"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
The Pope Condemns French Theological Work The Remnant -30 Apri1 1979
POPE JOHN PAUL II, in his first such act as Pontiff, has approved a Vatican declaration stating that a book by a French Catholic theologian presents views which conflict with Catholic dogmas.
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a carefully worded statement (3 April) which declares that Father Jacques Pohier's book Quand je dis Dieu (When I Say God), contains "affirmations which manifestly fail to conform to Revelation and the teaching of the Church."
The statement was signed by Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect of the Congregation and Archbishop Jérôme Hâmer, O.P., its secretary. Among its criticisms of the book, the Vatican agency said that it denies such tenets of the Faith as: "the Christian idea of a transcendent God; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was taught by the Council of Trent and, recently, by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei; the specific role of the priest in the actualization of the Real Presence; and the exercise of infallibility in the Church." The declaration added further that ''as far as regards the divinity of Christ, Father Pohier expresses himself in so singular a manner that it is not possible to determine if he still possesses such truth in the traditionally Catholic sense."
Pope Rejects Laicization Trend: Strongly Reaffirms Priestly Celibacy The Remnant - 30 April 1979
Pope John Paul II has strongly reconfirmed celibacy for Latin Rite priests and, in a major document, has indicated that he will not easily grant laicizations or special dispensations from priestly life from now on.
The document is a papal letter addressed "to all the priests of the Church on the occasion of Holy Thursday, 1979." In it the Pope said objections raised against priestly celibacy are based on arguments "whose anthropological correctness and basis in fact are seen to be very dubious and of relative value." The Church therefore urges "that all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders should embrace this renunciation (of marriage) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven," the letter said.
In a shorter companion letter addressed to the world's bishops, the Pope asked them to, intensify " every possible effort" to encourage new vocations to the priesthood.
Both letters were linked in their titles to Holy Thursday, the day on which priests renew their promises to their bishops. In the 35-page letter to priests, the Pope placed strong emphasis on lifelong fidelity to the vows of their ordination, comparing their commitment at the time of ordination to the lifelong commitment made by married couples. "It is a matter of keeping one's word to Christ and the Church," he said. He rejected laicization as an easy answer to a crisis in one's vocation, although the words of the text do not rule out all possibilities of granting laicization in certain cases. The Pope did not say what he will do with laicization requests from now on, but his words indicated a "tough line" will be taken, according to the NC dispatch from Rome. He asked priests to re-read sections of Vatican II documents that highlight the "common priesthood" of the faithful and urged them to note the essential difference between this priesthood and the ordained priesthood under Holy Orders. "You priests," he noted, "are expected to have a care and commitment which are far greater and different from those of any lay person." He urged priests not to succumb to calls to be like other people, when in fact they are" always and everywhere the bearers of a particular vocation." " And this," he continues, "you can never forget; this you can never renounce; this you must put into practice at every moment, in every place and in every way." "Those who call for the secularization of priestly life and applaud its various manifestations will undoubtedly abandon us when we succumb to temptation. We shall then cease to be necessary and popular," he wrote. He conceded that although priests must be "close to the people and all their problems," their work must be done "in a priestly way" and they must be in first place men of prayer and must be especially devoted to the Mother of Christ, "who in a special way is the Mother of priests."
Besides rejecting the idea of the laicization process as simply an "administrative intervention," the Pope took pains to emphasize that priesthood and celibacy presume freely chosen, mature commitments for life, similar to the kind of permanent commitment given by a married couple.
During the fifteen years of Pope Paul VI's pontificate, an estimated 2,000 laicizations were granted per year, according to the NC dispatch. Then, after Pope John Paul II’s election last October, the processing of such cases came to an abrupt halt, the explanation being that the Pope wanted "to reconsider the question in its entirety." Several years ago, before Pope Paul VI sped up the laicization process and began granting requests more readily, the requests usually involved complex factors, such as serious psychological problems. More recently, however, the requests for laicization became a more or less routine matter, with not a few priests virtually demanding dispensations as a matter of "right."
The NC noted that Vatican sources hold that the Pope can stop laicizations of priests without any change in Church law. The reason is that, under the law, dispensation from priestly duties or from the promise of celibacy is considered a "gift" or a "grace" from the Pope, not something to which a priest has a "right" under any and all circumstances. In other words, unless there is serious reason to doubt the validity of the ordination itself, normally there is no juridical process involved.
Pope John Paul II's newly evinced stance on the laicization and celibacy question was immediately criticized in certain quarters. Frank Bonnike, for instance, a facilitator for CORPUS, a U. S. organization for resigned priests, faulted the Pope. "It [the Pope's letter] may meet the needs in Poland," he said, "but not serve the Church elsewhere." Bonnike, himself a former priest of the Rockford, Ill. diocese, criticized the Pope for what he called his "hard-line" policy and said that the reaffirmation of priestly celibacy is "once again a put-down for women."
To take a "tough line" on granting laicizations "is like putting a pregnant woman on hold," Bonnike said. "If a person reaches that point in their life when they're recognizing their need to continue their work with a soul mate, I don't see how taking a tough line is going to stop that" (Catholic Bulletin, April 20, 1979).
Rome Acts Against Invalid Masses in the U.S.A. 9 May 1979
There is not the least doubt as to what constitutes valid matter for the Holy Eucharist. Where the bread is concerned, it must be pure wheaten flour kneaded with natural water. The bread must be unleavened in the Latin Church and leavened in the Eastern rites. If a Latin priest used leavened bread or an Eastern rites priest used unleavened bread the Sacrifice would be valid but illicit, unless it was a case of an emergency.1
The imposition of the New Mass in the United States was followed by widespread stress on the Mass as a meal. Less and less was heard of its sacrificial nature. In order to accentuate their belief that the "Sunday liturgy" is essentially a community meal, Liberal clerics began to encourage the preparation of altar breads by their parishioners. The very fact that the altar breads had been prepared by the local community was, in itself, supposed to make the celebration more "meaningful."
