Random Thoughts
Michael Davies
MY FIRST THOUGHT this month is that a good number of readers must think that I am thoughtless, even rude! This thought occurred to me after I opened a bulky packet from Dickinson. It contained an assortment of letters addressed to me—dating back as far as 1983! Having paid several visits to the offices of The Angelus Press I am not surprised that this happened, only surprised that I actually received them at all. I have always presumed that some sort of system must prevail there, but I have never been able to discover what it is. I will try to reply to at least some of these letters in coming months.
Early in March a letter from an Angelus reader in Trinidad did reach me safely—possibly because it had been sent directly to my home address. It enclosed an article by a gentleman called Patrick Solomon which appeared in the Trinidad Sunday Express on 17 February 1985. Mr. Solomon's article dealt with the visit of Pope John Paul II to the West Indies, and he wished to convey to his readers various aspects of the Holy Father's character:
As a human being, as a priest, as a shepherd, he can be loving, caring, tender, compassionate. He can weep genuine tears at the sight of poverty and suffering; he can hug to his breast little children with a love that perhaps their natural parents cannot exceed, but as a soldier of Christ he can be tough and unyielding and inflexible in dealing with those who would challenge authority or seek to dilute the faith inherited from the Apostles. As a man he can do no more. As a pope he can do no less.
All good stirring stuff. Mr. Solomon is not a man to content himself with generalities. He feels able and more than willing to prove the truth of what he says to the readership of the Sunday Express. In order to illustrate the Pope's "tough, unyielding and inflexible nature," he provided an example of its application to a specific case—that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Mr. Solomon felt that his readers would appreciate a little background information on the Archbishop before describing the tough, unyielding, and inflexible manner in which the Pope dealt with his case.
Archbishop Lefebvre first came to notice in the closing stages of Vatican II when he publicly denounced its decision (sic) and in particular the new Mass. A proud, arrogant traditionalist he maintained that only the Tridentine Mass was legal and he wrote, spoke and gave press interviews in the most vicious terms condemning the actions of Pope Paul VI and the Vatican Council.
This is equally stirring stuff, though not totally accurate! The Archbishop had come to notice well before the Second Vatican Council had been convoked. He is certainly one of the greatest missionary bishops of the century; he was appointed Apostolic Delegate to all French-speaking Africa where he is still regarded with affection and even veneration. During a recent visit to Gabon (January, 1985) he was received warmly by Cardinal Thiandoum and President Omar-Albert Bongo at Libreville, and was a guest at Archbishop's House during his stay in the city. The President put his private car and plane at the Archbishop's disposal, and Mgr. Lefebvre was permitted to explain his case on national T.V., when, to the best of my knowledge, he did not make any vicious attacks on anyone! As a matter of fact, again to the best of my knowledge, Mgr. Lefebvre has never made a vicious attack upon anyone and, having written two long books about him which involved a close study of his sermons, writings and speeches, I have never found an instance of his using anything but the most respectful language concerning the reigning Pope.
The Archbishop often has to speak out on controversial matters and the manner in which he does so was explained in some advice he gave to his seminarians after a long interview with Pope Paul VI: "Because we have the conviction that we are upholding Truth, Truth must plot our course, Truth must convince. It is not our person, it is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to Truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the Truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of the Truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing! And little by little that Truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error. Absolute firmness, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord—it is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake—not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is Truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens."
I would be very interested to see the texts of those interviews given by the Archbishop, in vicious or any other terms, during the closing stages of the Council in which he denounced the New Mass! The Council concluded in 1965, and the New Mass was not promulgated until 1969. The Archbishop was, at that time, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, the largest missionary order in the world. In a letter to the priests of that society written at the time, he actually commended the type of reform he envisaged emerging from the Liturgy Constitution of the Council, a document which he signed. Like most other Council Fathers, he imagined there would be no more than a few minor modifications which would leave the Mass virtually unchanged. Cardinal Heenan of England has testified that Pope John XXIII and the Council Fathers had no idea what the so-called liturgical experts were planning.
