Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
 July 16, 2012

Rebels in Rerun Season

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X, trapped in their false ecclesiology that has done as much harm to Catholics concerning a true understanding of the nature of papal infallibility and the ordinary infallibility of Holy Mother Church, continue in a "holding" pattern as they seek--maybe, possibly, perhaps, could be--to engage in the madness of find some "modus vivendi" mode of living) with the big, big, big conciliar tent that includes such disparate characters as Opus Dei, the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, the Legionaries of Christ, Focolare, Cursillo, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, the various Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans who have switched their deck chairs on the SS. One World Ecumenical Church (Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walshingham in England Wales, the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter in the United States of America, and the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia) and, among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way.

Also onboard the decks of the SS One World Ecumenical Church are the various communities established to provide access to the modernized and ever-modernizing version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is called by the ship's revolutionary officers, men who speak in euphemisms wrapped in slogans, as the "extraordinary form of the 'one' Roman Rite."

Among those "Ecclesia Dei" communities are, of course, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, the Clear Creek (Oklahoma) Benedictines, Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel (Wyoming), Society of Saint John Cantius (which also stages the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at Saint John Cantius Church in Chicago, Illinois), Canons Regular of the Mother of God (France), Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer (France), various Benedictine communities in France (Fontgambault, Le Barroux, Randol), Mariwald (Germany) and, among others, the Servants of Jesus and Mary (Germany). Common to each of these groups, apart from their official status by the rebels who run the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is absolute silence on the long list of offenses against God and souls listed in What Lines Are You Reading Between, Bishop Fellay?. It will be no different for a "reconciled" Society of Saint Pius if the soap opera involving their "discussions" with conciliar authorities actually results in some kind of agreement, which might be, realistically speaking, something that is not going to occur in the short term, well, that's as it appears today. Check back tomorrow for this never-ending soap opera. Better yet, don't check back as it's just an exercise in utter madness.

As I have noted many times in the past three months now, it continues to boggle my mind that the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have refused to take seriously the following and most direct statements that their false "pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has made in the past five years concerning his intentions to "pacify the spirits" of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X as has been done with some of the other "reconciled" communities that operate under the jurisdiction of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei. Here is a simple review of those statements in case Bishop Fellay and his apologist chums out in cyberspace have not logged onto this site in a while:


Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

There are plenty of websites devoted to following this soap opera pretty regularly. This website will not be adding any additional "literature" on the matter unless there is an event to warrant a brief word or two, although it should be noted that Bishop Fellay has indeed given his comments to the official website of the Society of Saint Pius X, DICI, in which one can, to borrow a phrase he used recently to claim that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict was moving what he thinks is the Catholic Church in the direction of Tradition, read between the lines to conclude that, yes, it's "no deal," at least for now:

DICI : How did the General Chapter go? How was the mood of the meeting?

Bishop Fellay : It took place in a rather hot atmosphere, since July is a particularly hot month in the Valais! But in a very busy schedule, where the members of the Chapter were able to freely exchange ideas, as it befits such a working meeting.

DICI : Were you able to discuss the relations with Rome? Were there any forbidden questions? The dissensions manifested within the SSPX these last moths, have they calm down?

Bishop Fellay : That makes for quite a few questions! Regarding Rome, we went to the very heart of the issues, and all the capitularies were able to study the complete file Nothing was left aside and there were no taboos among us. It was my duty to exhibit with detail all the documentation exchanged with the Vatican, something which was rendered difficult by the obnoxious climate of recent months. This made it possible for us to conduct direct discussions which have cleared out the doubts and dissipated any misunderstandings, resulting in peace and unity of hearts, which of course is something to rejoice about.

DICI : How do you foresee the relations with Rome after this Chapter?

Bishop Fellay : All ambiguity has now been resolved among us. Very soon we will convey to Rome the position of the Chapter, which has been the occasion to specify our road map insisting upon the conservation of our identity, the only efficacious means to help the Church to restore Christendom. As I told you recently, “if we want to make fruitful the treasure of Tradition for the benefit of souls, we must both speak and act” (cf. interview of 8 June 2012, DICI #256). We cannot keep silent when facing the rampant loss of faith, the staggering fall of the number of vocations, and the decrease of religious practice. We cannot refrain from speaking when confronted with the “silent apostasy” and its causes. Doctrinal mutism is not the answer to this “silent apostasy” which even John Paul II denounced already in 2003.

Our approach is inspired not only by the doctrinal firmness of Archbishop Lefebvre but also by his pastoral charity. The Church has always considered that the best testimony to the truth is to be found in the early Christians’ unity built in prayer and charity. They had “but one heart and one soul,” as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 4, 32). Such a common ideal is also our watchword, Cor Unum being the name of the internal bulletin of the SSPX. Hence we distance ourselves resolutely from all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive wedge turning Society members against each other. Such a spirit does not come from God.

DICI : What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay : It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).

For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?

Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!

This was well explained by Archbishop Lefebvre more than thirty years ago: he did not wish to hand down anything else but what he himself had received from the Church of two millennia. This is what we want also, following his lead, so that we may effectively help “to restore all things in Christ.” It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, hasten the day of its authentic restoration! (Bishop Felly Spins a Tale after Having His Head Handed to Him.)

Talk about reruns. This is incredible hubris

Bishop Fellay has been entirely mute in the past nearly seven years about the outrages listed in What Lines Are You Reading Between, Bishop Fellay?, claiming that now, all of a sudden, is not the time for "doctrinal mutism" when one of his own supporters and appointees within the Society, parroting Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, misrepresented the life and work of Saint Basil the Great by calling for an "economy of silence" so as to deal in "prudence" with those who are in error. Here is a summary of the article:


The example of St. Basil of Caesarea shows that, even in a doctrinal crisis of the Church, the steadfast profession and defense of the Faith is not incompatible with a prudential attitude, seeking an accommodation with those who are in error - a practical, realistic approach, aimed at bringing them back to orthodoxy, while preserving the souls entrusted to us. (In the face of heresy: St. Basil's "economy of silence".)

When is it time for an "economy of silence" in the Society of Saint Pius X?

When Bishop Bernard Fellay says so.

When it is not time for "doctrinal mutism" in the Society of Saint Pius X?

When Bishop Bernard Fellay says so.

This is rank utilitarianism and positivism. It is an insult to those who have eyes to read and a functioning brain to reason.

It's rerun season not only in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is rerun season in Society of Saint Pius X. Ah, but it has ever been this way. Please see Bishop Donald Sanborn's The Mountains of Gelboe for an excellent recitation of the Society of Saint Pius X's long record of inconsistencies and contradictions that were reflective of whatever view Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had at a given time concerning the Society's relationship with conciliar authorities.

Nothing new here at all. Nothing at all.

Oh, for the record, however, this is how Saint Basil the Great really dealt with error and those steeped in it:


Basil's lifetime was cast in one of those periods exceptionally disastrous to the Church, when shipwrecks of faith are common, because darkness prevails to such an extent  as to cast its shades over the children of light; a period, in fact, when, as St. Jerome expresses it, 'the astonished world waked up, to find itself Arian.' Bishops were faltering in essentials of true belief and in questions of loyalty to the successor of Peter; so that the bewildered flock scarce knew whose voice to follow; for many of their pastors, some through perfidy and some through weakness, had subscribed at Rimini to the condemnation of the faith of Nicea. Basil himself was assuredly not one of those 'blind watchmen: dumb dogs not able to bark.' When a simple lector, he had not hesitated to sound the horn of alarm, by openly separating himself from his bishop, who had been caught in the meshes of the Arians; and now himself a bishop, he boldly showed that he was not such indeed. For when entreated for peace' sake to make some compromise with the Arians, vain was every supplication, every menace of confiscation, exile, or death. He used no measured terms in treating with the prefect Modestus, the tool of Valens; and when this vaunting official complained that none had ever dared to address him with such liberty, Basil intrepidly replied: 'Perhaps thou never yet hadst to deal with a bishop!' (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year.)

Peace is just what Basil desired as much as anybody; but the peace for which he would give his life could be only that true peace left to the Church by our Lord. What he so vigorously exacted on the grounds of faith proceeded solely from his very love of peace. And therefore, as he himself tells us, he absolutely refused to enter into communion with those narrow-minded men who dread nothing so much as a clear, precise expression of dogma; in his eyes their captious formulas and ungraspable shiftings were but the action of hypocrites, in whose company he would scorn to approach God's altar. As to those miserably misled, 'Let the faith of our fathers be proposed to them with all tenderness and charity; if they will assent thereunto, let us receive them into our midst; in other cases, let us dwell with ourselves alone, regardless of numbers; and let us keep aloof from equivocating souls, who are not possessed of that simplicity without guile, indispensably required in the early days of the Gospel from all who would approach to the the faith. The believers, so it is written, had but one heart and one soul. Let those, therefore, who would reproach us for not desiring pacification, mark well who are the real authors of the disturbance and so not point the question of reconciliation on our side any more.' (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year.)

That's the real Saint Basil the Great, not the one invented by Father Iscara of Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, for purposes of justifying the Society of Saint Pius X's party line two and one-half months ago now.

The whole business of "doctrinal discussions" has been utter madness and absurdity from the beginning, something that I have, however feebly and poorly, attempted to point out since the "excommunications" were "lifted" on January 21, 2009 (see, for example, Nothing to Negotiate, January 25, 2009).

Enough of insanity is enough, well, at least for a few days.

Rerun Three: Reciting the "Fruit" of the "Second" Vatican Council Over and Over Again

The aging conciliar revolutionaries and their younger proteges, some of whom are not so "young" any more as their qualify for "senior citizens'" (fifty-five or sixty and older) discounts at various restaurants, have not even begun to open their three year-long celebration of apostasy which imprisons them in various delusions about the great "fruit" that is said to have been borne by the "Second" Vatican Council and its "renewal of the liturgy" and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

Here is a loose translation, done by Google Translate (yes, I know that we're all "owned" by Google and other such services), of a "homily" that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave at a church in Frascati, Italy, yesterday, the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Henry the Emperor:




Even here, in the diocesan community of Frascati, the Lord sows bountifully his gifts, he calls to follow and to extend its mission in today. Even here there is need for a new evangelization, which is why I propose you to live intensely the ' Year of Faith , which will begin in October, 50 years since the Second Vatican Council. The Documents of the Council contain an enormous wealth for the training of new generations of Christians, for the formation of our consciences. So read it, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and so rediscover the beauty of being Christians, of being Church to enjoy the great "we" that Jesus has formed around him, to evangelize the world: the "we" of the Church, never closed, but always open and outstretched to the proclamation of the Gospel. (Original Italian text at: Pastoral Visit at Frascati.)

Read the conciliar Catechism of the Catholic Church, the document that William "Cardinal" Levada, the now retired prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in 2009 was going to serve as the basis of the "doctrinal discussions" with representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X? I used to try to make the proverbial silk purse out of that cow's ear in my "conservative" days after its publication, ignoring those things that I found to be problematic. Please see the appendix below for an analysis of that wretched piece of apostasy that appeared on a Society of Saint Pius X website.

"Being Church"? (A similar translation is on another website that is rooting for the "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with conciliar authorities.) "Being Church"? What conciliarspeak! What a complete misrepresentation of the meaning of being a member of the true Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

This reminds me of what a presbyter from Nigeria said in October of 2001 when I took my horrified wife, who had converted to the Faith through the Immemorial Mass of Tradition just two years before, to the noontime staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at the Church of Saint Brigid in Westbury, New York, where they had over three hundred "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" in 1994 when I inquired about the matter for an article I was writing on "liturgical abuses" for The Wanderer after an editor of a magazine called Eucharistic Minister challenged my assertion in a previous article that some conciliar parishes had several hundred "eucharistic ministers," a place that has long been "lavender friendly," shall we say, in the name of "inclusivity." The presbyter began the stage show with the following greeting from the Cranmer Table: "Good Afternoon, church," something I compared in G.I.R.M. Warfare to the fictional Edward L. Norton's bowing to a golf ball after his buddy Ralph Kramden had asked what the term "address the ball" meant, "Hello, ball." Yes, "Good afternoon, church."

This is insanity.