Many of the faithful began to wonder whether the altar breads used in their parishes constituted licit matter; and, in some cases, whether the validity of the sacrifice itself was endangered. Their fears proved to be only too well founded. An examination of some of the recipes used made it clear that they constituted cake rather than bread, 2and that those celebrations of Mass in which they were utilized were invalid. Worse still, when the indignant faithful complained to such prelates as Archbishop Bemardin of Cincinnati or Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle, their protests were received with reactions ranging from indifference to hostility. Not surprisingly, they complained to Rome. Many letters were received from American Catholics making the very modest request that they should be able to fulfill their Sunday obligation in their own parish, something which was not possible if their parish priest was celebrating invalid Masses. They were equally reasonable in suggesting that when they offered stipends for the celebration of Masses, then these Masses should indeed be celebrated for their intentions.
The Vatican eventually acted through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On 11 May 1979 Pope John Paul II approved the text of a letter to be sent to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops requiring that the law of the Church be observed in the preparation of Eucharistic bread. Cardinal Seper concluded his letter as follows:
As Your Excellency is aware, it is particularly important to ensure careful observance of the traditional theological interpretation about the making of Eucharistic bread, so that the faithful can be assured that every Eucharist is celebrated with matter that is both valid and licit.
Cardinal Seper also stressed in his letter that: "There is an obligation in strict justice regarding the application of Masses for intentions promised by the stipend."
Since 1969, the American bishops have never shown a moment's hesitation in disciplining or even persecuting any priest who dared to say the Tridentine Mass, but in some cases they appeared totally indifferent to the fact that many of their priests were taking stipends for celebrating invalid Masses which involved material idolatry on the part of the congregation (as they were worshipping a piece of cake). The Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy referred the matter back to the Holy See and advised that "the present practice of many parishes not be disturbed until there are other directives from the Holy See."
Nine months after the letter from Cardinal Seper, Archbishop Bernardin conceded reluctantly that, where the Archdiocese of Cincinnati was concerned, "many - perhaps most - of the recipes in use will have to be rejected." He also expressed considerable concern, but not for those who had provided stipends for invalid Masses, nor for the faithful who had not, in some cases, assisted at Mass for several years as the celebrations at which they had been present were invalid. Archbishop Bernardin's concern was expressed as follows:
"I realize, of course, that those people who have become accustomed to the newer breads will be disappointed. I ask you, therefore, to do all you can to help them accept this decision."
In view of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre had been suspended a divinis for a disciplinary matter, it seems legitimate to wonder what adequate penalty might have been devised for Archbishop Bernardin. The answer is that he was eventually elevated to the rank of cardinal. One shudders to think that men such as this, who have clearly lost all sense of what being a Catholic means, will play a part in the election of the next pope!
Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle carried his defiance of the Holy See to extraordinary lengths, and even claimed that the faithful owed their allegiance primarily to him rather than Rome. He could be induced to make at least a token gesture of compliance only after public protests and paid advertisements in newspapers protesting about his refusal to insist that valid Masses were celebrated in his archdiocese. The extent to which Archbishop Hunthausen was leading his flock out of the Church became so manifest and so notorious that in 1986 an auxiliary bishop was appointed for the Archdiocese of Seattle and given responsibility for certain aspects of its government. But in 1987 the Vatican surrendered to pressure from the Liberal hierarchy of the United States, removed the auxiliary bishop, and restored full authority to Archbishop Hunthausen. The case of Archbishop Hunthausen will be documented in due chronological order, and compared with that of Archbishop Lefebvre. It will be apparent that the difference in their treatment by the Vatican, and the sanctions imposed upon them, constitute a scandal of the first magnitude.
Pope Insists on Individual Confession The Remnant - 16 May 1979
Pope John Paul II has again stressed the importance of individual or private confession and has again called for diligent observance of the strict Vatican norms governing general absolution in special circumstances.
In an address April 26 to various bishops who were making their official (ad limina) visits to Rome, the Pope recalled his first encyclical letter in which he had noted the "need to guard the Sacrament of Penance" and "stressed that the faithful observance of the centuries - old practice of individual confession with a personal act of sorrow and the intention to amend and make satisfaction (for sin) is an expression of the Church's defense of man's right to a more personal encounter with the crucified forgiving Christ." He pointed out that the documents cited in that encyclical "make reference to a point of capital importance: the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the divine precept of individual confession."
"Seen in this perspective," Pope John Paul continued, "the diligent observance by all the priests of the Church of the pastoral norms of Sacramentum Pænitentiæ (rules on Penance published by the Vatican's Doctrinal congregation in 1972) in regard to general absolution is both a question of loving fidelity to Jesus Christ and to His redemptive plan, and the expression of ecclesial communion in what Paul VI called' a matter of special concern to the Universal Church and of the regulation of her supreme authority' ." Pope John Paul also quoted Pope Paul's words last year to a group of U.S. bishops concerning priestly ministry: "Other works, for lack of time, may have to be abandoned, but not the confessional."
1. Valid: i.e., transubstantiation would take place and the bread would become the Body of Christ, Illicit: contrary to the law of the Church
2. Documentation concerning these recipes and all the points which follow concerning invalid eucharistic matter in the U.S.A. is provided in Appendix VI to Pope Paul’s New Mass
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
The Pope, the Bishops and the Priests by Louis Salleron L'Aurore --31 May 1979
On 8 April last, Palm Sunday,1 the Pope addressed a long letter to "all the priests of the Church" to remind them of the nature of their priesthood, and to exhort them to remain faithful to it.
On the same day, in another much shorter letter, he asked the bishops to help their priests fulfill their mission:
Have a special solicitude for their spiritual progress, for their perseverance in the grace of the priesthood. Since it is between your hands that they pronounce - and renew each year - their priestly promises, and especially their commitment to celibacy, do everything in your power to enable them to remain faithful to these promises which are demanded by the Holy Tradition of the Church.
These two letters, especially the one to priests, had a resounding impact. The immense majority of the faithful saw in them the first attempt to come to grips with the disorder and strife which had existed for far too many years. The attitude of John Paul II was all the more appreciated because he expressed himself so clearly, yet in simple, familiar words, even affectionate in tone - characteristic features of his government - which have so endeared him to everyone since the first day of his pontificate.
