THE DECLINE OF PAUL VI
Is the amazing Pontificate of Paul VI, which saw its beginning amidst the euphoria
engendered by the Council, but led within ten years to the downfall of the Church, drawing
to its close? Dare we still hope for a change of course at the eleventh hour, or shall we
see a sudden end to his reign in the near future? What we must hope and pray for is that
the end of such a disastrous reign may not be too long delayed – but neither do we
wish it to come too early. Were Pope Paul to retire entirely of his own accord – on
attaining his seventy-fifth birthday, the date when according to his own reckoning a
bishop commences his second childhood – it might yet be too early for the greater
part of the clergy of Rome, and the College of Cardinals in particular, who are still
basically sound and saintly, to have realised the full extent of the disaster for which he
and the Council’s new Reformation are responsible. But if he goes on until he is able
to carry through his final project, the blueprint for which lies already on his desk
– the change in the method of Papal Election – then we should indeed, humanly
speaking, be lost, for then the election of another progressivist would be assured. Were
he to deprive the College of Cardinals of the charge of choosing his successor, and
entrust this to a more extended electorate, then there might indeed be doubt about the
legitimacy of the next Pope, a greater disaster than which it would be difficult to
imagine.
To make such calculations is not as absurd as it sounds, for the respect in which the
Pope is held seems to be sinking fast, and the possibility of an abdication forced upon
him, if he does not wish to retire voluntarily, cannot be ruled out. That would be the
next best thing to that formal deposition which we have been advocating for the past six
years. Several recent acts of Pope Paul can only be described as blunders of the first
order, and have contributed greatly to his fall in esteem.
His treachery behind Pius XII’s back has been exposed. "Pius XII in
the Presence of History", by Mgr G.S. Roche and Philippe Saint-Germain, which has
appeared recently, has brought into the light of day certain facts known hitherto only to
the initiated. We know now that Mgr Montini, the future Paul VI, had been sacked from the
Vatican by Pius XII because he had betrayed the latter’s confidence by conducting
diplomatic negotiations with Stalin behind the Pope’s back, and by giving his support
to the progressives against whom Pius XII was striving with all his might to safeguard the
Church. The book is well-documented and quotes highly reliable sources, including learned
Jesuits who are historians or archivists in the Vatican… The legend of Mgr Montini,
well-loved disciple of Pius XII, has been exploded. And it had been largely thanks to this
widely held belief that the selfsame Mgr Montini, as Pope Paul VI, met so little
opposition when he undertook what proved to be the piecemeal destruction of the Church.
It was in connection with this book that Paul VI made the first of the blunders we have
referred to above. This was to deny, through the services of a Professor Alessandrini,
lately appointed Director of the Vatican Press Agency, the authenticity of certain of the
documents, and to contest the authors’ right to utilise others, on the pretext of
copyright infringement. When someone in his position has to resort to such tactics to
clear himself in the face of public opinion, he thereby discredits himself automatically.
What Tisserant has to say. The second blunder also involves Mgr Roche and
Philippe Saint-Germain. These men had been entrusted by Cardinal Tisserant himself with
the task of editing his memoirs and even during the Cardinal’s lifetime this had led
to a certain rise of temperature within the Secretariat of State. We know from the press
about the efforts made to prevent the publication of the memoirs. Pope Paul even signed a
special Decree to stop the papers being removed after the Cardinal’s death – but
they had been placed in safe keeping long before, far from Rome. What the papers contained
will not be known until they are published , next year – but already everybody knows
that the Vatican is afraid of what this terrible Frenchman has to reveal, even after his
death.
The third blunder concerns the letter sent by Cardinal Wright to Cardinal
Tarancon, condemning the highly progressivist document published by the Spanish Assembly.
Cardinal Wright’s letter (which was published in CCR No 27, p. 1-2) represents a sane
and unbiased condemnation of the sum total of the principles underlying the New
Reformation. Cardinal Wright cannot by any manner of means be looked upon as a
Traditionalist. He is in his present position thanks to Paul VI. But he does have a
dislike for hypocrisy and for every form of disorder. Without, in fact, having himself
taken the initiative – for the document stems from a Spanish pen – he responded
to the opportunity that presented itself, conscious of acting in the interests of order in
the Church, for the defence of the Priesthood and of the Catholic Faith itself. Surely
that is what he is paid to do! Now, as we have seen, Pope Paul VI and his Secretary of
State Cardinal Villot went out of their way to disclaim responsibility for the affair.
