SELECTIONS BY PAULY FONGEMIE
The Enigma of Pope Paul
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ; he is "sweet Christ on earth"; he is our Holy Father; he is the visible head of the Church; to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ it is essential to be in communion with His Vicar. As it is impossible for the branch to live which is not united to the stem, so outside the Body of Christ, outside the Church which He has founded, there can be no salvation. "To some that Church has not been made known, to others she has been made known, but inculpably they have not recognized her for what she is. In their case we may be sure that God will take account of their good faith, of their sincere desire to please God, and will make it so that they receive grace from the life-giving Head. He will take the will for the deed, and those who are in inculpable error will be united 'by desire,' though not in fact, to the visible Church of Christ." [The Teaching of the Catholic Church, G. Smith, London, 1956, p. 71]
As will be shown below, the privilege of infallibility is not a quality inherent in the person of the pontiff but an assistance attached to his office as Pope. Nonetheless, Catholics, and none more so than in the English-speaking world, have in recent centuries manifested an intense loyalty to the person of the Sovereign Pontiff - and rightly so. For Catholics living in a predominantly Protestant society, loyalty to the person of the Pope and loyalty to the Church founded by Christ were seen as synonymous, and this attitude has been reinforced in the past two centuries by a series of pontiffs whose wisdom and personal sanctity have made it appear that among the privileges granted by Christ to his Vicar have been those of impeccability and inerrancy. But this is not the case, as Peter's denial of Christ makes clear, to cite only the first and the most obvious example.
The attacks on both papal authority and the person of Pope Paul VI by liberal Catholics, in an unholy alliance with the entire world secular establishment, following his encyclical Humanae Vitae, have reinforced the tendency among orthodox Catholics to make the unconditional acceptance and defense of any and every decision of the Pope the prime characteristic of a good Catholic. Dietrich von Hildebrand, who has been decorated by the present Pope for his services to the Holy See, and is second to no one in his love of and loyalty to the Church, has considered it necessary to point out how mistaken this attitude is, this concept of "loyalty towards the Holy Father which is nobly intended, but in which practical decisions of the Pope are accepted in the same way as ex cathedra definitions, or encyclicals dealing with questions of faith or morals which are always in full harmony with the tradition of the Holy Church and her Magisterium. This loyalty is really false and unfounded. It places insoluble problems before the faithful in regard to the history of the Church. In the end this false loyalty can only endanger the true Catholic faith. ... Obviously a political decision or a disciplinary matter is not a dogma. It may be wise and bring forth fruitful consequences. Or it may be unwise and result in great hardships for the Church and great sufferings for mankind. We must realize that the present-day illusion that Communism has become 'humanitarian-socialism' is an error that has worse consequences than all the combined political errors in the almost 2,000 year history of the Church." [Satan at Work, p. 45]
As Dr. von Hildebrand states, to look upon every decision of the Pope as inspired by God and not subject to criticism "places insoluble problems before the faithful in regard to the history of the Church." Those who base their defence of the faith on the axiom that whatever the Pope decides must be right would find themselves in a hopelessly indefensible position once they began to study the history of the papacy. They would have to maintain that St. Athanasius was orthodox until Pope Liberius confirmed his excommunication; that this excommunication made his views unorthodox; but that they became orthodox again when Liberius recanted. In other words, there are no standards of objective truth at all; an article of faith becomes true or untrue simply because of the current attitude of the reigning pontiff. Similarly, in the year 896 Pope Stephen VI had the corpse of his predecessor Formosus taken from his tomb, put on "trial", condemned, stripped of his vestments, and then thrown into the Tiber. The dead pope was declared deposed and all his acts annulled, including his ordinations - a somewhat strange act as Pope Stephen VI had been consecrated as a bishop by Formosus! In 897 Pope Theodore II recovered the body of Formosus, had it interred with suitable ceremony in St. Peter's, and declared his ordinations valid. However, Pope Sergius III (904-911) reversed this decision and declared the Formosan ordinations to be null and ordered those ordained by him to be reordained. [The Popes, London, 1964, pp. 159-162] Without going into the rights or wrongs of the background to this bizarre affair, it makes one thing quite clear - at least some of the popes involved must have been in error, and in error on an important matter of discipline. It hardly needs stressing that the validity or otherwise of the Formosan ordinations is quite unconnected with the original deposit of faith and, as Cardinal Manning explains, infallibility "is simply an assistance of the Spirit of Truth, by Whom Christianity was revealed, whereby the head of the Church is enabled to guard the original deposit of revelation, and faithfully declare it in all ages ... Whatsoever, therefore, is not contained in this revelation cannot be a matter for Divine faith." [The True Story of the Vatican Council, Cardinal H. Manning, London, 1877, p. 180] Cardinal Manning also writes: "Some have thought that by the privilege of infallibility was intended a quality inherent in the person whereby, as an inspired man, he could at any time and on any subject declare the truth. Infallibility is not a quality inherent in any person, but an assistance attached to an office." [Ibid., p. 40] He points out that the decree of the First Vatican Council does not teach that the charisma of infallibility given to Peter and his successors "is an abiding assistance present always, but only never absent in the discharge of their supreme office. And it further declares the ends for which this assistance is given - the one that the whole flock of Christ on earth may never be misled, the other that the unity of the Church may always be preserved." [Ibid., pp. 82/83] ...