Not to be outdone, the retired "theological" of the "papal" household, Georges "Cardinal" Cottier, O.P., said the following recently in praise of the "Second" Vatican Council:



Cardinal Georges Cottier, who served as theologian of the pontifical household from 1989 to 2005, assessed the legacy of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) as the fiftieth anniversary of its opening approaches.

The prelate, now 90, served as a peritus at the Council.

“I would say that much has been done,” he said in an interview. “For example, the structure of episcopal conferences; the way some of them function now; or the dicasteries of the Church which didn’t exist before, Christian union, dialogue with non-believers--all these are new things which often function well. Also those areas that regard justice and peace--these things didn’t exist before the Council, as well as concern for dialogue with the world, the idea itself of the New Evangelization was born with the Council. Also the Synod of Bishops and the doctrine itself of the last Popes, which have as their no. 1 program the implementation of the Council.”

Asked why “there are still people who resist,” the Swiss Dominican replied:


I believe that, basically, there must be an act of faith in the Church. The great crisis that appeared after the Council in many Catholics, was that they did not regard the Church as a mystery of faith, as body of Christ, people of God, bride of Christ – all these beautiful images -- but as a sociological event. So, why does this happen? Because some are mistaken in the idea. Hence it is that the first need consists in having eyes of faith on the Church, as well as a serious study of the Council, because I don’t know if the documents have been sufficiently studied to be accepted.

Having said this, it’s true that in my generation, more than in young generations, there are persons with nostalgia for what they have lived in the past. However, in regard to this, one must be able to give some things up. (Georges Cottier assesses legacy of Vatican II.)

"One must be able to give some things up." What things? Oh, nothing other than the Catholic Faith.

Right? "Discuss" "differences" with men such a this, Bishop Fellay? Why? These men are not Catholic and they belong to a false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church (see Bookended From Birth to Birth).

The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger said in 2002, after the release of one of his book length interviews with German journalist Peter Seewald, God and the World, that the "Second" Vatican Council had produced a "qualitative renewal" of what he thinks is the Catholic Church:




Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has a blunt message for Catholics today. "We cannot calmly accept the rest of humanity falling back again into paganism," says the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in "God and the World," the new book-interview he granted German journalist Peter Seewald. St. Paul´s in Italy recently published the book. Following are some of the book´s questions and answers that were highlighted by the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

· Q: Many years ago, you spoke in prophetic terms about the Church of the future. At the time you said, "it will be reduced in its dimensions, it will be necessary to start again. However, from this test a Church would emerge that will have been strengthened by the process of simplification it experienced, by its renewed capacity to look within itself." What are the prospects that await us in Europe?

· Cardinal Ratzinger:  To begin with, the Church "will be numerically reduced." When I made this affirmation, I was overwhelmed with reproaches of pessimism.

And today, when all prohibitions seem obsolete, among them those that refer to what has been called pessimism and which, often, is nothing other than healthy realism, increasingly more [people] admit the decrease in the percentage of baptized Christians in today´s Europe: in a city like Magdeburg, Christians are only 8% of the total population, including all Christian denominations. Statistical data shows irrefutable tendencies. In this connection, in certain cultural areas, there is a reduction in the possibility of identification between people and Church. We must take note, with simplicity and realism. The mass Church may be something lovely, but it is not necessarily the Church´s only way of being. The Church of the first three centuries was small, without being, by this fact, a sectarian community. On the contrary, it was not closed in on itself, but felt a great responsibility in regard to the poor, the sick-in regard to all. There was room in its heart for all those nourished by a monotheist faith, in search of a promise. This awareness of not being a closed club, but of being open to the totality of the community has always been a constant component of the Church. The process of numerical reduction, which we are experiencing today, will also have to be addressed precisely by exploring new ways of openness to the outside, of new ways of participation by those who are outside the community of believers. I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas midnight Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation.

·Q: However, can the Church really renounce its aspiration to be a Church of the majority?

· Cardinal Ratzinger: We must take note of the decrease in our lines but, likewise, we must continue to be an open Church. The Church cannot be a closed, self-sufficient group.

Above all, we should be missionaries, in the sense of proposing again to society those values that are the foundation of the constitutive form that society has given itself, and which are at the base of the possibility to build a really human social community. The Church will continue to propose the great universal human values. Because, if law no longer has common moral foundations, it collapses insofar as it is law. From this point of view, the Church has a universal responsibility. As the Pope says, missionary responsibility means, precisely, to really attempt a new evangelization. We cannot calmly accept the rest of humanity falling back again into paganism. We must find the way to take the Gospel, also, to nonbelievers. The Church must tap all her creativity so that the living force of the Gospel will not be extinguished.

· Q: What changes will the Church undergo?

· Cardinal Ratzinger: I think we will have to be very cautious when it comes to the risk of forecasts, because historical development has always produced many surprises. Futurology often crashes.

For example, no one risked forecasting the fall of the Communist regimes. World society will change profoundly, but we are still not in a position to predict what the numerical decrease of the Western world will imply, which is still dominant, what Europe´s new face will be like, given the migratory currents, what civilization, and what social forms will be imposed. What is clear, in any event, is the different composition of the potential on which the Western Church will be sustained. What is most important, in my opinion, is to look at the "essence," to use an expression of Romano Guardini. It is necessary to avoid elaborating fantastic pre-constructions of something that could manifest itself very differently and that we cannot prefabricate in the meanderings of our brain, but to concentrate on the essential, which later might find new ways of incarnating itself. A process of simplification is important, which will enable us to distinguish between what is the master beam of our doctrine, of our faith, what is of perennial value in it. It is important to propose again the great underlying constants in their fundamental components, the questions on God, salvation, hope, life, especially what has a basic ethical value. (Joseph Ratzinger on the Future of Christianity.)

News flash to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: Holy Mother Church was in the catacombs in the first three centuries because she was being persecuted fiercely. Even with those persecutions, however, she grew and grew and grew. It is the fondest desire of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that every person on the face of this earth be a member of the Catholic Church and served by faithful, zealous priests who are willing to die for the Faith while spending themselves to the point of utter exhaustion for the sake of the flocks entrusted to their pastoral care unto eternity. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is small because it is a church of apostasy, blasphemy and sacrilege.

Empty pews.

Closed churches.

Closed schools.

Closed convents.

Closed hospitals.

Awash in moral corruption and degradation.

Characterized by indecent displays in once Catholic churches as to make even the Arians and Albigenses and Donatists and Jansenists, heretics who never did such things in their liturgies, blush with shame.

Qualitative renewal?

As I have related on other occasions, one young student, who just happened to write to me a few months ago after coming upon this site, was wide-eyed as I explained in a political science class at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall of 1995 that all of the problems of the world are caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins and that the only way to ameliorate those problems was to cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross. He couldn't contain himself. He blurted out, "Is this what the Faith is about? Why hasn't anyone taught this to me before." "Because Anthony," I explained to him, "you have been the victim of Catholic educational fraud." The young man had been through thirteen years, Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade, of allegedly "Catholic" education."

Yes, yes, yes. Qualitative renewal.

Yes, yes, yes.

I ran into another of those victims of Catholic educational fraud yesterday on February 17, 2010, Ash Wednesday, while checking out at a Stop and Shop supermarket in Newtown, Connecticut. The young man, who was named Gabriel (!), looked at the ashes on my forehead that had been made into a very distinctive Sign of the Cross earlier that day at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut. Gabriel said to me, "Is it Ash Sunday already?"

Admitting that it is the practice even in many traditional Catholic chapels for ashes to be distributed on the First Sunday in Lent to those who were unable to receive this sacramental on Ash Wednesday, young Gabriel had no clue that the Lenten season was even upon us that day, telling me, "Yeah, I think I went to Ash Wednesday once." That's how much of an impression the counterfeit expression of the Faith that is conciliarism had upon his immortal soul. I explained to him that Lent is the season forty days of prayer, fasting, penance, and almsgiving to unite us more fully with the Passion and Death of Our Lord so that we can enter into a glorious celebration of the Easter season after having attempted to make at least some reparation of our sins by offering our Lenten penances to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Gabriel just looked at me, saying, "You mean Lent ends around Easter?" He was clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Recognizing once again the cultural forces that were eclipsing and eroding the sensus Catholicus of Catholics back in the 1950s, Catholics fifty years did understand, at least minimally, what Ash Wednesday represented as they endeavored to make a good, penitential Lent. Even older Catholics lost much of their sensus Catholicus during Lent as the ethos of concilairism took hold.

To wit, one older woman came up to a conciliar presbyter in the 1980s and look at what she thought was Our Lord in Holy Communion, blurting out, "I don't want that. I want ashes." The presbyter replied, "Yes, ma'am, instead of the Bread of Life you want the mark of death. Do you have any other bright ideas?" And The Scooter, Phil Rizzuto, the famed shortstop and longtime broadcaster of evil's own team, the New York Yankees (and the very first mystery guest on What's My Line? on its premier telecast on Sunday, February 2, 1950), was munching on a ham sandwich when he got the telephone call on a Friday in Lent, February 25, 1994, from Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra that he, Rizzuto, had been elected by the members of the veterans committee into the baseball Hall of Fame. The Scooter,who died on August 13, 2007, forgot that there is abstinence from meat on Fridays in Lent even in the United States of America in the conciliar structures. How did he forget? Because such abstinence had become merely "optional" in this country on most Fridays of the year. Conciliarism has indeed destroyed the sensus Catholicus.

Yes, yes, yes.

Qualitative renewal.

It's always rerun season for the rebels who run the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Rerun Four: Discipline Is For Believing Catholics Only

Remember the case of Father Marcel Guarnizo, the presbyter from the Archdiocese of Moscow, Russia, who denied what purports to be Holy Communion to an admitted practitioner of unnatural vice at a Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo "Mass of Christian Burial" on February 25, 2012, at Saint John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is within the confines of the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia, would never have happened in the days before the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism?

Well, he is no longer with the Archdiocese of Washington:


.- The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. says it no longer employs a priest who became known for denying Holy Communion to a partnered lesbian woman.

“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow, Russia, who was given a temporary assignment at St. John Neumann parish,” archdiocesan communications director Chieko Noguchi Scheve said in a statement provided to CNA on July 10.

“That assignment period has ended and Father Guarnizo is no longer in ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington,” Scheve wrote.

Fr. Guarnizo declined to comment on the announcement from the archdiocese.

In February 2012, the priest drew national attention for withholding the Eucharist from Barbara Johnson at her mother's funeral. Fr. Guarnizo made the decision after Johnson introduced him to her lesbian partner before Mass.

Johnson remained outraged after the incident, threatening to have Fr. Guarnizo “removed from parish life.” The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. apologized for his “lack of pastoral sensitivity” and said it was against policy for a priest to “publicly reprimand” a person approaching the sacrament.

In March, Fr. Guarnizo was removed from ministry in the archdiocese. The announcement of did not refer to Johnson, but cited “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” Fr. Guarnizo defended his action, and said his removal from ministry was related to the funeral incident.

In a  paper published online, Johnson had at one point identified herself as “a lesbian and a Buddhist.” However, she later told MSNBC that she is “a Catholic” who is “deeply influenced by eastern religion philosophy.” Her relationship with the Church, she said, is “complex.” (Presbyter who denied communion to lesbian no longer with DC Archdiocese.)

Goodbye, Father Guarnizo.

Who is welcome in the Archdiocese of Washington?

Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

United States Representative Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (D-California).

United States Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).

United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York).

United States Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey).

United States Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).

United States Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois).

United States Senator Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa).

United States Senator Richard Reed (D-Rhode Island).

United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts).

Mind you, that's just for starters as there are a veritable potpourri of pro-aborts serving in the United States House of Representatives and in the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet of the reigning caesar who remain perfectly able to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the conciliar liturgical service.

Donald "Cardinal" Wuerl, ever so friendly to the lavender or rainbow brigade, sees to it that "Father" Marcel Guarnizo is sent packing while he ignores the plain words of Pope Pius XI below by treating pro-abortion, pro-perversity public officials with great respect and dignity:



Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)


This means nothing to Donald Wuerl. Why? Because Catholicism means nothing to him. That is why.