They could not very well say that Cardinal Wright was wrong, for his condemnation of the
all too obvious errors voiced by the Spanish Progressivists was based on Catholic
doctrine. There was no sort of reproach that they could level against him, so they merely
ignored him while lavishing consolations upon the unfortunate victims. In practice this
means that Rome is using her authority on the side of those who are attacking the Faith of
Rome. Impossible, you might say – but such is today’s harsh reality.
And the story continues: we read of a message sent by Pope Paul to Cardinal Tarancon,
who figured as special papal envoy at the Eucharistic Congress at Valencia, assuring him
of his confidence in the Spanish episcopate in the great task of renewal which its members
have undertaken "in fidelity to the Gospel… and following in the footsteps of
Christ". Thus to give his support to the revolutionary progressivist minority of
Spanish bishops – pretending that they are representative of the Spanish episcopate
as a whole – dissociating himself from a document which clearly upholds the Faith,
could well turn out to be the blunder which, like a grain of sand in a critical site, will
bring the whole Montinian machinery grinding to a halt.
Will he abdicate?
It seems to be a strange coincidence that just when his star appears to be setting,
there should be coming to light such a wealth of private revelations which make him into a
saint and martyr, according to which those who oppose him must needs incur the wrath of
Our Lord Himself. Are we expected to believe that these are genuine heavenly apparitions
granted to souls specially favoured? And if they should indeed be so, that the accounts
have not been changed and embellished in the telling? It is not for us to decide. But the
acts of the Pope speak clearly enough.
The Pope’s decline is not the result of ill health or personal despondency so much
as of an increasing awareness in Rome itself that such a road can lead only to disaster.
If the College of Cardinals remains free to elect a successor of its own choosing, the
Reformation carried through by Paul VI will die with him. That he is aware of this, and
reciprocates their mistrust, was suggested already by his depriving Cardinals over eighty
of their voting rights. If he now seeks to carry through the plan, conceived by Cardinal
Suenens, of changing the entire electoral procedure, that will be further evidence. We
know that Rome is praying to God to spare His Church this final and greatest misfortune
– the signing of a document by the Pope that would entrust to an extended electorate
of bishops – or even of priests and laity – the task of electing the successor
of him who is first and foremost Bishop of Rome.
All the signs point against the Pope’s resignation on the 26th September, his 75th
birthday. On April 24th, he is supposed to have said: "… The ecclesiastical
hierarchy was created by the Lord. I did not create it. Certainly it is not easy for me
nor pleasing to have certain responsibilities and certain burdens. But Jesus said:
‘Thou shalt be the apostle, upon thee will I found my Church.’ The
‘found’ means the weight of the church. It would be wonderful to shake it off us
but I do not wish to do this." [This and the following quotations are taken
verbatim from reports in the British "Catholic" press.]
There is even a suggestion that, dreading the deadline date of the 26th September, he
wishes to conjure up a sort of popular mandate in support of his continuing in office. It
appears from the world press that he has the support of the world’s political rulers
– both Capitalist and Communist – and so has Cardinal Villot as his successor
when the time does come. It is only the Traditional Catholics who desire his departure.
And they are in a minority – but it is a minority which is growing all the time. Is
this what is worrying the Pope?
Who rules the Church?
Pope Paul VI can hardly claim to be in charge, though he be at the head of the Church,
for he makes little attempt to teach the truth, and none to condemn error or suppress
disorder. His discourse on 21st June, the ninth anniversary of his election, gives us a
clue to the way his mind works. Quoting from notes made in his personal diary soon after
his election, he said:
"Perhaps the Lord has called me to this service not because I have a particular
attitude (sic, probably misprint for aptitude) or because I should govern the
Church and save it from its present difficulties, but because I should suffer something
for the Church. It is clear that He, and no one else, guides and saves it." He was,
he added, revealing this now not out of vanity, but because he wanted Catholics to share
his comfort in knowing that "It is not our weak and inexpert hand which is at the
tiller of the barque of Peter, but the invisible, strong and loving hand of the Lord
Jesus." He thinks then, so it would seem that Jesus has taken over and rules the
Church directly, while His Vicar can remain in the background, weak, and wretched. But the
same argument would lead to the conclusion that Our Lord too, is to blame for all that is
so manifestly wrong with the Church.
