2. Your wide-ranging complicity with heresy

FOR the simple faithful it remains incomprehensible that Your Holiness should, on the one hand, frequently and with every appearance of firmness, reiterate the Catholic Faith, and on the other, allow free rein to all the possible and imaginable heresies without ever taking firm steps against those who conceive and propagate these. They like to recall your Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of 1965, Sacerdotalis Coelibatus of 1967, your Profession of Faith and your courageous Encyclical Humanae Vitae, both of the same year 1968, for these echo the authentic Catholic Tradition. To these doctrinal acts of your Ordinary Magisterium, therefore, they subscribe – in their great majority – with all their faith. They have correspondingly resented bitterly the organised opposition and systematic criticism of these Acts of your Magisterium on the part of so many priests and bishops, indeed of entire national hierarchies. Such insubordination or affectation of ignorance is profoundly shocking to the best of your children, but they are no less shocked that you should tolerate it. The truly Catholic spirit fails to understand an attitude which, while affirming the truth, will not condemn error.

Similarly, the faithful are astounded at the increasing contradiction between the traditional teaching which, with only occasional exceptions, they hear expounded in your Wednesday Allocutions, and the flood of madness which is freely taught throughout the Church. They are amazed that the uproar created by bad theologians and self-styled moralists against your Encyclical Humanae Vitae should have put you off writing any further Encyclicals for these past five years, making it seem as though you had abandoned the struggle and left your sheep in the hands of the false shepherds...

Such weakness is something nobody can understand, though they may make excuses for you, on the grounds of the difficulty of your task, the hardness of the times we live in, the threats of schism... Such filial confidence and submissive patience on the part of the faithful would be a good thing if it did not lead to the creation of an artificial, misleading contrast between our modernist priests and bishops on the one hand, and Your Holiness on the other, whose teaching and acts continue to be regarded as uniformly holy and traditional. For such an attitude represents an injustice towards our bishops and priests, the majority of whom would have remained free of guilt if you yourself had kept them firmly in the straight path of orthodoxy. You yourself are the first and foremost cause of today's inexplicable toleration of every form of error at every level of the Church. You are of course not the only one responsible, but you bear a special and supreme responsibility because the others are, directly or indirectly, following your example or precept.

That is why we accuse you of seriously condoning all the heresies that are springing up in every sphere and in every part of the Church. Even those heresies which you do not share in any way, which fill you with horror, are receiving your indirect support through the mere fact that you are not prepared to bring any sanctions against them. It follows naturally that the worst heresy-mongers take advantage of your inertia to spread abroad their poison. You are guilty by your indifference, in the same manner that Pope Honorius merited the terrible sanction of an Anathema. But this is not all, for in many cases you have gone farther, showing some favour towards the teachers of error or pernicious novelties. You may have paid them a passing compliment, or rescued them from your own disciplinary courts, or even named them for some appointment, as though you felt a constant need to keep on their right side, to show your friendship for them... just as though you felt yourself in sympathy with them in your and their common cause of promoting the Conciliar Reformation and establishing a new Church.

I have already given the reasons underlying this inaction and lack of concern, by which you render yourself an accomplice. In the first place, you are anxious to be on good terms with all men, including even atheists and communists, and this desire for dialogue with the adversaries outside the Church leads you also to respect and honour their friends within. Thus, in your desire for reconciliation with the Protestants, you not only avoid any mention of the condemnations of the past but also any suppression, by way of new condemnation, of the protestantisation of the Church which is going on today. And so on and so forth. This tolerance towards anything and everything constitutes your Liberalism.

A second and more deep-seated reason is that you are genuinely convinced that the language of our dogma and canonical discipline requires a profound revision in the interests of dialogue with the world, that it must be adapted to present day ways of living and thinking. Because you believe this, you are in two minds at least when faced with truly revolutionary formulations. You wonder whether, even if today they seem too extreme, they may not represent the hallowed forms of tomorrow, a futuristic appearance of the Faith rather than its corruption. This attitude is a consequence of your Evolutionism.

