Eleison Comments

Bishops’ Letter

Bishops’ Letter on October 5, 2019

A reader asks what were the circumstances behind the writing of the letter of April 7, 2012, addressed to Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, by the three other bishops then of the Society of St Pius X. The letter is fast becoming ancient history, but readers may remember that the letter played an important part in making Traditional Catholics aware of the significant change of direction of the Society that had been surreptitiously taking place over the last 15 years, and which many of them had not noticed. But in March of 2012 the animal had just broken cover, or come out into the open.

In that month in “Cor Unum,” the Society’s magazine appearing three times a year for priests, the Superior General (SG) wrote that it was time for the Society to change Archbishop Lefebvre’s policy of no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement, because the hostility of the Roman churchmen towards Catholic Tradition was growing less, and so the Society’s trust in the Conciliar Romans should grow more. In fact since the early 2000’s, more and more priests and laity of the Society had been suspecting that the Society was being led in a different direction. Now the SG himself was confirming those suspicions. That “Cor Unum” caused quite a stir within the Society.

At the dinner-table in the Society’s Priory in London, England, the editor of these “Comments” wondered aloud about writing to the SG a letter of protest against the change of direction, and about sending it to Bishop Tissier for him to check the contents. A priestly colleague at table asked if the letter should not be submitted also to Bishop de Galarreta, in case it could go to Society Headquarters as a joint protest against such a serious departure from the Archbishop’s constant preaching and practice of “Doctrine first.” The colleague was right, and so the idea of a letter of the three bishops was born. When consulted on the project, Bishop Tissier recommended that a draft of the letter be written, and when a draft was submitted to him he gave to it his enthusiastic approval. The draft was then submitted to Bishop de Galarreta who also approved, but reinforced considerably the draft by rewriting the last part of it. A final text was then signed by all three bishops and posted to Headquarters in Menzingen with copies for the SG and his two Assistants.

Their reply came just one week later. Not for nothing had Headquarters been changing the Society’s direction while disguising the change. They genuinely thought that Conciliar Rome was becoming more Catholic, to the point that the Archbishop’s grave reservations as to co-operating with the Neo-modernists in Rome were in effect out of date. To Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988 the Archbishop had said that co-operation was impossible, because the SSPX and Rome were working in directly opposite directions – Rome wanted to de-christianise society while the SSPX was striving to re-christianise society. But in 2012, SSPX Headquarters were adamant that the situation had changed, and so by opposing the three bishops they were not opposing the Archbishop. But what would the latter have said about the shenanigans of Pope Francis? What would he not have said? Yet in a recently appeared book-interview of the now former SG, Bishop Fellay vigorously repudiates even the least criticism of Pope Francis.

And so on a pre-arranged date in June of 2012 the latter presented himself in Rome with a trusted adjutant to put the seal on an agreement with Rome which would at last put an end to what SSPX Headquarters must have considered was an unnecessary 37-year squabble between the SSPX and Rome. Unnecessary? Squabble? Conciliar Rome is at war with Catholic Tradition! And the Romans had obviously learned of the three bishops’ letter. In which case what use would it have been for them to trap the Society’s official leadership if the other three of its four bishops avoided the trap? Tradition risked starting up all over again. And so the SG in 2012 was sent away from Rome, empty-handed. He would have to get to work on those bishops to bring them round. He wasted no time . . .

Kyrie eleison.

Ibsen’s Rosmersholm

Ibsen’s <i>Rosmersholm</i> on September 28, 2019

Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906) was a famous Norwegian playwright, often credited with being the worldwide father of modern drama. He was not Catholic, but he told a great truth, and St Augustine once said that all truth belongs to Catholics (because their God is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”). For this reason Catholics can even sometimes appreciate better than non-Catholics the truths that the non-Catholics are telling. The great truth of Ibsen is that even in strait-laced hypocritical Norway of the late 19th century, where life and joy are stifled beneath a weight of dying traditions, still the human spirit rises up in protest, and it prefers even death to an existence entrapped with no apparent freedom or meaning.

