Dr. John Lamont holds a degree in philosophy from Oxford
University and in theology from Ottawa University. He is an honorary fellow in
the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology at the Australian Catholic University.
Dr. Lamont has taught at the University of Notre Dame Australia and the Catholic
Institute of Sydney, where he had the canonical mandate to teach theology from
the Sydney Archdiocese.
His article, which appears in the January/February 2013
issue of The Angelus, addresses the true root problem. If Vatican II
and Tradition are perfectly aligned; why shouldn’t the SSPX, which upholds
Tradition, be canonically recognized? We make much of Dr. Lamont’s forceful
argumentation our own.
——
Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, recently made the following statements about
the theological positions of the SSPX:
It is only the group of Lefebvrists that doesn’t accept… ecumenical
dialogue, relations with the Jews and religious liberty… One must ask how it
can present itself as Catholic…
These are central points of the teaching of the Holy Father, and if
[there is] a group that does not accept a council and does not accept a
teaching, one must ask how they see each other as Catholic … This is the
fundamental problem. (The Tablet and the Jewish Daily Forward).
Cardinal Koch has also made a broader criticism of traditionalists as a
whole:
The progressives profess a hermeneutics of discontinuity and break. The
traditionalists profess a hermeneutics of pure continuity: only that which
is already noticeable in the Tradition can be Catholic doctrine, therefore,
practically, there cannot be a renewal.
These criticisms of traditionalists are often made. Cardinal Koch’s high
curial post, and the fact that he was one of the members of the Vatican
committee that ruled that the Society’s proposed doctrinal preamble was
unacceptable, makes it desirable to offer a response to them. As a
traditionalist and a theologian myself, although not one affiliated with the
SSPX, I will attempt to do so.
We can distinguish three main criticisms in his remarks:
a) the criticism that the SSPX is not Catholic because it does not accept
the Second Vatican Council and the teachings of the current pope,
b) the criticism that traditionalists accept a false ‘hermeneutics of pure
continuity’, and
c) the criticism that it is only the SSPX that does not accept ecumenical
dialogue, relations with the Jews, and religious liberty.
The expressions ‘ecumenical dialogue’, ‘relations with the Jews’, and
‘religious liberty’ are rather vague in themselves, but in the context it is
clear that Cardinal Koch is using these expressions in the sense in which the
SSPX denies that they are true.
Cardinal
Koch’s first criticism sounds plausible only because of its unclarity. Some
allowance should be made for the fact that he was giving an interview to the
media in which a precise definition of terms would have been out of place, but
even when all possible allowances have been made, his assertion cannot be
understood in a theologically defensible way. What is necessary to be Catholic
is to believe and confess all the teachings of the Catholic faith. The SSPX does
this, and therefore can rightly call itself Catholic. Cardinal Koch raises
questions about the Catholicity of the SSPX on the basis of the claims that the
Society rejects ‘central points of the teaching of the Holy Father’, “does
not accept a council and does not accept a teaching”. The expression “central
points of the teaching of the Holy Father” is too vague. A teaching’s being
‘central’ does not suffice to make it an infallible definition or a repetition
of previous infallible teachings. The ‘central points’ that the SSPX does not
accept have never been claimed or established to be doctrines of the faith, and
their rejection of them thus does not mean that they are not Catholics.
The assertion that the SSPX “does not accept a council and does not
accept a teaching” suffers from a similar vagueness. It is not a doctrine
of the faith that the Second Vatican Council was a genuine ecumenical council,
but it is a dogmatic fact. Rejection of the validity of the Council thus might
be argued to be incompatible with being a Catholic. However, the SSPX
acknowledges that the Second Vatican Council was a genuine ecumenical council.
As for the teaching of the council, the SSPX accepts all the teachings of the
council that prior to the council were taught as doctrines of the faith. No new
doctrines were defined by the council, as is evident both from the content of
the conciliar documents themselves – which do not contain anything in the form
of a solemn definition – and from Paul VI’s assertion in his discourse closing
the council on December 7, 1965. In rejecting certain teachings of the Council,
the SSPX thus does not reject any teachings of the faith. Its rejection of these
teachings therefore cannot be said to be grounds for doubting that it is
Catholic.
