A convert reflects on Mysterium Fidei and the state of the Church

Edited by Frank J. Sheed, "Prayer for Paul VI" (October 13, 2017):

Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical on the Eucharist, “Mysterium Fidei,” was the first place I saw anyone say that the body and blood, soul and complete divinity of Christ was actually present in the consecrated species. Having been raised in Remi de Roo’s Victoria in the 1970s, I had naturally never heard anything at all about the Eucharist. The understanding that Catholics believed what they believe about it came as a bit of a shock...

... The encyclical, the very first I ever read, was also a marker for me of a personal turning point. It was the first time I had ever seen Catholic eucharistic doctrine clearly and – most importantly – unapologetically stated. It came right out and said something so astounding, something so completely unlikely, that I had to admit that it left very few logical possibilities. Like C.S. Lewis’s assessment of the claims by Christ of His own divinity, this pope was either mad, bad or telling the plain truth. Read more >>

Star-struck popes confirm "hermeneutic of continuity"!

Doubtless you've heard about how Salma Hayek, Richard Gere, and George Clooney were feted and awarted with medals by Pope Francis recently to promote the work of a foundation inspired by the pontiff, Scholas Occurrentes. "Important values can be transmitted by celebrities," said one of the organizers, Lorena Bianchetti. There's a short video from the event at this site.

Now comes the intrepid Amateur Brain Surgeon, founder of ABE Ministries, with balm for the wounds of wounded conservative and traditionalist Catholic souls. First, from a book entitled Shepherd of Souls: A Pictorial Life of Pope Pius XII, he points to a page showing how Pius XII was a movie buff, a fan of Clark Gable, and, writes the author:

When the movie King of Hollywood, his wife and daughter were granted a private audience, the subsequent callers were kept waiting in the reception hall for two hours. When Clark Gable's visit ended, Bishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli followed. This bishop is now known as Pope John XXIII.

Finally, from the May 9, 1967 issue of the Sydney Morning Herald, ABS quotes from an article with a banner photo of Pope Paul with his arms outstretched to welcome actress Claudia Cardinale at a special audience to mark World Social Communications Media Day. The article says:

Claudia Cardinale worse a mini-skirt, Gina Lollobrigida braved her critics, but Sophia Loren couldn't make it to an unprecedented meeting between Pope Paul VI and the world of showbiz yesterday.

... the film stars stole the show -- even from the Pope himself, who was garmented in dazzling white robes.

Claudia was the first to bring gasps when she walked to her seat near the Pope's throne wearing her mini-little black dress.

Miss Cardinale recently married outside Italy a man who is not the father of her son, born when she was unmarried.

The Church forgave her early sins, but not her marriage to a man the Church considers to be still married to his first wife.

Then came Lollobrigida, who, at first, stood in a small crowd and then was escorted to a chair in a reserved section immediately facing the Throne.

On the way a bearded Swiss Guard stopped her, but a horrified officer reprimanded the Guard with: "Obviously, you don't go to the cinema."

Miss Lollobrigida was recently acquitted of an obscenity charge brought over a falling towel scene in her latest film.

But she has also earned the Church's disapproval because of her legal separation from her husband, Milko Skofic.

... But Miss Loren, who has been embroiled for years in an alleged bigamy case over her marriage to producer Carlo Ponti, disappointed the crowd by preferring to continue work on a film, although invited.

Dale Price's dyspeptic mutterings about the worst-ever in-flight interview

"Stakes on a Plane" (Dyspeptic Mutterings, February 19, 2016):

Pope Francis.

A pressurized cabin.

Reporters.

Questions.

Half-baked spitballing and word association games.

Followed by a flop-sweat-soaked Fr. Lombardi and legions of unpaid papal apologists energetically trying to deny the obvious import.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

It would be nice if we didn't have to do this every other Alitalia flight, but there you go.

Oh, but this one is genuinely different--it manages to be the worst yet.

[There follows an excerpt from the interview with Pope Francis, which concludes]:... On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

Sure reads like an endorsement of contraception in the face of the Zika virus. Interestingly enough, it was the Pope who used the term "contraceptives," not the nefarious reporter.

NO NO NO--HE'S NOT ENDORSING THE USE OF CONTRACEPTIVES HERE, HATEY HATER MCSEDEVACANTIST PANTS--HOW COULD YOU SAY ANY SUCH THING?

