Chapter 32 - FILL IN HERE

Alternative formats: MP3 Print

Chapter here. Chapter here. Chapter here. Chapter here. Chapter here. Chapter here.

A Suicidal Liberalism:

the Post-conciliar Reforms

Loyal and somewhat clear-sighted souls speak of “the crisis of the Church” to designate the post-conciliar epoch. Of old, people had spoken of “the Arian crisis,” of “the Protestant crisis,” but never of “the crisis of the Church.” Unfortunately, not everyone is in agreement in assigning the same causes to this tragedy. Cardinal Rat-zinger, for example, indeed sees the crisis, but totally exonerates the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. He begins by recognizing the crisis:

The results that have followed the Council seem cruelly opposed to the expectation of all, to begin with that of Pope John XXIII, then that of Paul VI…The popes and the conciliar Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity and, on the contrary, we have gone towards a dissension which, to take again the words of Paul VI, appears to have passed from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, and too often it has ended on the contrary, in weariness and discouragement. There was expected a leap forward, and we have found ourselves, on the contrary, faced with an evolutionary process of decadence…1

Next we have the explanation for the crisis, given by the Cardinal:

I am convinced that the damages that we have suffered in these last twenty years are due not to the “true” Council but to the setting in motion, inside the Church, of latent aggressive and centrifugal forces; and on the outside, they are due to the impact of a cultural revolution in the West: the assertion of an upper middle class, the new “bourgeoisie of the tertiary period,” with its liberal-radical ideology of an individualistic, rationalistic, hedonistic type.2

Again a little bit farther on, Cardinal Ratzinger denounces what is, according to him, the true “interior” responsible one for the crisis: an “anti-spirit of the Council”:

Already at the time of the sessions, then more and more during the period that followed, a pretended “spirit of the Council” opposed itself which, in reality, is a true “anti-spirit” of it. According to this pernicious Konzils-Un-geist, everything that is new (or presumed to be such: how many ancient heresies there are in these years, presented as novelties!) would be always, however it may be, better than that which was or that which is. It is the anti-spirit according to which the history of the Church should begin at Vatican II, considered as a kind of zero point.3

Then the Cardinal proposes his solution: come back to the true Council, by considering it not “as a point of departure from which one goes away running, but indeed rather as a base on which it is necessary to build solidly.”

I certainly want to consider the external causes of the crisis of the Church, particularly a liberal and pleasure-seeking mentality that has spread over society, even Christian society. Precisely what did Vatican II do to oppose this? Nothing! Or rather, Vatican II only pushed in this direction! I will make use of a comparison: What would you think if, in the face of a threatening tidal wave, the Dutch government decided one fine day to open its dikes in order to avoid the shock? If it excused itself afterwards, after the total inundation of the country: “We had nothing at all to do with it, it was the tidal wave!” Now that is exactly what the Council did: it opened all the traditional barriers to the spirit of the world by declaring the opening to the world, by religious liberty, by the pastoral Constitution “The Church in the Modern World” (Gaudium et spes), which is the very spirit of the Council and not the anti-spirit!

I assert two things: what Cardinal Ratzinger names the “anti-spirit of the Council” is only the extreme materialization of the theories of theologians who were experts at the Council! Between the spirit of Vatican II and the so-called anti-spirit, I see only a difference of degree; and it seems to me inevitable that the anti-spirit exerted influence on the very spirit of the Council. On the other hand, the spirit of the Council, this liberal spirit which I analyzed above at length4 and which is at the root of almost all of the conciliar texts and of all the reforms that have followed, must itself be put under accusation.

In other words, “I accuse the Council” seems to me the necessary response to the “I excuse the Council” of Cardinal Ratzinger! To explain myself: I maintain, and I am going to prove, that the crisis of the Church comes down essentially to the post-conciliar reforms emanating from the majority of the official authorities of the Church and by application of the doctrine and the directives of Vatican II. There is, thus, nothing marginal or underground in the essential causes of the post-conciliar disaster! Let us not forget that it was the same men and especially the same Pope, Paul VI, who made the Council and who afterwards applied it the most methodically and officially of all people, by making use of their hierarchical authority: thus, the new missal of Paul VI was “ex decreto sacrosancti œcumenici concilii Vaticani II in-stauratum, auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum.”