As I have written before, the controversy engendered by "Father" Marcel Guarnizo's refusal of what purports to be Holy Communion to a woman who had forewarned him of her sinful, perverse ways that she had no intention of amending would never have occurred before the dawning of the age of conciliarism.



The answer is quite simple: Holy Communion is not distributed at Requiem Masses offered according to the unreformed rubrics found in the Missal of Pope Saint Pius V. Thus, you see, there would have been no need for "Father" Marco Guarnizo to have acted as he did, and there would have been no need for all manner of people to come to his defense after his superiors apologized to the woman and have now placed him on "administrative leave" pending an investigation, which is supposedly "intimidating" staff members (which raises the question as to whether "Father" Guarnizo" has been "intimidating" staff members with Catholicism, with Catholic truths that are not part of the "patrimony" of conciliarism). This is all the result of the needless conflict engendered by the sacrileges that have been instituted by the counterfeit church of conciliarism that all but a handful of mostly warring Catholics believe is the Catholic Church.

There would have been no confrontation at the Communion rail or an "investigation" by chancery officials in the Catholic Church as there would have been no distribution of Holy Communion.

Alas, the conciliar revolutionaries have engendered conflicts and battles that never took place before in the history of the Catholic Church.

"Conservatives" (and I was one of them for a long time) have fought pitched battles over such matters as standing of the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion and altar girls and "Communion in the hand" and "Communion under both kinds" and out-and-out pro-aborts or others engaged in publicly scandalous activities being permitted to serve as "lectors" or as "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist."

As has been noted before on this website, however, most of the the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" being in the sanctuary of their local parish churches during what purports to be Holy Mass to serve as lectors or "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist."

Most of the the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that the presbyter faces them during the Novus Ordo service.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they can dress casually and even immodestly for the Novus Ordo service, that the women among them need not wear their chapel veils as a humble sign of submission to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that they can serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the presbyter.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that the prayers of the Novus Ordo service no longer remind them of a God Who judges their souls and that they could lose their souls for all eternity in Hell.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion in their non-consecrated hands.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion under both kinds.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion standing.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the concept of a God Who can teach one thing consistently for nearly two millennia and then "relax" his rules to give them a "break."

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they don't have to evangelize their Protestant and Jewish and Mohammedan friends and neighbors.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that the conciliar "pontiffs" and their "bishops" esteem the symbols of false religions and engage regularly in inter-religious "prayer" services.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that their parishes hold inter-faith "prayer services" and Passover "seders," events that disgust Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the "Luminous Mysteries" and altered Stations of the Cross.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" that fact that they can participate actively in the rot of popular culture without being warned from the pulpit that they are risking the salvation of their immortal souls by exposing themselves to the near occasions of sin.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that the art and architecture of many church buildings in conciliar captivity are reflective of "modern" tastes and "modern" theology.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that many of their "bishops" and "presbyters" are "tolerant" and "charitable" towards those who are actively and unrepentantly steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that "religious education" in the conciliar structures stresses the "love" of God rather than the rote memorization of articles contained in the Baltimore Catechism.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they can applaud vigorously and laugh uproariously in the context of the Novus Ordo service.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the fact that they have more "freedom," at least in a de facto sense, to "question" the truths of the Faith.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" Scripture "study" programs that explain away the miracles, if not the Sacred Divinity, of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the Novus Ordo "Rite of Christian Burial" with its white vestments and the words of reassurance that their loved ones who never darkened a church after childhood are in Heaven and were "model" Christians during life.

Most of the laity in the conciliar structures have grown to "like" the Novus Ordo service in the vernacular as belief in the Real Presence has waned.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their clown liturgies and their "rock" liturgies and their "folk" liturgies and their liturgical dances.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their "World Youth Days" with all of their abominations and sacrileges.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" the incorporation of pagan rituals into what passes for the "Mass" and what are called "para-liturgies."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" "face-to-face" "confession" in the "reconciliation room."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their Saturday afternoon or evening Novus Ordo services that permit them to keep Sunday, the Lord's Day, "free" for what really matters (sleep, baseball, football, soccer, shopping, .etc.).

The Gospel reading for Holy Mass yesterday, the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, speaks not only of the Pharisees who bore evil fruit but also quite prophetically of the "evil fruit" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:




[15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. [28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. [29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 7: 15-29. Yesterday's Gospel reading ended at verse twenty-one. I have provide the rest as the words of Our Divine Redeemer apply so very powerfully to our own days.)

False prophets? That's all that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has to offer.

Evil fruit? In copious abundance.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been built upon the shifting sands of novelty. It will be blown down when God annihilates it in a major chastisement.

May we simply trust in Our Lady on this great feast day under title of Our Lady of Mount Carmel so that the errors of the day, including the false ecumenism that she meant us to protect us from by means of her Brown Scapular, will be vanquished once and for all as our daily Rosaries help to plant a few seeds for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of the Social Reign of Christ the King that the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI reject so utterly.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Simon Stock, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face, pray for us.

Saint Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, pray for us.

Blessed Don Nuno Alvares Periera, pray for us.

The Carmelite Martyrs of Compiegne, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Appendix: The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?



"After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law ... this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council."  Pope John Paul II on page 1 of the New Catechism.


The reading and study of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are baffling for a classic or Thomistic spirit. One rarely finds here simple definitions and clear distinctions. This Catechism resembles a mystical poem, a symphony where all is harmonized, the classic and the modern, elements of the old Catechism and the teachings of the Conciliar Church, in order to chant with enthusiasm the splendor of God and of man.

Among the happy reminders, one can note: the fact of creation, the existence of the Angels, the reality of Adam and Eve, original sin as well as personal sin, Hell and Purgatory, the ten commandments, the impossibility of women’s ordinations and the marriage of divorcees, the criminal character of abortion and of euthanasia, the possibility of the death penalty, etc.

But along side of that, one finds silences, things forgotten, contradictions and a certain number of "recurring themes" foreign to the Catholic Church, and which we are going to analyze here. From this mixture results an impression of confusion which steers the spirit off course. In brief, a reading capable of "seducing even the elect themselves." 1 However, before giving ourselves over to the analysis of certain themes of this symphony, we begin by giving certain authentic interpretations of the Catechism.

The "authentic interpretations" declared by Pope John Paul II

The New Catechism is "the ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching."

Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by means of the apostolic constitution, Fidei Depositum 2, of October 11, 1992. One reads there the following:

After the renewal of the liturgy and the new codification of the Canon Law of the Latin Church and the canons of the oriental Catholics, this Catechism will bring a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council. (p.1) For myself, who had the grace of participating there and of actively collaborating in its unfolding, Vatican II has always been, and particularly so during these years of my pontificate, the constant point of reference of all my pastoral action, in a conscious effort of translating its directives by a concrete and faithful application, to the level of each Church and of all the Church. One must without ceasing return to this source (p.1).

We are then advised that this Catechism is a putting into application of Vatican II.

One must take count of the explanations of doctrine that the Holy Spirit has suggested to the Church in the course of the centuries. (p.2) It will include then things new and old. (Ibid)

What is old is above all, "The traditional order already followed by the Catechism of St. Pius V," (Ibid) whereas "the content is often expressed in a new fashion." (Ibid) In other words, "a new wine in old wineskins," contrary to the counsel of Our Lord (Mt.9:17). The ecumenical aim of the Catechism is also clearly explained by the pope: "It wishes to provide a support to ecumenical efforts animated by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians" (p.3).

The pope declares also that this Catechism is the fruit of a broad collaboration and "reflects thus the collegial nature of the episcopate." Finally, as for its doctrinal value, the pope presents it as "an authorized and worthwhile instrument in the service of ecclesial communion and as a sure norm for the teaching of the Faith." (p.2) But it "is not destined to replace the local Catechisms composed by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan bishops and the episcopal conference, above all when they have received the approbation of the Apostolic See." (p.3) One cannot use it then to demand the suppression of bad Catechisms, even if they have not received the approbation of Rome.

The pope presented the Catechism on the morning of December 7, 1992. On this occasion, he insisted on the value and the significance of the Catechism. It is, he says, "an event of great richness and of an incomparable importance." 3 "The publication of the text should be placed, without any doubt, among the major events in the recent history of the Church."

The pope confirms that this Catechism wishes to conform itself "to the teachings of Vatican Council II." "In this authorized text, the Church presents to her children, with a renewed self-awareness thanks to the light of the Spirit, the mystery of Christ where the splendor of the Father is reflected." "This Catechism constitutes above all a ‘veracious’ gift, to know a gift which presents the Truth revealed by God in Christ and which He confided to His Church. The Catechism expresses this truth in the light of the Second Vatican Council, such as it is believed, 4 celebrated, lived, and prayed by the Church."

Before, we were asked to accept the council in the light of Tradition. Today, the method is reversed. One finds the same expression again in the Catechism at paragraph 11. We point out also at this occasion that for the pope, the truth is first of all believed and lived before being expressed. This is a typically modernist method, since modernism thinks that the Faith comes from the subconscious and from the interior experience of each person. But that is contrary to the thought of St. Paul, for whom the Faith is ex auditu (Rom.10:17), that is to say, from preaching. The pope also confirms the ecumenical intent of the Catechism:

In defining the lines of Catholic doctrinal identity, the Catechism can constitute an affectionate call for all those who not equally form part of the Catholic community. May they understand that this instrument does not reduce, but broadens the scope of a multiform unity, in offering a new impulse on the path towards this fullness of communion which reflects and in a certain manner anticipates the total unity of the heavenly city, "where truth reigns, where charity is the law, and where the extension is eternity" (St. Augustine, Epistle 138, 3). Men, both today and always, need Christ. Through many, and sometimes incomprehensible paths, they seek him with insistence, invoke him constantly and desire him ardently.

We find in this last phrase an analogy with the new theology of Karl Rahner, for whom every man is an anonymous Christian.5 The next day, December 8, 1992, the pope "presided at the Holy Mass in the basilica of St. Mary Major." 6

In the course of the homily, he returned to the question of the Catechism. He insisted anew on the bond between the Catechism and the council:

With the Mother of God, we give thanks today for the gift of the council...7 The community of believers gives thanks today for the post-conciliar Catechism... It constitutes the ripest and the most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching, which is presented in the rich framework of all the ecclesial Tradition. The ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching.

This expression renders the thought of the pope so well that L’Osservatore Romano did not hesitate to make of it the title of this sermon.

O Mary... thou who wast present on the day of Pentecost as Mother of the Church, welcome this fruit which is the labor of the entire Church. All together we place the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is at the same time the gift of the Word revealed to humanity and the fruit of the labor of bishops and theologians —between the hands of she who...

The pope himself uses the expression of the "new" Catechism. Let us point out in the passage this expression, "the fruit of labor," which reminds us of the new Offertory, and also the allusion to Pentecost. We continue to live, since the Council, a new revelation which the bishops and the theologians must express for the service of the ecclesial community.

Cardinal Ratzinger

"After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day."

He was the president of the commission and of the committee of redaction during six months in order to develop this Catechism. He is then well placed to speak to us of it. He made a presentation concerning it in the press room which was published in L’Osservatore Romano (French language edition) of December 15, 1992, on page 6. Let us briefly analyze this text. First of all, he teaches us that the French edition was presented first on November 16 in Paris. Then, between this date and December 7, the Italian and Spanish versions were published.

The official text in Latin will be published later; it will be able to take into account what the experience of the translations 8 has made to appear or what it can still suggest.

It seems that the Roman Church, or at least its "governing board" is not very sure of its faith; it has need of a "trial run." What is the fundamental question treated by the Catechism?

After the fall of the ideologies, the problem of man, the moral problem, poses itself today in a totally new fashion to the order of the day." As an accessory, they will speak also of God. "The Catechism speaks of the human being, but with the conviction that the question concerning man cannot be separated from the question concerning God. One does not speak correctly of man if one doesn’t speak also of God.

Whence will come the response to this problem concerning man and "also" concerning God?

The Catechism formulates the response which comes from the great communitarian experience of the Church throughout the centuries.

It’s always the same modernist tactic: the profession of the Faith is the expression of the interior experience of believers. And what will be the response to this question?

The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated: 9 man is created in the image and likeness of God. Everything that is said on the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective.

