THE NEXT POPE, FELICI
Last month, on the Feast on Her Assumption, we implored the Blessed Virgin Mary to
intercede with God on behalf of the Church. We begged Her, as Queen of Heaven and Queen of
the Church, to intervene before it is too late. On the importance of continuing to pray to
Her, you are certainly all agreed…
But not so when it comes to specifying our requests which must be heeded if the Church
is to be saved. Then many of you would accuse us of rashness or wishful thinking. How can
we ask that there should be a new Pope when, the way things are going, he is likely to be
far worse than the present one? And why should we expect our bishops to become converted
even if there should be a new and better Pope? And is it not totally unrealistic to ask
for a new Council which would cast an anathema upon its predecessor within the very
lifetime of those responsible – when it is only too evident that we shall be landed
with the present lot and worse for the next fifty or a hundred years?
Then you accuse me of setting up as a prophet. But I am not making any such claims; I
am merely drawing the conclusions that are forced upon us from a careful study of the
facts which we can all observe. You would all agree that a bare ten years ago the Church
was in the best of shape, and that today she is undergoing a crisis that amounts to an
accelerating self-destruction? What is the reason for all this? Yes, we know: the
Devil… But how did he get into the Church? Who opened that chinks in the door that
allowed him to enter, and who is it that refuses to speak the words of exorcism and to
stop up the breach? My contention is that the present state of affairs cannot be
improved unless and until the one responsible, who forms a constant and continuing
obstacle to such improvement, is out of the way. Only then will it be possible, however
slowly, to restore peace and law and order. For it is the Head of the Church on earth who
is directly and immediately responsible for the present ills – regardless of whether
he has personally brought them upon the Church or whether he merely tolerates them. And
the fact that he is moaning and lamenting how much pain they are causing him does not
lessen this responsibility – it serves merely to show that he is aware of the
evil, while continuing to do nothing effective about it.
The Church’s only hope is that Paul VI should go… The one single act by which
he recently – in the middle of the Roman summer vacation – authorised the
reception of Holy Communion by non-Catholics at any bishop’s discretion, without
Confession, without any recantation of their heretical beliefs, would be sufficient
grounds for the clergy of Rome to demand his deposition, or at least his abdication. For
the sake of so many souls heading for ruin, for the sake of the Church sliding headlong
towards destruction, in the interest even of his own eternal salvation, Paul VI must go;
and if men have not the courage to do anything about it, then we must pray for an Act of
God… But let it not be through sudden death, an event we must dread both on his own
account and on that of the Church. Let us hope rather that he may yet learn his lesson at
the very end, and seek to redress the evil…
The end of his reign would give hope to the world, against the unjustified pessimism
that insists that his successor could only be even worse. All the lessons taught us by
the history of the Papacy show that we have good grounds for hope. Once they are rid
of the strange fascination which Paul VI seems to exercise over them, the Cardinals
meeting in the next Conclave, the great majority of whom are already disillusioned with
the New Reformation wrought by the Council, will opt for a strong personality, and there
are several such to choose from. The institution of the Conclave is an excellent one,
though, like all other human institutions, it sometimes fails to function for the best.
Like human individuals too, it is able to remember past events and will seek to repair the
damage once the consequences have become apparent. The Cardinals were compromised almost
to a man in the failed adventure that was Vatican II and all of them are worried about
their own future as well as that of the rest of us. They will give serious thought to
their choice in the next Conclave, and avoid any shot in the dark. They will avoid the
"extremes" and vote neither for a "reactionary" such as Siri, nor for
an extremist and demagogue like Suenens. They will play safe and choose a Roman from Rome,
and certainly not any dubious Frenchman like Villot or Garrone. Their choice will be a man
who was among the moderates at the last Council, who is learned and impartial
and, most important of all, strong enough to assume personal responsibility; a man into
whose hands they can lay the whole set of accounts of the bankruptcy of the past ten
years. Tired of the burden of their collegiality, they will want a man prepared to be
Pope and to rule the Church. Among the men who would fulfil these requirements, one seems
to stand out, and is likely to be most acceptable to the Cardinals from Asia and the
"Third World", who will have more say in the next election than their
counterparts from Europe. I can do no harm by telling you that I have in mind Cardinal
Felici, and that already I am praying for him…
The road will be long and hard and the Church’s purification will not be
accomplished without many trials… Let us recall the concluding words of the Message
of Fatima: "But in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. Russia shall be
consecrated to Me and will be converted and there will follow a period of peace for the
world." Fiat. Adveniat. Amen.
PREPARING FOR VATICAN III
THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD
(Preliminary Schema)
We can choose for our text a phrase of St Irenaeus: Gloria Dei vivens homo, et vita
hominis visio Dei (Adv. haer., IV, 20, 7): God’s glory is living man and
man’s life is the vision of God. God’s glory is sufficient unto itself, and it
is only by way of surfeit that His creature can add anything to it. God created us out of
pure generous love, and His aim is our ultimate happiness, which we can attain only
through His grace and hence for His greater glory. We are indeed called to happiness, but
"man’s life is the vision of God". The Church teaches – and this
teaching was received from her divine Founder – that the true and ultimate happiness
of man can consist only in that supernatural vision of God which is reserved to the elect,
in Heaven. By the virtue of Hope, we can begin to share to some extent in this happiness
even while on earth.
The Gospels teach us – and this teaching forms the basis of all Christian morals
– that the temporal goods of this earth are intended but to lead us towards those of
eternity: "Per tempora ad coelestia." It is a lesson brought home to us
in a thousand different ways by the ancient liturgy. For those who seek to accomplish this
transition in the most rapid and perfect manner, there are the rules of asceticism and
mysticism, but the rules of ordinary Christian morality make it possible for everybody to
traverse the same route, if more slowly and in a manner somewhat short of perfection. It
is God Himself who has revealed what we are taught by the Church, and to this end she has
adapted and elevated on to a higher plane the natural moral law, bringing it into line
with that of the Gospels. The sole aim of man’s existence is to please God and do
His Sacred Will, so that, with the help of divine grace, he may attain the everlasting
happiness of Heaven.
This applies equally to the manner in which man worships God and to his relationship
with others, in the family and community to which he belongs. Family life, social justice,
must all be centred on this same aim – to help man to please God and attain Heaven.
Does this mean that the Church is too concerned with a strict moral code, that she pays
too little attention to temporal obligations? In a sense, yes, but it is a fact that even
by purely temporal standards, a civilisation based on these Christian values has always
stood out far and above any other. Did not Our Lord promise that, "If ye seek first
God and His Kingdom, the rest shall be added unto you"? But all that which has indeed
been added on must remain by its very nature secondary, incidental. The ultimate goal does
not lie here on earth.
Vatican II has cited the phrase of St Irenaeus a thousand times over, but dishonestly,
omitting the second half every time: "God’s glory is living man": full
stop. What we are seeing today is something unheard of – that the Church should be
setting out "to infuse the spirit of the Gospel into the veins of the modern
world", with the express aim of serving it and aiding it in achieving its dreams of
success. Since Gaudium et Spes it is accepted that the prime duty of the Christian
religion is to help and advise men – regardless of their religion or lack of it
– how best to solve their temporal problems. We are presented with a new-style
"humanism", supposedly based on the Gospels and the Christian Faith, but freed
from any sectarian allegiance, which is concerned with "all men of good will",
without reference to divine Grace, or Faith in Christ, or the Sacraments or Liturgy of the
Church. The Church’s main concern henceforth is to further man’s well-being on
earth, to help him solve the problems that plague him today, and to attain wealth and
prosperity, justice, freedom and peace for every human being on this earth. Has the
Church, then, adopted the Utopian dream of a heaven-here-on-earth? Strange to say, the New
Theology has introduced a theory according to which there is a direct relationship between
cultural and technological progress on earth and the Kingdom of God, understood in an
eschatological sense, as if "Heaven" were something to be built by men’s
labours here below. [Cf. "Dutch Catechism", the textbook of the New Theology:
"Working on the World" (pp 426-428): "Work… like all great human
values… needs to be redeemed." "The Christian message also affirms that in
their work Christians may have a good hope for eternity… Hence work on this world has
its consequences in the new creation. And who knows but that after the resurrection of the
body the new world will show in its own way traces of the best that human work has
achieved?" (Tr.)]