Thus, it would be an error to say, “But the reforms do not have their source in the Council.” Without a doubt, on certain points, the reforms have gone beyond the letter of the Council; for example, the Council did not ask for the suppression of Latin in the liturgy; it only requested the introduction of the common language. As I have said to you, in the mind of those who opened this little door, the goal was to arrive at radical change. Definitively, it suffices to report that all the reforms refer officially to Vatican II: not only the reform of the Mass and that of all the sacraments, but also those of the religious congregations, the seminaries, the episcopal assemblies, the creation of the Roman synod, the reform of relations between the Church and the States, etc.

I will limit myself to three of these reforms: the suppression of the Holy Office, the openly pro-Communist politics of the Vatican, and the new concordat between the Holy See and Italy. What was the spirit of these reforms?

The Suppression of the Holy Office

I am not making this up; I asked the question myself of Cardinal Browne, who was at the Holy Office a long time: “Is the change of the Holy Office into ‘the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ an accidental, superficial change, a change of label only; or is it a profound, radical change?” The Cardinal replied to me, “An essential change, this is evident.” Indeed, the tribunal of the Faith has been replaced by an office of theological research. They will say whatever they want, but this is the reality. The two instructions on the theology of liberation, to take this example, far from leading concretely to a clear condemnation of this “theology” and of its supporters, had as their clearest result to encourage them! Why then: all this because the tribunal has become essentially an office for research. This is a radically different spirit, a Masonic spirit: there is no truth that is possessed; we are always in search of the truth. One gets lost in discussions among the members of a commission of theologians from the world over, which end up only by producing interminable texts whose haziness reflects the incoherence of their authors.

In practice they no longer condemn, they no longer designate the disapproved-of doctrines; they no longer stamp the heretics with the red-hot iron of infamy. No. These are asked to be quiet for a year, and it is said, “This teaching is not worthy of a professorship of Catholic theology”; that is all. In practice, the suppression of the Holy Office is characterized, as I wrote to the Holy Father,5 by the free propagation of errors. The flock of the sheep of Our Lord Jesus Christ is delivered without defense to the ravenous wolves.

The Pro-Communist Politics of the Holy See

The “Ostpolitik,” or politics of the hand held out to the East, does not date from the Council, alas. Already under Pius XI and Pius XII, contacts were established, with or without the knowledge of these popes, which led to catastrophes, fortunately limited ones.6 Nevertheless, on the occasion of the Council and since then, we are seeing actual agreements: I have told you how the Russians purchased the silence of the Council on Communism.7 After Vatican II, the Helsinki accords were patronized by the Vatican: the first and the last discourses were given there by Bishop Casaroli, who was consecrated archbishop for the event. The Holy See soon manifested a hostility towards all the anti-Communist governments. In Chile, the Holy See supported the Communist revolution of Allende8 from 1970 to 1972. The Vatican acted thus through its nunciatures and by the nomination of cardinals, such as Tarancon (Spain), Ribeiro (Portugal), Aramburu (Argentina), Silva Henriquez (Chile), in agreement with the pro-Communist politics of the Holy See. Now the weight of such cardinals, archbishops of metropolises, is considerable in those Catholic countries! Their influence is determining over the episcopal conferences, which, through the nominations of revolutionary bishops. These bishops arrive as well at being in the majority favorable to the politics of the Holy See and opposed to the governments. What then can a Catholic government do against the majority of the episcopate that works against it? This is an appalling situation! We are present at an incredible overturning of forces. The Church is becoming the principal revolutionary force in the Catholic countries.

