The Untraditional Theology of Breakaway "Traditionalists"

What happens when you become detached from the vine? Let me present the teaching of one who has placed himself outside the Church:

". . . As for supernatural Truth, it has existed without change in the mind of God since all eternity.

It was merely revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who as man repeatedly said that it was above him. . . . "

The author maintains that supernatural Truth is independent of Our Blessed Lord. Supernatural Truth "was merely revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ".

"Christ, who as man repeatedly said that it (supernatural Truth) was above him. . . . "

Although the author claims that Christ "repeatedly" said that supernatural Truth was "above him", he does not quote a single case.

Does Jesus say: "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." (Jn. 7, 16)? Yes, but Jesus also says: "I and the Father are one." (Jn.10, 30; Cf.: Jn. 17, 11, 21) Did Christ not say: "The word which you have heard, is not Mine; but the Father's who sent me." (Jn. 14, 24)? Yes, but did not Jesus says: "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine" (Jn. 16, 15). Moreover, Our Blessed Lord also says: "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world." (Jn. 8, 23)

Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature, but these two natures were united in the one Person of Christ which was a divine Person. Our Blessed Lord declared that, "I am . . . the Truth" (Jn. 14, 6). It is hard to see how you could affirm that "as man" supernatural Truth was "above" Christ without being a Nestorian, namely, that the "I" Christ uses in referring to Himself is sometimes a human "I", but at other times, a divine "I", in essence saying that He was a human person as well as a divine Person. Both Pope Pius XII (Sempiternus Rex) and Pope Paul VI (May 9, 1970) reaffirmed the traditional Catholic teaching on this point.

The author here is not only dividing the Person of Christ into human and divine, but is also dividing the Truth, that Christ proclaimed Himself to be, into that which is above Him and that which is not above Him. Our Blessed Lord made no such distinction, on the contrary, He said simply but absolutely: "I am. . .the Truth."

Neither Scripture nor the Church teach that supernatural Truth "was merely revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ", something which, actually, even prophets and angels can do:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with

God. All things were made by Him: and without Him was

made nothing that was made." (Jn. 1, 1-3)

and:

"I and the Father are one." (Jn.10, 30; Cf.: Jn. 17, 11, 21)

and moreover:

"I am one that give testimony of Myself: and the Father that sent Me

giveth testimony of Me. They said therefore to Him: Where is Thy

Father? Jesus answered: Neither Me do you know, nor My Father:

if you did know Me, perhaps you would know My Father also."

(Jn. 8, 18-19)

Saint Paul teaches the supernatural mystery "which is Christ":

"The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations,

but now is manifested to His saints, To whom God would make

known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles,

which is Christ, in you the hope of glory. . . That their hearts may

be comforted, being instructed in charity, and unto all riches of

fulness of understanding, unto the knowledge of the mystery of

God the Father and of Christ Jesus: In whom are hid all the

treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 1, 26-27; 2, 2-3)

The Church has always understood that Christ is not merely the messenger, but also the message, as we recite in the Creed of the Fathers: "Light from Light" ("Lumen de lumine").

As Saint Augustine writes:

"God's speaking is the Son Himself. . . So God gave out His Word,

that is, begat the Son. . . The Son is the Word of God, and . . . He

willed to speak Himself to us when He was speaking the word of

the Father." (Commentary on Gospel of Saint John)

And again:

"And thus in a wonderful and ineffable manner He, who never laid

down or lost Himself, came to Himself. But God, as was said, had

come through the flesh to men, the truth to liars; for God is true, and

every man a liar. (Rom. 3, 4) When, therefore, He withdrew His flesh

from amongst men, and carried it up there where no liar is found,

He also Himself--for the Word was made flesh--returned by Himself,

that is, by His flesh, to the truth, which is none other but Himself.

And this truth, we cannot doubt, although found amongst liars, He

preserved even in death; for Christ was once dead, but never false.

(ibid.)

As Saint Thomas writes:

"(T)he Son of God is the Word and Concept of God understanding

Himself. The Word of God, thus conceived, is properly called ‘begotten

Wisdom’: — hence the Apostle names: "Christ. . . the wisdom of God"

(1 Cor. 1, 24). This Word of wisdom, conceived in the mind, is a manifestation

of the wisdom of the mind which thereby understands: as in us acts are a

manifestation of habits.

Also the divine wisdom is called ‘light,’ as consisting in a pure act

of knowledge; and the manifestation of light is the brightness thence

proceeding: the Word of divine wisdom therefore is fittingly called the

‘brightness of light,’ according to the text: "being the brightness of His glory"

(Heb. 1, 3). The brightness of light is nothing else than its intensity; or as we

might say, its adequacy. Thus the Son is adequate, or equal, to the Father.

. . . But though the Son, or Word of God, is properly called ‘conceived

wisdom,’ nevertheless the name of Wisdom, when used absolutely, must be

common to the Father and the Son; since the wisdom that is resplendent

through the Word is the essence of the Father, and the essence of the Father

is common to Him with the Son." (SCG IV, C. 12)

To a deficient Christology, the author adds a deficient Ecclesiology:

Here is the conclusion reached by the logic of one who has separated himself from the unity of the Church:

"Now in the argument condensed above, the logic is good, the Minor is good,

so the problem must be in the Major. It lies in fact in the exaggeration of papal

infallibility. And here we come to my double reason: to make the Truth and the

Church of God so dependent on human beings is a too human way of

considering the things of God."

Now ". . . the Church of the living God," as Saint Paul affirms, is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3,15). This Church of the living God, was built by Christ upon the rock of Peter: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" (Mt. 16, 18). If the foundation of the Church be exaggerated, then the structure built upon it, is also exaggerated and compromised.

After calling into question the solidity of the Church's foundation, as established by Our Divine Lord, the author then goes on to declare his own group as the pillar and ground of truth:

". . . so long as any organization like the Society has the Truth while Rome has not,

then the Society is in the driving-seat for all Catholic purposes, and any behavior,

shape, size or form of negotiations which would allow this Rome to get back into

the driving-seat would be tantamount to a betrayal of the Truth. . ."

The author asserts that "untruths" were taught by the Second Vatican Council:

"Neo-modernist Rome has fallen with the untruths of Vatican II."

Our Blessed Lord said: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (Lk. 10, 16) That what the Bishops of the world gathered together in unity with the Pope said, are "untruths", cannot be maintained without contradicting the Gospel and making a mockery of the words of Our Divine Lord.

"(T)he problem. . . lies in fact in the exaggeration of papal infallibility. . . . (T)o make the

Truth and the Church of God so dependent on human beings is a too human way of

considering the things of God.

But the Church does not maintain that the supernatural Truth that she teaches and transmits is dependent merely on human beings, but rather on the Church assisted by the supernatural divine help promised by Our Blessed Lord.

The author asserts that he (or his society), as opposed to the Church, is in possession of the Truth:

". . . so long as any organization like the Society has the Truth while Rome has not,

then the Society is in the driving-seat for all Catholic purposes, and any behavior,

shape, size or form of negotiations which would allow this Rome to get back into

the driving-seat would be tantamount to a betrayal of the Truth. . ."

Possibly the author might argue that his claim of possessing the Truth, does not rest upon himself or his group, but rests in his fidelity to past (as opposed to present, papal teaching and the "untruths of Vatican II"); but if papal infallibility be "exaggerated", then what value has this? Why should we be so concerned if the infallibility of past papal teaching may be "exaggerated"?

The supernatural truths that the Church teaches cannot be arrived at by natural reason, but were revealed, not only by, but, in Christ. If, however, the Church has not given an infallible witness to these truths that Christ revealed, then the author's claim of possessing the truth has little value. The inerrancy of the Church, of course, can not be understood apart from Peter, the foundation upon which Christ built His Church (Cf: Mt. 16, 18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting the Council teaching (Dei Verbum) and Saint Ireneus (Against the Heretics), affirms:

"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved

in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They

gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the

apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the

inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of

succession until the end of time." (Art. 77)

Feast of Our Lady of Loreto, 2007

Father Thomas Carleton

Editorial: The-Rosary.net

The Voice of the Shepherd

Should not the flock of Christ be more concerned in following the voice of the Shepherd than in following the "Voice of the Faithful"? Yes,

the voice of the faithful is very important, but as an individual voice: "He calleth his own sheep by name" (Jn. 10, 3).

Oh my friend, show me in Scripture where the voice of the crowd represents the Will of God:

"And Saul said to Samuel: I have sinned because I have transgressed the commandment
of the Lord, and thy words, fearing the people, and obeying their voice" (1 Kg. 15, 24).

