Two For The Price of One
Thomas A. Droleskey
It's official now.
There will be "two for the price of one" come five months now, that is, in December of 2013.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis The Insidious Little Pest will indeed "canonize" Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one) and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who is the subject of this particular commentary.
The "canonization" of Roncalli/John XXIII will proceed despite there being only one "miracle" attributed to his intercession. Wojtyla/John Paul II, who streamlined the conciliar "canonization" process to such an extent that his endless "beatifications" and "canonizations" came to be known as products of the "saint factory." is said to have two "miracles" attributed to his prayers.
Why not? As a former colleague of mine in the resist while recognize movement wrote about nine years ago, "Miracles? We don't need no stinkin' miracles."
Here is the official announcement from the Occupy Vatican Movement concerning the latest conciliar farce:
(Vatican Radio) Journalists in the Holy See Press Office busy getting to grips with Pope Francis’ first encyclical the Light of Faith, were somewhat surprised Friday lunchtime when Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. called them back for a second announcement: Pope Francis had approved the cause for canonization of two of his venerable and much loved predecessors Blessed John XXIII and Blessed Pope John Paul II. Emer McCarthy reports:
Meeting with Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Cause of Saints, Friday morning, Pope Francis approved the promulgation of the decree and also convoked a special Consistory of the College of Cardinals to discuss the canonization of the Polish pope in depth.
Furthermore, he approved the favorable votes of the Ordinary Session of the Congregations Cardinals and Bishops regarding the raising to the altars of sainthood of Blessed John XXII.
This slightly unusual gesture was explained by Fr. Lombardi who told journalists that despite the absence of a second miracle it was the Pope’s will that the Sainthood of the great Pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized.
Fr. Lombardi stated that a canonization without a second miracle is still valid, given that there is already the existing miracle that lead to the Roncalli Pope’s beatification. He also pointed to ongoing discussions among theologians and experts about whether it is necessary to have two distinct miracles for beatification and canonization. Certainly, he added the Pope has the power to dispense, in a Cause, with the second miracle.
However, there was no mention of dates. Neither for the Consistory nor for the Canonizations. Fr. Lombardi did not rule out that both celebrations could coincide, and he did express his belief that they would take place by the end of the year. Either way any date would be established during the Consistory. (Francis the Insidious Little Pest signs "canonization" decrees for John XXIII and John Paul II.)
As noted in part one of this two-part commentary, this is all nothing other than the making of plaster "saints" for purely ideological reasons. The ideology being promoted in this instance is conciliarism itself and its false doctrines, sacrilegious liturgies and condemned pastoral practices. No believing Catholic should take this seriously as it is simply the work of enemies of Christ the King and the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death.
Karol Joseph Wojtyla lost the Catholic Faith early in his life, something that Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira noted in the book that she coauthored with Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch:
Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received,
or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to
masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes,
community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone,
founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its
Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its
50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by
this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops
have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II
and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and
on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could
produce a pope, loyal only to his particular "church" or movement. The
ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married
laity--each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of
the Catholic Church
But we don't have to look to the future for a pope
produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the "product" and
progenitor of dynamic lay groups." In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19,
fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught
psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had "developed his own spirituality"
and had the reputation of a "mystic." Quite in line with Deweyite and
Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic
experiential religion; "inner liberation from the faith," i.e., from
Catholicism; and "transformation of personality from within," i.e.,
spiritual growth, through the "friendship" of a community. He also
preached a life of service, especially to those of one's community, as
the fruit of the "practice and the presence of God." "To bring young
people into this same faith"--not Catholicism--he led weekly discussion
meetings for young men he recruited, "in which theological questions
were argued." (Questioning the Faith is called "critical thinking"
Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared
many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings
were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By
1943, there were 60 "animates" who reported to Tyranowski. One of these
group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.
It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her
group "the living Rosary." Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla,
whom Focolare got to know in Poland? "The Living Rosary as created by
Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which
was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual
direction ... from the mystically gifted tailor." The difference between
the two "living" Rosaries is that Tyranowoski's groups represented the
decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch's members were Hail Marys.
The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what
New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in
which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a
good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is
similar to Dewey's merger of nature and grace or Jung's "wholeness." It
is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift
in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led
to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism
for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.
Pope John Paul II's acceptance of the gnostic
philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical
experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was "an experience of
community"; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic
transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic
Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its "theme
of consciousness," provided Wojtyla's "initiation to phenomenology."
Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol
in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the
seminary six years later. He created a "theater of the inner world" to
present "universal truths and universal moral values, which . . .
offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation." Plot,
costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech--the "word"--was
his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of
the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being
pronounced just so.
That this was a training in
the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk's
book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was
published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal
Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the
sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists
and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and
occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of
the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist
Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of
Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of
the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner.
Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder
of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been
condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not
"read [theosophists'] books, daily papers, journals and writings.
Kotlarczyk believed he was an
"archpriest of drama," his living word method being a religion and
"vocation," with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the
title "Master" for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called
himself "Master of the Word." He saw theater "as ritual" and "understood
the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the
possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . ." Theater could be "a
way of perfection" if "the word" had absolute priority" over "externals
Compare Kotlarczyk's ideas with Anthroposophy or
"Christian Illuminism," which is a Luciferian initiation" that forms the
enlightened or "deified" man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy
teaches that occult knowledge, or the "inner meaning" of realities can
be obtained through a "disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music
and eurhythmic ("universal harmony"), a way of dance that Steiner
(1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The
explosion in the Church today of theatrics, "creative liturgy," and
eurhthmic-style"liturgical dance" (even at Papal Masses) as an
experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and
Steinerian influence. (Steiner's techniques are actually a "subversive"
form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups
to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic.