It is worth reviewing theological debates on the level of authority of the
teachings of the council. Fr. Umberto Betti claimed that the teachings of the
dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium virtually reached the level of
infallible teaching.[1] This claim was contested by the then Fr. Joseph
Ratzinger,[2] who argued against Betti’s maximising interpretation. Even if
Betti is correct, however, and we ignore the difficulties in the notion of a
teaching being ‘virtually infallible’, his claim applies only to those conciliar
teachings contained in dogmatic constitutions; he bases his argument above all
on the application of the prefix ‘dogmatic’ to those constitutions.[3] The
teachings that Koch mentions as being rejected by the SSPX are not found in the
dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II, but in decrees or declarations of the
council. We may invert Fr. Betti’s argument and infer that since these teachings
were not included in the dogmatic constitutions of the council, they cannot be
considered to be pronouncements on the dogma of the Church.
In view of Cardinal Koch’s involvement in the decision on whether or not to
grant a canonically regular status to the SSPX, we should consider not only the
question of whether or not the SSPX is Catholic, but also the question of
whether the SSPX, while Catholic, nonetheless should be denied a canonical
status within the Church on the grounds that it rejects teachings that are not
dogmas of the faith, but are authoritative magisterial teachings to which
religious submission of mind and will is due. This is the real issue that arises
with respect to the status of the SSPX; questions about the Society’s being
Catholic are not serious ones.
A first question that arises is how a denial of canonical status to the SSPX
on these grounds can fit into the current disciplinary practice of the Church.
For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has judged that
Sister Elizabeth Johnson upheld errors in her book Quest for the Living God.
This judgement clearly states that these errors are denials of fundamental
dogmas of the Catholic faith. Such denials, which Sr. Johnson refused to
retract, are punishable by automatic excommunication in canon law (Canon 1364
§1). But Sr. Johnson in fact remains un-excommunicated, and is still a member in
good standing of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Brentwood. Cases like hers are not
uncommon; Fr. Hans Kung remains a Catholic priest in good standing in the eyes
of ecclesiastical authority, despite having rejected the defined dogma of papal
infallibility as long ago as 1970. It is not defensible to treat denials of the
faith as undeserving of punishment, while refusing canonical regularisation to
the SSPX on the grounds of its allegedly rejecting magisterial teachings that
are not dogmas of the faith and are not infallibly taught.
There is a basis in Canon 1371 §1 for punishing those who deny authentic
magisterial teachings that are not infallibly defined. The crucial question,
therefore, is whether or not the positions of the SSPX can be judged to be
punishable according to that canon. A clear and accurate evaluation of the
Society’s positions shows that this is not the case. To see why, we need to
distinguish between
1) the position of the SSPX on religious truth, specifically on the truth
about religious liberty, ecumenism, and the other matters concerning which it is
at odds with some current office-holders in the Holy See, and
2) the SSPX’s claim that the Second Vatican Council taught errors on these
matters.
With respect to 1), the SSPX rightly understands that fidelity to the papal
magisterium does not consist only in fidelity to the teachings of the current
pope. This fidelity is due to the office of the papacy itself, not to the
individual that holds it, and the basis of this fidelity is the authority of the
apostle Peter, which exists in all holders of the papal office. In the same way,
fidelity to the entire college of bishops united under the Pope is based on
fidelity to the authority of all the apostles, which is perpetuated in all the
bishops throughout the history of the Church acting in unison under the Pope.
