Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Heterodox & Subversive Characters of the Sillon
[Taken from here]

Another French priest, Fr. Emmanuel Barbier, was a redoubtable and tireless opponent of all forms of religious Modernism and Liberalism at the turn of the 20th century, as can be seen in his prolific publications. He was an eminently well-qualified priest who was more than capable of challenging the pretensions of Marc Sangnier on the theological battlefield and exposing the errors into which the Sillon fell under his leadership.

In this task, he was supported by, among others, the Bishops of Cambrai, Beauvais, Montpellier, Nancy and Quimper, who were openly critical of the Sillon for causing division among the faithful in their Dioceses.

Msgr. Charles-François Turinaz, Bishop of Nancy, a strong critic of the Sillon movement

In a letter to Fr. Barbier, the Bishop of Nancy, Msgr. Charles-François Turinaz, showed how this came about. When the Sillon entered a diocese, he said, its members defied the orders of Leo XIII and Pius X as well as the authority of the local Bishop, and introduced division where none existed before, where charitable organizations flourished and peace reigned among the clergy and the people:

“The Sillon creates divisions among the clergy, among the Catholic youth, among the faithful in the towns and countryside. It does so by rejecting all those who are unwilling to admire its ideas on the Republic and Democracy, and by treating them as the most dangerous enemies of the Church. It creates division between, on the one hand, the workers and, on the other, their employers whom they want to eliminate from the workforce; among the workers themselves by promoting the 'red' unions, that is, unions of the Revolution and Internationalism, and by criticizing the unions which uphold a harmonious relationship with employers.”1

It is obvious that the root problem is the creation of two parties and two loyalties requiring priests and faithful to take sides for or against the authority structures of the Church. St. Pius X famously said that Catholics should choose “the Party of God,” and Leo XIII taught that the social question is first and foremost a moral and, therefore, a religious question, and cannot be solved by means which are alien to Catholicism.

This brings us to Fr. Barbier’s exhaustive historical analysis of the Sillon, its nature, methods and aims. In his book, Les Erreurs du Sillon (The Errors of the Sillon), he provided a helpful summary (pp. 366-368) of the many points on which this organization failed the test of Catholic orthodoxy in its attempt to build the “future city” of Marc Sangnier’s dreams.

Fr. Emmanuel Barbier; below, his book on the errors of the Sillon

The following points, each of which is meticulously researched and verified by documentary evidence, are the most relevant, and illustrate the Sillon’s transgressions in religious, political and social matters:

• It popularized, in France, the heresy of “Americanism” 2 – condemned in 1899 by Leo XIII – which valued action over contemplation, bypassed the teaching authority of the Church, and encouraged reliance on the individual conscience claiming direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit;
  
  
• It propagated false notions of dogma, especially the evolutionary ideas of Fr. Alfred Loisy that denied or diminished Catholic truths and principles in order to conciliate non-believers and adapt the Church to modern times;
  
  
• It called for a reform of ecclesiastical studies; it denigrated the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, declared Scholasticism to be of no value, denied any necessary link between philosophy and theology, and replaced the rational proofs of God’s existence by inner feelings and experiences;
  
  
• It publicly condemned the idea of a State religion, condoned the separation of Church and State and enthusiastically endorsed the French government’s 1905 Law of Separation which divested France of its Catholic heritage and caused profound grief to St. Pius X; 3
  
  
• It opposed Patriotism, 4 using expressions suited to International Socialism and humanitarianism, and considered the military defence of one’s country as “immoral”; 5
  
  
• It disturbed the social order by participating in revolutionary acts contrary to the Natural Law and Catholic Morals, sowing division everywhere;
  
  
• It preached a mystique of humanitarian Socialism, confusing its republican democratic action with the social teaching of the Church, and used the Gospels to justify its doctrinal errors;
  
  
• It denounced ownership of property as incompatible with the Christian spirit, and reduced it to a minimum because it would be an obstacle to the construction of its touted “future city” based on collectivist principles;
  