Mr. Solomon continues:
He started seminaries and ordained new priests (presumably young men supportive of his own ideas) and threatened to consecrate new bishops.
What actually happened was that when the Archbishop realized the extent to which liberal ideas had penetrated the Holy Ghost Fathers he resigned rather than engage in a protracted conflict. He is not a man who enjoys controversy. He agreed to take charge of the spiritual formation of some young men studying for the priesthood, and eventually realized that this would be of no avail if they learned their theology in a university permeated with liberalism. With the full permission of the local bishop in Switzerland he established a new society of priests and established a seminary at Ecône. This seminary won the praise of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy for its fidelity to the norms established by Vatican II, and a letter of commendation was received from Cardinal Wright. This does not quite correspond with Mr. Solomon's account, but the difference is that I can produce documentation to support all my assertions whereas he most certainly could not. Where, for example, are the texts of the speeches in which the Archbishop threatened to consecrate bishops?—in the plural, I note.
Mr. Solomon continues:
Pope Paul VI, fearful of schism, tried conciliation and failed. The first John Paul did not live long enough to deal with the issue and it eventually fell squarely in the lap of his successor.
The clear impression given here is that Pope Paul VI was faced with the establishment of an illegal seminary, and that he behaved in a conciliatory manner. What really happened is that the seminary was such a success that it was soon full of young men, principally from France where the seminaries were rapidly emptying. Archbishop Lefebvre's traditional seminary was a standing reproach to the methods adopted by the French Bishops which had resulted in a 83% decline in their own seminaries. They brought pressure to bear on Pope Paul VI to close Ecône, and an attempt was made to do so by methods which did not simply violate accepted canonical norms but every principle of natural justice. The Archbishop, as he had every right to do, resisted. He offered to close his seminary if ordered to do so after due canonical process. Such a process is a fundamental right of every Catholic, but it was denied to the Archbishop.
Mr. Solomon then regales his readers with a most remarkable account of the meeting between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II:
Apparently the Archbishop expected to defy the current Pontiff as he had so successfully defied Paul VI, but he was in for a shock. John Paul lectured him sternly for ten minutes. When Lefebvre tried to interrupt he was sternly commanded to be silent.
The Pope threatened to excommunicate him, even before he left the Vatican, if he did not undertake to discontinue his illegal activities especially his virulent attacks on the Church which were even more damning than his flagrant disobedience to Papal authority. If he refused to accept current Catholic thinking he could remain in splendid isolation, in his Swiss retreat but must on no account continue his public attacks, written or oral. Finally, Lefebvre was enjoined to ensure that his followers should also cease to promote doctrines contrary to church teachings, else they too, would face excommunication.
The rebel prelate, shocked and ashen-faced at this uncompromising use of spiritual power, which ground his own stubbornness into the dust and which no one had dared to use against him before, stood silent and motionless for a moment and then surrendered to the inevitable.
I stated that this is a remarkable account. Its remarkable nature derives principally from the fact that there is not a word of truth in it— from beginning to end! Mr. Solomon did not concoct it himself. He extracted it from a book entitled Pontiff. The authors are Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. The book was published in various countries in 1983 and extracts appeared in various secular papers. I received letters at that time from Catholics in Ireland distressed at reading in minute, lurid, but totally fictional detail, the fantasies the authors had concocted concerning Mgr. Lefebvre. The publisher's blurb informs us that the two stalwart authors have collaborated on nine books in seventeen years. A photograph depicts them collaborating in St. Peter's Square. It is claimed that thirty-four million copies of their books have been sold in thirty-six countries and that four of their books have been made into movies. I note that one of their productions is entitled The Day the World Ended. I have no doubt that anyone with nothing better to do than seek out the book would find that it provided an eye-witness account of this interesting event, but that the authors "did not wish to reveal their sources." If there is a characteristic feature of the writing of Messrs. Thomas and Morgan-Witt it is not wishing to reveal their sources. I have no doubt that their wills will stipulate that they shall be buried together beneath a common tombstone inscribed with the words "They did not reveal their sources."
