September 2003
 
Pastoral Letter: On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate 

Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

 We advance six more of Bishop de Castro Mayer's 80 True/False propositions from his pastoral letter, On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate (Jan. 6, 1963) to his diocese of Campos, Brazil. The letter is divided into seven sections: I. The Liturgy (1-13); II. The Structure of the Church (14-31); III. The Methods of the Apostolate (32-40); IV. The Spiritual Life (41-49); V. The New Morality (50-60); VI. Rationalism, Evolutionism, Laicism (61-65); VII. Relations Between Church and State (66-80).

Catechism of Opportune TRUTHS
 Opposed to Contemporary ERRORS

53                    TRUE The Church's moral code is immutable, and what was yesterday vanity or near occasion of scandal or sin is still so today and will be tomorrow. That is why the Church will never approve of modern dances, public or mixed swimming pools, co-ed sports, public women's games or sports, etc., and she will always praise those persons who refrain from make-up and from everything that betokens vanity and worldliness.	FALSE It is normal for traditional religious associations such as Marian Congregations, Pious Associations of Mary's Children, etc., to advise their members against the use of make-up, attending dances, mixed picnics, etc. On the contrary, Catholic Action, formed according to the latest moral positions of the Church, must authorize, promote, and encourage these attitudes which make its members fit into the world in which we live and thus capable of carrying out works of the apostolate.
Explanation: The refuted sentence would be logical if it admitted the supposition of a new moral code in the Church, freer and more convenient, which would be introduced by Catholic Action. On the contrary, it is only right and fitting that this organization, which has received so many honorable encouragements and blessings from the Sovereign Pontiffs, hold itself entirely in agreement with the practice of the most rigorous principles of Christian modesty. There is no other meaning that can be given to the various allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to the Young Women's Catholic Youth Organization.6 As for dances, in the encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei, Pope Pius XI said: "We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances...."7 Even earlier, Benedict XV deplored the indecency of women's clothing and the lack of modesty and reserve in dances. After deploring "the blindness of so many women" and "the indecency of their clothing," he adds, concerning the dances: "And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."8 As regards public girls' and women's sporting events, the Sacred Congregation of the Council published an instruction in the following terms: "Let fathers keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb."9 The Holy Father spoke in the same vein when speaking to doctors and physical education professors on November 8, 1952.10
54                    TRUE The human body was created by God and, as every being, is good in itself. But since original sin, it is disordered by concupiscence. For this reason it is necessary to cover the body to keep it from being an occasion of sin.	FALSE The wearing of low-cut garments, knit shirts, and other styles of clothing which leave the body exposed should not be forbidden, for the body is good in itself, and was created by God and should not be concealed.
Explanation: The refuted sentence derives from a fundamentally anti-Catholic naturalism.
55                        TRUE Christian obedience consists in respect for all orders emanating from legitimate superiors as long as they do not command sin. It is not right for subjects to disobey an order simply because they do not deem it prudent.	FALSE One must not blame persons who approach the rail to receive Communion wearing make-up, low-cut bodices or short sleeves, or without stockings. It would be uncharitable to refuse them the sacraments because they have acted without malice, and otherwise they might stop going to church altogether. Moreover, to see evil in such things is equivalent to blaming God Himself, the Creator of the human body.
Explanation: The human body is good in itself as is every creature of God. The reason man must not expose it comes from the unleashing of the instincts, a consequence of original sin, not from the human body as God created it. That is why the Church recommends modesty in dress. The sense of shame cause by the immodest display of the human body cannot be called malice, but modesty. For the notion of the difference between good and evil is not a defect, but, on the contrary, the foundation of all the virtues. Consequently, to reprimand persons who dress immodestly is to awaken in them the sense of virtue, not vice. That is why the Church's legislation obliges priests to refuse the sacraments to persons who present themselves immodestly.6 The fallacious sentence considers the problem as if humanity were not in the state of fallen nature. Moreover, it denies the existence of an objective good and evil. In our concrete case, evil would not be found in an objective fact, the immodesty of dress, nor in the transgression of the precept which forbids immoral dress, but rather in the subjective state of mind of the one who sees nudity as being immoral. A concrete application will show to what point such a view is opposed to the true mind of the Church. The saints have always distinguished themselves by their acuteness in perceiving and rejecting all that would oppose, ever so remotely, the angelic virtue. According to the erroneous sentence, that would be the quintessence of malice whereas the Church sees in it the quintessence of modesty. Regarding feminine vanity, see the precious recommendations of St. Paul and St. Peter, as well as those of Isaias.7
56                       TRUE It is illicit to put oneself in a proximate occasion of sin under the pretext of apostolate. Since the carnival festivities constitute a proximate occasion of sin, the faithful must abstain from them.	FALSE It is fitting that the members of Catholic Action participate in the carnival festivities for apostolic reasons. That is why spiritual retreats which separate the members of Catholic Action from the world should not take place during carnival days.
