November 1990 Print

Michael Davies

B. A. SANTAMARIA is undoubtedly the most outstanding Australian Catholic layman of this century. He is distinguished not simply for his devotion to the faith and his outstanding intellect, but for the integrity which invariably prompts him to give his honest opinion on controversial issues. When Archbishop Lefebvre visited Australia in 1981, Bob Santamaria wrote a column which contrasted dramatically with the ignorance and animosity of other Catholic journalists. He made it clear that the Archbishop was not motivated by a nostalgic attachment to traditional liturgical forms but by a consciousness that the "inner core of the basic beliefs which Catholics have held since time immemorial were being undermined. Neo-modernists, he pointed out, were emptying the faith of its supernatural content, making religion nothing more than a form of secular "do-goodism" or quasi-marxist politics. Mr. Santamaria continued:

The cost of the disintegration of Christianity, to which Archbishop Lefebvre points, is that by far the larger part of the Dutch Catholic Church is either in schism or has abandoned essential beliefs, the number of regularly and irregularly practicing Catholics in France fell from 66 per cent in 1966 to 31 per cent in 1977; in Australia, those who had been to Mass in the last seven days fell from 54 per cent in 1961 to 36 per cent in 1980, and the Italian referendums which have twice legalized abortion could not have been carried out without the defection from Catholicism of large numbers of previously Catholic men and women.

The inconvenient Archbishop Lefebvre will go away: but these problems will not, until they are correctly identified, not as "renewal" but as disintegration. It is only then that the task of restoration can begin.

Mr. Santamaria is making two points here. Firstly, he claims that a state of de facto schism exists in certain western countries. Father Kenneth Baker, Editor of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, had no hesitation in identifying the United States as one of those countries in or approaching a state of de facto schism. He stated in his January 1983 editorial, that "a major trend in this country is toward an American Church, that is, a Church separate and independent from Rome... Another way of saying this is that we are becoming more Protestant all the time. By that I mean rejection of a hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ, primacy of the subjective conscience, and absolutizing Scripture to the neglect of Tradition." If Father Baker received a challenge to justify this allegation he could cite the December 1981 issue of his journal which contained what is possibly the most important article yet written on the state of post-conciliar Catholicism in the United States. It was entitled "The Plight of the Papist Priest," and the author, one of America's best known priest scholars, had to remain anonymous for fear of persecution. I wrote a detailed analysis of this article for the April 1982 Angelus, and I summarized its principal arguments under eleven headings. Their validity is even more incontestable today than when the article first appeared in 1981. The seventh of the points, "The situation is certain to worsen," has proved to be depressingly accurate. The eleven points read:

1) Many (probably most) dioceses are ruled by bishops who are either Modernists or who acquiesce to a Modernist control of their diocese.

2) Modernists have a "lock-tight control" of the diocesan bureaucracy.

3) Priests who are loyal to the Pope have been reduced a minority of one-eighth of the diocesan clergy.

4) These priests are isolated, ridiculed, and have no hope of advancement.

5) Most seminaries are totally Modernist and the students who are ordained are totally programmed Modernists.

6) Modernist influence is particularly dominant in the fields of liturgy, catechetics and the diocesan press.

7) The situation is certain to worsen.

8) Many (most) American dioceses are totally alienated from the Holy See.

9) Given the present process of consultation prior to episcopal appointments, there is no possibility of orthodox priests being promoted to the episcopate.

10) There appears to be no hope whatsoever that Rome will take the least step or make the smallest practical gesture apropos Modernist control of the Church in most western countries.

11) There has been an almost total collapse of authority in the Church.

Mr. Santamaria's second point is that contrary to what we are told by those in authority, the Church today is in a state of disintegration rather than renewal. In stating this he does no more than echo the observation made by Father Louis Bouyer in his book, The Decomposition of Catholicism: "Unless we are blind we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition." These words were true when Father Bouyer first wrote them in 1968; they were true when B. A. Santamaria echoed them in 1981, and they are even more true today. Let just one example suffice, that of seminary enrollment. In 1960, before the great "renewal" got underway, there was a total of 39,896 students in seminaries in America. This figure had increased by 20%, to 48,992, in 1965, the year of the closure of the Second Vatican Council. The figure for 1989 is 8,394—a decline of 92 per cent. If this is a renewal, Heaven help us if a decline sets in!