TRANSLATIONNOTMAGISTERIALPEOPLELOVEFRANCISHESARGENTINIANWHYDOYOUHATEHIMNEITHERCONSERVATIVENORLIBERALBUTCATHOLICCONTINUITYWITHOTHERPOPESHOLYSPIRITPICKEDHIMANDSPEAKSTHROUGHHIMHASNTCHANGEDDOCTRINE...

I mean, there's just no way that can be read as an endorsement of contraceptive use here, you faithless moron!

Fair enough--Father Lombardi to the rescue! He'll fix it--he always does:

... Pope Francis said that "contraceptives or condoms, in cases of particular emergency and gravity, can be the object of a serious discernment of conscience," Father Lombardi said, "while on abortion, he did not allow any room for consideration."

HA--SEE? HE'S ONLY SAYING CONTRACEPTION IS ACCEPTABLE IN SITUATIONS OF SERIOUS DANG....

Wait, what?



So much for yesterday's vigorous papalist spinning.
So, yeah--the Pope just endorsed contraceptive use for the normal conjugal act.

But it's far, far worse than that. To say that the hypothetical threat of birth defects is sufficient reason for contraception is to authorize it to serve eugenic ends. The threat here is not to the life or health of the mother--the threat is that she may bear a "defective" child.

And put the emphasis on the "may"--the link has not been established.

... Take no chances, though. Lebensunwertes Leben. [Link added]

And how does the Pope's argument not apply to the threat posed by all birth defects, from fetal alcohol syndrome on down? Aren't these all "situations of special danger"? Any parent could discern such--Can't risk it.

But keep spinning. People love the guy, and that's what really matters.

[Advisory: Rules 7-9]

[Hat tip to JM]

"It’s not an urban legend, it’s a LIE: Paul VI did NOT give permission to nuns to use contraceptives."

These are Fr. Z's words on his Blog (February 20, 2016).

Why is this important?

Because of this: "Francis Says Contraception Can Be Used to Slow Zika" (New York Times, February 18, 2016).

And this: "BREAKING: Vatican affirms Pope was speaking about contraceptives for Zika" (LifeSiteNews, February 19, 2016).

And this: "Contraception, Congo Nuns, Choosing the Lesser Evil, and Conflict of Commandments" (Catholic World Report, February 20,2016).

And this: "PETITION [to the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights]: Stop using the Zika virus to push abortion in Latin America" (LifePetitions, 2 weeks ago).

Finally, pointing to the headline, "Pope Calls for Worldwide Abolition of Death Penalty" (NBC News, February 21, 2016), one of my colleagues then asks: "Folks, are the wheels simply coming off now?"

Failure of executive power in the Church: from John XXIII to John Paul II

In "Failure of the Executive Power" (Super Fluma Babylonis), the author assumes that at all times each pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II) acted in what he regarded as the best interests of the Church; hence the criticisms he offers are not intended to reflect on the personal integrity of these popes. Yet, he says, it is possible for a saint to err. What he claims, accordingly, is that each of these popes played a part in the abdication of the Church's authority -- an authority that must be restored if the Church is to exercise the fullness of her sanctifying role in the world.

[Hat tip to Sir. A.S.]

Not Coming to a World Youth Day Near You

Roman Amerio's Iota Unum is a big doorstop of a book, one that covers a sprawling territory. But surprisingly, the brief section that I think best captures and communicates the difference between today's Catholic 'theology' and the perennial wisdom of the Church is the item on "The Church and Youth." Or maybe this is not surprising, since usually what we communicate to young people is a good indicator of what we truly value and find important. I think this is the case here. Can you imagine any speaker sharing any such words at one of today's World Youth Days? "My topic for today is Lighten Up or Grow Up?" Ha-ha. I think not. Maybe there is some possible sort of fusion, a la inverting Dorothy Day or John Piper's idea of 'The Duty of Delight" into "The Delight of Duty"? But either way, as for Amerio, good stuff for kids and a strong reminder for adults. With a nice dose of impressive-sounding Latin. -- Guy Noir - Private Eye.

The Church and Youth

There are other aspects of human life that the Church views differently since the council. The deminutio capiris  based on age, which was imposed by Paul VI in his decree Ingravescentem aetatem, was an indirect sign of the new attitude it has adopted towards youth. The new view is directly expressed in other documents.

