May 1981 Print

 

BETWEEN 3rd and 5th October 1980, the first-year students of St. John's Seminary, Michigan, took part in a workshop entitled "Human Sexuality." "My word," the Catholic reader will be saying, "what on earth would first-year seminarians be discussing human sexuality for? Now I've heard everything!" Not so. There is more to come. The workshop did not confine itself to discussing the topic. It was, according to John J. Mulloy, writing in the 8 January 1981 issue of The Wanderer, "a pornographic sex seminar." Mulloy then recounts the subject matter of films shown to the seminarians, which is so unsavory that, in the interests of good taste, it cannot be repeated in The Angelus beyond stating that heterosexual and homosexual acts were "depicted in an explicit, detailed and sympathetic fashion." The Rector of the Seminary responsible for this outrage was Fr. Kenneth Unterer. Mulloy also revealed that the matter was put to Bishop Norbert Caughan, head of the American Bishops' Communications Committee, who brushed the incident "aside as unimportant, with the remark that seminarians could go to their local x-rated movie house and see much the same thing there." "This," the reader will now be saying, "defies belief." "Surely Father Unterer can no longer be Rector of St. John's Seminary. In all probability the powers that be have removed him and arranged for him to be confined to an institution where he can receive the psychiatric treatment appropriate to his condition; for clearly, this is more than a moral lapse, the man is obviously sick." In surmising that Father Unterer is no longer a seminary rector, the reader would be correct. In surmising that he has been confined to an institution to receive psychiatric treatment, he would be wrong. Father Unterer has received episcopal consecration and is now Bishop of the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan. America has been plagued for some years with a group of theologians, exemplified by Father Charles Curran of The Catholic University, who teach what one orthodox priest has described as "pomology." With the consecration of Bishop Unterer the United States now has its first "pornoprelate." God help us all.

"But this is too horrible for words," the Catholic reader will be saying. "Why wasn't the Vatican informed? Why didn't someone inform the Apostolic Delegate before this dreadful man was consecrated?" Msgr. Faccani, the chargé d'affaires of the Apostolic Delegation, was given the full facts concerning Father Unterer before his consecration. Mulloy explains: "No action came from his office, asking for postponement of the consecration until the matter could be thoroughly investigated. Or if it did, it was disregarded by the American hierarchy. When asked by one reporter who had given him the information, what action was being taken, he said he had no comment."

My purpose in recounting this depressing incident is to help put the visit of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Kansas City this month in its proper perspective. On May 9th and 10th His Grace will rededicate and bless the beautiful cathedral-like church of St. Vincent de Paul in Kansas City, Missouri. He will also confer minor orders on thirty-two seminarians from his seminary at Ridgefield, Connecticut. The reaction to this event is only too predictable. The Catholic media in the dioceses of Missouri and throughout the U.S.A. will carry indignant denunciations of the Archbishop and all who support him. Accusations of schism will rebound through the columns of these papers with the frequency of tennis balls through the air at Wimbledon each year. Heartwarming protestations of loyalty to the Pope will emanate from bishops who appear to have forgotten that such a person existed since the conclusion of Vatican II.

Archbishop John L. May of St. Louis (Missouri) endorsed a visit of pornologian Charles Curran to speak in his diocese, despite the fact that Curran's writings have been censured by the Holy See. Archbishop May also tolerates the presence of nuns who do not wear habits in his diocese, despite the requirement of Pope John Paul II that all members of religious orders should wear habits. He also permits the distribution of Communion under both kinds at parish Masses on Sundays, despite the fact that this is forbidden by the Holy See. But Archbishop John L. May discovered that the Tridentine Mass was being offered in his diocese. This information transformed him instantly into the John Fisher of our century (St. John Fisher was the only English bishop who upheld the authority of the Holy See in the reign of Henry VIII). "I call upon every one of you simply to ignore this attempt to separate our people from the Holy Father," he thundered. "The Archdiocese of St. Louis stands in full union and loyalty with our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II." The only possible answer to anyone ingenuous enough to give the least credence to Archbishop May's affecting protestation of loyalty to the Pope is that offered by the Duke of Wellington to a gentleman who addressed him with the words: "Mr. Smith, I believe." "If you believe that," said the Iron Duke, "you'll believe anything."

