My Time with His Excellency, Archbishop
Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc
By
Eberhard Heller
Translated by Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
In recent years it has increasingly happened that readers of EINSICHT (INSIGHT) throughout the world would ask me about the person of His Excellency, Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, and his relationships with people in his circle of friends. They particularly wanted to know my relationship with him and what experiences he had when he stayed in Munich as our guest for a few months. I have been rather reserved in answering the various inquiries up to this point, for the events in which the readers´ interest was focused were in some cases over 45 years ago. And please forgive me if I admit that some things have been forgotten in the meantime. That´s why I have so far refused to add what was happening during this period of time in the personal life of the Archbishop, only publishing in the EINSICHT the official statements and that which described events relevant to the Church,—i.e., from the period around the formation of the “Declaratio”. I personally once thought of telling how some of our Church struggle had played out in my own experience—with all the great moments, but also with all the bitter disappointments—but then I backed away from this idea because such a description could make light of the factual events and their theological preparation—e.g. the episcopal consecrations bestowed by the archbishop—could have been too easily overshadowed.
But since the picture that many faithful in conservative circles, especially in the USA and France, have created of the archbishop is teeming with unjustified bitterness and prejudice, I was recently asked again to emphatically remove this distorted picture of his person, which had decisively shaped and driven our Church movements. These extraordinary achievements include the declaration of the vacancy of the Roman See, the securing of apostolic succession, and the impetus for the restitution of the Church. In order to cleanse this picture, which had been so often muddied, of all impudence and arrogance, I finally decided to write down on paper what I experienced while with the archbishop. Even though the time gap is enormous and I am aware that these notes may suffer from my forgetfulness and can only serve as fragments, I still hope to correct the existing distorted picture in the minds of the critics, all of whom are alien to the conditions of the time and the difficulties associated with them.
It occurred to me, then, to share my experiences with His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc, the retelling of which is so relevant since I was one of the few contemporary witnesses who is known to have had a close relationship with the Archbishop for some time, and as well the only document of importance in Church history since the post-Vatican II era, the “Declaratio”, was drafted at my daughter Klara´s desk. So if these lines can contribute something to saving the honor of Thuc, they would have achieved their goal. I am aware I am embarking on this work knowing it will be far from complete, and I apologize in advance, dear readers, for only providing you with fragments of this eventful time, which could actually provide enough material for a romantic adventure novel.
We first tried to contact Mgr. Thuc after reading his document on the episcopal ordinations of Palmar de Troya: the Church is at an end, the local bishops are no longer fulfilling their duties, there is such an emergency in general that extraordinary measures are justified. In many respects we thought similarly.
Again, our reason for directing our attention—that of Mr. Lauth, Mr. Hiller and myself—to the Archbishop was the reason he gave for his ordinations, which he had bestowed on some clerics in Palmar de Troya. Our interest, therefore, was solely in the justification that Mgr. Thuc had written on the occasion of this action. It was not as if we had agreed to these consecrations—not knowing who these candidates were who had previously played no role in our church struggle. It was the theological and ecclesiastical assessment that was the basis of this document that we considered. Mgr. Thuc shared with us the concern about the extinction of the apostolic succession, which would be endangered by the new rite of episcopal consecration, which is why he carried out the consecrations. (After Clemente Domínguez y Gómez declared himself pope of the Troya sect, the archbishop formally distanced himself from this group.) It soon became clear to us that it was in our best interest to contact this Archbishop, who was, according to our informant of Roman affairs, actually a very reserved person. And this is why the deal with the consecrations in Palmar de Troya had caused great astonishment, as well as strong criticism, and which was soon blown up into a scandal. But how do you get in touch with a person for whom we didn´t have an address or a phone number? I´ll make it short: I sacrificed a large part of my annual vacation in searching a way and finally came into contact with a certain Mrs. Wolf from the Saarland, who gave us the address of Archbishop Thuc. He was living in Toulon in the south of France under very modest circumstances. Contact was made successfully: first only by letter and then in person. The correspondence was conducted as discreetly as possible. For a long time no one knew about the communication with the Archbishop, because it was our intention that he should consecrate a bishop who would lead our resistance. We had already asked Mgr. Lefebvre, but in vain, to lead the resistance against modernism; for he rejected our request with a sarcastic remark that there was a married bishop in Lima who might support our cause.
