They Labour in Vain who Build It

"Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it."

This verse of Psalm 126 should have been in the hearts and on the tongues of Catholics as the results of the last American presidential election began to flood into homes throughout the United States. Certainly the hopes of conservatives had taken a beating, as they saw that the candidate chosen by the Republican Party had been swept away by the forces of the New America and its poster boy, the incumbent Barack Obama. Surely grim faces met the morning light the following day, as the so-called conservatives found that the America that most voters believed in was not the America touted by Mitt Romney and Neo-Conservatism but the more forward America of Barack Obama.

This election is certainly a turning point in American politics. Some have pointed out that the present government, having become the source of income for millions of Americans who rely upon it for their daily bread, have in fact created an electorate that will not bite the hand that feeds it. Big government provides the bread and circuses that in turn provide a comfortable life to millions, and these beneficiaries will be the last to vote for any candidate that will withdraw the benefits they now enjoy, even if that means ignoring the abyss drawing ever nearer- a default on the increasing debt now in the trillions of dollars. Thus the Democrats are assured of ever greater power as the huddled masses longing to be fed and entertained increase in size and influence. But despite this unsettling fact, it must also be admitted that the Republicans are incapable of providing any real alternative. Even on the purely practical level, if the Republican Party lowered the amount of money spent on supporting those dependent upon government, its constant desire for more and more wars in the Middle East in order to bolster the power of the State of Israel would only end in increasing the debt of America, rather than lowering it. Its claim to moral superiority over the Obama regime fades therefore when American blood is pledged in unjust wars, and becomes indeed ludicrous when its touted stand against abortion is seen for what it is- only a pledge to restrict the murder of children to certain cases instead of all- not that that pledge would ever really be put into effect. What have Republicans learned out of this election? And what of those more conservative Catholics who have up to the present put their trust in that party and its supposed conservatism?

Republicans seem to now admit that there is a problem. Many, however, see this problem as the party being out of step with an America that is farther left socially. Their answer? Embrace the dream of social liberalism, while focusing on fiscal conservatism. In other words, embrace yesterday's dreams of the Democrats, while preaching a fiscal conservatism that piles on debt through military interventions in countries over which we are not sovereign. Not a very convincing plan if the idea is actually to be fiscally conservative.

The truly tragic part of this drama is not the frantic attempts to bring the Republicans "up to date." It is not even the fact that Obama won a second term in the White House. Those things are tragic enough, of course, but they are not at the heart of the tragedy. The true tragedy is being played out in the Catholic Church, among American Catholics in this case. Perhaps one can speak of a "Comico-Tragedy" as one studies the photo of Cardinal Dolan, Prince of the Church and head of the Archdiocese of New York, as he enjoys his guests at the Al Smith Dinner. On his left laughs the Republican candidate Romney, who gave his approval to a Health Care Law in Massachusetts that in no wise protected Catholic institutions from paying for contraceptives; on the other side was the laughing face of the pro-abortion, pro-contraceptive, pro-left Obama, no doubt enjoying the fact that Religion was certainly no obstacle to the Cardinal's invitation to dinner; while in the middle roared the Cardinal himself, making such a spectacle of himself that if one guest was noticeably absent, it was the decorum of a Prince of the Church. Would that the Cardinal had the dignity of an Irish peasant bowing before an English "milord" rather than the gracelessness of a buffoon in the court of liberal politics. When the election came round, it was plain to see that for the majority of bishops, there was no intention of really stopping the forces of secularism. They had grumbled loud enough to be noticed in Rome for their fidelity, but then had made sure that religion did not get in the way of a democratic victory. Not even all of this, however, was at the heart of the tragedy of 2012.

The real tragedy was the fact that no one questioned the underlying bases making this Obama victory possible. Non-Catholics, of course, had been carefully brought up in ignorance as to the lies underlying Republicanism and the Democrats, so an answer from them was hardly to be expected. But Catholics! Centuries of Catholic Christendom allowed the truth to reign in politics as in so many other areas where Christ was acknowledged as ruler over His creation. The Church has the answer and had condemned the madness that lies at the foundation of modern, liberal civilization, but its children from top to bottom in this age are immersed in the dream of an anti-Catholic liberalism. From the millions of Catholic in America, there has arisen no answer at all to the dilemma of the two headed serpent of Obama and Romney. Answers there are aplenty, all of them wrong. Conservative pundits pondered over how such a loss of Republican values was possible, politicians such as McCain pontificated on the need to be silent on such issues as abortion (it was not for him to be telling young women how to live their lives!), Romney reeled from the victory that he thought would surely be his, and was numb to any answers. For some, it was almost time to despair. Almost, but not quite. In this case, however, despair is precisely the beginning to an answer. It is an answer that is not new, nor is it to be invented by materialists or socialists. The answer was given two thousand years ago. It is the Catholic Faith, and the civilization that rises from it. Christ has given the only answer to man's difficulties. Every other answer is wrong and can only lead to destruction, as the 2012 election is a proof, and not the only one.

The Catholic Church alone has the answer, for it is God's own answer. Catholics must despair of the false answers of liberal protestantism or the "founding fathers" whose false dreams have led to the only end possible for falsehood: the fall of the West and the loss of sanity in matters even natural. We must despair of the entire American process given to us by heretics and unbelievers and return to the sanity of Catholic civilization. Christ must reign, or He will destroy us so as to make way for those who will obey His Law and His Gospel. "He MUST reign" says Sacred Scripture. It is not an option. Until Catholics say "no" to the entire system of Antichrist that has been built slowly but inexorably since the Reformation and even more so, since the founding of the New Atlantis, nothing will be solved. One must either submit oneself and ones nation to Christ the King, or be under the prince of this world. Tertia non datur.

At the Escorial at last

It has only been a little over a week since this writer returned from a two week pilgrimage of sorts to the nation that best defended the Catholic Religion against the protestant attacks: the Kingdom of Spain. One can read about the role of this once great Catholic State and the many saints that thronged the monasteries, churches, and towns during Spain's golden age, and yet not quite realize the degree to which the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were dominated by a power that was unabashedly Catholic. This was the situation of the present writer, who had read works on the figures of Spanish history without understanding concretely what the glory of Spain meant.

