From Rupture to Rapture: A Timeline

Lest you be caught unawares, gentle reader, when 2017 rolls around and you witness the Catholic Pope joined in prayer with Protestant Lutheran ministers in an ecumenical service at St. Peter's Basilica to commemorate the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Schism Difference of Opinion - and you will - observe the following timeline. It documents the half-century of steady, largely unnoticed work conducted by the luminaries of the ecumenical movement to accomplish what the Fathers of the Council of Trent were apparently far too "Pharisaical" to do: to realize how wonderful heresy can be. The documents produced during each phase can be viewed by clicking the titles.

• Preparatory Phase (1965-1967)
• 1965 - (August 25th) Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation meet in Strasbourg, France to lay the foundation for a new ecumenical body.
• 1965 - (December 8th) The Second Vatican Council ends.
• 1967 - First Official Report of the Joint Working Group
• Phase I (1967-1972)
• 1972 - The Gospel and the Church, a.k.a. "The Malta Report"
• Phase II (1973-1984)
• 1978 - The Eucharist
• 1980 - All Under One Christ
• 1980 - Ways to Communion
• 1981 - The Ministry in the Church
• 1983 - Martin Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ
• 1984 - Facing Unity: Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship
• Phase III (1986-1993)
• 1993 - Church and Justification
• Phase IV (1995-2006)
• 1997 - Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Draft)
• 1999 - Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
• 2006 - The Apostolicity of the Church
• Phase V (2009 – Present and Beyond)
• 2012 - From Conflict to Communion (Details the 2017 Joint Commemoration)
• 2017 - Joint Commemoration of 500 years of Protestantism

Who was President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity from 2001 to 2011, you ask? 

His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper

Surprised? Any more than to learn that this project was well underway before Vatican II had even been concluded?

The Character of Christ

by

Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.

Christ with Children
Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890)

To all of us who are grown up, to most of us who are still growing up, there have come times when we have found the service of God no easy matter. To be steadily faithful to Him in our prayers, to keep His commandments as we know He would have us keep them, and that from day to day without yielding for a moment, these are no light undertakings; without His grace to help us, they would be impossible. And when these hours of trial have come, perhaps the thought has occurred to us that if only we could have lived in the lifetime and in the company of our Divine Saviour, if even now we could but see Him for a moment as He is, it might have been, and it might be, so much easier. A word from Him had the power to break the heart of a hardened sinner like the Magdalene; if we could have heard that word with our own ears, perhaps we should have sinned so much less, perhaps we should have been so much more penitent. A single glance of His truth-compelling eyes forced hot tears of repentance from Peter; if we could only feel those eyes upon us, it might be so much easier to understand Him, so much easier to love Him, so much easier to give ourselves to His service.

And yet it must be remembered there is another side to the picture. Even of those who had this privilege, and they were many, the number that recognized and acknowledged Him was small. Many saw His wonderful works, many felt the influence of His words; yet they followed Him, as He was forced to tell them, not because of Himself, but because of what He gave them; and in the hour of trial they fell away. "Amen, Amen, I say to you," He said on one occasion.  You seek Me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled." Even His own disciples, who had been with Him from the beginning, who had seen all that He had done, had drunk in all the sweetness of His words, had learnt to love the eager glancing of His eyes, had gone so far as to profess that though all the world forsook Him they would not, even they could not stand the trial of the Crucifixion. "Then the disciples all leaving Him, fled away."

"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." Are we, then, sure that we should have stood by Him? Are we sure that we should not have come under that bitter complaint pronounced by our Lord against His generation: "Having eyes, they see not, and having ears, they do not hear, nor do they understand"? After all, it may be better for us that we can look upon Him and study Him only at a distance. We cannot, indeed, now with our own eyes "see the things" that the disciples saw, but we have a picture, a portrait of those things in our keeping. And as a portrait of an absent friend keeps his memory fresh with us, so the picture of our living Lord, "ever living to make intercession for us," brings Him to our mind; nay, more, if we study it carefully, may stir us to an even greater affection and devotion. Let us look at this picture for a minute and renew an old acquaintance.

We are walking along a country lane in the fertile upland of Galilee. The hills rise up on either side, green with pasture, the valley between teems with corn. There are men labouring in the fields, shepherds tending their sheep along the hillside, men and women here and there along the road. Presently, at a turn in the road, we come upon a group, made up for the most part of simple country folk from the farms and cottages about. In the middle is a young man, tall and lithe in appearance, his dress of white, and with a mantle over his shoulder. He is seated on a stone by the roadside, and is talking quietly, but with words that are clearly full of interest to the simple folk gathered around him. In his eyes there is a strange glitter, a mixture as of joy and pain, of laughter and tears, of hope and disappointment, which cannot be described. And over all is a cloak of enduring gentleness; gentleness in the eyes, gentleness over all His face, gentleness in the movement of His hands, which are resting on the heads of little children that have crept close to Him; gentleness, instinctive and therefore very true, in the order of His thoughts, in the tone of His voice, in the deliberation of His actions - this is the one leading feature of the picture.