  
• It preached the levelling of classes, roused covetousness and rancor among the workers against their employers, refused to seek a solution in a harmonious relationship between them, and wanted trade unions to exclude employers so that the workers could achieve their own emancipation and eliminate the bosses;
  
  
• It planned a radical reorganization of society on a socialist basis: all public utility services owned by capitalists should be expropriated by the State; ownership of smaller private enterprises and means of production – in industry, commerce and agriculture – should be placed in the hands of the workers;
  
  
• This was Sangnier’s programme of reform which he stated in an address that he delivered at a Sillon Conference in July 1908, when questioned by a representative of the militant Left-wing Trade Union, the Confédération Générale du Travail which fought for social ownership and workers’ control.
  

Another weighty testimony came from the Archbishop of Reims, Card. Louis Luçon who opposed attempts to set up a Sillonist circle in his Archdiocese.

Card. Louis Luçon: ‘The Sillon is a scourge’

In the December 1908 edition of the Bulletin du Diocèse de Reims, the Sillon was described as a “fléau” (a scourge) on the following grounds:

“With reference to the political and social organization called the Sillon, the most common result of its actions is easy to see: It is to sow division, to detach young people from Catholic works and draw them away from the influence of the clergy in social matters.

“The influence of the Sillon is abominable, and the state of mind it creates in its followers is dire: It causes even the best among them to lose the exact notion of truth and right judgment, and also a sense of respect.”


To be continued


1. Emmanuel Barbier, Les Erreurs du Sillon: Histoire Documentaire (The Errors of the Sillon: A Documentary History), Paris: Lethielleux, 1906, p. 10.
2. Before being named and condemned by St. Pius X in the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, Modernism was known as Americanism, due its initial experiences in the United States. Both have the same inspiration and the same errors.
3. St. Pius X condemned this principle in Vehementer nos (1906): “that the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.”
4. According to Catholic teaching, to reject Patriotism, which is part of the virtue of piety, is a violation of the Fourth Commandment and a failure in charity and justice towards one’s own country. Addressing Republicans and Socialists at a public meeting, Sangnier stated: “We love France passionately, but we regard it as the terrain of the use of all humanity, and we are in some sense internationalist patriots.” Ibid., p. 119.
5. Sangnier’s position was refuted by Msgr. Turinaz, Bishop of Nancy, who spoke extensively on the virtue of Patriotism and cited the example of Joan of Arc as “the embodiment of the purest and most heroic patriotism.” (Charles-François Turinaz, Discours Patriotiques (Patriotic Speeches), Paris: Roger & Chernoviz, 1901, p. 102.
6. Sangnier’s speech was reported by Msgr. Théodore Delmont in Modernisme et Modernistes en Italie en Allemagne, en Angleterre et en France (Modernism and Modernists in Italy, Germany, England and France), Paris: Lethielleux, 1909, p. 446.
7. Ibid., p. 447.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Early Support of the Sillon by Some Prelates
[Taken from here]

At the turn of the century, the Sillon attracted varying degrees of support from Bishops in different parts of France, and even managed, in the initial stages of its existence, to elicit some words of praise from Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. We know this from a collection of pontifical documents, letters and speeches published by Fr. Jean Desgranges who was once a staunch supporter of the Sillon, but broke with Marc Sangnier in 1905. 1 A selection of these documents was reproduced and analysed by Fr. Emmanuel Barbier, among which we note three letters expressing both Leo XIII’s and Pius X’s tentative approval of the Sillon.

According to Card. Rampolla, above, Leo XIII praised the Sillon

First, a letter of September 1902 addressed directly to Sangnier by Card. Rampolla, Secretary of State for Leo XIII, stated that “His Holiness is greatly pleased by the goal and the tendencies of the Sillon” and that “he gives his heartfelt blessing on the efforts which the members of this organization intend to carry out in order to promote the true Catholic spirit in the heart of society.” 2

One is entitled to ask: How could Pope Leo be “greatly pleased” with an organization that published, as we have seen, a frontal attack on his magisterial teaching in Aeterni Patris, and consider that the serious doctrinal errors of the Sillon could “promote the true Catholic spirit in the heart of society”?

