The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Pope's Brother on the Real Crisis in the Church

Yes a crisis of FAITH !

September 18th, 2005

Last week an interview with Georg Ratzinger, the Pope's brother, surfaced in which the Monsignor was highly critical of theological trends (in some quarters) since the Second

Vatican Council. Throughout the weekend I have mulled over some of the salient points of that interview which I share with you here:

To begin with Ratzinger suggests that the crisis the Church is currently going through is one of a loss of Faith. The process is called "secularization":

"The problem goes deeper. I was speaking about the "signs of our time". We in the west are confronted with a total secularisation. Any reference to the sacred, any realisation of the otherworldly has been lost for many people. (...) The surrounding world occupies us to such an extent that any understanding of God's world has been lost with many people. Understanding for the inner truth of the Faith has been slowly disappearing even among the Faithful. Even practicing Christians no longer understand the decisive bases, they no longer understand them nor recognise them. This is the expression of a truly deep crisis

Many other Christian groups have attempted to accommodate their teachings (moral and doctrinal) to that of the world - many "Catholics" want the same thing as well such as contraception, the relaxation of the law against clerical celibacy (as if that would solve anything !) How foolish the idea that married priests would somehow solve the problem of the current sexual deviants that have afflicted the Church for the last 40 years - these men who have infiltrated to some of the highest echelons of the Church had no desire to get married in the first place !

"This demand is popular but ludicrous. What is true however is that the Church representatives are not always courageous enough and that due to insecurity, there is a tendency out of insecurity to tolerate without sufficient resistance every mischief from everyone who spread themselves in the Church. (...)The spirit of the modern age has found space in the Church and one has to understand that not everybody can resist it."

Monsignor Georg Ratzinger is visited by his brother Pope Benedict XVI
after receiving a pacemaker

At the root of the problem, the Second Vatican Council - Some are for it some are against it:

"The Council was an enormously multilayered event. There is a lot of critique today about the Council. The reaction to the Second Vatican Council is in accord with the reaction to previous Councils. On the one hand, there is enthusiasm and convinced acceptance. On the other hand, there is sharp rejection. The problem is that most critics but also most supporters do not know the Council's texts but only talk about a constructed "spirit of the Council".

The last point: "The problem is that most critics but also most supporters do not know the Council's texts." is crucial. I raised that same point several times in this column - I have read the Council texts and I do see the problems with the council just as Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out in the extract in last week's column:

Ours is an Ancient Struggle

Well, these texts are astounding, quite astounding! I shall quote from a few of these texts shortly. It is incredible! In the last few weeks (since I am now unemployed!), I have been spending a little time re-reading the book by Emmanuel Barbier on Liberal Catholicism. It is striking to see how our fight now is exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the nineteenth century - in the wake of the French Revolution - and by the Popes, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X, down to Pius XII. Their fight is summed up in the encyclical Quanta Cura, with the Syllabus of Pius IX, and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. These are the two great documents, sensational and shocking in their day, laying out the Church's teaching in the face of modern errors, the errors appearing in the course of the [French] Revolution, especially in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man." This is the fight we are in the middle of today, exactly the same fight.

There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against them. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain with the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now, you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned, Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus." Therewith the Cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. Besides he goes on to say quite clearly, "Indeed, we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which were not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.

We stand exactly where Cardinal Pie, Msgr. Freppel, Louis Veuillot stood, and Deputy Keller in Alsace, Cardinal Mermillod in Switzerland, who fought the good fight, together with the great majority of the then bishops. At that time, they had the good fortune to have the large majority of the bishops on their side! Msgr. Dupanloup and the few bishops in France who followed him were the odd ones out. The few bishops in Germany, the few in Italy, who were openly opposed to the Syllabus, and in effect opposed to Pius IX, were the exception rather than the rule. But obviously there were the forces of the Revolution, the heirs of the Revolution, and there was the hand reached out by Dupanloup, Montalembert, Lamennais and others, who offered their hand to the Revolution and who never wanted to invoke the rights of God against the rights of man - "We ask only for the rights of every man, the rights shared by everyone, shared by all men, shared by all religions, not the rights of God," said these Liberals.

Ratzinger (the Pope's brother that is) continues:

Everybody who wants to change something in the Church according to his taste is talking about "the spirit of the Council"….. it does not matter even if it has not the remotest connection to the Council. This is misusing the Council itself and the "spirit of the Council" is in reality in the "spirit" of those who refer to it which has nothing to do with the authentic contents of the Council. The Council has a bad reputation even among conservative critics.

So the council is good but was hijacked ! (Ratzinger's suggestion not mine !) The same solution as the current Pope. But Lefebvre identifies a problem (just as the Pope has previously admitted): we have two Traditions in direct confrontation; which, then, is the correct one ?

The Pope's brother went on to put a new twist on the axiom Ecclesia semper reformanda:

A Council is not a parliamentary decision. It is the voice of the Church that speaks under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is important to have a responsible understanding of the Council for its authentic interpretation of the Faith. The central point must be a growth in the spirit of the Faith, an authentic understanding of it and to learn to lead a life in the sign of Faith. All modernisations become outmoded in a few years time. In this way, the Church surrenders her transcendental treasure and transforms herself into an institution like any other. Going forward is not going back but it is a return; a return to follow Christ.

So, then, despite the problem of Faith which the Church is currently experiencing we don't need to go back to basics ??? What then, remains ? Not a return to the Traditional Mass or Faith, but more experimentation. But if that were all, like a good modernist, he concludes with a little doublespeak:

It is clear that a fair amount of misunderstanding is risked and that "enemies" will be made. Those who go against the spirit of the time have to be prepared for the wind to blow into their face. But the Church must stand firm and must have the courage for decisions which are unpopular in the public media. The Church must not forget that she not only considers "today" but she must prevail in eternity. (...) The problem is that the choice of participants and topics for the debate seemed to be determined by the journalists. The journalists are naturally to a large extent more interested in a modernisation debate than in a debate on the return to unpopular but fundamental truths of the Faith. In addition, it is unfortunately only popular to comment on the outer experience of the Church and not on the content, because such aspects are of interest which reflects our modern society.

So we're not going back, we're going forward, to fundamental truths of Faith which remain unpopular with the media... are you confused as well ?

+TF