November 2010 Print

The conclusion of an interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand, Superior of the U.S. District of the Society of Saint Pius X. Part 1 appeared in the September 2010 issue of The Angelus.

PART 2

What do you think about the crisis of female religious orders in the United States? (Phase II of the Apostolic Visitation began in August.) What result do you expect?

One of the most visible as well as dreadful signs of the crisis in the Catholic Church today is the decline—if not the disappearance—of religious life. The numbers are alarming: in the United States, between 1965 and 2000, the number of religious seminarians decreased by 95 percent according to the official Catholic Directory. There were 179,954 Sisters in the United States in 1965; today there are 57,544, half of whom are over 70 years old! The number of female religious vocations has declined in the same way as the religious seminarians.

Religious life in the Catholic Church has always been a type of “barometer” of the Faith. The history of the Church shows that in every period of great fervor, the Church experienced flourishing and prosperous vocations. This is logical as the religious life is essentially consecrating one’s life to imitate and follow our Lord Jesus Christ in His poverty, obedience, and chastity. It is an ideal of perfection; desiring to become perfect by the observance of the three vows and by submitting one’s will to the rules and constitution of a religious order. It is normal that during times of great and profound faith, many want to enter monasteries and convents.

But the decline in numbers is not the only sign of the crisis in religious orders: there are even more terrible signs of this collapse. I believe we can say today that there is virtually no religious life left in most, if not all, of the official congregations. What do I mean by that? I mean to say that the practice of the religious vows has disappeared, especially among the Sisters. In many cases, the Sisters no longer live in communities, but have their own places; they often don’t wear religious habits. What is the difference between their ‘religious’ life and a secular one?

Let me give a particular example. There were two Sisters, from two different religious congregations, who had left their communities years ago and had been living in our houses since then. Recently, they decided to return to their communities. Both were horrified by the lifestyle, the atmosphere, by the religious Sisters themselves! After a short time, they both came back to us. There was no way they could live a normal religious life in their own orders.

Pope Benedict XVI has decided to have a canonical visitation done for the female religious orders in the United States. It seems that what prompted the visit was the very public positions that some Sisters took in opposition to the U.S. Bishops’ Conference on moral and medical issues related to Medicare.

It appears to me that this is only the tip of the iceberg; the problems of religious Sisters in the United States, and religious life in general, are much graver and deeper.

I am afraid that these canonical visitations will not bring much of a solution to the problems of religious life in America. Although Rome wants to correct the situation and to restore things, Rome still does not understand, or does not want to face, the cause of the problems. They cannot deny that the beginning of the decline in numbers, and loss of adherence to true religious life, is exactly 1965—the closing of the Second Vatican Council. But they do not make the connection. Rome still sees these only as abuses. This is why I do not think there will be good fruits. I do not think these visitations will observe the true causes, and thus will not propose true solutions.

What is the true solution to the crisis of the religious orders? It is the restoration of a true religious life. Men and women must consecrate themselves to the service of God and not live in a worldly way, but on the contrary, they must embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience, following the counsels of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other solution.

This religious life is beautiful to see. When one visits a monastery, such as Our Lady of Guadalupe in Silver City, New Mexico, the Sisters of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Dominican Sisters in their schools, the Franciscan Sisters, and so on, it is very edifying. It shows the solution to restoring and saving religious life. By the way, the traditional orders are the ones who are showing an increase in receiving vocations. It is even more obvious in the case of the religious than in the seminaries or secular vocations.

Among the bishops, do you see a change in attitude regarding Tradition?

What do we mean by “Tradition?” We often use the term in a very broad sense. Often people understand “Tradition” as a mere attachment to the Latin Mass. But this broad meaning or understanding of Tradition is definitely not the theological concept of Tradition. It is, in fact, a manner of speaking that betrays the true notion of Tradition. If Tradition were a simple attachment to the old liturgy, it would have no strength; it would be a sentimental attachment to older times, to certain outdated things, like the liturgy. Tradition is not a mere attachment to old customs; it is the attachment to, and the transmission of, “the Faith of all times.” It is the fidelity to the teaching of the Church that cannot change and the handing over of it from one generation to the next. It implies that the dogmas which were defined by the Church in the past cannot change and must be believed today as they were yesterday; what was true yesterday cannot be contradicted today. The truth, the Revelation of God, cannot change. That is why the concept of Tradition implies not only the notion of safeguarding the Faith, but also of combating error. This is especially true in today’s situation after Vatican II, since so many heresies and ambiguities have been promoted within the Church.

Once again, to separate the fight for the Latin Mass from the true notion of Tradition (to safeguard the Faith and combat errors) is to destroy the true notion of Tradition itself. It is a betrayal of Tradition. It is interesting to remember that Pope John Paul II in 1988 accused the Society of Saint Pius X of having an “incomplete and contradictory” notion of Tradition, referring to the “living tradition.” However, in reality, the concept of “living tradition” is opposed to the true notion of Tradition; the phrase implies that beliefs can change since they are living.