Clearly, there is something amiss with Rampolla’s message, either because it was a cynical intervention on his part to indulge in a spot of highly partisan political campaigning on behalf of the Sillon, or evidence of an equally cynical manipulation of Pope Leo XIII to secure his favor on a movement that did not conform to papal policy on true Democracy. It is more likely that the Pope was not, at that time, in possession of the facts about the true nature of the Sillon. For, this would be support for a Church-sponsored political movement, which was not within the remit of the Pope.

Second, Card. Merry del Val conveyed the approval of Pius X for the organization in a letter of April 1904 to the Bishop of Périgueux, Msgr. Delamaire on the occasion of a Sillon Congress:

Fr. Jean Desgranges compiled the collection of pontifical documents used in this article

“His Holiness was pleased to encourage the wise initiatives of the Sillon.” 3

But this was a noncommittal statement that avoids saying whether all, some or, indeed, any of the initiatives were wise. The Cardinal, ever the Diplomat, was only speaking speculatively (if imprudently) about the self-declared intentions and goals of the Sillonists and about the presumed future outcome of the Sillon’s activities. There is abundant evidence that Sangnier, in his correspondence with Rome, unfailingly declared his attachment to the Church and his submission to the Hierarchy.

Third, a letter from Rome, written on behalf of the Pope, was addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, François-Marie Richard, in February 1905, in anticipation of a Sillon Congress to take place in that city. 4 In it, Card. Richard was urged to set a good example for all the French Bishops by ensuring due respect and filial obedience from the members of the Sillon to his authority. The letter also contained a measure of praise for the many young Catholic followers of the Sillon engaged in good works for the welfare of the people. But it was also a warning shot across the bows for its leadership who were admonished to declare openly at the upcoming Congress their orthodoxy in matters of doctrine and their unity, under ecclesiastical authority, with other social organizations approved by the Bishops. 5

Card. François-Marie Richard both praised the Sillon & issued a light warning against it

That, however, was something that Sangnier had always refused to do. With the breath-taking audacity that had come to be associated with his name, he told his followers not to be scared off by the admonition but to continue their fight for Democracy, “blessed and encouraged by the universal Church.” 6 It is evident that he had twisted the Pope’s words of praise, omitting to mention that they were contingent upon the Sillon’s willingness to place itself under the guidance of the French Episcopate. In other words, he spoke as if the approval of all the Bishops had already been achieved before any of the Pope’s stipulations were put into action.

To put the situation into perspective, a survey was carried out among the Episcopate by a French journalist, Albert Monniot, between October and November 1909, to ascertain the opinion of the Bishops on the Sillon. The results were mostly negative. 7 Of the Prelates who responded, 49 (including 11 Archbishops/Cardinals) either forbade their priests to participate in the Sillon, or gave warnings against it, or issued a formal censure. 8

Only a few Bishops, long-time supporters of the Sillon, came to its defence, among whom were counted those who personally accepted the 1905 Law of Separation, or had either been condemned for Modernism or who had already left the Church. 9


Suppression of the Sillon

There is evidence that, by 1907, Pius X was beginning to express frankly negative opinions regarding the Sillon. Msgr. François Gieure, Bishop of Bayonne, on his return from an audience with Pius X, published in his diocesan bulletin a letter to one of his clergy, containing a report of the conversation he had had with the Pope on the subject of the Sillon. Fortunately, we have access to the content of the letter, for the document in question was made available for general readership by Fr. Barbier. The Bishop conveyed the relevant part of the Pope’s message word for word, as follows:

Msgr. François Gieure, Bishop of Bayonne, reported the words of St. Pius X on the Sillon

“I have misgivings about the Sillon. Some of the French Bishops have written to me to ask what I thought of it. I have read the speeches of Marc Sangnier; I have also read some of his articles. I have grave concerns about the whole idea. These young people are going in a wrong direction: Viam sequuntur damnosam [a road leading to harmful consequences]. I do not want priests to join this “Association”; it gives the impression that they are allowing themselves to be guided by lay people, whereas they themselves have been appointed to guide and lead.