Let us illustrate this protest with a group of three later plays of Ibsen in which he has turned rather from the drama of modern society to that of individual persons. Rosmersholm (1886) ends with the hero and his beloved committing joint suicide. The Master Builder (1892) ends with the hero falling to his death from a high tower which it was suicidal for him to have attempted to climb in the first place. John Gabriel Borkman (1896) ends with the hero dying from the cold of a virtually suicidal climb up a freezing mountain slope. But in each case the hero was striving for the freedom of the human spirit against a world stifling that spirit. Let us have a look at Rosmersholm in particular, an adaptation of which was staged in London recently with great success. Ibsen lives!

Every drama needs a dramatic clash, and the clash in Rosmersholm is between the old world of the Rosmer family and home on the one side, distinguished for the last 200 years by its soldiers and parsons who have set an example and given a lead to the whole region, and on the other side the rising new world of emancipation and freedom from all those old values. The central figure in the play is the last scion of the noble family, John Rosmer, formerly a parson but who has lost his Christian faith and is now torn between the two worlds. On the one side is Dr Kroll, a cold-hearted conservative attempting to save Norway from the all-invading liberalism, but whose own wife and children are going liberal. On the other side is the editor of the local radical paper, Mortensgaard, who is at least as disreputable as Kroll in his attempts to pull Rosmer to his side. Rosmer himself has in theory been won over to the new world of joy and freedom by the charming young woman, Rebekka West, his platonic companion for several years.

The drama comes to a head when Rosmer tells Kroll of his loss of faith and his intention to fight in public for the liberals. Kroll moves into action, by fair means or foul, to stop Rosmer from lending his person and prestige to the rot. Under pressure from Kroll, Rebekka realises that in her struggle to liberate Rosmer from his noble but stifling background, it is in fact that background, Rosmersholm, which has overcome herself. In the end, the only way that John and Rebekka can achieve both the new freedom and the old nobility is to throw themselves together into the water-mill of Rosmersholm. In other words, says Ibsen, the old nobility is joyless, the new conservatism is heartless and the new emancipation is no better. There remains only death as a way out, seemingly the only possible affirmation for the trapped couple.

Is that all dark nonsense, unfit for today’s Catholics? No, it is a realistic portrait of our world. When faith goes dead, as with Rosmer and with billions of souls today, then conservatism (Kroll) ultimately conserves nothing, left-wingery (Mortensgaard) is as good as throwing godless gasoline on a godless fire, emancipation (Rebekka) lacks stamina, and the liberal death-wish takes over. If one wishes to have life, and to have it more abundantly (Jn. X, 10), then Rosmer must revive in himself the faith of his truly noble ancestors, which means he must go back beyond even the best of his Protestant ancestors to the Catholics who made Christian Norway. Let Rosmer become truly Catholic, and then Kroll, Mordensgaard and Rebekka will all be able to see the true solution, and the whole region can light up again with the light of Christ.

Kyrie eleison.

Family Targeted

Family Targeted on September 21, 2019

As the world turns its back more and more on God, so He gently withdraws for the moment – He will come back in force, wait for it! – but in the meantime there is steadily disappearing with Him His divine protection upon His own seedbed for human beings, the family. Gravest of all is the abandoning of the family by the Catholic churchmen, leaving it wide open to attack from all sides by Satan. Most hurtful must be when the attack comes from within, by beloved family members. Here below is such a case, and it has to be typical of many today. The family father writes:—

With my wife we had ten children, three of whom are now adults, and we had gone through some difficult times and a few tragedies, but now she has declared war on me. About 18 months ago, fully supported by her Novus Ordo priest and powerful friends, she undertook legal maneuvers to get me out of the home, and away from the children. It was all unbelievable, and terribly painful. That the persecution was essentially religious was confirmed when she offered to let me stay at home as a separated man, living in the basement, if only I signed a legal agreement relinquishing any religious rights over the education and formation of my children, and precluding us all from going to any Traditional chapel and/or from communicating with any so-called Traditionalists. Of course, I could not sign that, and her group went on to totally roll over me and the kids with legal tricks . . . and I lost everything: wife, home, children, money, car, health insurance, and almost entirely my business. As my children were strong in the faith, and would not yield to Mom’s bizarre and wrong behaviour and preferred to be with Dad, then she got a team of “therapists” to “wash out” their brains, and get them to be “normal” again, and she got them into Novus Ordo schools and forced them to attend the Novus Ordo Mass with her.