In Holy Scripture the figure of the Will of God is a high mount or mountain, as Sinai or the Mount of the Transfiguration, where God

reveals His Will to His chosen servant or His Beloved Son. The Will of God comes from above not from below.

The phrase: "Vox populi, vox Dei", namely that the "voice of the people is the voice of God" is not a Biblical verse, but only a popular idea

about which Alcuin, already in the eight century, warns Charlemagne: "Neither to be listened to are those who are accustomed to say 'Vox populi, vox Dei'; since the tumult of the crowd is always close to madness".

There are also many "Traditionalists" who "recognize" the Pope, and in this they like to distinguish themselves from "Sede Vacantists".

How is this profitable? "Do not also the heathens this?" (Mt. 5, 47). This is not what Our Blessed Lord has told us reveals the sheep of His flock. The Sacred Heart has told us, not that His sheep will recognize the shepherd, but that they will recognize His voice and that they, therefore,

will be able to follow Him and be led to green pastures and pure springs (Cf.: Jn. 10).

Our Blessed Lord was speaking here, not only of Himself, but, of Peter and his successors as well, because, while we have the Words of

Jesus, we no longer have His voice, and the Good Shepherd ordained that His Flock would always have a visible shepherd: "He that heareth

you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me" (Lk. 10, 16). And did not

the Lord command Peter to "feed My lambs. . . feed My sheep" (Jn. 21, 15-17)? What does it profit to "recognize" the shepherd but not follow

his voice. How can a lamb be fed, if it follow not the voice of the shepherd to verdant pastures and living waters (Cf.: Ps. 22; Ez. 34)?

Being only a simple lamb, I have, from my boyhood, always nourished my soul with the writings of the Popes. I have never found

anything but what magnifies the words of the Lord. This is so, no less of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, than, of Pope Pius XII.

There are many who, even though "recognizing" these Popes, would speak disparagingly of them, but it is obvious that they have listened

to other voices which have turned them away from their shepherd. Clearly they have not heard the voice of the living shepherd, otherwise

they would never be spreading the foolish opinions and mis-representations about Papal teaching that they do. Not recognizing the voice

of the shepherd, many of these sheep have wandered onto dangerous cliffs and become entangled in thickets and brambles, but those who

have led them there, these hirelings, "and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not" (Jn. 10, 12), will not go after them.

Father Thomas Carleton

Feast of Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez, 2007

Pope Paul VI

Pope Paul VI

Dear Professor and Friend,

I've received a packet of papers that you sent, which, despite the pressures of pastoral and family obligations, I have tried to look over. Let me make some brief observations on at least two of these pieces: the first from NOR by a certain Erven Park, entitled: "'Diabolic Disorientation' in the Church".

Regarding this article, I would only point out that, at its outset, he presents a questionable exegesis of a passage of Saint Paul. He writes:

"It would be prudent at this point to briefly revisit one of the Apostle Paul's warnings

on the End Times. 'For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound

doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap up to themselves teachers

having itching ears and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth. . . (2 Tim. 4:

3-4).

By the fact that the Apostle addresses 'sound doctrine' and 'teachers,' we know he

is speaking of the Catholic Church."

Certainly the "sound doctrine" indicates the Catholic Church, but the words of Saint Paul do not specify who the "teachers" are. They could be leaders of sects, writers, atheists, or, in our own time, college professors, the media or whoever. The Fathers generally assumed that they were propagators of sects and heretics of various sorts: Gnostics, Manichaeans and the like (Cf.: Saints Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, etc.).

The second piece was a book chapter which did not carry the author's name. I assumed it was by that women writer which you have mentioned.

A cause for canonization of Pope Paul VI, has been introduced in the Congregation of Saints. This author, on the contrary, tries to make the case, that Giovanni Battista Montini, far from being a candidate for sainthood, was actually leading a double life: on the one hand, as priest, bishop, cardinal and pope, but, on the other hand, as a man, throughout his career, engaged in gravely immoral conduct. She pretty much bases herself on an amalgam of gossip columnists, gay web sites, biographies and auto-biographies of homosexual exploits, as well as her own innuendoes regarding un-married men with whom Montini, over the course of his lifetime, was acquainted.

If I had nine lives, maybe I could dedicate one of them in responding to this character assassination gathered from what she must consider reliable sources; but unfortunately, with only one life, I don't feel that it can be spent in turning over these same rocks where she came up with these stories.

What is it, then, that I could contribute about this question, when admittedly I have no direct personal knowledge of the alleged episodes nor the personalities and figures involved? About the only thing I suppose I can offer you is a some general principles which the faithful should use in these cases, "red-flag" a few points where the author has been inconsistent, and express briefly my own assessment of all this.

The author, first of all, does not appear to be aware of the gravity of calumny and injuring a man's good name. She may say that she is merely reporting the case that is already in the public sphere, but she is assiduously building the case, adding to the explosive stories new interpretations of things, as well as rumors and speculations indiscriminately garnered from wherever or from whomever she could find them, including from well known opponents of the Holy Father with a history of grinding axes well before the advent of the morals charges, being only to happy now to gain steam for their own contradictory position by piggybacking onto salacious allegations. In them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Jacinta of Fatima: "The Holy Father will have much to suffer".

Our Blessed Lord has given a command to the Pope: "Confirm thy brethren." (Lk. 22, 32). Those who would try to undermine the trust of the faithful in their shepherd are attacking the Plan of God.

The author, for example, adds the attack of Abbé Georges de Nantes, a suspended French priest most known for his repeated charges of heresy against Pope John Paul II. Thus by consciously or unconsciously exploiting pre-existing bad feelings towards the pope for other totally independent reasons, such as liturgical dissatisfaction, there is a tendency to judge the Pope negatively regarding these sad accusations as well.

What was the source of this media episode? It consisted of an anonymous charge of immorality carried out through the offices of one Roger Peyrefitte, probably the world's most prominent and vocal defender of Pederasty, who had already to his name a virulent work attacking Pope Pius XII. The author fails to inform her readers of this background. It should be noted that after the media covered the initial story, it died fairly quickly, leading one to believe that there was nothing by way of corroborative material to report, causing it to be pretty much ignored by the American press, not known to readily pass up an anti-papal story. It has to be questioned, indeed, whether there was in fact an actual accuser, given Peyrefitte's reputation for trying continually to outdo, even himself, in coming up with scandalous stories. Peyrefitte is said to have died with the Church's last rites; we should be praying for his soul, not continuing his calumnies.

If the author were truly interested in uncovering the reasons for the spread in the culture of the gay lifestyle, perhaps she could begin by critiquing the works of any number of wildly popular, and widely applauded and awarded French authors, rather than the apostolic labors of good popes.

The author did not even have the fairness to quote the Holy Father's own statement concerning these accusations, but rather, in a footnote, contents herself with implying that the National Catholic Reporter was singularly praiseworthy for covering the allegations in the USA. Oddly enough, the National Catholic Reporter has been more friendly to a gay culture than any similar Catholic publication in America.

Most of what the author presents in her: "Case of Homosexuality Against Pope Paul VI" is actually just the malicious speculations of suspicious minds anxious to give a bad interpretation to what may well be, and should be assumed to be, perfectly innocent facts: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?" (Mt. 9, 4)

Scripture warns: "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered" (Zac. 13, 7; cf: Mt. 26, 31; Mk. 14, 27). We have been given, by a guidance of the Holy Spirit, a living shepherd, and those who would try to weaken the confidence of the flock in its shepherd, are certainly not doing the will of Our Blessed Lord.

The author's treatment of Pope Paul VI and the Council does not reflect, moreover, the Church's doctrine. The fact that this or that statement of a Pope or council was first mouthed by a humanist, found in a socialist's book, or heard at a communist lecture, all matters nothing. What is important is not the debate or the process or even the intrigue which produced a teaching, but only what the teaching itself is. It is the actual words of the Holy Father, or a Council united to the Holy Father, that fall under the warning of Our Blessed Lord: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me" (Lk. 10, 16).

The author writes that "It soon became very clear that Montini was not a Marian priest. He was, in fact, a Maritainist priest, an altogether different being", that Montini had "an aversion" to the Rosary preferring a "more Christ-centered approach to Mariology", and that he was criticized while at Milan for neglecting Marian customs.

The Cardinal's Marian preaching while archbishop of Milan was beautiful, often extraordinary, and is still freely drawn upon by his successor in that important See, Cardinal Tettamanzi, himself no stranger to powerful and elegant preaching. As Pope, he wrote and spoke often and well on Our Lady and the Holy Rosary, including his encyclical on the Rosary: CHRISTI MATRIS ROSARII, and, right from his first general audience, repeatedly affirmed the Rosary to be a prayer truly Christ-centered, ("Christocentrique"). It was Pope Paul VI who introduced the beautiful custom of traveling to Saint Mary Major's Square and the Piazza di Spagna every year in the evening of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception to pray at the foot of those two immense columns bearing statues of Our Lady. It was Pope Paul as well who assembled all the Bishops attending the Council at Santa Maria Maggiori in order to officially declare Mary the "Mother of the Church".