“Furthermore, it is a purely lay movement, in no way religious. In short, these young people are pursuing nothing other than a political ideal, while distancing themselves from the Catholic Hierarchy. Priests should have no connection with this movement; give them this advice: Ne dent nomen huic associationi (They must not lend their name to that Association]”. 10

In August 1910, Pius X issued a full and detailed condemnation of the Sillon in the form of a Letter to the French Bishops, entitled Notre Charge Apostolique. This document was in large part made up of complaints and criticisms collected over the years from concerned members of the clergy, among which we can recognize certain phrases and ideas furnished by Frs. Maignen and Barbier mentioned above. The Pope presented his Letter as a work of justice:

“We owe the truth to Our dear sons of the Sillon who are carried away by their generous ardor along a path strewn with errors and dangers. We owe the truth to a large number of seminarians and priests who have been drawn away by the Sillon, 11 if not from the authority, at least from the guidance and influence of the Bishops. We owe it also to the Church in which the Sillon is sowing discord and whose interests it endangers.”

But Loisy, however, who recognized in the Sillon an echo of his own Modernism, and who had already been excommunicated by the same Pope, launched the following broadside against Notre Charge Apostolique:

“Of all the harmful acts perpetrated under the reign of Pius X, the condemnation of the Sillon was the most odious.” 12


To be continued


1. Jean Desgranges, Les Vraies Idées du Sillon (The Real Ideas of the Sillon), Limoges: Dumont, 1905, p. 3.
2. Emmanuel Barbier, La Décadence du Sillon: Histoire Documentaire (The Decline and Fall of the Sillon: a Documentary History), Paris: Lethielleux, 1908, p. 6.
3. Ibid., p. 6.
4. Ibid., p. 7.
5. Emmanuel Barbier, Les Idées du Sillon: Étude Critique (The Ideas of the Sillon: A Critical Study), Poitiers: Blais & Roy, Paris: Lethielleux, 1905, p. 11.
6. Le Sillon, February 25, 1905.
7. Albert Monniot, “Le Sillon” devant l'épiscopat, 52 consultations de cardinaux, archevêques et évêques, Paris, 1909.
8. N. Ariès, “Le Sillon” et le Mouvement Démocratique, Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1910, p. 212.
9. Jean de Fabrègues, Le Sillon de Marc Sangnier: Un Tournant Majeur du Mouvement Catholique (Marc Sangnier’s Sillon: a Major Turning Point in the Catholic Movement), Paris: Perrin, 1964, p. 211.
10. E. Barbier, La Décadence du Sillon, pp. 21-22.
11. An indication of the large numbers of ecclesiastic supporters of the Sillon throughout France was provided by Fr. Barbier in 1908. He reproduced the lists of annual ecclesiastical subscribers to L’Éveil Démocratique (a popularized version of Le Sillon with an annual circulation of 60,000 copies) for the second half of 1908, using initials in place of the originally published names in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. See E. Barbier, Critique du libéralisme religieux, politique, social, 12 vols., Lille: Desclée, De Brouwer, vol. 1, 1908-1909, pp. 123-127.
12. Alfred Loisy, Mémoires pour server à l’histoire religieuse de notre temps, 3 vols., vol. 3, Paris: E. Nourry, 1931, p. 194..

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Marc Sangnier’s ‘Submission’
[Taken from here]

Marc Sangnier put himself forward – and was hailed by his supporters – as an exemplary Catholic whose loyalty to the Pope was second to none. In his letter of submission to Pius X, quoted by Fr. Barbier, Sangnier waxed eloquent about his own “docility and good will” and assured the Pope of the “indissoluble union” that attached him to the Church. He even intimated that the Pope was under a misapprehension about him.