In France, however, there were - there are - waverings, counter-currents, grinding of teeth, the extent of which it would not be amiss to examine in detail.
On 18 April Cardinal Renard, Archbishop of Lyons, wrote to all the priests in his diocese informing them of the Pope's letter and adding a few personal comments, of which the following are essential:
Whatever position you may hold, parish priest, chaplain (to a hospital, to some movement, to a school, or to migrants), professor, a working priest, priest of Fidei donum, priest in a religious order, each one of you is, for us, a member of the presbyterium, engaged in a ministry which we have recognized and appreciated, even if it has not been possible for us to express it to you in a fraternal way, nor as often as we would have wished.
If, as the Pope now asks us, we must make every effort possible to encourage vocations, to train new generations of candidates for the priesthood, future priests, there can be no question of slowing down pastoral initiatives for the renewal of Christian communities large or small.
We hope that the baptized, in increasing numbers, will be witnesses of the Gospel in their entire lives, that they will accept responsibilities and prepare themselves for certain "ministries." A direct link must be seen to exist between our fidelity to this aim and the evangelical exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi on evangelization in the modern world (December 1975), and the duty we have to encourage entrants to the presbyterial ministry. The one cannot be achieved without the other. Vocations always come from fervent, open communities…
We do not want to end this letter without thinking of our brothers who, having married, no longer exercise the presbyterial ministry. Let us openly remain their brothers.
Elsewhere the Cardinal informed his priests that he was going to Rome at the end of April and could therefore inform the Pope of their comments and questions.
Many priests in the diocese of Lyons interpreted the letter from their Archbishop thus:
Here is the Pope's letter. If you do not agree with him write to me and I will inform him of your opinions. Do not be afraid that I shall let you down. The Pope must be obeyed, but as he is so far away he cannot clearly evaluate our pastoral initiatives. I will explain them to him. Have confidence in me as I have in you.
A familiar stance. I am their head, therefore I will follow them.
The priests, therefore, in their turn, wrote. They were not only those from the diocese of Lyons, but those (about 30) from regions to the east of the diocese, priests who represent the association of "married priests" (sic) and priests (87) who want to form a "collective" to fight all forms of oppression and repression in the Church and Society; those who, individually, had made their views known in various publications. In all, a small minority, but a minority which represents a widespread frame of mind, protected by bureaucrats and under the progressive wing of the French Episcopate.
The two most significant documents are (1) the call for the creation of a collective which is purely revolutionary (Marxist style), and (2) the letter to the Pope from the priests living east of the diocese of Lyons, a letter disarming in its puerile insolence, but revealing a typical post-conciliar mentality. Let the readers judge for themselves. These priests said to the Pope:
Your letter reads like a message from on high and is too much in keeping with a theology which does not fully accept the orientations of the Second Vatican Council. In your letter you give the name "laicization" to what is, for us the wish to share in the lives of our people (…) We can already state that in this respect your declaration is being used by those in France who are opposed to Vatican II.
For lay Catholics who are constantly accused of being against the Council and the post-conciliar orientations, it is gratifying and consoling to discover that the Pope shares this disgrace It is nonetheless disturbing that so many stupidities can be published with so much assurance.
The Heart of the Debate
But is it a question only of stupidities? No, the debate is far more serious. It is a completely new doctrine of the priesthood which, today, is poisoning "The Church of France." According to this doctrine, the priest is no longer a man set apart and endowed, by the Sacrament of Orders, with the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with the special mission to preach the Gospel and to teach the truths to be believed. He is now only a member of the faithful, man or woman, married or celibate, chosen by the community to serve them and give thanks to God.
The French Episcopate as a body, if not as individual members, subscribe to this subversive theology imposed upon it by its bureaucrats. Hence the inertia.
It is to the joint problems of the Mass and the priesthood that the crisis in the Church in France is due. The Pope will need all his patience and all his energy to end it.
* * * *
Louis Salleron's article helps in several ways to put the case of Mgr. Lefebvre in its correct perspective. Pope John Paul II's letter on the priesthood provides an excellent and even inspiring evocation of the true nature of the Catholic priesthood. Archbishop Lefebvre might well be the only French bishop who would give it unqualified acceptance and support, and insist that all the priests subject to him did likewise. The Pope's ideal of the priesthood is precisely the ideal proposed to the seminarians at Ec6ne. It was noted and documented in Apologia I that the Holy See's Basic Norms for Priestly Training are observed more faithfully at Ecône than almost any other seminary in the West (see pages 69-70). Despite this, Mgr. Lefebvre is the only French bishop who is suspended a divinis. The other French bishops are all in good standing with the Holy See, even though, as a body, they subscribe to the revolutionary doctrine of the priesthood which is poisoning "The Church of France." It must also be noted that the catechetical instruction which they impose upon Catholic children in France is among the worst in the entire world.
Professor Salleron's article also illustrates the extent to which the Catholic ethos of the French Church has disappeared almost entirely outside traditionalist groups. Once this ethos is lost it is rarely regained. And those who have repudiated Tradition flaunt their revolutionary new religion before the Pope himself with what Professor Salleron terms aptly "puerile insolence." It must be one of the great ironies of Catholic history that in the post-conciliar era the epithet "rebel bishop" is retained for Mgr. Lefebvre alone. No doubt the English hierarchy under Henry VIII would have used the same epithet for St. John Fisher.
1. Novo incipiente nostro, 8 April 1979. Frequently referred to as the “Holy Thursday Letter to Priests." (Full text available in Flannery, Vol. II.)
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
POPE WARNS CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS The Remnant – 31 May 1979
ACCORDING to a St. Paul Pioneer Press/Dispatch report of May 26, Pope John Paul II decreed last week that professors at Catholic universities "should refrain from challenging basic Church doctrine or face dismissal from their posts." The report went on to say that the Pontiff's warning is contained in an 87-page " Apostolic Constitution" and that it "tightened Vatican control over some 126 Church-run universities around the world." The decree reportedly puts an end to a controversial experimental period which Pope Paul VI had launched in 1968 in the wake of Vatican II. The present Holy Father insists that "new research (experimental or otherwise) should never be at the expense of the Church's Magisterium."
