August 1983 Print

An Editorial 

IN JUNE THIS YEAR His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre retired as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. His retirement must inevitably be an active one. His successor, Father Schmidberger, is not a bishop, and hence is unable to confirm or ordain. We shall have to continue to rely upon the Archbishop to administer these sacraments. But with Father Schmidberger undertaking much of the administrative work that had taken up so much of the Archbishop's time, His Grace will at least have the opportunity of enjoying a little of the rest which he so richly deserves in this, his second retirement. We feel that this is an appropriate moment to remind our readers of some of the more important aspects of the Archbishop's career, particularly as our circulation is growing continually, many new readers have joined us in the past few months. There must certainly be a good number who know little about Archbishop Lefebvre's career, and we are sure that they will appreciate a brief outline. But we would remind them that this is no substitute for obtaining a full account in the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre which has been published by our own press. Volume I, covering the years 1905 to 1976, appeared in 1979. Volume II, which covers the years 1977-1979 inclusive, will appear in late August or September of this year. Surprising as it may seem, so much took place during these three years that Volume II, like Volume I, will contain more than 400 pages. We hope that Volume III, taking the story up to the Archbishop's retirement, will appear in 1984, but 1985 is a more likely date.

How can we begin this tribute to the beloved founder of our Society? We realize that our thinking must inevitably be colored by the great bond of personal affection we feel towards him, but we are certain that we are being totally objective in suggesting that, apart from St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, there can be no Catholic who has given more significant or more faithful service to the Church during this century. Although the Archbishop disclaims the title, we have no hesitation in proclaiming him to be the Athanasius of our times. His life resembles that of St. Athanasius in many respects, not least in the extent to which Our Lord has given him so many personal crosses to bear.

The Archbishop began his life with the greatest blessing God can bestow upon any newborn child—devout Catholic parents. It is impossible not to discern the hand of Providence in their marriage. Madame Lefebvre had a profound desire to enter the religious life, but decided to marry only upon the explicit command of her Confessor who told her that her vocation was to be a wife and mother. How difficult it must have been for someone who wished to serve God as a nun to be told that He wished her to remain in the world. If she had not had the docility to submit to her spiritual director you would not be reading this editorial, the Archbishop would not have been born, the Society of St. Pius X would not have been founded, and there would be no Angelus. His father, too, was extremely devout, and on several occasions contemplated becoming a religious. With such Catholic parents the Faith permeated his childhood. Five of the eight children became priests or religious. Family prayer, the Mass, pilgrimages, the Rosary, practical acts of charity to the material poor, all were as natural a part of his life as is, alas, television to the typical American child today.

The young Marcel soon came to accept that suffering was also a part of life. He witnessed the occupation of his hometown, Lille, by a foreign army. He had to live throughout the war years without his father who had escaped from the German zone to work for the French Intelligence Service where he undertook exceptionally dangerous missions. It seemed more likely than not that he would die in the service of his country. Marcel also had to undergo the anguish of the arrest and imprisonment of his beloved mother by the Germans, and the prospect of her dying in captivity because she refused to submit to injustice. In 1929, the very year in which he was ordained, the family had to endure the humiliation of bankruptcy when, because of fluctuations in the post-war market, the family textile business collapsed. But Monsieur Lefebvre was not a man who would admit defeat; he set to work and built the business up again. The Lefebvres are not a family who surrender easily!

Marcel had much more suffering to undergo where his family was concerned. His mother died an agonizingly painful death—the account of it is almost too terrible to read. His father was arrested by the Germans during the Second World War, and died in prison in the most painful circumstances. It is our hope that by the end of 1983 we shall have published, in pamphlet form, the lives of both the Archbishop's parents. Our readers, we are sure, will agree that it is a privilege and an inspiration to read them.