The Church, now addressing herself to "all men", wants to show them a way
that is easy enough to appeal to all and sundry. No longer must her moral teaching consist
of lists of obligations and prohibitions, but represent, rather, an ideal to which all
will be irresistibly drawn. Essentially, this new guide to happiness has nothing to do
with the duty to obey God, nor with that "charity of God" which" is poured
forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost who is given to us" (Rom 5.5), but only with
the exaltation and service of Man, the new principle proclaimed on 7th December 1965 by
Pope Paul VI in the presence of the whole assembly of the Council and speaking in its
name… If God’s glory is the life of man then the life of man must necessarily be
(identified with) the glory of God… It is through the exaltation of man that the
People of God is enabled to move forwards towards its eternal destiny. We have passed from
a God-centred religion to a Humanism based in a vague sort of way upon a love that claims
its origin in the Gospel. But any semblance of Christianity that still remains is only an
appearance which does not affect its essence.
In practice, this new Conciliar Humanism has meant the destruction of morals, for in
spite of the paradox which considers classical morality as too strict and at the same time
as too mediocre to satisfy the Utopian mystique of "the service of mankind", we
are left with licence masquerading under the name of "love". While on the one
hand, the individual is exalted, on a community level we are presented with a socialist
egalitarianism which is prepared to countenance violence and revolution to achieve its aim
of "universal democracy". On the international level it dreams of the Unity of
all Mankind and in practice allows the peoples to be subjected to the yoke of totalitarian
repression pretending to be a form of World Government…
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam…
For if God build not the house, then in vain do they labour who build it. Vatican II set
out to build a 20th century Tower of Babel, without the help of God, and so it
has laboured in vain. We have to start anew, building on a basis of authentic Catholic
moral teaching, if the world is to be freed from disorder and to return to God.
Proposed Constitution of Vatican III
on
THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD
(A "CHRISTIAN HUMANISM")
Vatican II wished to "reform" the Church, so as to bring it closer to the
world and more fitted to play her part in "human progress" and
"development". The principle of "dialogue" was inaugurated with the
Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, and in adopting the Charter of Human Rights the Church
adopted also the principle of religious indifferentism or "equality", that was
to help the "unity" or "reconciliation" of all men to which their
differences in creed had formerly presented an obstacle. It was tacitly accepted that, as
the discussion of dogmatic questions must necessarily lead to disagreement, it would be
much better not to speak about fundamental issues such as the Mystery of God and the
conditions for Salvation, but to concentrate on working together "in the same
spirit" at building a Brave New World here on earth. Because moral questions too are
answered differently by the different religions, it seemed better to settle on a lowest
common denominator that would form a basis for a generally acceptable Art of Living. In
other words, if Heaven and the things of God are found to be an obstacle to the Unity of
Mankind, then it is surely better to concentrate rather on changing the face of the earth.
Rather than allow themselves to be deterred from their human tasks by concentrating on the
things of the hereafter, as they had so long been taught to do by their various religions,
men should unite their energies in the pursuit of a "complete humanism". Is the
Church of Vatican II not herself setting them an example by turning round to face the
world rather than God? Is she not showing them what she expects the other religious
communities to do in their turn – to leave aside any strict concern with purely
religious beliefs, and seek rather to integrate these into the principles of
"humanism"? These principles, forming as they do the lowest common denominator
of all the various religions, can then be formulated anew by the leaders of each
community, using the terminology and the ideas peculiar to it. Yes, the Catholic Church
was in the vanguard of this movement, and the others had but to follow her example. Unable
to agree upon the right way to serve and worship God, people of all religions and all
nations could nevertheless all join together in their worship of Man!
When the Things of this World come first…
It is untrue to say that the Church had in the past been unconcerned about matters
relating to the daily lives of her children. She has always recognised that "temporal
values" have their rightful place, but that their ultimate reference must be to God
rather than to man. Vatican II, however, desiring to woo the world, ascribed to temporal
values an intrinsic worth, without reference to God. Today it is fashionable to insist
that the Church had belittled the importance of the things of this earth. To a certain
extent this is indeed the case, but was this not in obedience to the teaching of the
Gospels, the very words of Our Lord Himself who – like the Apostles at whose hands
the early Christians received their instruction in Divine Revelation – showed men
that, by comparison with Eternity, the things of this world had indeed little importance?
It was a teaching which the Church had not allowed herself to forget, right up to the time
of Vatican II. "For we have not here a lasting city: but we seek one that is to
come." (Heb l3.l4) "For the fashion of this world passeth away." (1 Cor
7.31) "But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in
store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of the ungodly
men." (2 Pet 3.7) How could the Church possibly lose sight of this? And, throughout
the centuries, she never did. In the Middle Ages, in the time of the Renaissance, of the
Counter-Reformation, this awareness continued, without any conflict between it and the
progress of Christian civilisation. In the 15th and 16th centuries, when the Church had to
respond to the problems posed by the rise of a pagan humanism on the one hand and that of
the Protestant Reformation on the other, she emerged victorious as the Church of the
Counter-Reformation, that had assimilated the genuinely good new elements into a true
Catholic Renewal which enabled the Church to remain the undisputed heal of Western
civilisation, a position she continued to hold up to and including the reign of Pius XII.
Three factors combined to maintain this:
1) her dogmatic teaching which stressed the essentially supernatural end and aim
of man and human society;
2) her moral teaching which showed men how their day-to-day activities should be
carried out if these were to remain compatible with the Will of God and their own
salvation;
3) the Church’s teaching on social, family and political life which showed them
how to reconcile a truly Christian life with the temporal wellbeing of man.
The sum-total of this teaching is what is referred to by the term "Christian
Humanism", and its overthrow has always been among the foremost aims of Revolution
– of the French Revolution in the 18th century and of the Conciliar Revolution in the
20th. In each case the revolutionaries have sought to gain credibility by trying to show
that, until they came along, the things that matter had been neglected. On the earlier
occasion, they clamoured to be rid of the rule of priests in order that man might build up
his own world independently: human progress was only possible if the Church’s
authority over secular matters were taken away, and this entailed fighting directly
against the Church. Similar thinking inspired theologians at the Council, and they were
concerned to stress temporal values at the expense of spiritual, aiming at the building of
a new world dependent only on man’s own powers. In such a system the Church is
allowed to function only as the World’s servant and helper, who is called upon when
man alone finds himself inadequate to some task. In the post-Conciliar era, we find even
this attitude has come under attack by theologians of a later generation who regard their
predecessors of Vatican II as having given way to clerical influence far too much. For
them the Church, for all that she has become the maidservant of the world, has been
allowed far too much say in the running of its affairs.
The "Servant Church" of Vatican II
The "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today" (Gaudium
et Spes - abbreviated GS) was referred to by Pope Paul on the 21st November 1964 as
"the crowning achievement of the Council". At any rate, it is the longest of the
Conciliar texts, taking up some 100 pages. It can best be described as a sort of treatise
on social science, addressed to all "men of good will" of whatever religion, or
none at all.
The preparatory schemata produced by the Conciliar commissions did not contain anything
at all comparable to the text that finally emerged, though some of the themes had been
included among "questions concerning the moral order" or "the Deposit of
Faith". It is clear that those responsible for the preparatory schemata had envisaged
definitive condemnations of the disorders prevailing in the world today. Indeed, we read
how John XXIII was supposed to have used a tape measure on these and found that the
condemnations took up ten inches. The preparatory schema was soon branded a
"monstrosity", not calculated to make the Church’s moral laws attractive to
the world, as had been the avowed intention of Pope John. But in being made sufficiently
permissive to become attractive to all and sundry, such a system of morality must needs
cease to be a moral one. We read in the historical account concerning the document that a
number of the Council Fathers were alarmed at the text placed in front of them, and were
reassured only by the knowledge that it was vouched for by Pope John, and Cardinals
Suenens and Montini!