Or has the Devil taken over?
The Pope himself made a reference to this other, invisible Power at work within the
post-Conciliar Church, in his discourse on the Feast of SS Peter and Paul: "We
thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the
Church, instead, we found new storms. There is uncertainty; people seek to open gulfs
rather than to bridge them. How did this happen? We will confide this thought to you
– that there was an adverse power, the Devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious
enemy of man, something preternatural which came to suffocate the fruits of the Vatican
Council… We no longer trust in the Church, but in the first profane prophet who comes
to speak to us from any newspaper or any gathering, to ask him if he has the formula for
the true life. Doubt entered our consciences from that very window which ought to be open
to the light – from science…" Or from the window opened on to the world by
Vatican II!
So the Pope, apparently forgetful of what he said a bare week before, sees the Demon at
work in the Church, and adds the words: "we wish, therefore, today more than ever,
that we were able to exercise the function which God entrusted to Peter: to confirm thy
brethren in the faith."
Haven’t we been saying for a long time that Satan is at large within the Church?
By their Fruits you shall know them
We find today that while those who are on the side of the angels are prevented from
taking effective action, the others are given every freedom for carrying out their work of
destruction.
There is, for instance, Cardinal Staffa, who is on the side of the angels. Having been
removed from the Congregation for Seminaries by Cardinal Garrone who found him an
embarrassment, he was made Prefect of the Apostolic Seal – of the Supreme Tribunal of
the Church, by the Pope. That is how he came to be involved in the "annulments"
of marriage on the grounds of "moral impotence" as has been practised by several
of the Dutch bishops, against ecclesiastical as well as divine Law concerning the
indissolubility of sacramentally contracted marriage. This irregular practice was reproved
by the Tribunal, for the first time in 1970, but it continued despite this. Next, in
December 1971, the Roman Tribunal rejected a Memorandum submitted by the Dutch episcopate
and in its reply to this, recalled in unambiguous terms the Law of God and of the
Church… But Pope Paul VI allows the Dutch bishops, whose unorthodoxy has been so
clearly exposed, to continue in office and set the example for the progressivists of other
countries. And Cardinal Alfrinck even has the cheek to come to Rome and demand of the Pope
the head of Bishop Gijsen, because the latter is a conservative!
Cardinal Willebrands is one of the worst progressives. It is he who, with his
Secretariat for Christian Unity, is responsible for the Instruction concerning "the
circumstances in which other Christians can be admitted to Holy Communion in the Catholic
Church." They tell us – and this is indeed true to a certain extent – that
the directive "does not break new ground in doctrine, nor does it create fresh
legislation. It explains the Church’s teaching in greater depth and shows how the law
of the Church is to be applied in concrete circumstances…" It merely carries a
step further the instructions already contained in the Conciliar Decree Unitatis
redintegratio and in the 1967 Ecumenical Directory. But why then did the Cardinal have
to wait till the 7th July before publishing it? Because by that time everybody who was
likely to be shocked by this further innovation would have left Rome for the summer
holidays. For the Instruction is nothing less than a violation of the divine Law which
teaches that the Eucharist is the Sacrament of the living, to be given by priests to the
faithful of the Church, and on no account to those in heresy or schism. Already the
Council itself had allowed a serious breach in the two thousand year old law forbidding
all communicatio in sacris. And Pope Paul himself had set a precedent, by making an
exception in the case of a certain Barbarina Olson, a Presbyterian. Since that occasion,
all who wished to admit "separated brethren" to Holy Communion, did so, secure
in the knowledge that they were following the example set by the highest authority. The
present Instruction merely legalises the sacrilege, by "throwing fresh light on what
is meant by ‘urgent necessity’." The non-Catholic must be "in grave
spiritual necessity"… he must have "a faith in the Eucharist comparable to
that of a Catholic" and have "proper dispositions" and be leading "a
worthy Christian life…" Without recantation of his false beliefs, without
confession of his sins, he can then be admitted to Holy Communion, even though he be
conscious – so the condition regarding his "faith in the Eucharist" would
seem to imply – of the defects of his own "Christian faith". If the Pope
can accept that a "worthy Christian life" outside the Church is adequate in
itself, is he not himself guilty of a sort of apostasy from the Catholic Faith?