Finally, the chief reason for your flirtation with every kind of heresy lies in the fact that there is no real link between your politico-religious Utopia on the one hand, and your religious Faith in the proper, dogmatic sense of the word, on the other: they occupy entirely separate pigeon-holes of your mind. I dare not think that you have a full realisation of this contradiction between the two, for in that case your guilt would indeed be beyond measure. But you are conscious of it to the extent that you experience a constant unease, a feeling of being drawn this way and that: while the Faith would seem in your eyes useless and uninspiring, you have not attempted to graft your Utopia formally on to your Credo. You teach the traditional Faith on Wednesdays and betray it on Sundays. But you are conscious of the solidarity and mutual sympathy between your own political Utopia and the prevalent dogmatic and moral heresies which nevertheless you cannot subscribe to. And so you tolerate them and even show a certain active sympathy towards them. This is where your Modernism comes in.


Why have you not condemned Teilhard ? The immense harm done by Teilhardism is common knowledge today. And, though the star of the evolutionary Jesuit may have paled considerably, this is not because of any general realisation of his errors, but rather because present day opinion has far outstripped these. Not only did you not condemn him, but at the very moment when everybody was expecting from you some reaction to the world-wide campaign being waged on his behalf by the Friends of Teilhard, you reacted, not with any clear-cut comment, favourable or unfavourable, but by praising him in a subtle manner, thus destroying the last bastions.

We heard that on 24th February 1966, in the course of a visit to the Pharmaceutical Laboratories, “ The Holy Father then made a reference to Teilhard, who had given an explanation of the universe and who... had seen in the sensory world evidence of an intelligent principle which could only be referred to as God. ” Man was learning how to engage in 'this vast dialogue with the universe and... was sending up a hymn to God, creator and father of all. ”

The few extracts from your remarks, which were reported in the press, were enough to illustrate the affinity between the vague Deism of Teilhard and your own way of thinking. His pantheistic Evolutionism provides an ideal setting for your own progressivist Utopianism, incompatible as it must necessarily be with your truly Catholic Faith. The convergence of all men and all religions towards a single aim of ideal perfection is also one that appeals to you.

You are aware that the weakness of his philosophy, the one which caused him to be censured by Rome, was his rejection of Original Sin, as entirely incompatible with the idea of continuous progress which forms its cornerstone. For you do believe in Original Sin: you recalled the doctrine in formal terms, in accordance with the teaching of the Council of Trent, at the Theological Symposium held on July 21, 1966; only, unfortunately, no one there took much notice of what you said. But the fact is that your whole theory of universal Peace and inevitable Progress of world civilisation represents a contradiction of that Faith which you affirmed then and is entirely in line with the heresy of Teilhard.

We can go even further. The central point of our religion is the Cross of Christ, by which we are redeemed: the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary, which is also the Sacrifice of the Mass. This mystery is totally alien to the cosmic pantheism of Teilhard. But – saving your respect – it would seem to be almost as alien to your own personal view of the world and of history ! Perhaps you would care to re-read your Address to the United Nations, your Discourse of December 7, 1965 to the Council, Ecclesiam Suam,Populorum Progressio, Octogesima Adveniens… The Cross of Christ has no place in these either, or receives at most some rhetorical allusion. For your philosophy too is one in which man advances through his own efforts. In order to condemn Teilhard you would have to define wherein his error lay. And in defining his error you would be condemning yourself also. And so, when you refuse to condemn him, and even praise him, though admitting that there is much that is “ fanciful ” in his philosophy, you are instinctively protecting also your own sayings, which include the same, unspecified, “ fanciful ” notions. And so, for the past ten years, Teilhardism has been corrupting the Church's Faith and Morals and shows no sign of yielding up the microphones of our parish churches, except to those who teach even worse heresies.

If I have been lying, then condemn the errors of Teilhard !


The whole shocking story of the Dutch Catechism, of its troubles with Rome, and of its diffusion throughout the world in spite of these, is too well known for me to remind you of it here. The affair is one of the most serious of those that have taken place under your Pontificate.

There are two separate, contradictory aspects to the story: the efforts to suppress it made by Rome on the one hand, and your own weakness on the other.