Meanwhile, in the current issue of Our Sunday Visitor, appears the report that the anti-papalist Hans Kung has again placed himself squarely in opposition to yet another Pope, this time Pope John Paul II. During an interview regarding his notorious views, Kung is said to have proposed that inter-communion begin at once, saying: "I would first start by giving a general permission to Catholics – especially those in mixed marriages, but others also –to go to other churches for the eucharistic meal. And we should open our doors for others to come to us."
As Our Sunday Visitor observed editorially, "Küng's 'one eucharist is as good as another' is directly contrary to Catholic teaching and is in direct opposition to what Pope John Paul II told Catholic bishops from the Caribbean, where occasionally ecumenical activity has gone beyond good sense. "Sharing the Eucharist presupposes unity in faith," the Pope declared. "Inter-communion between divided Christians is not the answer to Christ's appeal for greater unity."
It will be interesting to see how Pope John Paul II reacts to Hans Kung's latest defiance of papal teaching and whether the University of Tübingen, where Kung still holds forth, will feel free to dismiss this unorthodox gad-fly. Also, whether the Catholic University of America, where the notorious heresiarch, Father Charles Curran, still holds forth, will take such disciplinary action as Pope John Paul has now prescribed.
* * * *
The reaction to Küng's defiance was to deprive him of the right to teach as a Catholic theologian, a step which would be taken before the end of the year. The same decision would be taken in the case of Father Curran, but not until 1986.
DECLINE IN PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS IN ITALY The Remnant – 31 May 1979
The number of Catholic seminary students in Italy has dropped from 30,595 in 1962 to 9,953 in 1978. During the same 16-year period, the number of priests in Italy dropped by more than 2,000 – from 43,538 to 40,866.
The figures were disclosed by Bishop Attilio Nicora, an Auxiliary Bishop of Milan, at a plenary meeting in Vatican City of the Italian Catholic Bishops' Conference.
To put the numbers in clearer perspective, Bishop Nicora pointed out that Italy's population had increased by six million between 1961 and 1977. Italy has a current population of 56,675,000, with Catholics constituting 97.5% of the total.
Bishop Nicora called the figures "objectively serious and worrisome."
* * * *
The decline in the numbers of both priests and seminarians is common to all Western countries. It might have been hoped that the bishops of these countries would have noted the success of the seminaries founded by Mgr. Lefebvre, and followed his example by introducing a traditional formation in their own seminaries; but, alas, most would prefer to cease ordaining priests rather than admit that the policies they have adopted have been disastrous. This is also true of their equally disastrous policies in such spheres as religious education and the liturgy. The prestige of the bishops depends upon the success of these new policies, ergo the policies are successful.
CARDINAL OTTAVIANI DIES AT 88 The Remnant – 17 August 1979
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, a major spokesman for traditionalism during the Second Vatican Council and one of several cardinals responsible for the so-called "intervention" against the New Mass brought into being by that Council,1 died on 3 August in his apartment after a long illness, Vatican Radio reported.
The Cardinal, who together with the late Cardinal Bacci, protested against what they called the "theological deviation" of the New Mass from the position taken by the Council of Trent, held the honorary title of Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department concerned with guarding the Church's doctrine on faith and morals.
It was Cardinal Ottaviani, who, in his letter to His Holiness Pope Paul VI (3 September 1969), pleaded with the Pope "not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world… The Cardinal was an uncompromising defender of theological orthodoxy and an unyielding foe of Modernist trends which have swept through the Church for the past many decades. His loss to the Church is great. He will be sorely missed. R.I.P.
Cardinal Wright Dies
The same issue of The Remnant reported the death of Cardinal John Wright who, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, had initially given wholehearted support to Mgr. Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, but then succumbed to pressure from Liberal forces within the Vatican and became a member of the commission of three cardinals which condemned the Archbishop and demanded the closure of the seminary at Ecône.2
1. A fully documented account of the “Ottaviani Intervention” is available in chapter XXIII of Pope Paul’s New Mass. It is explained there that fifteen Cardinals had agreed to sign a covering endorsing the critique of the New Mass sent to Pope Paul VI, but, for reasons which are explained in this chapter, thirteen of them lost their nerve and the covering letter was signed eventually only by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. This does not detract in any way from its historic importance, or from the fact that Mgr. Lefebvre’s misgivings charged with upholding the orthodoxy of Catholic doctrine.
2. See Apologia, Vol. I, Index: Wright, John Joseph, Cardinal.
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Vatican Condemns the Book Human Sexuality The Remnant – 17 August 1979
The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter to the U.S. bishops, has declared that the notorious book, Human Sexuality, contains fundamental errors that cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching.
The book was edited by the Rev. Anthony Kosnik and commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America. It was published in the U. S. in 1977.
In a letter to Archbishop Quinn, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Franjo Cardinal Seper, head of the Vatican office responsible for defending the Faith, also criticized the prestigious Catholic Theological Society that commissioned the book published by the Paulist Press.
"The Congregation," Cardinal Seper said, "cannot fail to note its concern that a distinguished society of Catholic theologians would have arranged for the publication of this report in such a way as to give broad distribution to the erroneous principles and conclusions of this book and in this way provide a source of confusion among the people of God."
The book in question is said to have been sold in the tens of thousands of copies. Written by five Catholic theologians, it purports to offer "guidelines" for sexual morality differing from the Church's familiar "thou-shalt-not" approach. It recommends that faithful Catholics, in judging what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior, should try to determine whether their acts and attitudes are "self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful (emphasizing stable relationships), socially responsible, life- serving and joyous."