It’s been well over a year since I last saw my little children. The youngest is now almost 3 years old, and the rest of the younger children are 18–24 months apart, up to 16. I have no way to find out what’s going on with them, and whether they are keeping the faith, because they aren’t allowed to see or hear anybody other than Novus Ordo liberals. The three older ones, adults now, have been able to communicate with me and to remain as close as they can. The oldest one, who was already in a seminary and had finished philosophy, got out, perhaps due to the shock caused by the family break-up, but he keeps his faith intact, attends Mass almost daily, and works well in the world. Sadly, #2 swallowed the poison that college is the only way to make a living in the future. The third one is now debating the idea of going to college, but has not lost sight of God’s Will.

I can see that God has a plan, and that my own faults and flaws have played their part in the break-up. Years ago a Traditional priest told me that we had such a Catholic family that the devil surely hated us. This is surely a furious attack from Satan to destroy the faith of my children, and to lead me to despair, but my faith is still strong, and I hope that through this ordeal some, many, or all of us will be saved. Still, there is more pain than joy in my heart. We used to be a good example for other families, but now we are objects of pity and derision . . . and I’m being blamed for being “fanatic,” mentally-ill, inflexible, and so forth. Had I not known many souls committed to the true faith, explaining and denouncing the current evils in Church and world, I would have agreed with my wife and her entourage, and I would have gone along with the easy, comfortable, secular way of life. But I do remain weak, and so sometimes I do wonder if Tradition isn’t all insanity – how can such a small remnant of Catholics be right? Yet, there were only 12 Apostles in the beginning, and one of them was a traitor.

Such a reaction from a mother of ten is not normal, but today what is normal? So how can a father defend his family against such a reaction? Prevention is better than cure, says the proverb. Whoever it is in the family that Satan is targeting, the family Rosary every day must be the first line of defence. Beyond that, “What can’t be cured, must be endured,” as this Catholic father realizes. We must trust God.

Kyrie eleison.

White Racism? – II

White Racism? – II on September 14, 2019

Following on these “Comments” of last week, one reader remarked that the title should rather have been “Anti-white racism.” Of course he is right in the sense that the antagonism is going today much more from non-whites towards whites than from whites towards non-whites, but what matters for all of us is to allay the antagonism, going in whatever racial direction, by understanding what is behind it. Ultimately it is the liberals presently running the world who want to kick Almighty God out of His Creation so that they can take His place. As good “liberals,” they want above all liberty from God. What use is freedom from anything or anybody else, if they are not free from God and His Ten Commandments?

Now when God took flesh, the religion which His Son instituted spread Christendom worldwide, where in St Paul’s words, as many as are baptised into Christ have put on Christ, so that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. III, 27–29; Col. III, 11). This doctrine means that where Christianity prevails, antagonisms such as “anti-semitism,” “racism” and “feminism” all tend to be dissolved, because they are all drowned in baptism in Christ. But what if men reject Christ? Will not all antagonisms between Jew and non-Jew, between non-white and white, between male and female, re-surface?

They will, and they will be worse after Christendom than they were before, because Christianity gave men to know God as they had not known Him before, and also to know the absolute equality of all men before God, an equality belonging to eternity, which dwarfs the multiple inequalities between men in this short life on earth. Before Christendom, men naturally accepted these inequalities as being part of life against which it was foolish to protest – the inequalities were simply there. Under Christendom mankind learned to be consoled for the inequalities, still there, by the supreme equality of eternity. But after Christendom, the Christian faith, Christ, heaven and eternity are all gone, so that the inequalities of this life, which have not gone away, are more keenly felt than ever.