It is here that, according to us, resides the fundamental ambiguity of the Catechism. Indeed, this passage from Genesis can receive two different meanings. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam. Indeed, all men after him will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. Still, one can be more precise and say that the image is deformed by the aftermath of original sin. One can also interpret the words "image" and "likeness" as two synonyms. In this case, one can apply this phrase of Genesis to every man to signify that every man receives from God a spiritual soul. But then one abstracts from sanctifying grace. We will not be able to deduce then the true dignity of man since this consists in participating in the Divine Nature. Man does not truly possess dignity because he is a man (sinner), but because he has become a son of God by grace. As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, there is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian. And this Christian will possess all the more dignity the more he is a friend of God. Our Lord does not have the same dignity as any other man, and the Most Holy Virgin shall have a supereminent dignity, etc. In not making these elementary distinctions between nature and grace, the cardinal, and the Catechism in its turn, are going to draw from this phrase from Genesis many errors. Now the cardinal takes care to warn us himself:

Everything which is said concerning the just conduct of man is founded upon this central perspective (namely, man is created in the image and likeness of God). Upon this are founded human rights...Upon the likeness of God is founded also human dignity, which remains intangible in each man precisely because he is a man.

Let us cite some examples given by the cardinal himself: "Every human being has an equal dignity." This is false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint.

The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man —the necessity of happiness and of love. Here it becomes visible what exactly "likeness" to God signifies: the human being is like unto God from the fact that he can love and because he is capable of truth. This is why moral behavior is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a behavior measured by creation.

All this is false and follows from this grave confusion between nature and grace. Indeed, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God. The human being can only love God (as he should) by charity, and he is only capable of (complete) truth by Faith. But all this does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to "require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous.

The cardinal specifies that the behavior according to nature of which the Catechism speaks, is a: behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man.

This is perhaps poetic, but it is also always false. Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition; in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is obviously very grave.

First Conclusion

This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism.

Before even studying the Catechism we can draw several teachings from this examination of these "authentic interpretations." First of all, the importance of the new Catechism. The pope himself insists upon the importance and the authority of this Catechism. This importance is confirmed by the success of the publisher. Certainly there was a vast publicity which no other Catechism had ever known. But this doesn’t suffice, without doubt, to explain the sale of more than 500,000 copies in several weeks. One must also take into account that the faithful have been deprived of doctrinal teaching for the last thirty years. There was the council; but despite its desire of being a pastoral council, Vatican II is not in the reach of every Catholic, and the majority are not taken up in the study of these numerous texts. As far as the catechisms and other "Living Stones" [a modernist catechism in France], the least that one can say concerning them is that their doctrinal content is weak, if not inconsistent. The faithful have had to live according to the practices imposed upon them in the name of obedience. Now the possibility has finally been given to them to know the principles which have guided these reforms. One can understand their desire to learn, for it is satisfying to a person to know why he acts.

Unfortunately the New Catechism will not cause the tenets of the Faith, which they were living badly or with difficulty, to penetrate their souls: Rather, it is to be feared that they will only adhere more completely to the "new truths" which they have been in the habit of living for the past 30 years. Moreover, as we have noticed, the pope insists also on the fact that this Catechism is the logical consequence of the council, "the ripest and most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching." This Catechism is very important because it is going to permit the new conciliar and post-conciliar ideas to be better diffused, notably in the matter of ecumenism. The pope insists above all upon the authority of the Catechism and its importance in applying Vatican Council II. Cardinal Ratzinger puts the accent more on its content and indicates to us its fundamental error which is at the root of the errors of ecumenism and religious liberty: a pseudo-supernatural naturalism. Human nature is not only capable of grace, but it requires it for the happiness of man; the redemption is universal; the world is full of grace. But let us not look at the content in greater detail. We will distinguish four principal themes in the Catechism: the dignity of man, his character of friend and Son of God, the nature of the Church, and the principles of morality. For each of these, we shall cite the Catechism, to clearly show the readers that it is not we who are attributing to it our thoughts. However, we shall not cite everything, not wanting to tax the patience of the readers nor risking that we be condemned for having recopied integrally a Catechism protected by copyright (!).


"The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him..."

There are forty references to the word "dignity" in the index, of which several indicate a fairly long passage. Let us cite first what Cardinal Ratzinger quoted above as:  the fundamental knowledge concerning man: To know the unity and the true dignity of all men: all are made in the image and likeness of God10 (§ 225)*.


* This and all following references to the New Catechism are indicated by the symbol § (meaning paragraph) and the paragraph number.


We have already explained the error of this new theory. Man, marked by original sin, is born without the grace of God. Therefore, he does not have his true dignity, that of being a son of God. This he receives at Baptism. This fundamental error concerning the dignity of man brings along with it others, for example, saying that the dignity of man cannot be lost. A criminal does not lose his dignity, since this consists in having a spiritual soul; taking this to its limit, the damned in hell (if there are any) will still have their dignity.

Man and woman have a dignity which cannot be lost, which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.11  Man and woman are, with the same dignity, in the image of God. In their "being man" and "being woman" they reflect the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator (§ 369).

Another false consequence: all men have the same dignity. A saint will not be any more worthy than a sinner; the Blessed Virgin will not be more worthy than any other woman.

Amongst all the faithful of Christ, by the fact of their regeneration in Christ, there exists, insofar as dignity and activity, a true equality, in virtue of which all co-operate in the building up of the Body of Christ, each according to his condition and proper function12 (§ 872).

Although this paragraph founds the dignity of the Christian upon its true foundation, "the regeneration in Christ," it is just the same erroneous since it draws from this a false conclusion, which is that all Christians are equal. This is contrary to the Scriptures, which warns us that there are all sorts of gifts of grace and that the members of the Church are complementary, but unequal (the foot is not the eye, says St. Paul).

Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as much as they are human persons on one hand, and on the other hand, in their respective being of man and woman. "Being man" and "being woman" is a reality both good and willed by God (§ 369). 

As to this equality between man and woman, it exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman. Another erroneous consequence: all men will have an equal dignity, and all discrimination will be unjust.

Equality between men lies essentially with their personal dignity and the rights which flow from it: "every form of discrimination touching the fundamental rights of the person, whether it be founded on sex, race, color of skin, social condition, language, or religion, must be gotten beyond, as contrary to the design of God" 13 (§ 1935). There also exists wicked inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction with the Gospel: ‘"The equal dignity of persons requires that one reaches conditions of life more just and more human. The economic and excessive social inequalities between the members or peoples of the one human family create a scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace." 14 (§ 1938).

Dignity is liberty. We have seen that the Catechism makes the dignity of man consist in the fact of having been made in the image and likeness of God. For St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all of Tradition, man is in the image of God because his soul is a spiritual substance endowed with intelligence and will, and thus he resembles the Holy Trinity. But for the New Catechism, that which characterizes the image of God before all else is liberty:

In virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intelligence and will, man is endowed with liberty, "the privileged sign of the Divine image." 15  Are we convinced that "we know not what to ask so as to pray as we ought?" 16 Let us ask God for "suitable goods." Our Father knows well what we need before we ask Him,17 but He awaits our prayer because the dignity of His children is in their liberty. Now one must pray with one’s spirit of liberty in order to be able to know in truth his desire.18 (§ 2736) God has created man as reasonable in conferring upon him the dignity of a person endowed with the initiative and the mastery of his acts. ‘"God has left man to his own counsel’" (Sirach 15:14) so that he can seek by himself his Creator, and in adhering freely to him, reach full and blessed perfection" 19: ‘"Man is reasonable, and by that very fact, like unto God; he was created free, to be master of his acts" 20 (§ 1730).

We remark in passing that the citation from St. Irenaeus expresses rather that the resemblance of man with God consists in his reason, liberty being only a consequence. This doesn’t keep the authors of the Catechism from choosing this citation in order to affirm that the dignity of man consists in his liberty.

Since the dignity of man consists in his liberty, man will evidently have an inalienable right to liberty:

Liberty is exercised in the relationships between human beings. Each human person, created in the image of God has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible person. All owe to each person this duty of respect. The right to exercise one’s liberty is an inseparable exigency from the dignity of the human person, notably in moral and religious matters.21  This right must be recognized by civil law and protected within the limits of the common good and public order 22 (§ 1782).

Thus, liberty must be favored under all its forms and every inequality or constraint is an offense against the dignity of man:

Man has the right to act according to his conscience and freely in order to take personal responsibility for his moral decisions. "Man must not be constrained to act against his conscience. What’s more, he must not be impeded from acting according to his conscience, above all in religious matters" 23 (§ 1782).

Charity always goes through respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience:

In speaking against the brethren or in wounding their conscience ...it is against Christ that you sin.24  That which is good is to abstain ...from all that makes thy brother to stumble or to fall or to weaken25 (§ 1789).

If one looks at the citations of St. Paul in their context, one sees that he tries to avoid acts which are indifferent in themselves so as not to scandalize someone who might misinterpret them and make of them an occasion of sin. It is not a question of respecting his conscience in the modern sense employed by the Catechism, that is to say, not impeding his sinning. This solicitation of a scriptural text is quite characteristic and proves that the modern theory of the liberty of conscience has no foundation in revelation.

Thus, the role of the Church in the political realm, which hitherto consisted in making it respect the law of God and recalling to the heads of state their duty to help in the salvation of souls, now consists only in recalling this doctrine of the rights of man founded upon the dignity/liberty of the human person:

Social justice can only be obtained by respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: ‘"The defense and promotion of human dignity has been confided to us by the Creator. In all the circumstances of history, men and women are rigorously responsible and debtors to it." 26 (§ 1929). "Respect for human dignity implies those rights which flow from his dignity as creature. These rights are anterior to society and impose themselves on it. They constitute the moral legitimacy of all authority. By heckling them or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.27  Without such a respect, an authority can only support itself by force in order to obtain the obedience of its subjects. It comes back to the Church to recall these rights to the memory of men of good will, and to distinguish them from abusive or false claims (§ 2246).

It appertains to the mission of the Church to "bring a moral judgement, even in those matters which touch the political domain, when the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it, in using all the means, and those only, which are conformed to the Gospel and are in harmony with the good of all, according to the diversity of times and of situations" 28 (§ 2246).

Let us note that in this last paragraph, the defense of the rights of man comes before preoccupation for the salvation of souls. Another way to say the same thing: the Church is charged to defend the transcendence of the human person, this transcendence consisting precisely in its dignity / liberty:

The Church, because of its mission and its competence, is not confused in any manner with the political community, and is at the same time the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and promotes political liberty and the responsibility of the citizens" 29 (§ 2245).

Among the rights of man that the Church must defend, there is evidently the right to religious liberty, founded as the others upon the dignity/liberty of man.

"In religious matters, let none be forced to act against his conscience, nor to be hindered from so acting, within just limits, following his conscience in private as in public, alone or associated with others." 30 This right is founded upon the nature itself of the human person of which its dignity makes it to adhere freely to divine truth which transcends the temporal order. This is why it "persists even in those who do not satisfy their obligation to search for the truth and to adhere to it" 31 If, because of the particular circumstances in which peoples find themselves, a special civil recognition is accorded in the juridical order of the city to a given religious society, it is necessary that at the same time, for all the citizens and all the religious communities, the right to liberty in religious matters be recognized and respected32 (§ 1930). The right to religious liberty is neither the moral permission to adhere to error,33 nor a supposed right to error,34 but a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, that is to say, to immunity from exterior constraint, within just limits, in religious matters on the part of the political power. This natural right must be recognized in the juridical order of society in such a manner that it constitutes a civil right35 (§ 2108).

Behold the citation of Pius XII which the note makes mention of:

That which does not correspond to the truth or the moral law has not any right, objectively, to existence, nor to propagation, nor to action.

Pius XII does not condemn only "a supposed right to error," as the Catechism says, but also a right to propagate it and the action of error and of evil. Now to recognize a "natural right to immunity from constraint" for a false religion, isn’t this precisely to recognize for them a right of action and of propagation?

The right to religious liberty cannot be of itself either unlimited,36 or limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.37  The "just limits" which are inherent must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the exigencies of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority according to "juridical rules conformed to the objective moral order" 38 (§ 2109).