All started to become clear as the palace of El Escorial came into view. Here was an enormous complex, built around the great church of Saint Lawrence, and containing not only a palace for the king and the royal family, but also a monastery and school. It rose like a vision of the Jerusalem come down from above before the viewer, perched on the crest of a hill, overlooking a wide valley with forest and river, and having the mountains behind as a magnificent backdrop to the the center of the empire of Philip II and the Hapsburg kings. All of this handiwork was exquisite, both Divine and human. Yet grand as it was as a monument to royal power, one was struck still further by the Catholicism of the Spanish realm when one entered within. Room upon room contained masterpieces of art, the vast majority of which revealed some episode of sacred history. The patronage of the kings of Spain ensured that sacred revelation was clothed by the most talented masters of the artists world. But this was far from exhausting the mystery of the Escorial. All was built around the High Altar of the Church of Saint Lawrence. On one side was the small bedchamber of the king and the adjoining private study. The room of the king's repose was small, almost spartan; but it allowed the king to look upon the High Altar of the Church and so assist at the Mass, even if bedridden. On the other side of the altar was the Queen's chambers, constructed in the same manner. This was a Catholic king, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was at the heart of Catholic Spain.

When one entered the basilica, one was struck by its magnificence. Side altar after side altar proclaimed devotion to the twelve apostles, and the saints of the Church through the ages found a place throughout the edifice. In the back was the Crucified, in Spanish style, suffering for mankind with all the intensity for which Spanish devotion was capable. But all moved to the High Altar, built at the climax of a myriad of steps, a true mountain of Sacrifice upon which Calvary was renewed. From this altar rose a high reredos, beautifully crafted with paintings proclaiming Catholic devotion. Here indeed was Catholicism proclaimed by the heroes of Spanish Christendom. The visitor could not help but be awed at the depth of the profession of the Catholic Faith, and the very symbolic grandeur by which it was professed by its mightiest defender.

It was kneeling before the High Altar of this temple of God, that this writer was struck the most forcefully by the glory that was Spain, a Catholic glory that was unashamed. The thought of a passage in "The Lord of the Rings" came spontaneously to mind. It might be objected that such a thought should have no place here in the palace of a great Catholic power, but the words describing Elven Lotholorien came to mind. That realm was said to be the "heart of elvendom upon earth". It was said in the midst of wonder. And so it was here. In the Escorial, one entered not only into a Church that boldly proclaimed the truth of Catholicism. One entered into a church around which the greatest empire in Europe was governed, but which was the devotional heart of the kings of that empire. Here was the temporal heart of Christendom upon earth, even as Rome was its spiritual heart. Spain may have been slowly destroyed by its non-Catholic enemies, ideologically and religiously, but this palace still triumphantly stood as a monument to better times. Even now, the black legend is the backdrop to world history as presently taught. The figures of Isabella the Catholic and Philip II are paraded as the nadir of fanaticism and intolerance. But this is appropriate as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords was mocked by the figures surrounding the apostate figure of the High Priest of Israel, His mission derided by the very people He came to save. So the western world mocks the memory of Catholic Spain. Its kings are derided for intolerance, its Inquisition that saved that kingdom from the religious wars afflicting Europe is the quintessence of evil in the eyes of a world that does not blink at the murder of millions of its offspring, nor at the fact that it has caused the death of millions more during the course of two world wars. All in the name of democracy and the liberty of man.

And so the Escorial stands still. In its bosom lie the mortal remains of the Spanish monarchs since Charles V, save for two, their queens, infantas, and the monument of Don Juan of Austria, half-brother to Philip II and hero of Lepanto. Let the degraded descendants of the mighty kingdom of Spain spurn the greatness of their ancestors, let the tourists gawk at the vast palace from which Spain ruled the world. None of this will detract from the monument to the great deeds of Spain's past and the sacrifice of its blood to preserve the Catholic religion and spread it throughout the Spanish empire. That is a crown that can never be taken away, a crown laid up for Catholic Spain in Heaven.

When Nobility Fails

There is a Latin Proverb which runs, "historia magistra vitae est." History is the teacher of life. It was the Roman Orator Cicero that coined the expression and it is taken from his work "de oratore." Now it will not be the purpose of this reflection to give a learned dissertation upon the lessons of human history from the dawn of recorded time to our own poor age. Rather, out of the myriad examples that might be chosen, one particular episode will be but scarcely mentioned in order to apply it to our own day. That episode is the War of the Vendee. It was a war between unequals, a war scarcely to be given our attention given the disparity of the parties involved. On the one hand was the mighty republican government of France, its hands already bloody with the butchered aristocrats and and that of His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette. Those of the nobility who were able to flee from the terror went abroad, waiting for better days. All seemed lost for the throne of France and for the Church herself who gave up a multitude of martyrs. There seemed to be no end to the excesses of the Revolution and her godless children. It was not a time that one could expect great things.

God, however, was not bound to an exiled royal family. It is true that the nobility at that time was powerless as well as the king's brothers, but God often makes use of unexpected instruments. It was in this hopeless situation that a light shown in rural France. The Vendee region had been the scene of the apostolic journeys of the great Saint Louis Marie de Montfort only some hundred years before, and his preaching had resulted in a revival of Catholic Faith and practice. While city after city fell to the forces of the Revolution and her propaganda, the Vendee remained unconverted, and though this region also was occupied by representatives of the Republic, the Revolution's hold was tenuous. It was thus in 1793 that an uprising occurred. It was not led by the slain king's brothers, or by the remaining flower of the French aristocracy. It was not a glorious company of the great of this world. It was an uprising made up mainly of peasants and tradesmen, led by members of the lower nobility such as François Athanase de Charette de la Contrie. None of the leaders were those whom the world would have chosen to lead. Nothing about the Catholic and Royal Army, as it was called, was expected. It was all a bit shabby if compared to the mighty armies of Louis XIV or even of his successors before the Revolution. The armies of the Republic certainly were more to be feared in worldly estimation, and given the victories of the Revolution over many of its foes, this estimation should have prevented any such uprising from occurring. But it did. Until 1796, the Catholic and Royal army strove to defeat the mighty forces of the Revolution. It had some success in holding back the anti-Catholic armies. But the brave and faithful Catholic and Royal army was defeated at last. Estimates of the dead are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The Vendee was brought down into the dust. In the eyes of the world, it seemed such a great waste. Why could these men not simply wait for the deliverance of France from the godless? Why would they fight for a royal family out of power and a Church despoiled of all her goods? The war seemed hopeless from the beginning, though there was an effort to join with the exiled nobles and British aid which was not successful. For one without Faith it was pointless. For the Catholic it was better to die for the Faith and for the king than to live dishonoured in a faithless nation.