Destroying rational thought, they produce the "false idealist" and "soft
peacemonger" who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in
ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality,
and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even
Karol and his friends committed themselves to "the
dramatic exploration of the interior life" under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his
man roles, Karol was the "Seer John" in Steiner's arrangement of the
Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had
"significance in his spiritual formation" included productions by
Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was
an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland's political
sufferings were "karma." Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a
form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was
intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were
incorporated into other plays. To "rebuke" Pius IX, who did not support
Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also
composed a poem about a future "Slavic Pope" who would head a "reformed
papacy," and would be tough, but "a brother of the people." As Pope John
Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.
The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a
pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his
rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new
This theater ... defends the young actors against
developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them
impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner
discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously,
subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this
solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and
accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the
rhapsodists' word and the secret of their style.
After his ordination, Father
Wojtyla created his own youth group, "Little Family," whose members
called him "Uncle." Little Family became the core of a larger community
known as Srodowisko or "milieu," which he led until elected Pope. The
seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland,
sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending
his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another
Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as "Wojtyla the
revolutionary," who shocked "the entire Cracow diocese." He was also the
type of priest Focolare likes, "wholly devoid of clericalism."
Tyranowski's training taught him to highly value the laity, and he
tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin
University doctoral students, encouraging a "mutual exchange" of ideas,
happy to learn from them.
Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no
surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of
the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at
Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and
Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist
Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them
since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial
"for achieving his vision": they are "privileged channels for the
formation and promotion of an active laity ..." The following statement
he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity
of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: "the true
liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of
ecclesial communion. . . ."
Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter for the Year of the
Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a
bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Pope John
Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of "the unity of the
whole human race"--i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic
Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to "become
promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion," and communities to "building
a more just and fraternal society." (Cornelia Ferreira and John
Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.)
Leaving aside the authors'
acceptance of the legitimacy of the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John
Paul II and their belief that the Catholic Church had or was
even capable of endorsing the sects described so well and with such
thorough documentation, I can say in all candor that I was fool for
believing that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had the mind of a Catholic. A
fool. That is what I was for projecting into the very warped, Modernist
and New Age mind of Karol Wojtyla a commitment to the Deposit of Faith
that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had entrusted exclusively
to the Catholic Church. I permitted myself to be deceived.
Oh, the evidence was there. I had heard about the
"Lublin School," and was even given a book by the late Father Francis
Lescoe, about the indecipherable phenomenology it taught when I was
taking courses at Holy Apostles Seminary in the 1983-1984 academic year
(as I was teaching a graduate course on the weekends at Saint John's
University in Jamaica, Queens). I looked at it, deemed to be thoroughly
un-Catholic, refusing, however, to question the Catholicity of the man
who was the Lublin School's chief propagandist, the then currently
reigning "pontiff." I had built up a illusion about a man based on my
own willingness to suspend rationality and my willingness to accept a
delusion as reality.
No person who believes in what Wojtyla came to
believe under the tutelage of Jan Tyranowski is a member of the Catholic
Church. Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that
anyone who believes in things condemned by the Catholic falls from the
Faith no matter how much, if even a great preponderance, of other truths
of the Faith they hold, putting the lie, of course, to the "minimal
beliefs" standard that has been fabricated entirely out of whole cloth
by some apologists in behalf of the nonexistent legitimacy of the
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful
of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she
has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she
regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who
held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The
Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the
Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they
abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that
they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church?
In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who
followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous
than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and
yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple
faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor
Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the
same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were
wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church,
whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine
proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine,
Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St.
Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of
which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off
from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these
heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call
himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which
are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one
single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus,
The need of this divinely instituted means for the
preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his
epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve
with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot
be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes
all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly
one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they
lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be
observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of
faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13).
But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of
preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some
pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Karol Wojtyla was plainly a revolutionary, not a Catholic, one whose
background as a student of Jan Tyranowski was on full display at the
"Second" Vatican Council, as was noted by Fathers Francisco and Dominic
Radecki in Tumultuous Times:
His [Wojtyla's] stand on atheism puzzled many of the
bishops, especially those from Communist countries. Archbishop Wojtyla
believed that the human person should find the truth on their own and
that conversion was unnecessary:
"Wojtyla was deeply convinced that personalist
ethics--which stresses the uniqueness and inviolability of the human
personality--would never allow the imposing of ideas on anyone. He took
the same line when the council discussed the problems of atheism--a
question that vexed the Council Fathers almost from the beginning to the
end of Vatican II. 'It is not the Church's role to lecture unbelievers,' Wojtyla declared on taking the floor on October 21, 1964. 'We are involved a quest along with our fellow men. ...Let us avoid moralizing or suggesting that we have a monopoly on the truth.' ...Talk at the council of actual 'relations with atheism' meant dialogue with Marxists." (Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, His Holiness, pp. 102-103, quoted in Tumultuous Times, p. 540.)
These were revolutionary ideas, especially at a time
when the West braced for nuclear war and when much of the world was held
captive under Communist tyranny. He further expressed his ecumenical
and Modernist persuasions a week later.
"He began with several previously expressed
comments on the Church and the world and the president of the session
was on the point of stopping him, when he quickly and skillfully
captivated his audience and silenced all the noise in the auditorium. In
a loud and distinct voice, he clearly explained that the Church should
no longer pose as the sole dispenser of Truth and Goodness... She
should, he went on, be in the world but not above it. ...The Church must
alter her teaching; she should encourage Revelation and no longer
dictate it." (Catherine and Jacques Legrand, John Paul II, p. 68.)
