O que a Igreja dizia sobre o abuso da venda de indulgências?

Por Amanda Ferrari Vasconcellos.

Uma ignorância comum é achar que apenas com Lutero, na publicação das 95 teses, o abuso do comércio de indulgências foi condenado.
Há uma percepção meio comum e poucas vezes criticada de que a Igreja Romana enquanto instituição apoiava ou, no mínimo, era conivente com a situação. Continue reading

Foro de São Paulo diz que ‘regulação da mídia’ deve ser ponto número 1 no Brasil

Eu não tenho nenhuma dúvida. O que acontece na Venezuela hoje, e o que está acontecendo na Colômbia, tem um selo inconfundível: Foro de São Paulo. Muitos ouviram falar desta organização, mas poucos sabem acerca de sua real periculosidade.

O Foro de São Paulo foi criado em 1990 por Fidel Castro, com o propósito de ser um aparato unificador do comunismo em toda a América Latina. Sua intenção foi dar um novo alento ao regime comunista de Cuba após a queda do muro de Berlim e a descida em picada da União Soviética. A idéia, em 1990, era tomar inicialmente o controle de dois países poderosos da América Latina: Brasil e Venezuela, para desde lá financiar a rendição do resto da América Latina aos pés do castro-comunismo. Continue reading

Estudar antes de falar

Por Olavo De Carvalho

Um sujeito é comunista não porque creia em tais ou quais coisas, mas porque ocupa um lugar numa organização que age como parte ou herdeira da tradição revolucionária comunista, com toda a pletora de variedades e contradições ideológicas aí contida.

O caminho mais curto para a destruição da democracia é fomentar o banditismo por meio da cultura e tentar controlá-lo, em seguida, pelo desarmamento civil. A esquerda nacional tem trilhado coerentemente essa dupla via há pelo menos cinco décadas, e sempre soube perfeitamente qual seria o resultado: o caos social, seguido de endurecimento do regime se ela estiver no poder, de agitação insurrecional se estiver fora dele. Continue reading

Synod “black mark” for Holy See: Bishop Schneider

A bishop explains how the Synod’s manipulated agenda mirrors the general immorality of current society. In reaction to this problem, the bishop encourages fidelity to the Church’s immutable moral teachings.

We publish this interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan. It was published on November 5th in the Polish magazine Polonia Christiana.

It is encouraging to see Bishop Schneider again standing up with strong statements about the ongoing crisis of the Church. The SSPX, following Archbishop Lefebvre, has been denouncing the introduction of the “radical neo-pagan ideology” in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. It was during this Council also that for “the first time in Church history” heterodox texts were published as documents of “an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope….”

Bishop Schneider gives some advice in order to form groups to support and defend the family. He has interesting thoughts about the historical reactions of the laity. Is it not what happened in the 70’s with the movement of what we call now Tradition? In front of the doctrinal crisis and its moral consequences, Archbishop Lefebvre supported and defended these families by saving for the Church the Holy Mass and the priesthood, and by opening Catholic schools and chapels in order to provide oases of grace and holiness.

If we don’t agree with all the statements of Bishop Schneider in this interview, it’s quite refreshing to see a bishop’s legitimate zeal in defense of morals. We hope and pray that he continues to contemplate the example of his patron saint.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Synod on the Family

1. Your Excellency, what is Your Excellency’s opinion about the Synod? What is its message to families?

During the Synod there had been moments of obvious manipulation on the part of some clerics who held key positions in the editorial and governing structure of the Synod. The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem) was clearly a prefabricated text with no reference to the actual statements of the Synod fathers. In the sections on homosexuality, sexuality and “divorced and remarried” with their admittance to the sacraments the text represents a radical neo-pagan ideology.

This is the first time in Church history that such a heterodox text was actually published as a document of an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope, even though the text only had a preliminary character. Thanks be to God and to the prayers of the faithful all over the world that a consistent number of Synod fathers resolutely rejected such an agenda; this agenda reflects the corrupt and pagan mainstream morality of our time, which is being imposed globally by means of political pressure and through the almost all-powerful official mass media, which are loyal to the principles of the world gender ideology party. Such a synod document, even if only preliminary, is a real shame and an indication to the extent the spirit of the anti-Christian world has already penetrated such important levels of the life of the Church.