Explanation: Brazil's carnival is notorious in the whole world for its accompanying immoralities, and everything suggests that it is getting worse. Were the faithful to participate in these immoral amusements, this would constitute, not only a danger for their soul, but also a grave scandal for their neighbor. On the contrary, to isolate oneself in recollection and prayer during these three days edifies and is in itself an excellent apostolate. The erroneous proposition seems to ignore the existence of the proximate occasion of sin, at least for the one who pretends to do apostolic work. Regarding the loosening of morals, see the following proposition condemned by Innocent XI: " It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor. The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs."8
57                       TRUE It is licit to accept the alms of public sinners. But it is scandalous to admit them into the committees established to collect donations for pious works, because this would give them a prominent place in Christian society.	FALSE Divorced persons who remarry can be allowed to participate publicly in fundraising drives for spiritual and corporal works of mercy.
Explanation: The refuted sentence implicitly denies the moral unity of man, since it seems to distinguish within the same person two aspects entirely separate from each other: on the one hand, in domestic life, the blameworthy public sinner, and, on the other hand, in public or social life, the honorable politician, businessman, or "philanthropist." And the Church would be turning a blind eye to one aspect of his life while recommending the other. This way of considering man's behavior is erroneous, as Our commentary in proposition 50 shows.
58                      TRUE Although all honest acts accomplished with a right intention are meritorious before God, sɛҳuąƖ relations, in the present historical order of fallen nature, are in such a way tied to disordered concupiscence that they cannot constitute an object likely to awaken or elevate piety.	FALSE Since the sɛҳuąƖ union is an image of the relations of the intimate life of the Blessed Trinity, it is reasonable to use erotic themes to awaken piety.
Explanation: The sensually mystic literature is one of the plagues of our time. Pius XII gave repeated warnings on the matter. During the previous pontificate, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office took a special measure against such writings in its Instruction of May 3, 1927.9 One of the serious shortcomings of this literature is that it lends itself to the use of expressions that lead to pantheistic mysticism. Claiming to nourish piety with sensually mystic considerations runs counter to the Church's tradition, which has always striven to inculcate in all the faithful the spirit of purity, which prepares man for his future life where "they will neither marry nor be married."10 As an argument in favor of such literature, some have blasphemously cited the Canticle of Canticles. The Church, the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture, has always condemned the erotic interpretation of these poems. What is certain is that the phraseology does not allude to man's carnal life. However, because the loving union of the soul with God is described in a rather vivid way, its reading was allowed among the Jєωs only after the age of thirty. Such is the prudence which is demanded by this subject.
59                      TRUE In the formation of adolescents with a view to marriage, one must take into account the baneful consequences of original sin which make this subject especially dangerous at this age. That is why one must underline the importance of supernatural means, and always avoid giving this education an improper publicity contrary to the reserve demanded by such questions.	FALSE The formation of adolescents for marriage must be modern. It should occur in large groups, with a lively, realistic, lighthearted, and even amusing presentation. The arguments should be based on nature. It is necessary not to attack sentimentality, but rather to show sympathy towards it.
Explanation: In his allocution to fathers of families of Sept. 18, 1951, Pius XII condemns the way in which many Catholic writers treat this question without the discretion it requires, and he recommends the same precautions prescribed by Pius XI in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri.11 It has been completed by the reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office regarding sex education and initiation. We judge it useful to transcribe here these recommendations: In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth, promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.12 After giving this advice to indicate how sɛҳuąƖ education must be conducted, the Sacred Congregation censured those books which promote the new method of education, including those written by Catholics. The fact that this determination of the Holy See has been forgotten, as it had been done by the Jansenists, can be seen by the singularly energetic way in which Pius XII refers to those Catholic authors in the aforesaid allocution.
60                      TRUE As regards the choice of a state of life, the educator's role is: 1) to instruct and help the students so as to enable them to make a choice in conformity with God's will; 2) to keep the ambiance at the school from impeding vocations which require greater generosity, like the priesthood and the religious life. Consequently, one must energetically combat romantic involvements that are premature or not aimed at marriage, because this is pure sensuality, contrary to both the priestly and the religious vocations and to Christian preparation for marriage.	FALSE By a design of Divine Providence, most people are destined to live in the married state. School girls who flirt are just following their natural course and should not be prevented from doing so.
Explanation: Although as a rule men lean towards the married state, it is necessary to consider the personal vocation of each student. The inexact sentence seems to consider the school atmosphere as destined to prepare all students for marriage, without taking into consideration the special vocation to the priesthood or the religious life. Moreover, it is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between the flirting which aims at a proximate marriage and that which is done out of simple carnal pleasure. It does not distinguish either between precocious flirting and that which is done at the appropriate age. Such an ambiguity is especially dangerous since the word "flirting" admits varied interpretations. Finally, the refuted sentence ignores original sin by pretending that all that is natural is good in itself. Such a proposition can be admitted only if one denies original sin. Because of all its ambiguities and falsities, the sentence refuted is a stimulant to sensuality and to lack of discipline in the school.