Who is Schismatic?

John J. Mulloy is a Catholic for whose orthodoxy and zeal for the faith I am second to no one in my admiration. I have little doubt that his sentiments regarding Archbishop May of St. Louis are similar to my own. But I am also sure that if by chance this article passes within his ken, as once did the Pacific within that of stout Cortez, Mulloy would say: "Aha! Not so fast. I shall unmask your sophistry. Two wrongs do not make a right." Indeed they do not. John J. Mulloy has a point, and I would be the first to concede it. Error, or the tolerance of error, is an evil. But so is schism. And to reply to one evil with another is hardly a Catholic solution. This has been the consistent argument of The Wanderer, for which Mulloy writes. It is a point of view which deserves serious consideration.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Before examining the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, I would like to return to that of the American Bishops. With a very few exceptions, such as that of Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge, it is not unreasonable to claim that the American hierarchy is in a state of de facto schism. Most of its members profess to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope with their lips, but they repudiate his supremacy with their deeds. I do not intend to document this allegation in any detail. Let anyone who doubts it write to the Angelus Press and obtain a copy of a booklet entitled "Betrayal of the Citadel" by James E. Twyman. It is published by an organization named Viva il Papa, which has no connection with the Society of St. Pius X, and, indeed is very much on the Wanderer wave length.¹ "Betrayal of the Citadel" contains 95 meticulously documented pages which permit only one possible conclusion: there is no longer a Catholic Church in the United States of America. It has been replaced by an "American Church" which most certainly no longer acknowledges the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and is schismatic in everything but name. Undoubtedly, the most convincing proof of the schismatic nature of the American Church is the Detroit Conference, A Call to Action, 1976. Not only were many of the resolutions of the conference uncatholic, some were incompatible with any profession of Christianity! For example, the final paper on "Personhood" (whatever that might be) opened the door to any and every form of sexual perversion:

That the Church, bishops, priests, religious, laity affirm their commitment to the validity of personal sexual fulfillment in married life, while at the same time engaging in continuing dialogue with each other and with other persons who are expressing their sexuality in a variety of lifestyles on matters related to human and spiritual significance of human sexuality.

It is of no little significance that the bishops allowed representatives of Dignity to attend the conference as official delegates. Dignity is the very inappropriate name which an association of Catholic perverts has bestowed upon itself. While Dignity was considered a suitable organization to send accredited delegates to the Conference, it is quite certain that had the Society of St. Pius X asked for the allocation of a few places, so that the traditional Catholic viewpoint could be put, the episcopal response would have been a resounding and far from gracious "No." Thus, in the Conciliar Church, to practice one of the three sins crying out to heaven for vengeance no longer makes one persona non grata with the bishops, but to be attached to the Tridentine Mass does. We are being told constantly to read "the signs of the times." Well, there's one that would bear a close perusal.

It is true that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops declined to endorse five of the demands made by the Detroit Conference, but in the same action sent every recommendation back to the NCCB/USCC, and set up a committee to implement A Call to Action. Mr. Twyman has no doubt that the Church in the U.S.A. is being brought into conformity with the guidelines set out at Detroit. This means that it will not simply be in a state of de facto schism, as is largely the case at present, it will not even be Christian. It is thus within the context of general decline into a sub-Christian situation that the alleged traditionalist schism must be examined.