We immediately chose the Reverend Father Dr. Katzer as a candidate for the office of bishop and discussed this with him in very discreet conversations during his various visits here in Munich. At that time the Reverend Father Katzer was a teacher in the Weissbad Seminary, which had been founded by Lefebvre. However, we could only make final arrangements by telephone, and therefore we had to ask him to use a public telephone booth because we knew the conversations would be intercepted by Econe and their assistants. He, who knew the communist spy system from his time in what was then communist Czechoslovakia, could hardly imagine that the same system was used here in the so-called free West.
In the summer of 1978 we met Archbishop Thuc for the first time. The Reverend Father Dr. Katzer (since then now long deceased) accompanied us in this visit to Toulon. We had also invited Mrs. Wolf to this, our first meeting, since she had helped us open the door. She had been our “guide” to Thuc´s domicile. But she was not privy to our actual intention and our plans for the Church. From Munich, Mr. Hiller and I first flew to Geneva, and arriving at the airport we met up with the Reverend Father Katzer and then continued our flight to Nice. Dr. Katzer was our candidate, whom we had known for years, and who had helped determine the course of EINSICHT as a leading theologian and who we had asked to be ready for a possible episcopal consecration. In Toulon we met up with Mrs. Wolf, who had arrived by train from the Saarland.
From our perspective, the visit to the Archbishop was extremely successful. Dr. Katzer, who was fluent in pretty much all of the European languages, conducted the conversation in French. Pretty much all relevant topics were discussed: the general disastrous ecclesiastical situation, the heretical passages in the new rites that made them invalid, the decisive role of Paul VI in the decisions at the council that was responsible for the theological approach to Protestantism. The problem of a possible episcopal consecration was addressed right away during the first visit: He, Thuc, would possibly consecrate even more priests because he shared our concerns about maintaining apostolic succession. In him we became acquainted with a spiritually sovereign prelate, well-educated, whose dignity outshone the poverty of his domestic circumstances and whose humor even made them forgotten.
For dinner the Archbishop invited us to a local restaurant he frequented and where he was welcomed like a member of the family. But soon we started eating with chopsticks—as was customary . . . and we didn´t want to embarrass ourselves. But perhaps it would have been smarter if we had practiced how to use chopsticks at home beforehand. The archbishop definitely had fun watching us try to eat. Mrs. Wolf became so upset that she was finally handed normal eating utensils.
Afterwards we took a walk with Reverend Dr. Katzer through Toulon in the night. The place has a large harbor complex where a French aircraft carrier had docked. We discussed what we had learned in speaking with the Archbishop.
After Mass the following morning, which was offered by the Archbishop, a simple breakfast followed. Mgr. Thuc had bought cornflakes with a story printed on the packaging. He was very impressed by it and said that the manufacturer was interested in both physical and spiritual well-being. The farewell took place without sentiment: “Goodbye” (“au revoir”). That´s it. I asked him to give us his blessing for our journey home . . . and that concluded our first meeting. We took the train to Nice and from there by plane to Genoa—for Dr. Katzer—and for us to Munich, where we were welcomed with great anticipation. Did the archbishop agree to consecrating a bishop? . . . etc.
Unfortunately, Dr. Katzer died unexpectedly on June 18, 1979. He may have overextended himself on his pastoral travels. When we later asked the archbishop why he had not consecrated Dr. Katzer, his laconic answer was: “He only addressed it but didn´t ask me.”