At any rate, the Pope is allowing all this to go on. He is allowing Satan to do his
worst inside the Church, that is, to destroy it from within. For what sort of Church will
there be left if the practice of intercommunion is allowed to become universal? All that
remains will be a flock who don’t know what to believe.
Cardinal Seper is on the side of the angels, but he is weak and ready to accept
anything coming from the Holy Father. It was on the very day that the latter was talking
about Satan that we first learned of the imminent publication of an Instruction by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the subject of collective absolutions. We
know that this practice has been more and more widely used, illicitly and invalidly, and
regardless of the Church’s discipline. What was to be done? To condemn and suppress
such an illegal practice is contrary to the way in which Pope Paul’s mind works. He
prefers to make it legal, with a semblance of imposing certain restrictive conditions. The
new Instruction pretends to be merely an extension of already existing laws applying to
exceptional cases – the one dating from 1944 and concerned with wartime conditions,
and the other from 1966, and applying to mission territories with great shortage of
priests. While the Instruction still specifies that when "general absolution is given
without individual confession", this is "without excluding the latter if
opportunity offers later", its avowed aim is to stop the belief and practice of using
the "penitential rite" at the beginning of Mass as a substitute for private
confession… "General absolution is still to be regarded as an extraordinary
procedure to be employed in cases of necessity..." As we know only too well that many
priests don’t care to waste their time in the confessional, it is clear that
today’s exception will become tomorrow’s rule. That is the way of things, since
Vatican II. The Sacrament of Penance will soon be a thing of the past and in this as in so
many other respects, we shall be no different from the Protestants.
To us there seems to be only one conclusion possible: if it is not the Pope who
controls the Church, then it is not Our Lord who has, invisibly, stepped into the place of
His reluctant Vicar on earth. Another has taken over the controls, it is Satan who is
causing things to go from bad to worse, to the rejoicing of wicked men and the despair of
the faithful…
All that we can do for the moment, is to wait in patience, pray and do penance. Only
Rome itself could actively hasten the end of the crisis. While the solution which we have
been advocating for years – that of the formal deposition of a pope who has proved
himself unworthy – may be considered impracticable, at least we can hope for an
alternative, a sort of half-way house between voluntary retirement and deposition –
that is, an abdication or enforced resignation under pressure from the Curia. Today, the
shade of Celestine V, who abdicated in 1294, lies heavy on the Vatican. Is not Paul VI
also one of those who, having proved themselves incapable of doing justice to their heavy
charge, must, in the interests of their own eternal salvation as well as of the good of
the Church, lay down the burden which they are unable to carry properly? We believe that
Pope Paul must go in order that the Church may live!
And the Cardinals – those who still remain true to the Church – could do no
better than to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the imminence of the
Pope’s 75th birthday on 26th September to persuade him to abdicate, him who, in his
own words, has proved himself "unworthy and incapable". They might quote to him
what St Catherine of Sienna wrote to Gregory XI in somewhat comparable circumstances: "Since
Christ entrusted you with an authority which you agreed to accept, it is your duty to
exercise the power that belongs to it. But if you have no intention of exercising it, then
you would do better to divest yourself of the position you have accepted. You would
thereby render greater honour to God and work more certainly for the salvation of your own
soul."
Let us pray therefore, that Paul VI may yet abdicate on 26th September. It would be the
most meritorious act that he could perform!
PREPARING FOR VATICAN III
CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
(Preliminary Schema)
The government of the world belongs to God alone, and God the Creator entrusted it to
His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Because all truth and all justice proceed from God, He is
necessarily also the source of all human right and human freedom. All men have both the
right and the duty to obey God’s Law, both individually and collectively, and to act
in accordance with it in their own exercise of authority over others. The Church, as the
Spouse of Christ, partakes of those sovereign rights which belong to God alone, and she
cannot be subject to any human authority. Instead, every other form of authority has the
obligation to serve the Church.