The author here also denigrates at the same time Montini's long time close friend, Jacques Maritain, whom even "traditionalist" Cardinal, Giuseppe Siri, though differing with him on various theological points, called: "a noble soul". His voluminous and weighty works on Thomistic philosophy demanded the attention of secular philosophers. The author presents a picture of Maritain's thought, not, however, through his own words, but through the shallow caricature and mis-representation of de Nantes and Caron.

This, paradoxically, is where the thesis of the author suffers multiple implosions. Maritain actually was a harsh but truly knowledgeable critic of the Council; yet nevertheless, though openly critical of Vatican II, remained a dear friend of Pope Paul VI. Similarly, though Maritain was the pre-eminent Thomist of his day, Pope Paul VI, whom the author blames for "the attack on Thomistic Philosophy", personally translated into Italian one of his works, lunched with him weekly, while he was French ambassador to the Vatican, and, at the close of the Council, publicly entrusted to him a "Message to the Intellectuals of the World". Paul VI dedicated to Saint Thomas and the subject of Thomistic Philosophy several specific documents.

Despite the accusation to the contrary, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI affirmed the same position of the Church's magisterium on the place of Thomism as did his predecessors, including Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII.

Pope John XXIII affirmed that the Church considers Saint Thomas Aquinas as the "guide for those who work in the spread of the truth".

In an address, of Oct. 8, 1965, to a Canadian group working on the critical edition of Saint Thomas' works, Pope Paul stated:

"The Thomistic system already recommends itself to the attention of modern man

for its pedagogic, speculative and spiritual merits. But the magisterium of the

Catholic Church presents it, moreover, as the sure norm for the teaching of the

Sacred Sciences."

In the same discourse, the Pope points out that this does not imply an "exclusivism". The Church, while indicating Thomism as the "norm", has always allowed and profited by various other schools of thought such as Augustinianism, Scotism, as well as input from more recent thinking.

Both of these Pontiffs quoted Saint Thomas continually in their sermons and discourses and spoke of him and Thomism numberless times in their addresses.

In the famous Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, encouraging the study of Saint Thomas, he as well pointed out the value of other currents of thought, Patristic and Scholastic, and even recognized the efforts of those attempting to deal with "the wealth of new discoveries":

"We have no intention of discountenancing the learned and able men who bring

their industry and erudition, and, what is more, the wealth of new discoveries, to

the service of philosophy; for, of course, We understand that this tends to the

development of learning."

The author makes a lot of a visit that Maritain, in the company of an American "non-believing Jew", made to the Milan residence of Cardinal Montini. We're reminded here of the words of the scribes and pharisees: "This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Lk. 15, 2).

The author writes: "In truth, the theology of Battista Montini was anthropocentric not theocentric. It was man-centered not God-centered." Here we see the total ignorance of the author regarding the teaching of the Holy Father. Pope Paul was very "Christocentric". The only sense in which Paul VI's teaching is ever "anthropocentric", is when referring to Our Blessed Lord, true man as well as true God, acting as a bridge, as it were, by which man can reach God, the very purpose of the Incarnation. To the extent, in other words, that you are Christocentric, you will be at one and the same time, theocentric and anthropocentric. Nor, indeed, was there anything particularly revolutionary in this approach, being after all the difference between the approach of, for example, Saint Bonaventure, as opposed to Saint Thomas.

Dominican Luigi Ciappi, "the Pope's theologian", receives the approval of the author. Was it not Paul VI who made this Thomist a bishop and then a cardinal?

The author accuses Paul VI of trying to undermine the supernatural, but his Gospel preaching belies this accusation. The Pope's evangelical preaching, testifying to a lifetime of deep and serious study and meditation, remains as a patrimony comparable in quality to the Church Fathers. When the Holy Father preached of Jesus, it was delivered with palpable feeling, filled with immediacy and actuality, overflowing with deep faith, and shining with a love of Christ that revealed his own soul as well. Pope Paul had a specific spiritual grace of being able to make his listeners a part of the Gospel events and even involving them in the dialog with Our Blessed Lord. This was no mere literary device, since it was based on the truth that Jesus does indeed speak to all men and He, the God-man, is, in fact, the only one who can do such a thing. Those listening to this Pope (maybe not the self-righteous) could sense, though they be among thousands of others, that he had carefully assembled his thoughts with them in his heart, and that he had made a great effort to know what was on their mind.

Sadly, you have people, setting themselves up as the norm of orthodoxy, turning the faithful away from this Vicar of Christ. The magisterium of Pope Paul VI was a vigorous, inspiring, solid and uncompromising presentation of the Faith.

Those who hardened their hearts to the words of Paul VI, were themselves the losers, missing out on an unusual grace that will not easily pass this way again. Montini, by a special lifetime of preparation, was the one in that period capable of shepherding the flock of Christ, and Pope Pius XII seems to have realized this when sending him to shepherd the see of Milan, (after Rome, the most important diocese in Italy) told him: "One day you will return to Rome". Pope Pacelli, who was a good judge of a man, knew and worked closely with Montini for decades, but some would rather trust rumors from the dark side of the internet than the spiritual intuition of Pius XII.

Far from being insensitive to the supernatural, Paul VI did not exercise the usual Vatican distance and reserve in regard to apparitions, but joyfully received the young girl Concita, one of the seers of Garabandal, and when, in fact, faced with the supernatural working through Padre Pio, Pope Paul VI was the only Pope to be openly warm and friendly with him. I believe that it speaks well of Pope Paul VI that Padre Pio warned him in advance to prepare to be Pope! Throughout his life, Montini was touched by the grace of having been baptized on the 30th of September 1897, the same day the "Little Flower", Saint Theresa of Lisieux, passed out of this life.

This is anything but a full and worthy appreciation of "Papa Montini" and marred as well by the need of addressing this distasteful topic. Paul VI is not the only pope to suffer by the poison pen of this author, who takes particular aim at Pope John XXIII as well. Saint Louis de Montfort, gives us a "rule of thumb": namely devotion to the Rosary. Angelo Roncalli, Pope John XXIII, both as a Bishop and Pope, gathered with his household three times daily to recite the Rosary.

Even Pope Pius XII, in the author's often demeaning depiction, pales in comparison to the saintly ascetic and towering intellect he truly was. Of recent Popes, Pius XI is about the only one that comes off unscathed. She even makes shameful innuendoes against the present Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as well. It's really hard to see how any faithful Catholic can keep such a book in his house. As Saint Don Bosco teaches us: there are three signs that mark a true Catholic: Love of the Eucharist, love of our Mother Mary, and love of the Pope.

It would be too difficult to go over each and every point expressed in this piece. Naturally pontificates are often filled with millions of words and thousands or hundreds of thousands of facts. If, from the totality of information, the author has chosen to "cherry pick", from the common canards of thinkers similar to herself, certain opinions and interpretations in order to convey her personal viewpoint, then it is only her own readers who are damaged by a partial, unbalanced or outright misleading picture her subject.

Our Blessed Lord commands us to follow the voice of the shepherd (cf.: Jn. 10), and yet in her treatment of Pope Paul VI, it is difficult to find a single quote from the Holy Father's teaching; instead we find the voices of Machiavelli, muckrakers, an infamous pederast, and other hostile critics of the shepherd. Is the author one of those, foretold in the prophecy of Saint Paul, who "will not endure sound doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap up to themselves teachers having itching ears and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth." (2 Tim. 4, 3-4)?

Perhaps we could end here applying to Pope Paul VI his own words that he spoke in Israel referring to Pope Pius XII: "To remember him is piety, to thank him is justice".

Father Thomas Carleton

Feast of Saint Margaret Mary, 2007

The-Rosary.net

* * * * * * * *

THE FATIMA VISION

The apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima Portugal are intimately tied to the Islamic world. The two great women of Islam are the Virgin Mary of Nazareth and Mohammed's daughter, named Fatima. After the death of his daughter, Fatima, Mohammed wrote: "Thou shalt be the most blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary". The village itself in Portugal called Fatima was named such by a Christian leader who married a Muslim maiden named after Mohammed's daughter.

When Pope John Paul II was almost killed in Saint Peter's Square by an extremist, some interpreted it as the fulfillment of a prophecy spoken by the young seer of Fatima. It did not actually fulfill the words of the prophecy and so the terrible event of 1981, happening, indeed, as it did on May 13, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, could therefore be interpreted only as a foreshadowing or warning, if you will, of the eventual real fulfillment of the prophecy.

