Forty years ago the regime of Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Paul VI, began to reveal itself. Mythology had it that he was a good man who lost control, and that the disaster was caused by everything except his mistakes and pusillanimity. Msgr. F. D. Cohalan, a noted New York churchman and historian, contended there was a little more to it than that, and took a factual approach in this matchless piece, written under a pen name for National Review back in 1969.
THE contemporary challenge to authority in the Catholic Church has received so much attention from the press that little space has been given to the reaction of authority to the challenge. Practically no one asks publicly what the Pope is doing about the evils he deplores and to what extent he is responsible for them because of his refusal to act instead of just talking against them. Yet, as we see so clearly in the American universities today, the reaction to a challenge is often more important than the challenge itself. History is full of examples of regimes overthrown less through the virtue or wisdom or strength of their opponents, than through their own inept and pusillanimous defense of their position. It is hard to believe Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II had to end up just as they did.
What we are witnessing in the Church today is the disintegration of the central administrative authority —and this is not because of the strength of the attack but because of the weakness of the defense. Hitler’s comment on the Czech border defenses—that the strength of the concrete mattered little when the will to resist was so weak—comes to mind. We all know that though the constitutional and legal powers of the American President remain substantially the same, each Presidency differs markedly from the others. This is so not only because no two Presidents meet exactly the same problems but because each has his own style, personality, temperament, character, etc. The same is true of pontificates and popes.
No one doubts there would be plenty of serious problems no matter who was pope. This is especially true in the wake of the Council and while the necessary and difficult task of decentralizing Church government is in process. Still, it is not the problems but the way they are handled that distinguishes one reign from another. No one ever had any trouble telling Leo XIII from Pius IX or John XXIII from Pius XII. What distinguishes Paul VI from all his predecessors is his refusal to act against any individual, no matter how grave the provocation. He contents himself with deploring the error or misconduct, sometimes tearfully, and is always careful to attribute only high motives to all the erring, whom he never identifies. He seems to feel he has discharged his obligation to defend the truth and his own position when he has done that much. When he praises the motives of high-ranking prelates who openly attack his authority he resembles President Perkins of Cornell smiling gamely through a confrontation with SDS and the black militants.
When Cardinal O’Boyle returned from the Consistory of 1967 with his hat, he preached on the current disorders in the Church and the distress they were causing the Pope. He stated that since his election on June 21, 1963, the Pope had not censured or punished any individual. As far as I know this is still true with one exception—the Belgian abbot of a monastery in Mexico who was removed for making psychoanalytical treatment mandatory for his monks and who, according to press reports, promptly left the Church and started a nonsectarian religious community.
Sensitive to Criticism
The objective causes of this state of affairs are mainly as follows. The Pope is trying hard to make the Church more acceptable to the non- Catholic world, whether Christian, non-Christian or anti-Christian. He is accentuating all points of agreement or mutual interest. As far as he can do so without altering fundamental Catholic doctrine or undermining his own position, he is willing to eliminate or tone down anything in Catholic doctrine or practice that repels or irritates that world. At the same time he wants to regain or retain the allegiance of many ordinary, nominal Catholics who in one way or another find the yoke of active membership too heavy.
Hence much of his stress on ecumenism, the Secretariat for Non-Believers, the campaign for peace and against poverty, the abolition of practically all fasting and abstinence, the abolition of papal ties to the Roman nobility from which nothing more is to be expected by the Holy See, the constant flattery of the common people in whom political power is seen or thought to rest, and many other facets of his plan to give the Church a new image.
In his speech in St. Peter’s on April 2, 1969 (quoted in the English edition of the Osservatore Romano, April 10) he said: “It has been rightly pointed out that a wave of sincerity and optimism has spread through the Church and the world from the Council: a consoling and positive Christianity acceptable and amiable, a Christianity friendly to life, to men, even to earthly values, to our society, to our history. We might almost see in the Council the intention to make Christianity free from all medieval rigorism and from any pessimistic interpretations regarding men, their customs, their transformations, their exigencies.” He then adds immediately and characteristically: “This is true, but let us be careful. The Council did not forget that the Cross is at the center of Christianity.”
