The Archbishop Speaks
The Liberal Principles of Vatican II Continue
to be put into Action by the Holy See
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
|
The history of Italy is extremely long, turbulent and complex—and inextricably bound up with the history of the Church. Such a history we cannot hope to summarize here, but must be content with saying that modern Italy began with the political unification of the country (called the Risorgimento), which reached its climax in 1870, when Italian troops captured Rome, and Pope Pius IX became the voluntary "Prisoner of the Vatican'' in protest against the loss of papal territories and his temporal power. This stand-off prevailed until 1929, when the Fascist government under Mussolini signed the Treaties of Conciliation with the Church, by which the Vatican City State was recognized as independent and a large sum of money paid as compensation for the loss of papal territories. A Concordat was also signed, by which Catholicism was made the State Religion and Rome a holy city. (These are the treaties referred to in this article.) The situation was far from satisfactory to the Church even then, however, and the popes continued to live almost as recluses, coming out of the city only to go to their summer residence at nearby Castel Gandolfo. Then, with Vatican II, the whole picture changed—and is continuing to change, always for the worse, as Archbishop Lefebvre so eloquently explains. The article is translated by Father Philip M. Stark from the May-June issue of Fideliter,the magazine of the Society of St. Pius X for France.
|
AFTER THE APPEARANCE of the new Code of Canon Law, after the active appearance of the Pope in a Lutheran church in Rome, we now have a new and terrible proof of the spirit of Liberalism [in a document] which henceforth will guide the actions of the Pope and the Vatican: the Concordat between the Holy See and Italy, signed last February 18th.
To get some idea of the radical change introduced into Vatican policy, it suffices to put the words of Pope Pius XI after the signing of the Lateran Treaty and the Concordat on February 11, 1929, alongside the speeches of the [present] Pope, Cardinal Casaroli and President [of Italy] Craxi.
The first article of the Lateran Treaty is:
Italy recognizes and reaffirms the principle consecrated in the first article of the Constitution of the Kingdom [of Italy] of March 4, 1848, according to which the Catholic, apostolic and Roman religion is the only religion of the State.
And the first article of the Concordat, supplementing the agreements of the Lateran Treaty, reads thus:
Italy, in the sense of the first article of the Treaty, assures to the Catholic Church the free exercise of spiritual power.
The second paragraph of this article adds:
In consideration of the sacred character of the Eternal City, episcopal see of the Sovereign Pontiff, center of the Catholic World and goal of pilgrimages, the Italian government will see to it that whatever is in opposition to this character will be kept out of Rome.
In consequence of these agreements, Pope Pius XI saw fit to address a letter to Cardinal Gasparri, who signed the agreements on May 30, 1929, in order to clarify the troublesome question of the rights of the Church. This letter would be worth publishing in its entirety to remind Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Casaroli of the teaching of the Church on this point, which they seem to have forgotten. Here are some excerpts from it:
In the Concordat are recognized, if not two states, at least two sovereignties, as such, i.e., each perfect in its order, an order necessarily determined by their respective ends, when it clearly appears, according to the objective dignity of these ends that the superiority of the Church is absolute ...
Cults [i.e., non-Catholic sects] "tolerated, permitted, allowed"—we shall not create a problem over words. The question seems, moreover, quite well resolved: because the more doctrinal part of the Constitution speaks more properly of cults being "tolerated," while the legislative parts, on a more practical level, speak of "permitted, allowed," in such a way that it is straightforwardly and clearly understood that the Catholic religion alone is the religion of the State with all the logical and juridical consequences that flow from it.
A more delicate question concerns "freedom of proselytizing and discussion," and also "freedom of conscience."
It is not admissible to agree to a freedom of discussion which can undermine the good faith of ill-informed participants and which can easily turn into a form of propaganda as harmful to the religion of the State as to the State itself, inasmuch as it touches what is most sacred in the tradition of the Italian people and what is most essential for its unity.
Still less admissible is "freedom of conscience." This would be saying that the creature is not subject to the Creator, and it would justify a total disintegration of conscience, tending toward complete lawlessness and disaster for Society ...
By logical necessity, one must recognize that the full and perfect mandate of education is not the concern of the State, but of the Church, and that the State cannot reduce this mandate to mere religious instruction.
The State has nothing to fear from these rights of the Church and of the family in the question of education, as this is the education which ushered in modern civilization, which has meant for it much profit and a much higher position.
What sublime clarity in these words, inspired by the spirit of Faith and by the Holy Ghost! The whole tradition and history of the Church confirm these simple truths.