This authority of Peter and the other apostles is thus present in all the
magisterial teachings of the Church, not just in those of the current pope and
bishops. Fidelity to the magisterium of the Pope and the bishops thus requires
acceptance of all the teachings of all the popes and bishops since the death of
the last apostle. On the issues under 1), the SSPX bases its positions on the
authoritative and sometimes infallible teachings of papal and conciliar
documents such as Quanta Cura, Dei Filius, Mortalium
Animos and others. Its’ positions are not peculiar and dubious
interpretations of these documents, but the standard interpretations of these
teachings, interpretations that were universally accepted at the time that the
teachings were promulgated, and that can be seen to be correct from an
examination of the discussions and preparations that led to the production of
these documents.[4]
The Society can thus assert that it is following the magisterium of the
Church in upholding these positions, and hence that its positions under 1) are
not open to any theological objection. If they are not open to theological
objection, far less can they form the grounds for any canonical sanction. In
order for a theological position to be made the grounds for canonical
punishment, it is not enough for it to simply be false. Holding a false
theological view is not as such an offence of any kind, as is evident from the
disagreements between schools of Catholic theology; at least one side in these
disagreements must be in the wrong and hence hold a false view, but such
disagreements are a legitimate part of the life of the Church. Even being hard
to reconcile with magisterial teaching does not suffice to make a theological
position a basis for canonical sanctions. A theological view can only be grounds
for canonical punishment if it is a clear and manifest rejection of a
magisterial teaching. It is absurd to say that upholding a plausible
understanding of magisterial teaching can be such a rejection.
It
is thus not possible for Cardinal Koch or other Roman authorities to reject this
defense on the basis that these positions have been denied by the Second Vatican
Council, and hence that it is no longer permissible to hold them. Such a
rejection is incompatible with Benedict XVI’s rejection of a ‘hermeneutic of
rupture’ for that council, which the Roman authorities are committed to
upholding. It does not matter here that the SSPX agrees that the Second Vatican
Council denies these earlier teachings; we are not considering the position that
the SSPX holds, but the position that Cardinal Koch and other Roman authorities
would have to advance in order to make a canonical case against the SSPX. If
contradicting earlier magisterial teachings is not a rupture, then nothing is.
So if the Second Vatican Council is not to be understood as a rupture with
previous teachings, it cannot be said to have contradicted any such teachings,
and it is permissible and even obligatory to accept all previous magisterial
teachings.
Cardinal Koch could abandon Benedict XVI’s rejection of a hermeneutic of
rupture, and claim that the Second Vatican Council did indeed deny these
previous teachings and hence that it is not permitted to uphold them. But this
position is untenable for two reasons. One reason is that the magisterial
documents upon which the SSPX bases its positions are both clearer and more
authoritative than the conciliar texts that might be held to contradict them.
Another reason is that it has never, in the more than 50 years since the council
was opened, been officially stated that its teachings contradict earlier
teachings and replace them; and there are many official denials that this is the
case, beginning with the conciliar documents themselves. To state in so many
words that the council abolished previous magisterial teachings is a radical
rejection of the past 50 years of magisterial teaching, and as such cannot be
advanced by the Roman authorities.
Some theologians have claimed that the magisterial documents upon which the
SSPX base their positions are really practical directives rather than statements
of fact, or are statements about the particular historical circumstances that
obtained at the time of the promulgation of the documents rather than statements
of universal truths. On the basis of this claim, they argue that the SSPX
actually falsifies the meaning of these documents, by wrongly holding them to
teach universal truths rather than truths that apply only to a specific set of
historical circumstances. Although the doctrinal conversations between the SSPX
and the Holy See have rather unfortunately been kept secret, one has the
impression that this claim is the basis of the case made against the SSPX by the
theologians of the Holy See.