Cardinal Seper's letter criticizes these "purely subjective criteria…that yield no manageable or helpful rules for serious conscience-formation in matters of sexuality." Similarly, the Vatican document takes issue with the book's tendency to subject "theological and scientific arguments…to criteria derived from one's present experience of what is human or less than human. This gives rise to a relativism in human conduct which recognizes no absolute values. Given these criteria, it is small wonder that this book pays such scant attention to the doctrine of the Magisterium, whose clear teaching and helpful norms of morality it often openly contradicts."
* * * *
Cardinal Seper rightly stressed the fact that this degrading book was produced by a "distinguished society of Catholic theologians." There is little doubt that these theologians, distinguished principally by their un-catholicity, represent mainstream thinking on moral theology within the Catholic establishment in the United States today. This thinking has been described aptly by Msgr. John McCarthy as “pornology."1 While it is true that the book was criticized by the American Bishops' Committee on Doctrine in November 1977, it cannot be denied that the Theological Society could not have become dominated by Liberals or have published this book without at least the passive acquiescence of the hierarchy. It is certainly arguable that no criticism would have come from the bishops had it not been for widespread public protests by lay groups and journals such as The Wanderer.
What is astonishing is that, to the best of my knowledge, no disciplinary action was taken against the priests responsible for a book which pays “such scant attention to the doctrine of the Magisterium." Not one of them was suspended a divinis, despite their cooperation in publishing a book which undermined the entire basis of Catholic morality. Surely, even the sternest critic of Archbishop Lefebvre would have to agree that the offense for which he was suspended, ordaining priests who would uphold Catholic moral teaching, is totally insignificant when set beside that of these theologians. Such critics would also have to agree that the action taken against these theologians, a reprimand accompanied by no sanctions, is ludicrously inadequate. Having said this, the fact that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did at least condemn the book is something for which we should be grateful.2
Catechesi tradendæ Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II 16 October 1979
One of the greatest causes of concern among the faithful since the Second Vatican Council has been the deterioration in the standard of religious education (catechesis) given to Catholic children in schools and catechism classes. In the years immediately following the Council parents began to notice that the content of what their children were taught was being continually diluted. Little emphasis, if any emphasis at all, was placed upon memorizing fundamentals of the Faith, such as the Seven Sacraments or the Ten Commandments. Considerable stress was laid upon the children's own experience of life. A great deal of time was devoted to such activities as drawing a map of the route the child took to school, or making lists of things he liked or did not like. Parents who voiced their anxieties were told that this was meaningful, in accordance with modern educational methods, or in the "spirit of Vatican II" – possibly a combination of all three.
As the years passed what purported to be Catholic catechesis often degenerated to the lowest common denominator Christianity, or even humanism. This consisted principally of loving one's neighbor, being kind to animals, and helping the "third world." A stage was reached when children not only failed to receive systematic instruction in the truths of their Faith, but were actually being taught error.
Many orthodox priests and teachers joined parents in protesting at the travesty of the Faith which was being foisted upon Catholic children. The tactic employed against them most frequently was the argument from authority. Diocesan bishops had appointed catechetical directors to ensure that catechetical instruction within their dioceses was effectively "renewed." These men were "experts," and those who had the temerity to criticize them must, ipso facto, be doing so from either ignorance or malice. These catechetical II "experts" had, in most cases, spent time in catechetical institutes where they had been indoctrinated in Modernism. They emerged as men with a mission, the mission of teaching a new religion under the guise of new teaching methods.
In the late sixties and the early and mid-seventies, most diocesan bishops, at least in English-speaking countries, tended to be men who were basically orthodox and who had been appointed before or soon after the Second Vatican Council. But, nonetheless, they almost invariably sided with their catechetical directors when these men were criticized, no matter how justified or how well documented these criticisms were. The reason for this attitude is simple. The catechetical directors had been appointed by the bishops. The programs they had introduced were imposed with the authority of the bishops. If these programs were defective or harmful, then the prestige of the bishops was involved. It is not exaggerating in any way to claim that most diocesan bishops would have preferred to have all the children in their dioceses leave Catholic schools totally ignorant of the Faith rather than admit that they had made an error of judgment.3 The fruits of this attitude were made clear in a survey carried out in one English diocese in 1985 which revealed that only 10% of the pupils from Catholic schools had an adequate level of belief, practice and knowledge. The rest were likely to lapse before or soon after leaving school. The survey also found that as the children moved upwards through the school system their knowledge of the Faith did not increase, and their level of practice decreased. In the language of post-conciliar Catholicism, this situation is referred to as a catechetical "renewal."
Canon George Telford
England was fortunate in having one very orthodox catechetical director who made a courageous public defense of the right of Catholic children to be taught the Catholic Faith in Catholic schools. The priest in question is Canon George Telford who was Catechetical Director of the Archdiocese of Southwark and Vice-chairman of the Department of Catechetics for the entire country. He eventually resigned from both positions when he found that, within the catechetical establishment, he was waging an almost single-handed fight for orthodoxy, and was receiving no support whatsoever from the bishops as a body, although some of them gave him their support privately. Canon Telford concluded that it was pointless continuing what was evidently a hopeless struggle. He wrote a very forceful letter which he sent to every member of the hierarchy. This letter was published in the April 1977, issue of Christian Order, and it summarized exactly the type of religious instruction which was being imparted at that time in most Western countries:
Modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its structures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for the Catholic Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful.
Catechesi tradendæ
In October 1979, the second year of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II certainly gave considerable cause for hope to all those who had been involved in the fight for orthodox catechesis. In his Apostolic Exhortation, Catechesi tradendæ, he appeared to be echoing the anxiety and indignation which so many of the faithful had been expressing in so many countries. Their complaints had not simply been rejected, but often ridiculed. But now the Supreme Pontiff himself made it clear that this anxiety and indignation had been amply justified.
The Holy Father claimed that many good and successful new catechetical books had been produced. Then he continued:
But it must be humbly and honestly recognized that this rich flowering has brought with it articles and publications which are ambiguous and harmful to young people and to the life of the Church. In certain places, the desire to find the best forms of expression or to keep up with fashions in pedagogical methods has often enough resulted in certain catechetical works which bewilder the young and even adults, either by deliberately or unconsciously omitting elements essential to the Church's faith, or by attributing excessive importance to certain themes at the expense of others, or, chiefly, by a rather horizontalist overall view out of keeping with the Church's Magisterium.