This document will remain for the future generations and for the historians a black mark which has stained the honor of the Apostolic See. Fortunately the Message of the Synod Fathers is a real Catholic document which outlines the Divine truth on family without being silent about the deeper roots of the problems, i.e., about the reality of sin. It gives real courage and consolation to Catholic families. Some quotations:

We think of the burden imposed by life in the suffering that can arise with a child with special needs, with grave illness, in deterioration of old age, or in the death of a loved one. We admire the fidelity of so many families who endure these trials with courage, faith, and love. They see them not as a burden inflicted on them, but as something in which they themselves give, seeing the suffering Christ in the weakness of the flesh.

…Conjugal love, which is unique and indissoluble, endures despite many difficulties. It is one of the most beautiful of all miracles and the most common. This love spreads through fertility and generativity, which involves not only the procreation of children but also the gift of divine life in baptism, their catechesis, and their education.

…The presence of the family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in their modest home hovers over you”.

2. Those groups of people who had been expecting a change in the Church’s teaching with regard to the moral issues (e.g., allowing divorced and remarried people to receive Holy Communion or granting any form of approval for homosexual unions) were probably disappointed by the content of the final Relatio. Isn’t there, however, a danger that questioning and discussing issues that are fundamental for the Church’s teaching may itself open doors for serious abuses and for similar attempts to revise this teaching in the future?

In fact a Divine commandment, in our case the sixth commandment, the absolute indissolubility of the sacramental marriage, a Divinely established rule, means those in a state of grave sin cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. This is taught by St. Paul in his letter inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11, 27-30, this cannot be put to the vote, just as the Divinity of Christ would never be put to a vote. A person who still has the indissoluble sacramental marriage bond and who in spite of this lives in a stable marital cohabitation with another person, by Divine law cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. To do so would be a public statement by the Church nefariously legitimizing a denial of the indissolubility of the Christian marriage and at the same time repealing the sixth commandment of God: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. No human institution not even the pope or an Ecumenical Council has the authority and the competency to invalidate even in the slightest or indirect manner one of the ten Divine commandments or the Divine words of Christ: “What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate (Math 19:6)”.

Regardless of this lucid truth which was taught constantly and unchangingly—because unchangeable—through all the ages by the Magisterium of the Church up to our days as for instance in Familiaris consortio of St. John Paul II, in theCatechism of the Catholic Church and by Pope Benedict XVI, the issue of the admissibility to Holy Communion of the so called “divorced and remarried” has been put to the vote in the Synod. This fact is in itself grievous and represents an attitude of clerical arrogance towards the Divine truth of the Word of God. The attempt to put the Divine truth and the Divine Word to a vote is unworthy of those who as representatives of the Magisterium have to hand over zealously as good and faithful rules (cf. Math 24, 45) the Divine deposit.

By admitting the “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion those bishops establish a new tradition on their own volition and transgressing thereby the commandment of God, as Christ once rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes (cf. Math 15: 3). And what is still aggravating, is the fact that such bishops try to legitimize their infidelity to Christ’s word by means of arguments such as “pastoral need”, “mercy”, “openness to the Holy Spirit”.

Moreover they have no fear and no scruples to pervert in a Gnostic manner the real meaning of these words labeling at the same time those who oppose them and defend the immutable Divine commandment and the true non-human tradition as rigid, scrupulous or traditionalist. During the great Arian crisis in the IV century the defenders of the Divinity of the Son of God were labeled “intransigent” and “traditionalist” as well. St. Athanasius was even excommunicated by Pope Liberius and the pope justified this with the argument that Athanasius was not in communion with the Oriental bishops who were mostly heretics or semi-heretics. St. Basil the Great stated in that situation the following:

Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert” (Ep. 243).

In fact the bishops who support Holy Communion for “divorced remarried” are the new Pharisees and Scribes because they neglect the commandment of God, contributing to the fact that out of the body and of the heart of the “divorced remarried” continue to “proceed adulteries” (Math 15:19), because they want an exteriorly “clean” solution and to appear “clean” as well in the eyes of those who have power (the social media, public opinion). However when they eventually appear at the tribunal of Christ, they will surely hear to their dismay these words of Christ: “Why are you declaring my statutes and taking my covenant in your mouth? Seeing you hate instruction, and cast my words behind you, …when you have been partaker with adulterers” (Ps 50 (49): 16-18).