The sovereignty of God and His Church is absolute. However the Church acknowledges, in
the name of God’s justice and forbearance, the fundamental right of every human being
to follow his conscience – even when this happens to be in error – for it is the
individual conscience which must needs be the immediate judge of every personal decision.
That is what is referred to as "freedom of conscience" or, more correctly, as
"the freedom of the individual conscience". But this inward freedom does not
carry with it any outward right to act in accordance with an erroneous conscience. While
the Church may tolerate the practices of those who are in error, when this is in
the interests of social peace and harmony and as long as it does not detract from the
rights that belong to her alone, nor interfere with the salvation of souls, she can never
accord any such rights to error.
The first Reformation undermined the very foundations of Christianity: on the one hand,
it denied Free Will and maintained that the descendants of Adam were either the playthings
of a divine predestination or else entirely enslaved to sin; on the other hand, it exalted
a "freedom of thought" according to which everyone ought to follow his private
inspirations in matters of religion and morals without any regard for a teaching
Magisterium. The practical consequence was that the peoples were forced to adopt the
religion of their Prince. The next stage was represented by the thinking of the French
Revolution which turned the religious anarchy into a secularist one, exalting a
"freedom of thought" which denies man’s dependence not only on the Church
but also on God, and a "political freedom" which would free the state from any
submission to the Laws of God.
A hundred years after the Syllabus of Errors, the Council attempted to reconcile
the Church with modern society by proclaiming man’s right to "religious
liberty". It tried hard to build up its newly invented dogma upon the existing
teaching regarding the freedom of the individual conscience and when this reasoning was
challenged, upon a newly defined freedom to search for the truth and finally, upon
non-Christian principles of human rights and dignity, defined without any reference to God
or the Church. We end up, finally, with the natural right of the freedom of the individual
conscience being extended indefinitely to include the individual’s freedom to act in
accordance with his error and then also the freedom of human societies, religious
communities – even of atheistic ideologies – to pursue their aims unhindered!
The only limits to this freedom are those imposed by "public order" – in
other words, it is now only the state, and no longer the Church, which has the right to
decide where to draw the line.
We know that by thus repudiating her own teaching the Church has not gained the
slightest advantage in the totalitarian countries. But in the West, the result has been an
increase in religious indifferentism, indeed paganisation, while political anarchism has
been enabled to parade under an "evangelical" garb. In addition, the authority
of the Magisterium within the Church has inevitably been eroded. The "freedom"
preached for those outside has been grabbed by those within, who are using it to disrupt
the Church.
The Church must reverse this process by repudiating the false principle which she had
adopted to help seal her alliance with Satan and all his pomp.
Proposed Constitution of Vatican III
on
CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
The great battle – the one we read about in the Apocalypse – is that in which
men rise up in rebellion against God, at the instigation of their leader Satan, whose war
cry is Non serviam : I will not serve. It is that of the creature who tries to
assert his independence from his Creator, who seeks to deify himself, to become equal to
God. Eritis sicut dii – and you shall be as Gods…
This is what lies at the basis of the Rights of Man proclaimed by the Revolution or of
the claims of the atheistic humanism of today. The conflict is between the Rights of Man
and the Rights of God, and between these two there can be no truce or dialogue, only war.
What does Catholic Tradition understand by Christian Liberty?
In contesting that absolute freedom of man which forms part of the philosophy of the
Revolution, the Church does not deny man’s liberty, but recognises that it comes to
him from God… The facts of history show that such a definition has always been
compatible with a generous tolerance of those in error, while those whose philosophy
insists on the absolute quality of man’s liberty, have managed only to turn the world
into a concentration camp.
Man’s inward freedom has always been recognised by the Church. He has the
right and the duty to obey his conscience, and this applies even when his conscience is,
objectively, mistaken. It is man’s conscience which is the immediate guide of his
conduct and it is in accordance with his obedience to this that God will judge him. As for
us, we have no right to judge any man in this respect, either to condemn or to excuse.
To take this reasoning so far as to canonise the private conscience, and describe as right
what is objectively wrong, is never permissible.
Nor does the individual’s freedom to follow his conscience – which is an
inward right – convey any overt right to act in accordance with a mistaken
conscience. Whether an act is permissible depends on its objective character and
not in any way on the sincerity of the person concerned. Error has no social right, though
tolerance may be accorded to the individual who happens to be in error, in so far
as this serves to safeguard the common good and the inward freedom of the individual
conscience.