The first is common knowledge, and it does credit to Rome, its Curia and Cardinals. And you yourself, in your Credo, gave a point by point reply to all the heresies contained in this so-called Catechism. It was just then that I had been invited to the Holy Office for the instruction of my Process, and I can assure you that there was great joy there at the prospect of an imminent Defence of the True Faith by the Pope. Indeed I was discreetly assured that I could sign my recantation with full confidence in the Pope who was about to restore the Faith throughout the Church in a resounding and wonderful manner. That was in May 1968. So we know that all the pernicious errors of this Catechism had already been noted and listed, and pointed out to the authors. And the Pope had solemnly proclaimed his Catholic Faith, in clear contradiction to them.

The other side of the story is one calculated to plunge all good Catholics into deep distress: they are at a loss for a good word to say on your behalf. For it became clear that you were giving up the fight and admitting defeat by a handful of Modernist theologians who, in thus insulting the Curia and its worthy Cardinals had insulted also not only the Pope himself, but the whole Church and God ! You let this venomous book become disseminated throughout the Church without insisting on any of the corrections demanded by the Roman Commission, not daring to raise a little finger in reproach against any of those immediately responsible.

During this time I was making a detailed study of the work (a series of articles in the French CRC Nos. 20, 21, 31, 32, 34, 35) with the aim of defending souls against its deadly poison, but it was to be myself who was disowned by you, and not the authors. In conclusion of my study I wrote the following words: “ The very silence of the Supreme Authority of the Church represents collusion with heresies and strikes a deadly blow at the Faith. Those Church Authorities who, in past times, had thus kept silent in the face of schism and heresy were later declared to have been themselves guilty of heresy – such as the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, and Pope Honorius. The inviolable certainty of the Faith and the dignity of the Supreme Magisterium could be restored only be condemning those who had remained silent in the face of error. ”

But you did more than merely remain silent... For before long you were joining in the chorus of admiration for the new heresy. Italy had a new Catechism, based partly on the “ famous Dutch Catechism ” and partly upon that of Isolotto – that revolutionary parish in Florence about which you know well enough; and there was your voice showering praise upon this offspring of the most extreme forms of Modernism and Progressivism: “ It is a document inspired by the charity of pedagogic dialogue that witnesses to the desire and the art of speaking in a simple and persuasive manner, suited to the mentality of modern man. We shall do well to give it an important place and to make it the starting point of a great, harmonious, and untiring renewal of catechetics for the present generation. This requires that the Magisterium of the Church should present a functional character (?): we owe it our respect and confidence. ” (Papal Address to Italian Bishops' Conference, reported in La Croix, April 11, 1970)

My comment on this, admittedly polemical, was as follows: “ The Supreme Authority has yielded and abandoned the field to the Modernist heresy. Like a good sportsman, the Pope respects and congratulates his victorious opponent. How noble and generous that Rome should thus acclaim the Batavian heresy ! But what has happened to the Credo of yesteryear ? ” May God forgive me my virulent tone ! But I was filled with a most holy wrath on thinking of those thousands and thousands of souls now left to the mercy of these “ assassins of the Faith ” to which your friend Cardinal Daniélou makes frequent references, without, however, naming any names. I was thinking how through your “ good sportsmanship ” you were allowing the souls of your people to be perverted.

But your desire to please does not explain everything. I need only re-read what I wrote at the time in the CRC to understand just why you were able to accept the Dutch Catechism: “ In this Catechism, God does not appear as essentially different from, as other than, man and the world. He is referred to, admittedly as “ the Other ”, but only as representing in some way the mysterious essence of our being… never as a Transcendent Being, fully and sovereignly independent with regard to His creation. Instead, he appears as necessarily in agreement with man. Conflict or contradiction between God and man, or the possibility of a final break, seem excluded a priori. Sin matters only in so far as its visible consequences are concerned. Apart from these it becomes a matter of rhetoric. God is always on the side of man, concerned only for his happiness and fighting to win this for him. Such a relationship rules out any idea of just punishment and leaves room only for an unconditional love. God forgives anything and everything; He forgives all men and at all times, for He is full of love !