It is within the context of a Church that is in a state of de facto schism in countries throughout the West that the alleged schism of Mgr. Lefebvre must be considered. A schismatic is a person who rejects the authority of the Roman Pontiff (refuses to submit to him), and who refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him. If any refusal to accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff in itself constitutes a schismatic act one wonders whether the total of non-schismatic bishops in the United States would run into double figures. For more than twenty years the bishops of the United States have systematically condoned disobedience to the Holy See and have used their enormous influence in Rome to pressure the Vatican into legalizing the rebellions which they had endorsed. One wonders whether it is a case of he who pays the piper calling the tune. The two most evident examples are those of Communion in the hand and Communion under both kinds.¹

The infestation of extraordinary ministers in sanctuaries throughout the United States makes a mockery of the Vatican guidelines regulating their use. Textbooks concerning faith and morals are mandated for Catholic schools which not only fail to teach the Faith but seriously undermine it, and in many dioceses orthodox series such as The Baltimore Catechism are actually prohibited by bishops. We are indeed witnessing the emergence of a Protestant American Church separated from Rome. And what does Rome do to protect the faithful for whose salvation it must assume the ultimate responsibility? The answer is, usually, nothing. The saddest aspect of the "Plight of the Papist Priest" article was its acceptance of the fact that priests loyal to Rome can expect no support from Rome when upholding its teachings against Modernist bishops. Time and again the faithful have appealed for help to their chief shepherd, the Vicar of Christ, and have been ignored. The Wanderer is a journal which has long been loath to print the least criticism of the Vatican, but, to its credit, it is now facing up to reality. The 9 February 1990 issue of this journal published a dramatic cri de coeur by John J. Mulloy who protested in very strong terms at what amounted to the virtual endorsement by the Vatican of the scandalous semi-pornographic New Creation Series of textbooks. The anguished parents were informed by the Vatican that such concerns should be dealt with "through the spiritual shepherd of the diocese, the bishop. In this way the spiritual development of young Catholics can best be assured and the wishes and needs of parents best fulfilled." Such a response almost defies credibility. So-called spiritual shepherds have been mandating textbooks containing sexually explicit material for children in their schools from the third grade onwards. Having read some of the passages for himself, Mr. Mulloy has no hesitation in terming this "a moral enormity." Parents who, in order to protect the purity of their children, protested to Rome, their last resort upon this earth, were told instead to make their protest to the very men perpetrating the moral enormity. It is almost as if shopkeepers who went to the police with irrefutable proof that they were being subjected to a protection racket by the mob were advised to take their complaints to the local godfather! Mr. Mulloy deserves our gratitude and our admiration for the courage and clarity with which he has analyzed the implications of the Vatican decision made through Cardinal Baum:

In other words, in the future, parents must not come to the Vatican with protests against "any texts" being used in Catholic schools in the United States. By means of this statement of Cardinal Baum, Rome seems to have washed its hands of all responsibility for any texts, whether of sex education or any other kind, which the local bishop sees fit to use in his Catholic schools. Did not a certain Roman governor in first-century Palestine provide an earlier model for this kind of action of Cardinal Baum? Did not this Roman governor proclaim to the multitude, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man, see to it yourselves?" (Matt. 27:24). No doubt Cardinal Baum regards himself and his congregation as completely innocent of the blood of Catholic children who must be sacrificed on the altar of his own policy of expediency and surrender...

What is not sufficiently understood is that, by means of this decision by Cardinal Baum, the Vatican has in effect surrendered its right to have any control over the textual means by which Catholic morality is safeguarded and promoted. It has made each bishop a kind of pope in his own diocese, with no need to be concerned about whether or not the Vatican approves of what he is doing. So long as the bishop gives some empty lip service to Catholic principles, he can do what he likes when it come to his allegedly implementing those principles in actual practice. In effect, it means the abdication of papal authority over the local bishop and his diocesan bureaucrats... Of course, the ultimate beneficiaries which control episcopal policy at both the diocesan and national levels... The papal keystone has been undermined from the structure of teaching authority in the Catholic Church in America, and the whole edifice is in danger of collapsing into disjointed fragments.

Archbishop Weakland

Archbishop Weakland—Shepherd or Wolf?