One senses in this last paragraph and in the references to Pius VI and Pius IX an attempt to justify the conciliar doctrine on religious liberty in the face of the accusations of traditionalists. To make this new doctrine in conformity with the traditional doctrine, the "just limits" would have to be respect for the moral law in a pagan country and respect for the Christian law in a Christian country. But this is contrary to the conciliar teaching such as it is interpreted by Rome itself.39


The Covenant with Noah

...the Catechism leave[s] one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah...

Once the unity of the human race was divided by sin, God sought first of all to save humanity by passing by each one of its parts. The covenant with Noah after the flood40 expresses the principle of the divine economy towards the "nations," that is to say, towards the men regrouped according to their countries, each according to his language, and according to their clans41 (§ 56).

We learn then that "God sought to save man by passing by each of its parts," which leaves us supposing that God has accorded to each part of humanity a religion which continues this covenant with Noah. The sign of the covenant with Noah having been the rainbow, one is not astonished that this symbol was widely used by the Conciliar Church in order to express its ecumenism, for example at the time of the inter-religious meeting at Brussels in September, 1992. Up to Vatican II, Catholics rather believed that which St. Paul said, that the pagans before the Incarnation had to observe the natural law in order to be saved. The only true past covenant between God and men with a view to constituting a religion for a part of mankind was the covenant of Sinai. And since the Incarnation, Jews and pagans must embrace the Christian religion in order to be saved.

The covenant with Noah is in vigor for as long as the time of the nations42 endures, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. The Bible venerates several great figures from the "nations," such as "Abel the just," the king-priest Melchisedech,43 figure of Christ,44 or the just "Noah, Daniel, and Job" (Ezek. 14:14). Thus, the Scriptures express what heights of sanctity those can attain who live according to the covenant of Noah in the expectation that Christ "gather into unity all the scattered children of God" 45 (§ 58).

Not only does the Catechism leave one to understand that the pagan religions are the consequences of the covenant of Noah, but it lets one now clearly think that this covenant has not been suppressed since it remains valid until the universal proclamation of the Gospel and until "Christ gathers together in unity all the scattered children of God," which isn’t realized as long as ecumenism hasn’t yet come to an end. Thus, it seems that even today "those who live according to the covenant of Noah can attain [a great] height of sanctity."

The Old Covenant

"...the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant..."

If pagans can claim to be friends of God thanks to the covenant with Noah, it is even clearer for the Jews, since the "Old Covenant has never been revoked":

The Old Testament is an inadmissable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and preserve a permanent value46 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked (§ 121). The relation of the Church with the Jewish people, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers, in scrutinizing its own mystery, its bond with the Jewish People,47 "to whom God has first spoken."  48 Unlike the other non-Christian religions, the Jewish faith has already responded to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant. It is to the Jewish People that "belong the adoption of sons, the glory, the covenants, the law, the cult, the promises and the patriarchs, and he who was born according to the flesh, the Christ" (Rom. 9:4-5), for the "gifts and the call of God are without repentance" 49 (§ 839).

Christ has died for all "He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive."

It is true that Christ has offered His life for all men and that His death, offered with love, is capable of saving all sinners. However, it is necessary to apply to each one this redemption.

This application is made by Baptism, Penance, and the other sacraments which take their power from the passion of Christ.50  It is also by Faith that the passion of Christ is applied to us in order that we harvest the fruits of it.51

Consequently, even if Christ has offered His life for all, all shall not be saved, for all do not profit from His death by the Faith and the Sacraments. The Catechism is, at best, ambiguous on this question:

This love is without exclusion. Jesus has recalled this at the end of the parable of the lost sheep: "So your Father who is in heaven does not will that even one of his sheep be lost" (Matt.18:14). He affirms ‘to give His life in ransom for the multitude’ (Matt. 20:28); this last term is not restrictive. It opposes the mass of humanity to the unique person of the Redeemer who delivers Himself up to save it.52  The Church, following the apostles,53 teaches that Christ has died for all men without exception. "There is not, neither has there been, nor shall there be, any man for whom Christ has not suffered" 54 (§ 605).

This translation of the Latin pro multis is faulty when one specifies that this term "is not restrictive." This term is beautiful and quite restrictive.

"It is the ‘love even to the end’ (Jn. 13:1) which confers its value of redemption and of reparation, of expiation and of satisfaction to the sacrifice of Christ. He has known and loved all of us in offering up his life.55

"The love of Christ presses us, to the thought that if one also died for all, then all have died" (II Cor. 5:14). No man, be he the most holy, was in the position to take upon himself the sins of all men and offering himself in sacrifice for all. The existence of the divine person of the Son in Christ, which goes beyond and at the same time embraces all human persons, and which constitutes him Head of all humanity, renders possible his redemptive sacrifice for all (§ 616).

In assuming an human nature, Jesus Christ has not assumed all our persons. He has assumed the human nature of His own divine person, but not that of each of our persons. He died for all, but He only applies the salvific virtue of His blood for the souls who come to Him with humility, faith and love.


"All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism"

Limbo is denied in practice, and that agrees completely with what we are going to see. Since it is not necessary any more that the virtue of the passion of Christ be applied to us by faith and the sacraments, there is no more reason to close the door of heaven to the little children who have died without Baptism:

Concerning the infants who have died without Baptism, the Church can only confide them to the mercy of God, as she does in the rite of funeral for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God which desires that all men be saved,56 and the tenderness of Jesus towards the children who made Him say, "Suffer the little children to come to me, and hinder them not" (Mk. 10:4), permits us to hope that there was a path of salvation for the children who died without Baptism. All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism (§ 1261).

This negation of Limbo is very grave. The Catholic doctrine on Limbo is not defined, but it is certain. Let us recall it briefly. The punishment for original sin is the privation of the vision of God.57  Those who die with original sin go to Limbo where they will remain for all eternity.58  In Limbo, they enjoy a natural happiness, without hatred of God or pain of sense.59  These three affirmations are not defined, but they are taught as certain.

The death of the Christian

"It is by the Eucharist ... [that the faithful] learns to live in communion with he who has ‘fallen asleep in the Lord,’ in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him"

Reflection upon death has always been for Christians the occasion for a salutary fear. The Christian draws from it the lesson that he must above all avoid every mortal sin (for there is no greater misfortune than to die in the state of mortal sin), that one must make an effort to avoid venial sin, and also to seek to do penance so as to avoid purgatory. But for the Catechism, there is nothing to fear from death. Only look at what the rite of Christian burial says. First of all, it describes thus the meaning of death:


The Christian meaning of death is revealed in the light of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, in whom reposes our only hope. The Christian who dies in Christ Jesus "quits the body to go to remain next to the Lord" 60 (§1681). The day of death inaugurates for the Christian, at the end of his sacramental life, the fulfillment of his new birth begun at Baptism, the definitive "resemblance" to the "image of the Son" conferred by the unction of the Holy Ghost and the participation in the banquet of the kingdom which was anticipated in the Eucharist, even if some last purifications are still necessary in order to put on the nuptial robe" (§ 1682). The Church, which as a mother, has borne the Christian sacramentally in her bosom during his earthly pilgrimage, accompanies him at the close of his journeying in order to deliver him "into the hands of the Father." She offers to the Father, in Christ, the child of her grace, and she deposits in the earth, in hope, the seed of the body which shall rise again into glory.58 This offering is celebrated fully by the Eucharistic Sacrifice; the blessings which precede and follow are sacramentals (§ 1683).


One sees by this how little the Catechism is pastoral. For if there is an occasion to make Christians reflect, it is certainly the occasion of the death of a loved one. One must do it with charity, of course, but one must not confuse charity with an anesthesia of consciences. Even on the occasion of a suicide, the Catechism seeks to the greatest degree to reassure consciences:

One must not despair of the eternal salvation of those persons who have taken their own lives. God can provide them, by ways which He alone knows, with the occasion of a salutary repentance. The Church prays for the persons who have taken their own lives (§ 2283).

We are far from the "pre-conciliar" pastoral which refused a Christian burial to suicides, when they hadn’t given any signs of contrition. Moreover, it is this attitude which corresponds to true charity. By this refusal, the Church showed the gravity of suicide and greatly contributed to diminish the temptation for Christians to commit it, aiding them thus to save their souls.

After having reflected on the meaning of death, the Catechism gives several indications on the celebration of funerals. We retain this one:

It is by the Eucharist thus celebrated in common that the community of the faithful, especially the family of the deceased, learns to live in communion with he who has "fallen asleep in the Lord," in communicating with the Body of Christ of which he is a living member and by praying afterwards for him and with him (§ 1689).

The Catechism encourages then all the assistants to communicate at the Mass of Christian burial, without saying anything about the dispositions required to do so. When one knows that at the occasion of funerals there are many people coming who ordinarily do not set foot in the church, one measures the number of sacrileges that the Catechism encourages.

III:  THE CHURCH IS HUMANITY ...the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church...

The Catechism proclaims the dogma of the Church: Outside of the Church there is no salvation; but it empties its content according to the typically modernist manner:

How must one understand this affirmation often repeated by the Fathers of the Church? Formulated in a positive fashion, it signifies that all salvation comes from Christ the Head by means of the Church which is His Body; ‘"Based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that this Church working upon the earth is necessary for salvation. Christ alone, indeed, is the Mediator and Way of salvation. Now He becomes present in His Body which is the Church; and in teaching us expressly the necessity of the faith and baptism, it is the necessity of the Church itself, in which men enter by the gate of baptism, that He has confirmed at the same time. This is why those who would refuse either to enter into the Catholic Church or to persevere there, whereas they would know that God founded it by Jesus Christ as necessary, those would not be able to be saved"1 (§ 846).

This affirmation does not concern those who without any fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: "Indeed, those who without fault on their part, do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but nonetheless seek God with a sincere heart and strive under the influence of His grace to act in such a fashion as to accomplish His will such as their conscience has revealed to them and has dictated to them, these can reach eternal salvation" 2 (§ 847).

Certainly, the Church has always admitted the possibility of those who do not know the Church through no fault of their own to be saved. They can then obtain the grace of God by a baptism of desire.3  But the Church formerly had a clearer manner of expressing this under Pius XII, in the letter addressed by the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing on August 8, 1949:

Neither must one think that any sort of desire whatsoever to enter into the Church suffices to be saved. For it is necessary that the desires ordain someone to the Church be animated by perfect charity. The implicit desire can only have an effect if the man has supernatural faith. "He who cometh to God must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6) and to arrive to partake of the lot of His children."

But other passages of the Catechism are clearer still in their undermining of this dogma "Outside of the Church, no salvation." Alas, it’s meaning is emptied of all which might be the least bit limiting. Let us see, for example, the passage which answers the question: "Who belongs to the Catholic Church?"

"To the Catholic unity of the People of God... all men are called; to this unity, they belong or are ordained, both the Catholic faithful and those who, furthermore, have faith in Christ, and finally all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" 4 (§ 836).

Those are incorporated fully to the society which is the Church who having the Spirit of Christ accept integrally its organization and all the means of salvation instituted in it, and who moreover, thanks to the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical government and communion, are united in the visible assembly of the Church, with Christ who directs it by the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops. Incorporation into the Church does not assure salvation for those who for lack of perseverance in charity, remain indeed bodily in the bosom of the Church, but not in their heart5 (§ 837).

With those who, being baptized bear the fair name of Christians without, however, professing integrally the faith of preserving the unity of communion with the successor of Peter, the Church recognizes being united for many reasons.6

Those who believe in Christ and who have validly received baptism, find themselves in a certain communion, although imperfect, with the Catholic Church.7

With the orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that very little is lacking for it to attain the plenitude authorizing a common celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord" 8 (§ 838).

Finally, there is not therefore any disquietude for those who belong to other religions than the Catholic Religion since the Catechism tell us that "all men without exception that the grace of God calls to salvation" makes up the Church. The sole disquietude expressed by the Catechism is for those who, amongst Catholics, are of the body in the bosom of the Church, but not of the heart. These affirmations seem quite close to the propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus:9

  • Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion (proposition 15).

  • Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion (proposition 16).

  • One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ (proposition 17).

  • Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church (proposition 18).

