BOOK REVIEW:
"THE UNDERMINING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"
BY MARY BALL MARTINEZ
A Critique by Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
A highly acclaimed book, "The Undermining of the Catholic Church", by
Mary Ball Martinez, has greater implications than the mere compilation
of opinions to resolve today's crisis in the Catholic Church.
Her thesis is: Alive and well as the new century began were the five
Italians who in the course of the coming decades were to take on the
task of transforming the Roman Church, Pietro Gasparri, Giachomo Della
Chiesa, the Genoese who would reign as Benedict, Eugenio Pacelli, would
become Pius XII, Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII and
Giovanni Battisti Montini who would become Paul VI [p. 28].
Why she retains the title of "Pope" for John XXIII and not the others
is unexplainable as are many other aspects of this book, but the
consequences of this queue of prelates are beyond ignoring as trivial.
The Author herself, continues:
Already the lives of the four men and, through his parents, that of the
child, were linked with one another... their careers would intertwine
in what might be seen as a kind of team effort which would be of great
practical help in their unusual undertaking. A conspiracy? The term is
too facile with melo-dramatic overtones and too simplistic in its
failure to take into consideration the fact that...[they] could not,
short of five major miracles, have acted differently from the way they
did. Let us say they held the same vision and that vision was a new
kind of Catholic Church. On Montini, weakest of the five, and on
Pacelli, the strongest, the pressure was heaviest...." [pp. 28-29].
The acceptance of this thesis brings one to one of two
conclusions: Either the condemnation of Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII
as non-Catholic along with Paul VI and their exclusion from the Papal
office by such a condemnation; or, that the papal office is a mere
political entity with no divine entitlement for the safeguarding of the
faith, seeing that the accusations raised by the author are an
initiation of "un-orthodox" beliefs by all four who claim succession to
Peter's Chair.
The acceptance of the former is unsupported, as there is nothing in the
Papal reigns of Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII that raise suspicions of
heresy [the purported "new idea" of the Church being the
"Mystical Body of Christ" is the teaching of the Church, derived from
the words of Christ and the Epistles of St. Paul. It may be objected
that the word "Mystical" before Body of Christ is not to be
Scripturally found, yet it has been used by Theologians and the Church
to distinguish the Church as the Body of Christ from a mere moral body
as also from confusing it with the physical human body Christ
assumed when He took flesh (cf. Franzelin, "De ecclesia Christi", Rome
1887)]. The acceptance of the latter would be a denial of Catholic
Faith.
To begin with, the author appears to imagine that the Idea of the
Church as a "Mystical Body" is a new "nomenclature" that was inspired
in the minds of those who wished to change the concept of the Church,
and, so to say, slipped into the Church by Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII
did not sneak in the idea of "Mystical Body" while everyone's eyes were
focused on the War, but rather, because everyone's eyes were focused on
the War, Pope Pius XII tried to remind the warring nations that they
(those who were Catholic) were united in the Church, which should
transcend national boundaries that are transitory. No, the author has
ignored the entire New Testament, Fathers of the Church, and celebrated
Theologians of the Catholic Church. Nor may we accept a
misinterpretation, as she implies in her quote of Fr. Dulles: "Very
soon, ecclesiologists were asking themselves 'is the Mystical Body a
pure communion of grace or is it visible? Would not perhaps People of
God be more appropriate?'" [p.18] Such a rejection of the truth because
of misinterpretation would condemn Sacred Scripture itself, which is
quoted even by the devil in Christ's temptation!
Thus, to say the Encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ is a "great
paradigm shift" is tantamount to saying that the Church was never
thought of as "the Mystical Body of Christ", but, to use her quote, a
"juridical and societal (...) Church" [p.16] and "institutional"
[p.17]. If there is a "great paradigm shift", it would be by those who
conceived the Church merely as the author has just stated it.
Saint Paul writes: Now you are the body of Christ, member for member"
(1 Cor. xii.27); and, again: And all things he made subject under his
feet, and him he gave as head over the Church, which indeed is
his body, the completion of him whom fills all with all (Eph. i.22-23).
This is therefore brought into play when he writes further: "this is a
great mystery - I mean in reference to Christ and to the Church" (Eph.
v.32), not because the Church has merely an invisible unity, but
because of the greatness of this unity between Christ and the Church,
the bride of Christ, to which is applied the words "therefore they
are two in one flesh."
In this sense, [pseudo] Clement can state: "It is not
unknown to you that I believe that the living Church is the body of
Christ" (2 Cor. 14,2). St. Augustine preached these words: "What the
soul is for the body of man, that the Holy Ghost is for the body of
Christ, that is, the Church" ("Sermo" 267 4,4). Thus, as Pope Leo
XIII reminds us, in his encyclical "Divinum Illud" (1897): "Christ is
the Head of the Church, the Holy Ghost her soul". Pope Pius XII
continues this belief of the Church when he states: "To describe
this true Church of Christ - there is no name more noble, none more
excellent, none more Divine, than the expression the Mystical Body of
Jesus Christ" (Encyl. "Mystici Corporis", 1943).
Therefore, to insinuate that the concept of the Church as the Mystical
Body of Christ as set forth in "Mystici Corporis" is un-Catholic is
absurd. But, in so judging Pope Pius XII un-Catholic, there is
also a belittling of the entire idea of the Papacy if one were
still to consider him a Pope. The question is, Why do this? Can it be
that it is necessary that a connection must be made between John XXIII,
Paul VI and John Paul II to Popes Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV and
Pope St. Pius X. This would reconcile the travesty of heresy rampant in
the writings of the former by claiming the latter had believed, but did
not document it. That true Popes can lead the Church into error!