INTEGRAL HUMANISM
Some Catholics have been so distressed at the harmful effects of some policies and changes approved by the Pope that they have devised completely irrational explanations. Caught up in the erroneous notion that any policy approved by the Pope must, ipso facto, be beneficial to the Church, and yet too honest to evade the fact that some of the policies he has followed are manifestly bad, they have sought a solution to their dilemma by various theories designed to show that as these policies are clearly harmful it cannot be the Pope who is approving them. The Pope is thus said to have been drugged and is being manipulated by enemies of the Church who have infiltrated the Vatican; another theory is that he has been kidnapped or murdered and replaced by an impostor and various photographic "evidence" to prove this has been produced! Once it is accepted that a pope can follow mistaken policies the necessity for such flights of fantasy vanishes. Those who are familiar with the present Pope's background, while distressed at certain of his attitudes and policies, will not be surprised by them; they will accept them as the sad but predictable result of the philosophy which so influenced him during his most formative years, the philosophy of Integral Humanism. Once this philosophy and the Pope's attachment to it is appreciated the events of his pontificate can be examined and explained in their proper perspective.
Integral Humanism is a philosophy which emerged from a tendency which had been gathering momentum since the French Revolution and which, implicitly at least, denied the right of the Church to intervene in the social order; in other words, a denial of the social kingship of Jesus Christ. In an attempt to stem this process Pope Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King with his encyclical Quas Primas in 1925. Hamish Fraser has written an important study on the significance of this encyclical and the nature and history of Integral Humanism, together with its influence on Pope Paul VI. [The Teaching of the Catholic Church, G. Smith, London, 1956, p. 179]
[THE IMAGE OF
CHRIST HAS BEEN EMBELLISHED WITH A CROWN.]Much of what follows here is based upon his study, to which full acknowledgement is given.
In Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI protests at the fact that "The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ Himself to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their salvation, that right was denied." He insists that "not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor to and obedience to Christ ... for His kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education." But civil governments, in Catholic as well as non-Catholic countries, were insisting that while the Church was entitled to legislate for its own members it had no right to demand that the state should conform its legislation to the law of God. This principle had also come to be accepted, on a practical level at least, by an increasing number of Catholics, including national hierarchies. A striking exception was the magnificent campaign initiated by the German hierarchy which resulted in Hitler withdrawing his euthanasia law. A recent and contrary example was the scandalous refusal of the English and Welsh hierarchy to lead the faithful in an all-out campaign to fight the abortion legislation which had resulted in the murder of 1,000,000 unborn children by 1976.
This denial, even if only implicit, of Christ's social kingship was but one manifestation of the gradual retreat from the position in which the City of God stood out against the City of Man, and claimed the right to rule, to the position in which the City of God came to terms with the City of Man and tried to influence it. In practical terms, this involved the acceptance not simply of the autonomy of the City of Man but of the subjugation to it of the City of God. The Church must take her place on equal terms with other religions and philosophies within a world which she had a duty not to command but to serve. Catholics would work with any and every other group to build a just and humane society; they would remain faithful to the teaching of the Church and would act as a leaven to society and in doing so attract others to the Church, at least so the theory went. This attitude was given concrete manifestation in a number of Catholic social philosophies and movements which flourished at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century - and which were inevitably condemned as they were based on an untenable thesis which invariably resulted in a rejection of the true nature of the Church, no matter how vigorously and how sincerely the proponents of these movements denied the charge. The philosophy of Integral Humanism is in the direct tradition of such condemned movements as those of Lamennais or Marc Sangnier and his Sillon movement. ...
