January 1994 Print

by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

With this article, The Angelus begins the serialization of six conferences given to the seminarians at the Society’s Seminary at Ecône, Switzerland. First time in English.

One cannot truly comprehend the actual situation of the Church, or get an exact idea of the attitude one ought to have concerning these events, if one does not study a little the history and times which preceded this crisis, from the sixteenth century on, as the Sovereign Pontiffs have habitually done when they spoke of this situation in the Church. The popes since the Revolution, such as Gregory XVI in his encyclical Singulari nos, Leo XIII, Pope Saint Pius X, all lead us back to the origins of the crisis, to the fight engaged more openly against the Church, to the 16th century, the time of the birth of Protestantism. I would even say further that, in a certain manner, the Renaissance has facilitated the expansion of Protestantism, because the Renaissance was nothing other than its mantle, its covering.

It seemed that Christians had abandoned the riches of pagan culture, of Greek culture, of all the ancient cultures; and, all of a sudden, they wanted to find them again along with the art of those times past. This resulted in magnifying man in an exaggerated manner,–his nature his natural forces,–and in 
de-emphasizing the supernatural forces of the spirit–grace, divine revelation–so as to make them disappear. They exalted the merely human side, the purely natural side of man, and under this pretext introduced nudism everywhere in the churches. One can call it nudism; it is not exaggerated.

Consider even extraordinary works of art. It is art, there is no doubt, from the point of view of pure art. Nevertheless, even the painting of the Sistine Chapel, say what you will, is still bold nudism, and at the same time fleshly.

Well, this exaltation of the body, of the flesh, all this is contrary to the spirit. You see, Saint Paul said it well, the flesh and the spirit are forever at war; yes, if one exalts the body, then of course the spirit, the spiritual values, will finish by disappearing. I do not say that all is bad in this art, but this ought to be reserved to museums, to salons, those places, let us say, purely secular. . . but not to churches, not to the sanctuary.

Well, all this facilitated the expansion of Protestantism, which is nothing other than naturalism. If one studies it truly, one is quickly made to perceive that it is the negation of the supernatural, because for the Protestant there is no renovation, we are not resuscitated by the grace of our Savior. Baptism for them becomes simply a profession of faith and nothing more. For them, faith in our Savior is all that is needed to be saved, our sins are hidden, covered up by our faith in our Savior, and His redemption. But there is no interior transformation, there is no birth to grace, no birth to divine life. For them there is no affiliation to the Holy Trinity made by Baptism, a rebirth which gives us back the grace which was lost to us, a rebirth which is conferred by the sacraments, which is continued by the holy sacrifice of the Mass, by Holy Communion; a whole new life which our Savior has come to bring us. It is a truly new life, although this is non-existent for the Protestants. That is why they do not understand the value of the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and they have reduced it to a simple repast, a simple meal.

This is how Protestantism attained its expansion. Already new ideas were making their appearances in the universities, in the most recent publications, in literature; all this was beginning already to be influenced by the spirit of the Renaissance, this naturalist spirit, this spirit more or less carnal. At the same time, there was an expansion of the economy, an affluence of riches due to the development of all that had been brought by the discovery of the New World. Because of all that, men were attaching themselves more to the goods of this world, forgetting the supernatural goods.

But Protestantism, in spite of its profound and very hard attack against the Church had not achieved positive results when its spirit reached the universities, and influenced philosophy and philosophers, particularly those of the 17th century. This spirit proceeded to corrupt ideas, bringing the acceptance of the separation of the civil power and the Church. They did not cease until they had laicized the political sphere. For the Revolution is joined when one puts oneself under the standard of the goddess of reason, it must not be forgotten. The result is that we make a god of human reason, reason is deified, man himself is deified, and this is against the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, against the Faith, thus against the Church. It is in this spirit that the Revolution was made after having been prepared for two centuries. It is then that the consequences of Protestantism manifested themselves, precisely in the measure that the kings and princes had enfeebled themselves in regard to it; that is how the ideas of Protestantism spread themselves. The popes warned of the danger, but in spite of all, one must say that the virus, the poison infiltrated throughout, and the progress of Protestantism and of naturalism has only continued.