The Pope also stated that it is quite useless "to campaign for the abandonment of a serious and orderly study of the message of Christ in the name of a method concentrating on life experience." He advocated memorization and insisted that children should be taught the Faith "not in mutilated, falsified or diminished form, but whole and entire, in all its rigor and vigor…Thus, no true catechist can lawfully, on his own initiative, make a selection of what he considers important in the Deposit of Faith as opposed to what he considers unimportant, so as to teach one and reject the other.” The Pope condemned teachers who trouble the minds of children with" outlandish theories, useless questions, and unproductive discussions"- terms which are very reminiscent of Canon Telford's strictures.
Pope Paul VI had also been very concerned at the extent to which unorthodox catechesis had become apparent early in his pontificate. He responded to this with two key documents. The first was his Credo of the People of God (30 June 1968), which reaffirmed the principal doctrines of our Faith using, in many instances, the terminology of the Council of Trent. The second was the General Catechetical Directory (11 April 1971), which listed the basic doctrines which every Catholic child was entitled to know.4
In Catechesi tradendæ, Pope John Paul II specified these documents as basic sources for the doctrinal content of religious instruction. This was precisely what orthodox parents, teachers, and priests had been demanding. Thus; this apostolic exhortation, together with other acts of the Pope in 1979, gave good reason for hope that there might at last be a return to sound religious instruction for Catholic children.
1. Living Tradition, January, 1987, p. 7.
2. The condemnation of the book Human Sexuality by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is dated 13 July 1979. The full text is available in Flannery, Vol. II.
3. In August 1974 a 96-page dossier I had written concerning the catechetical director of the Archdiocese of Liverpool was published by Approaches. It consisted principally of a series of statements of fact. It was sent to the Archbishop of Liverpool and to every head teacher and parish priest in his diocese. The Archbishop's reaction was to express his total confidence in the catechetical director despite the fact that he was unable to refute a single statement in the Dossier which was entitled appropriately, The Fort Betrayed. This was a reference to the remark made by St. John Fisher concerning the apostate hierarchy of England during the reign of Henry VIII: "The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it."
4. These two documents, together with Catechesi tradendæ, are available in Flannery, Vol. II.
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
The Historical Significance of Mgr. Lefebvre by Dr. Greorg May
The British1 Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, penned the beautiful sentence: “The most important and the most necessary characteristic of a politician is courage.” The office of a bishop is related to the activity of a politician insofar as they are both concerned with taking care of public business and furthering the common good. For this reason as well as others a bishop needs courage just as much as a politician. There are few things we miss in most present-day bishops as much as this particular quality. Nothing is done against well-known false teachers simply because they are public opinion and the mass media on their side. They are able to proceed energetically only when someone stands consistently for the preservation of the spiritual treasures of the Church; for such a one stands alone today; his disciplining provokes no contradiction from the leaders of public opinion. Then suddenly, one hears pithy words, then ecclesiastical penal law is appealed to, which they have otherwise forgotten about; then sanctions are imposed which they want to forget about in other connections. To cite a scandalous example of this conduct: the Bishop of Augsburg suspended a thirty-two-year-old priest because the latter could not in good conscience give Communion in the hand.
We of the Una Voce movement work for the recovery of the Church independently of Archbishop Lefebvre. But in view of the bedevilment of this man, on grounds of justice, I cannot withhold some comment. They say that Lefebvre challenges the Second Vatican Council. I know bishops who challenge a great many more councils than just this one. They say Lefebvre divides the Church. I know bishops who protect and favor schismatics. They say that Lefebvre is disobedient. It is strange that the very ones who accuse Lefebvre of disobedience are the ones who haven't done their duty for fifteen years, who encourage or tolerate insubordination, and even in numerous cases have not concerned themselves with law and order in the Church. I do not understand the accusation of disobedience cast at Lefebvre who protects, upholds and defends values which the Pope and bishops have protected, upheld and defended insufficiently or not at all. He is therefore not disobedient. For years the bishops have invoked conscience, and referred the faithful to conscience. But when someone moved by conscience stands up and takes a stand against innovations, then all of a sudden conscience is not worth considering.
The historical significance of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in his carrying, in a way, the care of millions of the best Catholics who can no longer be ignored. Without his public protest, the concerns of orthodox believers would have been poo-pooed and dismissed with a wave of the hand, the way we were used to it from Herr Döpfner,2 for example. Before Archbishop Lefebvre arrived on the scene the hierarchy of the Church passed over them carelessly or cynically; since his appearance they must at least take note of them, and perhaps even concern themselves with them.3
* * *
Dr. May's remarks coincide very closely with the opinion of Dr. Urs von Balthasar, a moderately conservative Swiss theologian, as expressed in a lecture he delivered at St. Gallen in Switzerland on 13 June 1977. An English translation of his lecture appeared in the 30 June 1979 issue of The Remnant.
The True Background to Ecône by Dr. Urs von Balthasar 4
We are all aware of the disgraceful state of the French seminaries: nearly all of them have been closed down. There are no university faculties (for clerical students) except in the Instituts Catholiques. The rector of the faculty in Paris complained to me recently, "Why is my school in this state?" The reason is that the Jesuits and Dominicans no longer supply professors. One group is Marxist, the other is inclined towards atheism. You have only to read Etudes or the books published by these gentlemen. All that we can hope for is that some of them, at any rate, will soon get out of their Orders. And these were the Orders which once upon a time furnished men for the great faculties. Not long ago the former Revue ascétique et mystique, later changed to the merely historical Revue de Spiritualité, ceased publication because the Jesuits refused to support it financially any longer.
