The Ratzinger Report,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Ignatius Press, 1985).
Available from The Angelus
Press, Box 1387, Dickinson,
Texas 77539 at $10.00.

IF ASKED WHICH PRELATE the liberals who are destroying the Church dislike the most—and fear the most—it is probable that most traditional Catholics would answer, "Archbishop Lefebvre." They would certainly be wrong. The answer the liberals would give in at least 99% of cases is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many traditional Catholics today read only traditional publications such as The Remnant, The Angelus or The Maryfaithful, and, not surprisingly, tend to see events in the Church from within a traditionalist perspective. But, alas, the interest that we show in ourselves is shared by very few outside our movement. "What do you British think about the American presidential campaign?" an American reporter asked an English counterpart some years ago. "We don't," was the answer he received. If traditionalists are not to become totally introverted and develop a sectarian mentality we must keep ourselves informed of what is going on in the Church outside our ranks.

I have made this point as a result of several very critical letters I received after reviewing Msgr. Kelly's book, Battle for the American Church. I mentioned in the review that he manifested considerable hostility towards Archbishop Lefebvre and Hamish Fraser, and had very little sympathy for the traditionalist position. Some readers, who probably had not read his book, think that I should not have recommended it. They evidently did not appreciate the purpose for which I began this series of reviews. I did so in response to a request from a young Angelus reader for a reading list he could draw upon in order to assist him in his objective of becoming an effective apologist for the traditionalist movement. There is, alas, a dearth of effective traditionalist apologists, young ones in particular. Anyone involved with traditionalist publications knows how hard it is to get original material which will stand up to criticism from those who disagree with us. A writer who wishes to put forward a convincing and intellectually credible case needs to be clear about the point he is trying to put across and at whom his article is aimed. He then needs to arrange his arguments coherently and, where necessary, provide documentation to back them up. It will be far more effective if we can prove our point by quoting non-traditionalist sources. This is particularly true when trying to show conservative Catholics that they can only uphold Tradition effectively by adopting the traditionalist position. I have made this point on many occasions, and it seems so self-evidently true that I am puzzled at the failure of some traditionalists to appreciate it. If, for example, we mention that the documents of Vatican II contain ambiguities, and are challenged to cite an authority, we are unlikely to make much of an impact by naming Archbishop Lefebvre. Certainly, this is unjust. The Archbishop was a member of the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council and was active throughout the debates. It would be hardly possible to cite anyone more competent to give an objective evaluation. But injustice abounds in the world and has done so since the fall of man. It might well be worth explaining the injustice of traditional Catholics having their views disregarded simply because they are traditional, but not within an article which is intended to prove that the documents of Vatican II contain ambiguities. In this respect a quotation from Msgr. Kelly would carry a great deal of weight, and it could then be shown that his judgment coincides with that of the Archbishop, as do the judgments of many other authorities on this point.

This brings me to the subject of the book under review. It is almost certainly the most important book yet published on the post-conciliar crisis. This is not so much because of its content but due to the eminence of its author. Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has direct responsibility, under the Pope, for the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy. His views will be particularly interesting for traditional Catholics as he has also been charged by the Pope to conduct discussions with Mgr. Lefebvre in the hope of healing the breach between the Vatican and the Archbishop. Much of their correspondence will appear in Volume III of the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre which, I hope, will be published next year.

The Ratzinger Report is the text of a protracted interview with an Italian journalist named Vittorio Messori. A weakness of the book is that it is not always clear on a first reading whether Messori is quoting his own opinions or quoting the Cardinal. The book contains several derogatory comments concerning Mgr. Lefebvre and traditional Catholics, but these come from Messori. The Cardinal does not accept the traditionalist position, so well expressed by Mgr. Lefebvre, that our future lies in our past. But he speaks of traditional Catholics in a manner that is usually courteous and conciliatory. On p. 31 Messori refers to that "integralist traditionalism quintessentially symbolized by the old Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre." He claims that "if Rome has intervened with respect to the 'left,' it has not yet intervened with respect to the 'right' with the same vigor."

In his reply the Cardinal states: "The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre assert the very opposite. They contend that whereas there was an immediate intervention in the case of the respected retired Archbishop with the harsh punishment of suspension, there is an incomprehensible toleration of every kind of deviation from the other side." He adds that: "Clearly everything possible must be done to prevent this movement giving rise to a schism peculiar to it that would come into being whenever Msgr. Lefebvre should decide to consecrate a bishop which, thank God, in the hope of a reconciliation, he has not yet done" (p. 32).

Messori objects that the Archbishop has ordained priests and continues to do so. The Cardinal answers that the Archbishop's young men are true priests, although in an irregular situation, and that many have been motivated by disillusionment with the present-day Church and the "unsatisfactory situation that has arisen in the seminaries in many countries" (p. 33).

