MARY, EVER VIRGIN
O Blessed Mary, Immaculate Mother of God, guide my spirit and my pen so that I may in a
fitting manner defend the cause of Your miraculous Virginity, and console those who are
appalled at the outrage done to Your honour. In defending it, in unmasking the lies by
means of which it is being sullied, I hope to make it more and more precious to our
hearts. Let this labour be my Christmas gift to my friends, and may it help me to obtain
the pardon of my sins…
HOW THE DUTCH CATECHISM OPENED THE WAY TO HERESY
1966: In that year the heresy of Modernism – the worst of all heresies –
began to emerge into daylight, under cover of the "reforms" wrought by the
Second Vatican Council which had just ended (1962-65). On March 1st 1966, the "Dutch
Catechism" was granted an Imprimatur by Cardinal Alfrink, thus making it clear that
the Bishops of the Netherlands had approved the work and that they shared the beliefs
expressed in it. 9th October 1966 saw the book launched upon the world amidst a blaze of
publicity, to the tune of 400,000 copies. No obstacle would now stand in its way.
Nevertheless, in November the small traditionalist group "Confrontatie" sent an
appeal to Rome, pointing out that in this work the dogmas "were set out in a sense
entirely different from that in which they had always been understood by the Church –
and this notwithstanding the anathema of Vatican I." In my Lettres à Mes Amis
(No 237) I echoed this appeal, and extended our concern to include the Fonds
Obligatoire, which the French bishops had just adopted as the basis for a new
Catechism for children.
By a strange coincidence (?) these very same errors were pinpointed in Cardinal
Ottaviani’s Letter to the Episcopal Conferences, dated 24th July 1964. Similar errors
were evidently springing up simultaneously throughout the world, and this was taking place
immediately in the wake of Vatican II. Surely that should have made people think!
1967: The Holy See undertook the requested doctrinal examination of the Dutch
Catechism with – it is only fair to point out – care and competence, charity and
firmness, and appointed a combined Dutch and Roman Commission, which met at Gazzada in
April 1967. In June that year a Commission of Cardinals drew up a list of serious
doctrinal errors in the work, with the request that the relevant passages should be
amended. During the summer the authors prepared a "corrected version" of the
passages under dispute, but the Commission of Cardinals found the corrections to be
entirely inadequate – in some cases even less satisfactory than the original version.
1968: On February 2nd of this "Year of Faith" (!) the Dutch Hierarchy
published their reply to Cardinal Ottaviani’s Letter. Their text was prefaced by a
Letter to the Faithful, which is a firm defence of the supposed "errors and
dangers" against which Rome had warned, and which are here referred to as
post-Conciliar truths. The text bears every mark of being the work of Rev. Schillebeeckx,
and amounts to an open declaration of heresy and schism. It was, so it would seem, in
reply to it that, on 30th June, Paul VI pronounced his Credo, in which the new
thinking expounded in Holland is contradicted on all the main points. But in spite of
having shown its face openly in Holland, in spite of the Pope’s solemn refutation,
the new heresy was allowed to begin its rapid climb unchecked! July of that year saw the
Dutch Catechism appearing in French translation and rapidly reaching an enormous
circulation which the Platonic criticism of Cardinal Lefebvre did nothing to reduce. And
the book was published in Italian exactly one year after the Credo of Pope Paul VI and
– to all intents and purposes – with his approval!
From that time on, the New Faith founded in Holland was able to spread freely and
rapidly. For the Dutch Catechism is a work remarkable in its way, and alluring to adult
Catholics, for many of whom it has become bedside reading, besides having been adopted as
a manual of theology in numerous seminaries. For the term "heresy" has never
been applied to it by Rome, and it has, by the grace of Pope Paul VI, continued to
enjoy a total ecclesiastical immunity.
1969: In that year we published (CRC 20-21) the first part of a detailed study
of the so-called "catechism". (The later sections appeared in 1970 – CRC
31-34) This has since appeared in English and will soon be published in Dutch. Our efforts
to warn Catholics of the dangers in the new teaching were not helped by my
"disqualification" by the Holy Office or by the fact that I was suspended a
divinis in the Diocese of Troyes.
