September 2020 Print

By Fr. Dominique Bourmaud

At the turn of the 20th century, Modernism was born and attempted to subvert the ranks of the Church. The ringleader, the Scripture scholar Alfred Loisy, exerted quite some influence in France and abroad. His critique of the Gospel was accompanied and extended by his numerous ecclesiastical friends to all branches of learning and diffused the Modernist seven headed monster to the rank and file. It took nothing but the integral faith and holy determination of St. Pius X and Card. Merry del Val to put a stop to this deleterious movement.

Resurgence of Modernism

However, the enemies of Christ did not die out and they resurfaced a few decades later when the weather was fair for them to continue the job of undermining perennial philosophy and the Faith. Neo-Modernism was a loose movement centered around some hotheads in the wake of Teilhard de Chardin. It was condemned again by Pius XII in Humani Generis, yet all too softly because the ringleaders went underground generally undisturbed. They resurged as periti when Vatican II opened its windows “to the world,” and they ended up having the Council consecrate their principles.

Modernism is not so modern any longer as it is now 120 years old, but it is doing well and kicking more than ever. It has been largely endorsed by the post-Conciliar popes including the present one, a statement which neither friend or foe really disputes. What is perhaps more disputed is the Modernism of Pope Benedict XVI whose pontificate has about it an aura of conservatism and even of traditionalism.

We are far from denying the real merits of the pope called “emeritus” especially in liturgy, yet his achievement can hardly be the solution to the late neo-Modernist crisis which has triumphed with Vatican II. He himself had been an active protagonist of the Council and of its reforms. Yet, in his first major discourse, he underlined the key principle that Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of the previous tradition of the Church, including the light of the ecclesiology of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. He realized that to reject previous teaching would be throwing away the baby and the bath water, and Benedict XVI, for all his liberal bent, would not consent to this. Unless the Church held firmly to what she had formally decreed and believed in ages past, she would suffer a mortal wound.

A Bergamo Historian, Roberto Pertici, made an insightful suggestion saying that the relentless mediatic and ecclesiastic aggression raised against the pope was the last straw which led to his papal renunciation. Whatever we may think of this interesting proposition, Pope Bergoglio inherited from this traumatic situation, but took further steps which tarnished even more the aura of the papacy. If Pope Benedict put the brakes on the post-Conciliar movement, Pope Francis is accelerating it and leading it to its ultimate consequences. Let us bring to the fore some of the specific marks in the present pontificate following three major promulgations, Amoris Laetitia, Episcopalis Communio and Laudato si’.

Pastorality vs. Authority

The Vatican commentators have brought to light the pastoral aspect of the pope’s teaching, meaning the clear gap between the doctrinal theses and the pastoral problems, that is to say, the opposition between the ideal moral positions and the real engagements. “Who am I to judge?” seems to signal the demise of the pontifical magisterium. Far from seeing this as a personal timidity or formation, it reveals a profound theological choice, a rather doctrinal statement … by which the pope is refusing to be the authoritative voice of Christ in matters of faith and morals.

This de facto contradiction between doctrine and practice logically begets moral relativism. It signals the end of objective morality, good or evil, regardless of intentions and circumstances. We see it crystal clear in Amoris Laetitia where the footnotes clearly reveal the mindset of the pontifical document. Romano Amerio’s book Iota Unum enumerates the rhetorical artifices used to promote the so-called merciful pastorality while throwing away morality: the “yes, but,” the “in-depth study,” the “graduation, the more or less.” The pope’s language is coherent with the passage from doctrine to pastorality.

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi gave an interview to the Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli (November 12, 2018), and explained this: “If we wish to be the ‘salt of the earth,’ we cannot suspend our judgment of reality. We need to understand the causes and be ready to modify things, and this also in the moral order. If we limit ourselves to consider only the moral consequences of the behaviors without seeing the causes, our diagnostic would be faulty. Thus, we would commit an error in our prognosis and would never resolve it. Have you ever thought of the invitation of being ‘realists’ in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah?”

And Tedeschi concluded with good logic about the Protestantization of minds: “The moral authority becomes a source of confusion when it refuses its office. This occurs when it avoids showing the Truth, when it says that there are no absolute precepts, but everything is open to discussion. This means that each dogma can be interpreted in time in function of the circumstances. This means that truth is made of praxis and that faith is an existential experience. … It is as if the moral authority admitted that doubt is positive, theological pluralism beneficent, doctrinal fidelity contrary to mercy, and doctrinal coherence stifles charity. … We would all become ‘pseudo-Protestants’ and would incur the risk of doing good or evil according to what satisfies us best.”

Intimately connected with this moral relativism, we are experiencing a dissolution of those sacraments which define Catholicism. The auricular confession, the indissoluble marriage, the Holy Eucharist are virtually gutted out of their substance under cover of pastoral reasons like “mercy” and “openness.” This is so much the more dangerous as we usually mold our belief on our practice. And the lowering of the sacramental practice to allow anyone to approach it, regardless of the state of their souls, cannot but lead to the conclusion that “everyone gets to heaven,” and there is “no need to keep the moral standards to save our soul.”