How does this episode in history teach us anything about our current situation? In our own times, we see a relatively small group of Catholics trying to resist the threats or cajoling of the hierarchy and even of the Pope himself. Why should we not join with the rest of the Catholics under the banner of Saint Peter? Why should we keep resisting when there is no possibility really of success against such a host of foes. Tradition has no great theologians, no great influence, no multitude of priests or religious to overrun the Conciliar Church. Why not try to win the battle more discretely and with less risk? It doesn't seem prudent to swim so much against the tide. Success, however, is not quite the same in the eyes of God as in the eyes of men. God's instruments are not always those whom we would have chosen. We remember the words of Saint Paul:

"But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong." (I Cor. 1:27).

Christ chose twelve very unlikely candidates to begin the conversion of the world. They were not great in the eyes of the world. They were not subtle theologians or expert orators. But they had one thing that the rest of the world lacked. They had the truth. They had the truth and the Lord of Truth. God had chosen the weak and despised in order to bring down the strong and wise. He did not refuse to raise up the great and wise later on in order to glorify his Church and His Name, but he began with the lowly and despised. It is a lesson. The conversion of Rome will not come with the wit of orators or the subtlety of theologians. Modernist Rome has both at its disposal and it is a shell of itself. But those faithful to Tradition have the truth, and it is the God of Truth who will convert souls through the instrumentality of the Mother of God who brought the Incarnate Truth to the world in the first place. So we are brought to a very real crisis. Even in the ranks of Tradition, there are those who have forgotten that they are the foolish and weak. They have grown timid as Rome has brought forth its theologians and orators. How can the Church leaders return to Tradition if we refuse to join together with them? Is it not imprudent to continue pointing out the errors of the Church's leaders, to remind them of the perennial teaching of the Church which is now despised? Would it not be better to remain silent until a better day? All of this seems prudent. It is wise as the world is wise. But God makes use of the foolish things of the world so as to confound the wise. His glory will be manifested to the degree that man's glory is dimmed and his works crumble. Then it will be the victory of God and not man; it will be the heel of the Blessed Virgin and not the subtlety and wisdom of men that will crush the head of the serpent. These timid men of Tradition have grown distrustful of the power of Truth, the power of the God of Truth, the power of the Woman who bore within her womb the Incarnate Truth. Thus it is, that even those who know that compromise is wrong, that know well the fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Church and to the Truth have begun to convince themselves that it is better to live in dishonour than to stand and perhaps be despised. Some of them are even the great ones of Tradition. They have fought well and for long under the banner of Christ the King. They have long refused to compromise in order to gain the applause of Conciliar Rome. Yet now, their voices have begun to falter. Why not wait to stand against compromise until enough of the leaders of Tradition rise up and stand against this error? Is this not prudent? We need enough of the nobility to stand so that our fight might seem more credible. How like the arguments of those who want to make their peace with Conciliar Rome. How much more effective we would be if we had the Pope at our side, or the bishops, or the theologians and great preachers! The great have forgotten that they had need only of one at their side, and that was Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Was He no longer enough for them?

Another lesson must, unfortunately be drawn. Sometimes it is better to die in the defense of the Truth than to be successful. The Catholics of the Vendee have thus far won only a small page in the annals of history. They do not rank with the armies of Caesar, or of Charlemagne, nor of heroes such as Don Juan of Austria. They were defeated in the eyes of the world, and the glory of France has not yet been restored even with the sacrifice of their blood. Yet the heroism and honour of the Vendeans have merited a more glorious page in an everlasting Book than ever the victories of Caesar or Alexander will win. In the Church Triumphant, the citizens of that Heavenly City will remember in eternity the sacrifice of the poor and despised of the Vendee while the successes of this world will be buried in oblivion. God does not ask us to be successful but to be faithful. It is a difference that can make an eternity of difference.

So if history teaches us a lesson, it is this: It is better to be poor, despised, and weak, and yet remain faithful to the Faith and the Truth, even if that means failure in the eyes of the world, than to fail in the eyes of the only One that really matters- the Lord of Truth Himself and His Immaculate Mother. God does not necessarily wait for the arrival of the noble and wise in order for His Will to be accomplished. His Wisdom is of another order altogether, and that is the only Order that matters.

Another Mountbatten?

The General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X closed on the 14th of July, and with it the downfall of the resistance to the policies of the Superior General was virtually assured. The Chapter began with the last test of Bishop Fellay's current direction regarding Rome, for the question was broached as to the legitimacy of the exclusion of Bishop Richard Williamson from his position as capitular, that is, member of the chapter. Given that Bishop Williamson symbolized the former position of the Society towards the Holy See, this vote was a litmus test as to the success of the Superior General in turning from resistance to Rome toward a more open attitude to the authorities of the Church. The result was dramatic: 29-9. It spelled the end of any real possibility that Bishop Fellay could be turned aside from the new direction the Society was taking. From that point, the victory of Menzingen was assured.

It must not be imagined, however, that all resistance came immediately to an end. Discussion turned on the new policy, and in what sense there could be a rapprochement with Conciliar Rome. That, of course, was how it would have been put in former times. Now, it was simply a matter of relations with Rome. The change in terminology is not minor. Thus, began the discussions, and with it, the drafting of a Statement that included the Society's present position in the crisis of the Church, along with those conditions that needed to be present before any agreement could be reached. The fact that there were discussions bespoke disagreement among the capitulars, the resulting conditions bespoke defeat for Tradition. This will be made evident by a brief examination both of the Statement of the Chapter, and the two sets of conditions.

The title of this article asks whether there exists now another Mountbatten? This may seem rather outside our subject; but perhaps the figure of Lord Louis Mountbatten, First Earl of Burma, might provide a clue to the end of the Menzingen drama. This uncle of the present Prince of Edinburgh ruled as last viceroy over the jewel in the crown of the British Empire: India. After the Second World War, the Viceroy oversaw the independence of India, during which time he passed from being Viceroy the India, to being Governor-General. This transition period ended when the present Republic was formed, and he resigned all power on behalf of Britain in its former colony. It was the period of Ghandi and Nehru, of a British crisis of conscience over the existence of colonies or dominions, and the first great loss of British sovereignty over its oversees Empire. Lord Mountbatten stood as the figure that held the offices both of viceroy and of governor-general. He led India from being British to being an independent state. With him, the old order came to an end.

