This is the first chapter where the author will run the mortal risk of disqualified as an "armchair theologian". Here a
topic will be delved into that has been the source of enough hot air to fill the sky with balloons, namely "Baptism of
Desire." Keep that crash helmet handy because this is going to be a bumpy ride with a significant risk of whiplash. Before
we can get to the feature presentation, the letter from the Holy Office to Fr Leanord Feeney and St Benedict Center of August
8th, 1949, we must first view some newsreels and looney tunes. But before we do even that, some nerdy theological stuff is
absolutely unavoidable. Our Lord Jesus Christ, just before ascending into heaven, told His disciples to "Go ye into the
whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that
believeth not shall be condemned." That sounds simple enough. But then in the first three centuries of the Church
catechumens died without baptism, as did Roman soldiers and executioners who confessed the Faith after witnessing the courage
of the martyrs and died on the spot. The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church decreed that these too could be considered
blessed, as they had undergone a "baptism of desire". ("Baptism of blood" is obviously a particular type of "baptism of
desire".)
This, however caused some confusion. Adding to the confusion is the doctrine of limbo, or, more specifically, what
theologians with multiple letters following their sirnames call the "hell of the children" where unbaptized babies who have
not attained the use of reason go. These babies are said to suffer the "pain of loss" of hell but not the "pain of sense",
towit, the fires of hell. Now the author likes to believe, and is permitted by Holy Mother Church to do so, that those dying
before attaining the use of reason find themselves in a state of natural happiness (that state for which man was originally
intended before his supernatural elevation to being a son of God) and can visit with Our Lord, Our Lady, and the saints at
any time, but are eternally deprived of what is termed the "beatific vision".
But what of a soul who has attained the use of reason and committed no actual sin? That is as absurd as expecting to
find a Priangan sheep running around with a pack of arctic wolves. The author is confident that in all the vast and sundry
history of the Church, no missionary has ever stumbled upon a hermit, living with wolves under pine trees, who when he saw
the priest, ran forward with tears in his eyes and said: "Oh Father, bless you... I have been in indomitable ignorance for so
long. I have been out here because all my brethren worship false gods, but I am waiting for the messiah or his messengers.
Thank you so much for coming at last." In all the annals of the martyrology nothing even remotely resembling this has ever
come to pass, yet lately one hears so much talk about the "indomitably ignorant" who receive, "baptism of desire". Men are
labeled heretics and cast into the exterior darkness from the table of coffee and donuts because they have questioned the
existence of such people, irregardless of what type of trees they may be living under. Fr Feeney was just such one these
men.
To make a long, long story really, really short: Fr Leanord Feeney, author of the book Fish on Friday, was gaining
converts in the vicinity of Boston with a weekly catechism class. Omitting many gory details, suffice it to say that the son
of a banking giant was received into the Catholic Church much to the consternation of his parents, who complained to
Archbishop (later Cardinal) Cushing about the proselytizing of St Benedict Center. After Fr Feeney resisted the efforts of
his superiors to send him to the Jesuit equivalent of the Yemenese island of Socotra by his superiors, the case hit the
hierarchical radar. What was worse, Fr Feeney actually had the gall to attempt to have his case of "disobedience" tried in
eccleisiastical court, and then took the offensive by accusing the Diocese of Boston for promoting hereesy and
indifferentism. (For many Traditional Catholics this should have a very familier ring.) His case than got the attention of
the Vatican.
One thing Pius XII will never be accused of is stupidity. He and his advisors knew full well that such a trial as Fr
Feeney requested would put the bubblebrained Americanism of the United States Episcopal Conference front and center, rile
relations with the "seperated brethren" of the North American continent, and probably uncover a pile of bovine excretement
big enough to rival the Blue Ridge. The Vatican, and the Boston Episcopal Seat, went into full damage control mode, as we
shall see.
