SELECTIONS BY PAULY FONGEMIE
APPENDIX IV
Liberal Mythology
It is something of an understatement to say that for the journalists who fabricated the conciliar myth, the "goodies" were merely very good. In Appendix III Cardinal Manning remarks on the manner in which "all theology, philosophy, science, culture, intellectual power, logical acumen, eloquence, candor, nobleness of mind, independence of spirit, courage, and elevation of character in the Council" were the exclusive prerogative of those Fathers of whom the press approved. Had the Cardinal made a similar study of Vatican II he would not have needed to change a word of this assessment. [We did not include this appendix as it pertains to Vatican I and the Press of that time, and our purpose here is to help you understand Vatican Ii. - The Web Master]
Some of the journalists became caught up in their own myth to the extent of practically divinizing their heroes. Thus, in an eighteen line description of Cardinal Bea, Robert Kaiser cannot conceal his adoration. The Cardinal, he writes:
has rounded blue eyes, observant, penetrating, flickering with sudden, deep intelligence ... a thin, slight, stoop-shouldered frame, bowed but not weighted beneath the burden of thought, and giving the impression of a mind encased in a tenement of clay, bespoke the fire ready to be kindled, the suppleness of restraint, the measured discretion to accept the real, the reserved power to attempt the possible, the air of intellectual dominion and practical conviction that the draught of life's potion given to him was to be tasted to its subtlest fineness, distilled and distinguished as a fine oblation to the Father of all things. 1
Many readers will understandably refuse to believe that this, and some of the extracts which follow, can possibly be genuine; that such writing could have been put forward as serious journalism for which the writers expected and received payment. Those who take the trouble to obtain the books from which they were extracted will find that these really are samples of the writing of men before whom the American bishops bowed down to offer them homage as profound thinkers and representatives of informed lay opinion.
When Hans Küng spoke in America: "The tension in the hall was electric." writes Michael Novak. "In his clear, forceful voice, his blond hair shining in the lights, Father Küng brought the careful, strong theology of Europe to American audiences caught up in the enthusiasm of Pope John's aggiornamento.,.aNovakreports that Dr. Küng spoke to audiences of up to 8,000 and when he remarks that they were "caught up in the enthusiasm of Pope John's aggiornamento." 2 Novak reports that Dr. Küng spoke to audiences of up to 8,000 and when he remarks that they were "caught up in the enthusiasm of Pope John's aggiornamento" this can be translated as meaning that they were reacting as the press told them to react in response to what the press told them aggiornamento meant. This was only the initial stage of the Küng cult which the prefabricators were working on. Few of his works had been translated into English at that time but the readers of liberal journals were told that he was a great theologian and profound thinker and they responded with the conditioned reflex of adulation. Küng was the man to hear and the man to quote, so they duly heard Him, and quoted him. Basically, there was not a great deal to choose between the "promotion" of Hans Küng to middle class Catholic audiences and that of the Beatles to the teenage market, which was taking place at the same time. During the course of the council Cardinal Antoniutti forbade seminarists to be present at conferences given by such periti as Hans Küng and gave as his reason precisely the fact that those without an adequate theological foundation would be liable to idolize those who could appear to them as daring and brilliant theologians.
It has happened frequently during both the first and second session that a conciliar expert, attached to some doubtful and difficult doctrinal thesis, has made his theory public in the lecture hall of a Roman college in the presence of students who looked upon the lecturer as an idol. The results cannot differ from those which occur in the realm of politics when a demagogue addresses the crowd ... 3
Robert Kaiser most certainly puts Cardinal Suenens in the same class as Cardinal Bea. "The Belgian Cardinal," he writes, "was an impressive figure, tall, lean, graying at the temples, his eyes flashing out of deep sockets. Though one of the youngest and newest cardinals, he already had a reputation as a towering intellectual ..." Needless to say, to have a reputation as a "towering intellectual" simply means that Mr. Kaiser and his friends state that this is the case! Kaiser then goes on to describe a speech by the Cardinal. "Many were stirred by his words"- and those stirred included Pope John. One can only conclude that his knowledge of this fact indicates that Mr. Kaiser himself must be blessed with some rare charismatic gift as the Pope was in his apartment at the time; nonetheless, even his most secret thoughts were known to the intrepid correspondent of Time who, according to Michael Novak, "had more sources of information to tap" than any other reporter at the Council. "In his private apartment," writes Kaiser, "John XXIII sat watching on closed-circuit television, and he, too, was stirred. 'At last, the Fathers are beginning to understand what this Council is for,' he said." 4
Any Father who expresses sentiments acceptable to Mr. Kaiser is rewarded with almost superhuman qualities. A Bishop De Smedt makes a speech in favor of ecumenism and while doing so rolls "his eyes over the assembly with the pinpointing magnetism of the born orator." He expounds the virtues ofecumenism with "obviously inspired words." 5
Like all enthusiasts, Catholic progressives take themselves very seriously. Michael Novak reports on a long discussion which took place between some American journalists and two of the lay auditors charged with presenting lay opinion at the Council.