To ascribe social or political freedom to man as a right, is to deny man’s
subjection to God. The philosophy based on "freedom of the Church in a free
state" ends up by admitting the right which belongs only to God, and the freedom of
man to follow His Law, only as one possible aspect of the absolute and sovereign rights of
man himself.
Man’s Right to Religious Liberty - an Invention of Vatican II
This matter was among those causing some of the fiercest debates at the Council. The
proclamation of man’s right to religious liberty forms the basic charter of the
contract signed by the Church on engaging herself, unilaterally, in the service of the
world, and undertaking to co-operate in the building of a modern Tower of Babel. The
Progressivist faction was conscious that what they sought to impose represented a clean
break with Tradition and that it would rouse much opposition. They had therefore to do
their best to make it appear as merely a development of existing doctrine.
The Declaration is officially entitled Dignitatis Humanae Personae, and
subtitled "On the Right of the Individual and of Communities to Social and Civil
Liberty in Religious Matters." Note that this Act of the Council is merely a
"Declaration", and thus clearly of lesser weight than other Acts. This choice of
term was intended, in the first instance, to help its passage, but after the event, Congar
explains that it had been entitled a "Declaration" because "it consisted
merely in the public affirmation of what was already generally accepted… that the
Church was not creating any new right, but simply giving official recognition to a
long-established one…" Here he is careful to add: "… or at least one
that was tacitly acknowledged as forming a positive basis of her life." In other
words, the Church may now be saying the opposite of what she has always taught, but
it is something which had always been tacitly acknowledged by the prophetic souls in her
midst, such as Congar and Co.
The term "religious liberty" became respectable on 18th April 1964, when it
was used in a published discourse by the Pope, and also when he made use of it in his
opening discourse of the Third Session of the Council and in his address to the United
Nations. Until this time, even the proponents of the new ideas had considered the term as
unsatisfactory, open to the interpretation that every individual was (morally) free to
choose his own religion. But now such ambiguity was recognised as inevitable (?) and the
term welcomed as bringing the Church into line with civil society. Like the rest of the
world, she would henceforth admit the concept of religious pluralism. The principle of tolerance,
always recognised by the Church, was now rejected as unsatisfactory, because it implied
that the Church regarded herself as better than the rest. "To show respect for others
was not enough, it was necessary actively to promote their welfare." Freedom, unity,
dialogue, must all take precedence over truth.
The term "tolerance" is thus barred from the outset. The schema prepared by
the (pre-Conciliar) theological commission, which had treated the question of religious
tolerance, and that of the relation between Church and State, in accordance with classical
principles, was rejected at the very beginning, and we are left with the one prepared by
Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat for Christian Unity. That this contained heretical ideas
was so evident that the so-called "minority" (those who upheld orthodox
principles are always referred to as the minority) petitioned the Pope to intervene, and
he then nominated a commission of four theologians (Cardinal Browne, Rev. Fernandez, Mgr
Colombo, and Mgr Marcel Lefebvre). This raises an outcry, and seventeen (progressive)
cardinals write to the Pope in protest, and he gives way.
In the meantime, the schema is re-cast, and the voting on it postponed to the next
session, to the great disappointment of those who had been hoping that it would be
approved for the centenary of the Syllabus, as an act of sheer spite!
A new debate follows, from 15th to 21st September 1965. The votes Against number
between 225 and 250, an unusually large number of the normally so bewildered flock of
bishops. Certain reiterations of orthodox principles are therefore introduced into the
very midst of the heretical text. It was around this time that the Pope refers, in his
address to the UN, to "religious liberty" as having a "sacred
character", "because man’s life is something sacred." Henceforth the
rejection of the schema would represent a repudiation of the words of the Pope. If the
Council approved a heretical definition, the blame for this rests upon the shoulders of
the Pope himself, for he had used the words in his speech to that Masonic Assembly! What a
pity that no one walked out of the Council to save himself from complicity.