 

Jadot Prelates

The collapse of American Catholicism has been accelerated by the consistent policy of Archbishop Jean Jadot in appointing Liberals to vacant bishoprics. Archbishop Jadot was appointed by Pope Paul VI and was relieved of his post by Pope John Paul II, who has assigned him to the Secretariat for Dialogue with Unbelievers. Uncharitable tongues have suggested that after years of dialogue with the American Bishops he was certainly well qualified for the post. But the action of Pope John Paul II was very much a case of locking the stable door after the horse had bolted. The damage done by the French prelate can hardly be assessed. Liberals inside and outside the Church are, of course, delighted. Kenneth Briggs of the New York Times commented: "The bishops named in the last several years are generally younger, more liberal and parish-oriented and less magisterial than those selected in the past. This has pleased the progressive bishops, and enhanced their collective power greatly in recent years."

Another journalist of the same ilk, one Ms. Marjorie Hyer, informed readers of The Washington Post that "the new liberal cast of the American hierarchy is due in large part to the kind of men selected as bishops the past six or eight years." They are, she enthuses, "younger men who feel excited—rather than threatened—by the revolution in the Church that was wrought a dozen years ago by the Second Vatican Council." What kind of bishop, it seems permissible to wonder, would be excited at the fact that, as Msgr. George A. Kelly has pointed out in his book The Battle for the American Church² thirty million Catholics have stopped assisting at Sunday Mass regularly, fifty thousand nuns have abandoned their convents, ten thousand priests have abandoned their vocations, at least seventy per cent of American Catholics no longer accept the Church's teaching on contraception, that Catholic colleges and universities now often base themselves on secular rather than Catholic principles, that doctrinally suspect instruction is now commonplace in Catholic schools—the list is long and depressing. Father Bouyer is one of the most distinguished living French theologians, a priest generally regarded as Liberal before Vatican II, and one who expected great things from the Council. "Unless we are blind," he writes, "we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition." But Ms. Hyer assures us that the Jadot-prelates are excited, and Ms. Hyer writes for The Washington Post. "The crop of 174 bishops—about 60 per cent of the American hierarchy—set into place over the last seven years by Archbishop Jadot ... is now producing a significant harvest." That harvest which has sprung from the seed sown by Jadot is significant indeed, no traditionalist would argue with Ms. Hyer on this point. "Another parable He proposed to them saying, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field'" (Matt. 13:24).

The Revolution to which Ms. Hyer refers was obviously well underway before Pope Paul VI nominated Archbishop Jadot as his delegate to the U. S. A. The Jadot-prelates are thus a product of the Revolution and a guarantee of its continuation. Now it should be possible to put the alledged traditionalist schism in its proper perspective. The accelerating decomposition of Catholicism prevails throughout the western world. Indeed, in America it is less advanced than in such countries as France or Holland. There is a depressing similarity everywhere, declining vocations, declining Mass attendance, declining moral standards, rejection of the Church's moral and doctrinal teaching, priests and nuns abandoning their vocations.

 

True Catholics Not Wanted

It is, alas, clear that no practical possibility exists of working effectively to preserve the Catholic Faith on more than a limited or temporary basis within the structures of the Conciliar Church, as these structures are effectively controlled by Liberal bureaucrats. Those who try to defend the Faith within these structures will eventually be discouraged, ousted, or have their efforts rendered ineffective by the bureaucracy. Professor James Hitchcock commented upon this in the 25 May 1980 issue of the National Catholic Register, noting that where Liberals have become dominant "they have been employing systematic repression against those who do not agree with them." He continues:

The following is merely a sampling of instances. In each case I have personal knowledge of the situation, or else have been told about it by someone who does have direct personal knowledge. The catalogue could be much longer.

—A new bishop comes into a diocese and orders the dismissal from the seminary faculty of those professors whom he deems to be "outside the mainstream of American theology." They are given no hearing and no formal charges.

—A seminary professor who protests certain irregularities in the seminary where he teaches is dismissed by the rector of the seminary and receives no support from the personally quite orthodox bishop of the diocese.

—A seminarian, because he expresses disagreement over unauthorized liturgical practices in his seminary, is forced out of his religious community and told he is unfit for religious life.