After Father Katzer´s death, the question arose again as to who we could present to the archbishop as candidate for the office of bishop. It was supposed to be a known person who had proven himself as a priest and theologian in the on-going church struggle. Finally, Lauth, Hiller and I came to the conclusion that we should propose Father Michel Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., the French Dominican, as a candidate. This priest had an important position in Catholic teaching. Since 1933 he worked as a professor of philosophy at the Dominican University, Le Saulchoir, near Paris, and later in Rome, at the Angelicum and at the Lateran University. Guérard des Lauriers was also an advisor to Pius XII in announcing the new Marian dogma of 1950. He had made a name for himself in the theological penetration of modernist teachings in the period after Vatican II. Des Lauriers was the main author of the memorandum “Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae”, which was supported by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. He became known to many readers through his publications in EINSICHT.
But hadn´t he theologically "got stuck" with his thesis of "Papa materialiter non formaliter" (the Pope—Paul VI—was a material Pope, but not formal because of the heresies he held) and unnecessarily burdened the Church struggle causing damaging division? We still made personal contact with him.
We asked him to be consecrated bishop. In an extremely beautiful and simple letter he thanked us for our suggestion. He agreed to handle the matter discreetly. He would contact Thuc and present his request to him. He would not have the same fate as Dr. Katzer, who had not expressed his wish to be consecrated to the archbishop. Meanwhile, during a visit, Lauth wanted to show the priest the untenability of his coarse thesis of “Papa materialiter non formaliter” and help him to change his mind. Lauth returned from his trip to Paris with the news that Guérard des Lauriers had distanced himself from his thesis of the half-Holy Father and agreed with our position on Sede Vacantism caused by the “Papa haereticus”. As it turned out later—immediately after the consecration—Lauth had simply deceived us. The Dominican priest had not changed his position at all and continued to represent it vehemently. If Hiller and I had known that Lauth had lied to us, we would never have accepted Guérard des Lauriers as a candidate and supported his bid for ordination. But fate took its course, i.e. we prepared to visit Archbishop Thuc.
We had asked Guérard des Lauriers to appear in civilian clothes so as not to cause a commotion. He, of course, still came in his religious habit. The evening before the consecration we, i.e. Mr. Hiller and I had never learned French, but I understood a few bits, discussed the different philosophical systems that we represented: he, the well-known Thomist, and we, transcendental philosophy. I had borrowed a Pontifical from the Liturgical Institute at the University of Munich over the weekend to give to Des Lauriers so that he could prepare for the rite. The next morning—May 7, 1981—the consecration took place in Thuc´s apartment on Rue Garibaldi in Toulon. Before the ceremony, Archbishop Thuc and des Lauriers discussed with each other in detail the ceremony. We noticed that the candidate had become very familiar with the rite from the passage where the Consecrator asks the candidate “Habemus mandatum?” that is, “Do you have a mandate,” to which des Lauriers replied in the negative. One must know that an episcopal ordination can only be legitimately conferred with the consent and on behalf of the Pope. Otherwise the consecrator and the consecrated person would enter into schism. The situation was completely clear to us. There was no such mandate because there was no pope who could have given it. (I would like to note here: the problem with the lack of a mandate would keep us busy for some time.) Hiller and I were not exactly idle as assistants, and I also worked as a photographer, when it came to contributing.
As soon as the ceremony was over and Thuc accompanied us to dinner, des Lauriers began to accuse us of being schismatics because the mandate had been missing. And then it became clear to us: He had not given up his untenable thesis of “Papa materialiter non formaliter”, but presented his consecration with the insulting message that he was a schismatic . . . and of course Hiller and I too. In the period that followed, he became a disruptive factor and was to cause considerable disputes: all of which were the fruits of Lauth´s deception. After that we excluded Lauth from our further efforts to secure apostolic succession. Hiller´s and my problem was that Lauth, who at the end of his life considered the Koran to be a true revelation, was our professional superior—an all too unpleasant relationship, as it turned out. It became an unbelievably personal burden for Mr. Hiller and myself.