The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, after his controversial speech at the Germany University, fortunately had an opportunity to re-affirm the Church's important teaching regarding the religion of the Muslims:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God,

living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven

and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to

even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam

takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge

Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin

Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the

day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been

raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God

especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting"

We have to add as well, that despite the accusation of violence so often made against Muslim extremists, they are not guilty of the of terrible slaughter of innocent life in the womb that occurs with such lack of scruples throughout the western world. Likewise in Islamic countries they maintain a high respect for the dignity of true marriage between a man and a women.

What is to be feared, however, is that the price of this sad controversy may, in the end, cost the Pope his life, and it seems all the more possible, since the, as yet unfulfilled, prophecy of the seer of Fatima would in fact then, according to the letter, be fulfilled.

We must, as Jacinta so often pleaded: "Pray for the Holy Father", and as Our Lady of Fatima requested at each apparition: "Pray the Rosary every day".

Father Thomas Carleton

Feast of Our Lady of La Salette and the Martyr Saint Januarius

Sept. 19, 2006

* * * * * *

THE GOSPELS, THE CHURCH AND THE POPE

"Those who attack the Pope come to no good."

(Saint John Bosco)

When Our Blessed Lord walked the earth, He gave us three principle images of the Church that He would establish: The Church as a shepherd's flock, the Church as a boat crossing the sea, and the Church as an edifice built upon a rock. In all of these images, the central element is Peter. Let us take separately each of these beautiful figures taken from life and nature.

In the days of Our Blessed Lord, Judaism was divided into diverse sects: there were the Pharisees, there were the Sadducees, not to mention the Herodians and others as well. These groups were like squabbling factions arguing among themselves over the correct interpretation of the law. Even such a central and important Jewish obligation as keeping holy the Sabbath was the subject of endless quarreling among scribes, doctors of the law, and the adherents of these various movements.

The Church that Our Blessed Lord would establish would be free from this scourge. The Church of Christ would not be formed around a presumed orthodoxy of various beliefs about which the members could engage in interminable disputes. The Church of the Good Shepherd would be like a flock formed around a living shepherd.

The obligation of the sheep would not be to decide which obligations or doctrines were more important and which were less. The obligation of the sheep would be very simple: to recognize the voice of the shepherd (Cf. Jn. 10, 3). We would know that we were part of the flock, which is the Church, if we, in fact, recognize the voice of our shepherd.

Many sophisticates today bristle at the mere thought of being considered as a sheep being led around by someone else. There is not lacking, even among Catholics, those who would argue that this image of the flock, while being appropriate for a pastoral culture in a more primitive time, is no longer relevant to today's "modern man come of age". Saint Peter, however, reminds us: "You were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls" (1 Pt. 2, 25).

In reality, this pastoral image, gathering up in itself, we could say, all the beauty, naturalness and simplicity from the great patriarchs to those prayerful psalms of the shepherd boy David, is part of a Divine Plan, meant to give peace of conscience and tranquillity of mind in the most troubled times.

We are told by Our Blessed Lord only to recognize the voice of the shepherd, to recognize our own name when the shepherd calls it out (Cf. Jn. 10, 4), and to run from the voice of those trying to lead us astray: "But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers" (Jn. 10, 5). This means that when a voice trying to snatch us from the flock of Christ speaks, the true sheep will not so much as stay around long enough to listen to his deceiving arguments, but "fly from him"!

"And Jesus going out", as we read in the Gospel, "saw a great multitude: and He had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd" (Mk. 6, 34). Even though the "multitude" was "great", Jesus did not wish for them shepherds, but "a shepherd". The "Good Shepherd" promised: "I shall not leave you orphans" (Jn. 14, 18), and to Peter He commanded: "Feed My lambs, . . . Feed My sheep" (Jn. 21, 15-17).

On judgment day you shall be asked if you followed, as you were instructed, the voice of the shepherd. If you did not, you shall be asked: what voice, then, did you follow? What ever other name you respond, be it saint or doctor or Scripture scholar, you shall hear the terrible rebuke that that was not the voice that you were told to follow!

In the second image, Our Blessed Lord compares the Church to a boat or ship. In understanding this seafaring figure, which is not taken from a parable, but rather from the real events of the Lord's life with His Apostles, we recall some passages from Saint Ambrose's sermon on "The Two Ships":

"Seeing two ships upon the sea, Jesus hastens to go into one of them,

that which belonged to Peter. . . Let us see what is this little ship of Simon

Peter, which the Lord judged the more suitable of the two to teach from . . .

And of these two ships, one is left at the land, idle and empty; the other,

laden or filled, is launched upon the deep. . . The freighted Church is

taken out into the deep, because it received the Lord together with the

teaching of the Apostles. . . The Church is called forth to the deep, as

though to search into the profound mysteries of heaven: into that deep

of which the Apostle says: 'O the depths of the riches of the wisdom

and knowledge of God' (Rm. 11, 33).

For this end is it said to Peter, 'Launch out into the deep', that is, into

the deep of teaching the Divine Generation. For what is so profound as that

which Peter says to the Lord: 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God'

(Mt. 16, 16)? . . . For this the Saviour said to Peter: 'Blessed art thou, Simon

Bar-Jona: Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My

Father who is in heaven' (Mt. 16, 17).

The Lord Jesus therefore goes up only into the bark of the Church, of

which Peter is the appointed Master, the Lord saying to him: 'Thou art Peter

and upon this rock I shall build My Church' (Mt. 16, 18). This ship so floats upon

the deep of this world, that as it sails across this present time, it keeps safe

from harm all it carries within it. . .

But since we read in Matthew that this same little ship of Peter, from

which the Lord now now makes known the mysteries of His heavenly

doctrine, that while the Lord slept in it was tossed about by the winds

that arose, so that all the Apostles began to be in fear of the danger

of death, let us see then why it was that from the one and the same

vessel He here imparts His holy teaching to the people, while there He

inflicts on His Disciples the fear of death: especially since Simon Peter

was also there with the other Apostles? This is the cause of their danger:

Simon Peter was there; but also the traitor Judas was there. Though

Peter's faith could steady the ship, the faithlessness of the other could

bring it to disaster. Where Peter alone sails there is calm; where Judas

is added to the company there is storm. Though Peter would be safe by

reason of his own merits, he is endangered through the wickedness of the

traitor. . .

If therefore, by the sin of Judas, all the Apostles were placed in danger,

let us by this warning be on our guard against the faithless, be on our

guard against the traitor: lest through one many are put in danger of the

waves." (PL 17, col 675. Sermo 37. Attributed by some to St. Maximus, Bishop of Tours [ A.D. 380-465])

Now, when passing over the ocean, we need a strong boat. Most of the faithful recognize that the sea of life today has become more than ever dangerous and turbulent, and that the boat of the Church is storm-tossed in this rough sea and surrounded by breakers. High waves are beating "into the ship", such that "the ship is filled" and seems almost ready to sink, and yet, when traversing a sea convulsed by powerful winds, however "fearful" we may feel in the boat, if it is always better to be inside the boat rather than outside, it is certainly now our only hope.

When the Apostles were crossing the Sea of Galilee and caught in a frightful tempest (Mt. 8, 23-27; Mk. 4, 35-40; Lk. 8, 22-25) the Evangelists do not say that the boat was leaking. Would Our Blessed Lord lead us into a leaky boat? One cause of our troubles is the ferocity of the gales and the churning and foaming of the ocean surf.

Who, in fact, can doubt the seeming diabolic nature of the attacks against our faith today and that this has meant a sea voyage where all feel, more than ever, threatened by the swelling waves of immorality. What is our duty during this violent storm? Are we to spread confusion in the boat during this tempest? Are we to attempt a mutiny against the divine appointed captain of the boat?

There is only one boat which is sure of arriving safely to the other shore (Cf. Mk. 4, 36; Jn. 6, 21): "the boat of Peter".

In the last image, we have Our Blessed Lord comparing His Church to a strong structure, built, not upon shifting sands (Cf. Mt. 7, 24 -27), but upon solid rock:

"And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and He asked His

disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said:

Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one

of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon

Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And

Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because

flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I shall build My church,

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I shall give to thee the keys

of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be

bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed

also in heaven" (Mt. 16, 13-19).

Many of those today attacking the Holy Father, try to construct an edifice built upon a foundation of their own collection of this or that council's pronouncements, or this or that saint's writings, or this or that prophecy, which they select and to which they assign their own interpretation. What they construct, however, is not the Church. There is only one Church and it is built upon one and only one rock: Peter. It matters not whether we appeal to a saint, a father of the Church, "a doctor, lawyer, or indian chief", if we are not with the Pope, we are not with the Church. In the words of the ancient maxim: "Where Peter is, there is the Church (Ubi est Petrus, ibi est Ecclesia)".