We take up His words, and they have the same tale to tell: "Come to Me, all you that labour and are burdened," He says, "I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you, for My yoke is sweet and My burthen light. And learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart; and you shall find rest for your souls." He points to the sheep gathering round their shepherd on the hillside, and says: "I am the Good Shepherd, and I know Mine and Mine know Me, ... and I lay down My life for My sheep." He hears the shepherd call his flock together, and sees him lead them to a fresh pasture; and He adds: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand." He points to the bright sun overhead, filling the valley with light and glory, and He says: "I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life." He looks along the road that leads to the city in the distance, and cries: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." He sees the simple folk around Him with their simple food in their wallets, and tells them: "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst."

And then He will go on to teach them how they, too, should imitate His enduring gentleness. "As often as you do it to the least of these My little ones," He says, as the little children clamber on His knee, "as often as you have given a cup of water to the least of these My little ones, you have given it to Me." "Love your enemies, do good to them that injure you and persecute you; and your reward shall be very great in Heaven." Gentleness, forgivingness, He tells them, is the nature of God the Father; and He repeats to them the story of the Prodigal Son. Gentleness, forgivingness, is His own nature; and He proves it by the story of the Good Shepherd. And gentleness, forgivingness, He would have to be the nature of every Christian; and He brings this lesson home by the story of the Good Samaritan.

Presently He rises, and passes through the group that presses close around Him. He seems to know them all; He has a kindly word for everyone; obviously all are dear to Him, for His interest is not official and no more. There they are, poor country-folk from the hillsides, who have left the plough to listen to Him; poor labourers from the town, who find in Him relief from unrest; poor fishermen from Galilee, who have left their nets and their boats to share His lot. There are the lame and the blind, the deaf and the dumb, even the sick from the neighbouring cottages. What a motley congregation! What a weird group on which to waste so finished a work of art as that discourse! But He does not think of that. He gives what He has to anyone who will have it. As He passes along, one He will touch with His gentle hand, and will heal him; to another He will merely speak some word of comfort, and the sufferer learns that which turns his pain into delight; to a third He will grant a favour greater than was asked for, and will say: "Son, go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee." But to whomsoever He speaks, no matter how few words He utters, whomsoever He touches, no matter whether He heals them or not, all alike know the consolation of His presence, and are contented with their lot for His sake. "And they all did wonder," St. Mark tells us, " saying: He hath done all things well; He hath made the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."

It is not possible to make too much of this enduring gentleness of Jesus Christ. So kind was He, that strong men were tempted to despise Him, as did Simon the Pharisee. So gentle was He, that His own disciples complained, as did Judas Iscariot, "and all with him." So enduring was He, and in consequence so varied was the company He drew around Him, that His enemies called out against Him as the comrade of drunkards and sinners. And such is the Jesus Christ who lives on today; the same, but, if possible, with a yet wider sympathy and feeling. For the arm of the Lord is not shortened. Having once risen, He dieth now no more; and that same enduring gentleness marked the risen Jesus Christ as much as, more than, it marked Him before His death. That same Lord stands still in our midst, with us "all days, even to the consummation of the world," ever living to make intercession for us, ever healing, ever forgiving, ever making the same appeal to us for our affection in return - with the certainty of our faith we know it.

"Blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see. For I say to you that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them." At the beginning we were tempted to envy the Jews of Palestine; do we ever think of those who envy us for what we see, and perhaps with greater reason? How many thousands, how many millions are there who desire to see the things that we see, and to hear the things that we hear, and who, if they did see and hear, would turn what they learnt to better account!

Martin Luther

Second in a Series on the Protestant Reformation

by

Fr. Charles Coppens, S.J.

Martin Luther, ca. 1525

Martin Luther, the leading spirit of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, on the 10th of November, 1483, nine years before Columbus discovered America. His parents were not blessed with the goods of earth, but his father seemed to have been a good man, and his mother certainly was a pious Catholic woman. Both strove to raise their boy in the knowledge and fear of God, and in the practice of the moral and the Christian virtues. This was no easy task. They gave him the best intellectual education their means allowed, and they did not spare the rod to subdue his very refractory spirit. Much of a man's character through life depends on the way he has profited by his early opportunities. Luther profited by his chances to acquire knowledge, but not docility and Christian humility. He himself relates that his mother once whipped him till he bled, and he adds ironically that it was about a miserable nut. It matters little what the occasion was; the reason of the severity was no doubt his stubbornness. This is apparent from another statement of his, namely, that when his father had one day punished him cruelly, as he calls it, he was filled with hatred against his parent, and came very near running away from home. That he was an unusually stubborn boy is clear from the fact that, when at school, he once got fifteen thrashings in one morning.

Once broken in, he worked hard to get an education. Schools were mostly free for poor students in those Catholic times, and he managed to eke out a sparing subsistence by various devices, one of which was to sing in the streets and collect alms from the kindly disposed among his hearers. The Lord had given him a charming voice; and this, together with his devout demeanor at the Holy Mass, which he attended daily, brought him, in his sixteenth year, an unexpected and considerable blessing. For he thus attracted the favorable attention of a rich, charitable lady, Frau Cotta, who received him as a permanent guest in her family, till at eighteen he went to pursue higher studies at Erfuhrt University.

There he read Virgil, Livy, Cicero, Plautus, etc.; he also studied law and philosophy under the tuition of the Augustinian monks. The whole university soon wondered at his intellectual powers. At nineteen, he was made a Bachelor, and at 22 a Doctor of Philosophy. During these years, his piety appears to have been sincere, and, in keeping with his natural character, deeply earnest.