Adding to the difficulties caused by Des Laurier´s unique thesis of "Papa materialiter non formaliter" was his refusal to consecrate in his turn only in extreme emergencies. Should all our preparatory work have been in vain? Had we lost our position of trust with Archbishop Thuc? Thank God no.
If Des Lauriers didn´t want to serve the Church, who else was there in the circle of ecclesiastical resistance who would take on the burden of the episcopate? I then began to discuss the problem of a bishop´s ordination with the well-known Mexican poet Gloria Riestra, who had German roots. She had been a bishop´s secretary. But she soon gave up this position when the council showed its true side. Through the theological works of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga on modernism, “The New Montinian Church,” religious resistance to the teachings of Vatican II soon emerged in Mexico. He was the leader of the Conservatives until his death on April 28, 1976. Afterwards, Father Carmona took over the leadership of the resistance and brought the priests and believers together in the Union “Trento”. The organ of this group, TRENTO, was edited by this assistant we knew very well, Mrs. Gloria Riestra; and, among other publications, did significant work in theologically penetrating and presenting the errors of Vatican II and its reforms. Mrs. Riestra brought Father Carmona into play as a candidate. From their point of view, there is not much to think about: if any of the priests from Mexico should be considered for this office, it would only be Padre Carmona. Mr. Hiller and I then contacted him and discussed the problem of a bishop´s consecration. Five months after the consecration of des Lauriers, we met with Carmona in Munich. P. Carmona had brought his friend P. Zamora with him, who looked after a very large group of believers in Mexico (20,000?)—I don´t remember exactly—as well as Carmona himself. All questions were discussed in detail, including the question of the philosophical system we represented here in Munich. The result of these explorations was an astonishing agreement in the assessment of the Church situation and the necessary steps that had to be taken in order to counter the danger that the apostolic succession could be extinguished. Our distancing from Econe also met with their approval. During these discussions we were fortunate that Mr. Edmund Moser, who had already met Father Carmona personally, was available to us as interpreter.
When an agreement was finally reached that the two priests should receive episcopal consecration and after Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc was informed about everything and he also agreed, arrangements were made for the visit of the Mexican priests. The four of us flew to Toulon in mid-October, the two clergymen in "civilian" clothes because the visit had to remain as secret as possible. The conversations between Archbishop Thuc and the Mexicans were partly conducted in Latin, which evidently showed that Thuc was the better Latin speaker. I proposed the idea that both clerics should be consecrated bishops simply to provide more security if something were to happen to one of them. My suggestion was accepted and Carmona and Zamora were consecrated bishops of the Catholic Church on October 17, 1981 in Toulon. Both had already discussed the problem in Mexico and the hurdle that had to be recognized during the consecration: the lack of a mandate. This time there were no crossroads with strange theses. And the meal in the restaurant that we now know very well, where the archbishop received respect like a grandfather, turned into a real feast . . . except that we had to dismiss an annoying guest, of whom Mr. Norrant later told us was a spy for the diocese.
The moving ceremonies in which Padre Carmona and Padre Zamora were consecrated bishops of the Catholic Church required the utmost concentration and attention from everyone involved. They made one forget the outwardly poor circumstances in which they took place—Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conducted the ordinations in his apartment. I will never forget these consecration ceremonies, nor the joy that gripped everyone when, at the end of the consecration, Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc loudly intoned the "ad multos annos" ("for many years"). The joy followed relief, for after all we had been under "great stress" for days. With the two newly consecrated bishops—back in "civilian"—we then walked for hours through Toulon, sat at the harbor and observed the ships—and watched the hawkers from Africa trying to sell their carvings and cloths—all the while talking and the talking was in Spanish, Italian and Latin. Maybe I should tell another episode that took place during the consecration. When it came to the point where the bishop´s crosier was to be presented to the candidates, Zamora, with his arm outstretched, demanded "Baculum" (Crozier), to which we whispered, "non habems" (we don´t have it), "Baculum", Zamora demanded again to have his crozier. The third time we had to answer audibly “non habemus”. That he understood.