So we now enter a similar phase within the Society of Saint Pius X. With the General Chapter we enter a new phase in the history of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. This change is not balanced by the fact that no apparent agreement has been reached with the Holy See. In the Statement coming from the Chapter, there has already been a decision made to reach such an agreement. This marks an important change- a very public one at that. It is not now a question of whether such an agreement is possible, but in what circumstances an agreement can be made, an agreement already agreed to in principle:

"We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization."

This is the first important change in the position of the Society. That there should be a normalization in this present crisis of the Church is not even questioned. From this change of direction, the Statement makes three doctrinal affirmations:

1. The identity of the Roman Catholic Church with the unique Spouse of Christ and its necessity for salvation.

2. The monarchical constitution of the Church, and thus the position of the pope as Vicar of Christ.

3. The kingship of Christ over man and all societies.

None of these points are false. However, what is woefully absent is any application of these doctrines to the very real heresies that are universally effecting the Church. One looks in vain for any mention of the concrete errors of ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality, heresies that were perennially condemned by the Society by name.  It is a strange absence. If there is the doctrinal principle, why does it exist without any concrete opposition? The reason also points to a change within the Society. The errors are simply not mentioned for "political" reasons. The Pope's actions applying all three errors are ignored. They are doctrines without application.

This trend is even more obviously followed in the latter paragraph wherein it states:

"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere." 

It sounds at first glance very much in the spirit of the past- that is, unless one looks for any concrete error that is condemned. They are ignored. Which are the errors or novelties? They exist but are not mentioned. Surely this is not because the capitulars do not know what they are. It is for another reason: the hunger for the approval of Rome by means of ambiguity. Even the attitude to the Council has undergone a subtle change. Before, we heard of the "errors of the Council". Now, we are told that the Council is "tainted with error." Isn't this the same thing? Certainly not. While it could take a meaning like unto the old, it could also take a completely different meaning in keeping with the new-found discovery by Bishop Fellay that there are things that we thought the Council taught that are not really in the Council at all! The Council may not be proposing error at all in this new understanding. An admission is made as to the Council being tainted, but this could be a merely accidental quality to the Council. For example, if a document was arrived at by two opposing parties, one orthodox and one modernist, the resulting document could be written in an ambiguous way, and thus be influenced by the modernist party. Thus, the ambiguity shows the document to be tainted, but this tainting does not mean that the document is erroneous. It remains capable of a perfectly Catholic interpretation as well as a modernist one. The point is that the document is not erroneous. This would contradict the entire position of Archbishop Lefebvre who stated that some of the documents could not be reconciled with Tradition and thus would have to be rejected- such as that on "Religious Liberty".

Lastly, we come to the question of the conditions before any acceptance could be made to a Roman agreement.  What is urgent for us to remind ourselves before a glance at these, is that no doctrinal agreement between Conciliar Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X is deemed necessary. This new phase of the Society envisages unity without doctrine. While this would not bother the pragmatist who only looks for a unity based on individual capacity to get done what needs gotten done, it must bother the Catholic. The Church is one because her doctrine is one, first of all. This is not the exclusive requirement for unity, but it rests as the necessary foundation to the unity of hierarchical subordination and unity of cult. One wonders even for the pragmatist, how is one to act if the two parties are acting according to two opposed sets of principles? Will it only be "live and let live"? This is doubtful. As the history of every "Ecclesia Dei" community shows, there will sooner or later a reckoning at which time Rome demands acceptance of the new religion. Let us look now at the conditions.

There are two sets of conditions agreed upon by the General Chapter: three are "sine qua non" and three are only hoped for. What do they reveal to us?


Of the first three, the first demands the freedom to pass on the Faith (imagine demanding such a thing from Catholic authority!) as well as the freedom to rebuke error publicly. Now if we examine the actions of the Society since the beginning of this pontificate, one notices the growing lack of criticism of the Pope's actions, especially when compared to the last pope. This writer noticed it some years back, and has been watching with concern, especially as he becomes more acquainted with the writings and speeches of this pope from the past and present. If the Society is so careful now as it views the deeds of the present pope, Rome has much to fear from criticism. One has only to see the anger when priests dare to be too vocal in their criticisms of the modernism in Rome. 


Secondly, there is the use of the 1962 Missal exclusively. Which 1962 Missal? The one used by the Society, or the one with the new Good Friday prayer, or the new one planned with "enrichments"? In any case, there is the demand to pray in a Catholic way. That is something, one supposes. Please let us pray as a Catholic and not as a heretic! We have to have at least that.


The last condition is that of a bishop. This is interesting. Who would be this bishop picked by the Pope? Who will he replace? One can be absolutely sure that such a bishop would be one of the current cheerleaders within the Society for a deal. Maybe the possibilities would extend to Bishop Rifan if would have time- or even Fr. Berg! One assumes that by this one bishop is meant another bishop, not the minimum of one bishop for the Society.


Then we have the three wishes. There will be no genie to grant them, however. They tell us much about what the Society is willing to bargain away.


Firstly, an ecclesiastical tribunal in the first instance. This would be like the marriage tribunal in a diocese, which is the first instance in marriage cases, though it would deal with other problems as well. This tells us that the Society only hopes that Rome would grant such a tribunal. If it says "no" then we may say "hello" to the good offices of the diocesan annulment tribunals, and we know how competent they are in most cases.


Secondly, there is the exemption of houses of the Society from the local bishop. Amazing. The older rumours spoke of houses less than three years old. Now it refers to any house. That is meant only to be a wish?! If there is not an absolute insistence on that point, then we will see a rapid extinction of the SSPX and many empty houses.


Thirdly, there is the Commission in Rome in which Tradition makes up the majority under the Pope. Who is "of Tradition"? Will the Fraternity of St. Peter or the IBP no longer be considered "of Tradition" by Rome? Will they be part of the Commission? Or will there be two "Ecclesia Dei" Commissions? And what Commission is to protect the Society from the Pope who teaches grave errors? or from the next pope who will be worse?


If one wanted to be like the boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, he might point out that a Catholic does not make demands upon the Pope. One does not tell the pope what he must do before one agrees to be subject to him. The problem is that there must be demands. And why? Because everyone knows that the Pope is not Catholic, really. One needs to be protected FROM Rome, not by Rome. We know that conditions have to be laid down, because the hierarchy is the problem. Due to the fact that we do not preach the same Faith or pray according to the same Faith, all sorts of guarantees have to be met. It is absurd. That is not the unity of the Church. It is Anglicanism, in which every kind of that sect needs its own administration. Just like in Anglicanism, those who are more conservative need the protection of bishops outside their dioceses who have to be flown in for the needs of that special form of Anglicanism. That is not Catholicism. 