The New Concordat with Italy

The liberal politics of the Holy See, by virtue of the principles of Vatican II, has aimed at the suppression of the States that remain Catholic. This is what has been solidified by the new concordat between the Holy See and Italy. Having matured during twelve years of discussions, (which is no small business), this text was adopted by the Italian Senate, as the newspapers of December 7, 1978 related it, after having been approved by the commission designated by the Italian State, as well as by the commission of the Vatican. Rather than analyze this act for you, I will read you the declaration that President Andreotti made on that day to present the document:

…Here is a disposition of principle. The new text of the first article solemnly establishes that the State and the Catholic Church are both, each in its own order, independent and sovereign.

That is already quite false: “sovereign” yes, it is true, that is what Leo XIII teaches in Immortale Dei9 but “independent,” no! “It is necessary,” says Leo XIII, “that there be between the two powers a system of well-ordered relations, not without analogy with that which in man constitutes the union of the soul and the body.” Leo XIII says “union”; he does not say “independence”! I refer you to the conference where I covered the relations between the Church and the State.10 Here is what follows in the text of the discourse of the Italian President:

In principle, it is the surrender, concluded in a reciprocal manner, of the concept of the confessional State, according to the principles of the Constitution11 and in harmony with the conclusions of the Vatican Council II.12

Thus, there can be no more Catholic State, confessional State, that is to say, a State that professes a religion, which professes the true Religion! This is decided by principle, in application of Vatican II. Next, as a consequence of this principle, the legislation on marriage is overturned, as well as religious instruction.13 All this is stuffed with means for making religious instruction disappear. As for Church goods, agreements were made beforehand between the State and the Methodist, Calvinist, and Hebrew religions. All of them will be on the same footing.

I would like to emphasize that this willingness to suppress all the Catholic institutions from civil life is a willingness in principle. It is asserted, whether it be on the lips of this Italian President, or on those of Cardinal Casaroli or of John Paul II, or on those of theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger, as definitively in the text of the conciliar declaration on religious liberty, that there should no longer be Catholic “bastions.” This is a resolution in principle. In particular there must no longer be any Catholic States.

It would be something else to say: “We agree to accept the separation of Church and State, because the situation in our country has completely changed through the malice of men, the nation is no longer Catholic in the majority, etc.; therefore we are disposed to undergo a corresponding reform of the relations between Church and State, under the pressure of events. But we are not in agreement with the principle of laicization of the State and of public institutions.” That would be perfectly legitimate to say, in the countries where the situation has truly changed.

To say all-inclusively that in our era, in all countries, the system of union between the Church and the civil institutions is outdated, this is absolutely false. Firstly, because no principle of Catholic doctrine is ever “outdated,” even if its application has to take account of circumstances; now the system of union is a principle of Catholic doctrine, as immutable as this itself.14 There were, at the time of the Council and after the Council, States still entirely Catholic (Spain, Colombia, the Swiss Valais) or almost entirely so (Italy, etc.), which it would be perfectly unjustified to want laicization.

Now, to take an example, Cardinal Ratzinger says exactly the opposite in his book The Principles of Catholic Theology:15

Almost no one disputes any more today that the Spanish and Italian concordats were seeking to preserve much too many things from a concept of the world which has not corresponded for a long time to the real data.

Likewise, almost no one can question that to this attachment to an out-of-date concept of the relations between Church and State corresponded similar anachronisms in the realm of education.

Neither embraces nor the ghetto can lastingly resolve for the Christian the problem of the modern world. It remains that the “dismantling of the bastions” which Urs von Balthasar demanded in 1952 was actually a pressing duty.

It was necessary [for the Church] to separate itself from many things which up to then assured its security and belonged to it as proceeding almost from itself. It had to demolish the old bastions and to rely on the sole protection of the Faith.

As you can verify, these are the same liberal banalities that we have already taken up from the pen of John Courtney Murray and of Yves Congar:16 the doctrine of the Church in this matter is reduced to a “concept of the world” tied to an age that is ended. The evolution of mentalities towards apostasy is affirmed as being an indifferent thing, unavoidable and completely general. Finally, Joseph Ratzinger has only contempt or indifference towards the rampart which the Catholic State and the institutions that flow from it constitute for the Faith.