All the Religions are Good

"...The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

We are going to see that the Catechism thinks that all men are more or less part of the Church. Another manner of saying the same thing is to affirm that all religions contain a part of the truth. Thus all religions are "means of salvation":

Moreover, "many elements of sanctification and of truth"10 exist outside of the visible limits of the Catholic Church: "the written word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity. Both the interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements."11 The Spirit of Christ makes use of these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, the force of which comes from the plenitude of grace and truth that Christ confided to the Catholic Church. All these goods come from Christ and lead to Him 12 and in themselves call for the perfection of "Catholic unity." 13

Propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors

Proposition 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion.

Proposition 16. Men can find the way of salvation and obtain eternal salvation in the cult of it matters not what religion.

Proposition 17. One can at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are not in any manner in the true Church of Christ.

Proposition 18. Protestantism is nothing other than one of the forms of the same and true Christian religion in which it is possible to be pleasing to God, as in the Catholic Church.

All men are bound to seek for the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have found it, to embrace it and to be faithful to it.14  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 15  It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the diverse religions which "often bear a ray of the truth which enlightens all men," 16 neither does it contradict the need for charity which presses Christians to "act with love, prudence, and patience, towards those who find themselves in error or in ignorance concerning the faith" 17 (§ 2104).

Does not one find expressed there "this erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in this sense that they reveal and translate all equally —although in a different way —the natural and innate sentiment which carries us towards God" 18 ?

The "Subsistit in"

"...It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained..."

Already, the Second Vatican Council had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Catechism continues in the line of the Council:

The unique Church of Christ... is that which Our Savior, after His Resurrection, remitted to Peter that he might be the shepherd, that He confided to him and to the other apostles, to extend it and direct it... this Church as a society constituted and organized in the world is realized in ("subsistit in") the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops who are in communion with him19:

The decree on ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council explains, "It is indeed by the sole Catholic Church of Christ, which is the general means of salvation, that all the fullness of the means of salvation be obtained. For it is to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that the Lord confided, according to our faith, all the riches of the New Covenant, in order to constitute upon the earth one sole Body of Christ to which it is necessary that all those who in a certain fashion appertain already to the People of God may be fully incorporated" 20 (§ 816).

The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It asks them to make known the cult of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church21 (§ 2105).

Catholic Unity

Vatican II had inaugurated the expression, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church," in place of affirming with all of Tradition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The Catechism continues in the line of the Council

We know that the note of unity is the fundamental note of the Catholic Church, that which manifests its form.22   Let us see what the Catechism says:

Which are the bonds of unity? "Above all, [it is] charity, which is the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14) (§ 815).

However, until the present, the Church never separated the bond of charity from the bond of the faith which is even, in a sense, the more fundamental one:

We are said to be justified by faith because the faith is the beginning of the salvation of man, the foundation and the root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to arrive at the partaking of the lot of His children.23 The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to perpetuate the salutary work of the redemption decided to build Holy Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful would be joined by the bond of one sole faith and one sole charity.24 No society separated from the unity of the faith or from the unity of His Body can be called a part or member of the Church.25  Since charity has as its foundation a sincere and integral faith, unity of faith must be, consequently, the fundamental bond uniting the disciples of Christ.26

As for unity, "Christ granted it to His Church from the beginning. We believe that it subsists inadmissibly in the Church and we hope it will increase from day to day unto the consummation of the ages." 27 Christ always gives to His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, strengthen, and perfect the unity that Christ wishes for it. This is why Jesus Himself prayed at the hour of His passion and why He ceases not to pray to the Father for the unity of his disciples: "...that all may be one as thou Father art in Me and Me in Thee, that they may be one in us, in order that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (Jn 17:21). The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit28 (§ 820).

Since the Catechism says that we must have the desire to recover unity, it is obvious that this unity is lost, at least in part. This teaching does not appear compatible with the instruction of the Holy Office to the bishops on December 20, 1949: 

The Catholic doctrine must be proposed and exposed totally and integrally; one must not pass over in silence or veil by ambiguous terms what the Catholic Church teaches concerning ...the only true union by the return of the separated Christians to the one, true Church of Christ. One could without doubt tell them that in returning to the Church they shall lose of the good that by the grace of God, is realized in them even to the present, but that by their return this shall rather be completed and brought to its perfection. One will avoid speaking on this point in such a manner that, in returning to the Church, they imagine that they bring to it an essential element which it had lacked up to now.


Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue.

See how the Catechism says that we must respond to this desire to recover the unity of the Church:

To respond adequately to this, these are required:

  • a permanent renewal of the Church in a greater fidelity to its vocation. This renovation is the springboard of the movement towards unity29

  • conversion of heart "in view of living more purely according to the Gospel" 30 for it is the infidelity of the members to the gift of Christ which causes the divisions

  • prayer in common, for "conversion of heart and sanctity of life, united to public and private prayers for the unity of Christians, must be regarded as the soul of all ecumenism and can be with reason called spiritual ecumenism" 31

  • reciprocal and fraternal knowledge32

  • the ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of the priests33

  • dialogue between theologians and meetings between Christians of different Churches and communities34

  • collaboration between Christians in the various domains of service to men35 (§ 821)

Since the unity of the Church is to be recovered, it is not surprising that the Catechism insists on the duty of ecumenism and dialogue.

In defending the capacity of the human reason to know God, the Church expresses its confidence in the possibility of speaking of God to all men and with all men.

This conviction is the point of departure of its dialogue with the other religions, with philosophy and the sciences, and also with the unbelievers and atheists (§ 39). All men are bound to seek the truth, above all in what concerns God and His Church; and when they have known it, to embrace and to be faithful to it.36  This duty flows from "the nature itself of man." 37 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for the different religions which "bear often a ray of the truth which enlightens every man," 38 nor the exigence of the charity which urges Christians "to act with love and prudence towards those who walk in error or in ignorance of the faith" 39 (§ 2104). The mission of the Church summons the effort towards the unity of Christians.40 Indeed, "the divisions between Christians hold the Church back from realizing the plenitude of Catholicity which is proper to it in those of her children who, it is certain, belong to it by Baptism, but who find themselves separated from full communion. Even more, for the Church itself, it becomes more difficult to express under all its aspects the plenitude of Catholicity in the reality itself of its life" 41 (§ 855). The missionary task implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not as yet accept the Gospel.42 The believers can draw profit themselves from this dialogue in learning to better know "all that is already found of truth and of grace among the nations as by a secret presence of God." 43 If they announce the good news to those who know it not, it is to consolidate, complete and lift up the truth and the good that God has scattered among men and peoples, and to purify them of error and evil "for the glory of God, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of man" 44 (§ 856).

However, Our Lord did not send His Apostles to dialogue, but to teach, and the task of the Church is to continue this teaching of the truth that God has confided to it, not to dialogue with anyone.

Catholic doctrine teaches us that the first duty of charity is not in the toleration of erroneous opinions, however sincere they might be, nor in theoretical or practical indifference towards error or vice when we see our brothers plunged in them, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral betterment no less than for their material well-being.45

The Hierarchy

Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops?

In the paragraph on the hierarchy, after having spoken about the episcopal college, the Catechism examines the laity. Nothing in particular is said concerning the priests. The laity receive such a participation in "the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ" which the bishops possess that one does not see why there should be any need of other members of the hierarchy. Does the Catechism prepare us for the new age of the Church when there shall no longer be laymen and bishops?

The differences themselves that the Lord willed to establish between the members of His Body serve its unity and mission. For "there is in the Church a diversity of ministers but unity of mission. Christ conferred to the apostles and their successors the office to teach, sanctify, and govern in His name and by His power. But the laity, made participants in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ, assume in the Church and in the world, their part in that which is the mission of the entire people of God" 46 (§ 873).

These magnificent privileges recognized for the laity are in no way recognized for the priests in the passages where things of this kind is on the way of disappearing (Cf. § 1562-1568). Sometimes one begins to ask if the laity are not superior to the priesthood since "the ordained ministry, or ministerial priesthood 47 is at the service of the baptismal priesthood" (§ 1020). Certainly, the priests exercise "a special service" in the sacramental liturgy (§ 1020). But is this service truly indispensable since "it is all the community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates"?

It is the entire community, the Body of Christ united to its head, which celebrates. "The liturgical actions are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity; that is to say, the holy people brought together and organized under the authority of bishops. This is why they belong to the entire Body of the Church, but they manifest it and attest it differently; but they touch each of its members in a different fashion according to the diversity of orders, of functions and of effective participation." 48  This is also why "each time that the rites, according to the proper nature of each, include a common celebration, with the frequentation and participation of the faithful, it underlines that this ought to have the preference over their individual and quasi-private celebration" 49 (§ 1140). The assembly which celebrates is the community of the baptized who, "by the regeneration and unction of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in view of offering spiritual sacrifices." 50 This common priesthood is that of Christ, the unique Priest, participated in by all His members... (§ 1141).

St. Thomas explains to us more precisely that it is by the sacramental characters of the sacraments that we can participate in the priesthood of Our Lord: "These are nothing other than certain kinds of participation in the priesthood of Christ, which flow from Christ Himself."51 But He also tells us that the character is a spiritual power, passive in the case of Baptism, active in the case of Holy Orders. The priesthood of Christ and of priests is then an active power and the common priesthood of the faithful is a passive power. This is an important distinction which unfortunately is not pointed out by the Catechism.

The Liturgy

The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now."

The Catechism insists upon the harmony between the two Testaments to the point of telling us that "the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant":

The Holy Spirit fulfills in the sacramental economy the figures of the Old Covenant. Since the Church of Christ was "admirably prepared in the history of the people of Israel and in the Old Covenant," 52 the liturgy of the Church guards as an integral and irreplaceable part, in making them its own, some elements of the worship of the Old Covenant:

  • principally the reading of the Old Testament

  • the prayer of the Psalms

  • and above all, the memory of the saving events and significant realities which have found their fulfillment in the mystery of Christ (the promise and the covenant, the exodus and the Pasch, the Kingdom and the Temple, the Exile and the Return) (§ 1093)

The Catechism even insists on the fact that the Christian liturgy is similar to the "faith and religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are professed and lived even now." This expression is a bit unfortunate and it lacks the necessary precision concerning the fundamental difference between the faith of the ancient Jews and the present Jewish people:

Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy. A better knowledge of the faith and the religious life of the Jewish people, such as they are lived and professed even now, can help to better understand certain aspects of the Christian liturgy. For Jews and Christians, Holy Scripture is an essential part of their liturgies: it is used in the proclamation of the Word of God, the response to this Word, the prayer of praise and of intercession for the living and the dead, and the recourse to the divine mercy. The liturgy of the Word, in its structure, takes its origin from Jewish prayer. The prayer of the Hours and other texts and liturgical formulas have parallels there, as well as the formulas of even our most venerable prayers such as the Our Father. The eucharistic prayers take their inspiration also from models of the Jewish tradition. The relation between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy, but also the difference between their contents, are particularly visible in the great feasts of the liturgical year, such as Passover. Christians and Jews both celebrate the Passover: the Passover of history, looking towards the future for the Jews; for the Christians, the fulfilled Passover in the death and resurrection of Christ, although always in wait for the definitive consummation" (§ 1096).

The Mass and the Sacraments

The Catechism ... teaching remains gravely deficient on... [the] point [of the propitiatory sacrificial nature of the Mass], just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass.

On the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Catechism speaks of thanksgiving and praise (§. 1359), of the sacrifice which represents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, which is the memorial of it and applies the fruit of it (§ 1366). It says that the sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed. If it does not deny its propitiatory end, one would search in vain for any clear affirmation of it. Let us recall the canon of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise or of thanksgiving, of a simple commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice... let him be anathema." 53 The Catechism doesn’t go that far, but its teaching remains gravely deficient on that point, just at the time when the propitiatory finality is denied in practice by the new Mass.

Concerning marriage, the Catechism repeats the error of the 1983 Code of Canon Law by making equal the ends of marriage (and even by putting them in inverse order since the second is placed first). However this error wasn’t able to be approved at the Council, for Cardinals Browne and Ottaviani had vigorously opposed it.54

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman constitute between themselves a lifelong community, ordained by its natural character to the good of the spouses as well as to the generation and education of children, has been elevated by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.55 (§ 1601). The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the generation of children create between the members of a family personal relations and primordial responsibilities (§ 2201).