 

At the end of the 18th century all these false ideas were popularized. False principles were spread among the people in a manner absolutely satanic, diabolical so that they would believe that the separation of the temporal power and the ecclesiastical power would render man free at last. They believed in “liberation,” and this liberation is expressed by the famous three words “liberty, fraternity, and equality.” In putting the Revolution under the standard of liberty, fraternity, and equality, they conquered the people; the people were completely fooled, duped. It is necessary to reread the pages of Pope Saint Pius X condemning the Sillon, where he reminds us that the Sillon was imbued with false principles. In spite of the efforts of the popes, these ideas have carried on. Nothing has truly stopped them. They have passed on in actions, and in governments. For him who wishes to analyze this whole attack against the Church from the theological and philosophical points of view, let him read Pope Leo XIII in his magnificent encyclicals.

For example, there is the encyclical Quod apostoli of December 28, 1878, which condemns the modern errors. He speaks there of their source:

 

“The boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit.

“For you know, venerable brethren, that the most deadly war which from the 16th century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith, and which has grown in intensity up to today, had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the whole supernatural order, that thus the way would be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone.

“This kind of error, which falsely takes to itself the name of reason, as it lures and whets the natural appetite that is in man of excelling, and gives loose rein to unlawful desires of every kind, has easily penetrated not only the minds of a great multitude of men but to a wide extent civil society itself.

“Hence, by a new species of impiety unheard of among the pagan nations, states have been constituted without any count of God or of the order established by Him. It has been given out that public authority neither derives its principle, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. . . .

“But the supreme pastors of the Church, on whom the duty falls of guarding the Lord’s flock from the snares of the enemy, have striven in time to ward off the danger and provide for the safety of the faithful. For, as soon as the secret societies began to be formed, in whose bosom the seeds of the errors which we have already mentioned were even then being nourished, the Roman Pontiffs Clement XII and Benedict XIV did not fail to unmask the evil counsels of the sects. . . .

“Pope Pius VI, of happy memory, at once exposed in public documents the guile and falsehood of their doctrines. . . .

“Popes Pius VII and Leo XII condemned by anathema the secret sects, and again warned society of the danger which threatened it.

“Finally, all have witnessed with what solemn words and great firmness of soul and constancy our glorious predecessor Pius IX, of happy memory, both in his allocutions and in his encyclical letters addressed to the bishops of all the world, fought now against the wicked attempts of the sects, now openly by name against the pest of socialism, which was already making headway. . . .

“But it must be deplored that those to whom has been committed the guardianship of the common weal, deceived by the wiles of wicked men and terrified by their threats, have looked upon the Church with a suspicious and even hostile eye. . . .”

 

Then he speaks of equality, this error of equality. It is well to remind us of it, for we still do not realize how much we are under its sway. I am sure that this poses you some problems, it is not possible that it would not, for we are so petrified by liberal ideas, laicizing ideas, that we tell ourselves, “We cannot demand governments to have as religion the Catholic religion, this is completely impossible; we must let the people have liberty to choose the religion that they want.” And we glide gently down towards this famous liberty of conscience, the liberty of religions condemned by the popes. They have condemned them, not because the times were not right, but because of definitive and fundamental principles. . .

Pope Leo XIII, for example, says in the letter E giunto to the emperor of Brazil. Liberty of religion considered in its rapport with society is founded on the principle that the State, even a Catholic nation, that is, a nation where the people are Catholic, is not bound to profess, to favorize, any religion. It must stay indifferent in regard to all, and hold all juridically equal. It is not a question of tolerance, which in given circumstances can be conceded to dissident religions, “the popes have always spoken of tolerance” but the recognition shall be accorded to them, the right indeed which pertains only to the one true religion that God has established in the world and designated by characters and clear signs that she might be recognized as such and embraced. As such, does not this liberty place on the same plateau truth and error, the faith and heresy, the Church of Jesus Christ and any other human institution whatsoever, and establish a deplorable and wicked separation between human society and God its author? This ends in the sad consequence of the indifferentism of the State in religious matters, which is nothing other than atheism.”