From ancient times down to our own, youth has been regarded by philosophy, ethics, art and common sense as a time of natural and moral imperfection, that is, incompleteness. St. Augustine goes so far as to call the desire to return to childhood stupidity and folly and writes in this sermon Ad iuvenes flos aetatis, periculum tentationis, insisting on youth’s moral immaturity.  Because his reason is not yet settled and is liable to go awry a young man is cereus in cereus in vitium flecti, and in his youth needs a ruler, adviser and teacher. He needs a light to see that life has a moral goal, and practical help to mold and transform his natural inclinations in accordance with the rational order of things. All the great Catholic educators from Benedict of Nursia to Ignatius of Loyola, Joseph Calasanz, John Baptist de la Salle, and John Bosco made this idea the basis of Catholic education. The young person is a subject possessing freedom and must be trained to use his freedom in such a way that he himself chooses that one thing for the choosing of which our freedom has been given us; namely; to choose to do our duty, since religion sees no other end to life than this. The delicacy of the educator's task comes from the fact that its object is a being who is a subject, and that its goal is the perfecting of that subject. It is acting upon human freedom not in order to limit it but to make it really free. In this respect the act of educating is an imitation of divine causality which, according to Thomistic theory produces a man’s free actions even in their very freedom. The Church's attitude to youth cannot ignore the difference between the imperfect and the relatively more perfect, the ignorant and the relatively more informed. It cannot set aside the differences between things and treat young people as mature, learners as experts, lessers as greaters and (here the fundamental error returns) in the final analysis, the dependent as independent.

Character of Youth and a Critique of Life as Joy [Say what?!]

The profound Thomistic theory of potency and act assists a student of human nature in considering the nature of youth, by supporting him in seeking out the essential characteristics of that stage of life, and by stopping him being led astray by prevailing opinion.

Given that youth is the beginning of life, it is important that a view of the whole of life ahead be presented to it and that it keep that view in mind; a view of the goal in which the beginner’s potential will be realized, the form in which his powers will unfold. Life is difficult, or, if you prefer, serious. Firstly; this is because man’s nature is weak and in its finitude it collides with the finitude of other men and of the things around, all these finitudes tending to trespass on each other. Secondly it is part of the Catholic faith that man is fallen and inclined to evil. Man’s disorderly propensities mean that he is beset by opposing attractions and that his condition is one of struggle, of war, even of siege. That there is a potency within life which must be  brought out means that life is not only difficult but interesting, since interest consists in having something lying within (interest). This does not mean, however, that man should realize himself in the current phrase, but rather that he should be transformed by realizing the values for which he is created and which call him to that transformation. It is curious that when post-conciliar theology so often uses the word metanoia, which means a transformation of the mind [or repentance], it should go on to put so much emphasis on the realization of the self. It is pleasant to go with one's inclination, and rough to resist one’s own ego in order to mold it. The difficulty of it is recognized in philosophy, poetic adages, politics and myths. Every good is acquired or achieved at the price of effort. The Greek sage says the gods have put sweat between us and excellence, and Horace says: multa tulit fecitque puer, sudait et alsit. lt was a commonplace of education in ancient times that human life is a combat and an effort, and the letter upsilon became a symbol of the fact, but not the upsilon with equally sloping arms, Y, but the Pythagorean one with one arm upright and the other bent, P. Antiquity also applied to life the much told tale of Hercules at the fork in the road.

Life is today unrealistically presented to young people as joy, taking joy to mean the partial sort that comforts the soul in via rather than the full joy which satisfies it only in termino. The hardness of human life, which used so often to be referred to in prayers as a vale of tears, is denied or disguised. Since the result of this change in emphasis is to depict happiness as a man's natural state and thus as something due to him, the new ideal is to prepare a path for the young man which is secura d'ogn'intoppo e d'ogni sbarro. Thus every obstacle they have to overcome is seen by young people as an injustice, and barriers are looked upon not as tests, but as a scandal. Adults have abandoned the exercise of their authority through a desire to please, since they cannot believe they will be loved unless they flatter and please their children. The prophet’s warning applies to them: Vae quae consuut pulvillos sub omni cubito manus et faciunt cervicalia sub capite universae aetatis.