Now this would be possible, if we could consider the Church as a mere
juridical institution, because then there could be a mere political
digression of pull to the left away from the right. And, it appears to
me, that the author's belief is just this. But we must then ask what is
the difference between this concept and any institute trying to
preserve (read conserve=conservative) its original identity. But, we
must remember that the Author is a political writer, perceiving events
with a political interpretation. Her inadequate theological
understanding of the Church has misled her, for now she has us
conceiving the Church as an institution having leaders (popes)
who are anything but Catholic, but because they are "elected" leaders
(popes), we must accept them as leaders (popes), as long as they adhere
to the juridical formulas. So the Conciliar Church created by
"modernists" during Vatican Council II can play with Faith and Morals,
impose laws and beliefs, and still be Catholic. And, like the
Pharisaical priests in the time of Christ, who claimed that they were
justified as Sons of Abraham: God's chosen people, now "Catholics" who
follow the letter of the law are saved by membership in an
institution of priests. The new "zealots" may even still protest
"liberal" ideas by "civil [ecclesiastical?] disobedience", as in any
political society, while the opposition is in power, awaiting the
dreamed-up "utopia"
when their political ideas will again be the accepted norm. Is this the Catholic Church?
These character assassinations especially of Pope Pius XII continue in
her accusation that he professed Karl Barth [a Protestant
theologian] was his favorite theologian [p. 18] and even that John
XXIII's Council was really his [p. 20] without factual proof. An
apparent false interpretation, as spoken of above, is given to
his decrees, be it the Communion Fast, the Restored Liturgy of
Holy Week, the Psalter, and writings so as to shadow him into a
dark corner as a sinister plotter. If one were to read his Encyclicals
and Decrees personally, I believe they could not equate the Pope Pius
XII who penned them and the Pope Pius XII this author has created in
her twisted versions.
Let us remember, too, that one's opposition to the reforms of Pius XII
is tantamount to one's objecting to the reforms of the Council of
Trent - which most modernists also claim were an aberration from
what the Church was prior to its decrees. There is an absolute failure
to point out one article of faith that has been changed under his
reign [excluding the apostolic teaching of Church being the "Mystical
Body of Christ", which we already covered.
Neither does it seem plausible that Pope Pius XII chose Giovanni
Battisti Montini as his heir to the papal throne [p. 22] when the same
was denied the cardinal's hat, the college from which the pope has been
elected since at least the eleventh century; rather, Cardinal Siri was
looked upon as his preference.
Finally, for the Author to claim: "Any mutation in doctrine or practice
must come from the very top, from the papacy itself" [23],and thus to
try to show that Pius XII approved the "experiments" in vogue at the
end of his reign lies in direct contradiction to his many condemnations
of these "experiments" that have been anathematized by the Church.
Rather, it was under the direction of the Second Vatican Council that
what was done secretly and locally without approval was publicly
sanctioned for universal use. The "very top" that promulgated these
"mutations in doctrine or practice" are John XXIII, Paul VI, and
John Paul II. One may not necessarily lay the guilt of a "modernist"
bishop upon his consecrator, or Our Lord would be guilty of the deeds
of Judas, whom He chose. In making daily human judgments, the Pope is
not freed from those human limitations, as a result of which unfit
candidates may be chosen for offices, or any other judicial act;
history supplies us with documented instances. The infallibility of the
Pope touches only upon Faith and Morals, and only in his role as
Supreme Shepherd and Guardian of the Deposit of Faith [cf. my article,
What is meant by the Infallibility of the Church].
In conclusion, we could cover point by point the various accusations
contained in this book against Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII which,
freely asserted, may be freely denied; but if we are to accept
this political conspiracy on their part as formulated by the Author,
there would be a denial of the Papacy as the Church teaches; there
would be a denial of the Constitution of the Church as the Church
teaches; and, there would be only a political solution to the crisis we
as Catholics are now in as we recognize those in the Vatican are now
members of a Church that is not the same Catholic Church foun-ded by
Christ upon His Apostles.
If I have misunderstood the author's intent, I would be grateful for correction.
* *** *
COMMENT ON A SO CALLED "PAPAL ELECTION"
For some years there has been more or less intensive preparations
- virtually behind closed doors - to elect a Pope, whose initiators are
chiefly laity and clerics of South America, but include also Dr.
Elizabeth Gerstner. For papabile they have agreed upon Mgr. Lopez
Gaston Ph.D., a married man from Kuba (living now in the USA), who,
unfortunately, because even canonically unthinkable, was ordained by
Mgr. Carmona (with the stipulation of celibacy) and then received
consecration (with the dispensation from celibacy) by Mgr. de Mamistra
of France, who is also a married bishop. Mr. Lopez Gaston himself was
chosen from a circle of dubious clergy (in my opinion they are, among
others, Palmarians, Mr. Roux, etc.), who, outside the fact that
they carry a mitre on their head, cannot show otherwise that they are
Catholics or have any desire to work for the welfare of the Church.
We urgently advise you to avoid any involvement in this extremely ridiculous as well as very, very harmful venture.
We must also realize, even when it is most urgent to strive for the
restoration of the Church, which the election of the Pope falls under,
that we presently lack the theological, personal and
organizational-ecclesiastical requisites for such an undertaking.
Eberhard Heller
***
"Papa haereticus"
"Ein Papst, der offenkundig häretisch ist, hört von selbst auf, Papst
und Haupt zu sein, wie er auch von selbst aufhört, Christ und Glied des
Leibes der Kirche zu sein. Deshalb kann er von der Kirche gerichtet und
bestraft werden. Dies ist die Meinung aller alten Väter, die lehren,
daß offenkundige Hä-retiker sogleich jegliche Jurisdiktion verlieren".
Der hl. Robert Bellarmin, Kardinal und Kirchen-lehrer in den
"Erörterungen über den Papst" 2. Buch, Kap. 30. |