—A seminarian rebuffs a homosexual advance from a fellow student. In subsequent "peer evaluation" homosexual seminarians declare the first student to be unfit for the priesthood. Seminary authorities dismiss him despite strong evidence that he has been the victim of a conspiracy.

—A young woman applies for a teaching position in a Catholic high school. The nun-principal asks her views on women's ordinations. When she replies that she does not favor it, she is denied the job because "we want to be open to all points of view."

As I say, the list could be much longer. The blunt truth is that there is a well-organized and widespread process of liberal repression in this country. Orthodox Catholics are denied in effect the right to exist. Quite understandably, many of them see vigorous Roman action, over-riding the injustices perpetrated by the "local church," as the only thing which can save them. They are loyal Catholics who do not take to the media with their grievances, and for this they have suffered.

Archbishop Lefebvre began his work within the official structures. When God blessed his endeavors, and it was clear that he was forming an effective counter-force to oppose the liberalization of Catholicism, he was rejected by the official Church. In theory he could have given up the fight and retired quietly. But the Archbishop felt that he could not do this, as it would mean abandoning the faithful to the forces of heterodoxy, forces which St. Pius X warned us were seeking to destroy the Church from within Her very bosom. He certainly realized that his stand could give the appearance of schism as he was refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff. He must also have realized that apparent schism can eventually become actual schism, but against this he knew that by closing his seminary, and depriving the faithful of access to priests with a traditional training, he was abandoning the faithful to the danger of unbelief, and unbelief is a more serious sin than schism, St Thomas Aquinas teaches:

Now it is evident that unbelief is a sin committed against God Himself, according as He is in Himself the first truth, on which Faith is founded; but schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a participated good, and a lesser good than God Himself. Therefore it is manifest that the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre is Not Schismatic

However, sufficient evidence has already been provided to prove that should there be any case for accusing the Archbishop of schism, then most American Bishops come into the same category, and to a far more serious degree. The Archbishop does not refuse to recognize Pope John Paul II as the Sovereign Pontiff; that indeed would be schismatic. He does not question the validity of the new sacramental rites promulgated with papal authority; that indeed would be schismatic. He has not refused to holy communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope—even though so many treat him as if he had been excommunicated. No, what the Archbishop has done is to say that, in the face of the accelerating decomposition of the Church, the most effective way to preserve our Faith and guard against the sin of unbelief is to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to us—to teach the doctrines he swore to uphold when he received episcopal consecration, and to offer Mass and administer the sacraments in the traditional manner. He expressed his attitude well in a sermon preached on 1 November 1980, on the Tenth Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X:

. . . That is why we have resisted. We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural, divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of contradiction, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the popes who have maintained Tradition. That is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the Saints who are in heaven. Doing so we are persuaded we are rendering a great service to the Church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Little by little, apparently, some authorities in the Church are beginning to realize—more objectively—that serious mistakes have been made, and that it is perhaps time, if not to return completely to the former way of things, which would be ideal, but to reform their reforms. It is at least a first step. Alas! It has taken twelve years for these tragic results: defection of priests, defection of religious men and women, the ruin of novitiates, the ruin even of religious holiness, the ruin of churches, the apostasy of so many faithful. All this had to happen before our eyes so that a start could be made, slowly, to realize the damage which this reform has caused—reform which was not made by the Church but which has been carried out by those who were imbued with ideas contrary to those which the Church has always taught.

This, then, is the purpose behind all that the Archbishop does: he is rendering a service to the Church and to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith. How can anyone seriously term this work "schismatic"? It is true that he is refusing to obey the Pope in disciplinary matters, but not even his worst enemy has suggested that Archbishop Lefebvre has ever called into question any teaching of the Church on faith or morals. There is a sound Catholic tradition for resisting even the Pope where obeying him might endanger the Faith (see Appendix II to my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre). But when Catholics are told that they must not be present at the ceremonies in St. Vincent's, Kansas City, on May 9th and 10th, 1981, because by doing so they will make themselves schismatic, let them look around at the American Church where they will see so much schism and heresy that Archbishop Lefebvre stands out in contrast for what he truly is, a prelate in the tradition of St. Athanasius who was prepared to undergo excommunication by the Pope of his day rather than compromise the Faith (see Appendix I to Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre).