There are two points to be made in reply to this claim. The first point is
that it cannot serve as an objection to the positions of the SSPX, because the
circumstances in which these documents were promulgated are substantially the
same as those of today; attacks on the Church and the faith by an aggressive
secular liberalism that arises from Enlightenment thought. It has been asserted
that these documents did not condemn a more benign form of liberalism that was
not at odds with the Church, but only a more hostile form of liberalism. This
assertion is not in fact true. This idea of a more benign form of Enlightenment
liberalism that could be reconciled with the Church, as opposed to a radical
secularism that could not, was the position of the Liberal Catholics of the 19th
century. This position was rejected by the 19th century popes, who explicitly
targeted it in their encyclicals. But even if it was true, it is hard to see how
it is relevant to the positions of the SSPX. The allegedly benign form of
liberalism has no representatives in society or governments today, which are
dominated by a hostile secularism. It thus follows from the very position of the
critics of the SSPX that the doctrines which the Society upholds, at least on
religion and society, are the ones that are suited to current circumstances. The
Society’s only error would be in holding that these doctrines, since they are
universal truths, also apply to other possible circumstances, which do not in
fact obtain and have little or no resemblance to the real circumstances. This is
not a serious criticism, and is not a reasonable basis for denying canonical
status to the Society.
The second point is that the claim is obviously false. The magisterial
documents upon which the SSPX base their position proceed by first laying down
and teaching fundamental principles that apply universally, and then applying
these principles to the concrete situations which the documents address. They
clearly enunciate an intention to teach truths that apply everywhere and always,
and that are based on the essential attributes of God, man, and the Christian
economy of salvation. This is seen, for example, in Leo XIII’s teaching on the
religion and the state, which teaches about the essential nature of the state in
itself, and in Pius XI’s teaching on ecumenism, which appeals in Mortalium
Animos (§6) to these essential attributes of God, man, and the Christian
economy. It cannot be claimed that the Second Vatican Council altered these
teachings from universal truths into facts that applied only to a particular set
of circumstances. That council did not claim and did not possess the power
claimed by Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, the power to change the
past. The earlier magisterial documents say what they say, and that cannot be
changed.
The actual positions of the SSPX on the content of Catholic teaching,
referred to by 1), are thus beyond criticism, and do not violate any canon. As
for 2), the SSPX’s claim that the Second Vatican Council taught error on some
matters; this claim is not an assertion about faith and morals at all, and does
not in itself contradict any magisterial teaching whether infallible or
non-infallible. It is simply an assertion that a small proportion of the
Church’s fallible teachings did, in fact, fail to be true. This assertion
violates no canon or religious obligation at all, and variants of it are
commonly held by theologians. Since neither the SSPX’s religious positions nor
its claims about the Second Vatican Council are objectionable or subject to
canonical penalty, it is unjust to deny canonical regularisation to the Society
on the basis of them.
Although the SSPX’s claims about the Second Vatican Council do not justify
any penal measures, I believe that there are some criticisms to be made of the
Society’s position towards the Council. The Society tends to focus as much on
the claim that the council contains errors as on denouncing the errors that it
believes the council to contain. This gets priorities wrong. After all, there is
no profit in a Catholic’s accepting that the council contains errors without
learning what these errors were; whereas a Catholic who learns that the errors
taught by the council are to be avoided, but who remains ignorant of the
council’s having taught them, greatly benefits thereby – and is not really any
the worse for his ignorance of the council’s assertions. The basis for objecting
to the council’s having taught errors, after all, is that such teaching leads
Catholics to accept these errors. If the Society were to focus on upholding its
positive positions on doctrine, it would be in a much stronger position with
respect to the Holy See and the Church generally. Rather than being in the
position of defending the claim that some conciliar and post-conciliar teachings
are false, it would put its opponents on the defensive, by saying “here are
these authoritative teachings; all Catholics must accept them”. If its
opponents are not to reject the authority of Church teaching altogether, they
must either accept these teachings, or else claim that the Second Vatican
Council had abolished them and hence accept that the council actually did reject
previous teaching. Now that Benedict XVI has officially rejected the latter
position, this approach by the Society would eventually force Catholics who
intend to be loyal to the magisterium to accept the former.