For indeed the liberals who are doing their best to put an end to Christendom have nevertheless carried over from it a sense, for instance, of its supreme equality of all men, even if they have gotten rid of the God upon whom that equality was founded. Therefore an equality of eternity must now be jammed into seventy years and ten. Like trying to cram a quart of liquid into a pint jar. It will not go. Then they will force it to go. And here is why liberals are always fighting reality. They are post-Christians attempting to cram into one short life ideals of Christ which have dimensions of eternity. They miss Christianity but do not want Christ, so with might and main they strive to recreate Christianity without Christ, which is an enterprise doomed to failure. But will they return to Christ? Never! “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!”

Thus Christian liberty from sin, for Heaven, must be turned into liberty from any earthly oppression, real or imagined, liberty for Revolution: Christian equality before God, for eternity, must be turned into the levelling down of all real superiorities on earth, which will not go away, however hard the liberals try; and finally f raternity in Christ, the true brotherhood of all men as children of the one true God, must be replaced by the artificial association of all men in institutions like the United Nations, which can only fail.

In conclusion, the white race received from God special gifts, natural and supernatural, to bring Christ and His Church to all mankind. Whenever they did this, all mankind benefited and men made their way to Heaven all over the world, with no resentment and much gratitude towards the race which was opening their way to Heaven. But when this race ceased to serve that function, then the rest of mankind felt instinctively betrayed, and “racism” raged, as never before. Whites, if you do not like anti-white racism, then pick up the Rosary, 15 Mysteries a day.

Kyrie eleison.

White Racism? – I

White Racism? – I on September 7, 2019

The race of white men, as they are called, scattered all over the face of the earth but especially concentrated in Europe, is presently suffering contempt and persecution all over the face of the earth. And whose fault is that? It is primarily the fault of the whites, or Europeans, themselves.

“Racism” as it is called, or antagonism between the various human races, is certainly a human problem, arousing all kinds of human passions, and so like all truly human problems which are not just material or mechanical problems, it has necessarily a religious dimension. Today the very last direction in which men will turn to solve a human problem is towards God, and yet God will be the true solution. But since men will not turn to God, then the problems remain basically insoluble, and today’s world is in ever increasing chaos. Then how does turning towards God solve today’s problem of “racism”?

It is God and God alone who creates the soul of every single man that ever lived, and He creates them with a great variety, to make up what He means to be the symphony of mankind. Now individuals He creates with immensely differing natural gifts, as every parent must recognise when they observe how completely different are the gifts and temperament and character of their own children – no two are ever alike. And did the parents themselves create that variety? Obviously not. The only natural decision that the parents had was to have a child (to abort this or that child in the womb is a highly unnatural decision). God did the rest. Now the variety coming from God clearly includes inequality. For instance parents are bound to recognise the absolute inequality of gifts among their own children – some can be much more gifted than others. Parents may not have wanted this inequality, but could they have done anything about it? Obviously not. It is God who decides – naturally – even the sex of their children.

Nor is this inequality of gifts unjust, because the really privileged children are those who will get to Heaven by supernatural gifts, which require the child himself to cooperate with God’s grace, and that cooperation has nothing necessarily to do with natural gifts. Hell, somebody has said, is full of talents, whereas Heaven is full of virtues. Moreover a child’s gifts from God obviously correspond to whatever part God means him to play in the symphony of mankind. The child should do what is he gifted for.

Now as with individuals, so with families, towns, provinces, nations and races. Families are different from one another, and unequal. Towns, provinces, nations and races are all different and unequal, with in each case a varying mixture of nature by God and nurture by men. Insofar as they are developed by men, God’s intention in allowing for this nurture is that with their varying gifts, they should all exercise charity and look after one another. For example, let this town help its flooded neighbour, let this province provide the artists, let this nation lead the world, let this race serve the Church. Now is it not clear from many centuries of history that the white race has had, not exclusive, but special natural and supernatural gifts from God to serve Him, and to extend His Church all over the world? Nor is this unjust, because what use the whites make of these gifts depends upon themselves. They have free-will to use or misuse their gifts, but in any case they do have a mission from God. If they make the right use of these gifts, they will benefit the whole world. If they misuse these gifts, God will specially punish them.