 

The Real Schismatics

Does any American Bishop who has not rejected the Detroit Conference deserve the name of Catholic? Read the resolutions of that Congress and balance them against the "sin" of celebrating the Tridentine Mass, described by Father Faber as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." It is not an outrage that anyone should insist upon celebrating this Mass, the greatest treasure of the Western Church, dating back in all essentials to the epoch of St. Gregory the Great. It is outrageous that anyone should wish to prohibit its celebration.

The distribution of Communion under both kinds at Sunday Masses in parishes is strictly forbidden by the Pope. Whenever this takes place it is a schismatic act—this alone indicates the widespread nature of schism in America. For as far back as seven years the Church's legislation for preparing Eucharistic bread was widely ignored in the U.S.A. There is no doubt that tens of thousands of invalid Masses have taken place. It appears that after persistent pressure by the Vatican, and in the face of protracted defiance by some American bishops, the situation has generally been rectified, but no redress has been made to those who offered stipends for these invalid Masses, despite demands by the Vatican that this should be done. Just how serious is the "sin" of beginning Mass with the words Introibo ad altare Dei, and ending it with the Last Gospel, in comparison to the American scandal of invalid Eucharistic matter? What of the "Clown Masses," the "Dancing Girl Masses," and numberless sacrilegious profanations which defile the celebration of Mass in so many American dioceses? These are not rumors, unsubstantiated allegations—they have been documented time and again with names, dates, and places. There are many examples in my book, Pope Paul's New Mass. Here is one that I did not include. The Catholic Review (Baltimore) in its 16 January 1981 issue carries a picture of a person who appears to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan surrendering, or perhaps poised to dive into a swimming pool, standing beside a gentleman with a Groucho Marx mustache bearing a placard with the words: "It's a Miracle." The picture depicts part of what purports to be a Mass of children in the parish of St. Joseph, Fullerton. The miracle in question consisted of the white-clad gentleman miraculously multiplying two McDonald's hamburger tokens into 450, and distributing them to "the throng of anxious children." Looking at the picture again I suspect that the Klansman may simply be holding up his hands to indicate to the aforementioned throng of anxious children that the miracle has terminated, and no more miraculous tokens are forthcoming. This, it appears, is a typical example of the way Mass is celebrated for children in this parish. Does the bishop know? Indeed he does. The "success of the Fullerton parish program" has become so well known that Today's Parish Magazine has arranged to have a series of its scripts published as a book in August this year.

Liturgical lunacy appears to be a characteristic of the Baltimore diocese. In the 20 February 1981 issue of The Catholic Review there is a lengthy report on the antics of a certain Father Frechette of the St. Joseph Monastery Parish in West Baltimore. The report recounts in terms of fulsome admiration how Father Frechette arranged a wedding during a children's Mass, followed by a reception in the parish hall. The nuptials in question were those of two puppets, Noah and Norah. He has arranged for a lady riding a pony to ride down the aisle at Christmas, and a man on a pony on Palm Sunday. He arranged for a fire drill to take place during Mass, and for the fire department to attend. Live and stuffed animals, colored flags, and banners "all serve to educate children in certain aspects of religion." Father Frechette's dog sits in the sanctuary during Mass and "gives his paw during the exchange of peace before communion. On one occasion he let one of the normally caged doves sit on a perch on the altar to demonstrate the celebration of freedom to the children.... Occasionally, there will be a clown at the children's Liturgy. He comes to the altar with the priest and is introduced after the Gospel. He shows the people that laughter is a gift from God, he said, while he performs a series of tricks. The clown accompanies the priest to the church entrance after Mass and greets the people along with him. Another feature of the children's liturgies at Monastery Parish is the St. Joe's treasure chest, a storage trunk in which surprises are kept. Father Frechette recalled that at one Mass the visiting priest who celebrated the Liturgy emerged from the trunk fully vested after it was brought out into the sanctuary from behind the altar."