We fight the Council because it is not Catholic. Its teachings are not Catholic. Its New Mass is not Catholic. Its spirituality is not Catholic. That is the only reason we fight it. We do not agree to disagree. For the Catholic it is either unity of Faith or no unity. And the Novus Ordo has no real unity. It is an umbrella under which various contradictory spiritualities live under the protection of ecumenical, modernist Rome. We do not negotiate with a Catholic pope- we submit to him, because he actually believes the Catholic Faith. This one believes in himself, but as to the Catholic Faith, objectively speaking, he preaches a new faith. Everyone should read the 6th September, 1990 talk of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he lays out the whole problem, and its only solution.


Laying out useless conditions in order to be under an umbrella with heretics is not the solution. Let us try to live in a supernatural way- that is, recognizing that political maneuvering will not get us anywhere, but rather the conversion of the pope to... the Catholic Faith. Isn't that a novel thought- that the pope must be Catholic! 


So we ask the question: is Bishop Fellay the new Earl Mountbatten? Is he the last to hold the title in reality of the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre? It seems that he has left the path of the battle for Tradition in order to be one of the optional forms of Catholicism under the umbrella of Rome, Mistress no more of truth, but of neo-Modernism and unbelief.

New Wine in Old Wineskins

During the past week, we saw the appointment of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia as Vice-President of the Commission Ecclesia Dei. This appointment was an important one, for clearly since this Commission deals exclusively with the traditionalist problem, such an appointment, following upon the new Preamble given to Bishop Bernard Fellay on the 13 June, is meant to help facilitate a re-union between the Society and "Rome". Therefore, the two interviews granted by Archbishop Di Noia, in which he treats of the Society are very important. They give a clear indication both regarding his own mind on the subject of the Second Vatican Council, and the mind of the Holy Father. We will examine some aspects of these interviews here. The interview with CNS is less important, but it does speak of an issue taken up in greater detail in the interview given to the National Catholic Register. This issue is the infallibility of the Council. In the interview with CNS, he says:

"'Part of what we're saying is that when you read the documents (of Vatican II), you can't read them from the point of view of some liberal bishops who may have been participants (at the council), you have to read them at face value,' Archbishop Di Noia told CNS. 'Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition.'"

Now, this is very telling. The archbishop makes the common distinction between the two possible readings the documents from Vatican II can take: the liberal one, and the one in continuity with Tradition. This issue will be taken up again a bit later on. The second thing that is important treats of the fact that the documents cannot, in fact, be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is a key passage. There is a confusion here between the Church when it is teaching solemnly or making judgements in the extraordinary Magisterium, and what is merely something from a document that belongs to the authentic Magisterium. The archbishop tries to put infallibility as a mark in every instance- a slight of hand that is quite contrary to the reality of the Church's teaching. If everything was infallible, there would be no need to distinguish between a definition and an assertion in the Conciliar texts. One wonders if this archbishop would be quick to speak of the infallibility of the canons of Lateran IV condemning the Jews to wear a special dress or forbidding Christians to live with, or work for them. Then, we would hear of infinite distinctions that relegate this past Council to the dustbins of history. The Church operates on three levels. There are decisions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, such as the dogmatic teachings of popes or of Councils under the pope. These are infallible and binding in Faith. Then, there are decisions of the Ordinary Magisterium, which are also judgements or the popes or undefined teachings of Councils, and these are also infallible. Then, there are things asserted by the merely authentic Magisterium, which are teachings in a very limited sense, and are not by any means infallible. Now we have the word of Pope John XXIII that Vatican II was not to define any new teaching. This is important, since what is written is, in fact, not protected by infallibility. If the Holy Ghost guided the Church in every decision, then all decisions would, in themselves, be infallible. This, however is not the case. It is the case, however, that the archbishop is trying desperately to elevate Vatican II to the level of the earlier Councils. Again, this shows up a falsehood in his understanding.

In both interviews, it is pointed out that the documents of Vatican II cannot be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is the logical conclusion of the position that the Holy Ghost was in fact behind all of the documents of the Council. It is also a conclusion which is directly at odds with the entire position of the traditionalist movement, a movement so well summarized by the title of a book of Archbishop Lefebvre: "I accuse the Council". Between Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Di Noia, there is a gulf which no man may cross. One accuses the Council of being unfaithful to the Church's teaching; the other denies that any error can be present in the documents themselves. When one looks at the dealings of the forces of Tradition with modernist Rome, one is always struck by the fact that on the part of the moderns, the question always returns to the inviolability of Vatican II. There may be false interpretations of it by theologians, or false manners in which it is put into practice, but the Council itself is the ultimate dogma.

Of course, Archbishop Di Noia admits the possibility of disagreements between the various theological schools. His work with the Anglicans even opens him up to the possibility of schools of theology and spirituality based on the heretical sects themselves that may remain in existence without being absorbed into Catholic schools. The only thing necessary is to accept the divinity of the Second Vatican Council and its teaching. Even the Society can keep a kind of Tridentine theology and spirituality as long as it submits to the Council and the Conciliar popes in their positions.

The question is asked as to why there are traditionalists at all. Di Noia's answer puts him back into the mindset of John-Paul II and its subjectivism:

"To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen. 


Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing."

We have here the basic psychological problems of traditionalists feeling abandoned, and then we pass on to the claim that this is all a theological disagreement like that between Dominicans and Jesuits. This fails firstly because it is precisely the Magisterium of the pre-Conciliar popes which mark the dividing line between them, not some school of theology. The modernists empty out the past papal and conciliar teaching in favour of a new theology and spirituality; in fact, a new religion altogether.

There are so many things meriting comment in the National Catholic Reporter interview that this article would be endless. There was the claim that the problem of the Council lay with an inauthentic reading of the documents, not of the documents themselves. But then, one discovers a very curious argument. The texts must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.

"I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it. 
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council]. 


Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document."

Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution.  One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these documents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The document is a "living document" in which the intentions of the fathers is useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past documents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these documents are fluid. There meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.

The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.

"If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real."

 The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.

The Eucharistic Theology of Benedict XVI and Dublin

Today, there was the final ceremony of the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Ireland. This was no new event for Ireland. Such a Congress took place in 1932, and at its final Mass there were in attendance nearly one million people. Today's final Mass was more modest. Some eighty thousand were in attendance, and at the Mass there was played a taped address of Pope Benedict XVI to those in attendance. A Eucharistic Congress traditionally was an occasion to manifest to the world the Catholic belief in the true and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, a manifestation that was all the more necessary given the growing secularism that has been at work to destroy belief in the supernatural order, and especially in belief in the dogma of Transubstantiation.