But it was the period of history when the Humanist movement, aroused by the migration westward of Greek scholars flying from Moslems, had turned the attention of the educated in Europe rather to the classical pagan models than to Christian ideals of perfection. Luther was seized with this spirit to such an extent that his highest ambition was to attain distinction in secular learning. Whereas the university at Erfurt contained an eight years' course of the study of Holy Scripture, he seems to have ignored it entirely, giving all his attention to profane letters. Thus it may well be that, when later on he took to the reading of the Holy Bible, he found this precious treasure almost a new book to him, though it had been the most familiar of all books during the preceding centuries. So there are today thousands of Christian literateurs and scientists who have never read the Holy Gospels. The late historian Joannes Janssen, in his monumental work The History of the German People, has forever dispelled the mist that used to surround the life of Luther with a halo of glory. The main facts narrated in the present rapid sketch are taken from his pages. He writes with great impartiality, giving to each historical personage all the credit he deserves.

We naturally ask ourselves, how was it that Luther, with his head full of secular ambition and already highly distinguished by his learning, and honored so early in life with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, how was it that he abandoned the world to become a humble Augustinian friar? Janssen narrates the facts as follows:

Among the younger Humanists whose circle he (Luther) joined, Crotus Rubianus and Joannes Lange were his special friends, but he himself passed among his associates as a musician and a learned philosopher rather than as a poet. he joined heartily in all their social pleasures, and delighted them with his singing and music. But he would often pass suddenly from mirth and cheerfulness to a gloomy, despondent state of mind, in which he was tormented by searchings of conscience. In the year 1505, he sustained a great shock in the sudden death of a friend, who was stabbed in a duel; and in the same year, he was caught in a terrific thunder storm, during which his life was in danger. "As I hurried along with the anguish and fear of death upon me," he wrote later on, "I vowed a vow that was wrung from me by terror." Soon after, he gathered his friends together at a supper, which was enlivened by lute-playing and singing, and then informed them of the resolve he had made to renounce the world and become an Augustinian monk. "Today you see me," he said, "but afterwards no more." All the entreaties of his friends were useless. They accompanied him weeping to the door of the monastery. It was characteristic of Luther that the only books which he took with him into his retreat were the pagan poets Virgil and Plautus. (Janssen, Vol. III, p. 81)

Luther himself admits that he was driven by despair, rather than the love of higher perfection, into a religious career. He wrote: "I entered the monastery and renounced the world, despairing of myself all the while." He fell a victim to excessive scrupulousness of conscience. The only remedy for such an abnormal state of mind is perfect obedience to a wise director. But obedience and docility were uncongenial virtues to his stubborn mind. He soon yielded to despondency to such an extent as to neglect for weeks together the recitation of the Divine Office, to which after his vows he was bound under sin. Following his own notions, he would fast and discipline himself and bury himself in solitude till he nearly lost his reason.

He saw more sin in himself than he felt he could atone for by his works of penance; and instead of trusting in the merits of Christ, as the Church has always taught her children to do, he gave himself up to black despair. Here is the picture he draws of his sad condition at the time:

From misplaced reliance on my own righteousness, my heart became full of distrust, doubt, fear, hatred, and blasphemy of God. I was such an enemy of Christ that whenever I saw an image or a picture of Him hanging on His Cross, I loathed the sight and I shut my eyes and felt that I would rather have seen the devil. My spirit was completely broken, and I was always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my 'righteousness' and my 'good works' brought me no help or consolation. (Janssen, Vol. III, p. 84)

It is a common experience to see scrupulous souls, if they are self-opinionated, rush from extreme timidity to excessive rashness. It was so with Luther. He made up his mind that, by reason of inherited sin, man was become totally depraved, and possessed no liberty of the will. Here was the root of the Lutheran heresy. He concluded that all human action whatever, even that which is directed towards good, being an emanation from our corrupt nature, is, in the sight of God, nothing more nor less than deadly sin; therefore our actions have no influence on our salvation; we are saved by faith alone without good works. "When we believe in Christ," he said, "we make His merit our own possession. The garment of His righteousness covers all our guilt." He wrote some years later to a friend: "Be a sinner, if you will, and sin right lustily; but believe still more lustily, and rejoice in Christ, who is the vanquisher of sin." Again: "From the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world sin will not separate men, even though they should commit fornication a thousand times a day, or murders as frequently." This is Lutheranism full-blown, carried to its logical consequences, not probably as he understood it as yet; but it was conceived by him at the time in embryo and elaborated later on. He needed only time to mature and opportunity and stubborn resolve to propagate these errors and establish a new religion.

After one year of novitiate, Luther had been ordained priest in 1506. Two years later, he was promoted to a professorship at the recently founded University of Wittenberg. His novel system of justification was meanwhile maturing in his active brain. His Protestant eulogist, Mathesius, says that as early as 1515 he was denounced as a heretic. But he spoke so eloquently in defense of his original views that he gained over to his side almost the entire student body and most members of the faculty at the young university. He aroused the admiration and enthusiasm of the faithful in the city, and he became a special favorite of Frederick the Elector of Saxony. His mind was big with projects, and the Reformation was ready to leap forth from his brain armed cap-à-pie, as Minerva did from the head of thundering Jove.

Third Sunday in Advent

by

Fr. Leonard Goffine

On this Sunday, the Church again calls on us to rejoice in the Advent of the Redeemer, and at the Introit sings:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice. Let your modesty be known to all men: for the Lord is nigh. Be nothing solicitous; but in every thing by prayer let your requests be made known to God (Phil. 4). Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land; Thou hast turned away the captivity of Jacob (Ps. 84).