"Although he was only forty-two when the council
opened, Wojtyla made eight oral interventions in the council hall, a
rather high number, and often spoke in the name of large groups of
bishops from Eastern Europe. (Altogether he made 22 interventions, oral
and written.) He was an unusually active member of various drafting
groups for Gaudium et Spes, and even a chief author of what was called
the 'Polish draft.' His voice as crucial to the passage of the document
on religious liberty.''"(William Madges and Michael Daly, Vatican II:
Forty Personal Stories, p. 33)
The Modernists Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Jean
Danielou worked closely with Archbishop Wojtyla to draft the Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World [Gaudium et Spes]. In his
speeches of September 23 and 28, 1965, Wojtyla championed the heresy of
religious liberty and encouraged dialogue with atheists.
"Archbishop Wojtyla then took up the question of
atheism as a pastoral issue, as part of the Church's 'dialogue with
everyone.' ...The Church's dialogue with atheism should begin not with
arguments or proofs about the existence of God, but with a conversation about the human person's interior liberty." (Tumultuous Times, pp. 540-541.)
How ironic is it that two trained actors, Karol Wojtyla and Ronald
Reagan, were on the world stage together during most of the 1980s? Both
used style and image--and carefully staged events--to communicate a
sense of "connectedness" to the public.
Wojtyla did so even more
effectively than Reagan, conveying the impression to so many of us "in
the pew" that he was going to come to our "rescue," that all we had to
do was to be "patient" and to "fight in our parishes for the Faith,"
that our "Holy Father" would send us "good bishops" to undo the harm of
the "bad bishops." The mass communications media provided Karol
Wojtyla/John Paul II with the perfect stage for many of us to "connect"
with him on an emotional level as our spiritual "father," making many of
us inclined to overlook some of the things he said and did (constant
support for ecumenism and religious liberty, the Assisi event, the
"papal" extravaganza"Masses" replete with the incorporation of pagan
rituals of one sort or another) for a very long period of time.
Some of us put aside the use of our reason to to "hope against hope" that Wojtyla/John Paul II was going to "restore" the Catholic Church after the darkness of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.
1. It was within a week of his election on October
16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in
their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's
traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.
2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae
3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of
1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in
Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history.
See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.
4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over
the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of
America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters
against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own
documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic
University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those
educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians
to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said
this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father
Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was
sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was
later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the
very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass,"
saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is
5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979,
Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology
at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other
arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I
told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that
day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."
6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:
As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask
forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and
dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever
reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and
also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application
of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal
and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the
veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that
in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred
mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of
reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)
See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient"
conciliar priests for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that
there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and
ever-changable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time,
of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't
the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.
7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a
Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest
of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn
Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He
used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to
see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes
of the world.
8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986
the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father
Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by
John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and
dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992 for his New Age
"creation spirituality" beliefs.
9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum)
visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the
Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's
parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the
recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's
answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said,
"Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on
Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of
1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York
Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their
faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their
ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with
you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are
responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly
to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having
difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have," I said
when learning of this from Roman contacts.
10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the
Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via
della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first
"indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the
Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back!
We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained
that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had
to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that
it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return.
Sure, sure sure, I was always "uncomfortable" with
ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general.
John Paul II was going to "fix" things, I convinced myself. No more
"Hamlet on the Tiber" as had been experienced under Giovanni
Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my
delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed, that
he had been a leading revolutionary at the "Second" Vatican Council and
was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical
I ignored the simple fact that Karol Wojtyla/John
Paul II praised false ecumenism in his inaugural address to the
"cardinals" in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Tuesday, October 17, 1978,
the exact thing that his "successor," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI
would do on Wednesday, April 20, 2005.
I ignored John Paul II's embrace
of the "archbishop" of Canterbury, who was no more a clergyman than was
Mike Huckabee when he plied his trade as a Baptist "minister." I winced a
little when John Paul II praised Martin Luther during his pilgrimage to
the Federal Republic of Germany (also known at the time as "West
Germany") in 1980.
I buried my head in the sand after the egregious
sacrileges associated with the Day of World Prayer for Peace in Assisi,
Italy, on October 27, 1986. I could not defend the indefensible,
considering the Assisi event to have been an "aberration" rather than an
actual symptom of the apostate heart beating within Karol Wojtyla's
And I was vocal, at least privately in my conversations with
fellow "conservative" Catholics, about liturgical abominations at
"papal" "Masses (half-naked women bringing up to the "gifts," rock music
at "youth" "Masses," praise offered to voodoo witch doctors, etc.).
Face facts that Wojtyla was not a Catholic? Perish the thought, which is
what I did for a very long time.
Well, this is what I chose to ignore about the man in whom I project a devotion to the Catholic Faith that did not beat within his heart of Modernism and the "New Theology":
1. John Paul II, himself an active
participant in the proceedings of the "Second" Vatican Council, told us
that that council was a "milestone," "an event of utmost importance in
the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in
the religious and cultural history of the world." He told us so at the
very beginning of his reign of ruin and destruction, a day after his
First of all, we wish to point out the
unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we
accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed,
is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event
of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the
Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the
However, as the Council is not
limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways
applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore
we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most
diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive
norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a
way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in
particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely,
it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the
Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered
by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually
said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments
made since then and the demands of changing circumstances.
Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of
the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground
(cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral
deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is
characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)
John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second"
Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was
"implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy
likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he
talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated
religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal
orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox
and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain
in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was
the Catholic Church.
2. John Paul II's brand of "spiritual ecumenism," whose basic premises were categorically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos,
January 6, 1928, permitted him to enter freely into places of false
worship and to be treated as an inferior by his hosts. He used numerous
occasions to proclaim abject apostasies, including when he visited a
Jewish synagogue in Mainz, Germany, in 1980:
“The first dimension of this dialogue, that
is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked
by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue
within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of
her Bible ... Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are
called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together
for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II's Success.