On Christmas Day in the year 428, an heroic layman named Eusebius uttered a public protest at the heresy of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Too much space would be needed to recount the whole of this inspiring and fascinating story, but here is a comment upon the incident written by Dom Gueranger in his classic work, The Liturgical Year:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is, of dogma or morals.

Many examples of American shepherds who have become wolves could be cited, but rather than refer briefly to many examples it will be more effective to cite one in some detail. Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee is the example par excellence of the Modernist bishop described by the papist priest in the December 1981 Homiletic. He is a shepherd who has become a wolf.

• Archbishop Weakland permits the use of sex education programs in his diocese which could be described justly as constituting child abuse.
• The Archbishop has a task force of twelve militant feminists touring the diocese attempting to indoctrinate Catholic women with their absurd and anti-Catholic propaganda.
• The Archbishop knows very well that it is the wish of Pope John Paul II that religious sisters should wear a religious habit. The extent to which the will of the Pope is defied in this matter in his diocese is a public scandal.
• A survey of priests in the Archdiocese reveals that thirty out of forty-five interviewed were homosexual.
• In April 1983, the Archbishop endorsed what was entitled an "Ecumenical Peace Event" which featured a list of notorious left-wing speakers who gave practical advice on such subjects as civil disobedience and tax resistance.
• In his diocesan paper on 9 July 1983, he described the Eucharist as a memorial in terms that could have been composed by a sixteenth-century Protestant Reformer. He did not specifically deny Catholic teaching, but nowhere affirmed it, which amounts to an implicit denial.
• The Archbishop attended a dinner for seventy ex-priests and their wives where he made a speech which evoked great enthusiasm from them. While a bishop should show compassion and understanding to individuals who have failed to keep their ordination vows, it is intolerable that a Catholic bishop should treat such men as an organized group within the Church.
• In 1979 Bernard Cooke, a married ex-Jesuit, was invited to lecture 900 people attending the fourth annual diocesan Religious Education Congress. Lay people in the diocese protested, with every justification: "What twisted logic ordains that our teachers of religion are to be instructed by those who have rejected their commitments to God and His Church by leaving the priesthood or religious life?"
• Two other married ex-priests, Daniel Maguire and Dennis Doherty, both notorious proponents of Modernism, are also regular speakers in the Archdiocese.
• Father Charles Curran, who teaches what one respected American theologian describes as "pornology," has also been an honored speaker there. His teaching is totally incompatible with that of the Magisterium of the Church or, indeed, with the most basic Judeo-Christian concepts of sexual morality. Once again, protests by lay Catholics at this outrage were rejected with contempt.
• Not only did the Archbishop endorse the visit of Father Curran, but his Director of the Office of Religious Education stated publicly that Curran's views were in conformity with Church teaching. A man who can say this is not fit to be in charge of the education of Catholic children.
• The Archbishop sent a personal letter to all the priests of his Archdiocese urging them to attend a symposium at which two Protestant ministers would speak, Dr. Martin Marty and Dr. Michael Ramsey.
• Even more incredibly, the Archbishop wrote to his priests recommending a crusade given the Protestant evangelist, Billy Graham. He told his clergy that: "Evangelism is a gift in the Church which can be a source of grace for persons open to a deeper realization of truth." But Billy Graham is not a member of the Church, and rejects a whole series of truths basic to the Catholic Faith. How, then, can Catholics deepen their realization of the truth by listening to him? Furthermore, Archdiocesan facilities were put at the disposal of Billy Graham's staff and Catholic clergy urged to be present for indoctrination prior to the crusade.
• The Archbishop justifies the use of lay ministers of Communion even when ordained priests are available, and there is no question of the priest being infirm through age or ill health, and that the Mass will be unduly prolonged. He does it on the grounds that this reflects a renewed sense of baptismal ministry. These ministers should properly be called extraordinary ministers, and should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstances which could rarely occur in the United States. There was never any question whatsoever of these ministers being a manifestation of the "dignity of the baptized," or of some non-existent "baptismal ministry." Never at any time in the history of the Church has there been any suggestion that baptism confers the right to distribute Holy Communion. This has always been confined to the ordained priesthood, except during extreme emergencies in times of persecution or a chronic shortage of priests. Pope John Paul II has stated that distributing Holy Communion is a privilege of the ordained, and almost every case where lay ministers are used is a calculated act of defiance of the Pope.
• The Archbishop states that there is to be no distinction between men and women in selecting lay ministers. The Vatican guidelines state clearly that men must be chosen before women if they are available. He states that without the use of lay ministers the practice of Communion under both kinds could not have been enlarged. As Communion under both kinds is forbidden on Sundays, he is perpetrating one abuse to facilitate a second abuse. He states that lay ministers are indeed a blessing and a grace. In most cases, they are a public scandal.
• The Archbishop takes it upon himself to dispense Catholics in his diocese from assisting at Mass on universal Holy Days if these fall too near a Sunday, as he does not wish to inconvenience the faithful unduly on holiday weekends.
• The Archbishop says he would not actually advise Catholics to resist the draft if it is reinstated, but he asked those with conscientious objections to write to him so that their letters can be used in support of Conscientious Objectors. It has always been the consistent teaching of the Church that Catholics should be prepared to fight in defense of their country in a just war.
• The Archbishop gave his support to the notorious ERA amendment which was incompatible with the Catholic concept of respect for the exalted role of women in society. It was, thankfully, defeated largely due to the energetic opposition of Catholic women, who, unlike this trendy prelate, have not forgotten what being a Catholic means.
• The Archbishop used his diocesan paper to publish a public defense of Father Andrew Greeley, the priest who writes erotic novels and has attacked official Church teaching on a number of fundamental issues such as contraception. The Archbishop insisted upon retaining Greeley's column in the diocesan paper, despite many protests, and put tremendous pressure on his priests to insure that this deplorable journal was read in every Catholic home. The duty of a truly Catholic bishop would be to protect his people from Greeley, but this Archbishop did his best to force them to read him.
• Despite the many ex-priests and others of dubious orthodoxy invited to speak in his diocese, despite his promotion of Billy Graham, the Archbishop acted to prevent the perfectly orthodox priest, Msgr. Cage Gordon, Vicar General of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, from speaking in his diocese.