After the farewell to Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc—as usual it had an almost military character: a blessing for the journey . . . and "Au revoir" ("Goodbye")—we flew together with the two bishops to Paris, where we parted ways: The two Mexicans had booked their return flight via Spain.
Why the consecrations should remain a secret for the time being only began to be understood when Mgr. Thuc was persecuted due to the betrayal of Père Barbara . . . It was a disgusting hunt in which Mgr. Lefèbvre also took part in the most primitive way possible—partly by declaring Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc crazy . . . nota bene, this slander of the same nature is being spread still today by members of the Ecône sect: Since Bishop Thuc had already fallen into imbecility when administering the orders, they are invalid . . . probably also the approximately 200 masses at which Mr. Hiller and I were allow to be acolytes? For me, however, the episcopal consecrations at which I was allowed to be present as an assistant, and the circumstances under which they had to take place, remain unforgettable!
It wasn´t to be the last trip to Toulon in this eventful year of 1981. In late autumn, Abbé Schäfer from the south of France had asked us whether we would help him to be ordained a priest. Schäfer was one of the former Econe seminarians who had to leave the seminary in Econe because of their negative attitude towards John Paul II, whom they rejected as pope. We asked him to come to Munich to talk about his situation. He came and was amazed that the bishop who would ordain him was living very close to his hometown. After we had obliged him to remain silent about the consecration, the preparations could begin. At first, Schäfer found it difficult to agree to remain silent, but eventually he agreed. If Schäfer hadn´t made this promise to us, there wouldn´t have been a trip to Toulon for him. We also obliged him to take care of Mgr. Thuc. But he soon neglected his promise. His youth program with a guitar and backpack had become more important to him.
Schäfer´s ordination took place on December 19, 1981. It was a lot of work for Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc as he administered both minor and major orders in one day, and besides a suitable pair of glasses had to be found first for him. When we arrived home in Munich, my family was impatiently waiting for me because my wife had bought tickets for a magnificent Christmas concert with the well-known Gustl Bayrhammer, who recited Ludwig Thoma´s Christmas story. I came home from the trip so dead tired that I ended up dozing off during the concert.
But the flights to Toulon never seemed to end. The Archbishop was in danger. Our “comrade-in-arms” Barbara had written in his FORTES IN FIDE, No. 17, of the year 1982: “You will probably have no trouble understanding that I cannot name them (the bishops!) to you. Not only do I withhold their names, but also the country where they live. If I announced them, you can imagine how much they would be dissuaded from acting.” Nevertheless, Barbara did inform the press about the consecrations that had taken place. So it happened that on February 12, 1982, every newspaper in France and Mexico, announced together the episcopal consecrations of Mgr. Thuc taking place without a papal mandate!!! What a scandal! A real hunt began for Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc, which was triggered by Barbara´s betrayal. It was a disgusting hunt in which Mgr. Lefèbvre also took part in a very primitive way by declaring Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc crazy . . . (nota bene, this slander of the same nature is being spread still today by members of the Ecône sect: That since Bishop Thuc had already fallen into imbecility when administering the orders, they are invalid . . .). At that time, Mgr. Thuc was an elderly man, being 85 years old. Nevertheless, it must be noted that after the revelation of his work in 1982, he fought with all means against being deported to Rome after the “dedicated” Father Barbara had betrayed the episcopal consecration.
Once we found out they were searching for Mgr Thuc from Mr. Norrant, we immediately decided to bring him to Munich, where he was to be quartered in our apartment. I took the next plane to Nice, which took off directly back to Munich. Mr. Norrant had taken the Archbishop to Nice by car . . . and then there was a search for Thuc´s plane ticket once he was at the airport. It couldn´t be found in his documents. I had to ask myself: Should I fly back to Munich without the Archbishop? At the last second, the archbishop found the ticket in one of his large coat pockets: the adventure now began. While there were spring-like temperatures in Nice, things were quite different in Munich. The loudspeaker reported that in Munich it was 10 degrees. Thuc not only had a wide coat, but also a very warm one.