The about-turn began with the "Message to the World", which Pope Paul VI
referred to as a "message of salvation, brotherhood and hope" – approved,
according to the account, almost unanimously on 20th October 1962 – thanks to the
efforts of the progressivist lobby – Garrone, Ancel, Lienart, Montini, Leger,
Doepfner and Alfrink, together with a number of French bishops possibly too numerous to be
listed in the account we are following. An amendment proposing that there should be
included a reference to the persecutions which Christians in Communist countries were
undergoing, was rejected as incompatible with the spirit of the message and those to whom
it was addressed, which was true enough.
There followed the concept, proclaimed in November 1962 by Cardinal Suenens, of the
principle of "dialogue" between the Church and the world, justified
"because the world expected to hear from the Church the answers to the great
questions of the day" – which came to be summed up in the phrase "the pill
and the bomb". We read how in April 1963 the progressive camp won for themselves the
task of preparing the schema on this subject. The cream of international progressivism met
together over it: Chenu, Dubarle, Lebret, Congar, Schillebeeckx – all Dominicans,
Rahner and Danielou, Jesuits, and Mgrs Philips, Pavan, Glorieux, Haubtmann found
themselves in key posts, while Cardinal Garrone became, in due course, their liaison
officer with Pope Paul VI, under whose patronage they worked.
An earlier schema, prepared according to classical, Roman, lines, was rejected and the
task of preparing a new one was, as though by chance, entrusted to Suenens. This schema,
which came to be known as the Project of Malines, was based upon the autonomy of the World
and the Church’s intention of serving it. But as it was looked upon as too
"deductive", it too was set aside and, once again as the result of some backroom
plotting, replaced by the more "inductive" "Project of Zurich", aimed
to show, by reference to the "signs of the times" and following in the footsteps
of John XXIII in Pacem in Terris that man’s calling is not purely supernatural
and that he does not abandon it when he seeks human values.
Each stage represented a step further on the way to a man-centred religion. Much of the
work took place underground, where the subcommittees were studying various "specific
questions", until the 1st October 1964, when the battle broke loose in the precincts
of the Council itself. On the vote taken three weeks later, in spite of an attack upon the
schema as being a "mass of errors" by Cardinal Ruffini, 1579 Fathers were In
favour, with 296 Against, while another couple of hundred were having drinks at the bar.
Nevertheless, the Pope himself hesitated in giving his approval to this sell-out of the
Church to the World, and for a short and bitter week, during which he agreed to various
modifications proposed by the conservative opposition, the progressives believed the
battle to be lost. But it was finally Pope Paul himself who saved the situation for them
when, behind the Council’s back, he agreed to a direct plea by the
Garrone-Ancel-Haubtmann triumvirate which led to the preparation of a new schema by
Haubtmann. This, the "Project of Ariccia", completed the inversion of the
Christian Faith from one centred upon God, to a religion centred upon Man. This is the
text which was finally adopted and its central theme is formed largely by the things of
this life. Admittedly, there were objections, and we see how the Catholic instinct, which
still prevailed among the greater part of the Council Fathers, became conscious that here
was a naturalism which discounted Divine Grace and an optimism oblivious of sin that
confused the concept of material human progress with that of everlasting
salvation. But, the commentator assures us, this "pessimistic" mood soon passed
as the Haubtmann schema was re-worded in a manner that made its dangerous meaning less
recognisable. The rule of "backing the winner" which prevails in all democratic
assemblies helped to give the text, at its final promulgation, a majority of 2309 In
favour and only 75 Against. The bishops, many of whom had little understanding of the
issues at stake, had been effectively brainwashed, and Haubtmann had conducted his case
with devilish cleverness. Nevertheless, the deciding factor had been the support of Pope
Paul himself, as a result of which the opposing votes had dropped from 251 on 6th December
to a mere 75 on the following day. It is upon him that the ultimate responsibility lies,
in the eyes of God and of the Church.
"THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD OF TODAY": A STUDY
The first part, including the Introduction, is concerned with the exaltation of the
things appertaining to this earth and to Man, in direct contrast to classical moral
theology as we find it expounded in our textbooks, which is centred upon the ultimate aims
of human existence and proceeds from these to the ways and means available for achieving
these. This new approach is exemplified by a small detail: the opening words of the draft
– "The joy and sadness" were later changed to "The joy and hope"
(Gaudium et Spes) which thus formed a sort of subtitle of the final text. The
Church seeks to follow the fashion of viewing everything through rose-coloured spectacles.
The Preamble and Introduction (1 - 10)
"The Christian community feels itself closely linked with the human race and its
history." "Christ’s disciples make their own"… "The joy and
hope, the sorrow and anxiety of the men of our time… and there is nothing human that
does not find an echo in their hearts." The Church’s concern must be with
"the world", meaning "the entire human family, its whole environment; the
world which is the theatre of human history, marked with man’s industry, his triumphs
and disasters." There is, admittedly, a reference to sin but in a passage full of
ambiguity: "It is the world which the faithful believe to be made and sustained by
the Creator’s love. It was enslaved indeed to sin, but Christ crucified and risen
from the dead has freed it, so that according to God’s design it may be transformed
and achieve its fulfilment." The liberation and transformation of the world, of this
world, is thus looked upon as the fulfilment of God’s design… "The Council
witnesses and expounds the faith of the whole People of God. It cannot show how close it
feels to the human family to which it belongs, how it loves and respects it, more
eloquently than by entering on a discussion with that family of these various problems
– bringing the light of the Gospel to bear on them, lending mankind the support of
that strength the Church draws from her Founder under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Men
must be saved, human society restored. Our discourse then will hinge completely on man
whole and entire – body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will. The Council
proclaims man’s high vocation, insists on a certain seed of divinity he carries
within him; for this reason it offers the human race the Church’s sincere
co-operation in establishing that universal brotherhood which answers to such a vocation.
The Church is moved by no earthly ambition; she wants one thing only; led by the Holy
Spirit to carry on the work of Christ, who came into this world to witness to the truth
– to save, not to judge, to serve, not to be served."
Now read these extracts once more, and note how terms with a supernatural connotation
such as "save", "vocation", "led by the Holy Spirit", are
used on a level with those that have a socio-political overtone, like "restoration of
society", "establishing a universal brotherhood". In other words, Vatican
II seems to be telling us that the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit consists in
assuring man’s success on this earth with no reference to religion, except to that
"seed of divinity" which he carries within him. The Church’s task thus
becomes that of being at the service of this "divine humanity".