Subjectively, Pope Paul’s attitude is rooted in his temperament. He is an intelligent, sensitive, introspective, high-minded, patient and well-trained man. He is also well-informed, austere, modest, industrious, timid and indecisive. He shrinks from making irrevocable decisions and, like most who do, finds it easier to say yes than no. His vacillation comes from a reluctance to accept responsibility. Like many professional diplomats he thinks he can attain almost any goal by patient negotiation and flexibility. He spent thirty years in close association with two particularly forceful superiors, Pius XI and Pius XII. In that time he neither made nor executed policy. His role was to transmit orders and decisions, for which others bore the responsibility. Now that responsibility is his, and he finds it almost too heavy to bear. He is a fine example of the excellent second who is over his head as number one. Tacitus describes him in his famous comment on Galba: “He seemed greater than a subject while he was yet in a subject’s rank, and by common consent would have been pronounced worthy of the crown if he had never reigned.” Paul VI is intensely sensitive to criticism; since most of the public criticism comes from liberals he makes strenuous efforts to placate them. Moreover, he is afraid of being disobeyed.
Every pope’s task is to rule, teach and sanctify the Universal Church, in that order. Few will heed his teaching if he is unable to enforce it and keep order in the Church. If he cannot rule or teach effectively his contribution to sanctification will be minimal. It is a tragedy for Paul VI and the Church that he is placed where his chief weakness—a congenital incapacity to govern—is so evident and so important. His admirable intentions are not enough. As Pius XI said in another connection, “piety does not allow us to dispense with technique.” It is obvious that he finds his role as ruler uncongenial, and that, like Adlai Stevenson, he is uncomfortable with authority. He rarely gives an order. He is always exhorting, entreating and recommending, but that is all. When he teaches with supreme authority as in his Creed and in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae he never orders his teaching to be accepted but merely recommends it. There are no penalties for disobeying it or even for repudiating it publicly.
Uncorrected and Unpunished
We could hardly find a clearer example of the Pope’s refusal to act firmly and openly against dissidents than the one provided by the NY Times Magazine (May 11, 1969) in the article on Father Hesburgh of Notre Dame. It states that the Pope has received from Father Hesburgh serious charges against two priests teaching theology at Notre Dame. One of them attacks the doctrine of the Resurrection and the other the papal teaching on birth control. The first is a basic Catholic teaching expressly restated in the Creed of Pope Paul VI (April 30, 1968). The other attacks the authority and competence of the Encyclical Humane Vitae in which the Pope expressly states that he is teaching with the authority conferred on his office by Christ. Yet, nothing is done and the article suggests that Father Hesburgh deals directly with the Pope, bypassing the regular channels, because he knows that is the way to make sure that nothing is done.
There are other instances, e.g. the claim of the Theology faculty at the Catholic University of America that academic freedom allows them to attack, in a pontifical university, the formal public teaching of the Holy See in matters of faith and morals. The editors of America, who took such a lofty stand when National Review criticized Mater et Magistra, have openly criticized Humanae Vitae. The point is not that criticisms are made but that they go uncorrected and unpunished. No wonder the ordinary people are bewildered and that their uncertainty as to what the Church really teaches leads many to doubt all her teaching.
Marriage and the Clergy
The wave of serenity and optimism from the Council to which the Pope referred is not evident now either in the priesthood or in the religious orders, and once again his own role is pivotal. He has stated repeatedly that the existing law on celibacy for the clergy of the Latin Church will never be relaxed. Very recently he asked the various Episcopal conferences of the world to reaffirm their support of that teaching. If he intends to retain it, why does he allow it to be discussed endlessly as an open question in the official Catholic press? He personally made the decision to relax the ancient discipline and make it very easy for priests to marry. By so doing he has substantially devalued the vow of celibacy. By that and by tolerating the endless discussion of celibacy he has unsettled and confused large numbers of the younger priests and seminarians. Moreover, by making clerical marriage both easy and respectable he has served notice that the clergy are fair game for husband hunters. Recently released statistics indicate that the number of applications for release from celibacy have increased over 1,000 per cent since the election of Paul VI, and that the rate is increasing steadily. It is hard to believe he neither foresaw nor intended the consequences of his decision, though he may not have foreseen that it would spread to bishops and to his own entourage.