It is hardly necessary to tell readers of The Angelus that this sacrilegious clowning makes a mockery of the entire meaning of the Mass, and is destroying any possibility of children understanding it for what it truly is, the making present of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The atmosphere which should characterize the celebration of Mass is perfectly characterized in a prayer found in the Divine Liturgy of St. James:

Let all mortal flesh be silent, and stand with fear and trembling and meditate nothing earthly within itself for the King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ our God, comes forward to be sacrificed, and to be given for food to the faithful; and the bands of angels go before Him with every power and dominion, the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces and crying aloud the hymn, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

This is certainly the atmosphere which will pervade the Masses celebrated by Archbishop Lefebvre at St. Vincent's but, according to the American bishops, it would be sinful to be present, while it is quite in order to assist at Masses where priests leap fully vested from trunks and puppets are "married," and dogs sit in the sanctuary to have their paws shaken before Holy Communion is distributed. If we are going to talk about schism, then the Father Frechettes who proliferate throughout America, and the bishops who condone or encourage them, are certainly in schism from 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition.

Bishop Harrison, of Syracuse, New York, has published a directive authorizing his clergy to admit Protestants to Holy Communion in Catholic churches, in flagrant defiance of the present legislation of the Holy See, which Pope John Paul II has stated must be strictly observed. There is also widespread defiance of the ruling that children should normally make their First Confession before receiving their First Holy Communion. The legislation concerning General Absolution is another sphere in which the Pope is defied in the schismatic ferment which prevails throughout the American Church. A report in the October 1979 issue of The New Jersey Catholic News referred to the "enormity of the revolt" taking place, and noted that it can involve sacrilege:

Our Holy Father permits general absolution only in the "rarest" of circumstances. Certainly this does not authorize permission to a modern parish, in a mobile society, at a time when confessions may be heard any day of the week.

Many parishes around the State regularly plan General Absolution before Christmas and Easter. All such ceremonies are direct acts of disobedience to Rome. Some parishes with planned General Absolution: Holy Trinity, Westfield; St. John's, Linden; Assumption, Roselle; St. Thomas, Bloomfield; St. Ann's, Newark; St. Paul's, Irvington; Immaculate Heart of Mary, Maplewood; Our Lady of the Valley, Orange . . . these are only a few. It gives the faithful some idea of the enormity of the revolt within the Church.

Some parishes try "tricks" to get around the Papal prohibition. How about this one? St. Vincent's, Madison, gathers several hundred people in Church. Pieces of paper are passed out. Write out your sins ("Now don't let anyone peek" . . . chuckle!). Come up one at a time to one of the half-dozen or so priests standing in the sanctuary. The designated Padre takes the paper from your hand, makes sure he does not look at the information, and dramatically casts the paper into the fire.

Individual absolution is then given, but no individual penance. Return to your pews for meditation and hymns. Feel better, now? That's nice.

The trouble is, dear parishioners, your sins were probably not forgiven, and while you took part in a very inventive, touching, show biz metaphor, the whole ritual was certainly a sacrilege (abuse of a sacred thing).