The Introduction, treating of "Man’s Condition in the World of
Today" reads like a typical progressive sermon, a mixture of naiveté and
hypocrisy. "To carry out this task the Church must continually examine the signs of
the times and interpret them in the light of the Gospel", to "answer the
questions men are always asking… in a way adapted to each generation… Humanity
is passing through a new phase of its history, in which profound and rapid changes are
gradually affecting the whole world… We can in fact speak of a social and cultural
transformation, which reacts also on religious life… The course of history is
accelerating so rapidly that the individual cannot follow it. Human destiny is being
unified and is no longer a matter of several different histories. Humanity is passing from
a static to a dynamic and evolutionary conception of things. Thus does a vast new complex
of problems come to birth, which call for new analyses and syntheses. (No 5, 3rd
paragraph)
From such "development" and "evolution" it is not a far step to
revolution: "A change in outlook and social structures frequently prompts people to
question inherited values; this is especially true of the young – they become
impatient, restlessness turns them into rebels; conscious of their own importance, they
are in a hurry to have a part in social life. Parents and teachers hence find it steadily
more difficult to perform their tasks…" Such reasoning belongs to dialectic
materialism, regarding as it does, the reversal of values as an inevitable development,
leaving human free will out of account, as a "climate of change" which results
in "strains" and "discords". "Such rapid and often uncontrolled
change, as well as the keener awareness of contrasts in the world, sets up or aggravates
tension and strain… Meanwhile the conviction grows that man not only can and should
strengthen his control over created things: it is also his business to establish a more
serviceable political, social and economic order, an order more helpful to individuals and
groups in vindicating and maintaining their dignity. Many sharply demand those things
which they clearly realize they are deprived of by injustice and unequal
distribution… For the first time in history everybody is convinced that the benefits
of culture can and should be extended to everybody…" Our modern revolutionaries
can find here all the justification they require, for is their aim not also that of
attaining a paradise here on earth? "Beneath all these demands there lies a deeper
and wider aspiration: individuals and groups thirst for a fuller, freer life more worthy
of man – a life in which they may bend to their service everything that the world of
today can abundantly supply…"
Finally, having now established that man’s chief aspiration is for happiness on
earth, and that this is indeed justified, there is a semblance of redressing the balance
by telling us that "the Church believes that Christ, who died and rose from the dead
for all of us, gives man through his Spirit light and strength enough to live up to his
high vocation…" and that "she believes that the key, the centre and purpose
of all human history is to be found in her Lord and Master… In the light of Christ,
the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation the Council means to
address itself to everybody, to shed light on the mystery of man and co-operate in finding
solutions to the problems of our time." But what is wrong here, you may ask? Only
this: that it is foolish to believe that man can create a paradise on earth, and
that it is blasphemy to bring in Christ and His Church as the architects of this new Tower
of Babel.
"The Church and Man’s Vocation - The Dignity of the Human Person."
Man as the be-all and end-all is the recurring theme. "Believers and non-believers
are practically agreed that man is the centre on which all things on earth focus –
the apex of nature." And we find that such a statement was almost unanimously
approved by the Council Fathers, including the Holy Father himself, with a mere 75
"just men" remaining who refused to bow the knee before Man the Idol.
The "dignity" and "vocation" they are talking about does, indeed,
belong to man because he "is created in the image of God… established by him as
Lord of creation…" [Note the use of capitals and small letters in the text
from which the quotations are copied – published by CTS in its Vatican II series
– Tr.’s note] But what about sin? The account which GS gives us of this, in
No 13, contains such a contradiction of Catholic doctrine concerning supernatural Justice
and Grace and Original Sin that Vatican III will have to make a special point of
condemning it. But the contradiction is so well disguised that the reader will lap it all
up without tasting the poison. "Made just by God, man nevertheless from the outset of
his history was persuaded by the Evil One to abuse his freedom, set himself up in
opposition to God and seek his fulfilment elsewhere…" But we are left with the
impression that man’s fulfilment, thus hindered by sin, lay in the construction of an
earthly paradise: "… sin diminishes man, holding him back from attaining his
fulfilment." His sin might have been no more, perhaps, than an excess of
self-confidence and independence in the pursuit of this task and in any case the matter
had already been put right: "But the Lord himself came to free and comfort man,
inwardly renewing him, casting out the prince of this world who held him enslaved to
sin."
They go on to take a closer look at this object of their idolatry. First, his body:
"It is wrong therefore to despise our bodies… we are bound to honour
them…" His intelligence: "Man’s intellectual nature is perfected and
must be further perfected by wisdom… more than ever before we need such wisdom to
humanize our new discoveries. The future of the world is in danger unless wiser men are to
be found."
What are we to make of this sentence? "It is by faith, by the gift of the Holy
Spirit, that man contemplates and savours the mystery of the divine purpose." What
Spirit, what mystery, are they referring to? It could almost be that "divine
spirit" which the New Theology treats as an attribute of man himself.
Then we come to man’s conscience: "Deep down man descries the law of
conscience. Conscience is man’s most secret core and sanctuary – there he is
alone with God and hears his voice most intimately. Conscience marvellously makes known
that law which is fulfilled in the love of God and of our fellow-men". This
exaltation of the individual conscience is supported by a quotation from St Paul taken out
of its context (Rom 2.14-16): "As for the Gentiles, though they have no law to guide
them, there are times when they carry out the precepts of the law unbidden, finding in
their own natures a rule to guide them, in default of any other rule; and this shews that
the obligations of the law are written in their hearts; their conscience utters its own
testimony, and when they dispute with one another they find themselves condemning this,
approving that. And there will be a day when God (according to the gospel I preach) will
pass judgement, through Jesus Christ, on the hidden thoughts of men." In the present
context this is bound to encourage religious indifferentism: "Conscience unites
Christians with other men in the search for truth, for solutions of individual and social
problems of morality which shall be based on truth."
Liberty. "This liberty our contemporaries greatly value and aim at
enthusiastically. Clearly they are right; yet often they foster it in a wrong way…
But true liberty is an outstanding sign of the image of God in man. God wished to leave
man ‘in the power of his own inclination’ so that he might spontaneously seek
his Creator and by cleaving to him perfect himself so as to be ready for heaven."
Only by a single sentence, discreetly inserted, does this passage avoid telling us that
man, heathen man, is self-sufficient unto himself. But fortunately someone added:
"Because of the legacy of sin, free human action will not be thus wholly and actively
centred on God except by the help of his grace."
The Idol however has feet of clay, for he is subject to death, which he fears as
representing "total destruction." "It is a sound instinct that makes him
recoil and revolt at the thought of this total destruction, of being snuffed
out…" It is as well that the Church offers us comfort: "While all
imagination fails us in the face of death, the Church appeals to Revelation in telling man
he is created by God, for blessedness, beyond the wretchedness of this life. The Christian
faith teaches that bodily death, from which man would have been delivered had he not
sinned, will yet be conquered because the almighty and merciful Saviour will give back to
man the salvation he lost through his own fault. God called man and still calls him to an
eternal imperishable communion of his whole nature with the divine life. This is the
victory Christ gained in rising from the dead, since by dying himself, he freed man from
death."
Is there not here a deliberate confusion of the immortality of the soul with its
eternal happiness, of the resurrection of the body with man’s ultimate salvation?
Speaking in the name of the Church, the authors of this Conciliar document are promising
man the certainty of a happy future in the hereafter, regardless.
Conscious of his own greatness, modern man is needs tempted to atheism, and we
find here that every effort is made to find excuses for, and show respect towards,
atheists, and even to lay upon Christians the responsibility for having driven others to
atheism. "… atheism not rarely results either from violent protest against evil,
or from giving an absolute character to some human value, so that it takes the place of
God. Contemporary civilization itself can often make the approach to God more difficult,
not directly or of its nature but simply because it is too much involved with the things
of this world… Believers themselves often carry a share of responsibility for this.
Atheism… is not something spontaneous or fundamental, but the result of various
causes among which we must list critical reaction against religion… Believers then
can play no small part in the genesis of atheism…
What they will not on any account admit is that atheism is the outcome of human pride
and self-glorification, for they will not have it that this in itself is displeasing to
God. So they try to explain away atheism as "a concern for man’s autonomy…
pushed to such lengths that it raises difficulties about dependence on God."