Prayer of the Church

Incline Thine ear, O Lord, we beseech Thee, unto our prayers: and enlighten the darkness of our mind by The grace of thy visitation.

Epistle (Phil. 4:4-7)

Brethren, rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice. Let your modesty be known to all men. The Lord is nigh. Be nothing solicitous; but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Q. What is meant by "rejoicing in the Lord"?

A. By "rejoicing in the Lord" is meant rejoicing in the grace of the true faith we have received, in the hope of obtaining eternal happiness; rejoicing in the protection of the Most High, under which we stand; and in the persecution for justice's sake, in which Christ Himself exhorts us to rejoice, and in which the Apostle Paul gloried (2 Cor. 7:4).

Q. What else does St. Paul teach in this epistle?

A. He exhorts us to give all a good example by a modest and edifying life, to which we should be directed by the remembrance of God's presence and His coming to judgment (Chrysostom 33, in Joann.); he warns us against solicitude about temporal affairs, advising us to cast our care on God, who will never abandon us in our needs, if we entreat Him with confidence and humility.

Q. In what does "the peace of God" consist?

A. It consists in a good conscience (Ambrose), in which St. Paul gloried and rejoiced beyond measure (2 Cor. 1:12). This peace of the soul sustained all the martyrs, and consoled many others who suffered for justice's sake. Thus St. Tibertius said to the tyrant: "We count all pain as naught, for our conscience is at peace." There cannot be imagined a greater joy than that which proceeds from the peace of a good conscience. It must be experienced to be understood.

Aspiration

The peace of God, that surpasseth all understanding, preserve our hearts in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Gospel (Jn. 1:19-28)

At that time the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to John, to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and did not deny; and he confessed: I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayst thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? John answered them, saying: I baptize with water: but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not: the same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose. These things were done in Bethania beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Q. Why did the Jews send messengers to St. John to ask him who he was?

A. Partly because of their curiosity, when they saw St. John leading such a pure, angelic and penitential life; partly, as St. Chrysostom says, out of envy, because St. John preached with such spiritual force, baptized and exhorted the people to penance, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem came to him in great numbers; partly, and principally, they were impelled by the providence of God to demand publicly of St. John if he were the Messiah, and thus be directed to Christ that they might be compelled to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, or have no excuse for rejecting Him.

Q. Why did the Jews ask St. John, if he were not Elias or the prophet?

A. The Jews falsely believed that the Redeemer was to come into this world but once, then with great glory, and that Elias or one of the old prophets would come before Him, to prepare His way, as Malachias (4:5) had prophesied of St. John; so when St. John said of himself that he was not the Messiah, they asked him, if he were not then Elias or one of the prophets. But Elias, who was taken alive from this world in a fiery chariot, will not reappear until just before the second coming of Christ.

Q. Why did St. John say, he was not Elias or the Prophet?

A. Because he was not Elias, and, in reality, not a prophet in the Jewish sense of the word, but more than a prophet, because he announced that Christ had come, and pointed Him out.

Q. Why does St. John call himself "the voice of one crying in the wilderness"?

A. Because in his humility, he desired to acknowledge that he was only an instrument through which the Redeemer announced to the abandoned and hopeless Jews the consolation of the Messiah, exhorting them to bear worthy fruits of penance.

Q. How do we bear worthy fruits of penance?

A. We bear fruits of penance when, after our conversion, we serve God and justice with the same zeal with which we previously served the devil and iniquity; when we love God as fervently as we once loved the flesh - that is, the desires of the flesh - and the pleasures of the world; when we give our members to justice as we once gave them to malice and impurity (Rom. 6:19); when the mouth that formerly uttered improprieties, when the ears that listened to detraction or evil speech, when the eyes that looked curiously upon improper objects now rejoice in the utterance of words pleasing to God, to hear and to see things dear to Him; when the appetite that was given to the luxury of eating and drinking now abstains; when the hands give back what they have stolen; in a word, when we put off the old man, who was corrupted, and put on the new man, who is created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:22-24).

Q. What was the baptism administered by St. John, and what were its effects?

A. The baptism administered by John was only a baptism of penance for forgiveness of sins (Lk. 3:3). The ignorant Jews, not considering the greatness of their transgressions, St. John came exhorting them to acknowledge their sins, and do penance for them; that, being converted and truly contrite, they might seek their Redeemer, and thus obtain remission of their offences. We must, then, conclude that St. John's baptism was only a ceremony or initiation by which the Jews enrolled themselves as his disciples to do penance as a preparation for the remission of sin by means of the second baptism, viz., of Jesus Christ.

Q. What else can be learned from this gospel?

A. We learn from it to be always sincere, especially at the tribunal of penance, and to practice the necessary virtue of humility, by which, in reply to the questions of the Jews, St. John confessed the truth openly and without reserve, as shown by the words, "the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose," as the lowest of Christ's servants, giving us an example of humility and sincerity which should induce us always to speak the truth, and not only not to seek honor, but to give to God all the honor shown us by man. Have you not far more reason than John, who was such a great saint, to esteem yourself but little, and to humble yourself before God and man? "My son," says Tobias (4:14), "never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning."