The group met in a large sitting room, and seated themselves on soft divans and chairs. A maid dressed in a pink dress with a tiny white apron wheeled in a cart with espresso coffee, cigarettes, and cigars. The two auditors were eager to learn about the attitudes of laymen in the United States; the Americans tried their best to explain the position of the American Church, its coming out of the ghetto, the desire among the more highly educated Catholics to enter secular organizations and associations rather than Catholic ones ... As the evening wore on, the maid brought in a tray of Scotch, ice cubes, and water. In a mood of relaxation ... they couldn't help reflecting on the creativity of this age in the Church's history. Here were six men trying to think what the future of the world in which they lived would be like ... On one point they all agreed: they wanted to leave as many doors open as possible. Not enough thought had gone into the position of the layman in the world to make it easy, as yet, to see just who the layman is or what he can do ... John Cogley, with his unassuming smile and diffident way, began to talk more and more as the evening progressed. At one point he remarked that he did not like the word, the layman's "role." He liked to think of everything the layman did as sacramental, "even," he said looking around the room in which the men sat, "even talking in this room, carrying on this conversation here tonight, I think that it's a holy thing, a good thing." 6
Any comment on this passage would be superfluous, beyond wondering what the maid would have thought of it all had she been invited to take part in the discussion, and what relevance the vacuous clichés of these self-appointed spokesmen for the laity would have had to the faith which she learned from her catechism. But now men like this have largely had their way; Vatican II has changed the Church into one vast discussion group, as Fr. Bryan Houghton has remarked. And what of those like the maid? - those who bring the whiskey and cigars to those who sit on soft divans for "sacramental" discussions. They are drifting away from the Church in their millions because they had imagined that religion was all to do with God; with worshipping Him, trying to obey Him, repenting when they didn't and trying again. If they want a discussion they can go to an espresso bar for it.
In contrast with the progressives, who are good, tolerant, and brilliant, the "Curialists" are not simply bad but brainless. "The bishops were learning, too, about the intellectual bankruptcy of the Curialists in Rome. When they held conferences with integralist theologians, they found them a defensive lot, inclined to rely not on reasoned argument but on wild charges." 7 It must be presumed that Kaiser also used his charismatic gifts to discover these facts. In contrast with the Curialists, theologians such as Hans Küng are "theologians on the march, men well equipped with the ideas that dovetailed neatly into the needs of pastors around the world." 8
Pope Pius XII was no more than "a small town aristocrat" who wrote "rivers of words" but "was simply not listened to with understanding by a Church composed of intelligent beings ..." Kaiser is even able to reveal that not all the bishops (whom the encyclicals of Pope Pius were addressed) bothered to read them. 9 He makes special mention of the encyclical Humani Generis which, he assures us, could not have survived the climate of Vatican II - and in this respect he is certainly correct, but this is a condemnation of the Council and not of the encyclical. "To this Council," he writes, "Humani Generis would have been too juridical, too scholastic, too authoritarian, too negative, too narrow, too pessimistic, destructive of theological progress, not ecumenical, not biblical, not patristic." 10
The declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I is described as "a heedlessly divisive act, and a demonstration of he futility of formalism in the face of the nineteenth century evolt against authority." 11 Fr. Antoine Wegner of La Croix, whose influence upon the French bishops has already been referred to, makes the following comment with regard to Archbishop Carli of Segni: "He had often been heard during he first session. His pathetic voice will again often be heard and his specious arguments in favor of the primacy and against the collegiality of the bishops." 12
The crime of Bishop Carli was, of course, to hold different riews from those of Fr. Wegner. Similarly, Henri Fesquet never has the slightest doubt that his grasp of theology is far more profound than any bishops who have the temerity to depart from the prefabricated consensus which most of the iFathers had been conditioned to accept. Throughout his ver- lOse and expensive book, Le Journal Du Concile (over 1,100 lages, the epitomization of the "Spirit of Vatican II"), there is ,he more than implicit presumption that to deviate by even a lair's breadth from the rigid party line which he adopts Ie notes intellectual bankruptcy and theological ignorance. 'For these bishops," he writes, "and for those who think like ;hem, it appears quite obvious that Catholicism is the only ;rUe religion and that the idea of being a Protestant or a ~arxist is quite unthinkable. Such attitudes have horrified nany who have heard them expressed, but they are indicative )f an attitude still widely held in certain countries with a There is no doubt, for example, that men like Cardinal Ottaviani, the son of a baker from Trastevere and a long and faithful servant of the Church, are personally admirable men, and attractive per- sonalities. Many in Rome know the good that Cardinal Ottaviani does for the orphans near the Vatican and in other pious causes. His orphans call him "Father" not "Cardinal," and show genuine love and affection for him. Moreover, Cardinal Ottaviani's friends are many and devoted; they find him the most witty, urbane, gentle, and sensitive of men. The same might be said of many other members of the Roman Curia; it is a mistake to picture them as villainsA or scoundrels, or willfully dishonest pursuers of their own power.l
This generous tribute indicates, once again, how wrong it would be to over-generalize or take too simplistic an attitude to any aspect of the Council, even the liberaljournalis~. Like most progressives, they are sad rather than sinister, men who think that what matters in life is to be "with it" rather than to be right, although they may well believe in all sincerity that whatever transient "it" they happen to be "with" at a particular moment is the right thing to be with.