Moreover, "we must not overlook that form of present-day atheism which chiefly
expects man’s liberation to follow from his social and economic freedom, and
maintains that religion is an obstacle to this, because by deceptively raising man’s
hopes of a future life it holds him back from bettering his condition here. When advocates
of this doctrine achieve political power they strongly oppose religion and spread atheism
by using, especially in educating the young, those means of exercising pressure which
political power affords." Here they are evidently referring to atheistic Communism
but, as the Council had made up its mind that this should not even be mentioned, let alone
condemned, the authors of the document have to resort to such circumlocution in order to
maintain the silence agreed upon. Admittedly, "the Church, loyal to God and to man,
cannot refrain from sorrowfully and decisively reproving, as she has before reproved,
these doctrines and policies which contradict reason and common experience, and
drag man down from his native excellence." Sorrowfully to reprove a mistake, yes, but
condemn what is sin and crime, no. Gaudium et Spes is too concerned to show that
God approves in essence man’s attempts at self-glorification: "Before all else
the Church knows that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human
heart, since it insists on the dignity of man’s vocation and gives back hope to those
who have begun to despair of their higher destiny. Far from belittling man, her message
generously offers him light, life and liberty, and apart from it nothing can satisfy the
heart of man." And the proof of man’s greatness is, so we are led to believe, to
be found in Christ: "Christ the new Adam, in revealing the mystery of the Father and
his love, makes man fully clear to himself, makes clear his high vocation… He…
is the perfect man who restored to the sons of Adam the divine likeness which the first
sin distorted. Since he took to himself human nature, not extinguishing it, by the same
token that nature is in us raised to a sublime dignity." In other words,
Christ’s divinity makes the rest of us divine! Though this chapter reiterates certain
elements of Christian dogma, the sum total is a theory so far removed from it, that only a
single, judiciously placed word saves it from being flagrant heresy: "Nor does this
hold only for those who believe in Christ: it holds for all men of good will in whose
hearts grace works in an invisible fashion. Christ died for everybody; everybody’s
ultimate vocation is the same, divine vocation; then we must hold that the Holy Spirit
offers everybody the possibility of sharing in some way known to God in this
paschal mystery." (22) But the tenor of the whole is such as to turn this
"possibility" into a certainty: that "all men" will be saved. Or, as
one expert commented: "God is not something exterior to man". In other words,
man is god.
Chapter II - "The Community of Man"
This is supposed to give us the answer to the question posed in the Introduction:
"What does the Church think of man? What seems commendable in building contemporary
society? What is the ultimate meaning of human effort in the world as a whole?"; for
these are the questions to which "an answer is expected" from the Church. The
Council is obsessed with the dignity – little short of divine – of man, or
rather of men, because human beings live in community: "One of the principal features
of the contemporary world is the multiplication of ways in which men depend on each
other… but at a deeper level fraternal dialogue among men is realised in a community
of persons, which demands reverence for each others’ full spiritual dignity."
(23)
The Council’s message, though apparently in line with Christian teaching, is false
and misleading in that it refuses to face up to Original Sin and its consequences as these
relate to the "human family". "God, who is a father to everybody, wants all
men to be one family and behave to each other as brothers… Indeed the Lord
Jesus… hints at some likeness between the union of the divine Persons and the union
of the children of God in truth and charity." Such a parallel allows them to resolve
to their satisfaction – however unrealistically – the great question of the day:
how to reconcile personal freedom with authority, the good of the individual with that of
society: "The social character of man shows that the advancement of human personality
and society go hand in hand. The beginning, subject and end of all social institutions is
and should be the human person who by his nature so completely needs social life."
But how to reconcile this individualism with that "socialisation" which we are
told is today a necessity? "In our time… connections and interdependence
multiply continually and lead to a variety of associations and institutions… This
fact, which is called ‘socialisation’, though it is obviously not without
dangers, has also many advantages in confirming and enhancing personal qualities and
safeguarding personal rights." They solve the difficulty by adopting as their
definition of "the common good", the "sum total of those social conditions
which allow individuals and groups to achieve their proper purposes more fully and
quickly". These "proper purposes", we find, are always directed towards the
greater glory of Man. "Yet at the same time we are growing more aware of the exalted
dignity of the human person, since he excels all other things in importance and his rights
and duties are universal and inviolable." It would however appear that the words
"and duties" were added on at the last minute. "He should therefore have
ready access to everything necessary for living a truly human life." The list of
these human desires, all considered here as basic rights, includes "a just religious
liberty".
And if all does not go according to plan, so goes the corollary, then we can turn to
revolution. The text simply says: "This order of things must be gradually evolved,
founded on truth, built on justice, vitalized by love; a human balance in the matter of
liberty must gradually be found. This will all need fresh thinking and ample social
changes. The Spirit of God who with marvellous providence directs the course of history
and renews the face of the earth broods over this evolution. The ferment of the Gospel
rouses in man’s heart a demand for dignity that cannot be stifled." Among the
various offences "against human dignity" that are then listed, discrimination
"in religious matters" receives conspicuous mention. "The more humanity and
charity leads us to a deeper understanding of their way of thinking the easier it will be
to enter upon a dialogue with them."
"Responsibility and participation" – the two catchphrases of Christian
Democracy – must, we are told, lie at the basis of the world’s socio-cultural
development. "The huge resources available today should be used to broaden men’s
minds so that they will more precisely carry out the demands of conscience towards each
other and towards the groups of which they are members." (31)
In No 30, an attempt is made to restore the balance, with a warning against an excess
of individualism. "It should be sacred to everybody to put social requirements high
among present-day duties, and to observe them. The more the world is united the more
men’s commitments go beyond particular groups and gradually become world-wide. This
cannot come about unless individuals and groups cultivate the moral and social virtues and
spread them abroad, so that with the necessary help of divine grace we shall have
new men and fashioners of a new humanity." The phrase which we have underlined seems,
once again, to be a sort of afterthought, inserted to give this essentially humanistic
waffle a certain Christian flavour. But we are left in the dark just how a society
founded on the supremacy of the individual can lay claim to submission and even sacrifice
for the sake of the "common good".
To find a prototype for this ideal society, the Council turns to the Jewish People of
the Old Testament, which is also the prototype of the Church, and represents the Law to
which Christ Himself had chosen to submit. "This community pattern was perfected and
brought to its completion by the work of Christ. The incarnate Word himself chose to share
in human fellowship…" So far, so good. And let us note in passing, an example
given in this Vatican II document which may already seem strangely out of date:
"He… freely submitted to the law of the land." "Even unto death he
offered himself for all, the redeemer of all… He charged the apostles to preach the
Gospel message to all nations, so that the human race might become God’s family in
which love would be the fulfilment of the law… following his death and resurrection
he sets up among all who receive him in faith and charity a new fraternal communion, in
his own body (?) which is the Church, in which all, members of one another, serve one
another according to the gifts they have received." (32) Yes, here it is perfectly
correct to speak of individuals "in fraternal communion", but this society is,
precisely, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, existing through Divine Grace. But
Vatican II not only makes man himself, whose rights it exalts out of all proportion, the
end and aim of society, but, worse still, it assumes that the example set by Christ and
His Church can quite simply be followed by the rest of the world, on a perfectly natural
plane. Only as a sort of afterthought do we find here and there a reference to the need
for Divine Grace, but this fits ill into the rest of the context: "This solidarity
must continue to grow until the day on which it finds its completion – the day on
which men saved by grace will give perfect glory to God as his family and the family of
Christ their brother."
Chapter III - "The Activity of Man in the World at Large"
This chapter is concerned with the building of man’s Brave New World here on
earth, "To what purpose are the exertions of the individual and society?" The
Church is challenged by the world to give an answer. "Man has always tried to enlarge
the scope of his life by his work and skill. But today, chiefly by means of science and
technology, he has extended and is extending his mastery over almost all nature. The human
family is gradually recognising and establishing itself as a worldwide
community…" How can the Church help him? "Without having ready answers to
every question, she wishes to join the light of Revelation with general experimental
knowledge to illuminate the way on which mankind has lately set out." But she will
take every care not to offend his pride and to applaud all his achievements as good.
"Believers are clear that human enterprises, individual and collective, the enormous
effort by which men in the course of centuries have improved their living conditions, in
itself answers to God’s design." The conquest of the world in itself furthers
the greater glory of God, so it would seem… "Men and women who provide
sustenance for themselves and their families in such away that at the same time they
employ their energies for the benefit of society are justified in thinking that by their
labours they advance the work of the Creator and that their personal industry contributes
to the carrying out of the divine plan in history." From which they draw the
following conclusion: "Christians then, far from supposing that the achievements of
man’s skill and power are opposed to the power of God, as though the rational
creature were a rival of his Creator, are convinced rather that mankind’s triumphs
are signs of God’s greatness and the fruit of his sublime plan. But the greater
men’s power the wider their responsibility, whether as single persons or in
community. So the Christian message does not distract men from building up the world nor
induce them to neglect the welfare of their fellows, but rather obliges them more strictly
to these tasks."