Integral Humanism first saw the light of day in a series of six lectures which Jacques Maritain delivered at the University of Santander in August 1934. Maritain had been a man of the "Right" up to 1926, but after the suppression of Action francaise, which he had supported, he moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum and identified himself with a group based upon the extreme left-wing review Esprit, founded and edited by Emmanuel Mounier. From 1932 onwards Esprit had advocated collaboration with unbelievers, a policy which Maritain first opposed but then endorsed. In Mounier's perspective, the Church could not hope to regain her former status except by becoming involved in the social and economic revolution. "The duty of the priest," he said, "is to contribute towards the building of a socialist world."
... When Maritain's Humanisme integral first appeared in 1936 it was the subject of a most perceptive review by Louis Salleron. Professor Salleron exposed the defects in Maritain's system, its internal contradictions, and the inevitable result should its principles be pursued to their logical conclusion. The complete text of this review is available as Appendix VI.
POPE PAUL VI AND INTEGRAL HUMANISM
Integral Humanism provided precisely the philosophic and theological justification sought for by those who wished to conciliate the Church with the modern world - and it needs to be stressed that in most cases this desire was inspired by the sincere belief that it was in the best interests both of the Church and of the world. Maritain's book, Integral Humanism, made a tremendous impact upon Catholic intellectuals throughout Europe despite its conflict with the insistence of Pope Pius XI that the duty of a Catholic was not to reconcile the Church with the world but to make the world accept Christian terms of reference and think with the mind of the Church. One young Italian priest who was particularly impressed with Maritain's book was Giovanni Battista Montini. He had been born in 1897. His father was a Catholic journalist, outstanding for his courageous opposition to liberalism. Giovanni Montini was a delicate child and when he manifested a vocation to the priesthood he was allowed to study at home instead of training in a seminary. As a university chaplain in Rome, he showed great courage in leading his students in their defence of Catholic principles against the fascism of Mussolini. He was so impressed by Maritain's book that he translated it into Italian himself and he remained a devoted admirer of the French philosopher until his death. By this time, of course, Maritain was aghast at the spectacle of the Church not just kneeling but groveling at the feet of the world. Before his death he wrote The Peasant of the Garonne, a scathing indictment of the trends now predominating in the Church, trends which, ironically, derive in no small measure from his own teachings. Maritain, of course, had never accepted the logical implications of Integral Humanism which, if taken to their conclusion, must result in a denial of the Divine nature of the Church and of her founder - for if Christ is God and the Church speaks with His voice then she has a right to demand, as Pope Pius Xl insisted, "that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ."
"Pope Paul is indeed a disciple of Jacques Maritain," writes Hamish Fraser, "so much so that when one reads a typically Pauline socio-political allocution, one might well be reading Maritain. But Pope Paul is also like Maritain in his refusal to accept the logical implications of Integral Humanism ... For even if his social ideology is completely at variance with that of all his predecessors - and of this there is no doubt whatsoever-like Maritain, Pope Paul has the faith of Peter. It is this which explains why the Council prompted Maritain to write The Peasant of the Garonne and why Pope Paul found it necessary to write Mysterium Fidei, the Credo of the People of God, and Humanae Vitae" [Approaches, Nos. 47-48, Feb., 1976].
The apparent enigma of Pope Paul can thus be understood within the context of his acceptance of Integral Humanism and the nature of the assistance given to a pope in the exercise of the papal office, as explained by Cardinal Manning earlier in this chapter. When he teaches the entire Church, ex cathedra Petri, he repeats and defends the traditional teaching. When he decides upon practical policies, ranging from his Ostpolitik to liturgical reform, the influence of Integral Humanism is only too apparent.
A prime characteristic of Integral Humanism is its essentially optimistic bias - its exponents would term this a "positive attitude." It is based on the assumption that all men are basically good at heart, seeking the truth, and willing to cooperate for the common good. A theme of Michael Novak's book, The Open Church, is an optimistic picture of an "open church" and an "open society" co-operating together in "the unrestricted drive to understand, and the quest for insight." [The Open Church, M. Novak, London, 1964, P. 361] He has no time for the image of the Church as the embattled City of God fighting off the assaults of a hostile world, or what the Americanists termed the "fortress Church."