In all these images that Our Blessed Lord has given to us to explain the Church, we see that the Church that the Divine builder would establish is intimately bound up with Peter and that he who would attempt to find another rock upon which to rest the Church, will look in vain: "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it" (Ps. 126, 1).

On one occasion while Our Blessed Lord was teaching the people, "one of the multitude said to Him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. But He said to him: Man, who hath appointed Me judge, or divider, over you?" (Lk. 12, 13-14). Here we have the divine Judge of the living and the dead, refusing to be the judge of this man's cause, and yet there are people out there today who have appointed themselves to tell us what things the Pope says are orthodox and what things are heretical, and outright who is a pope and who is not a pope. When we do not accept the Pope, then the one and only alternative is that each one is his own pope.

In the Holy Gospels we have recorded the wishes of Our Blessed Lord, the desires of His Sacred Heart, and we all would have to agree that trying to weaken or do away with the rock upon which the Church is built, attacking the shepherd of the flock, or creating confusion and mutiny in the ship, are not being faithful to the plan of "the Prince of Shepherds" (1 Pt. 5, 4).

Father Thomas Carleton

Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

August 22, 2006

* * * * * *

THE ROSARY LETTER AND ITS CRITICS

"I shall draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love" (Os. 11, 4)

On the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, May 13th, 1981, in Saint Peter's square Rome, Pope John Paul II was shot. The Holy Father, though severely wounded, survived the assassination attempt. The following year on the anniversary, the Pope made a pilgrimage to Fatima to thank Our Lady for saving his life: "One had fired", the Pope explained, "and another hand guided the bullet".

The question that we should ask, is: "Did Our Lady of the Rosary, as the Blessed Mother called herself at Fatima, save the Roman Pontiff's life so that he could go on to "overthrow" the traditional Rosary? According to the normal manner in which such religious signs are interpreted, we would say that Our Lady had a special mission reserved for the Holy Father. In fact, twenty years later, the Pope issued the Apostolic Letter: ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE, regarding the Catholic world's most beloved devotion.

Unlike the "new Mass" which was intended as a substitute for the "old Mass", the Pope left completely intact the traditional form of the Holy Rosary, adding, however, for those who might wish to profit by them, another cycle of decades which he termed: "the Luminous Mysteries" or the "Mysteries of Light". These new Mysteries commemorate five additional events in the life of Our Blessed Lord. Many devoted to the practice of the Rosary and familiar with the series of mysteries had at times felt the desire to meditate as well on Mysteries in the public teaching life of Our Blessed Lord. In one sense, it was a very logical step that this Pope had the privileged destiny to take. These new Mysteries include a commemoration of four of the Church's Sacraments, whose Scriptural word, "Sacramentum", means, in fact, "mystery": Baptism, Holy Matrimony, the Blessed Sacrament and Holy Orders, not to pass over the Church's most precious treasure: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By adding these mysteries, which, as the Holy Father delicately specified, were "left to the freedom of individuals and communities", the Pope no more changed the traditional Rosary than Pope Leo XIII changed the traditional Mass when he added the Saint Michael prayer to the end of the "Low Mass", a change, incidentally, which, being considered an obligatory addition, was not "left to the freedom" of anybody.

"In psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God" (Col. 3, 18).

The form of the Rosary, including an identifying of the Mysteries, has been shaped over the centuries in various ways by a number of Popes.

The Franciscans even have their own popular enumeration of the mysteries called "The Seven Joys", thus adding two more "Joyful Mysteries".

Yes, the Luminous Mysteries add 50 more voluntary "Hail Marys" to the traditional Rosary form, but then again there are beautiful hymns and spiritual canticles outside the Psaltery, including the Canticles of the Virgin Mary, Zachary, Simeon, Anna, Job, Tobias and many others: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God" (Col. 3, 18). These new Mysteries of the Rosary in the "breviary of the faithful" might well be seen as representing those Biblical canticles not numbered in the 150 Psalms, but nevertheless forming a part of the Church's breviary.

The Rosary has been called the "Breviary of the Faithful", but it has also been called the "Marian Gospel". In this sense we might look upon the 4 sets of Mysteries as representing the four Evangelists.

Some critics of the Apostolic Letter have unfairly attacked it for what, in their opinion, it "does not say", attempting to compare it unfavorably with what Pope Leo XIII wrote in his first Rosarian encyclical, "Supremi Apostolatus Officio", and yet in the very introduction to "Rosarium Virginis Mariae", the Pope specifically appropriates for himself all that is taught in that encyclical:

"Numerous predecessors of mine attributed great importance to this prayer. Worthy of special note in this regard is Pope Leo XIII who on 1 September 1883 promulgated the Encyclical Supremi Apostolatus Officio, a document of great worth, the first of his many statements about this prayer, in which he proposed the Rosary as an effective spiritual weapon against the evils afflicting society."

This is a common approach in Papal documents. Pope Pius XII, for example, in his encyclical on Scripture studies does not repeat all the former teachings given by his predecessors, but merely recommends these encyclicals as required instructions.

The Pope's Rosary Letter is criticized for not mentioning Saint Pius V's sixteenth century Apostolic Letter which helped to fix the present form of the Rosary. The traditional form of the Rosary, however, had already undergone changes since Pope Pius V and even since Pope Leo XIII, including one requested by Our Lady of Fatima herself in the form of the "decade prayer", recited at the end of each decade:

"Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins,

Save us from the fires of hell,

and led all souls to heaven,

especially those

who have no one to pray for them".

Without questioning Pope Paul VI's disinclination to change the form of the Rosary, we do believe that the main force of "Marialis Cultus" was directed at the "dump the Rosary" crowd that was particularly vociferous at that time. The Letter expressed the desire that two Marian devotions in particular be fostered: the Angelus and the Rosary.

"Every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old" (Mt. 13, 52).

Pope Leo XIII, indeed, has left us an epochal patrimony on the Holy Rosary, one that for preaching the Rosary is truly "profitable to teach, reprove, correct, instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work" (2Tim. 3, 16-17), but that does not mean that each vicar of Christ does not have his own particular gift or contribution to make: "Every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old" (Mt. 13, 52).

The attempt, however, to set one Pope against another, one papal teaching against another, serves no purpose but to undermine the authority of all papal teaching, and no where does this self-destructive and ultimately imploding approach to Papal teaching do more damage than in the understanding of the Papal Magisterium held by devout Catholics. Each of the Popes, as equally in his turn, the vicar of Christ on earth and visible shepherd of the flock, has a valuable magisterium and guidance to offer.

"I shall draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love" (Os. 11, 4).

The Pope's Letter has been attacked for "the mysterious suppression of the words 'Catholic' and 'Catholics'". Actually there is nothing "mysterious" here, there is no conspiracy. Yes, the Holy Father knows that the Church is "Catholic", but he also knows that it is "Apostolic" and that results in him often trying to reach the broadest audience possible. It means the daunting task of trying to preach to more than "just the choir". Saint Dominic went to preach the Rosary not to practicing Catholics but to people who drifted from the faith. When dealing with heresy, you can employ one of two approaches: either you can hammer people over the head denouncing their errors or you can just get them praying the Rosary. From the very beginning, as explicitly understood by Saint Dominic, the unusual force of the Rosary was its ability to bring about a return to true faith and good morals - the easy way! This is an essential point because it forms the heart of the Rosary story: Saint Dominic was not having success in his mission to those who had fallen away and asked Our Lady what he should do. Our Lady then revealed to him the power of the Rosary to win souls and by that means he succeeded in bring the fallen away back to the Faith. This power of the Rosary was also understood by Saint Charles Borromeo in dealing with lapse convents and monasteries; it was understood as well, in his preaching and writing, by Saint Louis de Montfort.

It is in other words a misunderstanding of the power and purpose of the Rosary to say that the Pope "tampers with the Rosary while doing nothing to root out the pandemic corruption and heresy afflicting the Church today", when in fact the surest way to prevent heresy and corruption is precisely to return to a faithful devotion of Our Lady's Rosary.

The third promise of Our Lady to "Christians" who recite the Rosary states:

"The Rosary shall be a powerful armour against hell, it will destroy vice,

decrease sin, and defeat heresies".

From the promises of Our Lady and the long experience of the Church we have every reason to believe that this return to good morals and true faith by means of the Marian Rosary is the plan of God: "I shall draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love: and I shall be to them as one that taketh off the yoke on their jaws" (Os. 11, 4). The Holy Father has understood the plan and his Letter on the Rosary clearly reflects that plan.