Although the necessity of such congresses seems clear in a world growing stronger in its unbelief in the Blessed Sacrament, the Pope's words betray another understanding of the Holy Eucharist and of the Church than that professed in the past. It is this understanding that needs to be examined, at least in part, in this article. The theme for this year's Eucharistic Congress is "Communion with Christ and with one another". In the very title, we have established a theme dear to the modern theologians, and one that betrays a new direction in ecclesiology as well as sacramental theology. It is not to be denied, of course, that the reception of Holy Communion is one that is meant to further the already existing union of the soul with Christ. That is hardly new. However, there is a shift in this Congress to the subjective dimension, both regarding the nature of the Church, as well as the Sacrament itself. Whereas before, Eucharistic Congresses were ordered to the objective presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, something that pertains to the nature of the Holy Eucharist in itself, now there is a strong emphasis in the subjective aspect of the Sacrament- that is, how the Sacrament acts upon the believer. It is not incorrect to speak of a subjective dimension, but given the modern emphasis on religion as subjective experience, it is dangerous to overly emphasize this subjective dimension.

Let us look then at the Pope's words. The Holy Father situates the Eucharistic mystery within that of the Church's own mystery, as they now put it. He says:

"The theme of the Congress – Communion with Christ and with One Another – leads us to reflect upon the Church as a mystery of fellowship with the Lord and with all the members of his body. From the earliest times the notion of koinonia or communio has been at the core of the Church’s understanding of herself, her relationship to Christ her founder, and the sacraments she celebrates, above all the Eucharist. Through our Baptism, we are incorporated into Christ’s death, reborn into the great family of the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ; through Confirmation we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit; and by our sharing in the Eucharist, we come into communion with Christ and each other visibly here on earth. We also receive the pledge of eternal life to come."

First we see the modernist love for Greek, Biblical terms rather than ones drawn from the age-old Latin theological language. The Eucharist is situated within the mystery of "Koinia" or "Communion". This communion, of course is an internal one, not to be confused with the former idea of the Church being a visible Society of those professing the True Faith, and subject to a visible hierarchy. This Communion cannot be seen at all; it is made up of all those who are united in the Spirit. This new terminology, or rather, adulteration of an ancient term, has as its object to open the doors to an heretical ecumenism, wherein all Christians share in some kind of Communion through Baptism. He opens with the triple Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Communion, the sacraments that initiate man into communion with Christ and one another. These three, united, are important especially in the East, where the baby receives all three at once. We are told, likewise, that the idea of Communion stood at the Church's understanding of herself- a strange claim given the fact that the Fathers do not understand this term apart from a sharing of spiritual things by those in a visible Society, professing the True Faith. The heretic and schismatic are excluded from such a communion, and indeed from eternal salvation. Saint Augustine reminds us that the Christians cut of from the trunk of the Church are as branches that wither away, and that their sacraments, while valid, do not lead to salvation. Thus already, there is a false notion of communion introduced at the beginning of the talk. Now, there is a certain visibility mentioned by the Pope, since the reception of Communion is meant to be a communal act of the congregation, but he ignores completely the question of whether the sacraments benefit the heretic or schismatic, or even if the True Faith is necessary at all. Thus, the New Code allows non-Catholics who dissent from the dogmas of the Faith to receive Holy Communion from a Catholic priest in cases of "necessity" as long as the Dogma of the Real Presence is confessed. Yet the Faith is a whole, not a collection of isolated parts. Belief in all of them cease with the refusal of even one. Only a human "faith" remains by which the individual picks and chooses what seems true or not true among them.

The Pope then moves on to remind the Faithful that this year ushers in the Year of Faith in honour of the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps this year of Faith commemorates the one virtue missing at that Council! In any case, we are back to the greatness of Vatican II, a theme never far from the mind of the Holy Father, and cause of the Church's present ills. Of course, there is mention of the Liturgical renewal willed by the Council, a renewal that the Pope views as partially successful, and partially not so. This paragraph is very important, since it yields to us the Pope's own view of the nature and purpose of the Liturgy:

"he Congress also occurs at a time when the Church throughout the world is preparing to celebrate the Year of Faith to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second Vatican Council, an event which launched the most extensive renewal of the Roman Rite ever known. Based upon a deepening appreciation of the sources of the liturgy, the Council promoted the full and active participation of the faithful in the Eucharistic sacrifice. At our distance today from the Council Fathers’ expressed desires regarding liturgical renewal, and in the light of the universal Church’s experience in the intervening period, it is clear that a great deal has been achieved; but it is equally clear that there have been many misunderstandings and irregularities. The renewal of external forms, desired by the Council Fathers, was intended to make it easier to enter into the inner depth of the mystery. Its true purpose was to lead people to a personal encounter with the Lord, present in the Eucharist, and thus with the living God, so that through this contact with Christ’s love, the love of his brothers and sisters for one another might also grow. Yet not infrequently, the revision of liturgical forms has remained at an external level, and “active participation” has been confused with external activity. Hence much still remains to be done on the path of real liturgical renewal. In a changed world, increasingly fixated on material things, we must learn to recognize anew the mysterious presence of the Risen Lord, which alone can give breadth and depth to our life. "