In 1932 Father Lefebvre joined the Holy Ghost Fathers and went to Africa as a missionary. He returned to France in 1946 to become a seminary superior, but eventually returned to the missions where he became Apostolic Delegate to the whole of French-speaking Africa, a striking proof of the confidence placed in him by Pope Pius XII. Even some of those who are his most implacable enemies among the clergy today are willing to pay tribute to the greatness of his apostolate in Africa. One of them, Father Jean Anzevui, who has written a book attacking the Archbishop, admitted that:

During his thirty year apostolate in Africa the role of Mgr. Lefebvre was of the very highest importance. His fellow missionaries still remember his extraordinary zeal which was revealed in his exceptional abilities as an organizer and a man of action. He persuaded a number of congregations which had previously shown no interest in the missions to undertake work in Africa. He was responsible for the construction of large numbers of churches and the foundation of charitable works of every kind ... they are all agreed in recognizing his magnificent career, his courtesy, his affability, his natural and simple distinction, the dignity of his perfect life, his austerity, his piety, and his absolute devotion to any task which he undertook.

Had the Archbishop retired at this point he would still have earned a great and honorable part in the history of twentieth-century Catholicism. He cannot possibly have envisaged the destiny that Providence had in store for him. His reputation for orthodoxy and loyalty to the Holy See was such that many of the French Bishops, who had been infected with Modernism long before Vatican II, opposed the decision of Pope John XXIII to appoint him to a bishopric in France. Not unnaturally, he felt wounded at this attitude. It is not pleasant to discover that those you have considered as your friends have turned against you. But, like Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII recognized the Archbishop's qualities and gave him his full support. In 1962 he was elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, the largest missionary Order in the world. He had doubts about accepting, but did so upon the insistence of Pope John XXIII. The same Pope appointed him as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. He was thus familiar with every detail of the Council from well before it began until its conclusion. There is no one who can speak with greater authority as to what happened and why.

As a member of the Central Preparatory Commission the Archbishop worked for several years upon the draft documents which the Council Fathers were to discuss (the preparatory schemas). What a shock and disappointment it must have been to him when the Council had hardly begun and they were all discarded, thrown into the wastebasket. No Council had received so thorough a preparation, and this was what became of it. New draft documents were prepared, drawn up by commissions dominated by Liberals. In fact, Liberals soon came to dominate the Council, and the Archbishop found himself drawn into the role of a leader of the International Group of Fathers which came together to defend orthodoxy. The conflict was long, bitter and wearing. The International Group, and the Archbishop in particular, came in for severe criticism and even abuse. He learned how difficult it is to put your case before the faithful in the face of a press dominated by Liberals who will misrepresent you on the few occasions when they don't ignore you. The Council had scarcely ended when the Church which the Archbishop loved so much, and had served so well, began to disintegrate.

Liberalism soon made inroads into the Holy Ghost Fathers. The Archbishop is not a man who loves nor seeks conflict so, in 1968, he resigned. Few bishops had given such loyal and devoted service to the Church. Now he intended to live out the remaining years of his life in prayer and contemplation, and how much he had merited this reward! It is surely one of the great mysteries of our faith that God sends the greatest burdens and the greatest sufferings to those who love Him most and serve Him best. The reward of those who imitate His Son most closely is to share the Cross which Jesus Christ took up.

Archbishop Lefebvre was living in a small apartment in Rome, all that he could afford with his modest pension. As a member of a religious order he had no personal property, no private income. He was approached by some seminarians who were not satisfied with the spiritual formation they were receiving. They had been recommended to seek out the Archbishop by some priests who knew him. The story of what happened next is told in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume I. It led to a house of studies, the establishment of the Society of St. Pius X, with the approval and encouragement of the Vatican, the establishment of a seminary in Switzerland, and then in Germany, and then in America, and then in Argentina. There are now over a hundred priests in the Society, several hundred seminarians, about a hundred Sisters, fifty residences where priests of the Society live, and hundreds of chapels where tens if not hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics can worship God each Sunday by participating in the Tridentine Mass. These chapels range from a hotel room rented once a month where only a few dozen Catholics gather, to such a beautiful church as Queen of Angels Chapel in Dickinson, Texas, or the cathedral-like structure of St. Vincent's in Kansas City. Thousands of children are now attending Society schools in many countries, it may well be that the most impressive of these is St. Mary's located on the vast Jesuit campus which the Society acquired in Kansas.