Not all the critics of the Letter have understood the Plan:

"The 'ecumenical' avoidance of that which is too explicitly Catholic is

the very reason RVM does not even suggest that the Rosary ought to

be prayed for the deliverance of the Catholic Church from her enemies

and the conversion of non-Catholics to the one true religion. But those

intentions are the very reason the Mother of God bequeathed the

Rosary to Her Church as 'a powerful warlike weapon' and 'the means

of putting the enemy to flight, and of confounding their audacity and

mad impiety' (Leo XIII)."

Like a delicate and beautiful garland weaved to Our Lady, Pope John Paul's Letter is urging, not only Catholics, but all Christians to take up the Rosary; for the Pope knows and trusts the hidden power of the Rosarian cord of secretly working in the hearts of Adam's race to "draw them" back "with the bonds of love" to the one Church of Christ.

Yes, the Church has enemies, but this specific Letter was not meant to be "a declaration of war", it was meant, if anything, to be a declaration of love: a call to the filial love that we all must have toward our heavenly Mother. What is wrong with that? If, as the beloved Disciple assures us, that "God is Love" (1Jn. 4, 8), why cannot the Pope write a letter of love, especially when that letter concerns Our Blessed Mother?

"The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom" (Ps. 36.30)

Perhaps the Marian Psaltery of the Rosary is alluded to way back in the Shepherd David's Psalm where we read: "The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom" (Ps. 36. 30). Notice that it does not say "the mind of the just", but rather the "mouth of the just". The Rosary is a unique uniting of vocal and mental prayer. No papal document on the Rosary develops the meditative aspect of this prayer as much as John Paul's Rosary Letter, and yet even this has come under criticism: "RVM states that: 'In effect, the Rosary is simply a method of contemplation.'" In this attention to meditation the Holy Father is following the example of Our Lady of Fatima who in her First Saturday devotion requires a meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary also outside the recitation of that prayer. On a spiritual level, it is clear that most of us have difficulty especially with the contemplative part of the Rosary and the Pope's pastoral attempt to explain to the faithful this often times mystifying requirement as "simply" as possible is indeed very helpful.

"Put on the new man" (Ep. 2, 15)

Among the criticisms of the document we find this:

"RVM informs us that the Rosary "marks the rhythm of human life";

that "anyone who contemplates Christ through the various stages of

his (sic) life cannot fail to perceive the truth about man" (emphasis in

original); that "it could be said that each mystery of the Rosary, carefully

meditated, sheds light on the mystery of man" and that by contemplating

the life of Christ in the Rosary "believers come face to face with the

image of the true man." Of what spiritual significance is this

anthropocentric view of the Rosary? RVM does not explain. But

whatever it means, Catholics never heard any such thing before the

current pontificate."

Protagoras in the 6th century BC maintained that "Man is the measure of all things", a theme enthusiastically revived, often in a pagan way, by many Renaissance thinkers. If the only "man" that is known or referred to is sinful man, then that idea cannot lead to a sound Philosophy. With the Incarnation, however, we have "a perfect man" and so understood in its Christocentric meaning (the sense clearly given by the Pope), the ancient Protagorean adage can become an accurate and fruitful basis of theological and philosophical truth. As Our Blessed Lord had said: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also" (Mk. 2, 27-28). Saint Paul spoke of "the new man" (Ep. 2, 15). In his Epistles he explains this: "The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly (1 Cor. 15, 47); "The gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto man" (Rm. 5, 15); and so the Apostle exhorts us to: "Put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Ep. 4, 24).

Saint Augustine often spoke of the implications of the Incarnation: "God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man" (Ser. xxii de Temp.). He wrote of Christ becoming: "A partner with us of human nature?" (De Trin. xiii); and further: "God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man" (De Vera Relig. xvi).

Pope Leo as well says in a Christmas sermon : "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness" and again: "Unless (Christ) was man, He would not have set an example" (Ser. xxi). Pope Paul VI, before John Paul II, had also written similar thoughts.

But wait a minute. Why am I doing this? Is anyone insinuating that the Holy Father is teaching questionable spirituality, apt to listen to me?

"Hail, full of Grace" (Lk. 1, 28).

The Pope is even blamed for making "no mention of Mary's status as the Mediatrix of all graces. . . a teaching RVM utterly ignores". On the contrary, however, the Holy Father writes: "The Rosary is both meditation and supplication. Insistent prayer to the Mother of God is based on confidence that her maternal intercession can obtain all things from the heart of her Son. She is 'all-powerful by grace'". Here the Pope quotes from the famous "Supplica", recited twice a year in all the churches of Italy, of Blessed Bartolo Longo, the Italian layman who founded the Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary of Pompei.

"We have piped to you, and you have not danced; we have mourned, and you have not wept" ( Lk. 7, 32)

Among the "post Vatican II novelties", one that strikes me as being particularly novel, is the easy with which seemingly sincere Catholics now attack the Pope. This is an attitude which very much goes against the "sensus catholicus" and, in former times, was usually more associated with schismatics and heretics. Criticism from traditional circles of a Papal document promoting the Rosary is especially sad: "We have piped to you, and you have not danced; we have mourned, and you have not wept" (Lk. 7, 32).

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jam. 1, 22).

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (Jam. 1, 22). From Pope John XXIII we have a particularly compelling papal witness: ". . .the holy Rosary which we never fail to recite in its entirety each day of the year: act of marian piety that above all we desire to fulfill with particular fervor in the month of October" (Grata Recordatio). Three times a day Bishop Angelo Roncalli, and later also as Pope John, would recite the Rosary in his chapel with the members of his household. To my recollection he is the only Pope to have given such a personal, precious and powerful testimony of reciting daily the whole Rosary.

"Cometh to the light" (Jn. 3, 21).

Some Catholic circles have always evaluated the Pope in terms of church politics, labeling his every action as either "liberal" or "conservative". We shall leave to others and "to history", as they say, to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the Wojtyla papacy. What is sure is that those special and saintly souls, like Mother Teresa, of which God has never deprived the Church, have always recognized in the Pope John Paul II a deeply spiritual man and we can't help but note that so many chosen souls, divorced from any suspicion of partisan interest, have received the new "Mysteries of Light" not with merely a dutiful respect, but with real spiritual joy. Can we not say here that they "cometh to the light" (Jn. 3, 21).

When it comes to spreading the Holy Rosary, there is no time to lose. "The Rosary", as Pope Leo XIII has said, "is the remedy for all our evils, the root of all our blessings".

Father Thomas Carleton

Feast of the Holy Rosary, 2005

The-Rosary.net editorial.

* * * * * *

JACINTA'S VISION

In the "Third Memoir" of Sister Lucy, the oldest of the three seers of Fatima, she recounts with her usual child-like charm a poignant episode involving a vision of Jacinta:

"One day", Lucy writes, "we were passing the hours of siesta near my parents' well. Francisco came with me to search for wild honey in the brambles of a bush on a slope that was in the area. After a little while, Jacinta called me:

- 'Didn't you see the Holy Father?'

- 'No!'

- 'I don't know how it happened! I saw the Holy Father in a very large house, on his knees, before a table, with his hands over his face, while he was crying. Outside the house there was a lot of people and some were throwing stones at him, others were swearing at him and saying many ugly words. Poor Holy Father! We must pray a lot for him!'

I already said that one day two priests encouraged us to pray for the Holy Father and explained to us that he was the Pope. Jacinta afterwards asked me:

- 'Is it the same one whom I saw crying and of whom the Lady told us in the secret?'

- 'Yes I responded'.

- 'Surely the Lady made those reverend priests see him also! Look, I am not mistaken. We must pray much for him.' "

Reading this account a few decades ago, I assumed that these mean people outside the "big house" giving the Holy Father such torment must have been, no doubt, atheists, libertines and miscreants of various stripes. Recently, however, going over the passage again, the frightful thought occurred to me that Jacinta in her vision saw us: Catholics, people actually dedicated to the message of Fatima.

Jacinta, after all, didn't see the Holy Father in some prison. She saw him in a "big house", presumably his own.

She didn't see the people in the square of a communist capital. She saw them outside the big house, presumably in the piazza of Saint Peter's where in fact, crowds waiting to see the Pope gather.

She didn't see them shooting guns up at his window. She saw them throwing stones and swearing at him.

She didn't see the Holy Father shouting back at them. She saw him "on his knees" presumably praying.

She didn't see him in an easy chair. She saw him "before a table", presumably trying to do his job the best he can.

Usually before an hostile opposition, one must remain strong and not break down and cry. It would be rather when those who are suppose to love you, are turning against you, that you would more naturally be brought to tears.