One sole question can be asked: are those people still Catholic, if for them the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is an out-of-date concept? A second question that I will pose to you: am I wrong in saying that Christian and Catholic society, and definitively the Church, is dying, not so much from the attacks of the Communists and of the Freemasons, as from the betrayal of the liberal Catholics, who, having made the Council, afterwards brought the post-conciliar reforms into reality? So, admit with me, having the facts before your eyes, that the conciliar Liberalism is now leading the Church to the grave. The Communists are certainly clearsighted, as the following fact shows. In a museum in Lithuania, dedicated in part to atheistic propaganda, there is found a large photo of “the exchange of instruments” at the time of the signature of the new Italian concordat between the president and Cardinal Casaroli; the photo is accompanied by this caption: “The new concordat between Italy and the Vatican, a great victory for atheism.” Any commentary seems superfluous to me.

chapter-00.md chapter-01.md chapter-02.md chapter-03.md chapter-04.md chapter-05.md chapter-06.md chapter-07.md chapter-08.md chapter-09.md chapter-10.md chapter-11.md chapter-12.md chapter-13.md chapter-14.md chapter-15.md chapter-16.md chapter-17.md chapter-18.md chapter-19.md chapter-20.md chapter-21.md chapter-22.md chapter-23.md chapter-24.md chapter-25.md chapter-26.md chapter-27.md chapter-28.md chapter-29.md chapter-30.md chapter-31.md chapter-32.md chapter-33.md chapter-34.md parse.sh raw.txt chapter-00.md chapter-01.md chapter-02.md chapter-03.md chapter-04.md chapter-05.md chapter-06.md chapter-07.md chapter-08.md chapter-09.md chapter-10.md chapter-11.md chapter-12.md chapter-13.md chapter-14.md chapter-15.md chapter-16.md chapter-17.md chapter-18.md chapter-19.md chapter-20.md chapter-21.md chapter-22.md chapter-23.md chapter-24.md chapter-25.md chapter-26.md chapter-27.md chapter-28.md chapter-29.md chapter-30.md chapter-31.md chapter-32.md chapter-33.md chapter-34.md parse.sh raw.txt chapter-00.md chapter-01.md chapter-02.md chapter-03.md chapter-04.md chapter-05.md chapter-06.md chapter-07.md chapter-08.md chapter-09.md chapter-10.md chapter-11.md chapter-12.md chapter-13.md chapter-14.md chapter-15.md chapter-16.md chapter-17.md chapter-18.md chapter-19.md chapter-20.md chapter-21.md chapter-22.md chapter-23.md chapter-24.md chapter-25.md chapter-26.md chapter-27.md chapter-28.md chapter-29.md chapter-30.md chapter-31.md chapter-32.md chapter-33.md chapter-34.md parse.sh raw.txt

1 Conversation on the Faith, Fayard, Paris, 1985; pp. 30-31.

2 Op. cit., pp. 31-32.

3 Op. cit., pp. 36-37.

4 Chapter XXV.

5 Open letter of Archbishop Lefebvre and of Bishop de Castro Mayer to John Paul II, November 21, 1983.

6 Cf. Brother Michel of the Trinity, All the Truth on Fatima, Tome II, The Secret and the Church, pp. 353-378; Tome III, The Third Secret, pp. 237-244; G. de Nantes, Editor.

7 Chapter XXIX.

8 Cf. Leon de Poncins, Christianity and Freemasonry, 2nd edition, DPF, 1975; pp. 208 ff.

9 Cf. Chapter XIII (PIN. 136: “the two powers”).

10 Chapters XIII and XIV.

11 The new Italian Constitution, which has abolished its first article, which recognized the Catholic Religion as the religion of State.

12 The President here is indicating the Declaration on Religious Liberty.

13 With the new concordat, it is the State which proposes the professors of religious instruction for the acceptance of the Church. A reversing of roles! Furthermore, if the teachers in primary school refuse to teach religion, liberty of conscience being given, they cannot be obliged to do so.

14 On the immutability of the principles of the Church’s public Law, see Chapter XIV.

15 Téqui, Paris, 1985; pp. 427 and 437.

16 Cf. Chapter XIX.

‹‹ Prev

Next ››