But at no point did Sangnier admit that he himself was at fault. Instead, he blamed everyone else as naysayers and ill-wishers – the Pope for not understanding, conservative Bishops for being “clericalist,” the people for being prejudiced, the right-wing activists for opposing Democracy.

In response to the Pope’s intervention, he declared that the Sillon “would make every effort to avoid with the greatest care all the errors and all the imprecisions that might give the impression that we hold opinions condemned by the Church.”1 [Emphasis added] That was not exactly a frank admission of guilt, but a subterfuge to transfer the blame to others for their lack of understanding. Nevertheless, he closed down the Sillon and disbanded its members.

Fr. Joseph Cardijn, founder of the Young Christian Workers, was made cardinal by Paul VI in 1965

His “submission” to Pope Pius X had the effect of disarming critics and winning plaudits from the Hierarchy. But closing the Sillon was only a stratagem to avoid compromising its purpose. Undeterred, Sangnier immediately started planning to regroup his followers, and in 1912 he set up a political organization, La Ligue de la Jeune République (The Young Republican League) to continue the work of the Sillon and promote his own vision of social Catholicism. He inaugurated a new journal, La Démocratie, to replace the original Review, Le Sillon.

A high-profile supporter of the Sillon, the founder of the Young Christian Workers, Fr. Joseph Cardijn, was so enthused by the idea of a “democratic” Church that, in his 1921 Welcome Address to Marc Sangnier in Brussels, 2 he made inappropriate reference to “Our Lady of Democracy,” a title he had simply conjured up in defiance of ecclesiastical protocol. The incongruous nature of this title is obvious when we consider that Our Lady, as Mother of Christ the King, is traditionally venerated as Queen of Heaven and Earth.


[b]The link between the Sillon [/u]& Vatican II

A key feature of the original Sillon was its claim to a certain autonomy, that is, independence of the Church’s Hierarchy. This was accomplished by the introduction of the “Spirit of Democracy” into the Catholic Faith and into the organizational structures of the Church. The aim was obviously modernist – to replace the monarchical nature of the Church with a form of “collective Christianity” or, in Vatican II speak, Collegiality. This would mean that the role of the Hierarchy would be reduced to approving the collective aspirations of the people, thus rendering the exercise of episcopal authority in the spiritual domain nugatory and ineffective.

Then there was the Sillon’s denigration of Leo XIII’s Aeterni Patris (a document, incidentally, which was sent down the memory hole at Vatican II), followed by the abandonment of Scholastic Theology, leading to religious pluralism. This was the opening gambit for Religious Liberty.

Mark Sangnier closed the Sillon after St. Pius X’s condemnation, but opened another similar group

The Sillon also claimed to be non-confessional, that is, willing to co-operate with members of other religions or atheists – the latter would logically have to include communists – to build the “Future City” on Democracy alone. Thus, in order to achieve unity among the disparate participants in the task of social regeneration, a compromise would have to be made, based on the values of the “collective” to the exclusion of the integral Catholic Faith. This was Ecumenism in the making.

The impression was given that all of humanity could achieve unity in a religion more universal than the Catholic Church. From then on, it would be impossible to distinguish God’s Party from the People’s Party, Catholic moral principles from general benevolence, and the One Ark of Salvation from a Babel of all religions. One indispensable ingredient was missing in Sangnier’s proposed regeneration of society – clarity in the Faith, which provides the very foundation that families and nations need in an increasingly relativistic world.

All the evidence shows that the Sillon’s faith was not directed to the patrimony of Catholic Tradition as the basis for Western Civilization. It, in fact, despised the duty of patriotism to one’s native land, preferring to uphold international laws and institutions inspired by Marxism which would flood the Church with multiculturalism, moral relativism and anti-Western values.

The Sillon, therefore, born of rebellion and subversion, can be seen as the forerunner of Vatican II’s doctrines of Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism which have points of correspondence with the tripartite principles of the French Revolution.