The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and
German. Here are is the relevant passages in these two languages,
including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:
Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa
visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in
parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del
dialogo tra le due religioni, che - con l’islam - poterono donare al
mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono
servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.
La prima dimensione di questo
dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da
Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è
allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così
dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito
dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare
“Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto
ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo...,
poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore
interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato
all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il
Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)
Dabei geht es nicht nur um die
Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die
Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil
mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei
Religionen, die - mit dem Islam - der Welt den Glauben an den einen,
unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und
stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.
Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs,
nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie
gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer
Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel.
Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung
”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten
Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist..., da dies durch die
spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen
vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine
gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the
representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November
This apostasy, which was a cornerstone of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's
ecumenical beliefs, has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic
Church, and he knew this to be so:
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death
of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which
had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; 
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Did God the Holy Ghost permit the Catholic Church to be "wrong" on the
matter of the invalidity of the Old Covenant prior to the "Second"
Vatican Council? Can God change His Mind? Can God contradict Himself
after the better part of over two millennia? Anyone who asserts this is
an apostate of the first order. Apostates are not deserving of
canonization by the authority of the Catholic Church as they have
expelled themselves from her maternal bosom.
3. The theological foundation of John Paul II's spiritual ecumenism was
laid by the late Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a disciple of the late
Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. John Paul II cited Couturier in
footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an encyclical letter that was the exact opposite of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos,
January 6, 1928. Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, who was appointed as the
President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity by
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on February 21, 2001, praised the "spiritual
ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier in a "reflection" published at the
beginning of the conciliar church's 2008 "Week of Prayer for Christian
Unity" that replaced the Catholic Church's Chair of Unity Octave that
runs from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome on January 18 to
In taking a fresh look at Paul Wattson's original
intention, we note an important development in the understanding of the
Week of Prayer. While Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the
return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953)
gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true
sense of the word. He changed the name "Church Unity Octave" to
"Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity", thus furthering a unity
of the Church that "Christ wills by the means he wills".
Paul Couturier's 1944 spiritual testament is very
important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired
ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The
author speaks of an "invisible monastery", "built of all those souls
whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire
and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding
of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these
souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular
recourse to prayer and penance".
Paul Couturier can be considered the father of
spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by
Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr Maria Gabriella also drew great
inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking
shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic
monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities,
centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people. (Charting the road of the ecumenical movement.)
It is interesting to note that Kasper praised the work of the 1910
"World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, that was much
praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI throughout the course of the
year 2010. Ratzinger/Benedict, who has praised Abbe Paul Couturier
himself as the "father of 'spiritual ecumenism,'" knows that Pope Pius
XI had condemned this false ecumenism. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew
this as well. Neither cared. Apostates do not care. Apostates do not get
canonized by the authority of the Catholic Church.
4. John Paul II presided over the "rehabilitation" of the long deceased
Father Antonio Rosmini, forty of whose theological propositions had been
condemned in 1887 by Pope Leo XIII. This "rehabilitation," which was
engineered by the then prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, represented a
direct application of John Paul II's and Benedict XVI's apostate belief
that past dogmatic pronouncements and papal decrees are conditioned by
the historical circumstances in which they were made, requiring them to
be "adjusted," if not overturned, at other times. This view, of course,
has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church,
but it was the very foundation of the Rosmini decision, which was vital
to pave the way for his own conciliar "beatification," engineered by
Ratzinger and approved by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here is part of the text
of the "Note" issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
on July 1, 2001, that reveals the "true then, not true now" mentality
that united John Paul II and the future Benedict XVI:
The events following Rosmini's death required a
certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in
particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to
consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this
distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions"
of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.
The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The
Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and
theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of
ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in
seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an
eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the
premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative
position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and
conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration
of St Thomas Aquinas.
A second factor to keep in mind is the fact
that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous
works of the author. These works were published without a critical
apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and
concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian
thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's
categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic
perspective. (Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati;
please see Appendix A below for the view of a ultra-progressive
conciliar revolution on the revolutionary meaning of this "note.")
There are two things that stand
out in this passage of the "note" reversing Pope Leo XIII's
condemnation of the propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini.
First, "Cardinal Ratzinger," with the full
approval and "papal" benediction of John Paul II, essentially said that
Pope Leo XIII was too stupid to understand the complexity of Rosmini's
admittedly ambiguous work, leading to that pontiff's misunderstanding of
that work. Ratzinger's contention was that the "misunderstanding"
served the Church well at the time as, in essence, most other people
would have come to the same conclusions as they lacked the "tools" to
unlock the "true" meaning hidden deep within Rosmini's words. Ratzinger,
of course, had those "tools" at his disposal, most fortunately for the
cause of conciliar "truth," you understand.
Second, Pope Leo XIII's "rigidity," if you will,
was caused by his "adoption" of Thomism that created the "premises for a
negative judgment" of Rosmini's work. Ratzinger was asserting that Pope
Leo XIII "adopted" Thomism in Aeterni Patris rather than
providing us with a cogent summary of how pope after pope had endorsed
the work of the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism as the official
philosophy of the Catholic Church:
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman
pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional
tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the
bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of
Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear
witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable
teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that
heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were
dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others,
such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful
blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church,
and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest
Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome;
while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar
and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they
may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed
Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our
will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of
Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with
all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the
example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter
in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6,
1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on
August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these
judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning
testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the
canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language,
an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it
are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail
it will always be suspected of error.'
