THE CASE "BARBARA"
by
Kurt Hiller
(translated by Gladys Resch)
Since more than twelve years we follow here in Munich the doings of Father Barbara, with attention and interest. We met him several times and had long conversations regarding theological and church policy subjects, with the aim of an eventual collaboration in to-day's fight for the Church. Unfortunately, such an united advance against the reformers was never achieved. The reason for it became soon apparent. While we always took a clear and consequential stand in all actual questions on the Church, Father Barbara always kept three paces behind. Only after the problems had already been solved by others, he appeared on the scene, promptly took the arguments of the others, not forgetting to proclaim that precisely those, on whose support he relied, knew absolutely nothing, or at least, had judged thinks quite wrongly. Here I want to point out only a few examples.
On our so-called "March to Rome" Whitsuntide 1971, after our opponents having reversed the demonstration on the Peter's Square, while we refused to participate in the hours of prayers for "our Holy Father Paul VI", and gathered as a separate group in front of St. Peter's Church to pray for the real subject of the meeting, Father Barbara was busying himself at the conglomeration of those, for whom the question of the heresy of Paul VI had evidently not yet accured.
Then, long after the invalidity of the 'new Mass' had been proved, Father Barbara himself still celebrated the new 'Mass' (NOM) for months, much later agreed to the ambivalence of the N.O.M. and finally took the stand, which he has today.
Father Barbara had the same attitude towards Mgr. Lefebvre, with ahom he had contacts until not so long ago, when it had already become obvious which opinion this bishop supports.
That this question of the deposition of a pope is not as simple as he first thought, he has shown again by recent modifications of his arguments, and so far, we still wait in vain for a declaration how he concretely imagines the procedure of a "deposition of a pope" and the restauration of the Church.
Meanwhile Father Barbara has found a new activity: untiringly he tries to prove that Mgr. Thuc an the newly consecrated bishops and priests are schismatic, suspended and excommunicated, that they committed sacrilegious actions, and that one should not attend their masses. At the same time he does not mind to propagate a number of lies and to offend others.
In the five publications, which I have meanwhile at hand, Father Barbara makes contradictory statements, of which I am giving here a few examples.
I. Secret consecrations:
Father Barbara writes:
"For the consecration of a priest or a bishop to be allowable, certain conditions must be met: ... that the consecration of priests and bishops have the mark of publicity, even in circumstances of persecution (which for our area does not apply for the time being), because the secret, which is legal towards persecutors, is never legal towards the faithful, who must be sure to deal with a catholic priest or bishop." (ref. FORTES IN FIDE No. 19, 1982, pg. 47)
This condition Father Barbara uses to reproach Mgr. Thuc that his consecrations have been illicit, because being secret.
In No. 17, 1982, p. 121 (shortly before!) however he writes under the heading "Our meetings with bishops, who are still catholic":
"Who are the bishops, who listened to us and accepted our demonstration of the truth? You will understand without difficulty, that I cannot name them to you. I am concealing not only their names but also the country, where they live. If I would disclose their names, you could imagine, how, from the quarters of the modernistic Rome, as well as of some of our false brothers, one would try to turn their thoughts from acting."
And on page 123 he continues:
"... St. Athanasius had to perform his duties secretly".
And also on page 123:
"... he (St. Athanasius) continued his contention in secret ..."
And Father Barbara writes:
"Where it was possible, St. Athanasius consecrated catholic bishops, who, on their part, highly valued the apostolic succession in half concealment. This second point is very important."
How can this contradiction of Father Barbara between the numbers 17 and 19 be explained? Quite simply! When Father Barbara was writing number 17, he had no knowledge of the new consecrations by Mgr. Thuc, which he now condemns so violently. Because at that time, he wished to be consecrated bishop, as he firmly assured on the 17th of June, 1980, at Munich, in the presence of six witnesses, and what he assured in the same No. 17 on page 126!