All the themes of the juvenilism of the contemporary world, in which the Church shares, come together in Pope Paul’s speech to a group of hippies who had come to Rome for a peace demonstration in April 1971. The Pope sketches and enumerates with praise those “secret values” young people are searching for.

The first is spontaneity, which doesn’t strike the Pope as being at odds with searching, even though a sought spontaneity ceases to be spontaneous. Nor does spontaneity seem to him at odds with morality even though the latter involves considered intentions, superimposes itself upon spontaneity and can clash with it. The second value is “liberation from certain formal and conventional ties.” The Pope does not specify what they are. As for forms, they are the substance itself as it appears, that is as it enters the world. And as for conventions, they are what is agreed upon, that is they are consents, and are good things if they are consents to good things. The third value is “the need to be themselves.” But it is not made clear what self it is that the young person should realize and in which he should recognize his identity: there are in fact many selves in a free nature, which can be transformed into many guises. The true self does not demand that the young person realize himself any old how but that he he transformed and even become other than he is. The words of the Gospel, furthermore, will bear no gloss: abneget semetipsum. The day before, the Pope had been exhorting to metanoa. So then, is it realize yourself or transform yourself? The fourth value is an enthusiasm “to live and interpret your own times.” The Pope, however, offers the young people no interpretative key to their own times, since he does not point out that from the religious point of view, man must seek out the non-ephemeral among the ephemeral things of his own time, that is, seek out the last end that perdures through it all. Having thus developed his argument without any explicitly religious reference, Paul VI somewhat unexpectedly concludes by saying: “We think that in this interior search of yours you notice the need for God.” The Pope is here certainly speaking speculatively rather than with his authority as teacher.

50th anniversary of Paul VI's encyclical defending transubstantiation

A good one from Guy Noir:

Somewhere Alice von Hildebrand wrote that Humane Vitae was the glory of Paul VI's pontificate. Pope Paul VI remains in my mind an enigma. But that aside, I respectfully differ with Dr. v H. I think this encyclical (Mysterium Fidei), issued when it was and being as explicit as it is, and his Credo can be presented as possibly having equal if not more fundamental significance.

See: Benedict Constable, "50th Anniversary of Paul VI’s Encyclical Mysterium Fidei" (RC, September 3, 2015).

Pope's "Paul VI staff" breaks; repaired with adhesive tape

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "Staff breaks? Staff it out!" (Fr. Z's Blog, June 6, 2015):

So… Pope goes to Sarajevo. He was to use the Paul VI style pastoral staff/crucifix along with his most favoritest vestments, which we all are now so very very familiar. Via Vatican Insider.

Problem: the Paul VI staff broke!

Oh dear… what a shame!

Thinking fast, Msgr. Guido Marini, head of the Pope’s liturgy staff, working against the clock, fixed it the staff with … I’m not making this up… adhesive tape.

One of my friends from Rome tweeted: “Even Paul VI must have thought, ‘I don’t want my ferula to be part of this.”

I dunno… which would be better. Enter without a staff, or enter with a staff fixed with sticky tape?

For the record, Mullarkey on Extreme Unction and Saint-Making

For the record, both from Maureen Mullarkey at First Things: "Of Sausages and Saints" (FT, May 19, 2014) and "Who Killed Extreme Unction?" (FT, July 22, 2014).

[Hat tip to R.D.D.]

A new concordat with the sexual revolution?

R.R. Reno raises a provocative question in this article, "A New Concordat?" (First Things, January 2015). The old concordat, of course, was the one contracted between the Vatican and the Hitler-led German government in 1933. Doubtless there were benign motives at work on the side of the Vatican -- perhaps the fear of being out of step with a rising power that seemed to have history on its side and a desire to secure the Church's survival.

Dietrich von Hildebrand deeply regretted the Church's failure to witness in a clear and forceful way: "Just fourteen days after Hitler's seizure of power, the German bishops had lifted the excommunication that previously had been attached to membership in teh National Socialist Party, including both the SA and the SS." Hildebrand saw the demoralizing implications of the concordat for the faithful: "It must have given Catholics throughout Germany the impression that the Vatican was withdrawing its rejection of National Socialism and of racism -- as if it were possible to be a Catholic and a Nazi at the same time."