During the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, the celebrant is permitted to wash the feet of twelve men to commemorate Our Lord's washing of the feet of His Apostles. The Holy See has stated categorically that, under no circumstances, can women take part in this ceremony. Archbishop Weakland has devised his own ceremony in which he washes and then kisses the hands of women!

• On Holy Thursday 1982, instead of following the prescribed ritual of washing the feet of men or boys, the Archbishop devised a bizarre ritual of his own which involved washing and kissing the hands of women.
• The Archbishop has allowed Mass to be said in a night club with music by a polka band and the use of colored spotlights. Those wishing to receive Communion are seated at tables or at the bar.
• The Archbishop was one of the most blatant promoters of the illicit distribution of Communion under both kinds at Sunday Mass in defiance of the Pope. He refused to curtail the abuse despite the Pope's insistence in Inaestimabile Donum that it must cease. The Vatican eventually surrendered and legalized the abuse.
• The Archbishop is aware that the Pope is defied by the use of altar girls in many parishes. He takes no steps to prevent this.
• The Archbishop allows Communion to be given to Protestants in flagrant defiance of the Vatican norms forbidding this. This abuse constitutes sacrilege.
• The Archbishop allows dancing girls in the sanctuary, an outrage never tolerated at any time in the liturgy of the Church and not authorized by any Vatican document, but, indeed, specifically forbidden.
• The Archbishop has achieved public notoriety by his frequent public endorsement for so-called homosexual rights. While those addicted to this perversion should receive compassionate treatment from their confessors on an individual basis, there is no justification whatsoever for treating them as a legitimate group within the Church, or for extending any form of recognition to their organizations. The Archbishop has been singled out for praise by leaders of organized homosexual groups, which is a cause for shame and scandal for every decent Catholic in his diocese. He has even been proved to have used arguments taken directly from homosexual propaganda. He has directed his grotesquely misnamed "Office for Human Concerns" to campaign in favor of pro-homosexual legislation.
• The Archbishop intervened personally to prevent an advertisement for Father Rueda's book exposing the homosexual network from appearing in his diocesan newspaper.
• The Archbishop was determined to impose the diabolic RENEW program upon the Catholics in his Archdiocese. By September 1981, 215 out of 265 parishes were already submitting to this sophisticated system of brainwashing which can have no other effect than to destroy the Catholic identity of the participants.
• The Archbishop is a member of Pax Christi, a so-called Catholic "peace" movement—an appeasement movement would be a better description. Although probably not under direct communist control, almost all the causes it espouses are calculated to advance the interests of communism. He is showing every sign of being more interested in politics than religion, and the causes he espouses seem almost invariably to be left wing.
• Despite his sympathy for homosexuals and militant feminists, he shows nothing but hostility to traditionally-minded Catholics who complain to him about abuses. He regularly accuses them of being in bad faith, insults them, and, in one case, when some Catholic mothers complained to him about public defiance of liturgical law by a particular priest, he replied that this priest was "loyal, cooperative and obedient," unlike their own pastor who was "disloyal, and uncooperative and disobedient." It is unheard of for a Catholic bishop to denigrate one of his parish priests to members of his parish.