With the exception of the more extravagant innovations in the liturgy, no developments under Paul VI have surprised ordinary people as much as the changes in the religious orders. The speed and extent of the collapse would have been incredible in 1962. In all his speeches on the reform of the orders, the Pope has stressed the necessity of preserving the basic principles of each congregation and the spirit of its founder. Once again there is the gap between precept and practice. He has released such a torrent of dispensations, exemptions and permissions that many sober observers wonder if the religious order will last another twenty years. The flight from the cloister, which in this country led to the 1969 Catholic Directory listing nine thousand fewer sisters than the 1968 volume, would be serious enough but would leave the institution intact. Now the institution itself, in every form the Church has known since the third century, is under attack from within. The stricter orders have suffered most. The spectacular collapse of discipline among the Jesuits has done them more damage than all the attacks from within and above. No one supposes Paul VI approves of all these changes but no one expects him to do anything about them.
One of the major causes of the success of the Reformation was the administrative chaos in the Church. It has often been said that the smoothly functioning, highly centralized system of the past century would make it impossible for anything remotely resembling the Reformation to occur now. But no system can help if the man on top is unable or unwilling to put it in motion.
There is a striking parallel between the attitude of the liberals in the American universities and the present situation in the Church. All the blame is assumed by the institution. All guilt and blame are removed from the dissidents and wreckers, there is a wallowing in self-reproach and in protestations of moral inferiority to those who reject or wish to change or wreck the status quo, and there is a general attitude of universal, indiscriminate, spineless—and often mindless— benevolence. There is above all a failure to stress and act upon the basic principles that mature human beings are accountable for their conduct and that their freedom to act or not to act brings no immunity from the consequences of their free choice. In the academic world as in the Church, weakness masquerades as compassion. Unfortunately, in the administrative order weakness often does more harm than vice does.
In these circumstances the liberal attacks on Paul VI are ungenerous and unjust. There never will be a pope who has tried so hard to please them and who so sincerely shares so many of their beliefs. Like so many of them he believes in law without sanctions, a policy most Catholics reserve for the Church Triumphant and the Millennarians for the reign of the saints. It is strange how few, who criticize Pius XI and Pius XII for not stopping Hitler, ask what Paul VI would have done. Fortunately we will never know. The thirtieth anniversary of Pius XI’s denunciation of Hitler, in the composition of which Pius XII played an active role, passed unnoticed by the Catholic press. No one could imagine such a document being issued.
The Pope himself has defined the crisis in the Church as one of faith and of authority. In his speech to the cardinals on June 23, he described two current problems as being of greater import than all others. These are a diminished sense of doctrinal orthodoxy and a certain diffuse lack of confidence in the exercise of the hierarchical ministry. They are closely linked. If it is true that those who have real trouble with faith can easily reject authority, it is equally true that those who find the voice of authority an uncertain trumpet may easily develop trouble with the faith. It is important to keep in mind that there is nothing new in the present attacks on the faith. The Catholic teaching of the Eucharist, the sacraments, the veneration of the saints, original sin, the authority of the Hole See, the celibacy of the clergy, etc. has been attacked for centuries by those outside the Church. When people inside it began to advance such views they generally went out of their own accord or were put out. What is different now is that people in good standing in the Church attack her fundamental doctrines with impunity. The Holy See will do nothing.
Paul VI is well aware of the difference between himself and his predecessors and is confident that he has chosen the correct path. He has convinced himself that he is not obligated to interfere, and that for high religious motives. On December 7, 1968, he addressed the students of the Lombard College in Rome and said in part: “The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute complex interior upheaval that no one expected after the Council….” This sad fact has become most notable: The Church is wounding herself. Many expect from the Pope dramatic gestures, energetic and decisive interventions. The Pope does not deem that he should follow any line but that of confidence in Jesus Christ, to whom he has entrusted his Church more than to anyone else. “It is for Him to calm the tempest.” Again on June 23, 1969, in speaking to the cardinals in Rome he said, in reference to the attacks on papal authority:
“It would be easy and perhaps even obligatory for us to rectify certain assertions relative to those dense and clamorous objections, but we believe the good People of God, being informed of the true state of matters and enlightened by that wisdom that proceeds from charity, can easily do this for itself.” On February 17, 1969, he addressed the Lenten Preachers of Rome and said in part: “Notice please, dear friends, how the style of our ecclesiastical government aims at being pastoral, that is, aims at being guided by duty and charity, open to understanding and indulgence, demanding in sincerity and zeal but fatherly, brotherly, humble in sentiment and in its forms. From this point of view, if the Lord helps us, we would like to be loved.”