In addition, the claim that the Second Vatican Council taught error is
actually quite hard to maintain if we look closely at the words of these
documents. These are often framed in such a vague way that if their meaning is
examined strictly, they say very little. The claim that some passages of the
conciliar documents logically contradict previous teachings misses the subtlety
of the problem they pose. It is almost never totally impossible to give the
conciliar documents an orthodox meaning, which makes it possible to dismiss
traditionalist criticisms of them as unfounded; but the fact that they naturally
suggest heterodox interpretations makes it easy to use them to attack the faith
when addressing audiences other than traditionalists. This makes them much more
effective tools for subverting Catholic doctrine than would be the case if they
plainly contradicted earlier teachings, and thus provoked suspicion and debate.
Showing beyond a doubt that the council taught falsehood is thus very hard to
do, and attempting to do it falls into the trap that the documents set.
Attacking the falsehoods that the council seems to teach, on the other hand,
enables the documents to be used in the way suggested above, by forcing one’s
opponents to either accept the orthodox doctrine or acknowledge that the
conciliar documents reject previous teaching.
The subtlety of the problem is compounded by the fact that the vagueness and
ambiguity of the documents are not simply the result of a deliberate strategy of
deception on the part of their drafters. Certainly, some of the objectionable
passages in the conciliar documents are due to the influence of modernists, who
consciously held the heterodox views that the passages suggest and wished to
produce an innocuous-sounding text that could later be used to undermine the
faith. But sometimes the vagueness and ambiguity existed in the minds of the
drafters themselves, and continue to exist in the minds of those who uphold the
documents as beyond criticism. This lack of clarity is often due to an aversion
to Catholic doctrines or a desire to avoid unpleasant choices between Catholic
teaching and worldly beliefs, but it is also influenced by bad educational
formation, lack of a natural capacity to think clearly, a love of cloudy
high-sounding rhetoric, the wish to be positive and amiable, and other factors
that are not in themselves sinful. The problem of getting over this lack of
clarity is thus complex and difficult. Approaching it by insisting on the clear
earlier teachings is better than trying to seize the jelly of the conciliar
texts.
This answers Cardinal Koch’s criticism of the SSPX for rejecting papal and
conciliar teachings. His attack on the traditionalist ‘hermeneutic of pure
continuity’ can be dealt with more briefly. This attack again trades on
vagueness – in this case, the vagueness of the word ‘noticeable’ in the
cardinal’s rejection of the alleged traditionalist claim that “only that
which is already noticeable in the Tradition can be Catholic doctrine”.
Traditionalists take the Catholic position that Catholic doctrine must be
present either implicitly or explicitly in Tradition. ‘Noticeable’ does not
distinguish between what is implicit and explicit, since it is possible to
notice what is implicit. If ‘noticeable’ were to be understood as meaning
‘explicitly present’, it would be false to claim that Catholic doctrine must be
noticeable in tradition; but traditionalists do not hold that doctrine must be
noticeable in tradition in that sense. If ‘noticeable’ includes ‘implicit’ as
well as ‘explicit’, then traditionalists do hold that doctrine must be implicit
in tradition; but in so doing, they simply hold the Catholic position. This
alleged ‘hermeneutic of pure continuity’ is in any case irrelevant to the
traditionalist position on tradition. This position argues that what is already
explicit in tradition must continue to be upheld, and that nothing that
contradicts what has been explicitly taught can be accepted. It is not concerned
with claims that are not explicit in tradition but that do not openly contradict
it.
Finally, there is Cardinal Koch’s criticism that it is only the SSPX that
does not accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with the Jews and religious
liberty. Whether or not others accept the SSPX’s views on these subjects is
totally irrelevant to the strength of their arguments, so this criticism does
not have much weight. It is somewhat disingenuous of Cardinal Koch to make it,
since he knows well why people outside the SSPX are reluctant to publicly
endorse the positions of the Society; they fear consequences of the sort that he
himself was involved in imposing on the Society, when he recommended that they
be denied canonical regularisation for holding them. These sorts of
consequences, or worse ones, are the universal result of speaking in favor of
the Society’s positions. No seminarian will be ordained, no priest will be made
bishop, and no academic will be appointed to a post teaching theology if they
are known to agree with the Society on these issues. This policy goes back at
least to Paul VI’s removal of Fr. Antonio Piolante as rector of the Lateran
University for holding traditionalist views, and has been applied with great
thoroughness ever since. So it is natural enough that few Catholics are seen to
agree with the Society on these questions.
