I've been invited often to discuss the topic of the crisis in the Church, but have always declined on the grounds that I find the topic leads generally to sins against charity, and not much progress for the matter of the truth.

One of the problems I have long had with these discussions, has always been this insisting on the part of so many people, that we Catholic lay people can and should judge the souls of the clergy, to the extent of condemning them, or naming them as heretics/schismatics or what have you.

Well, today I was watching a video of His Excellency Bishop Williamson, wherein he was discussing Catholicism as it applies to social issues, and particularly issues of government. The gist was, that since all authority comes from God (regardless of how it is designated by the people... eg, whether by election or monarchy or what have you), it needs to be remembered that it basically exists to serve God's interests. Like a priest represents God in the realm of religion, or the father of a family represents God under his roof, so the authority figures are supposed to decree what is truly just and good in their rule, and to uphold justice and what not...

Well, His Excellency made the point during the lecture, that since it is true that authority comes from God, anything outside of God's laws (what is actually right or good or just according to God), that authority is not binding. Eg, as we all know, if someone commands you to sin, it is against God, and therefore not binding.

Someone in the question-time part of the lecture then asked about Vatican II, and what about the modernists who put themselves outside of that line (of what is inside of God's law and what lies outside of it), and whether that means they are frankly outside of the Church or what have you. His Excellency's reply reminded me a lot of this forum, and so I wanted to share the gist of it with those who do frequently delve into the topic. (Though I do not intend to beyond this.)

His Excellency said, in so many words, that if one takes the ideas of the architects of Vatican II, and sort of boils them down to their essence... then of COURSE we can easily see that they are not Catholic. (My note: Or at least in the way they are being used or implied, even if they might also be able to be twisted to fit tradition.) So he said when it comes to the ideas THEMSELVES, then yes... they are obviously wrong. BUT... (he continued in so many words to say)... while we can look at IDEAS and see them as black or white, when it comes to the concrete human being that the ideas are INSIDE of... NOW you have to consider that this person also has a heart and a will and so forth, and so there are other things you have to consider there, not just the ideas themselves. It's not black and white anymore, just as (he said) in every good person there will still be found some sin or bad, and in the worst of men, you can still find some good.

The example he used was, if you look at the ideas of some of the recent popes, you can see (again), YES, the ideas are clearly not Catholic! But the problem is, when it comes to the men themselves... many of the churchmen WANT to be in the Catholic Church. They MEAN to be inside of the Catholic Church. They believe they ARE inside of and even SERVING the Catholic Church. And so on the one hand, you have the clearly non-Catholic ideas, and on the other hand, you may have the best of Catholic intentions. And who can sort them out, but God?

He pointed out, when it comes to someone like Luther, the attitude was NOT that he was serving the Catholic Church or wanted to be inside of the Catholic Church. He knew he was departing from the Church and he MEANT to depart from it. If it comes to some of these men educated in modernism that seeped into the Catholic seminaries, these men sincerely believe they are IN the Church, and that these things are what the Church REALLY teaches, or that they are truly serving, NOT departing from the Church by holding these ideas. They think that they are in line with Catholic teaching.

And so the whole question of culpability is no longer black and white, like it was with somebody like Luther, who clearly meant to do something quite different. The will and intent DO matter.

We know (or should know) full well that only God knows our whole lives, what we know and are aware of, why we believe what we do, or what our intentions are in any given action or work, in spite of ALL appearances or ultimate effects of them... Only God can see these things.

So for common men to come along and say, because so-and-so holds clearly non-Catholic or anti-Catholic ideas, and because so-and-so is clearly doing a good deal of damage to the Church and the Faith, so-and-so is CLEARLY a heretic, and therefore out of the Church... It's simply outside of our ability to judge. We can judge the IDEAS, yes! But only God knows whether these men sincerely mean to destroy the Church or depart from it, or whether in their modernism-polluted minds, they sincerely believe they are actually serving the Church and mean to do so.

One may argue, but it is a known fact that there are men who really do mean to destroy the Church if they can. Yes, of course. But as someone once said, it isn't really necessary for a person to actually BE one of the bad guys to do the work of the bad guys. All that is necessary is that they end up THINKING like them, and even if their intentions were as good as gold, so long as the ideas are the same, the effects will be the same. So even if these men sincerely wanted to serve the Church by their modernism, it will have the same visible effects as the work of those who sincerely want to destroy the Church, whether or not these men share that wicked intention.

And if I am not mistaken, even Church law takes into account that a person's intentions in such a matter (of schism or heresy) DO matter!

I don't intend to stick around and argue the point, since I've said pretty much all I have to say here, but... I thought that this was a really clear statement of this issue that had long frustrated me in such discussions. This idea that each one of us can presume to judge these men (regardless of the immeasurable harm their ideas and actions may have done), when, unlike God, we cannot know what is in their minds and hearts and souls... I believe that is clearly wrong. Only God, or the Church in Her right mind could make such a distinction. A person CAN be sincerely yet gravely mistaken. Yet people seem bent beyond reason upon denying this in their anger about what evil has obviously befallen the Church because of the poisonous ideas regardless of intentions.

Obviously, no one in his right mind would say we should follow any man's ideas if he is in error. But we ought to leave up to God and the Church those things that they alone are permitted and have the right and authority to do. It's simply not our place to declare this person or that person inside or outside of the Church definitely. We do not have the knowledge or authority to make such a judgment, though we may think we know everything there is to know about them. It is still not our place to judge. Our place is to simply do what is right as we know it, not to absolve or condemn. We can and must mark the ideas as being right or wrong, but the souls are God's to judge, and the Church's to condemn or not.