“ Such a system has no place for the Mystery of the Redemption... Religion merges into everyday life, without any discontinuity, bringing to it a “ spiritual supplement ”, the fulfilment of man's innermost aspirations. ”

Let me stop here. I could go on, repeating what I wrote then... for we have here the heterodoxy which corresponds to your heteropraxy. You merely act as though God's love were unconditional, whereas they say so in so many words. You act as though the “ religious sentiment ” were merely a spiritual supplement arising from man's conscience, while they actually tell us so. And so on and so forth.

You are just not able to condemn the Dutch Catechism, any more than Teilhard. You uphold their freedom of thought, because you also have need of it for your own fanciful ideas. And the new world of brotherhood which you seek to build is incompatible with any discussion of dogmatic questions. But the main reason is that – even if you dare not admit it – the humanistic Modernism of this book forms an excellent doctrinal basis for your own progressivist humanism. It is indeed a measure of the success of this perverted catechism that your own Utopian delusions no longer seem heretical to anybody...

If I have not spoken the truth, then condemn the Dutch Catechism !


While all these discussions were going on the Episcopates – those faceless and irresponsible collective entities – of France, Canada, Germany, the USA, of all parts of the world that is, launched their new Catechisms for children, all absolutely revolutionary. These books were intended only to serve as teaching aids to a system of live catechetical instruction based on pure immanentism, as I showed conclusively in my study on the French Fonds Commun Obligatoire. Let me just repeat some of the subheadings of that study: “ Illuminism replaces the Faith... The appeal to the illusion of vital religious experienceThe reading of the 'signs of the times' nurtures this illuminism ”. Believe me, Most Holy Father, when I wrote this, I was not thinking in any way of you, of your repeated appeals to religious experience, to the “ signs of the times ”, of your implied direct inspiration by the Spirit... but reading these words again, with yours, the closeness between the two shows itself forcefully. It represents also your philosophy, at least your personal feelings.

This study is contained in the CRC for April 1968 – which was the very time when I was summoned to Rome to account for my criticisms of the Pope and the Council. Perhaps they told you of this little episode ? In the course of the first session of the Instruction of my Process I laid in front of the Judges this Fonds Commun Obligatoire, and told them that this text, the blueprint for all the new catechetical texts which were shortly to appear, represented a systematic perversion of the Faith. They refused to take the book, protested at the digression and went on with my Process. But, between sessions, one of the consultors tried to set my mind at rest and very solemnly assured me that Rome had not allowed and would never allow the diffusion of a catechism tainted with heresy.

But the catechisms did appear. I devoted all my energy to their refutation, in writing, in the CRC, during the second half of 1968 and also by word of mouth in the course of a veritable crusade of lectures given all over France, together with Frs. Coache and Barbara, the Brothers of my Community and other occasional co-workers. The halls filled with people witnessed to the anguish of those Catholic families. Why was our effort not successful ? Because you stood in the way of it, Most Holy Father. You chose Cardinal Lefebvre, a member of the Holy Office and one of my judges, but also the one who, in his capacity of Chairman of the Gallican Episcopate, bore the greatest responsibility for this doctrinal corruption, to present me with an ultimatum to recant and keep quiet. And when I refused to regard one who had shown himself so false and unworthy as the authoritative representative of the Holy See, you applied to me your rough justice, and I was declared “ disqualified ”, which brought our crusade to an end.

I have thus good grounds for saying that this poisoning of generations of little baptised Catholics by these numerous new catechisms, all modernistic, progressivist, erotic and subversive, is your doing. You bear the supreme responsibility for the spiritual assassination of our children. Each one of these souls – and they will be counted in their millions – is a victim of your crime.

It will be no use your saying, at the Judgement Seat of God, that you did not know anything about it. Such excuses don't hold water, up there. And if you should at some time bring forward such an excuse before the Tribunal of Rome, then I myself will contest it. I know your bishops, our priests, our well-meaning catechists, well enough. If it had not been for your active support of that handful of poisoners – already known to and indeed shifted from their posts by Pius XII – then the good old Catechism would have gone on being taught, with its sound Catholic contents and teaching methods that are much better than those of the present works.