Vatican II was not concerned with condemnation, but with dialogue. Hamish Fraser, who is second to none in his knowledge of the forces ranged against the Church, has correctly assessed that the error and weakness of both Vatican II and Pope Paul VI lie in their failure to appreciate the threat to the Church from the various revolutionary forces at work in the world today. [The Abbe de Nantes Investigated, p. 16] Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at the Council, was invited to add a commentary to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World in the Abbott translation. He echoes Hamish Fraser's disquiet at the apparent failure of the Council - this constitution in particular - to appreciate the extent and hostility of the forces ranged against the Church in this world. "The document," he writes, "minimizes the degree to which the Gospel is also a scandal and a stumbling block, by which men can be offended as well as uplifted. (At a number of the press conferences in Rome, one could detect a desire on the part of the defenders of the schema to explain controversial portions in such a way that they would not seem 'offensive.') [Abbott, p. 315] The making "of common cause with others" is, of course, the basis of Integral Humanism. The making of common cause with others must not be achieved at the price of blunting the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the Christian message." The fact that the Council reduced itself to the extent of deserving such a reproach from a Protestant minister must surely be one of those "signs of the times" for which we are exhorted to be on the look out.
Charles Davis has recounted the point at which the Council was steered into the crucial change of direction which was to commit it to the policy of dialogue and making common cause with the world, in place of the traditional policy of confrontation. As the first session drew to an end, he informs us there was great anxiety (presumably among the liberals) at the lack of real progress but all this was changed on 4 December 1962 when Cardinal Suenens made his notable intervention.
The unifying theme for the Council's work should be the Church. But the theme demanded a double development. First, the Church ad intra - the Church turned inwards upon itself to gain a new self-awareness. Second, the Church ad extra - the Church moving outwards to make known its response to the problems confronting the world today. Among the problems mentioned by the cardinal were the dignity of the human person, responsible parenthood, social justice, peace and war. As the light of the nations the Church, he asserted, must enter into dialogue with the world. The next day Cardinal Montini declared his support for Cardinal Suenens's program. [The Tablet, January 8, 1966, p. 33]
Fr. D.A. Campion, S.J., in his commentary on Gaudium et Spes in the Abbott translation, describes the "making of common cause with others" as "a tendency to accentuate the positive in a realistic appraisal of trends and movements at work today in the City of Man." [Abbott, p. 185] The question at issue is just how "realistic" this appraisal really is. Gaudium et Spes is pervaded by the notion that all men are basically men of good will, seeking the truth and anxious to do good. Far from the notion of a conflict between the City of God and the City of Man (as set forth, for example, in the opening paragraph of pope Leo XIII's Humanum Genus), this Constitution envisages a future in which the two cities work together for the common good of mankind.
While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which we all live alike. Such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities unjustly make between believers and unbelievers, thereby ignoring fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the gospel of Christ with an open mind. [Abbott, pp. 219/220]
It is hardly being cynical to speculate on the amusement with which this courteous invitation would be received, if it was ever received, in the guardrooms of the Gulag Archipelago or the garrisons of Hungary and Czechslovakia!
The Constitution also states that: "The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms." [Abbott, pp. 241/242] And again, "Christians, on pilgrimage towards the heavenly city, should seek and savor the things which are above. This duty in no way decreases, but rather increases, the weight of their obligation to work with all men constructing a more human world." [Abbott, p. 262]
Fr. Paul Crane, S.J., has pointed out that "In essence, there are, in the last analysis, two ideologies in this world - that which sees Heaven as man's goal, and that which sees the be-all and end-all of his existence as here on this earth." [Christian Order, December, 1973, p. 736] He shows that since the French Revolution a line of truly realistic popes has spared no effort to fight an increasingly powerful movement within the Church which has been pressing her continually to devote her principal efforts towards building up the earthly kingdom in co-operation with the City of Man.
While there are statements in Gaudium et Spes which insist that the heavenly kingdom is still the primary goal of the Church, it is beyond dispute that the document displays a pervasive and obsessive preoccupation with the earthly kingdom. ...