In so many words the elements of Jacinta's simple tableau vision seem to point to the faithful as the source of the Pope's anguish. In the larger context and tenor of the apparitions, we must conclude one thing to be certain: Fatima was never meant to be the means or the excuse of scourging the Holy Father; it was never meant to foster disrespect or contempt for the Pope; it was never meant to make an already onerous office, still more difficult.

The actual visions and writings of the seers themselves portray and inspire a loving, familiar and even child-like attitude toward our Holy Father. On the other hand, some books today on Fatima are so full of base political motives and even heretical sympathies attributed to the Popes, that they inspire toward them a mistrust, suspicion and scorn totally unlike the true light and spirit of Fatima.

Much has been written in these years about all the novelties in the post-conciliar Church, some of it with good reason; but we should remember that one of the most novel things in the Church today is the disrespectful and at times contemptuous way that the Holy Father is criticized and even ridiculed by Catholics themselves.

A number of books and articles, for example, on Fatima, relying one on another (without even quoting from the actual writings of the Holy Father), unexplainably falsify the pilgrimage of Pope Paul VI to the Shrine in Fatima Portugal on May 13, 1967 for the 50th anniversary commemoration. They contend that the Holy Father came to speak not of God but of man and, although at the very shrine itself, he did not mention the apparitions.

Let us quote from the Holy Father's homily at Fatima so that each one may judge for himself whether the Pope ignored the apparitions and came "to speak not of God but of man":

". . . So great is our desire to honor the most holy Virgin, Mother of Christ, and therefore Mother of God and our Mother, so great is our trust in her benevolence toward holy Church and toward our apostolic office, so great is our need of her intercession with Christ, her divine Son, that we have come a humble and trusting pilgrim to this blessed Shrine, where we celebrate today the 50th anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima and where we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And we are happy to meet with you, most dear Brothers and Sons, and of associating all of you in the profession of our devotion to Mary most holy and in our prayer so that our common veneration may be more manifest and more filial and our invocation may be more alive and more acceptable. . .

We want to pray in order that the worship of God may still and always be pre-eminent in the world, and His law may inform the conscience and the habits of modern man. Faith in God is the supreme light of humanity; and this light not only must not be extinguished in the heart of men, but must rather revive through the stimulus which comes to it from science and progress. . .

We have come to the feet of the Queen of Peace to beg from Her as a gift, which only God can give, peace. . . Look, Sons and Brothers, who are here listening to us, how the picture of the world and of its destines, here present themselves immense and dramatic. It is the picture which Our Lady opens before us, the picture that we contemplate with terrified but always trusting eyes; the picture to which we shall always draw near - and let us promise it - following the warning which Our Lady herself gave to us; that of prayer and penance. . ."

There at the Shrine of Our Lady on that day, not even two years after the closing of the Council, the Holy Father also delivered a foreboding and indeed prescient warning concerning what was beginning to unfold in the post-conciliar Church:

". . .What harm there would be if an interpretation - arbitrary and non-authorized by the magisterium of the Church - might make of this awakening a disintegrating agitation of its traditional and constitutional structure; might substitute for the theology of the true and great masters, new and particular ideologies, intended to take away from the norm of faith whatever modern thought, often deprived of the light of reason, it does not understand or does not like; might turn the apostolic anxiety of redemptive charity into acquiescence to the negative forms of a profane mentality and of worldly habits. . ."

Moreover the authors of these works on the apparitions sadly fail to mention the lengthy Apostolic Letter, SIGNUM MAGNUM, which Pope Paul VI had issued on that day in Rome at the same time that he was in Fatima.

The papal Letter opens by quoting from the famous vision of Saint John's Apocalypse: "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars " (Ap. 12, 1). In this scriptural reference, the Holy Father added, by his papal teaching, further weight to a marian interpretation of this verse. More interestingly for those devoted to Fatima, it might even be argued that, in the actual context of the document, by his gentle but powerful allusion to the great public miracle of the sun at Fatima witnessed by thousands of people, the Pope lends a certain biblical stature or tone to the apparitions themselves.

A number of important marian teachings were clearly reaffirmed or strengthened in this Letter including Mary's co-operation "in the birth and development of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed men" which the document declared "must be held as faith by all Christians":

"Indeed, just as no human mother can limit her task to the generation of a new man but must extend it to the function of nourishing and educating her offspring, thus the blessed Virgin Mary, after participating in the redeeming sacrifice of the Son, and in such an intimate way as to deserve to be proclaimed by Him the Mother not only of His disciple John but - may we be allowed to affirm it - of mankind which he in some way represents, now continues to fulfill from heaven her maternal function as the cooperator in the birth and development of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed men. This is a most consoling truth which, by the free consent of God the All-Wise, is an integrating part of the mystery of human salvation; therefore it must be held as faith by all Christians."

Re-affirming, moreover, a teaching of many doctors of the Church and recent Popes, the Holy Father, in describing Mary's role, employs the term "Mediatrix", strengthening, in fact, the Council formulation of that doctrine:

"But in what way does Mary cooperate in the growth of the members of the Mystical Body in the life of grace? First of all, by her unceasing prayers inspired by a most ardent charity. The Holy Virgin, in fact, though rejoicing in the vision of the august Trinity, does not forget her sons advancing, as she herself did in the "pilgrimage of the faith". Indeed, contemplating them in God and clearly seeing their necessities, in communion with Jesus Christ, "who continues forever and is therefore able at all times to intercede for them," she makes herself their Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."

The marian practice of going to Christ through Mary (Per Mariam ad Iesum), dear to many of the faithful, received in this Letter it's strongest papal elaboration and approval:

"Imitation of Jesus Christ is undoubtedly the regal way to be followed to attain sanctity and reproduce in ourselves, according to our forces, the absolute perfection of the heavenly Father. But while the Catholic Church has always proclaimed a truth so sacrosanct, it has also affirmed that imitation of the Virgin Mary, far from distracting the souls from the faithful following of Christ, makes it more pleasant and easier for them. For, since she had always done the will of God, she was the first to deserve the praise which Christ addressed to His disciples: 'Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother' (Mt. 12, 50) .

The general norm "Through Mary to Jesus" is therefore valid also for the imitation of Christ. Nevertheless, let our faith not be perturbed, as if the intervention of a creature in every way similar to us, except as regards sin, offended our personal dignity and prevented the intimacy and immediacy of our relationships of adoration and friendship with the Son of God."

The main themes of the Fatima message, namely prayer, penance and the grave consequences that will result by not heeding the heavenly warning are shown by the Pope to be a perfect reflection of the Gospel itself:

"And then a message of supreme utility seems today to reach the faithful from her who is the Immaculate, the holy, the cooperator of the Son in the work of restoration of supernatural life in souls. In fact, in devoutly contemplating Mary they draw from her a stimulus for trusting prayer, a spur to the practice of penance and to the holy fear of God. Likewise, it is in this Marian elevation that they more often hear echoing the words with which Jesus Christ announced the advent of the Kingdom of heaven: 'Repent and believe in the Gospel' (Mk.1, 15; Mt. 3,2; 4, 17) ; and His severe admonition: 'Unless you repent you will all perish in the same manner' (Lk. 13, 5)".

Again by the Holy Father's reaffirmation of Church teaching regarding hell and reparation, the children's "vision of hell" and their continual practice, by self-imposed penances, of reparation woven so touchingly into their daily lives, received confirmation and encouragement:

"Therefore, impelled by love and by the wish to placate God for the offenses against His sanctity and His justice and, at the same time, moved by trust in His infinite mercy, we must bear the sufferings of the spirit and of the body that we may expiate our sins and those of our fellow beings and so avoid the twofold penalty of 'harm' and of 'sense,' that is to say, the loss of God - the supreme good - and eternal fire. (Mt.25, 41) ".

When the Popes' Letters and Encyclicals come out, the Roman newspapers of various political tendencies: socialist, communist, conservative etc. all, more or less skipping over the actual text, put forward a background scenario, plausible to their own readers, of what motivated the document. The words of the Vicar of Christ deserve better than that from the Catholic faithful. There should be at least more attention, if not reverence, given to the words themselves of the Popes and less tenuous speculation on what various, often anonymous, voices are claiming to be their purpose.

The 1967 pilgrimage of the Holy Father to Fatima was particularly arduous for him since, in that year, Pentecost fell on the following day and he had to be back in Rome that night ready for one of the Church's principal feasts and one of the most strenuous ceremonies on the papal calendar.

There is a part of the message of Fatima that was never kept a secret, indeed its central appeal repeated by the Blessed Mother at each of the apparitions: Say the Rosary every day. It is that urgent request which all those truly devoted to Our Lady of Fatima must attempt to spread.