Aspiration

O Lord, banish from my heart all envy, jealousy and pride. Grant me instead to know myself and Thee, that by the knowledge of my nothingness, misery and vices, I may always remain unworthy in my own eyes, and that, by the contemplation of Thy infinite perfections, I may seek to prize Thee above all, to love and to glorify Thee, and practice charity towards my neighbor. Amen.

From the Front Lines in the Real War Against Women

Perhaps you saw the headline today:

Catholic Nuns Lead Raids on Brothels in India

According to the story by CNA reporter Carol Glatz, small groups of nuns in Kolkata, India, have been sneaking into local brothels in the cover of night to free young women and girls, some as as young as 12, from the horrors of prostitution. So far, the Sisters of Mary Immaculate (SMI) have helped law enforcement put 30 human traffickers behind bars. An impressive if only minor victory in the very real war against women.

Who were these nuns? What are there charisms? What motivated them to these dramatic cloak and dagger operations? My interest piqued, I went in search of more information about the Sisters. 

I found the answers I was looking for in one picture:

But, surely, I thought, our religious sisters here in the West are doing great work for the cause of women as well, right?

Again, I found the answer in one picture:

An Interview with Cardinal Burke

His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke

On Vatican II

Q. Your Eminence, you grew up before the Second Vatican Council. How do you remember those times?

A. I grew up in a very beautiful time in the Church, in which we were carefully instructed in the faith, both at home and in the Catholic school, especially with the Baltimore Catechism. I remember the great beauty of the Sacred Liturgy, even in our little farming town, with beautiful Masses. And then, I'm of course most grateful for my parents who gave me a very sound up-bringing in how to live as a Catholic. So they were beautiful years.

Q. A friend of mine who was born after the Council used to say, "Not everything was good in the old days, but everything was better." What do you think about this?

A. Well, we have to live in whatever time the Lord gives us. Certainly, I have very good memories of growing up in the 1950's and early 1960's. I think what is most important is that we appreciate the organic nature of our Catholic Faith and appreciate the Tradition to which we belong and by which the Faith has come to us.

Q. Did you embrace the big changes after the Council with enthusiasm?

A. What happened soon after the Council - I was in the minor seminary at that time, and we followed what was happening at the Council - but the experience after the Council was so strong and even in some cases violent, that I have to say that, even as a young man, I began to question some things - whether this was really what was intended by the Council - because I saw many beautiful things that were in the Church suddenly no longer present and even considered no longer beautiful. I think, for instance, of the great tradition of Gregorian Chant or the use of Latin in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Then also, of course, the so-called 'Spirit of Vatican II' influenced other areas - for instance, the moral life, the teaching of the Faith - and then we saw so many priest abandoning their priestly ministry, so many religious sisters abandoning religious life. So, there were definitely aspects about the post-conciliar period that raised questions.

Q. You were ordained a priest in 1975. Did you think that something in the Church had gone wrong?

A. Yes, I believe so. In some way, we lost a strong sense of the centrality of the Sacred Liturgy and, therefore, of the priestly office and ministry in the Church. I have to say, I was so strongly raised in the Faith, and had such a strong understanding of vocation, that I never could refuse to do what Our Lord was asking. But I saw that there was something that had definitely gone wrong. I witnessed, for instance, as a young priest the emptiness of the catachesis. The catechetical texts were so poor. Then I witnessed the liturgical experimentations - some of which I just don't even want to remember - the loss of the devotional life, the attendance at Sunday Mass began to steadily decrease: all of those were signs to me that something had gone wrong.

On the Two Forms of Holy Mass

Q. Would you have imagined in 1975 that, one day, you would offer Mass in the rite that was abandoned for the sake of renewal?

A. No, I would not have imagined it. Although, I also have to say that I find it very normal, because it was such a beautiful rite, and that the Church recovered it seems to me to be a very healthy sign. But, at the time, I must say that the liturgical reform in particular was very radical and, as I said before, even violent, and so the the thought of a restoration didn't seem possible, really. But, thanks be to God, it happened.

Q. Juridically, the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass are the same rite. Is this also your factual experience when you celebrate a Pontifical High Mass in the new or the old rite?

A. Yes, I understand that they are the same rite, and I believe that, when the so-called New Rite or the Ordinary Form is celebrated with great care and with a strong sense that the Holy Liturgy is the action of God, one can see more clearly the unity of the two forms of the same rite. On the other hand, I do hope that - with time - some of the elements which unwisely were removed from the rite of the Mass, which has now become the Ordinary Form, could be restored, because the difference between the two forms is very stark.

Q. In what sense?

A. The rich articulation of the Extraordinary Form, all of which is always pointing to the theocentric nature of the liturgy, is practically diminished to the lowest possible degree in the Ordinary Form.

On the 2014 Synod

Q. The Synod on the Family has been a shock and sometimes even a scandal, especially for young Catholic families who are the future of the Church. Do they have reasons to worry?

A. Yes, they do. I think that the report that was given at the mid-point of the session of the Synod, which just ended October 18th, is perhaps one of the most shocking public documents of the Church that I could imagine. And, so, it is a cause for very serious alarm and it's especially important that good Catholic families who are living the beauty of the Sacrament of Matrimony rededicate themselves to a sound married life and that also they use whatever occasions they have to give witness to the beauty of the truth about marriage which they are experiencing daily in their married life.