How to make the new doctrine appear as merely a development of classical doctrine? To
maintain that man is at liberty to think, speak, and act as he likes in all matters, and
especially in matters of religion would be to deny that God alone can command in this
field, through the Church. Truth and error cannot be ascribed equal rights. To avoid an
overt expression of indifferentism, and placate the "minority", certain new
elements were introduced into the Declaration on Religious Liberty (RL), such as an
assertion that there is only one true religion – the one which subsists in the
Catholic Church, and that men are in conscience obliged to seek the truth and abide by it,
that religious liberty in the civil sense does not involve any denial of the doctrine
concerning the unique nature of the one true religion, etc (RL, No 1). The new concept of
"religious liberty", thus duly modified and circumscribed, has been made to
appear as essentially the same as the age-old one of "tolerance", and the text
is now acceptable also to the considerable number who initially opposed it. The erroneous
teaching has been covered up under a cloak of orthodoxy.
The error however remains, in the statement that every individual and community is
entitled to religious liberty as to a right. To justify it, recourse was had to
orthodox principles of which it had to appear to be merely an extension. First, the
individual’s inward freedom of conscience was to be extended to include also the
right to speak and act as he pleased. The attempt to make man’s subjective opinion
justify his objective behaviour was shown to be theologically untenable – being
opposed by, among others, Cardinals Ottaviani and Browne.
The next proposed basis was that of "the divine calling of man" – each
individual is free to respond to this "divine calling" in accordance with the
dictates of his own conscience. It seemed an expression sufficiently vague to prove
acceptable. But here the Superior of the Marists spoke out to say that "to speak
about a divine calling in connection with an erroneous conscience represents the ultimate
stage of degeneration of the concept of divine calling." This too had to be
abandoned.
Finally, there remained the "search for the truth". The theory had been
proposed by Cardinal Montini and his theologian Mgr Colombo, that as this
"search" involved "dialogue", this must carry with it the right to
free expression of opinion. The "freedom to search for the truth" was approved
as the basis for teaching falsehood by individuals or by organisations.
Where does this freedom lead us?
In practice, anarchy destroys true liberty, and we find that the Council is only too
ready to entrust to the State the responsibility for restricting it where it sees fit
– liberty, equality, fraternity… or death!
The rights of parents and questions of education are dealt with in RL No 5, and in the
Council’s Declaration on Christian Education – Gravissimum educationis
momentum. The rights of parents in regard to their children’s religious
upbringing are reaffirmed. No one dared to go to the extent of maintaining, as has been
done since the Council and in the name of its "spirit", that children should be
free to choose their own religion and that, therefore, infant baptism was an unjustified
coercion. In connection with schools, we read, among much that is orthodox, that there
must be no "monopoly", not even, presumably, in the case of the Church. The main
function of the school is to further the "development of personality", and this
is best carried out in a religiously "neutral" atmosphere.
Nos 9-12 of the Declaration (RL) attempt to find a basis for its principles in
Scripture and Tradition. "Ultimately this doctrine has its roots in divine Revelation
which is the reason why Christians are bound to respect it all the more scrupulously.
Although Revelation does not explicitly affirm the right to immunity from coercion in
religious matters, it does nevertheless reveal the full dignity of the human
individual…" (9) The gentleness of Christ’s "Word and example",
and the fact that "He had no wish to be a political Messiah gaining mastery by
force" (!) are brought up in support of the individual’s right to freedom of
choice in matters of religion. On the other hand, His respect for the State –
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s" – is used to
back the thesis that the final arbiter in the matter should be the State. "It is
agreed then that modern man wants to be able to profess his religion freely, in private
and in public; in fact religious liberty has already been declared a civil right in the
majority of Constitutions and been given solemn recognition in international
documents." (No 15) In her acknowledgement of this right, the Church must apparently
be ready to renounce her claim to possess the truth, and be prepared to co-operate in the
building of a new world of human brotherhood which is based no longer on Christ but on the
free association of all religions and ideologies.
Vatican III will have to redefine what is to be understood by Christian Liberty, by
the freedom of the Church and of her members.
The religious liberalism introduced by Vatican II will have to be repudiated, with the
utmost frankness and honesty. This will be no easy thing to do, for "this saying is
hard" for those outside the Church. At least the Church will have shown that she will
not compromise for the sake of placating her enemies, or because she would find favour in
the eyes of the indifferent. Today, the nations of the West are still counting themselves
fortunate in having religious freedom included among the basic rights of their citizens.