Our daughter Klara had to give up her room so the Archbishop could now live in it. He loved the pine furniture in his room and was already thinking about furnishing his seminary with such furniture . . . which unfortunately never happened. We now had to change a lot of things. We wouldn´t have made it without my wife´s active and selfless cooperation. She tried to make the archbishop´s stay in an unfamiliar wintry world as pleasant as possible. Every morning he read the Holy Mass in my study, which also served as a living room. To be fair, Thuc turned out to be a lovely old man who really enjoyed having our two children Klara and Bernhard—who were then just seven and five years old at the time—around him, and they got along very well with each other . . . without knowing each other´s language. In the evenings, Mr. Hiller often came to speak to the archbishop. During these visits he didn´t forget to tell the children “Goodnight" stories. It was astonishing that Archbishop Thuc began learning German in his old age. He wrote down terms on a piece of paper X-number of times; but, when he realized that these exercises were unsuccessful, he stopped them again. We got by just fine with Italian. Thuc himself resorted to unusual solutions to his problems. When he noticed that his bishop´s ring was loose on his finger, he took a hammer and hit the ring until it fit. When it took too long for him to clean his pants, which my wife actually wanted to take to the laundry, he simply took them and put them in the bathtub with water. In fact, that´s how it went.
I would wish to tell two more episodes that convey somewhat the character of Archbishop Thuc. Once I had to take him to the dentist because a tooth had to be pulled. Thuc then advised the dentist to keep his tooth because once he was canonized, the dentist would have a relic. You can imagine the doctor´s puzzled face. During a visit to the beautiful church of Dietramszell in Upper Bavaria, the priest with whom he had spoken came to me after the conversation to report that Archbishop Thuc had replied to his "goodbye" with "Goodbye until heaven”. Yes, and then there was the little friend of the children from the neighborhood who said that the Pope lived near the Hellers and that my little daughter was supposed to take this pagan boy to church, meaning the archbishop. After a while, my wife and the children went to her parents´ house in Borken for four weeks, so that we—Mr. Hiller and I—could pursue our church work as well as our complex and intensive professional work undisturbed . . . and, of course, taking care of Mgr. Thuc. For the next few weeks, the two of us—the archbishop and I—had to manage alone. That worked out quite well. We occasionally listened to music in the evenings. He knew all the Gregorian masses that were played and hummed them along quietly. He once said that I was a good cook. I took that to mean that he was pleased with my simple meals. I made it an effort to always brew up something sweet and sour. In the evening Thuc read holy Mass for a small, close-knit circle of faithful who generously supported our work financially.
In addition to these little daily adventures, we were not forgetful of promoting the agenda for the Church. It was not just a getaway to save Thuc from persecution, but also beginning a theological reappraisal that had to do with the justification for the consecrations without a mandate. The archbishop´s actions required a justification that had to explain why he had not sought the papal mandate for the consecrations from Mgr. Wojtyla. If I now write that he could not obtain the mandate from Mgr. Wojtyla because he would not recognize this person, Mgr. Wojtyla, as Pope, that sounds quite plausible. But in the situation at that time—1982—the Catholic public at the time discussed the “old” mass and its approval, but not about the vacancy of the Roman see. This only happened in a smaller circle of faithful from all over the world who were convinced that the popes from Paul VI onwards. had lost their office because of the public promulgation of heresies. But the media world was very excited and wasn´t exactly squeamish about Thuc. That´s why he was hiding in Munich!
He absolutely did not want to have anything to do with Rome and Mgr. Wojtyla, whose encyclical "Laborem exercens" he had classified as a communist manifesto (and on which he had intended to write a treatise, but could no longer do so due to illness). He also knew that the Vatican, that is Paul VI, who died on August 6, 1978, had agreed to the murder of his brothers—on behalf of the Kennedys!