POPE PAUL VI AND COMMUNISM
Hamish Fraser has remarked that: "Although for the last decade Rome has been resolutely opposed to anti-Communism, this does not mean that the Holy Father is pro-Communist." [Approaches, Nos. 47-48, p. 27] There is a very important distinction here; the fact that Pope Paul VI has completely reversed the militantly anti-Communist policy of Pope Pius XII does not mean that he approves of Communism in any way. He believes, in accordance with his philosophy of Integral Humanism, that more will be gained by a dialogue, and where possible co-operation, with Communism than by a policy of confrontation. In a speech made in the first year of his pontificate he warned that the "subversive and anti-religious character (of Communism) continues to be entirely unchanged." [Ibid.] But on a practical level, because he was not prepared to give an anti-Communist lead to Catholics, the benefit to Communism was as great as if he had, in fact, been pro-Communist. Communists could well reverse the biblical text and state that "He who is not against me is for me."
While the Pope is certainly not pro-Communist his political sympathies are certainly far more towards the left than those of Pope Pius XII. Mgr. Montini had been dismissed by Pope Pius from his position as Pro-Secretary of State and created Archbishop of Milan. The Archbishop of Milan is invariably a cardinal but no cardinal's hat was bestowed upon Mgr. Montini. According to the biography of Pope Paul published by the English Catholic Truth Society, "There was speculation that he (pope Pius) thought Monsignor Montini's political sympathies were too far to the left to make him suitable as Pope." [Pope Paul VI, Douglas Woodruff, (C.T .S. London, 1974), p. 4]
Bishop William Adrian states that Pope Pius XII had become "wary of the liberal social and political experiments urged upon him by Mgr. Montini." [How did it Happen? p. 5]
Michael Novak remembers a speech made by Archbishop Montini of Milan during the Second World Congress of the Lay Apostolate held in Rome in 1957. One section which Novak found particularly impressive ran: "We shall love our time, our civilization, our technical science, our art, our sport, our world. We shall love striving to understand, to have compassion, to esteem, to serve, to suffer. We shall love with Christ's heart." [The Open Church, M. Novak, London, 1964, p. 32] In an assessment of Archbishop Montini's term of office in Milan, based largely upon a biography by Mgr. J. G. Clancy, Novak comments:
In Milan he was frequently indecisive. Having expressed a solid perceptive comment he was likely to add: "Other bishops look at it differently; maybe I'm wrong." He seemed to be still afraid, and when he did move it was as likely to be in fits and starts, at random. Beautiful plans were laid, but accomplishments were not great. Little by little, his paper L'ltalia moved from right to left. But as late as June, 1960, he addressed a letter to his priests warning them that the new "opening to the left" in Italian politics was unsafe, dangerous, and offered with "insufficient guarantees." [Ibid., p. 33]
By 1961, L'Italia had "moved far enough left to invite stinging letters from more than two-score parish priests in the archdiocese, who therewith canceled their subscriptions to their own diocesan newspaper." [Ibid.]
When he made his opening speech to the second session of the Council, the empty places of some bishops living in Communist countries who had been refused permission to attend the Council made it impossible for the Pope not to be aware that there had been no real change in the nature of Communism. He referred to this fact in very strong terms, even though he did not actually use the word "Communist."
We ought to be realists, not hiding the savagery that from many areas reaches even into this universal Synod. Can we be blind and not notice that many seats in this assembly are vacant? Where are your brethren from nations in which the Church is opposed, and in what conditions does religion exist in these territories? At such a reminder our thoughts are grieved because of what we know and even more because of what we cannot know about our sacred Hierarchy, our religious men and women, our countless children subjected to fear, to persecutions, to privations, to oppression because of their loyalty to Christ and to the Church. [The Open Church, M. Novak, London, 1964, p. 84]
Michael Novak was somewhat distressed by these remarks as Pope Paul "seemed to be departing from the peaceful, optimistic ways of Pope John." [Ibid.] What matters for Novak is not to be realistic but to be optimistic. Unfortunately, and only too characteristically, while Pope Paul stated that we ought to be realists, on a practical level he followed his policy of dialogue-even to the extent of sacrificing Cardinal Mindszenty to placate Russia's Hungarian puppets, an incident which is documented in Chapter XI.
