
“As Gregory says, when the Apostle said this, he who was set over the people was the first
to be dragged to the torments of martyrdom, so that there was nothing to be desired in
the episcopal office, save the good work,” in this case, nothing less than martyrdom! (2a2ae,
Q. 185, a.1, ad 1m)
Just as the history of the Church is truly the history of the popes, the history of the development of the Church, country after country, is often that of its bishops. They are the local
head of the Catholic Church, they are the link with Rome, they are the defenders of God’s
truth and moral law. Well, they are supposed to be.
Today’s crisis, no doubt, confirms this: we are living a crisis of bishops. Whether one
speaks of the recent tragedy of abortion in Ireland, the Viganò report, or the Third Secret of
Fatima, it almost always boils down to the actions or omissions of bishops.
We can apply what the good professor of logic taught: a small error in the principle is a big
error in the conclusion. The little concessions given to liberalism in the 19th century, although
clearly condemned by the popes, and the larger ones accepted by the Conciliar Fathers at
Vatican II, have led to the “abomination of desolation” we witness today. This should urge us
to pray more for the hierarchy of the Church.
O Lord, grant us Holy Bishops!

Fr. Daniel Couture

The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of almost 700
priests. Its main purpose is the formation and support of priests.
The goal of the Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic Faith in its
fullness and purity, not changing, adding to or subtracting from the truth that
the Church has always taught, and to diffuse its virtues, especially through
the Roman Catholic priesthood. Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and
the traditional liturgy are its primary means to foster virtue and sanctity and
to bring the divine life of grace to souls.
The Angelus, in helping the whole man, tries to be an outlet for the work of the
Society, helping them reach souls. We aspire to help deepen your spiritual life,
nourish your studies, understand the history of Christendom, and restore the
reign of Christ the King in Christian culture in every aspect.
$ 9.00
RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: THE ANGELUS, 480 MCKENZIE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R2W 5B9