And please don't quote to me the “ Pastoral Catechetical Directory ” either, for that is but a mixture of truth and falsehood in equal parts. The only people who objected to it were the traditionalists, because they will not stand for any error being mixed in among the truth. If the New Catechetics is allowed to continue, it will mean an end to the Church. But clearly it will not be Your Holiness who puts a stop to it, for it is too closely entangled with your personal heresy – besides some three dozen others, all of them converging upon that Cult of Man which forms your own religion.

If I am telling lies, then why do you not condemn these perverse catechisms ?


You are aware, Most Holy Father, of the full extent of this aged Cardinal's loyalty to the person of the Pope as such. And that when, taunted for his defence of the Holy Office from the beginning of the First Session of Vatican II, he was ordered by yourself to keep quiet and let you do any defending of what was being attacked, he obeyed and said no more. He saw himself only as the armed guard on duty outside your stronghold, the treasure within which you were at liberty to change at will, even to replace by a pile of pebbles. Whatever you decide to place there, he will defend against the enemy from without. That this enemy could be his own master is for him inconceivable.

In accordance with his duty as guard, he wrote a Letter to the Bishops of the world on July 24, 1966, to alert them to ten serious errors or dangerous opinions which had already spread sufficiently to cause concern. The French Bishops' reply was evasive, while that of the Dutch was a systematic defence both of the “ errors ” against which the warning had been issued and of those who were spreading them. The text of this reply (which was made public in 1968) was, incidentally, prepared by one of the chief heresy mongers, the Rev. Schillebeeckx. But, fearing the worst and intent on taking advance precautions, he had the cheek to warn Rome not to have recourse to any condemnations – or else !

It was in defiance of the Church of Rome and your own Sovereign Authority that some of the most important points of the Faith had thus been publicly challenged: the Sources of Revelation, the unchanging character of dogmatic definitions, the Divinity of Christ, the physical Virginity of Mary, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of Penance, Original Sin, and several important moral and pastoral principles...

But you just stood by. They had thrown down their challenge, and to make a formal break would have meant admitting their defeat. And this was the Year of Faith ! I am quite sure, myself, that you do not share a single one of the errors denounced by the Holy Office. You even went so far as to express your beliefs in public: why then did you stop short of saying that they were binding upon the whole Church ? Instead, we heard solemn promises that you would never exercise constraint upon anyone. But are you not the Pope ? You behave like somebody who has been seized with doubt, but decides to retain his old beliefs, now as mere personal opinions. I should like to think that your faith is strong and firm and that it is vitiated only by your liberalism, being drowned bit by bit in your dreams about the Faith in Man, the Love of Man, the Cult of Man. But for all practical purposes it is the same as if you had lost the Faith. Indeed, it is even worse, because your personal opinion gives people a sense of false security with regard to your actions as Pope.

The fact remains that your Credo is everywhere trampled under foot. Anybody, anywhere, can spread what heresy he likes, however outrageous a denial of our dogmas or of our moral law. Whose fault is this ? Your own, Most Holy Father, for it was you who destroyed the vigilance of the Curia, who laid low “ the great Ottaviani ”, who has become the protector of all heresies, which it is your duty to banish from the Church, even at the cost of your life.

If I am wrong, then condemn the ten errors defended by the Dutch bishops !


This is a much more recent story, and one of which you have first-hand knowledge. We know it too, inside out, and the last word has only just been spoken. The Document emanating from the Congregation for the Clergy and relating to certain Acts of the Spanish Priests-Bishops' Assembly of September 1971 constitutes – if you will forgive my quoting what I wrote myself – “ the strongest doctrinal condemnation of post-Conciliar Modernism and Progressivism. It is a document which will remain as part of the continuing Tradition of the Catholic Magisterium, and which will take its place alongside the last indisputable Act of that Magisterium – the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII, dated August 15, 1950. ”

Perhaps we may continue by reading what I wrote then, when all the documents had been made public:

“ What does it matter that Cardinal Tarancon, the leader of Spanish Progressivism, was saved from the effects of this mortal blow by the intervention of Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, and warmly consoled by the Pope himself. They both assured him that they had had no knowledge of this document and that no special authority attached to it, but neither dared say to Cardinal Tarancon that he was right and that Cardinal Wright was wrong.