Mr. Patrick Solomon, that dedicated Thomas-Morgan-Witts disciple, was most impressed by their account of the papal conclave in which Pope John Paul II was elected. This account included, mirabile dictu, precise voting figures for each of the ballots! They managed to do this, writes Mr. Solomon, profoundly impressed, "through sources that must of necessity remain anonymous." Ah ha!
Mr. Solomon was equally impressed by the account of the Pope's meeting with Mgr. Lefebvre, described in such graphic detail by the authors "again concealing their sources." But Mr. Solomon deprived the readers of the Sunday Express of perhaps the choicest morsel in the Thomas- Morgan-Witts account of the meeting. This is its dramatic, or, rather, melodramatic conclusion. The Pope has concluded his denunciation of the Archbishop; there is a "dazed look on Lefebvre's face." How will the Archbishop react? During his thirty-six hour drive from Switzerland Mgr. Lefebvre had sat "proudly and defiantly erect." Being so proud, the authors tell us, he had barely spoken to his chauffeur during the drive!
The man does not mind; for him it is a privilege just to be in the presence of the prelate he venerates even more than the Pope. He is one of twenty drivers ready, willing and able, at any time, and at their own expense, to carry Lefebvre anywhere in Europe he wishes to go in order to voice his objections, celebrate his illegal Masses and to continue to challenge the authority of the man he will shortly face, John Paul. It is a confrontation which makes the chauffeur tingle with apprehension. He is both bewildered and overawed that his passenger can remain so stoically clam. Not even since joining up with their two-car escort on the outskirts of Rome for the last stage of this historic journey has the Archbishop shown a flicker of emotion. His face, for all his frailty, is set and resolute. No one, thinks the chauffeur, not even the Polish Pope, will shake the determination of Marcel Lefebvre.
Well, this is certainly good stirring stuff, the sort of stuff, perhaps, which Shakespeare told us dreams are made of. I particularly like the bits where we are told what the chauffeur was thinking and where the Archbishop didn't show a flicker of emotion. I need scarcely add that the authors did not disclose their sources of information here, or for the existence of the twenty selfless drivers. I wonder what made them pick on the figure of twenty? Why could it not have been forty, a hundred, or even two hundred or two thousand? But, as I have just remarked, it is the melodramatic conclusion to the meeting between the Pope and the Archbishop which is the choicest morsel in the account.
The chauffeur had imagined that not even the Pope could shake the resolution of Marcel Lefebvre, but, basing themselves on sources which must, of necessity, remain anonymous, the authors show that his confidence in the proud, defiantly erect, stoically calm, non-emotion flickering prelate had been misplaced. Perhaps the chauffeur is now disillusioned, and there are now only nineteen members of what the authors describe as "an elite corps known as the Chauffeurs de Monseigneur." Who can tell? As in all good melodrama, there is what is known as a pregnant pause at the conclusion of the interview. And then, on page 367, our suspense is ended. All is revealed at last. Basing themselves on their tried and trusted anonymous sources, the authors tell us that:
The Pope had fallen silent. The minutes dragged on. Then in little more than a whisper, Marcel Lefebvre capitulated. He would remain secluded and silent in his lonely Swiss seminary.
John Paul took him by the arm and gently ushered him to the door.
And that, we can presume, was that. The Archbishop had capitulated and hasn't been seen or heard of since. I would imagine that the thousands of Angelus readers who will have just seen the Archbishop in the United States the month before reading this will be somewhat surprised. They will wonder how he can possibly be visiting the U.S.A., and many other countries, celebrating the traditional Mass, administering the Sacraments of Confirmation and Ordination, and inspiring the faithful to remain true to Tradition, when he is a crushed man remaining silent and secluded in his lonely Swiss seminary? How indeed! This is a problem which certainly needs investigation, and who better to do so than those veteran ace investigative reporters—Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. Perhaps some readers will ask them to write yet another book to solve the problem for us.