 

---

1. A.A.S. (1943), 35, 142; (1941), 33, 186; (1940), 32, 414.
2. A.A.S., 14, 678-79.
3. Encyclical Sacra Propediem, Jan. 6, 1921, A.A.S. (1921), 13, 39.
4. S.C. of the Council, Jan. 12, 1930, adv. 9, A.A.S. 22, 26-27.
5. A.A.S., Nov. 14, 1952.
6. S. Congregation of the Council, Jan. 12, 1930, adv. 9, A.A.S., 22, 26-27.
7. I Tim. 2:9; Pet. 3:5; Is. 3:16-24.
8. Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679. Denzinger, 1213, 1212.
9. A.A.S., 19, 186.
10. Mt. 22:30.
11. A.A.S., 22,49.
12. March 21, 1931. A.A.S., 23, 118.
 

June 2003 
 
Pastoral Letter: On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate

 
 Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
 

We advance seven more of Bishop de Castro Mayer's 80 True/False propositions from his pastoral letter, On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate (Jan. 6, 1963) to his diocese of Campos, Brazil. The letter is divided into seven sections: I. The Liturgy (1 13), II. The Structure of the Church (14-31); III. The Methods of the Apostolate (32-40); IV. The Spiritual Life (41-49); V. The New Morality (50-60); VI. Rationalism, Evolutionism, Laicism (61-65); VII. Relations Between Church and State (66-80).