But first, a newsreel courtesy of Pope Boniface VIII in the bull Unam Sanctum: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim,
we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff." Now, by
"every human creature" Boniface is excluding the wolves. Whether men will be able to pet a wolf and watch them howl after
the consumation of time and the advent of the Heavenly Jerusalem is left totally to conjecture. But for men (and women) the
issue is settled. By "subject to the Roman pontiff" Boniface is not decreeing we obey every stupid order that comes from the
lips of the pope, but that we submit our reason to whatever the popes have infallibly decreed, and to the doctrine of the
Apostolic church. That sounds simple enough.
But now, three looney toons, brought to us by Pius IX. Here is the first: "For, it must be held by faith that outside
the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered
therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, IT IS necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in
ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of
God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature
and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these
corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond
divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul,
let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it
is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." The second: "This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in
preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope
for life or salvation UNLESS he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." And the third: "Here, too, our beloved
sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who
believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and
Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. THERE ARE, of course, those who are struggling with
invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on
all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of
divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all,
his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal
punishments." As Porky Pig would say, that's all folks.
But that is a lot. In the first loony toon, Pius IX could be defended on the grounds that all he is claiming is that
nobody will incur additional punishments solely because of ignorance concerning truth they could not avoid. That is
perfectly reasonable. But what he says afterwards is mushy. He could be interpreted as implying that, once in heaven, we
will encounter saintly hermits, and perhaps their wolves, but in this mortal state we had better heed the infallible
definitions of the popes. But the second quote leaves no room for doubt. Pius IX is, in a remark to the Austrian hierarchy,
positing sanctifying grace through indomitable ignorance. And the third quote leaves absolutely no doubt that this is a new
doctrine of the Church. Pope Boniface VIII is flatly contradicted. Pius IX is definitely saying that "the efficacious
virtue of divine light and grace" is the equivalent of Sanctifying Grace. That is absurd.
Consider these words of St Paul: "For not through the law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be
heir of the world; but through the justice of faith. For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, the
promise is made of no effect. For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression." What
St Paul is saying, according to the mind of the Church, is that works alone, namely, obedience to the dictates of the natural
law, cannot justify, but the foundation of justification is supernatural faith. He says that clearly here: "For whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or
how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they
preach unless they [preachers] be sent?" While debate is permitted about whether the sacrament of baptism is absolutely
necessary for salvation, nobody can hold that anyone can be saved who does not have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. This
might sound unfair, but, then again, so is the doctrine of Original Sin. After all, none of us had nothing to do with Adam's
fault. Why should we suffer the miserable consequences?
All of this forms the background for the docuмent about to be considered. This docuмent will be quoted in its entirety
so that this author cannot be accused of stating things out of context. Furthermore, this work is an exquisite example of
the brood of vipers in the Vatican at work. Many beauracrats must have put in a lot of overtime to couch such vapid
accusations and downright calumny in angelic sounding terminology, with an added pious air. The following is a treasure of
insinuations and ephemeral jargon which would do any Freemason proud. Doubtless the writers of the docuмents of Vatican Two
learned some important tecniques here. So without further ado, the LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
dated August 8th, 1949 explaining the "true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church" now
takes center stage.
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St.
Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances
of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent
me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In
due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an
English translation of the same approved by the Holy See."
The above is a preamble by Archbiship Richard Cushing and Chancellor Walter Furlong, prior to the release of the letter
September 4th, 1952. What follows is the letter itself.
"This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred
up by certain associates of 'St. Benedict Center' and 'Boston College' in regard to the interpretation of that axiom:
'Outside the Church there is no salvation'.
"After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your
Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of 'St. Benedict Center' explain their opinions and
complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is
convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, 'outside the Church there is no salvation',
was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of
discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and
obedience to legitimate authorities."
One will notice here the complete absence of any specific allegations. Not even a summation is forthcoming. That is
quite likely because the "opinions" expressed by the associates were infallible papal pronouncements such as this one: "The
most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not
only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the
"eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her;
and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the
sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings,
their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may,
no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity
of the Catholic Church." Needless to say, the scions of the Holy Office fulminating against infallible definitions of Holy
Mother Church would be quite ridiculous, so, not surprisingly, no details are going to be infringed. Nor is it surprising
that any examples of refusing "reverence and obedience" are going to be elaborated.
"Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on
Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to
give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations
relevant to discipline be given:"
Oh, but to be a fly on the wall for either of those sessions. One does suspect that the juicier part of those
discussions was alluded to when referring to the "problem" of St Benedict Center, as in "Uh, Houston, we have a problem".
Meanwhile, here one has concrete evidence this proceeded from the very top.
"We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether
it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn
judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, notation 1792)."
The heavy artillary- the decretals of Denzinger, the official compilation of the sources of catholic dogma, is being
brought front and center. Subsequently, all the references will be put before the reader. This one is ommited for the sake
of brevity.
"Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that
infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church."
"However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to
private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the
teaching authority of the Church."
This is a convoluted disjuncture of the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the interpretation of Holy
Scripture. One supposes that a mother teaching her toddler about purgatory might also be "private judgments"? Or how about
a Catholic teaching his Protestant friend about the truths of his faith? Must one have episcopal approval before he can
mention anything at all? Are not men capable of comprehending the infallible pronouncements of the popes without having to
obtain a doctorate in theology?
"Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus
Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had
commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
"Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated
by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through
whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless
refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
"Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means
of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which
are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in
certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council
of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn.
797, 807)."
At this point one should smell something burning. Let us see what Denzinger's decretal number 797 says: "[The Council
of Trent] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace
[can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are
called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to
convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in
such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that
inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own
free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: 'Turn
ye to me, and I will turn to you' [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: 'Convert us, O Lord, to thee,
and we shall be converted' [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God."
What the reader may not realize is that this is being quoted out of context. This text is part of where the Council of
Trent is defining Justification in order to counter the errors of Protestantism. Nowhere here is it implied that the
justification is possible without an explicit knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Next, here is citation number 807: "Those who by sin have fallen away from the received grace of justification, will
again be able to be justified [can. 29] when, roused by God through the sacrament of penance, they by the merit of Christ
shall have attended to the recovery of the grace lost. For this manner of justification is the reparation of one fallen,
which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of lost grace. For on behalf of those who after
baptism fall into sin, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance, when He said: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained' [John 20:22, 23]. Hence it
must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it
includes not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation of them, or 'a contrite and humble heart' [Ps. 50:19], but also
the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well
as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal
punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the
temporal punishment [can. 30], which (as the Sacred Writings teach) is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to
those who ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, 'have grieved the Holy Spirit' [cf. Eph. 4:30], and have
not feared to 'violate the temple of God' [1 Cor. 3:17]. Of this repentance it is written: 'Be mindful, whence thou art
fallen, do penance, and do the first works' [Rev. 2:5], and again: 'The sorrow which is according to God, worketh penance
steadfast unto salvation' [2 Cor. 7:10], and again: "Do penance" [Matt. 3:2; 4:17], and, 'Bring forth fruits worthy of
penance'."
Apologies for having made the reader wade through all of that. What this has to do with our hermit in indomitable
ignorance under the pine tree the author has no conception, unless one of the wolves offered to hear his sacramental
confession! But seriously, this is a forthright example of downright sloppiness completely unworthy of princes of the
Church.
In the spirit of charity, the snake pit will be given help. Perhaps what they really wanted to cite was Denzinger
number 796: "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in
which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' [Rom. 8:15] of God
through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be
effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: 'Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]."
That is the only place in all of Denzinger where a desire for baptism as a means for salvation is found. Continuing
with the letter of the Holy office:
"The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually
as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing."
Indeed. As Fr Feeney would put it: "Baptism of Desire is a desire for baptism."
"However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible
ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a
person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
Looks like we have some hermits here. Actually, we are deep in the land of Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christians".
"These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on
June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign
Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are
united to the Church only by desire.
"Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: 'Actually
only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not
been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave
faults committed.'
(Gee, no hermits here. Before we saw them, now we do not.)
"Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to
the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who 'are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain
unconscious yearning and desire,' and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that
they are in a condition 'in which they cannot be sure of their salvation' since "they still remain deprived of those many
heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he
reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who
falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in
<Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n.
1677)."