The final Relatio of the Synod also unfortunately contains the paragraph with the vote on the issue of Holy Communion for “divorced remarried”. Even though it has not achieved the required two third of the votes, there remains nevertheless the worrying and astonishing fact that the absolute majority of the present bishops voted in favor of Holy Communion for the “divorced and remarried”,  a sad reflection on the spiritual quality of the Catholic episcopacy in our days.

It is moreover sad, that this paragraph which hasn’t got the required approval of the qualitative majority, remains nevertheless in the final text of the Relatio and will be sent to all dioceses for further discussion. It will surely only increase the doctrinal confusion among the priests and the faithful, being in the air, that Divine commandments and Divine words of Christ and those of the Apostle Paul are put at the disposal of human decision making groups. One cardinal who openly and strongly supported the issue of Holy Communion for “divorced and remarried” and even the shameful statements on homosexual “couples” in the preliminary Relatio, was dissatisfied with the final Relatio, and declared impudently: “The glass is half-full”, and analogously he said that one has to work that next year at the Synod it will be full. We must believe firmly that God will dissipate the plans of dishonesty, infidelity and betrayal. Christ holds infallibly the rudder of the boat of His Church in midst of such a big storm. We believe and trust in the very ruler of the Church, in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the truth.

3. We are currently experiencing a culmination of aggression against the family; this aggression is accompanied by a tremendous confusion in the area of science about human and human identity. Unfortunately, there are certain members of Church hierarchy who, while discussing these matters, express opinions that contradict the teaching of Our Lord. How should we talk with those people who become victims of this confusion in order to strengthen their faith and to help them towards salvation?

In this extraordinarily difficult time Christ is purifying our Catholic faith so that through this trial the Church will shine brighter and be really light and salt for the insipid neo-pagan world thanks to the fidelity and the pure and simple faith firstly of the faithful, of the little ones in the Church, of the “ecclesia docta” (the learning church), which in our days will strengthen the “ecclesia docens” (the teaching Church, i.e. the Magisterium), in a similar way as it was in the great crisis of the faith in the IV century as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman stated:

This is a very remarkable fact: but there is a moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted, in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution the great evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory.

…In that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the “Ecclesia docta” than by the “Ecclesia docens;” that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them” (Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 446, 466).

We have to encourage ordinary Catholics to be faithful to the Catechism they have learned, to be faithful to the clear words of Christ in the Gospel, to be faithful to the Faith their fathers and forefathers handed over to them. We have to organize circles of studies and conferences about the perennial teaching of the Church on the issue of marriage and chastity, inviting especially young people and married couples. We have to show the very beauty of a life in chastity, the very beauty of the Christian marriage and family, the great value of the Cross and of the sacrifice in our lives. We have to present ever more the examples of the Saints and of exemplary persons who demonstrated that in spite of the fact that they suffered the same temptations of the flesh, the same hostility and derision of the pagan world, they nevertheless with the grace of Christ led a happy life in chastity, in a Christian marriage and in family. The Faith, the pure and integral Catholic and Apostolic Faith will overcome the world (cf. 1 John 5: 4).

We have to found and promote youth groups of pure hearts, family groups, groups of Catholic spouses, who will be committed to the fidelity of their marriage vows. We have to organize groups which will help morally and materially broken families, single mothers, groups who will assist with prayer and with good counsel separated couples, groups and persons who will help “divorced and remarried” people to start a process of serious conversion, i.e., recognizing with humility their sinful situation and abandoning with the grace of God the sins which violate the commandment of God and the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. We have to create groups who will carefully help persons with homosexual tendencies to enter the path of Christian conversion, the happy and beautiful path of a chaste life and to offer them eventually in a discrete manner a psychological cure. We have to show and preach to our contemporaries in the neo-pagan world the liberating Good News of the teaching of Christ: that the commandment of God, and even the sixth commandment is wise, is beauty:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Ps 19(18): 7-8).