Such an inversion turns conjugal morality upside down. In particular, it permits to the spouses, without sufficient reason to make use of the conjugal right while dispensing themselves from the serious duty of procreation that it contains in itself.56 The Catechism draws itself this conclusion:

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, the spouses can desire to space the births of their children. It is up to them to insure that their desire does not depend upon egoism, but is conformed to the right generosity of a responsible paternity. Moreover, they shall regulate their comportment following the objective criteria of morality: When it treats of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of behavior does not depend solely upon the sincerity of intention or an appreciation of the motives; but it must be determined according to objective criteria, drawn form the nature itself of the person and his acts, criteria which respect, in a context of true love, the total signification of a reciprocal gift and of a procreation at the stature of man; something impossible if the virtue of conjugal chastity is not practiced by a loyal heart57 (§ 2368).

We are far from the luminous teaching of Pius XII concerning the "grave motives" which can justify a (natural) regulation of births.58

Periodic continence, the methods of regulating births founded upon self-observation and recourse to infertile periods59 are conformed to the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the body of the spouses, encouraging tenderness between them and fostering the education of an authentic liberty. On the other hand, "every action, whether it be in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its unfolding, or in the development of its natural consequences, which would be proposed as the end or as a means of making procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil." 60:  "In the language which naturally expresses the mutual and total self-giving of the spouses, contraception opposes a language objectively contradictory according to which there is no longer the total gift of one to the other. What flows from this is not only the positive refusal of any openness to life, but also a falsification of the internal truth of love, called to be a gift of all the person. This anthropological and moral difference between contraception and recourse to the periodic rhythms implies two conceptions of the person and human sexuality contradictory to each other" 61 (§ 2370).

Certainly, it is good to condemn artificial contraception. It nonetheless remains that the Catechism greatly distances itself from the traditional doctrine on marriage by the encouragement that it gives to "the ‘Catholic’ variant of contraception [commonly called "NFP"]." 62

The passage from the Catechism which treats of mixed marriages is also very insufficient:

In numerous countries, the situation of mixed marriages (between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) presents itself rather frequently. It demands a particular attention of spouses and pastors; the case of marriages with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and one not baptized) demands a greater circumspection still (§ 1633). "The difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the marriage when they put in common what each one has received into their community, and each one learns from the other how he lives out his fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They are due to the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the drama of the disunion of Christians in the bosom of their own home. Disparity of cult can aggravate even more these difficulties. From divergences concerning the faith, the conception itself of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can constitute a source of tensions in marriage, principally regarding the education of children. A temptation can then present itself: religious indifference (§ 1634). In many regions, thanks to ecumenical dialogue, concerned Christian communities have been able to establish a common pastoral for mixed marriages. Its task is to aid these couples to live out their particular situation in the light of faith. It must also help them to overcome tensions between the obligations the spouses have towards one another and towards their ecclesial communities. It must encourage the growth of what they have in common in the faith and the respect of what separates them (§ 1636).

Thus, the principal difficulty seen by the Catechism consists in the tensions which risk arriving suddenly between the spouses.

And still this danger tends to disappear thanks to "ecumenical dialogue" and the "common pastoral for mixed marriages." The Catechism does not speak of the peril for the Catholic spouse of losing his or her faith due to the contact with an heretical spouse. How could it speak of that since it presents heresy to us as another form of "fidelity to Christ"?


"...the human person is and must be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions..."  Vatican II

With the question of marriage, we have already come in contact a little with the domain of morality. But it is fitting to study this question separately. St. Thomas teaches that what governs morality is the "last end."  Man must orient his life towards heavenly beatitude, and, consequently, use all the means that the good Lord puts at his disposition to attain that end. This is why St. Thomas begins the second part of the Summa Theologica consecrated to morality by the treatise on the last end of man, where he shows that the true end of human life can only be the beatific vision. Consequently, man must regulate his actions in order to arrive at this end. But the Catechism so exalts the human person that it seems to become the end of human life.

Man is the end and the summit of all; he must be loved more than all.

Next, Christ came to reveal man to himself, which seems to make of man the end of divine revelation, the revelation of the Father being only a means of manifesting to man the sublimity of his vocation:

"Christ, in the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully manifests man to himself and reveals to him the sublimity of his vocation."  65 It is in Christ, the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),66 that man has been made to "the image and likeness" of the Creator. "It is in Christ, redeemer and savior, that the divine image, altered in man by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled with the grace of God" 67 (§1701).

The law of the Gospel is summed up in love for one’s neighbor:

The law of the Gospel includes the decisive choice between "the two ways," 68 and the putting into practice of the words of Our Lord69; it is summed up in the golden rule: "Whatsoever you desire that others do for you, do likewise to them; this is the law and the prophets" 70 (Mt. 7:12). The entire law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus (Jn. 13:34) of loving one another as he has loved us71 (§1970).

The Catechism "forgets" the first commandment of the evangelical law, which is, however, the greatest, according to Our Lord, so as to remember only the second which is like to it. And what’s more, it barely explains that the second includes priorities, and that the order of charity demands that we should love first that neighbor who is the closest: God first, then our soul, then our Christian brothers before other men, our family and our fellow citizens before foreigners, etc.

The respect for the dignity of every man and the quality of our relations with others is going to become the primary and fundamental virtue, more important than the faith and the other virtues which bind us to God.

We shall find more or less the vocabulary and even the order of Thomist morality, but all shall be biased by this accent placed on the dignity of man. Read, for example, the lines which introduce the first chapter consecrated to morality in the Catechism, a chapter entitled The Dignity of the Human Person:

The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and the likeness of God (Article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (Article 2). It appertains to the human being to achieve this freely (Article 3). By his deliberate acts (Article 4), the human person conforms himself or not to the good promised by God and attested by his moral conscience (Article 5). Human beings build themselves up and grow from the interior; they make of all their sensible and spiritual life a matter of their growth (Article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (Article 7), avoiding sin, and, if they have committed it, returning like the prodigal son72 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (Article 8). They arrive thus to the perfection of charity (§1700).

Thus the principal reason for which one must fulfill the moral law is not that man is held to obey God, or that he must work to save his soul so to glorify God, but that by this means, he attests to the dignity of the person:

By his reason, man knows the voice of God, which urges him "to accomplish the good and avoid evil." 73  Each one is held to follow this law, which resounds in the conscience, and which is completed in the love of God and of one’s neighbor. The exercise of the moral life witnesses to the dignity of the person (§1706).

Application of this principle: respect for the rights of man, the dignity of man, etc.

We have already spoken, in the first part of our study, of the defense by the Church of the rights of man and of the dignity of man. These same themes are found again, naturally enough, when it is a question of determining what are the moral duties of Christians. Since each man is the end of everything, as we have seen, all the duties of Christians are going to consist in protecting, in one way or another, the rights or dignity of the human person:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, the human being must recognize the rights of the person, among which the inviolable right of every innocent being to life:74  "Before being fashioned in the maternal womb, I knew you. Before your leaving the womb, I have consecrated you’"(Jer. 1:5). "My bones were not hidden before you when I was made, when I was made in secret, embroidered in the depths of the earth" (Ps. 139:15) (§2270). Whatever might be the motives or the means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the life of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally inadmissible. Thus an action or an omission which, of itself or in the intention, causes death in order to suppress suffering constitutes a crime gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person, and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error in judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this criminal act, which is always proscribed and excluded (§2277).

As we see in this last text, the Catechism speaks also sometimes of the respect due to God; but it is symptomatic that it places this respect after that of the dignity of the human person.

Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also implies a cultural effort, for there exists an "interdependence between the development of the person and that of society itself." 76  Chastity supposes the respect of the rights of the person, particularly that of receiving the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life (§2344). Pornography consists in separating sexual acts, real or simulated, from the intimacy of the partners in order to exhibit them in a deliberate manner to third persons. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, which is an intimate gift that the spouses give to one another. It gravely endangers the dignity of those who give themselves up to it (actors, dealers, and the public), since each becomes for the other the object of a rudimentary pleasure and of illicit profit. It plunges both in the illusion of being world-makers. It is a grave fault. The civil authorities must prevent the production and the distribution of pornographic materials (§2354). "In the beginning, God confided the earth and its resources to the common management of humanity for them to take care of it, to master it by their labor and to enjoy its fruits.77  The goods of creation are destined for all the human race.  However, the earth is divided between men so as to assure the security of their life, exposed as it is to shortage and menaced by violence. The appropriation of goods is legitimate so as to guarantee the liberty and dignity of persons, to aid each one to provide for his fundamental needs and to the needs of those of whom he has charge. It must permit a mutual solidarity to be manifested between men (§2402).

In economic matters, respect for human dignity demands the practice of the virtue of temperance to moderate the attachment to the goods of this world; of the virtue of justice to preserve the rights of one’s neighbor and to accord him what is due him; and of solidarity following the golden rule, and according to the liberality of the Lord who "from being rich made himself poor so as to enrich us by his poverty" (II Cor.8:9) (§2407).

Prostitution endangers the dignity of the person who prostitutes herself, who is reduced to the venereal pleasure that one takes from her. He who pays sins gravely against himself; he breaks the chastity to which he is engaged by baptism, and soils his body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.78  Prostitution constitutes a social plague. It habitually concerns women, but also men, children or adolescents (in these latter two cases, the sin is doubled by that of scandal). If it is always gravely sinful to give oneself over to prostitution, misery, blackmail and social pressure can extenuate the imputability of the fault (§2355).

This question of "extenuating the imputability of the fault" of prostitution merits, however, to be treated separately.


For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man.

The first excusing cause of sin consists for the Catechism in the "structures of sin":

Thus sin makes men accessories of each other, makes concupiscence reign among them as well as violence and injustice. Sins provoke social situations and institutions contrary to divine goodness. The "structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to commit evil in their turn. In an analogical sense they constitute a "social sin" 79 (§1869).

These structures of sin are, for example, those societies which do not respect the rights of man:

The consequences of original sin and of all the personal sins of men confer upon the world in its entirety a sinful condition, which can be designated by the expression of St. John: "the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). By this expression is also signified the negative influence that community situations and social structures which are the fruit of the sins of men exercise over persons80 (§408). Menaces for liberty. The exercise of liberty does not imply the right to say or do everything. It is false to pretend that ‘man, subject of liberty, is sufficient to himself in having for his end the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods.81  Moreover, the conditions of the economic and social, political and cultural order required for a right exercise of liberty are too often misunderstood and violated. These situations of blindness and injustice burden the moral life and place the strong as well as the weak in temptation against charity. By turning away from the moral law, man endangers his own liberty, he cleaves to himself, breaks the fraternity of his fellow men and rebels against divine liberty (§1740). "There also exist iniquitous inequalities which strike millions of men and women. These are in contradiction with the Gospel: ‘The equal dignity of persons demands that we arrive at conditions of life more just and human.

"The excessive economic and social inequalities between members or the peoples of the one human family are the cause of scandal. They place an obstacle to social justice, to equity, to the dignity of the human person, as well as to social and international peace" 82 (§1938).

Certainly, it is true that social conditions can be occasions of sin. Christians experience this each day in this laicized and materialistic society in which we live. But it is an inversion to pretend that those societies which do not respect the rights of man are the "structures of sin." Rather, it is much more the societies which take as their fundamental law the rights of man that urge men to sin by inciting them to forgetfulness of God and to revolt.

The inversion of means and of ends83 which ends up giving an ultimate value to what is only a means, or to consider persons as simply means in view of an end, engenders unjust structures which "make any Christian conduct arduous and practically impossible that is conformed to the commandments of the divine Legislator" 84 (§1887).

It is interesting to see in this citation how the Catechism pretends that it is continuing the former doctrine of the Church when it contradicts it. The phrase cited from Pius XII does not speak of societies which observe or do not observe the rights of man, the dignity of man, equality among men, etc. Pius XII said several lines further back, "From the form given to society, in harmony or not with divine laws, depends the infiltration of good or evil into souls..." For Pius XII, social conditions can be occasions of sin when they are opposed to the law of God. For the Catechism, social conditions are "structures of sin" when they are opposed to the rights of man. To see between these two positions an "homogeneous evolution of dogma," one would have to establish that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is another formulation of the Decalogue.