• Parishioners and teachers at a parish school became concerned at possible financial impropriety and homosexual advances to children within the school. The principal, a good priest, shared their concern, but was replaced. Three teachers collaborated in a letter to Archbishop Weakland warning him of the scandal that would occur if he did not intervene to protect the pupils. The Archbishop replied with the threat of a lawsuit and all three teachers were forced to resign. Shortly afterwards an assistant pastor was charged by the District Attorney with abusing one of the boys over a two year period, and the boy and his family were awarded $595,000 in damages. The priest was jailed. The three teachers who had been forced to resign lodged a six million dollar lawsuit against the Archbishop after the conviction of the priest they had complained about.
• Archbishop Weakland caused public scandal and was rebuked in secular papers for stating that the victims of homosexual priests might not necessarily be so "innocent." He was criticized by the Assistant District Attorney for perpetrating the "victim-must-share-the-blame syndrome." He added that under the law anyone under the age of sixteen "is incapable of consent" and that he had never known of a case where a child has "enticed a priest."
• Archbishop Weakland has gone to the extent of claiming that a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) stance can be compatible with the Catholic Faith.

Words Without Deeds

Let us make an effort to be totally objective. Can we, in all honesty, pretend that Archbishop Weakland is, in any meaningful sense of the word, a Catholic bishop in communion with the See of Peter? Would it not be a hypocritical pretense to consider him to be a Catholic in any sense of the word? He is a menace to the faith of every Catholic in his diocese, and not simply to their faith but to their morals. Tragically and scandalously, the Vatican itself would maintain without hesitation that Archbishop Weakland is indeed a Catholic bishop in communion with the See of Peter. The reason is, as John J. Mulloy expressed it, the Archbishop is willing to give some empty lip service to Catholic principles, and therefore he can do as he likes. The Holy See no doubt, as Mr. Mulloy commented, considers itself completely innocent of the blood of Catholic children sacrificed on the altar of its policy of expediency and surrender. Mr. Mulloy's strictures are imbued with a truly unbearable poignancy when one reads the sickening details of the abuse to which a young boy was subjected by a priest defended by Archbishop Weakland against the teachers who were prepared to endanger their livelihood to protect the innocence of their pupils.

The 7 June 1990 issue of The Wanderer carried a lead editorial by Frank Morris which was headlined: "It's Time for Archbishop Weakland's Removal." Mr. Morris was wildly inaccurate here. The time for Weakland's removal was at least twelve years ago, but let that pass. Mr. Morris explained:

Archbishop Rembert Weakland's adventure into radical feminism and its fondness for contraceptive sex or abortion grows more scandalous with every development. His 21-page statement after listening to a number of pro-abortion feminists and female dissenters from the Church's moral teaching against contraception is clearly a statement on the side of deadly fruitless advocates of immorality and against the defenders of unborn life... How close Archbishop Weakland is to self-excommunication I cannot say. But it must be made clear to Catholics everywhere that prelates who sell out the Faith for whatever reason to dissenters, malcontents, and immoralists cannot expect to hold their positions of authority. Archbishop Weakland has already lost the respect of all true Catholics. It is time he also lost his miter, crosier and cathedral.