By 1975 the Pope had become so alarmed at the advances made by Communism in Italy that he made the following speech:
Christianity sometimes seems to be overwhelmed by the longing for, and by the power of, a more effective, impetuous and revolutionary form of idea with which modern social life is being promoted today: a form that is independent, in fact polemical with regard to the social life derived from the Gospel. Christ, according to this view, is beaten by Marx. The ideal human society, it is said in spite of us, cannot be the result of love but of struggle, violence, and the defeat of one class by another: this is allegedly the desirable goal.
It is unnecessary for us to say any more now, when the contemporary historical scene offers us, even too plainly, the elements of judgment that are in question. We would have easy arguments to bring forward in the discussion in defense of the Gospel, inviting people to reflect how the system opposed to that which we profess, because it is Christian and because it is really human, presupposes a violation of the principle of real social life. This latter must be human for all and respectful of the deep prerogatives of man, his dignity, his freedom, his equality. The aforesaid system, on the contrary, is based on hatred and systematic struggle; it is based on collective selfishness as a remedy for the selfiShness of the individual or of a group. It seems to ignore the complementary nature of free social functions and to repudiate, as a normal formula of social life, orderly participation in both economic and cultural and political processes. Basically it refuses united collaboration for a common, just prosperity. It therefore gradually disregards spiritual coefficients, necessary though they are for the life of a free, orderly community, and replaces them with rigid public norms, tending to be impersonal and conservative. [L'Osservatore Romano (English edition), November 27, 1975, p. 1]
Even in this speech there are disturbing phrases, despite its realistic admission that co-existence between Catholicism and Communism is not possible. The Pope's principal objection to Communism here is not that it cannot be reconciled with the Truth of the Gospel but that Communists are not respecting the rules for peaceful co-existence and collaboration for the common good. As was made clear in Chapter XI, Communists have never made any secret of the fact that for them dialogue, coexistence, or common action with believers is simply a means to an end. Countless Catholic spokesmen, popes included, have also warned that this was so - and yet Pope Paul seems genuinely astonished that this really is the case. However, it is unlikely that his realization of this fact will make much difference now. As a result of his reversal of the anti-Communist policy of his predecessors the Catholic Church, the only viable ideological bulwark against Communism, has been effectively neutralized. If Pope Paul now devoted the rest of his pontificate to an all-out political crusade against Communism there is little likelihood that it would have much if any effect. And should the Communists achieve power in Italy a very different kind of dialogue will follow, as Solzhenitsyn warned in an address given in New York on 9 July 1975. ...
POPE PAUL VI AND MODERNISM
As previous chapters have shown, the Pope most certainly intervened on the side of orthodoxy on several occasions during the Council. The fact that he did this even though his personal sympathies clearly lay with the liberals is yet another example of Christ acting through His Vicar in the manner explained by Cardinal Manning. Unfortunately, as has also been made clear in previous chapters, his interventions were not always as effective as they might have been due both to the determination of the hard-core liberals to get their way in the face of opposition and of his own lack of determination in enforcing the implementation of his own amendments. To quote just one more example, the Pope sent fourteen amendments (modi) to be incorporated in the document on bishops. The members of the commission concerned asked the Pope whether he was ordering them to incorporate his amendments or simply proposing that they should. The Pope replied that it was a proposition - the Commission then decided to accept only three of the amendments and reject the remaining eleven. [Le Journal du Concile, H. Fesquet, H. Morel, 1966, p. 921]
Mention has also been made in other chapters of Pope Paul's totally orthodox encyclicals which have earned him the hatred of the liberals. Since the Council, particularly during his Wednesday allocutions, he has made endless condemnations of neo-Modernism in its innumerable manifestations - but in practice takes no effective measures to implement orthodoxy. Just as he warned against the "opening to the left" but allowed his own paper to turn into a left-wing organ, so he warns about a false notion of Original Sin, the Virgin birth, or the Resurrection - but allows notorious modernists who are teaching the heresies he condemns to continue in office as approved teachers of Catholic doctrine. The case of Hans Kung is particularly notorious. Pope Paul had the Dutch Catechism examined by a Commission of Cardinals who showed that it was quite incompatible with the Catholic faith but instead of ordering its withdrawal, and having all those connected with it removed from their official positions, he allowed it to be published with a supplement, which no one need read, correcting some of its most glaring deficiencies. He provided a masterly analysis of the reasons why Communion should be received in the mouth, made it clear that he wished this practice to be retained, but has allowed any hierarchy that wishes to introduce Communion in the hand. "The Pope may be badly advised and physically weak," wrote Cardinal Heenan, "but he contrives to make his voice clearly heard and more often than not he displays a deep anxiety. Constantly he returns to the theme of erroneous teaching of theology. Unfortunately, his condemnations are made in general terms. Since nobody knows what theologians are being condemned it is impossible for bishops to take any action." [The Tablet, May 18, 1968, p. 488] The one dramatic and alarming exception to this policy has been Pope Paul's intervention in the campaign against Archbishop Lefebvre. To all appearances the Pope has been giving public support to the campaign initiated by the French hierarchy against a saintly prelate whose sole crime is that of being orthodox and founding a seminary which is a living reproach to the chaos not simply in the few remaining French seminaries but in the French Church as a whole. Finally, on this particular topic, it is impossible not to note that at the time when Modernism is flourishing in the Church as never before, Pope Paul has abolished the anti-Modernist oath and the Index of forbidden books.