The Church is staunchly and explicitly against revolution against authority. Therefore, I believe a level-headed Catholic would conclude that insofar as those men who are in positions of authority adhere to the right laws of God and the truth, we are bound therefore to follow them, and insofar as they deviate, we are bound therefore to disobey. Why some Catholics cannot make this distinction, I cannot guess, except that it must be so painful for some of them to watch what is going on outside of the limits of lawful authority, that they simply can no longer stand, in their human weakness, to admit they have any authority at all.

It may be just indignation that fuels such harsh judgments and extreme reactions, but... while the indignation may be just, the revolution is not necessary, because no one is bound to follow errors or obey sinful mandates anyway. To the truly pious Catholic who knows this, they will calmly follow their authority figures as long as they walk inside of God's law and their rightful authority, and they will just as calmly refuse to follow them when they step out of those limits.

If this is truly what the Church teaches on the subject of authority (that we are bound to follow it so long as, and inasmuch as it remains within the limits of God's law, and equally bound to ignore it when it doesn't), how can we believe otherwise, or think we have a right to do otherwise?

And so on the one hand, you have the clearly non-Catholic ideas, and on the other hand, you may have the best of Catholic intentions. And who can sort them out, but God?

Uhm, the Church can sort out who are heretics based on external-forum indicators.

We can judge the IDEAS, yes! But only God knows whether these men sincerely mean to destroy the Church or depart from it, or whether in their modernism-polluted minds, they sincerely believe they are actually serving the Church and mean to do so.

That "sincerity" has nothing to do with what heresy is.

Certainly THE CHURCH can and must determine heresy, and who are heretics, so there must be criteria other than internal-forum sincerity that can be used to judge heresy.

Unfortunately, this same kind of thinking underlies a lot of the Baptism of Desire stuff, that sincerity and good intentions somehow supply for faith.

As I've pointed out before, there are TWO logically distinct questions with regard to the V2 popes.

1) personal heresy
2) infallibility

I for one think that the personal heresy angle is weak
1) because few if any of the erroneous propositions held by the V2 popes are, strictly speaking, heresy
2) even with these erroneous propositions, a lot would depend on what they mean by them, since I can often find ways in which they CAN be reconciled with Catholic teaching (so this would require formal interrogation by a competent Church authority)
3) once the Church authority would find that the propositions are indeed heretical, this would be pointed out to them and they would be given an opportunity to recant

Without all this, you can't really pin them down for obstinate/formal heresy.

Now the infallibility question is the more problematic one.  I have a hard time seeing how the legitimate Catholic authority can, for instance, promulgate a rite of Mass hamrful to the Faith and which cannot be attended in good conscience.  Even there, though, one could gyrate around whether the New Mass is intrinsically harmful or harmful in the context of modern errors or harmful in the sense of being open to abuse, etc. etc.

And, while it's certainly not out of the question that an isolated error or two might creep into some papal pronouncement or docuмent, the complete pollution of the Church's magisterium would seem to cross a line whereby the indefectibility, infallibility, and holiness of the Church would be compromised and rendered almost meaningless.

Now, there is then the possibility that these errors were not freely promulgated by, for instance, Paul VI, as there's some evidence he may have been guilty of certain delicts over which he could have been blackmailed and controlled.

While I see no harm in the "give them the benefit of the doubt" position (based on the considerations above), I DO see harm in the at least implicit assertion that the Church's magisterium and universal discipline can become this thoroughly polluted and basically lead the entire Church into error.

Do we believe that the Bushes, Obamas, Tony Blairs, Gordon Browns, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, et alii of the world are consciously working toward the diabolic NWO, going by what they SAY and DO, or do we wait to see how it all comes out in the end, all the while presuming (naively, unto our own destruction) that it is quite possible they are just good-willed bunglers who have really messed up ideas?

We take them at their word, look at their actions, and call a spade a spade.

Why this sensible approach is considered "uncharitable" when dealing with men in cassocks, I do not know.  A wolf is a wolf.

Except for a few kool-aid-drinking Indult attendees, most traditional Catholics will admit that the Freemasons (and others) who masterminded Vatican II and the destruction of the Mass, priesthood, and Catholic Faith in general were certainly of bad will.

One doesn't follow Cranmer's scheme for undoing the Catholic Faith "by accident".

What some people hold is that there are innocent dupes involved as well, who progress the whole, while not being mindful (let alone masterminds) of the destruction they are helping to effect.

I've known people who think almost exactly like John Paul II and Benedict XVI from having imbibed it elsewhere and becoming enamored with it.  So not every person who thinks like that is a conscious co-conspirator against the Church.  Yes, there are Masonic/Illuminati fingerprints all over Vatican II and it's quite clear that "an enemy hath done this".  What's not so clear is the exact role of the V2 popes in all this.

I tend to think that they probably or even likely are conscious agents of destruction, but I can't prove that.

What some people hold is that there are innocent dupes involved as well, who progress the whole, while not being mindful (let alone masterminds) of the destruction they are helping to effect.

Surely there are innocent dupes. Their culpability or lack thereof should NOT be our first concern. If somebody is teaching heresies and grave errors to the catechism class they need to be stopped. It doesn't really matter if a child is taught heresy and error by a true heretic or an ignorant dupe.

"Both of these statements are basically where I stand. I don't think any sane person who has the grace and will to look at the truth of what is in, and has happened because of Vatican II and it's related "new religion," could in any way try to claim they are otherwise than definitely bad. "



When was the last time you visited Catholic Answers Forum?