But it seems that these truths are no longer of our time. Modern man has no doubt returned to his simian origins or has become a robot animated by computers and thus deprived of intelligence. The Pope and Cardinal Casaroli would do well to enlighten us!
We shall now see what enlightenment they give us in favor of the new Concordat, which suppresses the first articles [of the older Treaty] and recognizes the secular character of the Italian State and the non-sacred character of the City of Rome.
As for the good Socialist Craxi, he could not have had a greater triumph.
In Osservatore Romano [the official Vatican newspaper] for February 20, the following words of the Pope are reported, from a speech in St. Peter's Square:
I wish to recall the historical event of the signing of the revision of the Concordat of the Lateran which took place yesterday.
This is an agreement which Paul VI had foreseen and encouraged as a sign of the renewed harmony between the Church and State in Italy, and which I consider with particular attention as a juridical base of a peaceful, bilateral bond and as ideal inspiration for the generous and creative contribution which the ecclesial community is called to make to the moral and civil good of the nation ...
This agreement seems ideal and a model Concordat, based on the separation of Church and State and thus on the neutrality or secular character of the State vis-a-vis religion.
Ye predecessors of John Paul II—Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII—what think ye of this "ideal concordat" based on principles you have all condemned!
But let us look at the more explicit speech of Cardinal Casaroli (Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1984); these words were spoken immediately after the affixing of the signatures:
Mr. President [of the Council]: The action in which we have just taken part is the end of a long road ... It is the result of a search for a balance among various demands which come from the new national constitution and from the right of the Catholic Church according to the new spirit of the Second Vatican Council ...I am pleased to recall Article 7 of the Italian Constitution and to echo the Second Vatican Council and to cite a concept from it which may be considered its guiding light and principle: the State and the Catholic Church are each in their proper order independent and sovereign. Both strive by a reciprocal collaboration of works for the progress of man and the common good.
From now on an instrument of harmony and not of privilege: in effect, we cannot consider as a privilege the recognition of a social reality on the model of the Catholic Church, while at the same time recognizing a pluralist society which accepts an ideological diversity for citizens of other religions, to which I pay respectful and even cordial tribute ...
These words explicitly contradict those of Pope Pius XI.
But let us ask President Craxi what he thinks (Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1984). Here are some quotations from his speech in reply to the cardinal:
The Constitution of the Republic, fortified by a riper concept of the values of secularism and of freedom of conscience, has been able to guarantee to religious life, in all its expressions, a more certain safeguard and a greater presence. With the signing of this agreement, all the possibilities of the republican constitution as regards freedom of religion and of conscience are realized in the juridical forms desired by the Constitution.
This important result is the fruit of developments promoted in the Church by the Second Vatican Council, with the Declaration on Religious Liberty and by the new bonds between the Church and the political community ...
Let us therefore close the still open wounds in a good many consciences and congratulate ourselves on the pluralism of ideas and of concepts of life, essential foundations of a democratic society. Thus we will be able to consolidate the bonds between Church and State in a modern concept which has nothing to do with archaic barriers, but only with a free State in which the Church is free and active in national society.
The ancient principle of the Risorgimento is developed and renewed in a secular state in which the citizens can make their religious choices in full freedom.
The conclusions of the Socialist President are clear and even odious to a Church humiliated in the common law, henceforth on the same footing as all possible errors and deviations from the truth.
That all this is the fruit of the secular struggle of Freemasonry against the Church, we do no doubt. But that the Pope and the Secretary of State should rejoice in it, and see in it the fruits of Vatican II and consider this agreement "ideal"! No! We are not dealing any longer with men of the Church, but with bad diplomats, denying Our Lord and His social Kingship.
The authorities of the Church are the best judges of whether it is necessary to conclude an agreement with the secular Italian state, but that it should be necessary to abandon the principles and the rights of God and of the State—that is inadmissible at any price. The entire history of the bonds between Church and State is an illustration of the doctrinal firmness of the Popes. We had to reach Vatican II to destroy the public rights of the Church.
The consequences of this are contempt of even Catholic states for the rights of the Church. Spain, France and Poland openly persecute the Church. Catholic Lebanon is abandoned, Catholic tribes in the Sudan are massacred—beautiful results of the laicization of the State which Vatican diplomacy is pursuing.
Yes! The hour has come for the resistance of Catholics, without counting on the hierarchy which is betraying them everywhere. History offers us beautiful examples: St. Genevieve, St. Joan of Arc, the Martyrs of the Revolution, and many others.
They died shouting, "We want God!" Let us follow them.
+ Marcel LefebvreEcône, 22 March 1984
Current Issue