The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms
the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold
Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna,
Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and
presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending
against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with
invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief
and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the
Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order
of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and
the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas,
whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
A last triumph was reserved for this
incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration
of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come
to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical
sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas
were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic
teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed,
but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)
The rejection of Scholasticism
by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has made it possible for the ultimate
triumph of the former's concept of "living tradition" which the latter termed as the "hermeutic of continuity and
discontinuity," which is simply a repackaging of the condemned Modernist
proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that Pope Saint
Pius X dissected in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and that Pope Pius XII condemned anew in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Thus it is that the rejection of the nature of
dogmatic truth, which is in and of itself a rejection of the very
immutability of God and represents a denial, therefore, of His essence
as God, has been used to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal
collegiality, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer
services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, undermining
the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, treating the "clergy"
of various Protestant sects as having valid orders even while
maintaining the official position of the Catholic Church, and any number
of other matters that time simply does not me to enumerate yet again.
Undermine the nature of dogmatic truth, my good and very few readers,
and you make the triumph of concilairism possible.
The list above, which is hardly exhaustive, contains only those things that I chose to ignore in the early years of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "Petrine Ministry" as I served as one of his principal cheerleaders and admirers.
Vast is the amount of damage that Wojtyla/John Paul II did to the Catholic Faith. Vast. (For a few excerpts of "Blessed" John Paul II's praise of false religions, please see the appendix in Another Day In The Life Of An Antichrist.)
Wojtyla/John Paul II issued the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1993 (Although I had inserted a link to a crique of that "catechism" as found on the website of the United States of America district website of the Society of Saint Pius X, an alert reader wrote to me this morning to say that the link no longer worked. The original article, appended below, has been broken up into four parts and has been archived on the Society of Saint Pius X website: Is the New Catechism Catholic? Part 1. For your convenience, that I did copy the text as an appendix in an article that was posted in early-2009. You can find the full text of "The New Catechism: Is It Catholic" appended below), ten years after he had promulgated a new code of canon law that permitted Protestants and the Orthodox to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
It was in 1994 that the soon-to-be "canonized" Wojtyla/John Paul II, breaking with the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church permitted girls and women to serve as the extension of the hands of priests/presbyters during the stagings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Perhaps most egregiously of all, though, was how Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II destroyed the integrity of Our Lady's Psalter, her Most Holy Rosary, by promulgating a "new" set of mysteries, the "Luminous Mysteries."
Some in the secular media have
focused in the past few years on Wojtyla/John Paul II's role in protecting
members of his clergy accused of committing sins against nature against
children and others. There has been additional focus placed on the
numerous financial scandals that unfolded during his 9,666 day
"pontificate," including the Polish-born prelate's efforts to protect
his personal body guard and the head of the scandal-plagued,
Mafia-influenced and infiltrated Vatican's Institute for Works of
Religion (Vatican Bank) from 1971 to 1989, the late "Archbishop" Paul
Casimir Marcinkus, and on his refusal to do anything to sanction the
sociopath who founded the Legionaries of Christ, the late
Father Marcial Maciel Degollado (see Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity).
These are certainly legitimate concerns and would be
almost insuperable obstacles to any true pontiff's canonization process
as an important element of a pope's sanctity is the faithful fulfillment
of the duties imposed by his being the visible head of the true Church
on earth, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Indeed, doubting not for one moment the
personal piety of Pope Pius XII, for example, and the great physical
sufferings that he endured as a soldier in the Army of Christ in the
latter years of his life, any authentic examination of his own life's
work in a true canonization process conducted by the Congregation for
the Causes of the Saints in the Catholic Church undoubtedly would have
to weigh his horrific judgment in appointing the very Modernist
revolutionaries who have given us Holy Mother Church's counterfeit ape.
Among those revolutionaries are the first two of the conciliar "popes",
of course, Angelo Roncalli, who was appointed by Pope Pius XII as the
Papal Nuncio to France on December 23, 1944 and elevated to the College
of Cardinals on January 12, 1953, in conjunction with his being named
three days later as the Patriarch of Venice, and Giovanni Montini, who
was appointed to be the Archbishop of Milan on November 1, 1954, after
spending years in the service of the Vatican Secretariat of State. Not
to be overlooked as horrific appointees of Pope Pius XII, obviously, are
the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli,
O.F.M., both of whom worked assiduously to plan and commence the
liturgical revolution that would result on April 3, 1969, in Giovanni
Montini/Paul The Sick's promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969. Dishonorable mention must be made of the
papal appointments of Americanists Richard Cushing (Boston), Francis
Spellman (New York) and John Dearden.
These are not minor matters. The prelate appointed to
be the Defender of the Faith in the case of a legitimate consideration
of the canonization of Pope Pius XII would make a case against
canonization on the grounds of the poor judgment demonstrated by these
appointments that resulted in such a catastrophe for souls as so many
horrific offenses were given to God in the decades since those
appointments were made. The Promoter of the Cause would counter with
other considerations, including the late pope's personal piety, his
unquestioned moral probity and, among many other considerations working
in the cause's favor, his strong condemnation in Humani Generis,
August 12, 1950, of the "new theology" that was being used by
professors to warp the mind of forming a young German seminarian by the
name of Joseph Alois Ratzinger.
The existence of even proven miracles is not a
guarantee that a particular candidate whose cause for canonization is
underway will result in a positive outcome as not every miracle worker
is seen to be fit to be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church even
though that person may well be a saint in Heaven as a member of the
Church Triumphant. Not every member of the Church Triumph is worthy of
being raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who has been judicious
and cautious in her selection of candidates. Saint Joan of Arc's cause
had to wait fourteen days shy of the 489th anniversary of her unjust
execution by the English on May 30, 1431 for her canonization by Pope
Benedict XV on May 20, 1920. The causes of Saints Thomas More and Saint
John Fisher had to wait almost 400 years for their canonization by Pope
Pius XI on May 19, 1935.