We have a widening of the view of active participation, that ever controverted concept in the Liturgical Movement. The Pope points out that mere external action is incomplete. There must be an interior participation as well. Yet we must ask: Why must be participate? What is its purpose? Is it the offering of our body and soul to God in an act of perfect adoration and praise? Is its purpose that God's glory and perfection be made manifest by our external and internal acts of latria? Well, not exactly. The purpose of active participation has as its end an "personal encounter with the Lord". Notice that there is no mention whatsoever of this worship having God as its end, simply for the glory of His Majesty- an act of justice on our parts, rendering to God the worship that is His due. No, the purpose is one taken from the new Existentialism, which sees the living encounter as the purpose of religion. This is a complete misunderstanding of Catholic Worship and the spiritual life. How do we know that we have encountered Christ? Can we intuit this encounter? Can we feel it? How do we know that it has occurred? This is a radical shift from Catholic spirituality. It is not necessary that a soul intuit or feel any presence of Christ in order for Faith or worship to be real and pleasing to God. This would require a kind of mystic experience that almost certainly will not occur in those in the ascetical way, that is those who still need to be purified of the concupiscences. Until the soul stills the actions of the passions, this quasi-experimental knowledge of God will not be manifest to the soul. This new understanding posits the experience of God as something in every believer, purified of the unrest of the passions, or not. It is quite false. The notion of encounter is one that the modernists put at the center of one's religious experience. Religion is not, for them, something objective, but something that springs from within the soul, and a religion is true if it causes this feeling of encounter with the Divine to take place within. The problem with the Liturgical reform, for the Pope, is not truly in the content of the new Liturgy, nor even in its thousands of diverse forms. There is no mention of a perversion of the Dogmas of the Faith regarding God, the Real Presence, or the nature of the Mass. The problem is rather that these changes remain external and do not lead the soul to its encounter with Christ which is there purpose of the Liturgy. Notice how the propitiatory nature of the Mass is ignored. There is no mention of the justice of God that is appeased by the perfect sacrifice, for in the new theology, God does not desire any such propitiation. The Liturgy is purely for man's sake, so as to aid him to encounter personally Christ. Even the notion of Communion with Christ is not correct. It is the encounter with the Living God that takes place in the Eucharist- yet more properly, the Holy Eucharist is received so that the soul communicates with the Sacred Humanity of Christ, substantially present in the Host, and because where the humanity of Christ is present, there is also His Divine Person, there is a union with the Divinity, There is no mention whatsoever of Transubstantiation. He continues:

"The Eucharist is the worship of the whole Church, but it also requires the full engagement of each individual Christian in the Church’s mission; it contains a call to be the holy people of God, but also one to individual holiness; it is to be celebrated with great joy and simplicity, but also as worthily and reverently as possible; it invites us to repent of our sins, but also to forgive our brothers and sisters; it binds us together in the Spirit, but it also commands us in the same Spirit to bring the good news of salvation to others. "

What does it mean: the Eucharist is the worship of the whole Church? The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, not the act of the people. One is reminded of the inane custom in the United States in some parishes when at the act of Communion, the priest says: "Body of Christ", and the person responds: "We are." He follows with some nice reminders that don't really tell us much of anything, actually. It reminds one of the truisms contained at the beginning of "Gaudium et Spes". He could be speaking of practically anything in the life of the Church. Replace the word "Eucharist" with "The Rosary" or practically anything else, and you have the same result.

The last main paragraph seeks to connect the history of Irish Catholicism with the Holy Eucharist and the Mass. Some of the language is innocent enough; but other parts are penetrated with the pseudo-mystical, naturalistic language reminiscent of Teilhard de Chardin:

"Moreover, the Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, his body and blood given in the new and eternal covenant for the forgiveness of sins and the transformation of the world."

We are not given any indication as to how the Eucharist is a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross, except that Christ's Body and Blood are given as a sign of the new Covenant for the forgiveness of sins (this is true enough, although rather vague in meaning given the Pope's ideas on all of these things) and for "the transformation of the world". This is highly reminiscent of de Chardin where everything is transubstantiated in the Eucharist, and in fact, the material world itself is transubstantiated, brought towards an evolution into Spirit. Although this entire paragraph could be discussed, this writer will simply look at one more section of it:

" Our Catholic faith, imbued with a radical sense of God’s presence, caught up in the beauty of his creation all around us, and purified through personal penance and awareness of God’s forgiveness, is a legacy that is surely perfected and nourished when regularly placed on the Lord’s altar at the sacrifice of the Mass."

I am not sure how many Catholics of our past were caught up in the beauty of creation in connection with the Mass. It is a bit of Von Balthasar thrown into the pot, and another confusion of the natural and supernatural orders. Rarely do you find the monks of old rhapsodizing about creation as if they were precursors of the English poets of the Romantic period. Nature needed redemption. It still was under the power of the evil one. So the monks spoke of founding monasteries in the desert, like the Egyptian monks of old, but these "deserts" were not those of Egypt, but the untended valleys and woods of Northern Europe. They were deserts, for they were still under the curse laid upon Adam. They had to be recovered with toil and penance in order to win them back to God. The image of putting everything on the altar that is the product of nature or man's action, while inviting, must be seen in the light of de Chardin and those of the Liturgical Movements. Thus there is a supposed return to processions of laity at the "Presentation of Gifts" whereby everything is basically transubstantiated into God: "Fruit of the Vine", "Bread... which earth has made and human hands have formed". There is not a word about the Mass offered up for the forgiveness of sins, to appease God's justice, or even Christ as Victim and Priest atoning. The Mass only makes us "aware of God's forgiveness". It is a forgiveness already accomplished. We only need to be made aware of it.

This might have been a Eucharistic Congress in theory, but perhaps a Catastrophic Congress might have been closer to the mark.

Fighting Fire With Fire

The ire raised by the Obama administration in its attempt to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive-abortifacient coverage in the health care of its employees has not yet abated. The bishops, having been apostles of the new society being forged by the democrats for over forty years now find themselves in the surprising role of censors of this brainchild of the liberals, and have spoken out. It certainly merits some praise on the part of Catholics that the watchmen over the House of Israel have protested against this abuse of the liberty of the Church; indeed, perhaps only an attack on the principle of liberty could have roused the episcopal body to some defense of the Church. Liberty is, after all, the ultimate deity worshipped by the liberal, individualistic West, and in the heart of the American Catholic an attack on liberty is an attack on the dignity and rights of man.

This might appear a bit farfetched to the average reader. Have not the bishops raised their voices in protest at this flagrant attack on the liberty of the Church? Is this not something truly Catholic, such as the protest of St. Thomas Becket against the tyranny of Henry II? Well, not exactly; and it is herein that lies the problem.

One could pick many letters or statements from the bishops in order to examine the motives for their reaction. Certainly, they have been agitated to a degree not seen for many a year. However, such an extensive study would be beyond the scope of an article of this size. This writer will narrow his attention to three letters by three bishops: Archbishop Broglio, head of the Military Vicariate, Bishop Estevez of Saint Augustine, and Bishop Slattery of Oklahoma City. Each of these letters is of interests, but as we shall see, there is a golden thread that runs throughout them, binding the three together.