Erroneous Paths and Catastrophic Consequences

I stated earlier that 99% of Catholic liberals would certainly regard Cardinal Ratzinger as their greatest enemy. Firstly, they cannot forgive him for providing an analysis of the state of contemporary Catholicism which coincides almost exactly with that put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre. According to the liberals we are in the midst of an unprecedented renewal, a second Pentecost which makes the first one appear to be no more than an insignificant non-event. This was the view put forward by the bishops of such countries as Britain and the U.S.A. at the 1985 extraordinary synod in Rome. Cardinal Ratzinger will have none of this. "It is incontestable that the last ten years have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church" (p. 29). He adds that: "It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths whose catastrophic consequences are already incontestable" (p. 30). Incontestable? I am sure that almost every bishop in the English-speaking world would contest this statement. Erroneous paths and catastrophic consequences? If the Cardinal is correct then all these bishops have been living a lie for the past twenty years. The response to the Cardinal's analysis has been furious and frequently abusive. Professor Fergus Kerr, O.P., an English Dominican theologian, has termed it an example of a "long boring tradition of hyped-up panic mongering hyperbole…an oratorical fantasy populated with straw men and bugaboos." In somewhat more polite terms The Tablet attacked him for his negative and pessimistic attitude to the post-conciliar "renewal."

Cardinal Ratzinger deals in great detail with many of the erroneous ideas concerning faith and morals which have become the prevailing orthodoxy for the contemporary liberal establishment. He has no doubt that Satan is at work in the Church today, and that Satan is a "real, personal and not merely symbolical presence. He is a powerful reality ('the prince of this world,' as he is called by the New Testament, which continually reminds us of his existence)" (p. 138).

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a timely and scholarly document on the subject of Satan in 1975. It is available in Volume II of the Flannery Collection: Vatican Council II. This volume contains many excellent orthodox documents published by this Congregation of which many traditional Catholics appear unaware.

Liturgical Mediocrity

The chapter on the liturgy contains much with which the traditional Catholic will agree, and much that he can quote to his advantage. We have, he claims, "made the liturgy into a do-it-yourself patchwork and trivialized it, adapting it to our own mediocrity" (p. 127). The state of the liturgy, he explains, provides "one of the clearest examples of the contrast between what the authentic text of Vatican II says and the way in which it has been understood and applied" (p. 122). "The surrender of the beautiful" has in fact resulted in a "pastoral defeat" (p. 128). "More and more clearly we can discern the frightening impoverishment which takes place when people show beauty the door and devote themselves exclusively to 'utility.' Experience has shown that the retreat to 'intelligibility for all,' taken as the sole criterion, does not really make liturgies more intelligible and more open but only poorer" (p. 128). The Cardinal is making a very radical criticism here as "utility" and "intelligibility" are the two axioms upon which contemporary worship is based in the U.S.A. and other English-speaking countries. The people must "understand" every word that is sung or spoken and must sing only the type of music the self-appointed experts consider related to their culture, what the Cardinal describes as "'utility music,' songs, easy melodies, catchy tunes." On the same principle one might confine the literary education of high school pupils to Batman and Mickey Spillane. The liturgical experts do not believe in raising the hearts and minds of the people to God through the riches of the Church's spiritual, musical and artistic treasury, but in reducing the spiritual to the mediocre level of popular culture. Apart from the cultural and spiritual impoverishment which this inevitably causes, it is insulting to the ordinary Catholic to insinuate that he does not possess the capacity to appreciate the beautiful, and that he will feel alienated in Church if he does not worship with the same type of music which is pumped out all day from his local rock station. I recollect an article in The Angelus by Father Laisney in which he mentioned the delight of the natives of a Pacific island which he visited briefly when he arranged for them to be able to sing a Mass with plain-song.

Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

The Cardinal states that he favors a genuine liturgical pluralism within the Church which would enable those Catholics who so wished to use the Tridentine Mass, "provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed" (p. 124).

The Drama of Morality

Traditional Catholics will find themselves in agreement with the Cardinal's strictures on the moral collapse of the West in his sixth chapter. At the root of the problem he sees a rupture of "the indissoluble bond between sexuality and motherhood." Once the link is broken between sexuality and motherhood and procreation "it logically follows that every form of sexuality is equivalent and of equal worth" and "it naturally follows that all forms of sexual gratification are transformed into the 'rights' of the individual' Thus, to cite an especially current example, homosexuality becomes an inalienable right" (p. 85).

The Cardinal has not been content simply to theorize on these matters but has taken action, however inadequate it may appear, against Charles Curran and Archbishop Hunthausen. This initiative has made him the victim of a concerted campaign of vilification, depicting him as a contemporary Torquemada (which, incidentally, is just what the Church needs!). It is probable that further action will follow with Father Richard McBrien being a likely candidate. It is interesting to note that Fathers Curran and McBrien, and Archbishop Hunthausen were all featured in the Angelus series: "A Letter to the Apostolic Delegate on Heresy and Schism in America."

The Myth of the Real Council

It should be evident by now that The Ratzinger Report is an invaluable source for traditional Catholics wishing to expose the extent of the post-conciliar debacle within the Church. It also provides a useful restatement of many basic doctrinal and moral teachings which are being questioned today by theologians holding prominent positions within the Catholic establishment. I regret that in his personal capacity as a theologian, and not in his capacity as Prefect of the Congregation, he would be prepared to abandon the doctrine of Limbo (p. 147). It has never been, as he correctly states, a defined doctrine of the Church, but there is a sound and long-established tradition positing its existence.