A Fictitious Journey
The authors' account of the Archbishop's journey to Rome is quite fascinating. He traveled there in only thirty-six hours in a Mercedes saloon, and on arriving at the Vatican, its silver paintword "was coated with the dust and mud of some seven hundred kilometers of travel." In actual fact, the Archbishop had already been staying in Rome for a week at his seminary at Albano. He arrived at the Vatican in the car of a secretary appointed by Cardinal Siri in order to help preserve the confidentiality of the meeting. The account in Pontiff is somewhat different:
At the Arch of the Bells news film cameramen, photographers, and reporters await their arrival. Informed of the meeting, they have assembled, as they have so often in the past thirteen years of Lefebvre's rebellion, in the confident expectation that when he emerges from the Vatican he will tell them how he trounced this pope—just as he had so many times defeated Paul and would have undoubtedly have triumphed over Gianpaolo.1
Lefebvre motions the driver to stop. The Archbishop rolls down the window, ignores the reporters' questions and stares bleakly into the cameras. Satisfied that the moment has been recorded, he closes the window and orders the chauffeur to drive on.
One must certainly admire the authors' attention to detail, e.g., noting the Archbishop wound down the window himself, that when he stared into the cameras his expression was bleak. We are even told what the reporters were thinking. While one must commend the zealous pair for providing these little details, which certainly help to bring their account to life, one must, perhaps, introduce a slight note of criticism in view of the fact that every word in this account is a complete fabrication. There were no newsmen, no cameramen, no reporters, no windows opened by anyone, and no bleak stares into non-existent cameras.
There is an equally fascinating, but equally fictitious account of the preliminaries to the meeting. Archbishop Lefebvre is accompanied by Cardinals Siri and Oddi—two really bad guys! Cardinal Siri's face is a mask, and Cardinal Oddi "is even more of a Catholic extremist than Siri." They have sponsored the meeting and actually told the Archbishop "what he should say, and how and when he should say it." They join the Pope and the Archbishop for coffee and cookies before the meeting. These were served on a side table and the talk was "small and stilted." They wait for the Archbishop, and when, after fifteen minutes, he emerges crushed, they drive away with him in a convoy which accelerates past the media waiting outside. I hope that neither Mr. Patrick Solomon, nor the two authors whom he admires so greatly, will be too offended if I introduce another critical note here. It just so happens that neither Cardinal Siri nor Cardinal Oddi accompanied the Archbishop to the Vatican, neither was present before or after the audience with mask-like (or any other) expressions, and neither had the opportunity of munching any Vatican cookies, which, had there been any (which there were not), and had the Cardinals been present to munch them (which they were not), they would no doubt have enjoyed. Similarly, they were unable to witness the emergence of the crushed Archbishop since he wasn't crushed and they weren't there, and not being there they couldn't speed past the non-existent media in a non-existent convoy!
A Non-Event
There are numerous other references to the Archbishop in Pontiff. At the best they are distorted accounts of events which did take place, and at the worst of events which didn't happen, in which case I presume, the account could not be distorted. But perhaps the most remarkable incident in the entire book relates not to Mgr. Lefebvre but to Hans Küng. In what must certainly be the journalistic scoop of the century, basing themselves on sources which they do not disclose, the authors describe Küng's appearance before the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
With a speed which astonished everyone—not least Küng—he was ordered to Rome, escorted to the third floor of the forbidding Doctrine of the Faith building and paraded before its officials. They listened and swiftly pronounced. Unusually, the verdict was released through the Vatican Press Office, a certain sign John Paul II wished the world to learn the fate of Hans Küng. He was "no longer a Catholic theologian, nor able to function in such a teaching role."
The reason I have described this account as the journalistic scoop of the century is that such was the contempt of Hans Küng for the Holy See that he refused to go to Rome when summoned! Hence, he was never escorted to the third floor of the Doctrine of Faith building, forbidding or otherwise; and hence his case was not listened to swiftly or lethargically or at any speed in between.