With the exception of that hardy substitute for thought, “Love is all that matters,” no slogan has been more used more frequently since the Council than that authority is a form of service. Many who use it think it is new, though it is surely as old as Christianity and was already venerable when Gregory the Great wrote on it circa 600 A.D. It appears frequently in the writings and speeches of Paul VI. The one service rendered by authority, that is peculiar to it and one of its specific functions, is to settle things. This is not always easy, agreeable or popular, but that is unimportant. We need not look beyond our own time to see in both Church and state the evils that accumulate for both authority and the community it is intended to serve, when that task is shirked.
Editor’s note: The introductory paragraph is courtesy of The Traditionalist, Spring 2009, p. 11. Msgr. Cohalan’s essay is reprinted at OnePeterFive with the permission of Jack Fowler, publisher of National Review.
OnePeterFive offers Catholic news, commentary, and information. We are dedicated to rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic tradition.
I have found it hard to disagree with H.J.A. Sire’s assessment of Paul VI: “the most disastrous pontificate in history.” Certainly not the worst man elected to the see of Peter – there have been much worse. But his pontificate was one the Church may be centuries recovering from.
Worse than Alexander VII or Boniface VIII?
Yes – worse than both of them, and by a long chalk, too.
But note my qualification above about worse men.
His recent statements must have come to somewhat of a shock, saying the synod was about the family with a man, a woman, and children as the definition.
Re: the relaxing of priestly celibacy—I was not aware of this? What’s the context? In what way was this done? As far as I know, priests in the Latin rite can’t get married, and married men can’t be priests, unless they convert from another communion where they were already a married priest?
This refers to the process of laicization that became rampant thanks to Paul. These laicized priests then married.
Ah — previously that wasn’t possible? I never knew.
He also, on his own, without consulting the Curial or Dicastery experts, imposed mandatory retirement on Cardinal 80 years old.
So much for our multi-millennial year tradition of great respect for the wisdom of the elderly.
What could have been his motivation?
Well,, Ottaviaini was then 80 – still laser sharp and pellucid of intellect – and when Paul iced him via the mandatory retirement, he got to name Cardinals agreeable to the revolution; same went for other 80 year old Cardinals possessive of Tradition
O, and Paul did that shortly writing to him and praising Ottaviani and recognising his acumen, accomplishments, and intellectual vibrancy..
Never forget that “personnel is policy.”
Substitute “Mercy” for “Love” in “Love is all that matters” and you have the present pontificate. In fact, allow for the different historical circumstances, and this essay applies exactly to Pope Francis. How about this: “Hence much of his stress on ecumenism, the Secretariat for Non-Believers, the campaign for peace and against poverty, the abolition of practically all fasting and abstinence, the abolition of papal ties to the Roman nobility from which nothing more is to be expected by the Holy See, the constant flattery of the common people in whom political power is seen or thought to rest, and many other facets of his plan to give the Church a new image.” Sound familiar? Liberals are nothing if not consistent….and persistent.
H.J.A. Sire points out another similarity between these two popes, one the article’s author could not have known about. A cabal of Germans, Frenchmen, Belgians, and Canadians (sound familiar?) teamed up to elect Cdl. Lecaro, a liberal’s liberal, but agreed that, failing that bid, their votes would go to Montini [Paul VI]. This conspiracy was then and is still forbidden by canon law. (We have heard rumors concerning Pope Francis’ election of a “mafia” that plotted to support him as well. Liberals seem to be good at this kind of subterfuge.) My guess is that liberal clerical conspirators in the 60s and liberal conspirators in 2013 knew exactly whom they could count on to help deep-six teachings they hate bitterly.