Although Hildebrand was friends with Eugenio Pacelli (who became Pius XII) and never criticized him in his memoirs, he looked back upon the period with dismay: "I saw with horror that path some leading Catholics were taking, and I saw how terribly the soon-to-be concluded Concordat wit Hitler was bout to affect the spirit of Catholics, how their inner resistance would be paralyzed by it."

Reno turns from the Church's concordat with Hitler to its more recent seeming accommodations of the sexual revolution. While noting the significant differences, he also notes significant parallels. "The HHS contraception mandate requires church-related institutions to collaborate with the dominant, contraceptive culture of our time, and to do so in a public way. This is why the mandate has been a bone in the throat of Catholic institutions in a way that widespread use of contraceptives among Catholics hasn't." He continues:

As Hildebrand recalls with anguish, although the concordat with Hitler's Germany did not mean the Vatican was endorsing the Nazi regime, it undermined resistance.

The same goes for recognizing gay marriages. As Archbishop Chaput observes in his Erasmus Lecture ["Strangers in a Strange Land"], the public reality of marriage gives its redefinition powerful "sign value." If we negotiate unofficial concordats with same-sex marriage of the sort Creighton [University] has -- not "approving," mind you -- then it's hard to maintain the Church's public identity as a teacher of truths about sex, marriage, and the family that are at odds with the sexual revolution.

Will Catholicism, then, forge a concordat with the sexual revolution? The decision made by Creighton University doesn't tell us very much. Nor does a similar decision made by Notre Dame under somewhat different circumstances. The church is a very large, international, and diverse institution. But we can identify pressures and counterpressures likely to shape Catholicism's response to the new challenges posed by the sexual revolution, at least in the West.

First, then, the pressures to find a modus vivendi. Today, American Catholic institutions like Creighton and Notre Dame are run by upper-middle-class Americans more loyal to their class and its values than to the Catholic Church's historic teachings, which have in any event not been passed down over the past fifty years.

This bourgeois loyalty does not mean Catholic leaders lack faith. But it's existentially painful for them to be out of sync wit dominant opinion. Being pro-gay rights is today's badge of honor. I don't think many Catholics who want to move among the Great and the Good will refuse that badge. The same goes for one of today's god terms: inclusive. It functions like a secret handshake that signals membership in the elite. That will be hard to resist. Moreover, open dissent now brings personal risks. Anyone deemed insufficiently "gay-friendly" faces career obstacles.

The pope himself offers little in the way of encouragement to resist a convenient fusion of Catholic and bourgeois life, an ironic but predictable outcome given the tenor of his papacy so far. He routinely denounces Catholic conservatives as small-minded and warns us not to "obsess" over the issues central to the sexual revolution: abortion, contraception, homosexuality. However one reads his intent in these and other statements, there can be no doubt they provide handy talking points for those who want to capitulate on gay marriage or other aspects of the sexual revolution.

Reno goes on to identify factors that work the other way, including the Bible's opposition to values of the contemporary sexual revolution, and the Church's own institutional ballast. Yet the question he raises undeniably highlights one of the fundamental challenges facing the Church today: to accommodate or to resist, to be of the prevailing sexual culture, or to be against it.

Related: Dietrich von Hildebrand, My Battle Against Hitler: Faith, Truth, and Defiance in the Shadow of the Third Reich(Image, 2014).

"Canonizing the Second Vatican Council"? -- the Vindication of Paul VI

[Advisory & disclaimer: See Rules 7-9]

In an essay from this past spring, "Paul VI and John Paul II on the Council and Its Interpretation -- and Fatima" (Saint Louis Catholic, April 29, 2014), the article's author writes [added emphasis is his]:

I've been struck in the last several days by the observation of many that by the canonizations and beatification of this year that Pope Francis was in effect "canonizing the Second Vatican Council". This effort has been obvious to me for some time, but for some reason the phrase kept sticking with me last weekend.

Therefore, I was more than usually struck by comments I recently read from these popes themselves about the Council they are being used to "canonize", and of its consequences.