We cannot call to mind such a rapid expansion in the initial history of any religious order. The need was there, a man was chosen by God to fill it, and divine Providence took care of the rest. Had this flourishing apostolate taken place with the full and enthusiastic support of the Vatican it would still have been almost miraculous. But, after five years of Vatican approval, official support was withdrawn. The Archbishop was ordered to disband the Society and close down his seminary. Pope Paul VI had succumbed to the pressure of the Liberal bishops who hated the work the Archbishop was doing. The suppression of the Society violated the most basic principles of Canon Law and the most fundamental norms of natural justice. What was the Archbishop to do? He decided to follow the example of St. Athanasius and carry on his fight for Tradition, even if this earned him condemnation by the Pope. In his day, St. Athanasius had to undergo the bitter blow of excommunication. The Archbishop has been spared this sanction. But if it had come, few of those who had supported his stand for Tradition would have abandoned him. An unjust excommunication can be rightly ignored.

Since the unjust condemnation of the Society in 1975, the pressure under which the Archbishop has carried out his apostolate is something which no other person can possibly appreciate. The physical demands upon a man in his seventies have been enormous. He has travelled throughout the world—to Australia, India, the United States, South Africa, Mexico, several South American and numerous European countries. There have been press conference after press conference, flight after flight, jet lag, changes of temperature, and the expectations of the traditionalist faithful. We know that our journal is read throughout the English-speaking world. We know that thousands of our readers will have met the Archbishop, been present at his Masses, had their children confirmed by him, and they will know how almost invariably he has a smile for everyone, a kind word to say, a blessing for the children, a moment to pose for a photograph, an inspirational sermon to deliver. Some of us have accompanied him on his visits throughout the United States, and we must confess that, although much younger, the pace was almost more than we could stand—and we had not just made a 3,000 mile flight over the Atlantic which had resulted in the loss of an entire night's sleep. And we ask our readers who have met the Archbishop, what is the impression you retain most vividly? We are sure that it will be one of warmth, kindness, simplicity, goodness—in a word, holiness.

But even more enervating than the physical demands made upon the Archbishop have been the emotional ones. There is no bishop alive in the world today whose life has been influenced more by the desire to be loyal to the Holy See and to the Pope. It was this unswerving and implacable loyalty to Rome that made him the target of so much animosity during the Council. But the Archbishop knew that his first duty is to Tradition and that if a Pope fails to uphold Tradition then he cannot expect the loyalty of the faithful. Despite the intellectual conviction that this was the case, the emotional strain placed upon the Archbishop by his conflict with Pope Paul VI is something that not one of us can possibly appreciate. And then, since 1977, to the present day, he has been engaged in intense negotiations with the Holy See which must certainly have involved him in even greater moral, spiritual and emotional strain. This will become apparent to our readers when they are able to study the Apologia, Volume II. The negotiations were conducted with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When he appeared before it in person the Archbishop was not permitted to have the assistance of a friend or adviser. (In the interests of objectivity we must point out that this is standard procedure and not something personal directed against him.) When you read the account of these negotiations you will feel proud of the manner in which he upheld our case, but admire his courtesy, deference, and humility before the representatives of the Pope. You will see that on no occasion does he concede a single point of principle, but that he did, and is doing, all in his power to bring about a reconciliation with the Holy See; and, between these meetings he was, as we have mentioned, submitting to the physical strain of travelling throughout the world to inspire and encourage any group of Catholics prepared to make a stand for Tradition.

Well, those negotiations are continuing. What their outcome will be we cannot say. For the sake of the Church we must pray that they will succeed.

We would like to suggest to our readers that they do three things to show their appreciation to the Archbishop for all that he has done for the Church and for them as individuals:

2) Never let a day pass without praying for his intentions, particularly the success of his negotiations with the Holy See and the unity of the Society of St. Pius X.

3) Prepare to give him the greatest welcome he has ever received during his next visit to America! We pray this will not be long in coming.

God bless the Archbishop!