4. During the Synod, Archbishop Gadecki from Poznan and some other distinguished prelates were publicly expressing their disagreement with the fact that the results of the discussions departed from the perennial teaching of the Church. Is there a hope that, amid this confusion, there will be an awakening of members of clergy and those faithful who were so far unaware of the fact that, in the very Church’s bosom, there are people who undermine the teaching of Our Lord?

It is certainly an honor for Polish Catholicism that the President of the Catholic episcopate, His Excellency Archbishop Gadecki, defended with clarity and courage the truth of Christ about marriage and human sexuality, thus revealing himself to be a true spiritual son of Saint John Paul II. Cardinal George Pell characterized the liberal sexual agenda and the alleged merciful and pastoral support of Holy Communion for “divorced remarried” during the Synod very aptly, saying that this is only the tip of the iceberg and a kind of a Trojan horse in the Church.

That in the very bosom of the Church, there are people who undermine the teaching of Our Lord became an obvious fact and one for the whole world to see thanks to the internet and the work of some Catholic journalists who were not indifferent to what was happening to the Catholic Faith which they consider to be the treasure of Christ. I was pleased to see that some Catholic journalists and internet bloggers behaved as good soldiers of Christ and drew attention to this clerical agenda of undermining the perennial teaching of Our Lord. Cardinals, bishops, priests, Catholic families, Catholic young people have to say to themselves:

I refuse to conform to the neo-pagan spirit of this world, even when this spirit is spread by some bishops and cardinals; I will not accept their fallacious and perverse use of holy Divine mercy and of “new Pentecost”; I refuse to throw grains of incense before the statue of the idol of the gender ideology, before the idol of second marriages, of concubinage, even if my bishop would do so, I will not do so; with the grace of God I will choose to suffer rather than betray the whole truth of Christ on human sexuality and on marriage.”

The witnesses will convince the world, not the teachers, said Bl. Paul VI inEvangelii nuntiandi. The Church and the world do urgently need intrepid and candid witnesses of the whole truth of the commandment and of the will of God, of the whole truth of Christ’s words on marriage. Modern clerical Pharisees and Scribes, those bishops and cardinals who throw grains of incense to the neo-pagan idols of gender ideology and concubinage, will not convince anyone to either believe in Christ or to be ready to offer their lives for Christ. Indeed “veritas Domini manet in aeternum” (Ps 116: the truth of the Lord remains forever) and “Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebr 13: 8) and “the truth will set you free” (John 8: 32). This last phrase was one of the favorite biblical phrases of St. John Paul II, the pope of the family.  We can add: the revealed and unchangeably transmitted Divine truth about human sexuality and marriage will bring true freedom to the souls inside and outside the Church. In midst of the crisis of the Church and the bad moral and doctrinal example of some bishops of his time St. Augustine comforted the simple faithful with these words: “Whatsoever we bishops may be, you are safe, who have God for your Father and His Church for your mother“ (Contra litteras Petiliani III, 9, 10).

Continue reading

Can we call Paul VI blessed?

Was the life and reign of Pope Paul VI filled with examples of heroic virtue? And if Paul VI is worthy of the title “blessed” what novelties and tragedies does it consequently justify?

Courtesy of La Porte Latine, we offer this objective analysis of Pope Paul VI (Montini) and the issues of his beatification from Fr. Philippe Toulza, the director of Editions Clovis, the SSPX’s publishing house in France.

Blessed Paul VI?!

October 19th will go down in history as the day Giovanni Battista Montini was beatified by Pope Francis.

When the beatification of the man who governed the Church during the torment of the 60’s and 70’s was announced, some were surprised, maybe even upset, but in the end, most held their tongues. Indeed, what could they say against a beatification? Is it not the result of a canonical process that has examined the virtues of the “servant of God” and found them heroic?

But there are trials whose sentence is unjust. No beatification can deny reality and the memory of the “Paul VI years” will not be so easily erased. So let us recall, to justify our refusal of this beatification, the stubborn facts that wove the life of Giovanni Battista Montini.

First, let us set out a principle. Neither here nor anywhere else do we judge the soul of the pope; we will simply recall a few examples, out of a thousand, that support the following assessment: the actions of Paul VI were not those of a pope to be offered as a model of the Christian life.