In this situation it was necessary for Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc to publicly justify his actions, which then happened in the DECLARATIO of February 25, 1982, in which he declared the vacancy of the Roman See. It was work that Thuc followed with great interest. The “Declaration” on the unoccupied Roman See took several attempts until it received its final version, which Thuc signed and in which it was then printed. On March 21, 1982, Laetare Sunday, it was recited in our church of St. Michael by Archbishop Thuc, assisted by the Rev. Leutenegger from Switzerland, who also gave the sermon, and our Rev. Pniok, while Haydn´s Organ Mass in B major was performed. Yes, it was a worthy arrangement that we had put together for this occasion. In the meantime my wife had also returned with the children so that they could also take part in the banquet that followed. The three clerics discovered that together they were over 250 years old. (Evil tongues later spread the claim that I had written the Declaration. If anyone knows anything about stylistic analysis, they will immediately realize that this is a malicious allegation.) In the meantime, we had found better quarters for Archbishop Thuc in the neighborhood where he could live according to his customary way of life.
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, among others, later sojourned in Munich to coordinate further measures. But the bishop began to berate Thuc for not agreeing with his thesis. The Archbishop tore up the letters that Lauriers sent him and threw them into the garden. I was then allowed to pick up the shreds of paper and put them back together like a puzzle. A major burden on the resistance that was forming was the argument that was directly forced upon us by Mgr. Des Lauriers with his thesis of "Papa materialiter non formaliter"—a dispute that is continued by his supporters to this day. It inhibited both internal consolidation, which caused a great loss of trust among the believers, and organizational expansion—as was achieved very well in Econe, for example. Bishop Carmona also came to Munich again, accompanied by Mr. Anacleto Gonzalez Flores, to discuss certain points with Thuc: for example, how should one deal with people from Lefebvre, who still have the problem of ordinations through Lienart to solve. Thuc´s offer to consecrate Lefebvre sub conditione was rejected. It was decided that no Econer could be admitted into our circle without their ordination as a sub conditione. On this occasion, Bishop Carmona—as well as Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers—received a handwritten declaration in which Mgr. Thuc apologized for the accusations justly made against him and asked the bishops, as representatives of the Church, for forgiveness. Both Carmona and des Lauriers agreed with the declaration given to them and recognized them as documents of reconciliation. In the meantime, our apartment became a meeting place for the old and new bishops, a sort of revolving door where as one left another came. So came Bishop Vezelis and Bishop Musey, who told us his Jewish jokes.
The dispute with the new bishops over the thesis of Mgr. Des Lauriers and his thesis of "Papa materialiter non formaliter" meant that no authority could emerge that would receive general approval. An exception was Bishop Carmona, who managed to gain the trust of the faithful after the death of his consecrator Thuc. His tragic death in 1991 also marked the breaking point from which interest in Church Restoration began to fade.
How may one, how may even I characterize Archbishop Thuc, with whom I lived for only a few months? He was laconic, one of few words; He could not endure long theologizing or sanctimonious chatter. He could command; he was extremely precise and precise in all matters that he had to regulate. Our neighbor, a rather sophisticated lady who didn´t know who her temporary neighbor was, who also had no idea who it was in the suit and an old hat, had only one remark: What dignity. Yes, my children experienced what dignity, what kindness, what respect Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc personally radiated. During the time when he had to take refuge in our house and they therefore had to limit themselves abstentiously, they, who would otherwise give free rein to their feelings and their complaining, never once complained.
When he still lived in Toulon, the Archbishop did not take his letters to the nearest post box (which could be checked), but to the train station, where he put the letters on the trains, where they were not checked, even though it was difficult for him to walk. He handled Hiller and me by writing letters to Mr. Hiller in Italian and to me in French, knowing that Hiller didn´t understand Italian and I didn´t understand French. So he knew that we would have to exchange the contents with each other.