On the contrary, though, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II
"beatified" and "canonized" more people than had been done in preceding
four hundred years prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9,
1958. John Paul II"canonized" 482 people from the first "canonization"
ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1922, to his last
extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004
(see Table of the Canonizations during the
reign of John Paul II). He beatified 996 people between
April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The "heroic virtue" listed for one
woman 'beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed
her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the
conciliar clergy, "Hey, I got a shot at this!" (I was joking.) My now
former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one's
prayers every day is not "heroic." It is our duty.
Beatification and canonization are not "merit badges"
to be bestowed as a result of the appearance of popularity based upon
emotional and, all too frequently, highly manipulative myth-making about
a candidate's true legacy. See, for example, all of the myth-making
behind the making of "saint" Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas (see Not The Work of God),
as a prime example of this. What is happening at present with Karol
Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose cheerleading enthusiast I served for well
over fifteen years until the altar girl fiasco in 1994 that prompted me
to recognize once and for all that "fighting to stop abuses in the Novus Ordo"
was a complete waste of time as it was the abuse par excellence, dwarfs
the efforts--and they were gargantuan and quite sophisticated and
well-financed--that pushed along the cause of Josemaria Escriva Balaguer
y Albas, the founder of Opus Dei.
There is so much more that can be written. Those who
want to exult in the "beatification" of an enemy of Christ the King and
thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most
Precious Blood will do so. No one can be forced to accept the evidence
that is presented to them for his consideration.
The stuff of conciliarism is the stuff of eternal
perdition, not that of sanctity, less yet, of course of authentic
beatification and canonization. It is that simple.
Some in the "resist but recognize" movement may
assert in the coming days that not even the "canonization" process is
infallibly protected, that no one has to "believe" in the
'canonization" of the man, John Paul II, whom they criticized endlessly
and whose apostasies caused some of them to write massive books while
still recognizing him as "the pope." Others may try to assert that it is
even unsettled as to whether the solemn act of their true "pope's"
canonization of a given person is infallibly protected. The intellectual
gymnastics will boggle the mind as some people attempt to avoid looking
at the apostate elephant who is sitting on their very chests and
crushing their ability to see the logical conclusions that must be drawn
from all of the evidence that some of them have presented in very clear
and convincing terms: that those who defect from even one article of
the Catholic Faith expel themselves from the maternal bosom of Holy
Mother Church and cannot hold her ecclesiastical offices legitimately.
For a much more comprehensive examination of the heresies, apostasies, sacrileges and blasphemies of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, please see the late Father Luigi Villa's Karol Wojtyla Beatified?- Never!. I also happen to have a copy of a catalogue of many of Wojtyla/John Paul II's hideous words and actions. It's entitled The Great Facade. Perhaps you have heard of it. Yup, those in the "resist while recognize" crowd are going to have to "celebrate" the "obligatory memorials" of "Saint" John XXIII and "Saint" John Paul II. Will they "resist" this while "recognizing the "pope," Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Insidious Little Pest, who will preside over these false canonizations?
Although Wojtyla is now scheduled to be "canonized" at the "two for the price of one" ceremony later this year, Father Villa was indeed correct in stating that the late "Petrine Minister" would never be beatified or canonized by the Catholic Church as the Polish "pope" was an enemy of the Catholic Faith whose beliefs, words and actions were hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, and who enabled and protected clerical abusers to the point of having his own malfeasance in office come to light eleven and one-half years ago when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were laid bare for public review (see the partial list of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "nogoodniks" as provided in the appendix below.)
"As one perceptive reader of this site asked rhetorically, "I wonder if the Koran he [Wojtyla/John Paul II] kissed is now
considered a 'relic!' Good question. I've got my own: Am I a relic of some sort for having shaken his hand on six different occasions and for having served as his lector as he staged the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993? Is the Rosary he gave me after that liturgical service a "relic"?
Yes, absurd questions. The whole situation is absurd.
It does not matter that only a tiny fraction of Catholics in the world have drawn those conclusions as truth does not depend upon how many people see it.
How many people saw the truth in Noe's admonitions?
No one outside of his family.
How many people saw the truth that those who opposed Arianism, such as Saint Athanasius, were correct?
How many bishops in England remained faithful to Holy Mother Church at the time of Henry VIII's revolt against Christ the King?
Truth does not depend upon the fact that a tiny fraction of mostly warring Catholics now. It is that simple.
Once again, seeing the truth does not make anyone one whit better than those who do not. Each of us must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We must persevere in Charity and to perform the Supernatural and Corporal Works of Mercy. We must spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And we must pray our Rosaries with fervor and devotion as we keep shielding ourselves with her Brown Scapular and trust in the power of her Miraculous Medal.
We are not assured of our salvation just because we have been sent the graces by Our Lady to understand that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and is a tool of the adversary to lead souls away from sanctity as they become convinced that Holy Mother Church can contradict herself or that it is possible for true popes, whether now or in the past, to give his error and defective liturgies.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II kept his word to be faithful to the "Second" Vatican Council. Perhaps that is reason enough for the conciliarists to have "beatified" him two years ago now and to "canonize" him later this year no matter those false rites and doctrines and no matter his track record of "episcopal" appointments and the protection of men who were as morally derelict in the discharge of their duties as he was of his. Revolutionaries must always seek to lionize their own.
We must remain confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
A Reprise of the List of No Goodniks Who Were Appointed or Promoted by John Paul II
1. Joseph Bernardin, transferred from being the
conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to being the conciliar
archbishop of Chicago, Illinois.
2. Roger Mahony, the conciliar "bishop" of Fresno, California, and then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California.
3. Tod Brown, the conciliar "bishop" of Boise, Idaho, and then the conciliar "bishop" of San Diego, California.
4. Sylvester Ryan, the retired conciliar "bishop" of
Monterey, California, who had an actual, honest-to-goodness baby-killer
serving on his priest-abuse advisory board (See the news story at Catholic Citizens.)