Catechism of Opportune TRUTHS
 Opposed to Contemporary ERRORS

32                     TRUE The union of charity is the natural fruit of union in truth. Therefore it is of paramount importance to uphold the integrity of the Faith, without which no one can please God (Heb. 11:6).	FALSE Keeping souls united in charity is more important than keeping them united in truth.
Explanation: Admitting something more fundamental than the Faith necessarily leads to the conclusion that difference of religion is secondary, and that all inter-denominational activity is justified. Nevertheless, in reality, union in the Faith is so capital that we must recognize it as the dominant and indispensable value in our relations, not only with persons outside the Church, but also with her own children. To these we owe a special duty of charity. But should they use their condition as Catholics to spread error within the Church, then they would have to be the object of a vigorous opposition on our part. It is superfluous to add that, even in the heat of battle, charity must be preserved. Moreover, if the refuted sentence were granted, then all the struggles, some even centuries old, that the Church has had to sustain in order to preserve the integrity of the Faith, would be inexplicable. When you think that these combats involved persecutions, martyrdom, and the rending of the Mystical Body of Christ, then you can understand the capital importance which our Lord Jesus Christ attached to the integrity of the sacred deposit He entrusted to His Church.
33                     TRUE God has given to all the grace of recognizing the true and the good in such wise that errors committed in good faith, in their regard, are accidental and abnormal. Real Christian meekness, which implies no condescension in faith and morals, is even more effective and preferable in dealing with heretics and sinners. But when obstinacy is opposed to the gentle, persuasive action of charity, and when insolence gives cause for scandal to the faithful, then the use of energetic, combative methods is in order.	FALSE Heretics and sinners, often well-intentioned persons but mistaken in their appreciation of truth and goodness, must never be rebuked, at least directly, for their ideas and morals. Such a way of proceeding would necessarily alienate them.
Explanation: The refuted sentence seems simplistic and one-sided. Certainly, there are heretics, unbelievers, and sinners who are susceptible of being drawn by Christian meekness. It would obviously be an error to utilize an inappropriate harshness in relations with them. Nevertheless, there are also (and at certain eras they are unfortunately very numerous) heretics or sinners who are touched only by the energetic condemnation of their error and the salutary fear of their moral state. Such was the case of the prophet Nathan in dealing with David. On this subject, it is equally necessary to consider the diversity of temperaments. To convert the Apostle to the Gentiles, Providence, full of love, deemed it necessary to hurl him to the ground. Moreover, the choice of apostolic methods must not take into consideration the desires of the heretic or the sinner only, but also and foremost the salvation and edification of those who live in God's grace. When a heretic or sinner, instead of keeping humbly in obscurity, prides himself on his error and even propagates it by word and deed, it is often indispensable to constrain him by force. The Sacred Scriptures are full of examples in support of this doctrine; as, for instance, Jesus Christ with the Scribes and Pharisees, St. Peter with Ananias and Saphira, St. Paul with the incestuous Corinthian.
34                        TRUE "Hate error, love those who err," St. Augustine says. Therefore, one must attack error or sin by diffusing Catholic doctrine, by fighting false doctrines, and by warning the faithful against those who err or sin. So doing, no want of charity is shown, for correcting those who err and preventing the diffusion of error is a work of mercy.	FALSE "Hate error, love those who err," St. Augustine says. Therefore, only errors and sins should be attacked, never those who err or sin.
Explanation: The refuted sentence seems to suppose that any chastisement of those who err is an act of hostility towards them. The Church teaches, on the contrary, that in itself, it is a work of mercy. Such would not be the case if the treatment were dictated by hatred, envy, or ill-will, or if it were excessive or inopportune. The entire history of the Church, from its beginnings and even before its foundation, from the period of preparation up to the time of its most recent Doctors (for example, St. Francis de Sales), is full of examples of inveighing against sinners and heretics. Let us recall St. John the Baptist's "genimina viperarum against the Pharisees, and Jesus Christ's "whited sepulcres" and "hypocrites" against the same group of people, etc.