It has been found impossible to set up a seminary which – though in no way on traditionalist lines – is yet conformed to Christian and Catholic tradition in its lecture courses and general condition. The last attempt was made at Paray-Le-Monial – all previous attempts were failures – and it is uncertain whether it will have any better fate. There is no lack of candidates. But unless they are sufficiently imbued with psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc., they are not accepted. Great Jesuit colleges have been closed and sold. Even the Dominican Le Saulchoir has been sold…
My beloved friend, Daniélou,5 who was a fellow student of mine, has turned some young men away from the idea of joining the Jesuits – at least in France. This is important to note because there, over the heads of the bishops, and whether they agree or not, a systematic destruction of the Faith is in progress. I have in my hands a booklet called Foi à l’épreuve produced by a group who call themselves Animateurs de catéchèse région ouest. In volume two it is stated that the former dogmatic beliefs can no longer be accepted because there is now a completely different approach to truth. As a basic concept Truth comes into being, "happens," when people come into contact with one another. Each time they do so truth is, of course, new truth. The old dogmas, at best, represent a theory. Les données de la révelations répètent donc une thérie. Another booklet poses the question: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist? The answer is: Yes, but this ancient manner of presence can no longer be held literally as though we were talking of a local presence. In some way Christ is present everywhere by means of the idea of Him. These booklets carry the imprimatur of the Bishop of Angers.
I have a sister who is the superior general of a Congregation of Franciscans who have their mother-house in Angers. She tells me that the sisters there object to making their hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament because the theologians have told them that they were no longer sure about the Real Presence.
Such, then, is the true background to the long, drawn-out saga of Archbishop Lefebvre. None of those who have reported the case in Switzerland have told us who are the true guilty parties in the case. Beyond all doubt it is the French clergy, or indeed the French bishops who, as long as fifteen years ago, excluded Lefebvre from the Bishops’ Conference on the ground that he was too right-wing while they were left-wing. So since there are no seminaries in France where men can study proper theology they will go to Ecône. Now that Rome has joined the fight and it has become so easy to attack this man, I find that the French bishops have very hypocritically – I am bound to say – suddenly become pro-Roman. For a long time they were so anti-Roman, as I saw for myself during the Bishops’ Synod in 1971 in Rome, where I acted as secretary. The French were the leaders of the opposition and constantly gained the votes by getting the better of the black cardinals and bishops. All this sounds not very pretty and even a bit primitive. But I think it must be admitted that such a background is really present in what I can only call a bitter and altogether primitive Gallicanism…
We received the other day a letter from the bishops warning us about the extreme conservatism of Mgr. Lefebvre and his followers. We were informed that they celebrate irregular Masses which many people attend. This is to stop and these men must not be allowed in our churches. All very well, but why don't they tell us about the other side of the coin, too? Why do the French bishops say nothing, too? I am thinking of such excesses as those crazy Eucharistic celebrations where lay people are invited to join in the words of consecration; or, of those ecumenical services where one man says the words over the bread, another over the wine, and then the mixed assembly receive what I might call the end-product. This sort of thing happens too in our own country. There are fancy liturgies with all sorts of changes and inventions: new canons and readings from non-scriptural works. The clergy have run amuck. I imagine that clericalism never before bore such fruit.
Nowadays the celebrant has so much to say and the lay folk present don't get much of a look in; perhaps they are allowed to sing a bit here and there. But the celebrant goes on as though he were the boss of the service and arranges it completely as he wishes, as though it were a work of art to be exhibited on Sunday. There are churches in Basle that many of my friends refuse to attend, because in them Mass is quite unrecognizable. You can make a good guess when the consecration takes place, but everything else is changed. I myself was asked to say Mass in two churches, ordinary ones. But I was told, "We don't have the Epistle any more, we have organ music instead." Surely the Council had no idea of all this, even if it did introduce four Eucharistic canons and a Eucharistic service people could understand. These fancy services produce a feeling of frustration in the minds of people. No wonder that, according to French statistics, attendance at Mass sank from 25% to 12% in two or three years.
Much more could be said of the same matter, as, for instance, when a parish priest from near Zurich invited the parents of those to be confirmed, and told them that "Essentially confirmation is all about acceptance of your own life," and that "the death of Jesus is heaven's cry that man must be anxious about his own life." But what I have said so far is only because, though we have heard all about Lefebvre, they haven't uttered a syllable about things like this. Why? Is it lack of courage?
1. Extract from a lecture given to the German Branch of Una Voce Association. Dr. May is Professor of Canon Law at the University of Mainz.
2. i.e., Julius Cardinal Döpfner of Munich.
3. This extract was taken from a translation of Dr. May’s lecture which was published in the 30 June 1980 issue of The Remnant.
4. Father von Balthasar was to have been created a cardinal by Pope John Paul II, but died in June 1988, before the Consistory.
5. Jean Cardinal Daniélou, S.J.
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
IN his 21 October lecture, cited on page 27, Dr. May made some very perceptive comments concerning Pope John Paul II. The beginning of his pontificate has given traditional Catholics grounds for considerable optimism, and this explains why 1979 could be termed legitimately a year of hope. But in his lecture Dr. May sounded a note of caution, a warning which proved to be only too prophetic. Dr. May warned that words must be matched by deeds, and before the end of the year the condemnation of Hans Kung and news of the forthcoming "Dutch Synod" in Rome gave the impression that this was precisely what was about to happen. But throughout the West entire national hierarchies ignored the Pope, and failed to implement his directives. In his turn, the Pope was unwilling to risk a confrontation with any national hierarchy, perhaps through a fear of provoking a formal schism. This has meant that his instructions in such matters as religious education or the liturgy have had little if any impact at the parish level. Dr. May's comments concerning Pope John Paul II are as follows:
The Role of the Pope
I turn, then, in first place to the Pope. I need not mention that we allow no one to surpass us in loyalty to the papacy. For us the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ, who possesses primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. We love the Pope and are devoted to him. We wish to do everything that facilitates his office and helps him attain his desired ends. But our devotion to the successors of Peter is not bovine servility, but responsible service. We feel ourselves duty-bound to serve him not only with our lips and in our heart, but also with our thought and actions.