Q. High-ranking prelates keep giving the impression that "progress" in the Church lays in promoting the gay agenda and divorce ideology. Do they believe that these things will lead to a new springtime in the Church?

A. I don't know how they could believe such a thing, because, how could it be that, for instance, divorce - which the Pastoral Constitution on the Church Gaudium et Spes called a plague in society - how could it be that the promotion of homosexual acts, which are intrinsically evil, how could any good come from either? And, in fact, what we witness is that both result in a destruction of society, a breakdown of the family, the breakdown of the fiber of society, and, of course, in the case of unnatural acts, the corruption of human sexuality which is essentially ordered to marriage and to the procreation of children.

Q. Do you think that the main problem in vast territories of the Church is the lack of Catholic families and especially the lack of Catholic children? Should that not have been the focus of the Synod?

A. I believe so, very much so. The Church depends on sound Catholic family life, and it depends on sound Catholic families . I do believe that, where the Church is suffering most, there also marriage and family life is suffering. We see that when in marriage couples are not generous in bringing new human life into the world, their own marriages diminish, as well as society itself. We witness in many countries that the local population, which in many cases would be Christian, is disappearing because the birthrate is so low. And some of these places - for instance, where there is also a strong presence of individuals who belong to Islam - we find that the Muslim life is taking over in countries which were formerly Christian.

On the Society of St. Pius X

Q. In many parts of Western Europe and the U.S., the only parishes who still have children belong to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, while whole dioceses are deserted. Do the bishops take notice of this?

A. I would imagine so. I do not have direct experience of what you are describing. From my own time as bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin and as archbishop of Saint Louis, Missouri, I have heard this said about dioceses in certain European nations where the dioceses are practically unable to continue, yet there is a strong presence of those who belong to the Society of St. Pius X. I cannot help but think that the bishops in those places must take note of it and must reflect upon it.

On Young Catholics

Q. Most practicing Catholics in an average parish in Western Europe and the U.S. are those who were baptized and catechized before the Council. Is the Church in these countries living from her past?

A. I think that my generation, for instance, was blessed to grow up at a time in which there was a strong practice of the Catholic Faith, a strong tradition of participation in Sunday Mass and the Sacred Liturgy, a strong devotional life, a strong teaching of the Faith- But in some way, I believe, we sadly took it for granted, and the same attention was not given to pass on the Faith as we had come to know it to the success of generations. Now what I see it that many young people are hungering and thirsting - and this already for some time - to know the Catholic Faith at its roots and to experience many aspects of the richness of the tradition of the Faith. So I believe that there is a recovery precisely of what had been for a period of time lost or not cared for in a proper manner. I think that now there is a rebirth at work among the young Catholics.

Q. Does the Synod on the Family have any plans to promote marriage and to encourage and support families with many children?

A. I sincerely hope so. I'm not part of the central direction or the group of cardinals and bishops who assist in the organization and direction of the Synod of Bishops. But I would certainly hope so.

On the Kasper Proposal

Q. Many Catholics fear that, in the end, the Synod of Bishops will resort to doublespeak. "Pastoral" reasons are used to de facto change doctrine. Are such fears justified?

A. Yes, they are. In fact, one of the most insidious arguments used at the Synod to promote practices which are contrary to the doctrine of the Faith is the argument that, "We are not touching the doctrine; we believe in marriage as the Church has always believed in it; but we are only making changes in discipline." But in the Catholic Church, this can never be, because in the Catholic Church, her discipline is always directly related to her teaching. In other words: the discipline is at the service of the truth of the Faith, of life in general in the Catholic Church. And so, you cannot say that you are changing a discipline not having some effect on the doctrine which it protects or safeguards or promotes.

Q. The term "mercy" is used to change Church doctrine and even the New Testament in order to condone sin. Was this dishonest use of the term "mercy" exposed during the Synod?

A. Yes, it was. There were Synod Fathers who spoke about a false sense of mercy which would not take into account the reality of sin. I remember one Synod Father said, "Does sin no longer exist? Do we no longer recognize it?" So, I believe that was very strongly addressed by certain Synod Fathers. The German Protestant - Lutheran - pastor who died during the Second World War, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, used an interesting analogy. He talked about "costly" grace and "cheap" grace. Well, there is no "cheap" grace. When God's life is given to us as it is in the Church, it demands of us a new way of life, a daily conversion to Christ, and we know God's mercy to the degree that we embrace that conversion and strive to  turn every day our lives over again to Christ and to overcome our sinfulness and our weaknesses.

Q. Why is the term "mercy" used for adulterers, but not for pedophiles? In other words: Does the media decide when the Church is allowed to apply "mercy" and when not?

A. This, too, is a point that was made during the Synod. Mercy has to do with the person who, for whatever reason, is committing sin. One must always call forth in that person the good - in other words, call that person to be who or she really is: a child of God. But at the same time, one must recognize the sins, whether they be adultery or pedophilia or theft or murder - whatever it may be - as a great evils, as mortal sins and therefore as repellent to us. We can't accept them. The greatest charity, the greatest mercy that we can show to the sinner is to recognize the evil of the acts which he or she is committing and to call that person to the truth.

On the Power and Authority of the Pope

Q. Do we still have to believe that the Bible is the supreme authority in the Church and cannot be manipulated - not even by bishops or the Pope?