Is it fair to say Pope Francis is Pope Paul VI on steroids?
Frankly, Pope Benedict bears grave responsibility for a good deal of the disaster that is about to befall the Church at the hands of its bishops. Benedict knew very well what was in the offing in 2013 but chose to resign rather than oppose it.
The Lord hates a coward.
You may be right in what you say here, but then you could also be completely wrong. The pope’s attempt to rectify past mistakes made while a peritus militates against your interpretation here. We really don’t know exactly why Benedict chose to resign; none of the explanations I’ve seen satisfy me, and I’m left wishing Paul Harvey were still around.
Six—count ’em!—six known papal abdications in 20 centuries, one every 330 years on average but the last one six centuries ago. Few and far between, to be sure. Yet we just happened to have had the bad luck to be around to witness one of them? Do you seriously believe that?
Ratzinger was in a position to discern clearly, as few men were at the time, what was happening in the institutional church in 2013, meaning what forces for good or ill were at work towards what ends. I don’t believe it is of much importance (now) to understand his reasons. Consider the facts.
It is obvious (now) what those forces and ends were then and still are; and they are none too wholesome. The laity (now) clearly read the omens and profess shock, astonishment, and dismay (though given the state of the Church the past fifty years or so, it is a trifle hard to understand what is surprising about any of it). But Pope Benedict XVI missed all that? He prudently decided to retire at a moment when the institutional Church—not the Body of Christ, mind you—was in good hands. Is that it? So he could safely pass on his burden?
That is simply not credible.
He ducked his sworn responsibilities in a critical hour—and, in my opinion, because the moment was so daunting—which hardly makes him a Judas Iscariot, true. Neither is it not worth mentioning nor any reason to praise him.
“Do you seriously believe that?” Of course I do; it happened. Had Benedict remained in office, this Synod would probably not have happened, but there are more Bergoglios than Jorge in the Church (unfortunately) so it would have happened sooner or later. Face the ugly fact: we have a large supply of lousy bishops for whatever reason.
“Sooner or later.”
I suggest you think long and hard about the implications of that prediction, one of which, in my opinion, is that who is pope doesn’t much matter—sooner or later.
In addition, the “It” in your “It happened” is what is in contention here, so you would seem to be begging the question. What precisely was it that “happened”?
What was the “It” ? Simple: we WERE around to witness the retirement, bad luck or not. Read the entire penultimate sentence in my post and you will see I already thought of the “implications of that prediction”.
While prescinding from ruling out darker theories, I think it must be noted that Benedict was in pretty bad shape health wise by the end of 2012. Word has it he was only putting in a few hours of work per day. A religious sister I know who received communion from him around that Christmas said that he looked so bad that she would not have been surprised to see him drop dead on the spot. Certainly he was at an age (nearly 86) in which most people are dead, and the majority who aren’t are in assisted living.
And until we know more, we really can’t pass final judgment on his act to abdicate. Either way, two facts remain obvious to me: 1) he remains the best pope we have had in the conciliar age (not an impressive feat, I know), and 2) barring some remote misadventure, Bergoglio would have been elected as the next pope, whether that was in March 2013, or a year or two later when the stress and workload finally killed Benedict off.
OUR LORD DOESN’T HATE. Our Lord never gives anyone what they can’t handle n Benedict knew “the wolves” would be after him from day 1! Perhaps Benedict’s decree that seminaries may no longer admit homosexuals was the last straw for “The Gay Mafia”! I also read that The Vatican Bank threatened to hold back all $ from all their charities unless he resigned! The Holy Spirit may have given permission to Benedict to resign. No one should judge lest they be judged accordingly!
“OUR LORD DOESN’T HATE.”
It’s quite revealing, I think, that your reaction to reading criticism of Pope Benedict, criticism that comes equipped, moreover, with reasons for being critical, by at once responding with the implied accusation of hatred.