And what use are the whites making today of their God-given gifts? For many hundreds of years have they not been slowly but steadily turning away from Him? And are they not now proud of their atheism? Is it then surprising if God makes use of all other races, nations, etc., to punish the whites by their being scorned and persecuted by the rest of mankind? In God’s view, have not apostate men betrayed the women they are meant to lead (to Heaven); have not apostate whites betrayed all other races; have not apostate Gentiles finally betrayed the Jews by Vatican II? Then who should still be surprised by the raging of “feminism,” “racism” and “anti-semitism”?

Kyrie eleison.

“Post-Modernity” – II

“Post-Modernity” – II on August 31, 2019

At the risk of wearying readers with variations on the theme of Truth, these “Comments” will make further comment on the summary of Wojcieck Niemczewski’s Culture as religion; the post-modern interpretation of the relationship between culture and religion, quoted here last week. For indeed we must save our souls, and one deep danger in the way of saving our souls is the blinding of our highest faculty, which is our minds, upon which follows immediately the corruption of our hearts. And the deepest danger for our minds today is the universal assumption that ideas do not matter, that truth is not important. See how Vatican II preferred modernity to faithful Catholicism, notably in the Conciliar document of Gaudium et Spes, and then how the Society of St Pius X preferred the Conciliar Romans to their faithful Founder, and in each case, how the large majority of priests and lay-folk followed along.

Let us begin by laying out Niemczewski’s thoughts in order, so as to see where he is coming from and where he is going to: 1 There is no objective God because “God” is the subjective fabrication inside each one of us. 2 Therefore the old “truths” of yesterday’s religion and philosophy no longer have any foundation. 3 Moreover they no longer fit today’s real world, which is changing in all domains and faster than ever. 4 Worse, they are actually blocking modern progress, or the “culture of choice” which enables us to adapt to change, and which guarantees the freedom of each of us to put together his own way of life. 5 So to remain adaptable to modernity, post-modern man must accept this non-universal and non-obligatory “culture of choice” which imposes on man neither norms nor any being superior to him. 6 In conclusion, truth must give way to liberty, religion to culture, and direction to drift. 7 Therefore down with Truth, up with the “culture of choice”!

Alas for post-modern man, there is a reality outside his mind, as close to him as his own arms and legs, and this extra-mental reality has laws of its own, in no way dependent on his mind. For instance if he has tooth-ache, he will have to go to the dentist and not to the fishmonger. And these laws are not only physical but also moral. For instance if a poor girl has an abortion, she is not going to be able to wish away her pangs of conscience, however much she would like to. The free-will of each of us human beings is unquestionably free – hence the possibility of Niemczewski’s “culture of choice” – but that culture of choice can only function inside and not outside of the structured framework of the laws of extra-mental reality, physical and moral. Thus for my eternity I am free to choose Heaven or Hell, but I am not free to choose to break seriously the moral law and still go to Heaven.

The ancient Greeks in their prime pre-dated Our Lord’s Incarnation by hundreds of years, so that they had no benefit of supernatural grace or illumination. But just naturally they observed – they did not invent – the grave and unavoidable consequences of human beings rearing up against the moral structure of human life, and they gave that rearing up a name – “hubris,” today we would call it “pride.” Thus Niemczewski’s presentation of the “culture of choice” begins by denying God and ends by defying Him, but while he may bend men’s minds in favour of his “culture,” he is powerless to bend the eternal and ineffable Existence of God, or the eternal and absolute necessity of Truth. For instance, if there is no such thing as truth, then that at least is a truth. Hence in denying all or any dogma, nobody is so dogmatic as the Freemasons, and in their subjective undermining of all doctrine, nobody is so doctrinal as the Modernists and Neo-modernists.

In brief, a man like Niemczewski is refusing to recognise that around mankind’s arena of choice is a ring of reality which is not of man’s choice. The churchmen of Vatican II are refusing to recognise that the Deposit of Faith cannot be modernised. And the leaders of the Newsociety of St Pius X are refusing to recognise that the Conciliar Romans are fantasy merchants. The “culture of choice” will finish by costing all of them dearly. It may cost them their eternity if they cannot come to their Catholic senses.

Kyrie eleison.