Despite this policy, however, it is not the case that the SSPX is the only
body to reject the positions that Cardinal Koch refers to, and the existence of
agreement with their views is worth noting. Here we must distinguish between the
SSPX’s position on the content of religious truth, and the SSPX’s claim that the
Second Vatican Council contradicted earlier magisterial teachings. There are an
enormous number of Catholics, probably a majority of Catholics who consider the
question, who think that the council rejected earlier teachings. For example,
Fr. John O’Malley S.J., university professor of theology at Georgetown
University, recently claimed that it is absurd to hold that the documents of the
council are entirely in continuity with Catholic tradition. Fr. O’Malley of
course thinks that this is a good thing and the SSPX thinks that this is a bad
thing, but they are in entire agreement on the existence of some rejection of
previous tradition by the council.
When it comes to the positions on religious truth held by the SSPX, we must
also distinguish between the Society’s objections to doctrinal statements and
its objections to practical policies. It is very hard to describe, for example,
exactly what the position of the Second Vatican Council on ecumenism is. The
practical policy that has been implemented since the council is however clear;
it is no longer insisted that non-Catholic Christians must submit to the
teaching and government of the Roman Catholic Church in order to do God’s will.
On
the questions of doctrine, we must distinguish between general statements about
doctrinal problems with the Second Vatican Council and agreement with the SSPX’s
particular doctrinal positions. The claim that heretics played an important role
at the council is not confined to traditionalists. It is made by Fr. Ralph
Wiltgen in his The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, the then Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger in his memoirs, and Fr. Henri de Lubac in his journals of the council;
it is also admitted with commendable frankness by Fr. Hans Kung in his memoirs.
The crucial – and sensitive – question concerns the nature of this role; did it
lead to the council teaching the views condemned by the SSPX, and are these
views in fact contrary to Catholic tradition?
There are voices outside the SSPX that answer ‘yes’ to both these questions.
The issue of the teachings of the council has been addressed above, and I will
simply note that the SSPX is not alone in making this criticism of the council.
Agreement with the positions of the SSPX on religious truth demands more
consideration. The negative consequences of agreeing with the SSPX have gravely
limited public expressions of agreement with their doctrinal positions; private
agreement is hard to measure, but seems to be not uncommon. These consequences
have meant that the case for the SSPX’s positions has been made to a great
extent by laymen who worked outside of universities. The important figures here
are well known to traditionalists: Jean Madiran in France, and Michael Davies in
England. Their non-academic status is not a problem for the quality of their
work – something that has been recognised in the case of Michael Davies by
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who described Davies as a man of deep faith who has
left important publications. (One should however mention Fr. Paul Crane S.J.,
founder and editor of the English traditionalist journal Christian Order,
as an exception to this generalisation about lay intellectual leadership in
non-SSPX traditionalist circles.)
Despite
all the obstacles, however, there are nonetheless significant academic
contributions that agree in substance with some or all of the positions of the
SSPX on religious truth. The most significant figure here is Msgr. Brunero
Gherardini, former professor at the Lateran and editor of the theological
journal Divinitas. Msgr. Gherardini has raised serious questions about
the continuity of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in a number of
important works, including The Ecumenical Council Vatican II: a Debate To Be
Opened. He has expressed his sympathy with the SSPX on a number of issues. Prof.