The following paragraph (35) serves perhaps to epitomise this philosophy of
Man-the-creator-of-his-own-World: "Human enterprise, which proceeds from man, is also
directed to man. When man works he not only effects changes in things and society, he
perfects himself. He learns much, he develops his talents, he advances outside and
above himself… This then is the norm of human enterprise, that it should by the
divine plan and purpose harmonise with the real good of the human race, and allow man
individually and in society to fulfil his vocation wholly." But we know by now that
the "vocation" they are speaking of is one that relates to this world.
There follow some remarks concerning the "autonomy of temporal things" which
"have their own laws and values which man must gradually learn, use and
control." A reference to the relation between science and Faith, to "the habit
of mind which has sometimes existed among Christians who failed to appreciate the proper
autonomy of science" suggests that if you put Faith on a plane higher than science
you make yourself guilty of the error of those who condemned Galileo.
We cannot ascribe much importance to Nos 37 and 38, dealing respectively with the
effect of sin upon human enterprise, and with the "transformation of the world"
through the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Redemption. Granted that these paragraphs
give us a summary of the pre-Conciliar Catholic teaching, but they were put in at the last
moment to keep the traditionalists quiet, and they are incompatible with the general tenor
of Gaudium et Spes. They contain, moreover, plenty of double-talk, and do not
really contradict the Utopian humanism which pervades the rest. "The Lord… still
works in the hearts of men by the power of the Holy Spirit, and he does not merely rouse
our desire of the world to come – at the same time he stimulates, purifies,
reinforces those generous aspirations by which the human family bends its energies to make
its own life more humane and to subdue the earth to this purpose." And what do they
mean by saying that "serving humanity here" is "a ministry which provides
material for the kingdom of heaven"?
Soon we are back to Teilhardism pure and simple: "To all he brings liberation,
that, setting aside self-interest and putting all earth’s powers to human purposes,
they may reach out towards a future in which humanity itself will become an offering
acceptable to God." The paragraph (No 38) concludes: "A pledge of this hope,
sustenance for this journey, our Lord left us in that sacrament of faith in which natural
elements cultivated by men are turned into his glorious Body and Blood, the supper of
fraternal communion, the foretaste of the heavenly banquet." Surely the Teilhardian
"Consecration of the world"?
This philosophy is seen to be consistent as soon as the reader realises the deliberate
confusion between the building of a new world here on earth and the coming of the Kingdom
of God, an idea that becomes clearer (though still under a cloak of ambiguity) in the last
paragraph (39): "We know nothing of when the earth and the human race will come to an
end, nor of how the universe will be transformed… expectation of a new world should
not water down but rather stimulate our eagerness to better this one, for here there is
growing that body, the new human family which in some degree foreshadows the world to
come. By all means distinguish temporal progress from the advancement of the kingdom of
God, but insofar as it can contribute to a better ordering of human society, temporal
progress is very much in the interest of the kingdom of God… Here on earth this
kingdom is already present, though in a manner veiled; with the Lord’s coming it will
be consummated."
Chapter IV - "The Church’s Function in the Contemporary World" Or:
The Church in the service of the World!
"Everything we have said of human dignity, of the human community, of the profound
significance of human enterprise, constitutes the basis of the relation between the Church
and the world and of the dialogue between them." In other words, it is the Cult of
Man that forms the link between them. The Church’s function is to be that of serving
the world, of providing the ferment or inspiration which it needs for self-sufficiency.
She will give every encouragement to the "rightly formed conscience of the
laity" which "should set the imprint of the divine law on secular
life."… "The Church does not ignore how much she has received from the
history and development of humanity", but, at the same time, recognises that
"merely by its (sic) presence here with all it has to offer, is an inexhaustible
source of those virtues which the world most needs today." (43)
Having entered then, into this dubious partnership, the Church and the World are to
move forward together towards Christ "the Alpha and the Omega": "The
Church, while she helps the world and receives much from it, has one purpose: that
God’s kingdom may come and the salvation of mankind be accomplished." But are
they referring to "salvation" in the supernatural sense, or do they mean a
"better future" in a temporal sense? There is no means of knowing, and the
horizon remains shrouded in mist: "Our Lord is the end of human history, the point on
which the aspirations of history and civilisation converge; the centre of humanity, the
joy of all hearts, the fulfilment of all longings… We, enlivened and brought together
in his Spirit, pursue our pilgrimage towards the consummation of human history, which
harmonises entirely with the design of his love: ‘to establish all things in Christ
which are in heaven or in earth’ (Eph 1.10)"… Well, maybe, but we must
remember that what is built without Christ will never come back to Christ.
Part II - "Some More Urgent Problems" Or:
The Council as the Dispenser of Happiness
The Council takes for granted the possibility of building a new and better world here
below, in which all mankind shall be united in a great brotherhood, where riches –
both material and spiritual – abound for all, representing a foretaste of the Kingdom
of God. To this end, the document sets out to consider "certain of the more urgent
contemporary problems which worry the human race." The Church’s task becomes,
then, to propose solutions that are acceptable to all and sundry. The "problems"
which have plagued mankind from the beginning and which Divine Grace alone can overcome,
are now looked upon as capable of simple, human solutions, open alike to believers and
non-believers, even to the avowed enemies of God and persecutors of the Church… Let
us call to mind what St Augustine wrote: "Two kinds of love have built two cities:
the love of self which despises God, and the love of God which despises self." Man
can seek but one of these two.
The Council, however, would seek to build a bridge between these poles – that of
self-seeking on the one hand and God on the other , using as its building materials the
whole paraphernalia of idols that fills the modern temple of gods – abstractions such
as "Man", and "The Earth" and "Mankind".
"What the Council puts forward from the treasury of the Church’s doctrine has
the purpose of helping all men, whether they believe in God or do not explicitly (!)
recognise him; of helping them to understand better their vocation as a whole, to make the
world more worthy of the surpassing dignity of man, to aspire to a wider and deeper
brotherhood and under the impulse of love to try generously together to respond to the
urgent demands of our age." (91)
It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But coming down to the "problems" in
more detail – "marriage and the family; culture, social-economic life (sic);
political life; the solidarity of the family of nations and peace" – what have
they to offer that would help overcome the fierce selfishness which only the rarest souls
have conquered even with the help of that Divine Grace offered them by the Church and her
Sacraments? And so, while paying lip service to generosity and self-sacrifice in the
interests of mankind in the abstract, Vatican II in fact capitulates time and again to the
greed and lust of human nature enslaved to the Prince of this World. That men should
demand "bread and circuses" is nothing new: the only thing that is new is
that suddenly the Church should be taking these cries seriously and ascribing them to
"divine design" or "vocation". The Council is countenancing a return
to paganism, but helps to paint it over with a Christian gloss.
But who will bother to listen to the Church when she gives up being concerned with
supernatural truths and talks only about "progress" and "development"?
One of the commentators (Rev. Tucci) admits that "one of the major concerns of the
constitution Gaudium et Spes was to strike a balance between stressing the autonomy
of earthly values and bringing an evangelical inspiration into the building of the earthly
city, as part of its Christian duty."
Chapter I - "The Dignity of Marriage and the Family"
On reading the history of this chapter in US (the collection Unam Sanctam, which
forms much of the source of the information concerning the documents of Vatican II and is
extensively quoted in the French CRC – Tr.’s note) we learn of the change from
the original schema prepared by the pre-Conciliar commission to that which was eventually
promulgated. The originally prepared schema treats sex as something "sacred and
reserved", and directed towards the welfare of the human species, with the individual
looked upon as its responsible guardian. The final version has come to accept sex as a
"value" in its own right, and apart from procreation which is now no longer
considered to be the primary aim of conjugal love, but merely as something subject to
"responsible decision".