The Judgment of Solomon
I hope that what I have written in this article will be sufficient to convince Mr. Patrick Solomon that not a word written by Messers. Thomas and Morgan-Witts can be taken seriously. Even if he could write to them and persuade them to reveal the mysterious source from which they derived their account of Hans Küng's appearance before the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it would still not carry too great a degree of conviction as the event did not take place. I have no doubt that one of our readers in Trinidad will bring this article to the attention of Mr. Solomon, and I hope that, as a journalist of more integrity than Messers. Thomas and Morgan-Witts, he will inform the readers of the Sunday Express that the account he gave them, in all good faith, of the meeting between Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was totally false. When he does so, The Angelus will certainly bring his retraction to the notice of its readers.
An Alternative Account
Fortunately, an exact account of Archbishop Lefebvre's meeting with Pope John Paul II is available in Volume II of my book, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. It was given to me by a source I am able to name, by someone I am able to prove was an eye-witness—Archbishop Lefebvre himself. The only respect in which it corresponds with the account given in Pontiff is that a meeting did take place.
In order to anticipate one possible objection, I will answer the question as to how I am sure that the Pontiff account is fabricated and the Archbishop's is not.
Firstly, as there are other incidents in Pontiff which are complete fabrications we have little reason to put much confidence in anything the authors write. Secondly, although one may not agree with all Archbishop Lefebvre's opinions, even his most vociferous opponents have not questioned his total integrity. In a book attacking Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Jean Anzevui, had the honesty to pay him this tribute:
During his thirty year apostolate in Africa the role of Mgr. Lefebvre was of the very highest importance. His fellow missionaries still remember his extraordinary missionary zeal which was revealed in his exceptional abilities as an organizer and a man of action. He persuaded a number of congregations which had previously shown no interest in the missions to undertake work in Africa. He was responsible for the construction of large numbers of churches and the foundation of charitable works of every kind . . . they are all agreed in recognizing his magnificent career, his courtesy, his affability, his natural and simple distinction, the dignity of his perfect life, his austerity, his piety and his absolute devotion to any task which he undertook.
It is also quite inconceivable that during delicate negotiations intended to bring about a rapprochement between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, the Archbishop would have given an inaccurate account of his meeting with the Holy Father. Had he done so what credibility would he have had in the eyes of the Pope? He has also since written to the Pope referring in detail to their meeting, which he could hardly have done had he misrepresented what took place.
Unfortunately, although the falsehoods in Pontiff are even more blatant than usual in reporting on the Archbishop they are not untypical. Catholic journals are often more dishonest than their secular counterparts in their reports. It is far easier to defame someone, to destroy his reputation, than to restore it. The Pontiff account will have been read by hundreds of thousands of Catholics, either in the book itself or in extracts reprinted in newsletters. It will not be possible for those of us who wish to put the record straight to reach even a fraction of that number. One step which can be taken is for readers of The Angelus to attempt to persuade their public libraries to purchase copies of both volumes of the Apologia. This has been done with considerable success by traditionalists in England.
I am sure that any readers who have not yet read Volume II will find the account of the meeting between Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Lefebvre as fascinating as I did when I compiled the book.
An Offer You Can't Refuse!
In order to end on a more positive note, I would like to assure readers that the advertisement on page 26 of the April issue is absolutely genuine. Howard Walsh of Keep the Faith is willing to provide anyone who asks him with a beautiful video recording of the Tridentine Mass in which, despite a few technical imperfections, "the awesome splendor of the Immemorial Mass shines through, undiminished in all its sacred majesty." Many of those who have seen it have been quite overwhelmed, particularly those who have never been to a Tridentine Mass, or have not assisted at one for many years. Please take advantage of this unique and generous offer, and persuade as many of your friends as possible to see it with you. If you don't have a VCR, Keep the Faith can provide one at the lowest possible price. You may call them at (201) 423-5395, and ask for their video department. I should add that the tape costs Keep the Faith $35 a time to produce—if you can afford to send a donation to cover all or part of this cost, please do. But if you can't, ask for it free. This really is a genuine offer with no string attached— not a Thomas-Morgan-Witts fantasy!
1. I.e., John Paul II. The authors are evidently on a first-name basis with the Pope.
Current Issue