35                       TRUE The Church's doctrine and morals are perfect and apt to awaken men's admiration, either by their arduous aspect or by their consoling principles. Moreover, no man lacks the interior help of grace. In certain cases, it is certainly more opportune to stress the truths and precepts that are more easily acceptable. But this is only in exceptional situations. Normally, it is necessary to insist on all the points of Catholic doctrine.	FALSE In relations with unbelievers and sinners, it is preferable to pass over the truths of Catholic doctrine on which they do not agree and the austerity of the moral precepts they transgress, and to emphasize, principally, the truths they profess and the attractiveness of the evangelical precepts. It is by staying on common ground that Catholics succeed in winning over unbelievers and sinners and converting them.
Explanation: The refuted proposition sins by naturalism because it fails to take into account the working of divine grace, which renders the cross of Christ lovable. It was by preaching Jesus Christ crucified that the Apostles conquered the world, and not by employing the common ground strategy. This is the doctrine of St. Pius X in the encyclical Jucunda Sane, published on the occasion of the centenary of St. Gregory the Great. The Pope praised the saint especially because he despised the counsels of the prudence of the flesh with a view to presenting himself with the austerity of a preacher of Christ crucified, as had the Apostles, in a brilliant, civilized, and cultivated Rome where everything seemed to doom to failure a preacher coming in the name of a man condemned to death on a cross. Read as well Quesnel's propositions 93 and 94 (Dz. 1443-1444) condemned by Innocent XL They praise meekness and charity at the expense of firmness in defense of the Faith.
36                       TRUE Just and opportune polemics is one of the means of encouraging charity by contributing to unite minds in truth. Not to engage in polemics can, in certain cases, constitute what might be called "heresy" against charity.	FALSE Polemics between Catholics or between Catholics and non-Catholics, which necessarily sacrifices charity, is always bad. Those who engage in polemics, if they are not heretics as regards truth, are so as regards charity.
Explanation: The misleading sentence supposes that divergences in the order of dogma should be left aside, but it is divergences on points of doctrine that occasion polemics. This mental attitude, which is characteristic of "irenicists," can lead to a theoretical inter-denominationalism with its baneful repercussions in the practical order since it naturally leads to religious indifferentism. It is implicitly condemned in the proscription of Quesnel's proposition 94, as we saw above, because this proposition attacks the firmness of the Church, and it concerns, as history shows, firmness in the faith, since the Jansenists taxed the Church with being exaggerated in her requirements. Were the refuted sentence true, the fight against the Church's external enemies and especially her internal enemies who, disguised in sheep's clothing, seek to decimate the flock, would prove impossible. St. Pius X, in a letter to His Eminence Cardinal Ferrari, Archbishop of Milan, shows how harmful to the Church such a line of conduct can be: ...those who take up in their writings all the errors of modernism, those who simulate an exterior submission in order to remain in the sheepfold so as to propagate their errors more surely, those who pursue their baneful undertaking by means of secret lectures and meetings, those who, in a word, betray the Church by pretending to be her friends....Who cannot see what a sorry impression is made and what scandal is given to souls by considering as Catholics these wretches whom, in order to obey the Apostle St. John, we should refuse even to greet.1
37                       TRUE Intransigence is to virtue what the instinct of self-preservation is to life. A virtue without intransigence or which hates intransigence does not exist or else merely seems to. A faith without intransigence is either dead or superficial, because it has lost its spirit. Faith being the basis of the supernatural life, tolerance in matters of faith is the starting point for all the evils, notably heresy.	FALSE It is necessary to employ very great energy in reducing those who are intransigent in defending Catholic doctrine. There is no error more pernicious than intransigence regarding truth.