This first passage is from Paul VI [during his 1967 pilgrimage to Fatima], and I actually feel very sorry for him-- his worry and disillusionment come through. And note he comments about the Council's interpretation and then speaks of Fatima:

... The ecumenical council has reawakened many energies in the bosom of the Church.... What an evil it would be if an arbitrary interpretation, not authorized by the Magisterium of the Church, were to transform this spiritual renewal into a restlessness which dissolves the Church's traditional structure and constitution, substituting the theology of true and great teachings with new and partisan ideologies which depart from the norm of faith, that which modern thought, often lacking the light of reason, neither comprehends nor accepts, finally transforming the apostolic anxiety of redemptive charity into an acquiescence in the negative forms of the profane mentality of worldly customs. What a disenchantment, then, would be caused by our effort at a universal approach!

This thought carries our memory at this moment to those countries in which religious liberty is practically suppressed and where the denial of God is promoted... We declare: the world is in danger. Therefore we have come by foot to the feet of the Queen of Peace to ask for the gift that only God can give: peace.... Men, think of the gravity and the greatness of this hour, which could be decisive for the history of the present and future generation. The picture of the world and of its destiny presented here is immense and dramatic. It is the scene that the Madonna opens before us, the scene we contemplate with horrified eyes."

-- from the Homily of Paul VI, at Fatima, May 13, 1967 (emphasis added [by SLC])

St. John Paul II also echoed these thoughts fourteen years later:

We must admit realistically and with profound suffering that Christians today feel lost, confused, perplexed and also disappointed; there are diffused ideas in contrast with the truth as revealed and always taught; there are diffused true and proper heresies in the field of dogma and morals [...] the liturgy has been altered; immersed in intellectual and moral relativism and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, by agnostics, by agnosticism, by a vaguely preached illuminism and by a sociological Christianity, deprived of definite dogmas and moral objectivity. It is necessary to begin all over again.

Of Rome and celebrity

Maureen Mullarkey, "Tammany on the Tiber" (First Things, May 12, 2014):

John XXIII once remarked that the Vatican was the hardest place on earth to remain a Christian. The pope’s impish bon mot floated like skywriting over the double canonization in St. Peter’s Square on the Second Easter Sunday. On the glittering heels of this production came advance notice of another: London’s The Tablet reported that Paul VI is on the books for beatification this coming October.


Are we at the point where election to the Petrine office is itself a signal of godliness, a guarantee of eventual canonization? Will each pope canonize his predecessor—or two or three of them—with the unspoken assumption that his own successor will return the compliment? Is election a promissory note drafted in white smoke, and redeemable at death for public elevation to the rank of saint? It begins to look that way.

Not only the faithful but their shepherds, too, are susceptible to media-induced semblances of sanctity. Devotion to the aura of sanctity and to the machine that produces it makes cult figures out of mere men. Like that talking snake in Eden, it murmurs in the ear. It excites the illusion that every papal opinion—however lacking in prudence or responsible facts—is oracular.

This expedited exercise in saint-making was a premature apotheosis, a pageant of synthetic piety staged for immediate media consumption. With this as a precedent, canonization risks becoming one more pseudo-event, like bread and circus, thrown to a culture besotted with virtual reality.

In our lifetime, we have watched the papacy descend into spectacle. By now, showboating—from kissing feet to a mega-Mass on Copacabana Beach—is an established feature of the modern papacy. As if spectacle itself could cure the malaise that has emptied churches, closed parishes, and turned cathedrals into pay-per-view tourist sites.

Pope Paul VI to be beatified: Why some fret about this

"Pope Paul VI to be beatified after miracle confirmation" (CT, May 8, 2014):

A miraculous healing of an unborn child, following prayers to Pope Paul VI, has been confirmed as genuine by the Vatican, paving the way for the former Pope to be beatified.

The up-side of this is the miraculous cure of the unborn child and the prospect that yet another pope, although once a sinner like all of us, may soon be known to be in heaven.

The down-side of this is that if the Church's act of canonization is not primarily about assuring the faithful that the deceased is in heaven, but rather about proposing him as a model of heroic virtue (as previously noted HERE and HERE), this act will almost surely be interpreted by some as practically calculated to undermine their confidence in the Church and drive them into schism.

What do I mean? Quite simply that many Catholics, whatever their reasons, are going to have serious qualms about Paul VI being elevated to the Church's altars as a model of heroic virtue. Some may even have what Fr. John Zuhlsdorff calls a "spittle flecked nutty."

