January 2024 Print

by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Excerpt from Against the Heresies by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1997), pp. 221-224, 227-229.

X. The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX

The Union Between Church and State

The sixth section [of the Syllabus of Errors] deals with the errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church. The error condemned here is that of Caesarism (“regalism”). This has existed from the time that certain kings wanted to dominate the Church. Now Caesarism exists especially in the Communist and Socialist countries which create national churches as in China, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where even Catholic bishops accept to be at the service of the State. All these “priests for peace,” the priests of the Pax movement, serve the Communist State. They do it, perhaps, with the idea that if they did not accept it, they would be persecuted more; that does not alter the fact that, publicly and practically, they are at the service of the Communist government, while those who resist are persecuted and expelled from their parishes.

President Salazar of Portugal was accused of Caesarism. I heard this accusation from the very mouth of the apostolic nuncio at Lisbon. Nevertheless, at the beginning he had admired Salazar, who as a good Catholic, helped the Catholic Church in every field—in the Universities, in the missions—and who thus, in Portugal, in Angola, and Mozambique, helped the Church to expand considerably. But at the time of Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Villot, the nuncio undoubtedly was pressured to oppose Salazar, to thwart his power and to undermine his popularity. It was then that he told me: “Salazar is a Caesarist.” Why? Because he opposed the nomination of certain bishops who were probably acting as revolutionaries.

One day Salazar said to me: “I do all I can for the Church. I do not know what will happen afterwards, but as long as I have the power, I want to help the Catholic Church as much as possible.” And he added: “I sometimes have the feeling, though, that the bishops do not understand me; they do not see that if they helped me more, we could accomplish even greater progress. For example, at the university I would like to see the truths of the Catholic Faith disseminated; so I would like the Church to appoint professors capable of teaching these truths. I do not feel that I am supported by the bishops.”

It was admirable to see this head of State truly desirous of working for the expansion of the Catholic religion. He had asked me to come see him because I had visited the missions of the Holy Ghost Fathers in Angola. He was truly a simple and dignified man. When I think that he was scarcely received by Pope Paul VI when he went to visit Fatima! When heads of State are Catholic, it is they who are persecuted by Rome. It is the Communist heads of State who receive the best reception at the Vatican.

Shortly before his death, Franco said that one of the greatest sorrows he had known was not to have been received at the Vatican for the entire time that he was in authority. Yet Pius XI was not hostile to Franco, far from it; but even then a mood of hostility reigned at the nunciature. On the contrary, King Juan Carlos was received immediately by the Vatican. But does he truly work for the Catholic Church? The world is upside down.

The Error of Separation

In fact, if one reproached Salazar and Franco for concerning themselves too much with matters pertaining to the Church, it is because one has a false notion of the relations that should exist between Church and State. Separation is desired, and yet it is concord that is the most natural in Catholic States. We have seen that not only Pius IX, but also Gregory XVI and Leo XIII said: Governments have received authority not only to direct political, economic and material affairs, but also to help people on the spiritual plane and, consequently, to help the Church. Evidently they must let the Church direct spiritual things, but they must help the Church accomplish her work, and give her all possible means to do so. This is why the Church has always signed concordats, as, for example, with Franco; it included the right of the head of State to veto certain episcopal nominations. If this practice were truly bad, Pius XII would not have said that the concordat signed with Spain was one of the best. It is normal that there should be perfect accord between the Church and the State. When the head of a Catholic State is Catholic, for the good of the Church and his people, he may feel obliged to object to the nomination of certain bishops; he has a right not to let revolutionaries be picked.

When all the bishops are against him, a chief of State is in a very difficult situation. In Chile, for example, a single bishop upheld Pinochet; the others averred that the referendum had been fixed, and united their voices with the foreign governments and the progressive European press, thus lending a hand to the revolution. The same thing has happened in Bolivia, Venezuela. The question of the relation between Church and State is falsified by progressive tendencies: The idea that there must be a separation, that the State has no interest in religious questions is an absolutely false idea.

Hence, section six condemns “errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church.” For example:

Proposition 50: Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.

Here is an abuse of power on the part of the State. The same is true of the following proposition:

Proposition 51: And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.

And here is the last proposition of this section:

Proposition 55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

This proposition is clearly condemned, and yet it is separation that prevailed at Vatican II! When Pope Paul VI said: “The Church only demands freedom,” that meant, effectively, that the Church be left alone, that each power be occupied with its own business, and that there be no longer any relations between them...

Liberty Favors Error

The last chapter, bearing the heading “Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism,” is still very pertinent:

Proposition 77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

Nonetheless, since Vatican II, the Church has not ceased to ask this of the States. The Declaration on Religious Liberty practically says the same thing. Cardinal Seper reproached me for a letter I had written for Cor Unum and which was also published in Fideliter, in which I said that one was obliged to acknowledge the fact that Pope Paul VI was a liberal. I had already said that before, by citing Cardinal Daniélou, who was his bosom friend and who explicitly wrote as much in Mémoires du cardinal Daniélou, a book published by his sister: “Yes, it must be recognized that Pope Paul VI was a liberal.”

At my last audience, Cardinal Seper reproached me for that. “How can you say that Paul VI was a liberal?” I replied that it was perfectly true, such was the position of Paul VI concerning the separation of Church and State and religious liberty. “But what do you want us to do now?” he replied. It is not a question of practice and of knowing what to do here and now, it is a question of principle, I answered. Was the Pope in favor of the separation of Church and State, or was he not? Cardinal Seper did not want to reply. “How do you expect us to do anything else?”

Yet it is they themselves who actively follow the principle enunciated in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, and request that States adopt the separation of Church and State so that all sects can be admitted; and finally, they accept the position that it is no longer in the Church’s or the States’ interest that the Catholic religion be recognized as the only religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship (proposition 77).

What was condemned by Pope Pius IX has been professed and practiced since Vatican II. We come to the following proposition:

Proposition 78: Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

The condemnation of this proposition is quite clear, and yet it is what has now come to pass. The “peculiar worship” has always been considered by the Church to be an error, made up of false doctrines that give rise to a false morality. For these doctrines bring on not only the diversity of worship, but also the behavior that accompanies them: divorce, contraception, pornography, even polygamy and the contempt of women. All of this is absolutely contrary to the principles of the Church.

Yet now they affirm that it is a question of a right of the human person, hence a natural right. This is false. Pope Leo XIII said that, in certain cases, when the State cannot do otherwise, it can regulate the free exercise of worship by decree or law. But, in such an eventuality, it would be legislated in virtue of the principle of tolerance, which the Church has always accepted. The Church accepts the case in which the State promulgates a law of toleration when it cannot do otherwise. But Pope Leo XIII formally affirmed that the exception can never be made by accepting the justification that it proceeds from a natural right. It is absolutely impossible. And this has remained the indestructible position of the Church until Vatican II.

The next proposition treats of the question of the “pest of Indifferentism”:

Proposition 79: Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of Indifferentism.

There are those who maintain that if liberty is allowed, truth will ultimately triumph. But in our era, error and vice are more attractive than truth. Truth is so constraining! That is why it is often undesirable to participate in public debates between Catholics and the enemies of Catholicism. Truth is difficult to defend and to practice; true morality is demanding. It is easier to defend freedom; the people prefer to hear this kind of talk. So to give equal rein to good and evil is tantamount to letting evil dominate. This is obvious. Even within ourselves, if we were to abandon our efforts to keep evil from growing within us, and if we gave free rein to our instincts, what would we become? It is the same thing in the family and in society.