POPE PAUL VI AND PROTESTANTISM
Pope Paul's attitude to Protestants is exactly what would be expected from a proponent of Integral Humanism; Protestantism must not be condemned as error but seen as a subject for dialogue. Despite all the set-backs and trials which have followed the Council, despite the fact that he has wept from time to time, that he has lamented the fact that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, that the Church is undergoing a process of self-destruction, the Pope has not abandoned his basically optimistic outlook - for optimism is the basis of Integral Humanism. During a general audience in July 1974 he remarked:
We have certainly heard of the severity of the Saints with regard to the evils of the world, The reading of ascetic books on the overall negative judgment of earthly corruption is still familiar to many. It is certain, however, that we are now living in a different spiritual atmosphere, invited as we are, especially by the recent Council, to an optimistic vision of the modern world, its values, and its achievements, We can look with love and sympathy at humanity studying, working, suffering and progressing; in fact we are ourselves invited to foster the civil development of our times, as citizens who wish to join in the common effort for better and more widespread prosperity for everyone. The now famous Constitution Gaudium et Spes entirely confirms us in what may be called this new spiritual attitude ... [L'Osservatore Romano, July 11, 1974]
Hamish Fraser has noted that the old tradition which the Pope claims has now been replaced by the vision of Vatican II is endorsed not simply in pre-conciliar ascetic books but in many passages of the New Testament. "If the world hate you, know yet that it hath hated Me before you. If you had been of the world the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (John, 15:18-19). [The Abbe de Nantes Investigated, p. 8]
Just as it would be wrong to suggest that the Pope is pro-Communist in any way, although his policies have served the purposes of Communism, it would be equally wrong to suggest that his theological views are in any way tainted by the Protestant heresy. Should this be the case, in view of such encyclicals as Mysterium Fidei and Humanae Vitae, in view of his Credo and of the innumerable totally orthodox discourses which he never ceases delivering, it would mean that he was deliberately using his position to deceive the faithful and destroy the Church. There is no need to resort to so improbable an hypothesis when his attitude to Protestantism is considered in the light of his optimistic Integral Humanism. While rejecting Protestantism on a theoretical level, on a practical level he is willing to dialogue and collaborate with Protestant sects and treat them as if they were on equal terms with the Catholic Church. The disastrous effects of false ecumenism have been fully discussed in earlier chapters and it would be dishonest to try to gloss over the fact that the Pope, more than any single individual, must accept responsibility for this situation. When Dr. Ramsey visited Rome the Pope treated him as if he really were an Archbishop rather than a member of a Protestant sect which, where its own ordinal has been relied upon, has neither priests nor bishops. The only valid orders in the Church of England are possessed by apostate Catholic priests or by those whose confidence in their own denomination is so low that they have had themselves ordained by bishops of the Old Catholic Church using the Old Catholic Ordinal. The argument that some Anglican ministers have valid orders because Old Catholic bishops have taken part in their ordination, or because they have been ordained by Anglican bishops with Old Catholic orders, is quite invalid if the Anglican Ordinal was used. As Pope Leo XIII makes clear in Apostolicae Curae, the intention of the Anglican ordination rite is defective and as such cannot be used validly even by a lawful minister with the correct intention. [This point has been made very clear by Fr. de la Taille. He explains that in the making or production (confectione) of the Sacraments, the ministerial intention is concerned only with the application of a form complete in itself to matter which is of itself sufficient. "One thing, however, the (ministerial) intention can never do: it can never confer on the form a signification which the form does not posssess. In other words, should the signification of the form in itself be in any way deficient, the intention (of the minister) will not supply this deficiency." The Mystery of Faith, Book 11 (London, 1950), pp. 455/456]