But for many, the document, however much "in line with the Council’s
thinking" had not gone nearly far enough and, though momentarily kept in abeyance by
a decision of the Pope, the abyss widened rapidly, most bishops outstripping the Pope and
Council. Today, we are moving fast towards free love which is ousting the idea of the
marriage contract itself as well as its aim being that of procreation. Divorce,
"collective marriages" and abortion have become matters open to discussion. It
is the open-endedness of the present chapter which has made all this possible .
Chapter II - "The Proper Promotion of Cultural Progress"
Here they need have no reservations in promising us all the good things of life.
"It is characteristic of man that he cannot achieve true and full humanity except
through culture, that is by cultivating natural resources and spiritual values."
Whereas in the past this had been reserved to the privileged few, today culture has become
a universal human right: "There should be equal concern to make everybody conscious
of his right to culture and of his duty to acquire it and to help others… It is more
difficult today than in past times to achieve a synthesis of the various branches of
knowledge and the arts. An increased mass and variety of elements go to make up a culture:
it becomes less possible for individuals to absorb and organise them, so that the image of
the ‘universal man’ is steadily vanishing. All the same each of us still has the
duty of keeping in view the human personality as a whole – the person in whom above
all we find those values of intelligence, will, conscience, and brotherhood which are
founded in God the Creator and wonderfully integrated and elevated in Christ." But
the latter words serve merely as a gloss to give some Christian appearance to the
philosophy which glorifies mankind and disregards the fact that it is Christ’s grace
alone that can raise men up. No 58 does admittedly recall the Church’s function in
promoting civilisation but apart from that, "religion" and even "spiritual
experiences" become part of "culture" and part of the development of the
sacred "human personality".
Chapter III - "Social and Economic Life"
Once more, it is Man we are called upon to honour: "Even in social and economic
life the dignity of the human person and the integrity of his vocation, along with the
good of society as a whole, are to be recognised and furthered. Man is the author, the
centre and the end of all social and economic life." That there might arise some
incompatibility between "the good of society as a whole" and the interest of the
individual and his "vocation" had not entered the minds of the Council Fathers
and they seemed to accept the principle that anything which hinders self-interest must
represent social injustice – to be overcome, if need by, by revolution. The great
discovery made by the Church in 1960 seems to be "development". Increasing
wealth and economic progress is accepted as the universal panacea – which will
automatically lead to progress also in the moral and spiritual, even the
"religious" sphere! The Council Fathers seemed to know very little about the
practical economic problems of the world, but agreed to their solution by endowing labour
with a new mystique, encouraging "common ownership", promoting "agrarian
reform", all as part of a messianic Utopia dangled before them by the
"experts".
We read in No 72: "Christians who have an active part in present-day
social-economic development and contend for justice and charity should be assured that
they have much to contribute to prosperity and peace." In a prior version, the text
read: "to the salvation of the world"! This at least was corrected, but why
bother, for elsewhere the text does indeed ascribe a redemptive value to human labour:
"Indeed we hold that by his labour man is associated with the redemptive work of
Christ, who conferred surpassing dignity on labour by working with his own hands at
Nazareth. (67)
Chapter IV - "The Life of the Political Community"
This chapter appeared in 1965 and is significant in having excited so little
controversy. The debate petered out, soon after the visit of Pope Paul to the UN. One
important intervention was by Mgr Baraniak who, in the name of the Polish Hierarchy,
pointed out that the schema did not make a clear distinction between the Catholic and the
Marxist meaning of "the common good" and hence was of no help to the faithful
needing guidance regarding the possible extent of their co-operation with totalitarian and
atheistic governments. But Mgr Hamvas, a pro-Communist Hungarian, greeted the chapter as
favouring "peaceful coexistence" between Church and State in the Communist
countries.
So the chapter was passed unchanged. Not only is it based on the philosophy of
"Christian Democracy" condemned by St Pius X in his Letter on the Sillon,
but, more dangerously, it looks upon Church and State as separate and autonomous in their
own sphere: "The political community and the Church in their respective fields are
independent and autonomous; but under different titles they are both helping the same men
to fulfil their personal and social vocation." The hope is however expressed that
they will "co-operate reasonably"! But both are seen as being in the service,
not of God, but of Man. To acknowledge the autonomy of the state and allow the Church to
abdicate her duties, does this not pave the way to the dictatorship of a
"People’s Christian Democracy"?
Chapter V - "Fostering Peace and Promoting the International Community"
This is the longest chapter and the most woolly-headed. "During these current
years, in which the gravest distress and anxieties persist among men because of war either
raging or threatening, the entire human family has reached a supremely critical moment in
its progress towards maturity. It is gradually being unified and everywhere better
realising its unity (!); but it is unable to carry out the task which weighs on it, of
building a more humane world, unless all are renewed in mind and converted to the cause of
peace. Hence it is that the Gospel message is in harmony with the highest human ideals and
aspirations and shines with a new splendour when it calls the peacemakers blessed
‘for they shall be called sons of God’."
We are led to understand that world peace is just round the corner, there being
sufficient "good will" among men to bring this about – even though
"the human will is prone to waver and is wounded by sin; to maintain peace calls for
the constant mastery of the passions of each of us and the vigilance of lawful
authority." There follows a condemnation of "total war", the only
condemnation to be issued by the Council, as a "crime against God and man".
"Peace must be born of mutual trust between nations, not imposed on them by armed
terror." But – though we are told in passing that "we should earnestly ask
God to give them strength to persevere with and strongly finish this work" – it
is in the human (non-Christian) organisations set up for this purpose that the Council
places its confidence.
A "CHRISTIAN HUMANISM" TO BE DEFINED BY VATICAN III
The future Council will have to cast an anathema upon the "pastoral"
constitution Gaudium et Spes which, by thus promising "joy and hope" in
this world, has been responsible for turning men away from the teaching of Christ and
exposing them to the risk of losing their souls. This applies equally to certain other
pernicious texts, such as the Closing Discourse given by Pope Paul VI on 7th December
1965, his speech to the UN (4th October 1965), and the Encyclical Populorum Progressio.
The error contained in them consists of three parts:
1). That man’s "liberation", or even his "salvation" will come
about through the building of a new world here below. Vatican III must condemn this naturalism
and reaffirm that man’s salvation is a transcendental, "vertical"
concept, belonging to the moral and religious domain, and emphatically not to the
temporal, political sphere.
2). That all men, all human societies are today at work, in a spirit of fraternal
unity, to bring about this Utopian state. This represents a false optimism, which sees
man’s success as coming from his own efforts, his own inherent "good will"
and not as the result of that Grace which comes only from God.
3). That the Gospel acts as a "ferment" in aiding this human task, directed
towards human ends, but identified with God’s design for the world. This is a
humanistic philosophy which looks upon the Church – together with other religious
bodies and ideologies – as providing such a "spiritual animation" for the
progress of the world. The Christian gloss is provided through the identification of this
progress with the glory of God and the rule of Christ the Perfect Man, as the "new
heavens and the new earth" that were foretold.
Vatican III will have to reaffirm, as was taught in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has
always been acknowledged by the Church as part of the Deposit of Faith:
That the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, is not of this world. Man must first
die with Christ and lose his life before he can gain it by rising with Him and enjoying
life everlasting. To attain this we need to have the Faith given us in Baptism and
nourished by the Christian life lived in communion with the Church. As regards the rest,
we need not be concerned, for have we not God’s promise that all this "shall be
added on to it"? But no one can serve two masters and it profits a man nothing if he
gains the whole world but loses his own soul. The World, moreover, remains under the
dominion of the Devil, who is the Prince of this world. That is why it represents a force
opposing the rule of Christ, and has throughout the ages persecuted His followers.