To be continued


1. E. Barbier, Histoire du catholicisme libéral et du catholicisme social en France: du Concile du Vatican à l’avènement de S.S. Benoît XV: 1870–1914, 5 vols., vol. 5, Bordeaux: G. Delmas, 1924, p. 179.
2. Joseph Cardijn, ‘Welcome Speech to Marc Sangnier, Founder of the Sillon Movement,’ February 5, 1921, Fonds Cardijn, General Archives of Belgium, Brussels, published on the Cardijn Digital Archive. According to their website, the text of the letter exists only in handwritten form.

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

After the Sillon: Rise of the Clerical Demagogues

[Taken from here - emphasis The Catacombs]

We have seen previously how Marc Sangnier, the lay leader of the Sillon, sought to obtain political power through the exercise of his skills as an orator. It would be entirely fitting to apply the term demagogue to him on account of the unprincipled way in which he influenced large swathes of Catholic youth by pandering to their prejudices and passions, particularly their desire for freedom and their love of novelty. Of significant interest was his confusion between religion and politics.

Above, Fr. Romolo Murri, condemned by St. Pius X; below, Card. Pietro Gasparri encouraged Catholic Action’s leftist leaders

Now we will turn our attention to an even worse phenomenon that came to the fore at the end of the 19th century – the emergence of groups of politically active priests, especially in France, Belgium and Italy, who were advocating radical measures to bring about social and economic change, often in alliance with Socialists. Commonly referred to as abbés démocrates for their promotion of “Christian Democracy,” they arranged national congresses for priests, addressed meetings and published their own weekly newspapers. Some even took up government or administrative posts, the better to advance their cause among the people.1 Thus, militant cohorts of priests were in positions of power to draw the Catholic faithful into social revolution.

Pope Pius X dealt decisively with the threat to Catholic order by excommunicating some of the leaders, for example, Fr. Alfred Loisy in France and Fr. Romolo Murri in Italy. Once Pius X departed this life, however, his teaching on the true meaning of Catholic Action and his warnings about the incursion of Socialism into the Church via that means went unheeded – worse, they were even undermined by his immediate Successors. In practice, no one in Rome was prepared to face down and defeat the proponents of social Modernism as St. Pius X had done.

With the encouragement of Benedict XV and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Gasparri, Christian Democracy was welcomed back into the fold, while many politically Left-wing Catholic Action leaders, both clerical and lay, were given their day in the sun.

Incidentally, one of those leaders was Giorgio Montini, elected to the Italian Parliament in 1919, who imbued his son, the future Paul VI, with the condemned ideals of social Modernism which had deleterious effects both on the future of the Church as an institution and on the well-being of Catholic States.

The Popes after Pius X were less able (or less willing?) to control the situation with respect to clerical political activity, with the result that increasing numbers of the clergy forsook their divinely-appointed vocation as spiritual leaders of the flock entrusted to them, and took their inspiration instead from laymen, be it Marc Sangnier or Karl Marx.


Encounter between Catholic & Marxist currents

The Liturgical Movement was launched by Dom Lambert Beauduin in 1909 on a quasi-political platform. He saw the liturgy in terms of class struggle, i.e., the alleged oppression and exploitation by an “aristocratic elite” of clergy who had excluded the ordinary, humble and powerless laity from an active role in the liturgy.

This Marxist-style ideology has not only become the dominant theme of the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Movement, but it has also developed into a version of “Lay Lives Matter” Wokery – to paraphrase a modern slogan – that challenges and denounces the rights of the Hierarchy to give moral direction to the faithful in accordance with traditional Catholic doctrine.

Beauduin used the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” to illustrate his ideal, but it was simply a metaphor for the class-based antagonism of Marxist ideology transposed on to the liturgical scene. This, in turn, inspired his revolutionary idea of linking the liturgy of the Church with social activism and with Ecumenism among religions.