By this date one might suppose that the strong resemblance of such a response to the accusation Catholics routinely face from homosexual propagandists, namely, that Catholics in particular and Christians in general are “haters” would prevent a Catholic from repeating the slander. One could be forgiven for thinking that—but apparently that’s not the case. The same childish need to seize an unearned moral high ground—and pronounce “judgement” from way up there—is at work.
It is a tiresome tactic.
I agree, Joe. Actually, God hated Esau in his mother’s womb, and I imagine the depraved homosexuals of Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t feel loved during their well deserved meltdown. Indifference is the opposite of love, which is why Jesus condemned luke-warm faith, which is pretty much the state of Catholicism in the U.S. and Europe. People are offended by passion, which is why protestants have empty crosses in their churches and around their necks. In listening to Steve’s friend on a recent pod cast about how we should react to the pope (now, now, tsk tsk …not nice! Oh, dear) I almost laughed. He sounded so much like what I used to encounter when visiting Seattle…this dream-like goodness, all is good ad nauseum, that I almost feel like I was living in Stepford. Anyway, I thought this assessment of the recent sin-nod reallyexcellent…http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2015/10/synod-council-conservatives-failed.html
As to the reign of Paul VI, the events of the past several weeks are merely an extension of the wrecking crew begun under this modernist pope and bergoglio is merely montini reconstructed, reconstituted and regurgitated.
Ann Barnhardt et al are quick to tell us “told ya so!” but never have cohesive plans to really change the course of things. I really meant it the other day that if I were in Rome, I would carry a large placard asking the pope to resign and hope others would join me.
Don’t mistake actual charity for a lack of passion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Very true! I tend to use a shot gun approach in broadcasting my views rather than a revolver so I’m often as wrong as I am right. I agree with much your friend said but when it comes to dealing with these heretic bishops (Bp of Rome,as well) I think real action is required…you’re a Thomas Paine of our times, and some of us need to act on what we hear…rosary rallies …a trad flash mob in Rome… A presence in the world of some sort. Anyway, thanks for your wonderful work!
Thank you. Just remember that my friend — an active theology professor who has taken the mandatum — advocated that orthodox bishops admonish and even break communion with the heterdox ones. He also said that the pope has a duty to act.
Dr. Sirilla is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet, but he loves the Church more than most. Behind his kindness is solid steel. I trust him more than just about anyone else right now on these matters, and believe me, I pick his brain a lot.
Thanks for the clarification! You’re both fortunate in your friendship. I shouldn’t have mentioned the podcast at all as it diverted the focus of my post from the weakness of traditional Catholics in confronting modernism. It is the same in politics. Liberals fight to win. We have a majority in both houses of Congress and liberals still ram through their programs. Sigh.
According to the information in Franco Bellegrandi’s book Nichitaroncalli – Controvita di un Papa (Nikita Krushev and Roncalli – Unknown Aspects of a Pope) which was launched in Rome in 1994, Paul VI was an active homosexual. This was also confirmed by French author Roger Peyrefitte, a professed homosexual, who gave an interview in the April 1976 issue of Tempo and commented upon a homily given by Paul VI in January 1976, in which Paul VI spoke against homosexuality. Peyrefitte the French writer alleged that the Pontiff’s words were hypocritical and made this revelation:
“The second sin from which I feel I have been freed, after this grotesque papal speech is my homosexuality …. In my last book, Hunting Scenes, and in another,About the French People, I stated with all the respect due a Pope (especially when he is still alive) that he is homosexual. It is amazing that the papal speech [against homosexuality] was published at the same time as my book. Was Paul VI moved by a guilt complex? But why should he feel guilty? It is known that a boyfriend of Paul VI was a certain movie star, whose name I will not give, although I remember him very well. He was an unknown actor when our friend Paul was Cardinal Montini, Archbishop of Milan.”
I’ve seen this before, but I’ve not yet seen anything very convincing about it (I am not familiar, though, with the book you cite). An example of why I take with a grain of salt evidence I’ve seen is the book MI6:Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service by Stephen Dorril. The author tells us that a WW II British agent in Rome was Montini’s homosexual lover, and then proceeds to say that Montini would be the future Pope John Paul I ! (p. 115) And I am VERY hesitant to believe the unsubstantiated allegations of homosexuals, ex or otherwise, because I believe the CCC when it says they suffer from a disordered personality. In my book, that means more than their sexuality may be askew.