Who? Since 2005, when the notorious renegade priest Joseph S. O'Leary made a number of unsubstantiated accusations about Pope Paul VI (far worse than THIS) that struck me as malicious, it has come to my attention that there are quite a few Catholics -- ranging from troubled but faithful individuals with considered opinions (like Alice von Hildebrand) to inhabitants of fever swamps bordering on schism -- that will be sorely tested by the prospect of Paul VI's canonization.

Let me be clear that I am not endorsing the objections raised from these various quarters. I have not investigated many of them in any serious detail. My purpose here is not to examine and evaluate them, but simply to note their fairly wide-spread existence, which I believe is a legitimate concern.

In light of this, as argued previously (HERE and HERE) concerning the recent canonizations of John Paul II and John XXIII, the prudent course would seem -- as in the case of Pius XII -- to avoid fast-tracking canonizations as long as significant doubts trouble the faithful and even the world beyond. (Catholic journalist Brett M. Decker, for instance, recently declared that "canonizing pontiffs from the era of abuse is not only tone deaf but also exposes a continuing, stubborn refusal to acknowledge the institutional coverup that occurred for decades and that those at the highest levels — including popes — didn't do enough to prevent the crimes, enabling the crisis to continue.")

What are the objections regarding Paul VI? They range across a host of issues, including claims of modernism, indecisiveness, contradictory declarations, rupture with liturgical tradition, association with Freemasonry and Marxism and homosexuality.

Related:

• Peter Kwasniewski, "Paul VI: A Pope of Contradictions" (New Liturgical Movement, December 10, 2013)
• Michael Matt, "Pope Paul VI: Next Contestant on the Santo Subito Show" (The Remnant, April 24, 2014).
• Fr. Luigi Villa, Paul VI Beatified? The book that stopped the beatification process Pope Paul VI(2009) [available online HERE - PDF]
• Robert J. Siscoe, "Who was Paul VI? A review of Msgr. Villa's Paul VI Beatified?" (Catholic Family News, February 5, 2013).
• Alice von Hildebrand, "Present at the Demolition: an interview with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand" (The Latin Mass, Summer 2001)
• "The Homosexual Colonization of The Catholic Church" (New Oxford Review, November 2006), p. 19.
• Randy Engel, "The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Cathlic Church"(2006).
• "What stopped the beatification of Paul VI? An Italian journalist reports the opposition" (Giulio Ferrari, "Non beatificate Papa Montini, in L'Italia, March 15, 1995, p. 16, via TIA)
• "Was Paul VI homosexual? Testimony of Prof. Bellegrandi" (Franco Bellegrandi, NichitaRoncalli - Controvita di un Papa, Rome: Editizioni Internazionale di Letterature e Scienze, 1994, pp. 85-86, 91-92, via TIA)
• Marian T. Horvat, "Paul VI's Homosexuality: Rumor or Reality?" (excerpt from Atila Sinke Guimarães, Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia, TIA, 2004)
• Fr. Joseph S. O'Leary, "New Catholic Thinking on Homosexuality" (Joseph S. O'Leary homepage, March 14, 2008), see combox comment quoting "Paul VI's letter to Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle of Washington" by "Spirit of Vatican II" (=Joseph O'Leary), April 17, 2008, at 7:20 PM time signature, as well as his numerous salacious remarks HERE under the same moniker [Advisory: indelicate subject matter].

At the same time, we must bear in mind that it was Paul VI, as one of my colleagues describes in detail, who warned of the "smoke of Satan" entering the Church, who spoke of the Church going through a "mysterious process of auto-demolition," and who must be credited with writing the encyclical Humanae Vitae in a climate ill-disposed to receive it.

Let us pray for the Church, that God will give her leaders wisdom; and let us pray for Pope Paul VI in the hope that, when the time comes, we may be confident of his prayers for us and for the Church of our Lord, which has suffered such confusion, disaffection, dissent, and defection since the advent of his new Mass and Pope John's Council preceding it.