Among the "major errors" listed by the Roman Commissions, the first one
concerns the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here we must repeat that the
Dutch Catechism is in its way a masterpiece of intelligence and style, and that this is
why it has become such a successful tool for the perversion of the Faith. Let us look at
PART THREE: THE SON OF MAN, and in particular at the pages dealing with The Birth of
Jesus (p. 71 onwards): "Undoubtedly, the infancy narratives (Mt 1 and 2, Lk l and
2) were not composed without the aid of historical reminiscences. But their chief aim was
to put before men who believed that he lived – and were experiencing it in life and
prayer (?) – the profound significance of his coming…" (p. 72) Sibylline
statements such as this are intended to suggest to us that we attain to a knowledge of
Christ only through faith, through a mysterious "vital experience" – or
inward "revelation" granted here and now – in other words, that the
"message" is independent of factual, historical knowledge regarding His life on
earth and that we ought not even to be interested in details of the latter. Listen to
this:
"Is it so regrettable, after all, that when we examine the accounts of Jesus’
infancy, we find ourselves so ill-informed about many of the historical details? This lack
of concrete detail seems to have bothered some people, as may be seen from the fact that
in earlier times Christians felt the need of inventing stories about Jesus’ childhood
– how as a child he made little birds out of mud, and how these then flew away when
he clapped his hands. Something of the same mentality appears in the endeavours of our own
times to discover as much as possible of the concrete circumstances from every historical
allusion. It is a curiosity inspired by love, the symptom (sic) of an effort to learn to
know him better. But is this the right method to attain this end? Can any accumulation
of precise detail reveal to us the saving deeds of the living Lord as effectively as the
gospel narratives inspired by faith? (p. 72 - the stress is ours)
One reader in a thousand, perhaps, will realise the contrast which is here implied,
between the historical details (and not merely the legendary embellishments given as an
example to stress the point!) on the one hand, and the Gospel account itself on the other
– the latter being looked upon as a "message of faith" rather than an
account of events that had actually taken place. In warning us against
"curiosity", the authors are implying that the events – the
"mysteries" – are tailor-made to fit the "message".
This was much more openly admitted later by one of the principal authors of the DC:
"How do we come by the story of the origin and birth of Jesus of Nazareth? Jesus came
to be recognised as the Messiah. And so the story of his life was introduced by a
prophetic preamble, an account of miracles which would make the life story that followed,
into the realisation of a prophetic promise. Basically, all these accounts of origins
– whether we are dealing with the book of Genesis or with the story of Jesus of
Nazareth in the Gospel – simply introduce into the beginning of the account the ideas
which are supposed to be found at the conclusion. In the time of Jesus, one could not
imagine the birth of a Messiah as being other than miraculous, filled with a deep meaning,
while nobody was concerned with the question of historical reality as such."
(Renckens, The Dutch Catholics) Here the conclusion is inescapable, that the
accounts of the Virgin Birth are looked upon as pure legend whose significance lies merely
in the "inner meaning" – in the "message" which they try to
express! At the time the Dutch Catechism was being written, the authors still considered
it advisable to hide their rejection of it under a cloak of ambiguity.
There is a reference to the genealogy of Joseph – "This modest figure…
was in the sight of the law Jesus’ link with the people of Israel." These words
leave it open whether, for the authors, this "link" is one that exists merely
"in the sight of the law", or stems from a true, biological, paternity.
Mary’s Motherhood is referred to as the most sublime form of human motherhood, as,
more than in any other instance, a grace of God. But, just as we seem to be approaching an
account of the Event itself, the poetic description begins to evaporate in a cloud of
symbolism: "Jesus… was a child of promise in a unique sense, and the profoundest
desire of the whole of mankind. He was born wholly of grace, wholly of promise –
‘conceived of the Holy Spirit’. He was the gift of God to mankind. This
the evangelists Matthew and Luke express when they proclaim that Jesus’ birth was not
due to the will of man. They proclaim that this birth does not depend on what men can do
of themselves – infinitely less so than in other human births. That is the deepest
meaning of the article of faith, ‘born of the virgin Mary’…" (p. 75)
Perhaps we shall be accused of harbouring unjust suspicions if we maintain that the
authors of the Dutch Catechism are denying the factual meaning of the Virgin Birth.