It is not the rights of the Church per se which lies at the root of the argumentation. That would be not only legitimate but meritorious as well; for the rights of the Church are given, not by governments, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who has established His Church as His Kingdom on earth and given it rights and authority by virtue of His own authority. In this sense, the Church prayed, and indeed prays for the "freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother the Church" in the prayers after the Traditional Mass. This right, not dependent on earthly nations, has not been appealed to by the bishops. The crime of the Obama regime lies in the fact that this new policy "strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith" as Bishop Estevez so succinctly puts it. This is the liberty so extolled by the Second Vatican Council but so reprobated by Blessed Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors in which he condemns the notion that "In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever", and likewise condemns those who hold that the civil liberty given to every religion does not lead to "the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the spread of the evil of indifferentism." Thus the central pillar of the bishop's argument is made of sand. There is no such inherent right to religious liberty possessed by mankind. Rather, there is the duty of the State to profess and defend the sole, true religion, namely the Catholic religion. It would the height of absurdity that there could be a right given by God to commit a mortal sin, since to worship in a way contrary to God's religion violates the First Commandment given by Him to Moses. Now, it is true that one can appeal to an argument "ad hominem", as it is called; that is, one appeals to the opponent by showing that he is not true to his own principles, even if those principles are not true. Thus one could appeal to a civil right to religious liberty granted by the State if that civil right was being violated by that very State. This argument, however, cannot be the primary argument if it rests on a false foundation. The true principles should likewise be stated so as to avoid error on the part of the faithful. Let us look at the other two bishops.

Archbishop Broglio, in his rather strong letter to the military chaplains, in which he orders them to read this letter to all those at Mass (though the army impiously forbad the letter to be read from the pulpit). It begins:

"It is imperative that I call to your attention an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. "

 Need one comment on the similar pillar of the forthcoming condemnation? The Obamite policy is firstly condemned, not for the fact that it violates the Divine Law, a Law that invalidates the policy of Obama, but rather for the fact that it strikes at the sacrosanct modern doctrine of "religious liberty for all citizens of any faith." God is stripped of any rights over nations; man's so-called rights are central and take pride of place over all. This is the dogma of Freemasonry and that Liberalism condemned over and over by the Sovereign Pontiffs- condemned at least until the infiltration of the Revolution into the very Apse of Saint Peter's.  Let us turn to the third letter, that of Bishop Slattery:

"I wish to join the Bishops of this country in expressing my fear that religious liberty in the United States is even now under attack from those elected officials whose duty it is to protect the inalienable right we have from God to worship Him and to defend the Constitution of the United States which guarantees that our right of conscience may neither be violated nor held in contempt..."

Again we have the sacred right of religious liberty as the principle being violated. However, Bishop Slattery leaves his argumentation in a rather vague situation, since he does not appeal to the right of all men to worship according to their consciences, a false and blasphemous right, but speaks of an inalienable right given to us by God to worship Him- a point that is capable of being interpreted in a true as well as a false manner. Man has the right to worship God in the manner commanded by Him. In other words, there is a right to worship according the Catholic religion, because there is a duty imposed by God on man to do so. In this sense, one can speak of a true right to that freedom necessary to worship God in a true and holy manner. However, the following clause seems to point the interpretation in another, less Catholic direction in its appeal to the Constitution of the United States which guarantees, not liberty of true worship, but a universal liberty to all religions, false or not. Al least the bishop is generally careful in his letter not to appeal directly to the rights of all false religions but restricts his comments to the rights of Catholics. This brings us to the second defect.

All three bishops pass from the right of religious liberty (though as mentioned, Bishop Slattery does so more cautiously) to an appeal to the Constitution. One might expect the principle argument to derive from the Divine Law, especially since the bishops were addressing the faithful rather than the infidel. Bishop Philip Estevez laments Obama having "cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution... denying to Catholics our Nation's first and fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty." Who would have thought that a Catholic would make of the liberty of perdition the first and most fundamental right of every American? God send us a real Spaniard of the metal of King Philip II!!

Archbishop Broglio, in the passage quoted above makes the same appeal to the sacrosanct Constitution of the United States, as does Bishop Slattery. So let us turn to the third error of the episcopal defiance, that of the liberty of conscience and its supremacy.  Bishop Estevez points to the refusal of Catholics to obey this unjust law of the Obama administration. "We cannot- we will not- comply with this unjust law". This is certainly a good threat of the bishop. However, he goes on to show how our immigrant ancestors did not come to this county to have their rights stripped away and to be made second-class citizens. He laments:

"And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalty for doing so)."

Loss of religious freedom is intimately connected with the violation of conscience. Both of these are inviolable in the modern spirit of the liberal. However, both in their modern context are divorced from their end, given by God: to worship Him as He desires, and to follow the Divine Law, the source of all valid law. It is not a subjective right divorced from the truth or goodness. In this is the danger of the bishop's argumentation. The passage referring to our immigrant ancestors and their contribution to America has been taken virtually intact from Archbishop Broglio's letter- certainly no coincidence! While the Archbishop's letter ended with a threat in the original letter to something approaching civil disobedience, Bishop Estevez in quieter tones made certain his refusal to obey this policy so against religious liberty. Bishop Slattery also appeals to the rights of conscience:

"Until now, nonprofit religious institutions have always had the right to exempt themselves from having to offer coverage if it contradicts their basic religious beliefs or violates their conscience. This right was guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution..."

There is no distinction as to whether the conscience upholds what is true or not. This is certainly false in itself. There is absolutely no right flowing from a false conscience. States would fall if a citizen could determine that it was against his conscience to fight in a war, or pay taxes, or marry one spouse, or whatever else the human soul could contrive in order to have its way, independent of the objective Divine Law.

While God is certainly mentioned by all three bishops, only Bishop Slattery invokes the Divine Law directly and points out the evil of this new policy:

"This mandate is evil, because not only does it require that all Catholics cooperate in sin by providing for and paying for coverage for gravely immoral actions which have as their final end the destruction of human life, but also by requiring that Catholics who do not cooperate in this should be punished. Were we to comply with this law, we would offend God and imperil our souls. We will not comply..."

At last there is mention of Good and Evil, and the consequences of disobeying the Divine Law. Certainly Bishop Slattery is to be commended for this, and for his quotation from Pope Leo XIII:

"...'if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, then those rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice. Nor can their authority be valid, since authority without justice is null.' "

Certainly that Pontiff has not been quoted by a diocesan bishop other than a reference to Leo XIII's encyclical on the working class in a long time indeed. That bespeaks something to be commended on his part, but unfortunately the general tone of all the bishops has been one of worshippers at the altar of religious liberty, not at the altar of the Catholic God. We must acknowledge the fact that the bishops have at last stood up for something other than a vague socialism, but to fight an error with weapons forged in the camp of Liberalism is only to fight fire with fire. At some point, that fire will turn and consume the very bishops who make use of it.