(The-Rosary.net editorial Dec. 26, 2003)

* * * * * *

CHRISTIAN MODESTY AND SEX EDUCATION

"Modesty", as Cardinal Massimi writes, "by its nature is war-like, that is, it defends itself immediately and energetically against every assault, without any respect of persons." Anything which represents an offense against one's modesty should not be tolerated.

"Let your modesty", Saint Paul exhorts the Philippians, "be known to all men" (Phil. 4,5).

"Just as nature", explains Pope Pius XII, "places in every creature an instinct that induces and moves one to defend his own life and the integrity of his members; so also conscience and grace (which does not destroy but perfects nature) infuses into the soul a sense, as it were, that puts it on vigilant guard against the dangers which lie in wait to ensnare its purity".

What is offensive to modesty must be rejected. It is as simple as that, and that is the authentic and absolute teaching of the Church. When dealing with a violation against one's modesty, even a small insensitive or crass disregard for it, one has the obligation to protect oneself. It doesn't matter whether the assault on modesty is coming from someone claming to help or teach you or to hurt you; you have a right and a duty to repel the assailant.

A lack of clarity on this matter can not be accepted, because it would strike at the heart of the human person: his immortal soul.

"The light of thy body", Our Blessed Lord tells us, "is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body will be lightsome; but if it be evil, thy body also will be darksome. Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee, be not darkness. If then thy whole body be lightsome, having no part of darkness, the whole shall be lightsome and, as a bright lamp, shall enlighten thee" (Lk. 11, 34-36) .

In the ultimate existentialist view, we are defined by our acts - by what we do; but it is clear from the words of Christ, that even before our actions define us, we can be corrupted or wholly darksome by what enters into the sanctuary of our soul. Increasingly today, in public education and in the public forum in general, what passes through the window of the eye, is not wholly in the individual's control.

Whatever license may be exercised in private life; when a certain propriety and decency are not upheld and enforced in the public forum, the society is engaged in a dangerous self-destructive corruption. Perhaps this is why the Gospel's most fearful punishments are reserved for those who scandalize others, and particularly little children: "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come; but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh" (Mt.18,7) . Individuals ultimately are always responsible; but "the world", nonetheless, suffers grave consequences. "And (Jesus) said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones" (Lk.17,1-2) .

"In modern times", writes Pope Pius XII, "there are some teachers and educators who too frequently think it their duty to initiate innocent boys and girls into the secrets of human generation in such a way as to offend their sense of shame. But in this matter a just temperance and moderation must be used, as Christian modesty demands."

Education in the morality of personal integrity has a proper Christian form and justification. "Educate youth in purity", Pope Pius XII exhorted a group of women. We have to recognize, nevertheless, that secular "sex education" programs and most of their "baptized" Catholic offspring can not be considered as fulfilling this roll, neither in regard to content nor in regard to form.

As to content, these programs invariably do not incorporate the integral Biblical teaching concerning marriage and chastity. These omissions, in fact, are the least of the defects in such "courses". Some of these programs impart a distinct, if often veiled, amoral and, one could even say, neo-pagan agenda, tacitly approving, as has been amply demonstrated, any number of ideas and practices which Catholic morality considers to be sinful. Immersing children in a quagmire of sexual contexts, under the pretext of familiarizing them to these dangers, is a theory strongly denounced by the Popes (see: On Christian Education; P.Pius XI) .

As to form, they demonstrate a callous disregard of modesty. This should not surprise us, since the milieu and even mentality from which they arise seem ever and ever more comfortable with lewdness and obscenity. Thus the natural sense of modesty, as Cardinal Massimi explains, lessens or attenuates as man advances into vice and evil. Similarly, this virtue, in the good, becomes more refined in a way that debased and impure men cannot understand. Also reprehensible as regards to form, is the occasion of sin that immodest material presents to those exposed to it.

In the first part of the 20th century a communist State, in violation of the roll of parents, appropriated to itself the authority of educator. Much was written by the Popes of the time vindicating the rights of parents to educate their children. Today, public education, if not by sweeping decree, nonetheless little by little - a program at a time, in no less dangerous a violation, is usurping for itself the authority to dictate what children will be taught. On the contrary, Pope Pius XI insisted that, most particularly in the sensitive areas touching upon the "mysterious laws of life", it is the parents who have the right to impart to their children opportune instruction.

"With the discretion of a mother and a teacher", writes Pope Pius XII,

"and thanks to the open-hearted confidence with which you have been

able to inspire your children, you will not fail to watch and discern the

moment in which certain unspoken questions have occurred to their minds

and are troubling their senses. It will then be your duty to your daughters,

the father's duty to your sons, carefully and delicately to unveil the truth

as far as it appears necessary, to give a prudent, true and Christian answer

to those questions, and set their minds at rest. If imparted by the lips of

Christian parents, at the proper time, in the proper measure, and with

the proper precautions, the revelation of the mysterious laws of life will

enlighten their minds with far less danger than if they learned them

haphazard, from some unpleasant shock, from secret conversations,

from information received from over-sophisticated companions, or

from clandestine reading, the more dangerous and pernicious as secrecy

inflames the imagination and troubles the senses. Your words, if they are

wise and discreet, will prove a safeguard and a warning in the midst of

the temptations and the corruption which surround them".

It is an enigma how pastors would accept and be comfortable with a program so directed at the essence of the moral life and yet be devoid of the two components which could give it any Christian sense: the unambiguous goal of chastity which is obligatory for a Christian, and the all-important motivation for that goal: fidelity to Jesus, our Divine Lord. Is it not also scandalous how the faithful can be exposed to programs that, in effect, attempt to curb criminal sexual activity by condoning, tacitly or explicitly, sexual activity which is not civilly illegal, though nonetheless sinful; programs, moreover, which in various ways assume or outright imply that a life without sexual activity is unnatural? Chastity, lived according to one's state in life , is something of great beauty, per se desirable, and, in varying degrees, eminently attainable in the Christian life of grace. "Perfect chastity", as Pope Pius XII reminds us, is "a sublime gift of God ." "It has been given", writes Saint Jerome, "to those who have asked for it, to those who have

wanted it, to those who have prepared themselves to receive it. Because to whom asks, it shall be given, who seeks, finds and to whom knocks, it shall be opened".

Modesty is the guardian and bulwark of the virtue of purity. It is, after all, to the "pure of heart" that the vision of God is promised: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Mt.5,8). In fact, nothing impure, as Saint Paul warns us, will enter into the kingdom of God (Ep.5,5) .

A devotion to Mary the mother of Jesus, has always been considered a strong and sure help in fostering the virtue of purity. Extolling the power of the Blessed Mother's protection, Saint Ambrose in the fourth century wrote: "Her grace was so great that it not only preserved in her the grace of virginity, but bestowed the grace of chastity on those upon whom she gazed". Quoting the words of the great doctor with approval, Pope Pius XII adds: "the eminent way to protect and nourish an unsullied and perfect chastity, as proved time and again by experience throughout the centuries, is solid and fervent devotion to the Virgin Mother of God. Might not the Holy Father himself, in a rare personal confidence, have been alluding precisely to such a grace, when just having become pope, he thanked Our Lady for "a marvelous protection" over his life?.

"Now, among the various devotional ways of paying honor to the Mother of God", writes Pope Leo XIII, "preference must be given to those which by their very nature are the better ones and which are more pleasing to our Mother. For this reason we especially mention by name and earnestly recommend the Rosary. . . The Queen of Heaven herself has given additional efficacy to this form of prayer."

There is unmistakably a specific and impressive logic, which the Church has always recognized, linking, beyond the roll of a simple example, holy Mary to the ideal of chastity. "Virginity for me", Saint Jerome confesses, "is a consecration in Mary and Jesus". "Imitate Mary", exhorts Saint Ambrose, "the life of Mary represents the beauty of chastity and the ideal of virtue. . . Mary, in fact, was such that her life alone is enough to form the teaching for all. May Mary, therefore, be the rule of your life".

The life of Jesus and Mary, meditated upon in the Rosary, have in fact the power of inspiring, generating and preserving holy purity.

In a radio message to the people of Ecuador, Pope John XIII said: "Before imparting to you our blessing, we wish to invite you to live a Marian life. May the family Rosary be a balm of peace for your homes; may your children run to Mary to preserve their innocence and candor; may the youth receive from Mary the encouragement to do good and to truly safeguard their purity".

We all should commend and support those priests, laymen and women, who, against the "TAT" and sex education programs, are trying to uphold and promote the true Catholic teaching regarding the virtues of modesty and purity.

The-Rosary.net editorial (Oct. 7, 2003).