And let us not deny that this pope showed certain qualities that were far above average. For otherwise, how could he have become sovereign pontiff? To explain his election, it is not enough to point out that the ideas of Giovanni Battista Montini were in the air of the times. His adherence to the progressivist ideas were not his only asset. For at his time, he was far from being the only one imbued with this atmosphere. Cardinal Lercaro, for example, archbishop of Bologna, was at least just as much its victim.

Paul VI’s biographers, be they his thurifers (Huber, Guitton, Macchi…) or his critics (Yves Chiron), did not fail to point out the qualities of Giovanni Battista Montini. Hard-working, organized, intelligent, a talented orator, he filled the Italian students with enthusiasm while he was their chaplain in Rome. Modest and dignified, respectful, a faithful friend, he made singular acts of generosity on certain occasions. While we can be sure of nothing as to his degree of piety, he so greatly desired a consecrated life that he thought of the monastery, and once ordained a priest, he withdrew often for short stays with the Benedictines.

Nor will we contest that Paul VI proclaimed several times his wish to be at the service of the truth and the Catholic Faith, for he wished to make known that he was conscious of his duty to defend both. Almost an exception in a time of heresy, he held as certain the satisfaction by substitution in the mystery of the Passion; he even vaunted the merits of Thomism, without, unfortunately, being truly permeated with the teachings of the Angelic Doctor. And to his credit, we do remember his profession of faith in 1968, as well as the encyclical Humanae vitae.

And yet, the domain of the Faith, and more largely that of doctrine: that was where the shoe first started hurting. The innovative tendencies in theology, carried by names such as Rahner, Schillebeeckx or Chenu, did not start with the Council; and Giovanni Battista Montini’s interest in these unfortunate audacities also began before Vatican II. Even while he was in Pius XII’s service, in the Roman Curia, he was the principal supporter of the theologians “in difficulty” with the Vatican and the Holy Office. He considered Blondel’s philosophy as “valid”; several times he defended Congar, de Lubac, Guitton, Mazzolari from severity and threats of sanctions. When Karl Adam’s books were about to be placed on the Index, Cardinal Montini, one of the pope’s trusted men, hid them at his home, and later handed them out under the table. Is that heroic virtue?

Giovanni Battista Montini was archbishop of Milan when John XXIII calledVatican II. Between the first and the second session, the sovereign pontiff was carried off by an illness. The man elected took the name of Paul. He had great hopes for the Council; he confirmed its direction. Paul VI indisputably supported with his authority the usurpation of power within Vatican II by the liberal wing of Cardinals Dopfner, Lercaro, Koenig, Lienart, Suenens, Alfrink, Frings and Leger, to the detriment of the traditional position represented by Cardinals Ottaviani, Siri, Agagianian and Archbishop Carli, who had not forgotten the centuries-old heritage of which Pius XII had in his time been the true guardian. Session after session, declaration after declaration, Paul VI, while remaining relatively moderate, supported the “revolution in tiara and cope” that played out under the horrified eyes of those bishops whose vision was still clear. For history, the signature on the disastrous documents Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, Nostra Aetate, and Unitatis Redintegratio will always be his.

Above all, Paul VI, converted even before the Council to principle of religious liberty, promulgated the declaration Dignitatis humanae, that condoned, without any ambiguity, what Paul VI’s predecessors had stigmatized as opposed to Catholic doctrine. How can we consider that the proclamation of the civil rights of false cults, and the pressure then put on the Catholic governments of the entire world to adopt secularism, are acts of virtue and of a holy life? When we think of all those souls who, caught up by the current of the new secularism and the apostasy of the laws, lost the religion of their fathers. Is no one responsible for that?

If Paul VI had such a love for the Council, it was because the general approach of the episcopal assembly corresponded with the intimate aspirations of his mind. The Council was the men of the Church’s rush towards the world. And Paul VI loved even the modern world, he wished to be immersed in it and to feel with it. Interested in all human realities, he corrected a pessimism born of temperament with an optimism born of resolution, entertaining a benevolent view of even modern thought, of countries and of far-off cultures; he valued modern art, to such an extent that he decorated his apartments in the Vatican with it! What he loved in the world was man. Humanity was at the heart of his thoughts, even though he did denounce anthropocentrism. He was especially interested, out of compassion, in the poor man, the worker, the man far from the Faith, on the outskirts. “We, we more than any other,” he would say, “we have the cult of man!” To draw closer to man, thought Paul VI, it was necessary to repent of so many of the Church’s characteristic behaviors in the past, that drove away souls, such as condemnations (hence the suppression of the Index), or far too exclusive dogmatic proclamations. He preferred suggestion to government, exhortation to sanction. His reign was one of dialogue.