Perhaps the most perfect evocation of the mentality of the establishment journalist is provided in a report by Henri Fesquet of some remarks emanating from M. Turowicz, a Polish member of IDO-C's international committee. Mr. Turowicz belongs to ZNAK, a Catholic group attached to the Communist-dominated National Unity Front in Poland. ZNAK is permitted to function because it sui~ the purposes of Communism to let it do so; Mr. Turowicz is allowed to say what he says because it suits the purposes of Communism to let him do so. Any comment on his remarks would clearly be superfluous. Henri Fesquet writes:
M. Turowicz, a Polish journalist from Cracow, has underlined the disadvantages of the reporting of religious news from too apologetic a standpoint, which underestimates the maturity of the Christian people and which, under the pretext of not scandalizing the weak, does not dare to tell the whole truth. He insisted upon the principle by which the journalist, and no one else, judges what he can or cannot say.17
As a sad and very significant conclusion to this appendix, it can be noted that John Cogley, who was mentioned on p. 272, had not only apostatized before his death in March 1976, but was actually studying for the ministry of the Protestant Episcopalian Church. The reasons Which prompted him to aposta tize are set out in his book, A Canterbury Pilgrim, which was published in the same year .18 As a reporter for the journal, Commonweal, no one had been more influential than Cogley in molding the opinion of American Catholics as to what they should think of the Council and its reforms. His prestige was such that he gave lectures to entire hierarchies who came dutifully to sit at his feet to be instructed on the nature of their authority and the manner in which they should exercise it:9 Cogley was also a member of the International Committee of mac, together with Robert Kaiser, Henri Fesquet, Jerzy Turowicz, and Gregory Bum.20 In 1978 Baum married a former nun in Montreal without having received any dispen- sation from Rome releasing him from his priestly obligations
and relipous vows (he was a member of the Augustinian Order).2 And as for Hans Kung, the most revered figure in the Liberal Pantheon, in December 1979, he was deprived of the right to teach as a Catholic theologian, to the outrage of Yves Congar and the other directors of the Concilium.22
1. Inside The Council, R. Kaiser (London, 1963), pp. 34-35.
2. The Open Church, M. Novak (London 1964), p. 15.
3. Le Journal du Concile, H. Fesquet (H. Morel, 1966), p. 676.
4. Inside The Council, R. Kaiser (London, 1963), pp. 2178.
5. Ibid., pp. 166 and 168.
6. The Open Church, M. Novak (London 1964), pp. 15 6-7.
7. Inside The Council, R. Kaiser (London, 1963), p. 139.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., p. 38.
10. Ibid., p. 209.
11. Ibid., p. 202.
12. The Tablet, 8 August 1964, p. 886.
13. Inside The Council, R. Kaiser (London, 1963), p. 492.
14. Council and Clergy, Cardinal J. Heenan (London, 1966), p. 2.
15. The Tablet, 3 July 1965, p. 752.
16. The Open Church, M. Novak (London 1964), p. 234.
17. Inside The Council, R. Kaiser (London, 1963), p. 1035.
18. The Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 December 1976.
19. The Open Church, M. Novak (London 1964), pp. 154-5.
20. "Dossier on IDOC," Approaches, 10/11, 1968.
21. The Pilot, 24 February 1978.
22. The Catholic Herald, 11 January 1980.
HOME
---------------------- TRADITION