A. Absolutely! The word of Christ is the truth to which we are all called to be obedient and, first and foremost, to which the Holy Father is called to be obedient. Sometime during the Synod, there was reference made to the fullness of the power of the Holy Father, which we call in Latin plenitudo potestatis, giving the sense that the Holy Father could even, for instance, dissolve a valid marriage that had been consummated. And that's not true. The "fullness of power" is not absolute power. It's the "fullness of power" to do what Christ commands of us in obedience to Him. So we all follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, beginning with the Holy Father.

Q. An archbishop recently said, "We obviously follow the Church's doctrine on the family." Then he added, "...until the Pope decides otherwise." Does the Pope have the power to change doctrine?

A. No. This is impossible. We know what the teaching of the Church has been consistently. It was, for instance, expressed by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical letter Casti connubii. It was expressed by Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae. It was expressed in a wonderful way by Pope St. John Paul II in Familiaris consortio. That teaching is unchanging. The Holy Father gives the service of upholding that teaching and presenting it with a newness and a freshness, but not changing it.

Q. Cardinals are said to wear crimson in order to represent the blood of the martyrs who died for Christ. Except for John Fisher, who was made a cardinal when he already was in jail, no cardinal has ever died for the Faith. What is the reason for this?

A. I don't know, I can't explain it. Certainly some cardinals have suffered greatly for the Faith. We think of Cardinal Mindszenty (1892-1975), for example, in Hungary, or we think of Cardinal Stepinac (1898-1960) in what was Yugoslavia. And we think of other cardinals of different periods in the history of the Church who had to suffer greatly to uphold the Faith. Martyrdom can take more than the bloody form. We talk about red martyrdom, but there is also a white martyrdom which involves faithfully teaching the truth of the Faith and upholding it, and perhaps being sent into exile as some cardinals have been, or suffering in other ways. But the important thing for the cardinal is to defend the Faith usque ad effusionem sanguinis - even to the outpouring of blood. So, the cardinal has to do everything he can to defend the Faith, even if it means the shedding of blood. But also all that goes before that.

On Cardinal Burke's Favorite Things, Fondest Memories, and Fear of Judgment

Q. Your Eminence, a few quick observations: Who is four favorite Saint?

A. Well, the Blessed Mother obviously is the favorite of us all.

Q. That doesn't count!

A. [Laughs] I also have a great devotion to St.Joseph. But one Saint who has really helped me a great deal during my life, since the time I was a child and in the seminary, is St. Therese of Lisieux, the Little Flower. Her Little Way continues to be, for me, very helpful in my spiritual life.

Q. What is your favorite prayer?

A. The rosary.

Q. What is your favorite book?

A. I suppose the Catechism doesn't count. [Laughs]

Q. No, neither does the Bible.

A. I like also very much the writings of Blessed Columba Marmio (1858-1923), spiritual writings, and I'm also fond of the writings of Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979).

Q. What was your greatest moment as a priest?

A. I think my ordination to the priesthood itself. I keep thinking back to that and everything was there, everything has unfolded from there. What I found most beautiful on the priesthood was that, in the first five years of my priesthood, I hade a very intense priestly service in a parish with the Sacrament of Confession, with many confessions, and the celebration - obviously - of the Holy Mass, and then the teaching of the children in the Faith. Those memories - and then, for a brief period of three years, I taught in a Catholic high school - those are really, for me, treasured memories of my priesthood.

Q. Do you fear the Last Judgment?

A. Of course I do. One thinks, for instance, of all the responsibility that was mine, first as a priest, but even more so as a bishop and a cardinal, and it causes one to examine his conscience. I know there are things that I did that I could have done much better, and that causes me to be afraid. But I hope that the Lord will have mercy on me and I pray for that.

Q. Thank you, Your Eminence.

A. You're welcome.

(Original: Una Voca Austria)

Taking Sides

by

Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.

The Guardian Angel Protecting a Child
from the Empire of the Demon
Domenico Fetti (1588-1623)

That there are right and wrong, good and evil, of some kind, and that these are opposed to one another, all men are agreed. They agree, too, that, in the end, right and good make for the benefit of the race, wrong and evil for its undoing. Some would go so far as to say that this constitutes their very definition. The man who acts rightly and does good is a blessing to his fellowmen; the man who acts wrongly and does evil is, in so far, a curse. Much more, then, if there is a common source of good and right, is it the source of all blessing to men; if there is a common source of evil and wrong, it is the plague-spot of creation. This accepted principle is at the root of all our criminal code; it is at the root of all our treatment of evil-doing. When we condemn a convict to servitude extending over a length of years, we think of him more as a source of future anger than merely as a man who has done wrong and must be punished. When we hang a murderer, it is more because he is, as we call him, a danger to society, than because of the actual evil he has done. And so in many other ways we act upon the assumed axiom: the doer of evil, be he man or be he devil, is the enemy of the human race.

But though men are commonly agreed as to the principle, they are by no means at one as to its interpretation. Though we acknowledge the doer of evil to be the enemy of the race, it is not always clear what good and evil actually are. In the whole world as we know it, is there anything more desperate than the seemingly universal antagonism on this point? What to one man is an act of virtue, to another is a crime; one will hail as martyrdom what another will call a death of ignominy and shame; a Saint will be persecuted on the holiest of grounds; the noblest of causes will be represented to some as the limit of disgrace. So it seems to have always been, so it is today; so, except for one gleam of hope, one might assume that it will be to the end. Agreed as the whole world is in principle, the seed of discord seems to be sown which will set good against good as long as time shall last, while evil battens on the victims of the fight. A good Mohammedan will massacre good Christians, a good Protestant will hang, draw, and quarter good Catholics, a good Inquisitor will condemn a good Jew to be burnt, and each in doing so will, as our Lord foretold, think he is doing a service to God.