Alice von Hildebrand and the proposed canonization of Paul VI

In "Interview with Alice von Hildebrand: Should Pope Paul VI be Canonized?" (Les Femmes - The Truth, January 2, 2013), von Hildebrand is reported as saying:

Considering the tumultuous pontificate of Paul VI, and the confusing signals he was giving, e.g.: speaking about the “smoke of Satan that had entered the Church,” yet refusing to condemn heresies officially; his promulgation of Humanae Vitae (the glory of his pontificate), yet his careful avoidance of proclaiming it ex cathedra [infallible doctrine]; delivering his Credo of the People of God in Piazza San Pietro in 1968, and once again failing to declare it binding on all Catholics; disobeying the strict orders of Pius XII to have no contact with Moscow, and appeasing the Hungarian Communist government by reneging on the solemn promise he had made to Cardinal Mindszenty; his treatment of holy Cardinal Slipyj, who had spent seventeen years in a Gulag, only to be made a virtual prisoner in the Vatican by Paul VI; and finally asking Archbishop Gagnon to investigate possible infiltration in the Vatican, only to refuse him an audience when his work was completed – all these speak strongly against the beatification of Paolo VI, dubbed in Rome, “Paolo Sesto, Mesto” (Paul VI, the sad one) ...

Dr. von Hildebrand paints a dark picture indeed, but one that should not simply be ignored. Read more >>

Fr. Bouyer recalls exchange with Paul VI on liturgical reform

The following is from an article posted yesterday by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, who was just here in Metro Detroit on October 10th to address the 12th Call to Holiness Conference on "The Treasures of the Mass."

In his post, "Fr. Bouyer and an anecdote about how the liturgical reform was imposed" (WDTPRS, October 14, 2009), Fr. Z cites his proximate source as a global email from the editor of Inside the Vatican, Robert Moynighan, and observes: "It concerns the behind the scenes story of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform. The characters involved are the famous liturgist Fr. Louis Bouyer and Paul VI. This is a bit removed, but it is perhaps useful." Here is Moynihan's email:

Letter from a Reader about the Liturgy

I just received this letter from a reader:

Dear Dr. Moynihan,

These newsflashes are really informative and important for many of us to help us understand what is going on in Roma.

Given some of the past (and somewhat unfinished) newsflashes, I was wondering if you had seen this, from Fr. Anthony Chadwick (TAC priest in France) on his Civitas Dei web site http://pagesperso-orange.fr/civitas.dei/reflections10.09.htm, translating from a French traditionalist email group:

(Note: here follows the text from the web site; the incident occurred in about 1974.)

=============================

October 3rd—Sainte Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus (Roman calendar and a local Saint here in Normandy)...

Father Louis Bouyer (photo): I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once (and the following conversation ensued):

Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!

Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?

Paul VI: But I don’t understand: I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: "Here is what the experts are asking for." And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.

Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: "The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy." And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.

Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: "The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that". And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.

Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done!

==============================

(The letter to me then continues):

Of course, this plays into the I think unfinished story you were recounting about Cardinal Gagnon’s investigation, and the aftermath. I must add that I saw on another traditionalist list group a few years back the comment from Prof. Luc Perrin (Strasbourg) that he himself had a typescript copy of Fr. Bouyer’s memoirs, which could not then be published due to family opposition or something of the sort, but that they contained bombshells ...

Fr. Z concludes: "You have to know that Paul VI was perhaps overly trusting."

[Hat tip to J.M.]

New background on the Credo of Paul VI

In his article, "The Credo of Paul VI. Who Wrote It, and Why" (www.chiesa), Sandro Magister sheds new light on the "Credo of the People of God," which was issued by Paul VI in 1968 in response to the upheaval in the Church exemplified by the heterodox Dutch Catechism that emerged at the time. What has now come to light is that the "Credo" was written by Jacques Maritain as a result of a long standing correspondence of 303 letters exhanged between himself and the Swiss theologian and cardinal, Charles Journet. Magister says that Cardinal Georges Cottier – a disciple of Journet, and theologian emeritus of the pontifical household – has already revealed the background of the "Credo" in the international magazine "30 Days," in the cover story of the latest issue.

Magister notes that in one passage of the draft sent by Maritain to the pope, he had "explicitly cited the common witness that the Israelites and Muslims give to the one God, together with Christians," but that in his "Credo," Paul VI simply "gives thanks to the divine goodness for the 'many believers' who share faith in the one God with Christians, without specifically mentioning Judaism and Islam." Among other things, Magister also notes that during the 1950's, "Maritain came close to being condemned by the Holy Office for his philosophical thought, suspected of 'extreme naturalism,' but that "one reason why the condemnation was not issued was that he was defended by Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, who at the time was substitute secretary of state and had a longstanding friendship with the French thinker."

[Hat tip to J.]