The Catechism also finds an excusing cause for sin in ignorance and physical and social factors:

The imputability and responsibility of an action can be diminished, even taken away altogether, by ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, habits, immoderate affections, and other psychic and social factors (§1735). The human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he acted deliberately against the latter, he would condemn himself. But it happens that the moral conscience may be in ignorance, and makes erroneous judgments upon future acts or those already accomplished (§1790).

Certainly, the Catechism recalls that ignorance can be culpable, and that in this case, it does not excuse from sin:

This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. It is so "when man tries little to seek the true and the good, and when the habitude of sin little by little makes the conscience blind." 85  In these cases, the person is culpable for the evil that he commits (§1791).

However, in practice, the Catechism greatly extends the domain of invincible (that is, non-culpable) ignorance and the other excusing causes for sin:

In so far as it rejects or refuses the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.86  The imputability of this fault can be largely diminished by virtue of one’s intentions and circumstances. In the genesis and the diffusion of atheism, "the believers can have no small part, in the measure where, by their negligence in the education of the faith, by false representations of doctrine, and also by failures in their religious, moral and social life, one can say that they violate the authentic face of God and of religion more than they reveal it" 87 (§2125).

Agnosticism can sometimes contain a certain search for God, but it can equally represent an indifferentism, a flight before the ultimate question of His existence, and a laziness of the moral conscience. Agnosticism is too often equivalent to practical atheism (§2128).

If it is committed with the intention of giving an example, especially for the young, suicide has the added gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Serious psychological troubles, anguish, grave fear of trial, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one who commits suicide (§2282).

By masturbation is to be understood the voluntary excitation of the genital organs in order to have venereal pleasure. "In the constant line of tradition, the Magisterium of the Church as well as the moral sense of the faithful have affirmed without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered act." "Whatever might be the motive, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of normal conjugal relations contradicts the finality of that act.’ Sexual enjoyment is sought outside of ‘the sexual relation required by the moral order, that which realizes in the context of true love the integral sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation." 88  In order to form an equitable judgment on the moral responsibility of subjects, and to orient pastoral action, one should take account of emotional immaturity, of the strength of habits already formed, of the state of anguish or other psychological or social factors which lessen or extenuate moral culpability (§2352).

In cauda venenum says the Latin proverb; that is, the venom is in the tail. Notice how in the last two examples, after having recalled the law, the Catechism completely waters down its strength. Certainly, the law exists; that is the thesis. In practice, in the hypothesis, it excuses so as to escape the consequences. This is a typically liberal approach.


Questioning, Indignation, Admiration

There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person).

On the word of such favorable reports made by Catholic writers, amongst them friends of tradition, I opened with hope the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I read it ...I closed it again ...and this question which haunted the young Thomas Aquinas came to my mind:

Who is God? What is God? Would I dare add that the cry of indignation which shook the heavens when Lucifer revolted failed to shake my soul: Quis ut Deus? Who is like God?

And I was further tempted to take up again for myself the admiration of Jesus Christ for the dishonest steward:  Et laudavit dominus villicum iniquitatis quia prudenter fecisset, "and the master praised the dishonest steward for the prudence of his conduct." Questioning, indignation, and admiration; such are the sentiments between which my mind oscillates at the end of this reading that I wished to be made with good will.

Questioning, for I didn’t find clear answers to the great questions that one can ask the Church: What is God?  What is the Church?  What is grace?  What is a sacrament?  What is the priest?  I found many descriptions, qualifications, and sometimes very beautiful and true considerations on these things, but hardly one of those good, precise definitions without ambiguity by which the Church has always loved to protect Her Faith. Not one time will you find, in order to define God, the words of St. John, "God is spirit," even though the Old Testament is abundantly cited. Of course, the other words of St. John, "God is love" are quoted. The Faith itself is presented to us firstly as "the response of man to God who reveals Himself" (§26). We must wait until paragraph 153 and following to see a more exact description, and until paragraph 1814 to have the definition of it.

Indignation, not only because of the manner in which God is treated, but because of the lot reserved to His Church. There is the mortal sin of this Catechism, which makes its own and puts into a structured form the sins of the Second Vatican Council:

  • doctrinal ecumenism,

  • religious liberalism,

  • collegiality,

  • and promotion of the common priesthood of the faithful to the detriment of the ministerial priesthood of priests (§§874-933),

  • the disappearing of the propitiatory finality of the Mass (§§1356-1381),

  • the judaizing of the Church (among other things, compare the subtle slide from the Jewish Passover to the Sacrifice of the Cross [§§1363-64]; the memorial seems to be the same).

  • We are beginning to ask ourselves what separates us from the Jews (§839) since we both await the same thing (§840), and since nearly all that is Catholic comes from the Jews (even the Our Father. §1096).

  • We must even place ourselves in their school to be good Catholics (ibid.).

  • We are more culpable than they for the death of Our Lord (§598: the Church does not hesitate to impute to the Christians the gravest responsibility for the suffering of Jesus), and above all, do not seek to know if our first martyrs were massacred by the Jews.

  • The Protestant and like sects are ordinary means of salvation (§819).

  • As far as the Orthodox are concerned, one could ask oneself truly if there is any problem (§839).

  • The Moslems believe in God the Creator (and therefore the Trinity?) and even, without doubt, in Jesus Christ since they have the faith of Abraham (§841).

With all of that, what above all constitutes the unity of the Church? You might think perhaps that it is the Faith? Certainly not!  It is charity! It is also faith, but in second place (§815). The Faith, even if it is affirmed as necessary for salvation (§161), is no longer considered as the beginning of salvation. It is no longer the point of departure for justification, and thus the fundamental bond of the Church. What a contrast with the magnificent decree of the Council of Trent concerning justification, so clear and precise! The Catechism teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, which is not the sole church of Christ, but only one of its manifestations (§816). Thus it can affirm that "outside the Church (understood as the church of Christ, and not the Catholic Church) there is no salvation".

As for the State, in these conditions, it is clear that it must not favor any religion whatever (§§2107, 2244 ff.), especially our own, which should not pretend to be the only true one, mistress of truth.

We can keep all our dogmas —and the essential is preserved except where the Church is concerned —but on condition that we admit and respect all the "elements of sanctification and of truth" contained in the other religions.

Some other questions merit a mention:

  • the ends of marriage are inverted (§1601 and §2201),

  • the regulation of births seems conformed to this inversion, since it suffices for "just reasons" (which?) to legitimize it;

  • the human conscience is the first of all the vicars of Christ (§1178);

  • charity is always expressed by respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience (§1789);

  • the human person is the principle, the subject and the end of all the social order (§§1881, 1907, 1929, and 1930);

  • respect for his dignity and his rights is the fundamental norm which rules the entire social order, and is expressed in the ten commandments (see for example abortion, §§2270-2273).

Finally, admiration before the cleverness of the editors, specialists of the modernist method. This work is very well done, and the method is skillful and cunning. Such is the great dishonesty of this work; there are indeed very beautiful reminders that one is happy to read, but the intellectual method is false and perverts all that the Catechism contains of good.

St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis, September 8, 1907:

...to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist.

What is the point of departure of these reflections? Man, still more man, and always man. There where one awaits God one finds man. For example: the title of the first chapter consecrated to the faith (Man is Capable of God); the title of the first chapter consecrated to morality (The Dignity of the Human Person).

Equally, there is this other specialty of modernist thought: "to understand them, to read them, one would be tempted to believe that they fall into contradiction with themselves...far from that; all is weighed, all is willed. One page of their work might have been written by a Catholic; turn the page, you think that you are reading a rationalist." 89 For example, there is paragraph 1698: the first and last reference of this catechesis shall be Jesus Christ. On the following page, the first question is: the dignity of the human person. Another example is paragraph 2105: the Church manifests thus the royalty of Christ over all creation and particularly over human societies. Turn the page and there is paragraph 2108: the natural right to civil liberty in religious matters.

Ultimum in executione, primum in intentione

"...a Church for man..."

This Catechism illustrates the justice of this adage of St. Thomas: Ultimum in executione, primum in intentioneThat which is first in the order of intention is last in the order of execution. It comes at the last, but it reveals to us the intention of the reformers who have been at work in the Church for the past thirty years (an intention laid bare and denounced since the Council by Archbishop Lefebvre): to make, beyond a conciliar Church which no one can define, a new Catholic Church where the word universal signifies collegial, world-wide and cosmic, a Church for man, for all humanity justified by the incarnation of the divine Word. To this Church of the New Age of man, all men belong, whatever their religion, if they are faithful to their conscience and respectful of the conscience of others. The role of religion, in this liberal and cosmic Church, is not to transmit a truth of which it is the depository, but to give to men, in agreement with the other religions, a minimum ethic which permits each one to live happily and peacefully with his neighbor. What is this minimum? Recognition and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person.

This Catechism is the conclusion, the achievement, and the synthesis of thirty years of conciliar upheaval. It’s hour has come, as for Napoleon, to put an end to excesses —which strengthen its conservative side —and to structure in a coherent and ordered fashion the work of the Revolution.

Thus, it puts within the reach of all, as a summa theologica, all that remained inaccessible to the ordinary layman, all that was diffused, confused, and dispersed in a multitude of texts, discourses, and actions. It gives to all these errors legal and obligatory force. No one can not know any longer the conciliar law.

A remark: scrutinize the list of references. Amongst all the popes cited by the Catechism, for the twentieth century, only three are lacking: John Paul I (that is easily explained), Benedict XV (that is still plausible), and finally St. Pius X. This last, along with St. Pius V (who is mentioned once by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution), is never cited. Without doubt, he had nothing to teach us concerning the catechism, doctrine, the Mass, the Eucharist, or the priesthood?  Unless he had too much to teach us concerning modernism?

Bonum ex integra causa...

Good only exists if the thing is entirely good...

Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectuGood only exists if the thing is entirely good, evil where there is one sole fault, the scholastic adage rightly teaches us. This is even more true, one might say, in matters of faith. See what St. Thomas says:  faith no longer remains in a man after he refuses one sole article of faith (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 3); he who refuses with pertinacity to believe one of the points contained in the faith does not have the habitus of faith, while he possesses it who does not believe all explicitly, but is disposed to believe all (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 5, A. 4, ad 1); an infused habitus is lost by one sole contrary act (de Veritate, Q. 14, A. 10, ad 10).

Just as the Virgin Mary would not be immaculate if she had the lightest blemish, so the Catechism is not Catholic if the faith that it teaches is not whole, total, and clearly explained. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is therefore not Catholic.  It expresses the conciliar ecstasy before the splendor of man, and can only seduce the poor Christians severed for the past thirty years from all serious doctrinal formation. It is a symphony too discordant not to grate on the Catholic faith; it is the symphony of the new world, for the New Age of man in the third millennium.

The ancient or recent heresies have all been subtly danced around with such ambiguity so as to teach a new, more subtle one, and which one day shall be formally condemned as heresy; this new error bears upon the relations between the natural and supernatural order, which are theoretically distinguished but practically confused. It places in man a need for happiness in place of recognizing in him a natural desire for happiness. It confuses, moreover, this desire-need for happiness with the search for God or Jesus Christ. Its argument can be reduced to the following line of reasoning: God wants all men to be saved; now, God is good and powerful enough to save all men; therefore, he has placed in each one the need for happiness.

This passage taken from the Catechism is, in some way, its self-portrait, at the same time that it depicts perfectly the baleful and mortal imposture which has invaded the Church since Vatican II:

Before the coming of Christ, the Church must pass through a final trial which will shake the faith of numerous believers.90  The persecution which accompanies its pilgrimage upon earth91 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity," under the form of a religious imposture offering to men an apparent solution to their problems, at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious imposture is that of the Antichrist, that is to say, that of a pseudo-messianism where man glorifies himself in the place of God, and of His Messiah come in the flesh92 (§675).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic Catechism, that of "a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, reuniting all men finally become brethren and comrades in ‘the Kingdom of God.’ One does not work for the Church, one works for humanity." 93

The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?





















© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.