Perhaps it is only out of false modesty that they gloss over the references to Mary’s
physical virginity and its persistence throughout and after her confinement? But what
about the rest of the account, in which she is referred to as a "girl" or
"young woman", in a manner which is wholly out of keeping with any literal
understanding of the Virginal Conception of Jesus – and which speculates even whether
Mary did or did not have other children later? [This question is discussed
"impartially" in the DC (English Ed., p. 77) The reference to it has been added
by the CCR translator.]
Thanks to the members of Confrontatie, the Roman Commission took exception to these
ambiguities, as the Dutchmen themselves admit in the Dossier on the controversy: "In
the opinion of the critics, the DC, in its concern to stress the deeper meaning of the
accounts, does not insist to a sufficient extent on the reality of the facts to which
these refer. In their view there is a danger that certain readers might be satisfied with
a purely symbolic interpretation, as though the Virginal Conception were not to be
understood in a literal sense." This is only too true! Had they been honest, however,
they would have admitted that they had intended just such an interpretation – that
the "symbolic" meaning was good enough for them. Instead, they hedge around the
question: "The Dutch Catechism considered it preferable not to treat the matter from
a too strictly biological point of view"!
When the authors re-wrote this portion of the text, the double-talk was pushed even
farther and the later version was, understandably, not found acceptable by the Roman
censors. What is more difficult to understand is that the book – both in the original
and in the revised versions – was allowed to spread throughout the world, destroying
the faith of young and old, of faithful as well as of priests and even of bishops. We saw
how Hourdin was able to say to the 600,000 readers of La Vie Catholique that Jesus
was the son of the "Virgin" Mary ("virgin" being used in accordance
with its Hebrew meaning of "young woman") and of Joseph the carpenter –
while yet insisting, in response to our challenge, that "of course, he believed in
the Virginity of Mary".
THE DUTCH BISHOPS SHOW THEIR HAND AND CHALLENGE ROME
"The Dutch Catechism is a catechetical introduction to the Faith… closely
linked to the theological renewal which emerged at the Second Vatican Council. Both the
form of the work and its manner of presenting the principal points of Christian doctrine
are inspired by this renewal. In this work, moreover, the updating of theology as well as
of catechetics has received the blessing of an entire national Hierarchy." And this
is what they mean by "updating" of dogma: "It is questionable how much
value there is in merely repeating the definitions of the past; not because these are no
longer valid, but because they require to be interpreted anew. There are, in addition,
questions which have arisen in our own time… It is therefore necessary to
distinguish, when considering the definitions of the past, between that which was regarded
as fundamental to the Faith and that which represents the conceptual expression given to
it at any particular time…" But – while making use of such novel modes of
expression – the authors of the DC have the assurance that they are not undermining
anything that is fundamental to the Faith; in their opinion (sic) they are, rather, making
it more accessible to modern man." (From the Dossier on the DC)
So it is the Council that we have to thank for this Catechism. It is in accordance with
the intentions of the Council that Mary’s Virginity has, for the benefit of modern
man, been expressed in terms of a "message" rather than as a "historical
detail" – turned into a "symbol" which has no "biological
foundation". "The Bishops of the Netherlands offer this book to the Church of
the Netherlands… They are doing so in their official capacity, with the authority
that pertains to their function… They are recommending it as a sure guide to the
Christian community of the Netherlands."