Can it be that this is intended? Can it be that while goodness is always, and in the minds of all, one and the same thing, nevertheless good men, good principles, good aims should always be opposed to and persecutors of each other? Or is there not some explanation which is other than goodness itself? May it not be possible that good is opposed to good not because it is good, but because there is evil mixed with it, on one side or the other or both? May it not be that the crop that is growing is not wholly wheat, that an enemy has sown cockle among it, and that for the sake of the good the Master suffers both to grow together? Certainly, so long as things are human they will not be wholly perfect; and, in our present state of being, this will imply defect of some kind or other. Indeed, is not this the whole problem of a man's life? If things were wholly good or wholly bad, if their goodness or badness were written on their surface, then choice would be an easy matter. Even then a man could please himself; he could still choose good or evil; but if he chose the second it would be without a shadow of excuse. As things are, it is different. Nothing in the world is so wholly bad but it can be given an appearance of good; nothing is so wholly good but it can be shown to be evil.

So, then, I am driven to this conclusion: that if I am to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, I must not be content with appearances, with that which is shown upon the surface; I must go back to the broader principle, and I must go beyond to the ultimate issue. Evil is the enemy of the human race; then, however attractive a thing in itself may be, however at the moment it may plead for acceptance and approval, if it is injurious in its source, if its effects are inevitably injurious, it should have no part with me. Good, on the other hand, is always and invariably the ultimate friend of man; then, however a thing may be maligned, however lowly and despicable it may appear, if it comes from a good source, if it points to a good end, if it has always left good fruit behind it, it should be mine. Upon this basis, not upon that of my immediate circumstances, I must choose if I would choose as a man. The more I judge by that which is immediately around me, the more likely I am to be deceived. No man, says the proverb, is a judge in his own case. But if I will transcend these, if I will look at good and evil as they are, whence they come, whither they tend, and what are their real effects, then I shall see and understand; then I shall be in less danger of deception.

For of the one and the other the effects are not far to seek, and by their effects, more than in any other way, we are told by our Lord we may know them. Evil, first of all, is a deceiver; the devil, says our Lord again, is a liar from the beginning. Evil cannot possibly win the heart of any man except under the garb of good; for the heart of man in itself is good, and is drawn by good, however prone it may be to be seduced. Evil, then, must first of all lie to save its face; it must call itself a saviour when it is a curse, a benefactor when its gifts are only plagues. But once it has found a foothold, then we may know it as it is. Than evil, no tyrant is more tyrannical; it will proclaim the reign of freedom, and impose it upon its subjects at the point of the sword. Than evil, no confusion is more confounded or confounding; it will extol liberty of thought, will call for light and learning, but will tolerate no thought that differs from its own, will extinguish every light that is not to its fancy. It will go abroad as the champion of law and order; yet it will always leave behind it the marks of bondage, victories shouting with it the arrival of a golden age, yet clanking their chains as the accompaniment to their song. There is no slavery like the slavery of evil; it saps the very desire of freedom, it blinds the eyes till they can see no other light, it stalks alongside like a hideous spectre, terrifying its drunken victims till they dare not look to right or to left.

And there is the other side, thank God; the side that, in the end, appeals to the heart of every man. It is the side of Him who is "all things to all men," who has made Himself man's equal and not his master, or his master but that He might serve man the more, who has no lofty throne of majesty upon this earth, who lives in lowliness, whose aspect is fair and winning, whose name, indeed, is so great that every knee must bow before It, and yet when we meet Him, we find He is "only Jesus." His is the other side, the side opposed to that of " the enemy of the human race," and the side which in every generation wins through to victory, even though it seems to be ever on the verge of defeat. And this side, too, cannot help but spread itself abroad. This world can never again be the place it was, once Christ our Lord has walked upon it; for even if He had spoken never a word, even if He had worked no miracle, virtue went out from Him as and wherever He walked. So is it with His followers. Let them but be like their Master, like to Him in meekness, like to Him in lowliness, like to Him in aspect fair and winning, and they will need neither force nor falsehood to help them to conquer the hearts of men. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land."

The two camps are pitched, and in the one or the other every man must be enrolled. Every man's life must add its little quota to the side of good or evil; to the side of Christ, the Sovereign God, or to the side of the enemy of the human race. The camps are pitched, the battle is raging, and mankind is the prize. And what a strange battle it is! For it is one not only of army against army, but of every single man against himself. One looks through the fire and smoke, and sees every man dogged with his own particular devil. One sees that by Nature every man is good, in principle, in ideal, in intention; but at his side crouches a second self - a devil, if we like to call him so - who vitiates his nature, who misapplies his principles, who corrupts his ideals, who lulls his good intentions to sleep. And when he has done this he persuades him that this state is better than the first, that this is the reality and the other but a dream, that now he has found peace, or, at all events, as much as can be hoped for, that those who think otherwise are wrong, and must be suppressed. So he turns his arms against his own. Poor blinded human nature! You were made for better things than this. And they are yours still if you will have them - if, that is, you will stand up and fight on their side.