Thus in presenting Dr. Ramsey with an episcopal ring and inviting him to bless the crowds the clear impression was given, not least to Dr. Ramsey, that he really was an Archbishop and the Primate of all England, successor of St. Augustine. Unfortunately, the Pope has a definite predilection for such impulsive and rather extravagant gestures, kissing the feet of the Metropolitan Meliton at the end of 1975, for example. Doubtless, he considers them examples of fraternal charity without realizing the harm they do to the integrity of the faith. More seriously, he has referred to the Church of England as a "sister Church" - a phrase which has been seized on joyfully not simply by Anglicans but by Catholic ecumenists. [The Tablet, February 14, 1976, p. 153]
Now this phrase is quite indefensible. It is legitimate to refer to Protestants as separated brethren every child who is Baptized is Baptized into the Catholic Church and remains a Catholic until, after reaching the age of reason, he freely accepts the heretical tenets of the denomination to which his parents belong. Such children then become at least material heretics and/or schismatics without, of course, being in the least blameworthy. But the phrase "sister Church" is quite another matter. An individual Baptized Christian who accepts the teachings of an heretical sect is a brother who has separated himself - but it is not possible for a group of Christians to separate themselves from the unity of the one, true, and indivisible Church and claim that they then constitute a Church. Sisters are children of the same parent with equal status and equal rights - but the Catholic Church and the Church of England are not children of the same parent, branches of the one Church. There is only one Church, the Church founded by Christ upon Peter, and those who reject communion with Peter can no longer claim to be members of the Church of Christ whose Vicar Peter was and Pope Paul is. In order to confirm this I obtained the advice of a very reputable theologian, not a member, incidentally, of any traditionalist movement. He answered that "the words 'sister Churches' can only be legitimately used with regard to the Patriarchates in communion with Rome, and with regard to dioceses of which the bishops belong to the Catholic Church. Each diocese is regarded as a 'Church.' On our bishop's anniversary we pray for him as the Bishop of the Church of this diocese. To describe the Church of England as a 'sister Church' is an illustration of the use of diplomatic language which obscures the hard realities of the situation, is self-defeating, and brings upon the Church a reputation for equivocation." When the Pope made this remark he was not, of course, speaking ex cathedra Petri, and so, as the explanation given by Cardinal Manning earlier in the chapter makes clear, was not protected from error. ... Pope Paul's keen interest in Protestantism, the Church of England in particular, began long before his election to the papal throne. ... Mgr. Montini added his name to the list of continental priests who undertook discussions with Anglicans. He was visited by the Anglican bishop, George Bell, in 1955, and, according to Bishop Bell, complained that "although the Holy Father had often urged collaboration between Catholics and the separated brethren, he had never indicated how this should be done. .." Bishop Bell compared Mgr. Montini's attitude to that of "a curate being discreetly critical of his vicar." [Rome and Canterbury through Four Centuries, B. & M. Pawley, London, 1974, p. 327]
Given the truth of the assessment of Pope Paul's "optimistic" vision of the world which has been made in this chapter, it is fair to assume that the picture he formed of Anglicanism must have been favorable in the extreme. Quite naturally, the impression he made upon the Anglican authorities was equally favorable, so much so that upon the death of Pope John he became their most favored candidate. "Of all the possible choices (and there might have been many who could have done considerable harm to the Council - to the extent of abrupt closure, which would have been canonical) Montini was the most favoured candidate from the Anglican point of view ... The new Pope was familiar with Anglican ways and aspirations, had visited England, and was known to be more liberal in his attitudes than Pope John. [Rome and Canterbury through Four Centuries, B. & M. Pawley, London, 1974, p. 347] Pope Paul also "had far more conception of the problems of Christian Unity than Pope John ever had." [Vatican Observed, J. Moorman, London, 1967, p. 32] ...
HOME
---------------------- TRADITION