Drawing closer to man meant first drawing closer to the Protestants; Paul VI was the pontifical initiator of ecumenism. While he theoretically considered it as a return to Catholicism, he contradicted himself by exalting the values of the Protestants and multiplying the relations with Taize. The scandal reached its climax when he invited the Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury to bless the crowd in his stead, during an ecumenical meeting at St. Paul Outside the Walls, placing on his finger the pastoral ring. Must we believe that saints behave thus? What true blessed soul would not shudder, from the depths of his Beatific Vision, at the sight of such confusion? But according to Paul VI, we needed to transform our Catholic attitudes. “The Church has entered into the movement of history that evolves and changes,” he explained. That was the program: evolution, change, aggiornamento.

And that is why he proceeded with a liturgical reform that, with time, spread to every domain of prayer. The Mass, if we are to believe the founding texts of this reform, was no longer a sacrifice, but a “synaxis”. Its rite, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci denounced, was far, “as a whole and in its details, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass.” But there was nothing to be done: the liturgies with electric guitar, Communion in the hand, young girls in short skirts reading the epistle, the words of the consecration left up to the celebrant’s whims, all spread with carte blanche from the bishops. It would be unjust, of course, to place the responsibility for each and every local disorder on the shoulders of the one in charge of the universal Church. Besides, the pope sometimes deplored the wonderful liturgical havoc of the Novus Ordo Missae.

But what effective measures did he take to stop it? And was he not the first cause of it all? Paul VI is presented to us as an archetype of perfection. But is virtue not in duty, and is not the duty of a leader to encourage those who do good and punish those who go against the law? Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was judged without being heard, punished without being received, and Paul VI thought he “belonged in a psychiatric ward.” But the priests who celebrated Mass with rice or joined in the protests of the Communist party enjoyed their comfortable rectories free from worry. And yet Paul VI did not like Communism; he always warned against the pernicious nature of Marxism.

So what paradox made him support a benevolent attitude towards the Communist countries (Ostpolitik), whose fruits were so bitter for the Catholics in these countries, who felt abandoned by Rome? Paul VI considered, along the same lines, that one can be Catholic and enter into the service of the Socialist ideals, regardless of the express words of Leo XIII. He was also very hostile to Fascism; he preferred Christian democracy. All these positions gave birth early on, even within the Roman Curia, to an opposition to Montini. Pius XII knew his strengths, but distrusted his taste for modernity.

During the Council, Paul VI met with opposition from certain bishops, who foresaw the crisis that was to hit the Church. They were not wrong. This crisis was terrible, and it still is. Paul VI recognized it himself: “the opening to the world was a veritable invasion of the Church by the spirit of the world.” This discouraged him, coloring the last years of his pontificate with a marked sorrow: “We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent,” he admitted one day.

This was his admission; we wager that if he could have spoken, Paul VI would have dissuaded his successor from proclaiming him blessed. Let us follow in his footsteps in this. Let no animosity towards his person tempt us; let the acute conscience of the objectivity and permanence of Christian virtue be our only motive. Let us hold nothing against him, let us only be all for the right conception of what a blessed soul truly is.

If Paul VI is blessed, then it is virtuous for a pope to contradict his predecessors on the fundaments of doctrine; it is praiseworthy to abandon Cardinal Mindszenty to the sorrowful fate that persecution held in store for him; there is nothing wrong with covering up with a cloak of silence the terrible abuses in the liturgy of the Sacrifice. If Paul VI is blessed, injustice is a virtue; imprudence, a path to sanctity; and revolution, the fruit of the Gospel.

Fr. Philippe Toulza, Director of Editions Clovis of the SSPX—10-18-2014, on the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist.

Continue reading