These are words which ought to be learned by heart (or close to it). Because it is from this that we are dying. It is this which has been introduced here, this naturalism, this rationalism, which has been introduced against the Church, against revelation, against the 
supernatural.

You see how the popes speak of it, especially, Leo XIII. Yet, one could take up the others as well; one can take Pius XII, one can take them all, one after the other, for all say the same thing: liberty of conscience, liberty of the press, liberty of religion are poisonous liberties, false liberties. But, you would tell me, what about liberty of the press? One cannot totally deprive the people of the liberty to say what they want! Come on, one must leave their opinions free!–Well, no! The popes have said it, it is not possible. A society which permits liberty of the press, the ­liberty of opinions, is a society which is going to its ruin; for this press shall constantly foment revolutions, conflicts. Evil cannot be free in a society. One should no more leave the thieves free to steal at their leisure, or the assassins free to kill, than one should allow 
the liberty of the press. To leave liberty to it, is to kill souls, kill ideas; it is much worse than to kill the body.

All that now seems old-fashioned; you cannot stop modern ideas, you would say. If it wants, the whole world can have liberty of conscience, the liberty of an individual and personal conscience. Well, face to face with God there is no such liberty; one is obliged to believe in the truth; one is not free to believe, indifferently, error or truth.

Still, the State does not have a right to force private persons. But the State has the right and the duty to restrict all these persons’ outward acts, the external manifestations of their religion. If such a person, Protestant, Buddhist, or Muslim wants to express his ideas exteriorly, to spread them exteriorly, the State, especially a Catholic one, has the duty to impede these people from propagating their errors lest the Catholics disappear little by little. First of all, error is easier to spread than the truth; evil, easier than the good. It is clearly much easier to tell people that they can have three wives instead of only one during their whole life! It is much easier to tell them that they can divorce; it is much simpler.

Moreover, the idea of ­ liberty of conscience can take the meaning of moral liberty, 
for the false religions have as well a false moral teaching. The State does not have the right, even a Catholic state does not have the right to give this liberty. This the popes have said over and over; but in truth, our Good God has allowed the devil to be more powerful than their words. Smoothly, these ideas have infiltrated more and more, they always keep rising to the surface. The popes have struck them but good, yet they are retrieved by still another movement, another gang. Thus, there was liberalism, then sillonism, then modernism; they have always come back, always changing their name. Now, it is progressivism. Still, it is the same thing, there are the same ideas, the same principles; it is always naturalism. Man must have his conscience, his human dignity now misunderstood. Reread the texts of Pope Saint Pius X on human dignity: we shall have occasion to speak of it little later; but it is striking how all these ideas come back. The ideas condemned by the popes are returning right now.

It is good for us to read and reread these things, in order to free our minds from this idea, this false conception of liberty, of equality. Of course, all men are equal before God, we are all equal before him, but we are not equal from the point of view of society. Indeed not. You do not have the same duties to perform; some are more important, some are less. Certainly, before God, those who occupy positions less important can be in higher standing, hold a more elevated supernatural position, possess a goodness greater than those with higher duties; this is perfectly possible. But in society, there are differences, distinctions. You do not have the same intelligence, the same physical forces, the same resources; we are not equal, there is nothing you can do about it. Then, to speak of equality is folly, pure utopia. If you put all men on the same level, it is not a society. A society is made, precisely, by unequal people who exchange their particular God-given gifts; what one does not have another gives to him.

You see, there are necessarily always going to be those who are laborers. If one day a laborer becomes boss, or a boss becomes laborer, well, there are still differences between the two positions. To want to make all workers bosses, all Indians chiefs is folly, pure and simple folly. One must stay in reality without letting oneself get carried away by all the slogans which disintegrate ideas, slogans which since the last world war have manifested themselves within the Church herself, and with a virulence much more serious than during the 19th century. And this is so because during the last century there were unfortunately Catholics who did not follow the popes closely enough; there was the error of the liberal Catholic who always wants to compromise, whereas the popes wanted to have nothing to do with it.