After by the time of his publishing of No. 19, Father Barbara had, according to his so far understanding and consecutive discernment of the demands regarding secret consecrations, come to recognise the conditions for public consecrations, he can now initiate the persecution of the respective newly consecrated bishops and priests without any consideration. Thus it is highly interesting - to point out only one apparently incidental matter - how speedy and at what extension the newspapers of France at Mexico published the same day (12th January, 1982) the news of the consecration in a sensational way!
The 84 year old archbishop Thuc, who had hardly recovered from a severe influenza, was molested for weeks by reporters, inquisitions, diocesan priests, half-conservative priests, with and without recorders and witnesses, who made it impossible for Mgr. Thuc to leave his room. Father Barbara worked out all this carefully, after Mgr. Thuc had repeatedly refused to accept Father Barbara's invitation to come to Paris.
II Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc and the conciliar church:
a) Father Barbara writes:
"Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc, former archbishop of Hué, has always professed to the chiefs of the conciliar church, whether they be Paul VI or John Paul II." (FORTS DANS LA FOI, No. 9, 1982, p. 46.)
This statement of Barbara is not true! Contrary to this the truth is, that during all the years we have known Mgr. Thuc, he has expressed to us clearly, and allowing but one meaning, his absolute rejection of the conciliar church and her chiefs. This can be clearly proved by innumerable documents and letters, which he has sent to us during this period!
b) Father Barbara writes:
"... that he (Mgr. Thuc) says Mass in concelebration with John Paul II and the bishop of Toulon, Mgr. Barthe..." (FORTES IN FIDE, No. 19, p. 45)
This statement of Barbara is not true! On the contrary, the truth is, that at almost two hundred (!) Masses we served Mgr. Thuc, we experienced not one single time the above statement, he never said the NOM.
c) Father Barbara writes:
"... and that he (Mgr. Thuc) is concelebrating each year, with the same bishop, Mass on Holy Thursday, according to the new rite."
This statement is not true as it stands! On the contrary, the truth is, that Mgr. Thuc has concelebrated but on single time (1981). Mgr. Thuc has explained to us in detail the curious circumstances. To this he has expressed his regret and by word of mouth as well as in writing he has given the newly consecrated bishops an explanation, which is canonical in an explicit and acceptable form.
However to this, one principle remark may be allowed. Mgr. Thuc learned at the vatican school of diplomacy, he hails from one of the first aristocrate families of Vietnam, for years he was principal of the international seminary for priests in Rome, with about 800 candidates. Inquisitive visitors, whom he does not know, and who would like to be inquisitive, will often get an answer they deserve: a diplomatic one! I confess that I myself would not answer that way, but one should understand the position of Mgr. Thuc, who after his unhappy experiences wishes to avoid annoyances.
d) Father Barbara writes:
"... daily, after having said the old mass in his room, Mgr. Thuc goes into the cathedral to attend all divine services." (Lettre aux prêtres fidèles, p. 2)
This statement of Barbara is not true! The truth is, that Mgr. Thuc, only for the reason to escape his small room, goes to the nearby cathedral, takes a seat in the dusk at the rear of the church, to say his breviary!
III Palmar de Troya
Father Barbara writes:
"I owe it to the truth and to charity to say that Mgr. Ngô-Dinh Thuc is the bishop, who consecrated the schismatics of Palmar de Troya." (FORTES IN FIDE, No. 19, p. 45.)
Here one has to point out, that Mgr. Thuc has consecrated the first five bishops after mature consideration, to secure the continuance of the Catholic church. Already then, as also today, Mgr. Thuc has given an explicit declaration. The periodical EINSICHT has at that time already vividly welcomed these consecrations. The attitude of Mgr. Thuc deserves not only no reproach, but is highly praiseworthy! Any sanctions like suspension or excommunication, also by the so-called "Mother Church", as mentioned by Father Barbara, are well downright contradictory, because Mgr. Thuc has acted highly responsible, exactly in the sense of the true church!