Indeed this work is in the "spirit" of Vatican II and therefore in accordance
with the wishes of the Pope himself. And, so far as the Dutch bishops are concerned, their
reply to Cardinal Ottaviani’s Letter makes it clear that they have, in defiance of
the Church’s Tradition, adopted its new interpretation of Scripture as their personal
faith. They no longer believe in the miraculous Conception of Jesus or in Mary’s
Perpetual Virginity. Here is the text which proves it: "With regard to the virginal
conception of Christ by Mary, we must take into account that all who hold that salvation
was the work of Christ alone, are of the opinion that the Annunciation accounts given in
the First Chapters of Matthew and Luke are an expression of this conviction. They
represent the profession of faith of the early Church, in the same way as the article of
the Apostles’ Creed: ‘who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary’. Views differ, however, whether this is to be understood in a literal manner
– as a bodily phenomenon which took place in Mary – or figuratively, as a
particular way of recounting the events. In spite of the fact that both Matthew and Luke
refer to the virginal conception of Christ in their otherwise so divergent accounts, such
a tradition would not seem to form an integral part of the New Testament considered as a
whole. A literal interpretation finds support in the fact that the evangelists avoid
calling Joseph ‘the father of Jesus’ (Mt 1.16, Luke 3.23). The contrary view
would however receive support from other passages where Joseph is referred to as
‘father’ – if not by the evangelists themselves, then at least by those
whose words they are quoting (Lk 2.48; 4.22; Mk 6,3; Jn 1.45; 6.42). The question which
has been left open in biblical tradition has not been finally resolved in post-biblical
tradition. Admittedly, both liturgical and doctrinal texts refer to Mary nearly always
as ‘virgin’ or even as ‘ever virgin’ but the Magisterium has never,
with the full authority of its function, defined whether or not ‘virgin’ is to
be understood in a literal sense. The Lateran Council of 649 did express such a view, but
this was only a Provincial and not a General Council. Pope Paul IV also upheld the literal
interpretation of this and other doctrinal propositions, in a Bull against the Unitarians,
in 1555; but he did this only in passing, not as part of a direct reply to a disputed
question. While it would not be permissible to disregard the Ordinary Magisterium on this
matter, we must nevertheless consider carefully whether it is true to say that it has,
after examining the case for and against, upheld the literal interpretation of the
virginal conception." (Documentation catholique, Col. 1105)
Before giving vent to our indignation, let us make the following points:
1). Nobody has denied that "salvation is the work of Christ alone", nor that
such a belief was held by the early Church. But to reduce the accounts of the Nativity by
St Matthew and St Luke – or the words of the Credo, "conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary" – to mean nothing more than this, is to treat
grown people as imbeciles. But then it is part of the system of Modernism to replace the
facts by a "message".
2). The statement we have quoted at any rate puts the alternatives clearly – but
only in order to deceive people into believing that both views are equally acceptable in
the Church: that we can choose freely whether to interpret Our Lady’s Virginity as a
"bodily phenomenon" or merely as a figure of speech. The Dutch bishops’
"impartial approach" to the matter would be good for a laugh if the theme were
not one of such gravity.
3). Finally, it is evident that they attach greater weight to the hearsay accounts
– clearly referred to as such – by people who believed Christ to be the
carpenter’s son, than to the solemn testimony of the Evangelists, whose accounts they
even brand as "divergent"!
4). They are prepared to discount nineteen centuries of Tradition – the various
forms of the Credo, and a whole wealth of liturgical and dogmatic texts which testify to
it – in order to pretend that the Church has never made up her mind. The reason why
there has been no formal dogmatic pronouncement on the subject is one they will not admit:
that – apart from the Unitarians against whom Paul IV was obliged to speak out –
there have never in the whole of the Church’s history been such monsters as dared
contest this point. Only the Dutch Socinians continued in the footsteps of the Unitarians,
so that we see history repeating itself in our own day.
And now we can give vent to our indignation. While the Pastors of the Netherlands are
destroying the Faith, and putting all their weight behind the present heresy –
defying Rome itself in doing so – the Pope remains silent. Neither he nor the bishops
in the rest of the world do anything to prevent such an "opinion" from spreading
among their priests and faithful. A normal Pope, a normal Bishop, on reading the words of
the Dutch bishops – "While it would not be permissible to disregard the Ordinary
Magisterium on this matter, we must nevertheless consider carefully whether it is true to
say that it has, after examining the case for and against, upheld the literal
interpretation of the virginal conception" – would, as the flush of indignation
mounted to his brow, take up his pen and write down solemnly:
"If anyone should contest the literal meaning of the biblical accounts and
dogmatic texts which treat of the Virginal Conception, or allow anyone to hold the least
doubt concerning the Virginity – in its full historical, anatomical, biological sense
– of Mary before, during, and after the Birth of the Word that was made Flesh in Her
womb, then let him be anathema." |