There is, however, one great weakness in the Cardinal's outlook. Perhaps a glaring weakness might be a more accurate description. It is the weakness that vitiates the entire conservative Catholic case, and makes the position of such organizations as CUF ineffective in helping overcome the present crisis. As I have explained, the Cardinal's assessment of the present state of the Church is virtually identical with that of Archbishop Lefebvre. He even goes as far as quoting a comment that the Church of the post-conciliar period is a huge construction site "where the blueprint has been lost and everyone continues to build according to his taste. The result is evident" (p. 30).

The result is evident indeed! And what is the Cardinal's solution? It is here that a radical incompatibility between his position and that of the Archbishop emerges. Mgr. Lefebvre would certainly agree that the post-conciliar Church resembles a building site without a blueprint, and he would maintain that the missing blueprint must be sought in almost two thousand years of tradition. The blueprint for authentic Catholicism can be found in the traditional Scriptures, the traditional liturgy, the traditional doctrine, and the traditional moral teaching. It can be found in the traditional way of life of the religious orders, in traditional ascetic practices such as fasting and abstinence, in devotion to Our Lady and the saints, and in a fearless and uncompromising affirmation of the Catholic Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the one, true Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ to continue His work until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

Cardinal Ratzinger also wishes to uphold true tradition, but he locates it in a different source: "…to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council….We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not to the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them" (p. 31).

On several occasions he returns to this theme, i.e., that the solution to the present crisis is to discover the true Vatican II and to return to the real Council which exists only in its official documents.

The Cardinal nowhere explains that Vatican II is unique among general councils in that within twenty years of its closure the Catholic faithful need to return to the real Council and away from a ubiquitous spirit of the Council with fruits which contradict everything the real Council was meant to achieve. There was never any need to return to the real Council of Florence, the real Council of Trent, the real Vatican I, because there was never the least doubt as to cthe teaching and objectives of these Councils.

The Ratzinger Report is an essential weapon in the armory of every serious traditionalist, if only for the Cardinal's admissions that the fruits of the real Council have never appeared: "It must also be admitted that, in respect to the whole Church, the prayer of Pope John that the Council signify a new leap forward, to renewed life and unity, has not—at least not yet—been granted" (pp. 41-42). "At least not yet…" But return to the Council, urges the Cardinal, and these fruits may appear. Why should they? If they didn't appear twenty years ago why and how can we expect them to appear now? Why not admit that the Council was flawed? The Cardinal states correctly that one cannot accept Vatican II but reject Trent and Vatican I, as some liberals do, and, on the other hand, one cannot accept Trent and Vatican I, but reject Vatican II as some traditionalists do. "Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundations. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme form" (pp. 28-9).

The Cardinal is correct. No one claiming to be a Catholic can repudiate Vatican II which was, without doubt, a bona fide general council. But while accepting that Vatican II was a bona fide general council, every Catholic has the right to accept its teaching with only that degree of respect due to the theological status of that teaching. Unlike previous general councils, Vatican II did not propose infallible teachings the acceptance of which were a sine qua non for the claim to be a true Catholic. They come to us only as documents of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church which must be received prayerfully and respectfully, but do not bind us in conscience where they teach any novelty. A Catholic who attributes to the Council that level of authority which its documents demand is by no means denying Vatican II, but simply accepting it for what it is. When the Cardinal claims that we must accept Vatican II just as we must accept previous general councils, he is correct, but as a professional theologian, he must know very well that we have no obligation to accept the teaching authority of Vatican II as equivalent to that of previous general councils. This is a distinction which he should have made in this book and on other occasions, but it is one which he has not made and cannot make without exploding the myth of the so-called "real Council" which holds the solution to the contemporary crisis. "If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible" (p. 37). The appropriate response to this claim is: "Why not?" I hope I will not be accused of trivializing an important subject if I say that the Coca-Cola company did it, so why can't the Church? The old brand is now on the market again under the name: "Classic Coke." Why can't we go back to classic Catholicism? This is precisely what a restoration entails. Are the children of light to be less wise in their generation than the children of this world?

Having said this, I will repeat once more that The Ratzinger Report is a book which every serious traditionalist must own. It is, paradoxically, invaluable both for its strengths and its weaknesses. Both serve to illuminate the strength of the traditionalist position. I would like to close with a request. My impression of Cardinal Ratzinger derived both from his book and his correspondence with Archbishop Lefebvre which will appear in Apologia III, is that he is an orthodox and profoundly devout Catholic with a deep love for Our Lord and His Church. He and Mgr. Lefebvre are fighting the same fight, but their assessment of the most effective means for victory is, at present, incompatible. When each day you pray for the Archbishop, as I am sure every reader of this journal does, please add a prayer for Cardinal Ratzinger who needs all the spiritual support we can give him in his efforts to fulfill his high office and uphold orthodoxy. Please pray that eventually he and Mgr. Lefebvre will find the way to a reconciliation which will enable them to work together for a restoration of Catholic Tradition.