Explanation: St. Pius X pointed out as one of the characteristics of the Modernists an extreme tolerance towards the Church's enemies, and a bitter intolerance against those who energetically defend orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, this attitude is flagrantly incoherent because those who make a point of tolerating all opinions should logically tolerate those who uphold the rights of intransigence. But contradiction is the hallmark of all heresiarchs. The most varied sects unite with great cordiality and close their eyes to the matters that separate them every time there is occasion to fight the Church's intransigence in matters of Faith. In this attitude we find a criterion for appreciating the singular importance that intolerance in doctrinal matters has for the life of the Church. It is evident that excesses in regard to intransigence, by the very fact of being excesses, must be repressed, because every excess is an evil. But we must never forget the wise norms dictated by the Holy See concerning the manner of correcting the excesses of the courageous Catholic polemicists engaged in fighting against error. Writing to Cardinal Ferrari, Archbishop of Milan, about the newspaper the Awakening, which had sounded the alarm at the modernist infiltration in his diocese, the eminent Cardinal de Lai, Secretary of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, said: Quote All these facts explain the fear that certain good Catholics feel concerning their dear diocese, and they raise their voices in a call to arms. Perhaps they exaggerate. But, when the battle's raging, who could reasonably reproach the defenders when they fail to measure their blows with mechanical precision? This was the reply St. Jerome made to those who reproached him his ardor, often impetuous and harsh, in fighting against the heretics and miscreants of his time. On this subject, I shall say as much to Your Eminence as regards the attack of the Awakening. That there are evils there (at Milan) in line with the reported facts, none can deny. Yet, the fact that a few have raised their voices cannot be called unjust. Did they overstep the measure? Then it is right to regret it; but it is not absolutely bad that, sounding the alarm, they slightly exaggerated the danger. It is always better to exaggerate a little so as to warn against evil than to be silent and let it grow....In the last analysis, in the midst of the great license of the bad press, with the dangers that encompass the Church, it does not seem opportune to excessively accuse the defenders who are fighting the evils, thereby discouraging them.2 The holy Pope himself, writing on Aug. 12, 1909, to Msgr. Mistrangelo, Archbishop of Florence, on the subject of a modification ordered in the direction of the newspaper Unitd Cattolica, declared: Quote It is all well and good when it comes to respecting persons, but I would not want the result to be that, for the sake of peace, they would compromise, and that, to avoid bother, they would fall short, however little, of the true mission of Catholic Unity, which is to keep an eye on principles and to be the forward sentinel who sounds the alarm (even if this must only be in the manner of the Capitoline geese) and awakens the sleeping. For then Unitd Cattolica would no longer have a reason for existing...3
38                       TRUE Collaboration by the faithful with non-Catholics in order to attain common objectives is only allowed by the Church on a temporary basis. It would be much more serious for Catholics to be associated on a permanent basis in a specific organization with persons of other religions. The Church regards these associations with apprehension and forbids membership in them. When, in an exceptional circuмstance in order to avoid greater evils, she considers herself obliged to tolerate collaborations of this nature, she does so with dread and regret.	FALSE Catholics are to be praised who associate with persons affiliated with other religions, such as Protestants, schismatics, etc., in order to assure the defense of values common to all the Christian confessions.
Explanation: The danger these collaborations pose can be aggravated by the very nature of the end they propose: thus, a collaboration having an exclusively technical-professional goal is less serious than a collaboration for cultural ends. The Christian Youth Association, for example, is prohibited by the Church because, joining Christians from divers sects, it tries to associate Catholics in an educational endeavor that seeks to foster "Christian" morality, that is to say, a vague religiosity that will suit heretics and Catholics both. One of the reasons why St. Pius X condemned Le Sillon, the democratic, cultural, and social movement of Marc Sangnier, was its avowed interdenominationalism. Among other things, the holy Sovereign Pontiff wrote: Quote "But all of us, Catholics, Protestants and Free-Thinkers will have at heart to arm young people, not in view of the fratricidal struggle, but in view of a disinterested emulation in the field of social and civic virtues" (Marc Sangnier speaking in Paris, May 1910).... These declarations and this new organization of the Sillonist action call for very serious remarks. Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character, for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, an historical fact....What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others, nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from asserting his skepticism.4