What they have not yet realised is that it is the same principles that have allowed free
reign to error and sacrilege and immorality of every sort, and also that it is these same
religious liberals who become intolerant to a fanatical degree where truth itself is at
stake. When men have understood the connection here, they will also come to appreciate
that true liberty is necessarily based on God and limited by His Law.
Every member of the Church, being inwardly renewed through the action of Divine Grace
and freed from the yoke of his passions, the seductions of the World, and the power of the
Demon, has been made an adopted "son of God". To the extent that he follows this
calling and this Law, he is free. Good laws, whether divine or human, do not oppress him
in any way and evil laws do not have any power over him. He will choose to obey God rather
than man, and therefore he will prefer martyrdom to obeying an evil law.
The Pagan, who remains in the bondage of the Prince of this World, or the Jew, who is a
slave to the Mosaic Law do not have such an inward freedom and – except in the case
of individuals favoured by some extraordinary grace – are not in a state that enables
them to heed the call of this liberating Law.
For the Catholic, the teaching and discipline of Holy Mother Church do not represent a
human servitude, but rather a filial obedience to an Authority teaching and ruling in the
name of God. He accepts this authority willingly, even asking that it should be exercised
by the Pastors of the Church whose task is to teach truth and forbid error. The
"liberalism" in the name of which they have abdicated this duty is of no benefit
to anyone except to the teachers of error and the instigators of disorder.
The Council will have to concern itself also with asserting the individual’s
freedom in the face even of ecclesiastical authorities exercising unjust and tyrannical
powers. Today we find that the selfsame Pope and bishops who are ready to allow every
licence to error and wickedness have forearmed themselves against a justified revolt by
the faithful Catholic people, by appealing to blind obedience to their persons and to
their every unlawful whim. Servility and anarchy – both the offspring of that freedom
exalted into a right of man instead of being acknowledged as a gift of God – have, in
the present day, formed themselves into an evil alliance. The true Catholic obedience to
the Pope and the bishops is rooted in our spiritual liberty: it is not a form of slavery.
To speak of man’s freedom in face of the state may, in the climate of today,
savour of "contestation", but this would be a mistaken interpretation. Christian
charity directs that one should submit to civil authority in all that concerns the
temporal or spiritual wellbeing of society, and with the help of divine grace it becomes
easy for the good Christian to be also a good citizen. It will be for Vatican III to
reiterate the need for such obedience to the just laws of the state, in contrast to the
present state of affairs, when the Church authorities are falling over backwards in their
efforts to play into the hands of the despotic regimes – whether Communist or Moslem
– but encouraging "contestation" in face of the democracies and the last
remaining Catholic states, because there they have little to fear. That we have the right
to disobey unjust laws forms part of the classical teaching on the subject of obedience to
legitimate civil authority. We hope that Vatican III will raise up a new generation of
bishops who will preach obedience to lawful authority but also resistance to tyranny, in
place of the present tendency to pander to those who happen to be strong, even if they
persecute the Church, and to encourage subversion against the feeble.
The disciple of Christ, who is in possession of the fullness of grace and truth, has no
obligations in face of any false religions or other false ideologies. He finds no place
for dialogue with error, and he does not fear persecution. He has the truth and he will
preach this to others, defend it in controversy, and win others over to it by his prayer
and example – even, if need be, by his blood shed in martyrdom.
Vatican III will solemnly proclaim that the only absolute freedom is that which belongs
to God, and hence, to the Church. Any other form of authority, human and secular, while it
may be tolerated, can never lay claim to have any rights side by side with those
instituted by God. Similarly, no other religion or Christian denomination can claim to
have rights side by side with the Church instituted by Christ. She can tolerate their
existence but there can be no such thing as "dialogue" with them. To do so would
be like compromising in a question of mathematical truth.
The State has no authority over the Church, but it has rather the duty of protecting
her and upholding her Law.
It is false to argue that, where Catholics are in a minority, the Church claims the
protection of the laws of a liberal state, while she would refuse this protection to
others in countries where she has a say. In fact, she never claims to be respected on the
basis of religious liberalism, but on account of the right acquired by her children
through their baptism by which they have renounced Satan and his pomp. |