Roberto de Mattei has done the same in his prize-winning book on the Second
Vatican Council. The Swiss philosopher Romano Amerio produced a magisterial
condemnation of conciliar and post-conciliar deviations in his Iota Unum and
Stat Veritas, which largely agreed with the SSPX. The author of this
article has argued for the traditional position on religion and the state in his
Catholic teaching on religion and the state (and in ‘Pour une
interprétation pieuse de Vatican II au sujet de la liberté religieuse‘,
which appeared in Divinitas). The English Dominican Fr. Thomas Crean
has attacked the common practice of praying with non-Catholic Christians,
recommended in the post-conciliar document Ad Totam Ecclesiam, as
contrary to divine law, and has attacked the understanding of religious freedom
rejected by the SSPX (see his articles ‘Religious Liberty?’ and ‘Praying with
Non-Christians – Is It Possible?’ at
http://www.christendom-awake.org). Dr. Christopher J. Malloy of the
University of Dallas has criticised the ‘Joint Declaration on Justification’
signed by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999, in his
Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration (Peter Lang,
2005). Fr. Claude Barthe and the writers involved in the French review
Catholica have also made very important contributions along the lines of
the SSPX positions, which attain a scholarly level in the depth of their
research and analysis. To sum up, there are no significant positions on
religious truth that are held by the SSPX but not held by other scholars of
substance – who, one should note, have not suffered canonical penalties for
holding them.
When it comes to the practical policies that the SSPX criticises, no
specialist theological expertise is required, and the people who agree with some
or all of the Society’s criticisms are too numerous to even attempt to list
them. Some of these critics are not even Catholics. To give some examples, the
sociologists Roger Finke and Rodney Stark have offered devastating criticisms of
the policies of the Church after the council in The Churching of America
1776-2005. Christopher Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods have attacked these
policies in The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the
Roman Catholic Church, and Kenneth C. Jones has given extensive statistical
backing to criticisms of conciliar and post-conciliar policies in his Index
of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II.
Criticisms of the policy on ecumenism are of particular relevance to Cardinal
Koch in view of his post as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity. Since the Second Vatican council embraced a policy of
‘ecumenism’, there has been a greater departure of Catholics for other Christian
groups than at any other time in history. In Brazil, for example, a country
where 95% of the population was Catholic until the 1960s, Protestantism has
grown to 22% of the population, and is projected to reach a majority by 2020.
These losses, which run into the scores of millions, dwarf the losses to the
Catholic Church in the original Reformation. No greater failure for the
promotion of Christian unity can be imagined. These figures evidently do not
lead Cardinal Koch to agree with the SSPX in its criticisms of ecumenism, but
they should.
Since Cardinal Koch has a responsibility for promoting Christian unity, it is
especially disappointing that he should have opposed the canonical
regularisation of the SSPX on plainly inadequate grounds. It is to be hoped that
he will withdraw this opposition and take positive steps to support this
regularisation, which would heal a serious wound to the unity of the Church.
Footnotes
[1] Umberto Betti, “Qualification théologique de la Constitution,”
L’Église de Vatican II, vol. 2, Commentaires, ed. Y. Congar
(Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967).
2 J. Ratzinger, “Announcements and Prefatory Notes of Explanation,” in
Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 1, ed. H. Vorgrimler (New
York: Herder and Herder, 1967).
3 “Avant tout, il s’agit d’une Constitution dogmatique. Ce qui importe,
ce n’est pas la denomination de Constitution – qui aurait pu aussi bien être
remplacée par d’autres, comme Décret, Bulle, etc., mais la qualification de ‘dogmatique’.
Celle-ci indique que le magistère universel a pour tâche comme tel de proposer
la doctrine contenue dans la Constitution,” Betti, “Qualification
théologique,” in Congar (1967), pp. 214-15.
4 For the discussion and preparation of the teachings of Gregory XVI and Pius
IX on religious freedom, for example, see M. J. Le Guillou and Louis Le Guillou,
La condamnation de Lamennais: dossier (Paris: Beauchesne, 1982): G.
Martina, ‘Nuovi Documenti sulla genesi del Sillabo‘, in Archivum
Historiae Pontificae, 6, 1968; Roger Aubert, ‘L’intervention
de Montalembert au congres de Malines en 1863′, Collectanea
Mechliniensia 35 (1950); and E. Lecanuet, Montalembert, vol. III:
L’Église et le Second Empire, 3rd ed. (Paris: Vve. Ch. Poussielgue, 1905),
pp. 374-374.