So if we mean “Tradition” in the broad sense as an attachment to the Latin Mass, there is no major or profound change in attitude among the bishops. It is true that, in the United States, the bishops have responded to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007, better than others have. Some have allowed the Tridentine Mass into their dioceses, and the number of churches where the Mass is available has increased. Nevertheless, it seems to me as something imposed upon them. How many bishops are actually saying the Tridentine Mass? How many are still restricting, under difficult conditions, the priests who have asked to say the old Mass? Many have placed restrictive provisions which are not expressed or required in the motu proprio. When a group of faithful requests the Traditional Mass, permission is given sporadically, or not at all.

In addition, if we speak about the real sense of Tradition, the protection of the Faith and the opposition to errors, there is definitely no change in the attitude of the bishops. They are so infested with the new notion of ecumenism that safeguarding the Faith is of no or little concern to them. First, they do not think that there is a contradiction between the teaching of the Church before Vatican II and the actual teaching of the conciliar Church. Secondly, they do not see that errors and heresies have been spread in the Church, and that the Catholic Faith is in danger. I think we can say that it is this notion of Tradition that the bishops do not understand.

For example, I have just read about a French bishop who had no problem attending an Anglican ceremony in England where women were “ordained” priests. I do not know if that bishop will be excommunicated by Rome, but it will be interesting to see if anything is done.

The attitude towards Tradition has changed more among the priests than the bishops. Here we meet priests who are interested in our positions; priests who read, who want to know; priests who are not satisfied with the actual situation in the Novus Ordo, who see the benefit of the Tridentine Mass, and who also think. Some of them are not only interested in the Mass, but in the doctrinal positions of the Society of Saint Pius X. There, I think, is a growing reality that is very encouraging.

How important are the groups of laymen (like Una Voce), who are defending the old Mass?

For Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and for us, the reason for refusing the New Mass and remaining faithful to the old is grounded on doctrinal reasons, not only on aesthetics. It is not merely a preference or love for its sacredness or beauty that we are attached to the Tridentine Mass. It is not because we are attached to the past or mere sentiment.

The reason for our defending, adhering to, and promoting the old Mass is that this Mass expresses the Catholic Faith, the perennial beliefs of the Church, the unchangeable Revelation. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre often used the expression the Mass of all time because this Mass, the Mass of Saint Pius V, is essentially the same as the Mass of the first centuries of the Church. This Mass has sanctified generations of Catholics for hundreds of years throughout the history of the Church. It is the Mass of the saints, and it is the Mass for today—a Mass not specific to one time, but for all time.

And we must understand that it is the Mass for all times because it perfectly expresses and contains the doctrine of the Church, the treasure of the Sacrifice of Our Lord, the real presence of Jesus Christ, and the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which all priests participate from the Apostles to the end of time.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church have been watered-down in the new Mass to the point that it is not clearly expressed. It is full of ambiguities which allow even Protestant ministers to use it for their own religions. The new Mass does not offend their heretical beliefs; it does not bother them. We must even go further and say that the new Mass is not only ambiguous, it is full of the Protestant spirit. It conveys more Protestant ideas than Catholic ones. It is indeed a poisoned Mass because it was fabricated with a very clear ecumenical intention.

The doctrinal reasons for our resistance are essential to the fight against Modernism, against the new theology. To separate the defense and the promotion of the Latin Mass from these reasons is to sabotage the whole fight. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never accepted jeopardizing the cause of Tradition by any kind of compromise.

The experience of the past 40 years also shows that only the fidelity and firmness of Archbishop Lefebvre has brought forth true fruits of restoration. We are not alone in stating today that Archbishop Lefebvre helped save the Mass; that we still have it today is due to his steadfastness. I believe that if we are able to speak about Vatican II today, if at last there are some voices even from outside the Society of Saint Pius X that are critical of the Council on a doctrinal level, it is also thanks to the determination of the “bishop of steel.” This was not because of an unreasonable stubbornness, but because, like a rock, he insisted that the problem is doctrinal; it is a problem of Faith!

Now, the problem I see with these groups of lay people, or even with the Ecclesia Dei congregations, is that they have put aside the doctrinal issues that are inseparable from the Mass. I am absolutely convinced that the more these groups of laymen or priests in the hierarchy of the Church recognize that it is a doctrinal problem, accept it, and stand up for it, the more important and effective they would be in the restoration of the Catholic Church. It is not only the time to fight for the old Mass; it is time to stand up for the Faith.

Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in a conference to the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter on July 2, 2010, admitted that one of the reasons for the crisis today was the refusal to condemn errors. He is definitely correct on this point: errors need to be condemned as such. We cannot protect the Faith, protect the Mass, without denouncing what puts them in danger. We would have liked Msgr. Pozzo to explain that.

Do you know of any monasteries that might be moving towards the traditional Latin Mass, even against the resistance of the bishops?

I have no internal information about any new monasteries that wish to move toward the Tridentine Mass, at least, not in the United States. We know that some have already done so; The Angelus recently printed some information about a monastery in Germany. I am sorry I am not able to give you a scoop!

Nonetheless, it is an interesting consideration. Usually, the monasteries and religious orders are independent of the diocesan bishops; at least more so than diocesan priests. They should have more liberty and ease in moving towards the old Mass.

We can hope and pray that many will; what a blessing for the Church it would be!