And what of Archbishop Whealon of Hartford, Connecticut, who lent his Cathedral for the ordination of an Episcopalian bishop, a ceremony which was boycotted many conservative Episcopalian clergy because the celebrant of the Eucharist was to be a priestess? Not to be outdone in the contest to decide America's most schismatic prelate, Archbishop Roach, the President of the American Church, opened the doors of his Cathedral to Protestants of any and every variety. He put it at their disposal for a "Reformation Sunday Celebration" on 26 October 1980. The zealous Protestants used the Cathedral to proclaim their solidarity with Calvin's claim that "through the Bible alone can God be known"; their admiration for "the Albigensians and Waldensians, with Wycliff and Hus" for their contribution to the freedom of faith; they affirmed, with Luther: "That it is 'By Grace through faith alone, not works' that we approach God." During the liturgy, Msgr. Ambrose V. Hayden, Pastor of the Cathedral, extended a very warm welcome to his Protestant visitors. Three prominent heresiarchs were depicted on the program cover, which is reproduced below.

Well, Bishop Sullivan of Kansas City will certainly extend no welcome, warm or otherwise, to those who come to St. Vincent's for the dedication. It is not that he is invariably an unwelcoming person. Recently, a book entitled Emerging Lay Ministries was published. It undermines the entire Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Bishop Sullivan did not simply welcome it, he wrote an enthusiastic foreword. He was less welcoming to Msgr. Kearney, the much-loved pastor of Christ the King Parish in his diocese. Msgr. Kearney celebrated the New Mass in as dignified and reverent manner as possible, and attracted thousands of worshippers, scandalized by liturgical abominations in their own parishes. Bishop Sullivan did not come to what might appear to be an obvious conclusion and halt the abominations—he sacked Msgr. Kearney! Which is just one more illustration of my observation that one cannot effectively fight for the Faith within the structures of the official Church.

 

A Catholic Event

I am sure that all those Catholics who are present at St. Vincent's for the 9th-10th May will be encouraged and inspired. They will be able to worship their Creator by participating in the most solemn and beatiful act of worship possible, a Pontifical High Mass in the Latin Tridentine Rite—St. Vincent's Church was built for the celebration of this rite of Mass. There will be no banners, banjoes, dancing girls, lay ministers of Communion, Communion in the hand, multiplication of McDonald's tokens—just Holy Mass as the older ones among them will have known and loved it. The music they will hear will be Gregorian Chant, the inspired melodies which the Second Vatican Council ordered should become the norm at Sung Masses, an order which the American Bishops have defied. They will be given a program, but the picture on the cover will be that of St. Vincent de Paul—not Zwingli, Luther, or Calvin. They will also be encouraged by the sight of the seminarians whose presence is a sign that the work undertaken by Archbishop Lefebvre is destined to endure. Those fortunate to be at St. Vincent's, and those unable to be present, will surely pray that the time will soon come when our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, who will be prayed for during all the Masses, will remove the restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass. We can at least be thankful that not once during his pontificate has he criticized the Archbishop, not once has he asked him to close his seminaries or to cease ordaining. This is in sharp contrast with Pope Paul VI who waged a ceaseless campaign against the Archbishop, but it is still a long way from restoring the formal and official approval of his work which was accorded it when he began. When this approval has been restored, it will be a sign that the tide has begun to turn, that a regeneration of Catholicism can begin. Meanwhile, we must, as Archbishop Lefebvre admonished us, continue to resist the decomposition of our Faith.

Not in a spirit of contradiction, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the Popes who have maintained tradition.

We might add to the Archbishop's words: "Fidelity to the beliefs and traditions of those who built the Church of St. Vincent's, Kansas City." Those who were present at its first dedication would certainly feel at home there when Archbishop Lefebvre re-dedicates the church. They would certainly not feel at home if they attended a Mass celebrated by Bishop Sullivan. In 1980 St. Vincent's Church stood abandoned. Never again, it appeared, would the sound of plainchant and the sweet smoke of incense rise up to the redwood beams of its majestic ceiling. May what has taken place at St. Vincent's be a sign of what will one day take place in all our churches, the restoration of the Faith of our Fathers.

---

1. Betrayal of the Citadel, a 95-page pamphlet, is available from the Angelus Press, Box 1187, Dickinson, TX 77539. The cost is $3.50.

2. Published by Doubleday, Garden City, N.J., 513 pages, $14.95.