5. Robert Brom, the conciliar "bishop" of Duluth,
Minnesota, and then the conciliar 'bishop" of San Diego, California, who
presided over the San Diego diocese's bankruptcy proceedings caused by
the cover-up of clergy abuse cases.
6. Patrick McGrath, the conciliar "bishop" of San
Jose, California, who, among his other offenses, denied the historicity
of the Gospel accounts of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's
Passion and Death.
7. George Patrick Ziemann, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Santa Rosa, California.
8. Thomas Joseph O'Brien, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Phoenix, Arizona.
9. Joseph Keith Symons, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida.
10. Daniel Leo Ryan, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois.
11. Robert Lynch, the conciliar "bishop" of Saint
Petersburg, Florida, who gave encouragement to Michael Schiavo's efforts
to starve and dehydrate his wife, Mrs. Threresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo.
12. Joseph Fiorenza, the former conciliar
"archbishop" of Galveston, Houston, Texas, a protege of Joseph
"Cardinal" Bernardin who was a thorough supporter of the conciliar
13. Robert Joseph Banks, a former conciliar auxiliary
"bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, and then the
conciliar "bishop" of Green Bay, Wisconsin.
13. Bernard Law, the disgraced former conciliar
"archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who was appointed to that post by
Wojtyla/John Paul II. Law, who presided over the systematic cover-up
and protection of predator priests and presbyters in Boston, was
appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the archpriest of the Basilica
di Santa Maria Maggiore in 2004.
14. Thomas Daily, the former conciliar "bishop" of
Palm Beach, Florida, and the former conciliar "bishop" of Brooklyn, New
York, who was one of Law's chief enablers in protecting the likes of the
notorious Father Paul Shanley.
15. William Murphy, the conciliar "bishop" of
Rockville Centre, New York, who was yet another participant in the great
16. Richard Lennon, the conciliar "bishop" of
Cleveland, Ohio, who was a major supporter of Bernard Law's policies
while an auxiliary "bishop" there.
17. John McCormick, the conciliar "bishop" of
Manchester, New Hampshire, who has been an enabler of predator priests
and presbyters there as he had been as an auxiliary "bishop" in Boston,
18. Matthew Clark, the conciliar "bishop" of
Rochester, New York, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church
would have to find a way to "bless" same-gender "unions."
19. Kenneth Untener, the late conciliar "bishop" of Saginaw, Michigan, who was an enemy of the Catholic Faith.
20. Harry Flynn, the retired "archbishop" of Saint
Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was ever tolerant of the "rainbow"
agenda and brought disgrace upon himself by terming the late Father Paul
Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, as an
21. William Levada, created by Wojtyla/John Paul II
as conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Los Angeles in 1983 before being
appointed as the conciliar "archbishop" of Portland, Oregon, in 1986,
being transferred to San Francisco, California, in 1995.
22. George Niederauer, the conciliar "bishop" of Salt Lake City,
Utah, in 1995, promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar
"archbishop" of San Francisco, California, in 2005.
23. Thomas Ludger Dupre, the disgraced retired "bishop" of Springfield, Massachusetts.
24. John Magee, the disgraced conciliar "bishop" of Cloyne, Ireland,
and the long-time secretary to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol
Wojtyla/John Paul II.
25. Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop"
of Vienna, Austria, who has committed one offense against God after
another (see Almost Always At Odds With Themselves, Negotiating To Become An Apostate, They Continue to Caricature Themselves, and Meltdown.)
26. Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg in
Breisgau, who, of course denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of the
Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
27. Hans Hermann Groer, the late, disgraced
"archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who was removed after "bishops" and
members of the laity complained about his predatory behavior, which he
denied until the day he died. (See Austria Cardinal Groer Exiled Over Sex Abuse.)
Christoph Schonborn is now saying that the then Joseph "Cardinal"
Ratzinger urged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove Groer, Schonborn's
predecessor, but was stymied for a long time by John Paul II. Just
another conciliar voice throwing John Paul II as the Benedict XVI
continues to promote the fiction of his late predecessor's "sanctity"
even though no one who protected moral derelicts is possessed of any
sense of true sanctity.
28. Jean-Louis "Cardinal" Tauran, appointed as a
"bishop" by John Paul II in 1990 and elevated to the conciliar colleges
of cardinals in 2003. Ratzinger/Benedict appointed Tauran as the
president of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue." It
was in this capacity that he said the following in 2008:
Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolise the proceedings?
Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and
I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes
there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't
get the impression there are first class religions and second class
religions.(Interview with Terrasanta.net, a Website of the Holy Land Review.)
29. Walter Kasper, appointed as
a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1989 and elevated to the conciliar
"college of cardinals" in 2001. Need one say anything more?
30. Bruno Forte, who was recommended by Joseph
"Cardinal" Ratzinger for the conciliar "episcopate" in 2004 despite
Forte's having denied the actual fact of Our Lord's Bodily Resurrection
on Easter Sunday:
example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s
disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the
little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of
Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.
who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to
an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s
replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
How this happened is anybody’s guess. The rumor has caused a great deal
of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming
neo-modernist. As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a
report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a
pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper. (In yet
another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after
Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to
the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the
Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and
still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims,
relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio
della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals
Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical
as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the
resurrection of Christ. The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied
into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’
burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early
disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details
surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the
community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of
Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”
elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s
name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the
Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano,
Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But,
“in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over
Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other
than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head
of the CDF, according to the rumors. Yes, “our only friend in the
Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this
man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the
post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the
appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic
doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger
who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic
Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a
long-overdue task.” The Church, he declared, “must
relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for
her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding
bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with
the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to
clatter to the ground.
is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and
bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible.
this happens, however, the difference between extinction and
non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists
might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be
another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and
impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have
imagined. Who knows which way it will go? All we can do is continue
our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope,
and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be
upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Consecrates Modernist Bishop)
31. Theodore McCarrick, the
founding conciliar "bishop" of Metuchen, New Jersey, and later the
conciliar "archbishop" of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, District
of Columbia, who indemnified pro-abortion politicians and said openly
that men suffering from the affliction of being "attracted" to other men
should not be prohibited from studying for the conciliar presbyterate.