 1. Disquisitio historique au procés de béatification et de canonisation du serviteur de Dieu Pie X, p. 144, in La Pensée Catholique, no. 23, p.80.
2. Disquisitio, pp. 156-7.
3. Ibid., p. 107.
4. Encyclical letter Our Apostolic Mandate, §§35-37.

Pastoral Letter: On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate

 
 Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
 bless the seminarians at the Society's seminary in La Reja, Argentina.
 

For the first time in English, The Angelus is serializing On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate, the monumental pastoral letter of January 6, 1953, written by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer which identified modernist creep, crystallized the Church's teaching for his diocese (Campos, Brazil), and thereby saved clergy and faithful from the seduction of Vatican II.
Continuing what was begun in the December 2002 issue, we advance five more of Bishop de Castro Mayer's eighty True/False propositions which are classed into seven sections in the original letter: I. The Liturgy (1-13); II. The Structure of the Church (14-31); III. The Methods of the Apostolate (32-40); IV. The Spiritual Life (41-49), V. The New Morality (50-60); VI. Rationalism, Evolutionism, Laicism (61-65); VII. Relations Between Church and State (66-80).

 Catechism of Opportune TRUTHS
 Opposed to Contemporary ERRORS

61                    TRUE Philosophy and the sciences have a proper object and a method distinct from theology. Nevertheless, since divine Revelation is infallible whereas human reason is fallible, scientists and philosophers must take the teachings of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of Revelation, for a criterion of certitude and as a guide, at least negatively, in their studies and research.	FALSE Philosophy and the sciences have an object and a method independent from sacred theology. Thus the believer in his philosophical and scientific research, does not have to take into consideration supernatural Revelation.
Explanation: Reason and Faith cannot collide. When an incompatibility seems to exist, it arises from the fact that the teaching of the faith has not been formulated with objective precision, or else, more likely, errors of reason have been made in the research. Moreover, faced with the Church's infallible teaching, the philosopher or scientist must always reject those conclusions which contradict these teachings. In his encyclical Humani Generis (§35), the Holy Father restates the traditional doctrine in these terms: Quote ...caution must be used when there is some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.1
62                    TRUE Until the end of time, men will be disposed to sin against every virtue and so equally against faith. Heresy does not constitute a dishonor for the Church, but only for the heretics. For while sacred theology can reach a certain perfection of expression in the explanation of revealed truths, and achieve genuine progress for the Church, this fact does not prevent there being persons who revolt against the Church's teaching authority.	FALSE It is insulting to the Church to admit, in our day, the existence of occult heresies or the danger of declared heresy. For, in the current state of progress, the Church has definitively overcome these dangers. Explanation: Refer to the "Pastoral Letter" [published in The Angelus, Dec. 2002.–Ed.].
Explanation: Refer to the "Pastoral Letter" [published in The Angelus, Dec. 2002.–Ed.].
63                        TRUE The goal of writing history is to establish an objective reconstruction of the past, and the historical method is destined to preserve that reconstruction from being deformed by the author's subjectivism.	FALSE History does not provide a knowledge of events in their objective reality, but only an image of them fashioned subjectively by the historian.
Explanation: The refuted sentence destroys the very foundation of the Catholic religion, which is based on the historical fact of Revelation known and transmitted in its objective reality. It was this same principle that the modernists used to propagate their errors, which in the final analysis reduced religion to a mere subjectivism.
64                      TRUE During the course of the last centuries, the spirit of Revolution has produced constant transformations with the purpose of overthrowing legitimate powers; of reducing to naught authority, be it political, social or economic; of leveling every legitimate inequality. The Church opposes and will continue to oppose this historical process. In the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, she combated anarchic liberalism. In this second half of the 20th century, she is disposed to fight "with very great energy" socialism, which imperils "the dignity of man and the eternal salvation of souls."3 That is why she edifies the world in the functioning of her hierarchical structure, which is of divine institution and, consequently, immutable. Also, that is why, in her liturgy, discipline, etc., she manifests a spirit of hierarchy in opposition to the spirit of revolution.	FALSE During the course of the last few centuries, civil society has evolved towards a greater simplicity and equality of morals and of political, social, and economic organization, in accordance with the principles of the Gospel. It would be fitting for the Church in turn, following this evolution, to become more egalitarian in her organization and simpler and more democratic in her discipline, liturgy and morals, and in the exterior deportment of her hierarchy.
Explanation: The refuted sentence accepts as legitimate the different revolutions whose effect was to level social hierarchies: Protestantism, the French Revolution, Communism, which, moved by the spirit of pride and sensuality, have been working to transform the world.3 To wish to conform the Church to a civil society shaped according to such a spirit is to demand the Catholic religion to capitulate. What is more, it is to forget that the Church's organization, in her divinely instituted elements, is immutable.
65                       TRUE The Catholic must be a man of his time, and, as such, must sincerely accept the changes and progress by which it differs from preceding centuries, insofar as these changes and this progress are in conformity with the spirit and the doctrine of the Church and lead to a truly Christian civilization.	FALSE The Catholic must be a man of his time and, as such, must sincerely accept, without reservation, the changes and progress by which our century differs from preceding centuries.