I would like to point out another incident to demonstrate the manner in which the archbishop made decisions. During one of our visits to him, he showed us a letter from a German priest asking Mgr. Thuc to ordain him a bishop. The correspondent´s handwriting was very familiar to me and I knew immediately who the petitioner was. The archbishop also showed us his reply: He rejected the request, pointing out that a bishop´s consecration was not necessary for salvation. That one can also go to heaven without being consecrated a bishop otherwise, if it were the case, women would have no chance of entering paradise—since they are not able to receive episcopal consecration. Later, however, this rejected cleric did nothing but criticize and disavow the archbishop.
And he was a pious man who relied on God´s righteousness. Hatred or revenge were alien to him. And what a fate he had, his family had to suffer! Eight members of the Ngo family had already been murdered! I cannot understand the hatred and arrogance with which he was persecuted, especially by so-called conservative clerics from France! There is only one explanation for me: They couldn´t stand the fact that this prelate from Vietnam, for them being that he was from a colony, demonstrated to them how pathetic they were: He was far superior to them all in every area, and they could not forgive this “rice farmer” for that. In April of 1982, Archbishop Thuc became ill with severe bronchitis. He was treated by Dr. Hiller, Mr. Hiller´s wife, who worked as a doctor. I cared for Thuc as best I could. But in order to restore his health, we were forced to fly him again from cold Munich to warm southern France at the beginning of May 1982. Mr Hiller and I accompanied him on this journey. We had previously asked Abbe Schäfer, who had been ordained by Thuc, to take care of him, but in vain. Thuc was taken in by Mrs. Norrant, where, in her apartment she cared for him. It was so he would get well sooner. The evening before the flight back from Munich we took a walk through a nearby forest. Suddenly we heard birds singing, which, although previously unknown to us, we recognized as the song of nightingales. They sang wonderfully. It was to be the last time that I was with Archbishop Thuc in person. However, we were able to inquire about his health at all times through Mrs. Norrant.
In the fall of 1983, Bishop Vezelis brought the Archbishop to Rochester, USA, where he ran a seminary. But after the Mexican students had all left this place and certain accusations had been made against Vezelis, Archbishop Thuc also went into exile, where he was then accommodated in a seminary of the exiled Vietnamese in 1984. The pictures that reached me from there show an old man who was well fed. On December 13, 1984, shortly after turning 87, he died in a hospital in Carthage, USA, after initially living in New York (at the Hotel Carter) after leaving Rochester. Two days before Christmas Eve, on December 22, 1984, his body was buried. Much remains unclear; and, the one who could really inform us is also deceased. When the Archbishop left Rochester, his new location in Carthage was not revealed to us until early December of 1984. This was by a former seminarian in Rochester. I immediately wrote a letter to the archbishop . . . and that´s when I found out about his death. My lines no longer reached him. "Doce me, Domine, vias tuas." ("Show me, Lord, your ways.") That was the motto that Mgr. Thuc prefaced his short biography. With his death, a life came to an end that had initially begun with so much personal success and that had ultimately ended in complete humiliation and isolation after the catastrophe affecting his family in 1963 and the fall of Vietnam in 1975. This path that was set out for him, bitter enough in itself, ultimately became a torment for him due to the presumption and arrogance of modernists and conservatives alike. He himself once wrote: "After that my Way of the Cross began." And that also took him to Baton Rouge in the USA, where he once again asked the bishops he had ordained to continue his work.
I often wondered why Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc left Rochester and came to the conclusion that it was perhaps the behavior of Bishop Vezelis, who I later learned was homosexual. And I remember an earlier bitter experience that Thuc had with Bishop Labourie, who had the same inclinations, and which is why the Archbishop separated from him.
Let us pray that God will bring his servant home to His Father´s house after this difficult journey through life, where he may finally find rest and peace. R.I.P.
|