That later on the Palmar bishops would no more listen to Mgr. Thuc, and that Clemente even declared himself pope, cannot be blamed on Mgr. Thuc, as well as all the other obnoxious bishops and priests, who were still later consecrated by Mgr. Thuc, and which Father Barbara would like to charge him as scandal. Quite to the contrary one must ask Father Barbara the decisive question: "Why have 99,99% of our bishops of the post-conciliar church become heretics and apostates? Is this not a thousand times worse than moral mistakes?"
On can only express to Mgr. Thuc an absolute esteem and admiration, that he has still kept undejected his deep faith, and has also not lost his good humor, in spite of the fiasco with Palmar and other difficulties with newly consecrated ones, in spite of all negative experiences he had to endure during his life, (eight members of his family were murdered) in spite of his old age and in spite of the persecutions and defamation by Father Barbara.
IV. Schism:
Father Barbara talks of:
"... notorious schism" (FORTS DANS LA FOI, No. 9, 1982, p. 48.)
And at another place:
"Others, seized by despair, move towards the schism. They do not believe anymore in the apostleship of the Church, which is guaranteed by the words of Our Lord, and they want at any price to have the sacraments, even at the price of a sacrilege." (Lettres aux prêtres fideles, p. 3)
The Church defines a schism according to can. 1325 § 2: "A person can become a schismatic by two ways:
a) first of all, by not recognising the Pope as head of the Church;
b) also, by refusing to have community with the members of the Church, who recognis the Pope as their head of the Church."
Would this be the case with Mgr. Thuc? Would he be a schismatic? This main reproach of Father Barbara is - according to his own hypothesis - absolutely ridiculous. They are as follows:
"... that the bishop should be according to the rules, meaning, that he should not be inflicted with any blame or other interdiction, well understood from the Catholic point of view; - that this bishop acts explicitly for the defense of the Church, what for him includes the break of the community with the new church, at least tacidly." (Underlining from the writer.) (FORTES IN FIDE, No. 19, p. 47)
These are just the conditions fulfilled by Mgr. Thuc! In no way can he be reprimanded for the consecrations of Palmar. Also not by the regulations of Pius XII, which referred to the consecration of Chinese bishops, and which Father Barbara likes to mention. Unfortunately, since the time of Pius XII it looks quite different in the Church, as most bishops have become apostate! It is a long time ago that Mgr. Thuc has broken away from the conciliar church; out of good sense discretion, like St. Athanasius at his time: tacidly and secretly, and then, after the persecutions by Father Barbara, also openly: in his declaration of February 25th, 1982. (of which there exist 5 handwritten draftings!) that he himself read out on the occasion of a solemn, levitical high Mass on 2lrst March, 1982 in St. Michael, Munich, Baaderstr. 56, and which, according to his formal wish was published in the March issue 1982 of this periodical EINSICHT.
What is Father Barbara doing now?
First of all he travels and holds constantly conferences with priests in different countries. Absolutely nothing is the result of these activities. It appears that nothing can result of it. The invited priests feel flattered and they are of course occupied and engaged. At the time being, they cannot do anything useful anyway! And with this, the result of these activities over years is truly marked!
And the next main occupation is, that Father Barbara takes the trouble to have discussions with "... bishops, who have kept the faith inwardly, but who for sixteen years keep silent and leave the sheep without shepherd!" (Lettre aux prêtres fideles, p. 5)
Therefore it is understandible, that there is no difficulty for Father Barbara to get his informations from the bishop of Toulon, which he needs for the campaign against Mgr. Thuc.
"In the meantime bishop Barthe (bishop of Toulon) says, that he stood in best relationship to him (Thuc)." (Lettre aux prêtres fideles, p. 2)
How should on judge the case "Barbara"?
Every logical thinking Catholic may find his own answer!
|