While Mr. Morris is totally correct in maintaining that Weakland should lose his miter, crosier and cathedral, he is, unfortunately, totally incorrect in maintaining that prelates such as him cannot expect to hold their positions of authority. During the pontificate of Pope John Paul II this is precisely what Archbishop Weakland can expect. There is not the least doubt that Pope John Paul II is indeed the Vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter. But the fact that a man is a true Pope does not mean that he will always act as a pope should act. "But he began to curse and to swear, saying: I know not this man of whom you speak" (Mark 14:17). Time and again Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI have made admirable statements and promulgated admirable documents in defense of orthodoxy, but have done nothing to enforce them. Humanae Vitae is the most significant example. It was repudiated in public with impunity by such heterodox theologians as Charles Curran, and a precedent was set. In the 6 September 1990 issue of The Wanderer, Father Enrique T. Rueda wrote: "The recent Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian promulgated a few months ago will not be effective unless the Holy Father incorporates modern communications theory. According to this theory, 80% of communication is what one does rather than what one says." Since Vatican II, where unorthodoxy is concerned, the popes have said a great deal but done virtually nothing. As Father Kenneth Baker expressed it in the August/September 1990 Homiletic, "We have enough documents but not enough enforcement."

A Contemporary Eusebius

I selected Archbishop Rembert Weakland as the exemplar of a shepherd who has become a wolf because this can be proved beyond the least possible doubt—thanks to the courage, dedication and industry of Mr. Tom Phillips, a young layman in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Mr. Phillips is a contemporary Eusebius. He would, I am sure, be embarrassed at being described as such, but it is a title that he most certainly deserves. He has compiled a dossier on Archbishop Weakland which it would be euphemistic to describe as devastating. It deprives this pestilential prelate of any shred of credibility that he might ever have had, but, sadly, it is an even more devastating indictment of the Vatican which refuses to abandon its cowardly and contemptible endorsement of a man who epitomizes the description of a Modernist given to us by Pope St. Pius X:

Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operations their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance.

Mr. Phillips' dossier does not make pleasant reading. It is, in fact, the most depressing and distasteful piece of literature that I have ever seen. It is compiled in the manner that a district attorney would compile a case that he felt was certain to stand up in court. Mr. Phillips does not simply make allegations concerning Archbishop Weakland, he documents each one of them with detailed and irrefutable evidence, and he has good reason to do so in view of the Archbishop's predilection for libel suits. He has not been content simply to publish his indictment, but has repeated it during television interviews. There is not the least doubt that had his dossier contained the least inaccuracy Weakland's lawyers would have had him in court instantly. In order to preclude such action, Mr. Phillips had no alternative but to document each allegation, and this means that his dossier is not for the squeamish. He does not simply allege that sex education programs approved by the Archbishop must certainly corrupt Catholic children, but quotes from them. As a former regular soldier in a British infantry regiment, I thought that I was un-shockable, but the quotations cited by Mr. Phillips made me feel physically sick. He had no alternative but to quote them, to protect himself from legal action. Every traditionalist chapel should obtain a copy of the dossier, and whenever any prelate, priest or layman accuses traditionalists of being schismatic the accuser should be asked to sit and read through this dossier! What is most scandalous of all is that, although this dossier has been sent to the Vatican, Weakland still retains his miter, crosier and cathedral.

I do not simply urge but beg readers in other dioceses with Modernist bishops to study the Phillips' dossier with care, and produce one of their own, ensuring that every allegation they make is fully documented. The dossier is not cheap, but it is produced in an impressively professional format and the price cannot begin to cover the cost of producing it borne by Mr. Phillips from his personal income. It costs $25 and can be obtained directly from him: P. O. Box 1405, Milwaukee, WI 53201.

—To be continued next month—

 

---

1. Full documentation on both these rebellions can be found in my pamphlets, A Privilege of the Ordained, and Communion Under Both Kinds, both available from The Angelus Press. Communion Under Both Kinds needed to be considerably revised as one of the principal criticisms of the American Bishops in the first edition was the fact that they were defying Rome by permitting the practice on Sundays. The situation has changed following the abject surrender of the Vatican to the blackmail of the American hierarchy, and the documentation the pamphlet contains is more than adequate to prove that American Bishops are in no position to accuse anyone of disobedience, schism or rebellion. Readers purchasing this pamphlet from bookshops should specify the 1989 edition as the original 1980 edition is outdated and contains statements which, while accurate in 1980, are no longer applicable.