Democracy vs. Hierarchy

Along with the dichotomy between doctrine and practice the present pontificate is fast eroding the meaning of Church authority. Symptoms of the process of de-regulation of the hierarchy were seen right from the beginning, when the pope refused to live in the papal apartments, avoided the terms of Pope, Head of the Universal Church and Vicar of Christ. Vatican II had already muted these titles, but the present pope puts it in high gear, and wants to be called simply the Bishop of Rome.

The Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio of September 15, 2018 gives full measure to the levelling of the Church in its intimate constitution. There is a democratization and a de-monarchization which is at work here. The Church as Christ founded it, was set upon Peter or Kephas—Rock—as the rock, the principle of unity and firmness of the universal Church. Along with this universal power of the pope himself, by divine right the bishops governed their particular flocks under the pope’s government. The Church, therefore, is a mixed monarchy, with the bishops as both rulers of their flock and subject to the pope. And this was clearly defined at Vatican I which promulgated papal infallibility. In the Conciliar aula, Bishop Carli, while criticizing the future Vatican II decree Lumen Gentium, stressed that: 1) the episcopal power is essentially limited and does not enjoy the universal power enjoyed by the pope; 2) the pope has primacy over the whole Church prior to the College of bishops.

The collegiality promulgated at Vatican II, was based on opposite positions. It stressed that the bishops are at first rulers of the universal church prior to having their power limited. Also, it suggests that the pope is ruler of a section of the Church (the college of bishops) prior to being ruler over the universal Church.

In paragraph #10, Episcopalis Communio aggravates the process of democratization:

“Another fruit of the Synod of Bishops is that it highlights more and more the profound communion that exists in Christ’s Church both between the pastors and the faithful (every ordained minister being a baptized person among other baptized persons, established by God to feed his flock), and also between the Bishops and the Roman Pontiff, the pope being a “Bishop among Bishops, called at the same time—as Successor of Peter—to lead the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches.”

This seemingly inoffensive text marks the leveling of the “hierarchical ministry,” reduced to spokesman of the community. Synodality is pregnant with the ecumenical movement. At this juncture, we can rightly ask whether there is a difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the separate communities—separated precisely from the base of the Church, from the rock upon which Christ wished to insure the cohesion of His flock. This also explains why Pope Francis had recourse to the geometric figure of the polyhedron, the diamond with various faces in opposition to the rock-based church building. In his mind, the various facets of the church represent the riches and variety of the “Church of Christ,” which may include, why not, the reformed churches in the spirit of “reconciled diversity.”

Divine Immanence vs. Transcendence

Vatican II had given its seal of approval to the personalist philosophy, by contract with the realist philosophy, and implemented it in Church teaching, especially moral theology and Canon Law. We recall the statement of Gaudium et Spes (#22), which indicated that “in becoming incarnate, Our Lord united Himself to every man in a certain way.” That was also the theme of Redemptor Hominis, unfolding the program of John Paul II’s pontificate. If Christ is already united to every man, the Church’s mission is to help all men become aware of the fact that they are already united to Christ.

Pope Francis goes further with Laudato si’. For him, Christ is not simply united to all men, Christ is united to the earth. The issue is no longer self-awareness, which of course is not denied; Francis’ perspective is far more radical as the immanentist seed produces riper fruit. What we have to understand is that, in the new perspective offered by Pope Francis, all of morality is contained in the idea of being in harmony with nature, with the earth. Why? Because Christ is already united to the earth.

The pope indeed insists greatly upon the unity and connection between God, man and the environment. “God has united Himself definitively to our earth.” Yes, compared to the Council and its aftermath, this is a new claim. So, “everything is connected” (mentioned eleven times in Laudato si’) the forest and youth are to be our model (final draft of the Amazon synod), they are both theological topics, i.e., sources of theology. In other words, we need to be in harmony with ourselves and the environment, with nature, the cosmos, but in a perspective that denies original sin. With Pope Francis, man’s relation with Christ becomes more distant, for our immediate relation is with the earth. The problem is that, with this radical immanentism, it becomes impossible for man to accomplish the religious act on which all other acts depend, the act of adoration. Because man’s new axis of salvation is earth-centered, his relation to God is secondary, and perhaps, even the distinction of Creator-creature becomes blurred at the end of this bizarre ecological journey.

It is hard to surmise the mind of our present pope, and perhaps the logical outcome of the principles he laid out earlier on. Fifty years ago, even in the thick of the Vatican II hurricane, no one could have guessed what the Vatican authority were going to produce and lead us into. One thing is rather clear, and that is that Pope Francis has no scruples to throw away the “taboos,” that is simply the most sacred elements of the perennial Roman teaching, of Tradition, of Church hierarchy, papacy included. In ten years, 300 out of the 420 feminine religious congregation will have vanished in the US. In ten years, will there be a recognizable Roman Catholic Church? Will Christ still find faith in the world in the very near future?

Fresco painted by Florentine artist and sculptor Giotto di Bondone between 1297 - 99 representing the story of Innocent III approving the Rule of St. Francis. In the sixth panel we see Pope Innocent III on the right, sleeping in a bed under an elaborate canopy, with servants at his side. To the left is the falling basilica, which St. Francis is seen holding to keep it from collapsing. The falling of the Roman basilica also symbolizes the falling, yet surviving, Catholic Church, as it was a time when many heretics were attacking the church.