He summed up the path of his own career in these telling words: “Under Leo XIII, I devoted myself to social action, under Pius X to the liturgy, and under Benedict XV to ecumenism.”2

It is important to note the order of these steps in the evolution of his ideas. Social action came first both chronologically and in rank of importance, forming the bedrock of all his ideas on liturgy and Ecumenism.

Following in Beauduin’s footsteps, it seems that the Benedictines of the 20th century who initiated the Liturgical Movement were not interested in the liturgy per se, except only insofar as they could make use of it to further their agenda for change. But the idea that a Benedictine monastery such as Mont-César or Maria Laach could be a powerhouse of political activism and a pedagogical tool for liturgical novelty was as dangerous as it was subversive.

Above, Maria Laach Abbey, Germany, center of the litrugical reforms; below, Arch. Helder Camara, a socialist demagogue

Helder CamaraIn the hands of the liturgical reformers, the doctrine of the Mystical Body became a rhetorical trope of antithesis or opposition to the Catholic Church. It adopted the characteristics of a Marxist-type slogan for the liberation of the laity from what they made out to be the injustice of an arbitrary and despotic form of “clericalism.”

Starting with Dom Lambert Beauduin’s active participation initiative for “corporate worship,”3 the purpose of liturgy was subverted from its supernatural end and was made to serve as a tool for achieving political reform. The liturgical rites became a symbol of resistance to perceived injustice in contemporary society regarding inequality of wealth and social status.

Reformers who wanted to foment a Socialist revolution in the Church and society – which they knew to be incompatible with Catholicism – always resorted to special pleading, as in the case of Archbishop Hélder Câmara who stated: “My socialism is a special socialism, a socialism that respects the human person and goes back to the Gospels. My socialism is justice”.4

“Social Justice,” it turns out, was whatever advanced their anti-capitalist agenda. But first they needed a religious-sounding slogan to give them credibility as Church leaders. This is exactly where the art of demagoguery becomes useful in popularizing slogans that sound good and denouncing phrases that do not appeal to modern ears, with the result that, in Orwellian fashion, everything good becomes bad, and everything bad becomes good.


The Mystical Body & Catholic Action

Well before Pius XII issued his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ) in 1943, the sloganeering value of the Mystical Body had already been a going concern in the Liturgical Movement, especially in the area of Catholic Action. Fr. Louis Bouyer observed that the theology of the Mystical Body took on a life of its own and began to flourish when it came into contact with Catholic Action, and that it was especially influential in the French Worker-Priest Movement of the 1950s.5 In other words, it became politicized among those who aimed to make revolutionary changes not only in the Church but also in social and economic structures.

It will soon become clear as we outline the work of the key personalities in the Liturgical Movement that their interest in the Church’s liturgy was chiefly motivated by what they saw as its potential to mobilize the Catholic population for social/political causes.

We will see later how Beauduin’s disciple, Dom Virgil Michel, brought this approach to the United States when he started the American version of the Liturgical Movement.

These ideas were predominantly of a Left-wing variety, anti-authority. anti-clerical and anti-capitalist, and included class struggle of workers against their employers, the poor against the rich, the weak against the powerful etc. Today this movement of Cultural Marxism would be looked upon as an example of “Wokery.”


To be continued


1. Robert Byrnes, “The French Christian Democrats in the 1890s: Their Appearance and Their Failure,” The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 36, n. 3, October 1950.
2. Albert Verdoodt, Les colloquies œcuméniques de Chevetogne (1942-1983) et la réception par l’Eglise catholique des charismes d’autres communions chrétiennes (The Ecumenical Conferences at Chevetogne (1942-1983) and the Catholic Church’s Welcoming of the Charisms of other Christian Communities), Chevetogne: Éditions de Chevetogne, 1986, p. 39.
3. See Volumes 1 and 2 of this series.
4. Oriana Fallaci, Interview with History, London: Michael Joseph, 1976, p. 297.
5. Louis Bouyer, ‘Où en est la théologie du corps mystique?’ (What is the current situation with the theology of the Mystical Body?), 6. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 22, 1948, p. 323.

Posted July 15, 2026