Explanation: The refuted sentence is unilateral. At each epoch of history, Catholics have a twofold duty: adaptation and resistance. The faulty phrase considers only adaptation. At first glance, this double duty is easy to understand. There has never been an age when all the laws, institutions, mores, and ways of seeing and understanding have merited only praise or blame. In the best of times as well as in the worst, there have been, on the contrary, both good things and bad. Wherever good is encountered, our attitude must be that which the Apostle counseled: "Test all things and take what is good." When confronted by evil we must obey this other advice of the Apostle: "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). Still, it behooves us to apply intelligently both recommendations. It is excellent to analyze everything and to keep only what is good. But we must also keep in mind that a thing is good not only if it conforms to the letter, but also to the spirit. Something is not good that favors both virtue and vice, but rather that which always and uniquely favors virtue. Thus if a custom, irreproachable in itself, creates an atmosphere favorable to evil, prudence demands that it be rejected. When a law, even favorable to the one true Church, at the same time favors heresy and incredulity, then it deserves to be combated. Resistance to the world must also be done with prudence, that is to say resistance must neither fall short of nor exceed the mark. As an example of unintelligent resistance to the world, we have the exaggerated attachment to superficial things, such as the return to "the altar in form of a table." This is a resistance that goes far beyond the mark, which is the defense of the Faith. On the other hand, resistance to the world must not fall short of its object. It is not enough to assent to abstract doctrine with no concrete application in daily circuмstances or which is just a matter of platitudes. It is necessary to teach, to know the events of the day in all their living, pulsating reality; it is necessary to organize action so as to be able to intervene significantly in the course of events. Finally, it is necessary to remember that the physiognomy of an age can not be divided into good and bad aspects that remain independent of each other. Every age has its particular mentality which is the result of both the good and the bad aspects. If the former are preponderant and the latter are secondary, then the epoch deserves to be called good. If, on the contrary, bad aspects dominate and the good exists only in a few details, then it deserves to be called bad. In problems of the relations between Catholics and their time, it is not enough for them to take a stand before the fragmented aspects of the world in which they live. They must consider the physiognomy of their time in its underlying moral unity and take a stand in relation to it. It is especially in light of this principle that the refuted sentence must be rejected. For it does not speak of accepting one or the other aspect of the contemporary world, but of its global totality. In the Syllabus, Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition: "80. The Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism, and the modern civilization."4 Obviously, the proposition would be incomprehensible if it did not suppose that the progress of modern civilization at the time of Pope Pius IX, while presenting some good aspects, was, on the whole, corroded by the errors of the age and especially by liberalism, which is particularly mentioned in Proposition 80. And, indeed, this proposition was taken from the allocution Iam Dudum of March 18, 1861, in which the Sovereign Pontiff depicts the impressive struggle between two irreconcilable forces, one fighting for the so-called modern civilization, "a system invented to weaken and, undoubtedly, to finish off the Church of Christ" and the other defending the eternal principles of Christian civilization. If by modern civilization is meant what Pope Pius IX understood it to mean, that is to say a pagan civilization in the process of being erected on the ruins of ancient Christian civilization, the condemnation of Proposition 80 is entirely understandable. What is the overall aspect of the age in which we are living? Let us consult the popes. Pope Pius XI says: ...one convulsion following upon another has marked the passage of the centuries, down to the revolution of our own days. This modern revolution, it may be said, has actually broken out or threatens everywhere, and it exceeds in amplitude and violence anything yet experienced in the preceding persecutions launched against the Church. Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back into a barbarism worse than that which oppressed the greater part of the world at the coming of the Redeemer.5 Pope Pius XII in his discourse of October 12, 1952, to the Union of Catholic Laymen of Italian Catholic Action, is no less explicit: Today it is not only the Eternal City and Italy which are threatened, but the whole world! Oh! Do not ask us who the "enemy" is, nor under what guise he presents himself. He is to be encountered everywhere and in our midst: he knows how to be both violent and cunning. Over the course of the last centuries he has tried to bring about the intellectual, moral, and social disaggregation of the unity that existed in the mysterious organism of Christ. He wanted nature without grace, reason without faith, liberty without authority, and, sometimes, authority without liberty. It is an "enemy" which each time becomes bolder, with an unscrupulousness that still surprises. First it is Christ, yes; the Church, no! Then: God, yes; Christ, no! Finally, the impious cry: God is dead, and even, God never existed. And behold now the attempt to build the structure of the world on bases which We do not hesitate to point out as the chief cause of the danger that weighs on humanity: an economy without God; law without God, politics without God. The "enemy" has striven to bring it about that Christ has become a stranger in the universities, in the schools, in the family, in the administration of justice and in legislatures, in the assemblies of nations where are decided peace and war. Currently, he is corrupting the world by a press and entertainments which sweep away all modesty in boys and girls and destroy love between spouses; he inculcates a nationalism that leads to war. We conclude: 1) the Catholic of our epoch must distinguish carefully between good and evil, upholding and favoring all that is good, and intrepidly opposing all that is evil, and especially utilizing advances in technology to advance the apostolate. 2) He must take a stand against the erroneous principles which exert a preponderant influence in every domain of modern life. Such must be the focus of his action.

 

---

1. A.A.S., 42, p.575.
2. Pope Pius XII, Radio Message to the Catholics of Vienna. Cf. Catolicismo, no.24, Dec. 1952.
3. Pope Leo XIII, "Parvenu à la 25e année."
4. Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1780.
5. Divini Redemptoris, §2, March 19, 1937.