32. Emerson Moore, an auxiliary "bishop"
of the Archdiocese of New York who engaged in rank immorality and died
of auto immune deficiency disease.
33. Eugene Marino, appointed by John Paul
II to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Atlanta in 1988 but had to
resign two years later after it was revealed that he had gotten married
in a civil ceremony in 1988 to a lay-ministerette with whom he had been
34. Emil Wcela, appointed by John Paul II
to be a conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New
York, despite officials in the Vatican knowing that Wcela was an open
supporter of the impossibility known as "woman's ordination to the
35. Jacques Gaillot, the conciliar
"bishop" of Evreux, France, from 1982 to 1995 who supported, among other
things, the French abortion pill, RU-486 and who "blessed" the union of
two men who had entered into a perverted "union." It took a revolution
among the laity in Evreux to effect Gaillot's forced removal by the
Vatican on January 12, 2005. Gaillot remains in perfectly "good
standing" in the conciliar structures.
36. Sean Brady, the conciliar
"archbishop" of Armagh, Northern Ireland, who has presided over the
systematic protection of clerical abusers.
37. Michael Sheehan, the conciliar
"archbishop" of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in whose diocese is located one of
the institutions most responsible for the phony "rehabilitation" of
clerical abusers and who has keep in perfectly good standing the
notorious "Father" Richard Rohr and has praised Barack Hussein Obama
(see Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby.)
38. Joseph Adamec, the conciliar "bishop"
of Altoona-Johnston, Pennsylvania, who went so far in 2003 as to
silence all of his priests and presbyters from criticizing his handling
of predators among their ranks.
39. Paul Loverde, the conciliar "bishop" of Arlington, Virginia, who persecuted whistle blower priest Father James Haley (Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde.)
40. James T. McHugh, the late conciliar
"bishop" of Camden, New Jersey, and--for a brief time--Rockville Centre,
New York, who was one of the chief agents of promoting the corruption
of the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom
instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
(See Mrs. Randy Engel's The McHugh Chronicles.)
41. Edward Egan, the former conciliar
"archbishop" of New York who, as the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport,
Connecticut, went so far as to assert that his diocese could NOT be held
legally liable for the actions of priests as the latter were
"independent contractors" paid by their parishes, not by their dioceses.
42. Rembert G. Weakland, the disgraced
former conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whose warfare
against the Faith that was of international scope should have been
stopped long before he was forced to resign in disgrace in 2002. He
remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.
43. Thomas Gumbleton, a retired
conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Detroit, Michigan, an appointee of the
late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI whose work in behalf of moral perversion
should have resulted in his suspension decades ago. He remains in "good
standing" in the conciliar structures.
44. Sean O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap., the
conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who has distinguished
himself as an ardent defender of the "legacy" of the late United States
Senator Edward Moore Kennedy and a sycophantic tool of the ancient
enemies of the Catholic Faith by serving the role in early-2009 of a
demagogue against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius
45. William Keeler, the former conciliar
"archbishop" of Baltimore, Maryland, who specialized in overseeing
relations between the conciliar church and adherents of the Talmud,
producing a document in 2002, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission", that had to be revised in 2009 because of its lack of clarity on several doctrinal points.
46. Howard Hubbard, the conciliar
"bishop" of Albany, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI
who has spent the past thirty-three years as a thorough champion of the
conciliar religion. Not even an adoption arranged by Catholic Charities
in Albany for a "couple" engaged in perversity could prompt Wojtyla/John
Paul II to remove him.
47. John Raymond McGann, the conciliar
"bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, from June 24, 1976, to January
4, 2000, who presided over a full-bore implementation of the conciliar
revolution in my home diocese, going so far as to persecute
traditional-leaning pastors and priests and presbyters. Report after
report was sent to Rome, some delivered personally to those close to the
late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. McGann, who protected his own share of
clergy abusers (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).
48. Daniel Pilarczyk, Bernardin's worthy
"successor" as the conciliar "archbishop" of Cincinnati, Ohio, who
protected clerical abuses and even had an actual Freemason serving as
the archdiocese psychologist who screened the mental and emotional
fitness of candidates who were applying to study for the conciliar
49. Donald Wuerl, the conciliar "bishop"
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (since promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be
the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia), who has
been one of the chief proponents of explicit classroom instruction in
matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
50. John Joseph O'Connor, the conciliar
"archbishop" of New York, from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, who
protected his own share of pederasts in the conciliar clergy and who
told the ABC News program Nightline that "God was smiling" on the
conversion of a Catholic man to Judaism.
The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? (This link no longer works.)
"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.
"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
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
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.
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
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 (!).
|I. THE DIGNITY OF MAN
"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
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
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
I. EVERY MAN IS A FRIEND & SON OF GOD
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 inadmisible 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.
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"
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
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 (§
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
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).
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).
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
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).
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:
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
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
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
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 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
principally the reading of the Old Testament
the prayer of the Psalms
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" (§
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 (§
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"?
|IV: THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY
"...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
"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
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.
| THE EXCUSING CAUSES OF SIN
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
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
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
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.
CONCLUSION: A NON-CATHOLIC CATECHISM
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
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
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:
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),
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).
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.).
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).
Moslems believe in God the Creator (and therefore the Trinity?) and
even, without doubt, in Jesus Christ since they have the faith of
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
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
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 intentione —That 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 defectu —Good 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
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?