But Vatican III will also have to steer clear of the opposing error of pessimism which,
concerning itself exclusively with the supernatural, rejects as evil all that is human and
natural, for that too is rooted in heresy and is not Catholic. We must indeed insist that,
if you wish to gain life, you must first lose it, and that you must seek first of all the
Kingdom of God and His Justice – not through your own strength but by seeking the aid
of Divine Grace by which alone you can win the battle. But the Church tells us also, and
indeed history has shown again and again that this is the surest way of gaining the rest
that man needs here on earth, for this is "added on to it". Hence we have here a
basis for a truly Christian Humanism: if you put the service of God before all else, He
will not allow Himself to be outdone in generosity.
The Primacy of the Christian Supernatural Order
Vatican III will have no difficulty in finding in the Church’s Tradition, and in
particular in some of the more recent teaching of the Magisterium, a guiding line, a sort
of "golden mean", between the two extremes of naturalism and supernaturalism, of
optimism and pessimism. The true Catholic doctrine refuses to regard these two aspects as
exclusive but seeks rather to place them in their right perspective with relation to the
other. For man’s present state must always be viewed against the background of his
history and origins which are summed up in the Credo – his original state of justice
followed by the Fall of Adam, the Redemption wrought by Christ and the sending of the Holy
Spirit at the founding of the Church, whose purpose is to guide men towards life
everlasting. All this has been taken for granted as part of the "Catholic way of
thinking."
The mistake made by both of the extreme philosophies we have just referred to is to
site the dividing line between the earthly and the supernatural life, between the temporal
and the spiritual, at the point of bodily death. This leads some to despise the present
life totally in an exclusive preoccupation with that which is to come, and can give rise
to extremes of fanaticism such as that of the Donatists in the days of St Augustine, who
threw themselves into the fire or leapt into the void, in order to attain Heaven more
quickly! And at the other extreme there are those who (finding the idea of Heaven too
remote) will concentrate exclusively on seeking happiness here on earth, either for
themselves or for their fellows for whom they think they can do nothing better.
We have to admit that Vatican II made an attempt, and rightly so, to take count both of
this life here on earth, and of that which belongs to Heaven, and to show how the latter
is the continuation, after death, of the former. But its great error was that it came to
look upon Heaven, as it were, as a form of earthly life which had been rendered more
perfect. It thereby devalued the supernatural and came to look upon it as a state of
remarkable perfection achieved by human nature itself. This is in complete contrast to
what Christ taught while He was on earth, when he sought to show the Jews that their
"joys and hopes" which they had hitherto believed to refer to physical, material
life, were concerned with a higher, spiritual plane.
Vatican III will have to condemn the error while retaining a sound concern with both
great phases of our existence – our life on earth and that which is everlasting. But
how are these to be harmonised in a way which will show men the right importance to
ascribe to each? The answer is that the dividing line between the temporal and the
spiritual, the great watershed which every individual must cross – his
"Passover" in biblical terms – should not be identified with his bodily
death which is an inevitable but "accidental" event, but rather with that death
and resurrection which he undergoes in Christ, which changes Jew or Pagan into Christian,
which turns him away from a course heading towards lasting death to one culminating in
eternal life, in a state of perfection.
Here we have, then, the philosophical basis of a "Christian Humanism": before
his conversion, his Baptism, his "Passover", the human individual is enslaved to
his flesh, to his own soul existing in a state of darkness, and hence to the
"world" and its vanities and disorders. In other words, he is at the mercy of
sin and the demon, in a state of living death. What applies to man as an individual
applies also when he is considered collectively – that is, to human societies taken
as a whole. A nation or social group which has not yet come to know Christ or which has
rejected him, which has apostatised, is in a similar state, at the mercy, not merely of
the impulses of nature but of the forces of evil. It is therefore inevitable that a
humanism which is atheistic should be a form of enslavement, tending towards the
destruction of mankind – and it is this which rules in the world today.
After his conversion, man is freed from this state of enslavement and enters already in
this life into that state of spirituality which is continued in Heaven. Divine Grace
endows him already with that joy which is a foretaste of the everlasting happiness of
Heaven and with that peace which shows him the way to moral righteousness and even
sanctity. Earthly life in all its various aspects and conditions – marriage and the
family, economic and political life – forms the setting for this transfiguration and
indeed becomes itself elevated on to a higher, spiritual, plane. Nature itself attains a
state more close on perfection through being incorporated into the supernatural life.
In a similar manner, when we look upon man collectively – upon society, from its
smallest unit, the family, right up to mankind as a whole – we see how this remains
divided and in the grip of its innate corruption, its acts directed towards its own
physical destruction and the everlasting damnation of its members, unless and until it
becomes converted and attains Divine Grace through Baptism. It is these units of society
– family, school, industry, the nation as a whole – which, having become
Christian, constitute Christendom. The order that reigns in them is from Christ,
His Truth and His sacramental Grace, and this assures to such societies, within the limits
of their imperfections, a certain quality of life and coherence.
What we have said above will form the basis of the social teaching of Vatican III:
that as for individuals, so also for society as a whole, there can be no true life except
within that supernatural order which results from the Grace of Christ. For that is the
foundation upon which both social and individual life must be built in order that
"the rest may be added onto it", the needs of man and society satisfied in a
manner which only God can grant. For "without Me you can do nothing." And
"unless the Lord build the house, in vain do they labour who build it."
The Christian Temporal Order
When it comes to consider the practical means of achieving this social ideal, the new
Council will have to begin by showing, against the prevalent error of political
Utopianism that, for a society to be a happy one, (in Vatican II terminology, to
attain "liberation" or "salvation"!) its social and political
principles must be founded upon Christian moral law.
The error which is so widespread today has its origin in atheism, for it disregards the
need for the individual to make the moral effort and relegates such effort to
social structures in the abstract. Injustice becomes an objective evil which poses a
"problem" to be solved by political means. Though the individual is indeed
called upon to take part in this effort to attain "peace and justice", his
effort is to be a collective one, through his vote, his influence upon public opinion,
etc., and not through his individual conversion. Need we add that such a system must needs
be doomed to perpetual failure, for men are led by it to expect prosperity, peace and
justice to be dispensed automatically from above, from government or world government,
without any need for their own individual sacrifice.
The Church, on the other hand, preaches the Kingdom of God, while telling men to expect
nothing from this world. Thus she leads them to that moral conversion which causes them
unselfishly to serve their fellow men. The result is that society as a whole benefits.
Against this background, peace, justice and friendship can indeed spread, bringing with
them all those social, even purely material, benefits which must not be man’s prime
aim. Following the example of the Saints, those who seek to serve God first of all will
also do their best for their brethren, thus bettering social conditions as a whole,
through the sum total of myriads of individual acts of unselfishness. Moreover, through
the cultivation of the Christian supernatural virtues, men will establish laws and
institutions which, though on a larger scale, still retain the inspiration of Christian
Faith and Morals. We have thus the "social teaching" of the Church, but history
shows that in the days when there were truly Christian societies, inspired by men truly
detached from the world and seeking only for sanctity, society too progressed to a
remarkable degree. For in a Christian civilisation the law is the Law of God and men are
given the Grace to obey it by the Church, without need of "pill and bomb".
Pastoral Questions of Today
Vatican III will have to make a fresh start on the practical questions to which Vatican
II had claimed to give an answer. It will have to give infallible answers to the great
questions to which men can expect an answer only from God. This is not the place to
discuss these problems in detail, but we shall go back to them later.
But it will have to begin – as have done all the past Councils with the exception
of the last, by condemning the moral disorders which are responsible for the decay of our
civilisation. Unless this is done, the process will continue to accelerate. Modern man is
proud and selfish, he prefers Utopian dreams to personal effort. He has endowed physical
love with a halo in order to satisfy his lust and he has glorified revolution in order to
satisfy his dreams of freedom. Vatican III will therefore have to condemn both the
Hedonism which is destroying Western society and the Marxism that is equally the enemy of
all just order and Christian civilisation. If the Church is to become once again the
Mother and Teacher of mankind, she will no doubt have to endure a thousand persecutions,
but she will find again the love of her Spouse and of her children. |