I agree that we need to know that there is counter intelligence at work and that always, some truth is mixed in with the falsehoods in order to keep people scratching their heads. Bellegrandi was an honor chamberlain (cameriero di spada e cappa) during both the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI and so far as anyone has said, was not a homosexual. Peyrefitte came out of the closet on his own. To my mind, one of the reasons so many homosexuals were encouraged into seminaries was because they could be blackmailed. Bella Dodd testified before a Congressional committee, in the early 1950s, that the Communists had, as part of their plan to undermine the Church, infiltrated many communists into seminaries. There are 2 books, both of which I own, but have not cracked open yet, which illuminate the homosexual agenda: Randy Engel’s book “The Rite of Sodomy and the Roman Catholic Church” (she has her own website but if you search engine her name you’ll come up with a number of things she has written) and Fr. Enrique Rueda’s book “The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy”. He wrote a few other books, but it seems they are all difficult to obtain: “The Marxist Character of Liberation Theology”, “Roman Catholicism and American Capitalism: Friends or Foes,” and “The Morality of Political Action”
Paul VI deemed the allegations important enough to publicly refute them and Italy’s bishops called for prayers to defend him–St. Petersburg Times, April , 1976
and more recently, there was this from the former Commander of the Swiss Guard, Elmar Mäder regarding the homosexual ‘mafia’:
So he was weak and had problems with exercising his authority. But he must have seen that real evil was being done, and that many in his charge were being led astray? Then again, as a career diplomat he had no sheep to smell . Does it take extraordinary courage to uphold the Faith when that’s your only job? Or did he see his job as a continuation of the diplomacy he practiced for his whole life?
Weakness or apostasy?
This is a terrific article, very informative. Thanks.
P.S. this is a terrifically interesting and informative article. Thanks
The truth is far far worse than what this gentleman has documented.
Hmm, the link is not working. OK, then google this
Mary Martinez From Rome Urgent PDF
Don’t forget that this is the Pope next in line for Canonisation….
This is the kind of person the bishops would welcome ‘as he is’ rather than decide he needs an exorcism. In fact, he and those like him, who go for ‘body modification’ (think transgender) will be asking for ‘special rights’ and ‘accommodations’ and getting them, I’m sure.
Shhh! Don’t give the Germans any ideas. You know they’re all really proficient in English.
The current Supreme Pontiff more and more reminds me of Chancellor Palpatine.
Some say that Lenin’s rule in the Soviet Union is an enigma. I don’t see it that way. Likewise, I see no enigma in Paul VI’s rule of the Roman Catholic Church. Lenin was a faithful follower of the doctrine of Bolshevikism. Paul VI was a faithful follower of the doctrine of Vatican II. No mystery. Bad doctrine gets bad results.
Somewhere on line, “Pope Paul VI of bitter memory …”
OmG! Stop calling Vatican II “the Council”. Any historian will see the nonsense in that sentiment. Even sedeoccupavatists know Vatican II was not a Council and espoused many heresies long condemned by the Church, the New Order Mass is sacrilegious modernist worship long condemned by the Church, the 1983 “Code” of “Canon Law” is invalid, and the 1992 “Catechism” of the “Catholic Church” is not a Catholic Catechism. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all been sorry excuses for popes. John XXIII committed treason against the Church by signing a contract with Moscow to not allow Vatican II to condemn communism in exchange for the unbelievable privilege of having to Russian Orthodox KGB agent present. Orthodoxies and Protestants sat front row at Vatican II. The whole thing was a circus. Paul VI’s effort to make the Church more likable to the world was nothing more than an attempt make a Whore out of the Bride. The Church is supposed to be hated by the non-Catholic world. The Church has always made it clear that one must be Catholic to be a Christian. John Paul I praised and quoted a well-known Italian Satanist. John Paul II kissed the Quran. Benedict XVI expressed the steam for the demonically inspired Muslims and the United Nations. Francis says atheists can get to Heaven. And people wonder why there’s a much bigger sedevacantist population than most people think there is in the Church?