The pontificate of Paul VI was, as a whole and aside from a few decisions and deeds, disastrous for the Catholic Church. He brought about and saw to it that there advanced in the Church and succeeded to positions of power those forces which paralyzed and undermined it. In all of history I know of no Pope in whose reign such an unheard-of collapse from purely internal causes was to be seen as under the pontificate of Montini. Paul VI left his successors a frightful legacy: a Church in ruins.
The successor of Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, was received with a wave of enthusiasm. The hopes of innumerable Catholics rose that he might end the increasingly untenable conditions and usher in a turning point. These expectations were not without foundation. Much could be expected of a Pope who had subscribed to a newspaper such as Der Fels, who read it regularly, agreed with most of what was contained in it and even cited some of it. Whether Luciani would have been in a position to fulfill all the expectations placed in him is, of course, difficult to judge. He did not have to undergo the test; God determined it otherwise.
His successor is Pope John Paul II, for the first time in the history of the Church a Pole and, for the first time in over 450 years, a non-Italian. He, too, has been received with broad agreement in the Church and in society. A comprehensive judgment of his tenure is not yet possible. Immediately after his election he spoke words which disappointed the supporters of a genuine renewal in the Church; I refer to the three catchwords: New Rites, Collegiality, and Ecumenism. For the supporters of a real renewal see the mischief in the Church as proceeding from the things these words signify. Meanwhile, John Paul II has said much, too, that is welcome. We are grateful for the defense which he has made of the great heritage and values of the Church, and we rejoice over the courage with which he stood up for Catholic sexual morality and the celibate form of life for priests. But these are for the time being only words. Paul VI spoke out too, but all too seldom were the words followed by deeds. We all know that the Church is no longer to be helped by speeches and appeals. What we need today are deeds, decisive deeds proceeding from an iron will, to save the Church.
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Volume 3, Chapter VII Is Sunday Mass to be Suppressed?
By Michel de Saint Pierre L'Aurore – 1 November 1979
My parish in Normandy was recently visited by the “priest in charge of the region." He had been sent by the diocese. What was the purpose of his visit? To instill in our minds and to put into effect the famous "Sunday assemblies without a priest.”
We were told, in a most official manner, that our parish priest could not serve his three parishes, and that we must therefore, at regular intervals, manage without him. But how? Simply by learning to celebrate a Sunday “service” without a priest.
The “priest in charge of the region" was, needless to say, dressed in civilian clothes. He explained that the shortage of priests in France was posing problems, and the solution of the problem was being offered to us: the laity must take turns to officiate. To begin with, on one Sunday out of two we would recite the prayers of the Mass under the direction of one of the parishioners – and we could even receive Communion at the hands of the laity present, as “sufficient number of consecrated Hosts would be provided for us.”
Now in our part of Normandy the parishes are small and not far apart, and until now our priests, each of whom has a car, had no difficulty in serving each Sunday the two or three churches in their charge. Moreover, each farming family has a car: the majority of the younger generation has either a motorcycle or a motor scooter. So, in a case of necessity, nothing could be easier than to attend a neighboring church to hear Mass. I pointed this out to the "priest in charge of the region," who merely shook his head.
"It is a question of knowing," he told me, "whether you want to be scattered in various churches or whether you want to retain your identity as a parish."
"No," I replied. "It is a question of whether Rome has decided, yes or no, that assisting at Sunday Mass is no longer obligatory. What you are offering us is merely a prayer meeting of the laity. Will you therefore kindly tell those listening to us that Sunday observance at a prayer meeting without a priest does not absolve us from the obligation of attending Mass in a neighboring parish?"
Not only did the "priest in charge of the region" refuse to do this, but he began extolling the necessity of a truly parochial community, etc. In other words, I heard with my own ears a diocesan priest inviting a group of rural laity to cease celebrating the Lord's Day by their presence and by their participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
However, the following Sunday the first attempt was made in our parish: we had our little gatherings without a priest, but I categorically refused to attend. But good sense and loyalty prevailed and these Sunday gatherings soon stopped: they have never re-started. Nevertheless, doubt had been sown in innocent souls who no longer quite understand what the Curé d' Ars had so accurately described as the "Sublime Mass."
An enquiry I later made among the members of the Credo Society indicated that this was no isolated case, nor an attempt which would not be followed up. Is this practice, of members of the laity replacing the priest, not, in fact, an excellent pretext for the French Episcopate to cover up the decline in the number of seminaries, and the growing lack, in France, of vocations to the priesthood? I now know that in many dioceses attempts had been made to introduce these pitiful celebrations without a priest – thus making our churches more and more like Protestant temples: heaven grant that these attempts may fail! For my part, I beg all those reading this article to refuse to attend these so-called Masses, these ceremonies lacking both meaning and substance – ceremonies without the anointed hands of the priest, which alone have the power to transform the bread and the wine, each day and in every church, throughout the world, into the Body and Blood of Our Savior, Jesus Christ.
But this is not the end of the affair. Today, at the Jean-Bart Centre, the pastoral, sacramental and liturgical center of the Archdiocese of Paris, a most strange booklet was published entitled "The Sunday of Yesterday and the Sunday of Today." While insisting that Sunday Mass remains obligatory, the content of this brochure is admirably summarized by Father Auvray:
• To be able to replace the obligation of personally attending Mass by sending a representative.
• To disassociate Sunday from the Lord's Day, which must become a moveable feast during the week.
• To disassociate Mass from Sunday and invent another type of celebration, not solely the Mass.
So much ought to be quoted but only one passage will have to suffice: "To be a practicing Catholic would no longer necessarily mean attending Mass each Sunday, but being always most careful to attend, either in person or by representative, each weekly religious assembly.”
Thus the bonds of solidarity and representations would replace loyalty and culpability.
In the customary jargon used for such commentaries and with the customary pretentious verbal diarrhea, the Jean-Bart Center presents us with sixty-five pages of the same style, causing mental confusion and casting doubt on teachings which Rome never ceases to re-affirm. Rome, whose traditional loyalty the Center would appear to doubt: "The present rigidity," the brochure informs us, “permits nothing whatsoever.”
In my view, nothing could be added to this admission – if not this: that this terrifying document produced by Jean-Bart Center be brought without delay to the notice of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