This is getting hard to follow. Our hermit has a "certain unconscious yearning and desire" "in which [he] cannot be
sure of [his] salvation" because he "still remain deprived of many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in
the Catholic Church". Moreover, he is only related to the catholic Church. One supposes that Judas and King Herod were also
related to the Catholic Church, but what of it. The defendent at a criminal trial would not sustain much hope if his lawyer
was using such language. Meanwhile, for those keeping score, the citations of Pius IX are two of the loony tunes cited way
above. Or, at least that is what the author thinks, because in Denzinger 1641 is contained the definition of the Immaculate
Conception, with which this writer has not the slightest quibble!
"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is
necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire
produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a
rewarder of those who seek Him' (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. ): 'Faith is the beginning of
man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the
fellowship of His children' (Denzinger, n. 801)."
Here one sees the heros of the Vatican actually trying to define the desire our hermit has. Our hermit must have a
desire animated by perfect charity and supernatural faith. But how does our hermit acquire these?
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, as
the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and
those without."
"From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and
which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church
and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops 'whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the
Church' (Acts 20:2)."
At this point, certain conclusion indeed follow. The first is that the authors of this docuмent have circuмvented any
citations of what is actually contained in "From the Housetops", namely, the infallible pronouncements of the popes
concerning the possibility of salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Back in the good old days of
the Inquisition, specific errors were cited and refuted. The actions of the consistory which wrote this letter are utterly
detestable and lack no foundation whatsoever. Indeed, this letter is what is harmful both within the church and without.
Those who accuse the Catholic Church of irrational dogmatism can certainly point to this letter as proof of their arguements.
"Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be
accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to
exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many
consciences."
Since more heavy cannons, rather, canons are being brought to bear, here they are in full. Canon 1381: "The promotor
of justice shall at once draw up the indictment and present the same to the judge, accoring to the laws of canonical
procedure laid down in the first section of the fourth book of the code. (Canon 1955.)" And Canon 1382: "In more serious
offences, where the Ordinary judges that the accused party would scandalize the faithful by the excercise of the sacred
ministry..." The rest is cut off because it should be obvious this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
"Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself
as a 'Defender of the Faith', and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by
lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious
violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church."
Needless to say, the "catechetical instruction" proposed by lawful authorities left much to be desired. That was the
whole point of Fr Feeney's complaints, which never saw the light of a Vatican court.
"Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a
periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called
the 'imprimatur', which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
"Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after 'Rome has
spoken' they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church
is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church 'only by an unconscious desire'. Let them realize
that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence,
having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply
without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as
necessary for salvation."
The writers end this letter most dastardly, making a snide reference to Unam Sanctum which might have tempted Boniface
VIII to hurl lightning from heaven. This letter is far from a clear voice. Rome might have spoken, but this is not the Rome
of the Supreme Pontiffs. This is the Rome of swarming beauracrats trying to cover for a heretical bishop in danger of being
exposed.
"In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain, Your Excellency's most devoted."
The letter was signed by Francesco Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Alfredo Ottaviani, then Assessor of the Holy
Office. One can only hope both men went to confession shortly afterward, along with Pope Pius XII. The only accusation the
author can see that might have some substance is the publication of the periodical without canonical sanction, though one
would think a "nihil obstat" (no objections) from Fr Feeney would suffice for each issue.
As for Archbishop Cushing, he had a penchant for speaking at Protestant Churches and was even cited by a Boston Globe
reporter as "wearing a yarmulke while speaking at a ѕуηαgσgυє in Brookline". In 1963, the now Cardinal Cushing said on a
radio interview in reply to a caller asking his stance on contraception: "I have no right to impose my thinking, which is
rooted in religious thought, on those who do not think as I do." In 1965 he told representives of the Massachutese state
legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it." So much for that paragon of orthodoxy; the Carrols
must have been smiling from their place atop the Washington pantheon.
Today, "From the Housetops" is still published. But Cushing's legacy has sued for bankruptcy. Time always tells.
Topic: Chapter on "Feenyism" from Angelic Pastors by Desertmonk... (Read 387 times)