THE MIND OF THE CHURCH (No. 19)
In recent Letters I raised questions about the application of the Church's laws in this time of general disregard of the law by Paul 6 and his Vatican II Bishops. I shall here add a few paragraphs on that subject, attempting to complete what I left unfinished concerning basic principles.
Two priests have directed my attention to the principle, "epikeia" or equity, which looks to the mind of the lawgiver in doubtful cases. In accordance with this principle there are times when we must ask: Does the law as presently applied obstruct or defeat the purpose of the lawgiver? Have present circumstances rendered a particular law harmful, impeding or making impossible the work it was originally intended to regulate?
In Question 120, First Article, St. Thomas, affirming the virtue of "Epikeia", has this: "I answer that, as stated above (1-11, Q. 96, A.6), when we were treating of laws, since human actions, with which laws are concerned, are composed of contingent singulars and are innumerable in their diversity, it was not possible to lay down rules of law that would apply to every single case. Legislation in framing laws attend to what commonly happens; although if a law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view -- In these cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law and follow the dictates of justice and the common good. This is the object of "epikeia" which we call equity. Therefore it is evident that 'epikeia' is a virtue."
St. Thomas thus states here what is the mind of the Church on man made laws. Three come quickly to mind: (1) The law which obliges attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holydays; (2) Canon Law requiring that religious writings be submitted to one's bishop for approval; (3) laws pertaining to residence in a Religious community by those who have taken vows, etc. With regard to number 1, even in ordinary times many circumstances permit non-observance of this law on occasion. It certainly can never oblige us to attend a questionable Mass, those that are on good authority, or quite evidently, heretical or sacrilegious, or such as might in time weaken a person's Catholic faith. As to number 2, concerning religious writings, it cannot be according to the mind of the Church that error should be allowed freedom of expression, as happens today, while orthodox traditional teachings are to be suppressed. With regard to number 3, no Religious is required to remain in a community which has lost the Catholic faith, or which in other ways no longer fulfills its original purpose of sanctifying its members. With regard to these three laws and some others, the basic principle that the obligation of keeping the Faith is prior to that of obedience, and that truth should be taught and error exposed, certainly applies.
Notice that these are laws made by the Church's officers for the Church's individual members. We have the right in certain circumstances to refuse to comply with one or more of such laws, holding to a higher obedience to God and the mind of the Church. I think it helpful to mention here that nowhere does this obligation to NOT obey a particular law of this kind oblige anyone to initiate some other action to compensate. For example, the obligation to refrain from taking part in a corrupted parish liturgy does not require that we join in with others in setting up a substitute church or chapel. Actually it is forbidden to do this, for in this matter we come into conflict with that divine mandate by which the Church was made sole dispenser of the Sacraments. "Thou art Peter -- to thee I give the keys to the kingdom -- whatever thou shalt bind on earth, will be bound in heaven," etc. And so it has always been. Catholics have always recognized the sole Jurisdiction -- the necessity for it -- in all those fundamental matters pertaining to worship and the sacraments. This has nothing to do with the moral state of those who have received jurisdiction through the regular line of succession. An unworthy or even heretic bishop may establish a parish church, which not even the holiest priest is permitted to do.
Many of those who resist the heretical reforms of Vatican II and Paul 6 think there has to be an alternative course in a time of corruption, of a great apostasy. This is not so. The mind of the Church is clear on this: "Behold I am with you all days, even until the end of the world." With regard to the present state of the Church under Paul 6, Christ himself gives the example by his own compliance with what was lawful in the corrupt state of the Jewish hierarchy in his time. St. Paul showed his regard for the office of the high priest Ananias, a violent and rapacious man, who was then proposing an illegal outrage, very offensive from one Jew to another, against St. Paul. If I have shown a lack of reverence for Paul 6 it is because Paul 6, unlike Ananias, has consistently shown his contempt for and rejection of his own office. He has done this by consistently refusing to govern, by ostentatiously giving away the Tiara and Ring, symbols of the papal authority, by opposing himself to the popes of the past, and by abjectly putting himself at the service of the atheistic U.N.O. Assembly, calling that body the "last hope of mankind", thus denying Christ before the whole world.
Does the Law, then, during the time of pope Montini, defeat the purpose of the lawgiver? I think not, if the necessary distinctions are made. Those laws made by the Church's officers for her individual members present no difficulty for those whose faith is lively. The divine mandate by which Christ gave exclusive jurisdiction to Peter and the Apostles, to be passed on to their successors, for regulating and dispensing the Sacraments, is another matter. This we may not disregard, for it carries with it the divine promise of lasting until the end of time.
It is this promise which is a stumbling block to nearly all the conservatives and traditionalists who try to explain the Vatican II church. In a recent Traditionalist newsletter one writer quotes Christ's promise to Peter that his faith will not fail. Just how this might apply to Paul 6 he does not clearly indicate. Another writer in the same paper finds Paul 6 an "enigma". The Abbe Georges de Nantes who has filled a book with comments on Paul's heresies, schism and scandals, apparently sees in Paul 6 a pope like all the others, only suffering from some kind of twisted notion which he might at any time remedy. But of course it is quite obvious that never has the papal chair been occupied by a pope determined on a course of total change of the Catholic faith and practice, one who is on excellent terms with the Church's ancient enemies, as shown so spectacularly by his visit and speech before the U.N.O., and in many other ways. To apply Christ's promise that St. Peter's faith will not fail in Paul 6, renders that promise quite meaningless in a Catholic sense. That Montini's faith has not failed is evident enough, but it is certainly not the Catholic faith.
The trouble with most of the Traditionalist leaders is that they, like the moderates or conservatives, refuse to see the signs of the time. The Abbe Georges de Nantes is a prime example in this, writing always of a counter-reform, a Vatican III. While preaching against general apostasy these traditionalist leaders disregard the Scriptural prediction of a Great Apostasy and general spiritual blindness. Were they to take due notice of the Scriptural prophecies they might come to a better understanding, for our time, of the Lawgiver.
[...]