“ So the fact remains that it was Cardinal Wright who had written in accordance with the Faith. If the Pope and his Secretary of State choose to fraternise with Error, that is their business. A glimmer of Truth has nevertheless appeared to lighten the skies of Rome after a long period of darkness, and this is enough to hold out hope for Christendom. Rome has spoken. ”

Yes, but when Rome spoke out it was in spite of you. And after you are gone, she will speak out again !

I am not straying from the theme of this my Act of Accusation, Most Holy Father, if I repeat to you the Conclusions of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, as I wrote them down after quoting the relevant Document:

1. This is the most serious aspect of the present affair: Nobody has attempted to deny that the acts of this Spanish Assembly “ appear (in the words of the Document) to be unacceptable both from the doctrinal and from the pastoral point of view ”. This fact is all too evident. The Assembly itself was irregular in the extreme, as the Roman Document indicates... The intentional ambiguity that characterises the statements shows that it was the subversive and hypocritical mafia who had a majority in the Assembly. When Cardinal Wright rose up to protest, it was Rome herself, faithful to her divine mission, who rose up against this two-fold heresy of doctrinal Neomodernism and revolutionary Progressivism.

2. We are forced to admit that in the last resort it was through the intervention of Paul VI and his Secretary Of State that this mafia was finally saved, in a manner that is a scandal to the entire world. And it was saved because the brief it held was that of fidelity to Vatican II and to the Acts of the present Pontiff: “ Its various initiatives for the renewal of the Church undertaken in conformity with the directives of the Second Vatican Council and with the Pontifical Documents... ” This conformity, affirmed by the Supreme Authority, of all the errors, modernist and revolutionary, to the Council and to the Acts of the Pope – and in contradiction to the entire Tradition of the Roman Magisterium – serves to carry dissension into the very heart of the Church, of Rome, and of the Pope himself.

3. Certain of our readers will have noted the close agreement – going sometimes so far as the use of identical expressions – between the critical study of the Spanish Assembly by Cardinal Wright and the critical study of the Acts of Vatican II by the Catholic Counter-Reformation. The document issued by the Congregation for the Clergy merits to be retained as an Act of the Ordinary Roman Magisterium in preparation for the Third Vatican Council, which is to be the Council of Catholic Restoration.

The doctrinal conclusion is clear-cut. You have taken sides against the Catholic Faith, out of sympathy for and in complicity with the subversive side in Spain. The human conclusion is disastrous: You have just named Msgr. Romero de Lima, a member of the Spanish progressivist mafia, Secretary to the Congregation for the Clergy. We read that “ he is among the team bent on ‘ Conciliar Renewal ’ surrounding Cardinal Tarancon. It is known that an attempt had been made on the part of the Congregation for the Clergy to prevent the election of the latter to the chairmanship of the Spanish Bishops' Conference (the affair of the ‘ Document ’). Today it is a Spanish Bishop, a friend of the Cardinal, who will be in charge of the functions of the Congregation for the Clergy. ” (La Croix, March 22, 1973) We have a proverb which says that “ revenge is a dish which is eaten cold ”. Your friends cannot wait to have their revenge, and I feel great pity for the true servants of the Church who fall into your hands. But the Truth of the Lord shall remain for ever.


What is the point of giving more and more examples ? These and many equally well-established facts, known to all the Bishops, Superiors of Orders, Directors of Seminaries, Rectors of Catholic universities, are enough to show those who have any position of authority in the Church that, under Pope Paul VI, they must not condemn anybody or fight any error or indiscipline. There was to be “ no constraint, no prohibition ”. And so the flood of heresy and impiety began to rise suddenly and simultaneously the world over, until today it is hitting back at the Church, causing her to complain that the world has turned very wicked !

The truth is very different, and a small handful of agitators are laughing behind the backs of three thousand bishops and of Rome itself.

Do you remember CARDONNEL ? When he was asked, around May 1968, to provide some explanation of his incendiary writings, even his best friends began to draw away from him, realising he had gone too far. Had you condemned him then, it would have saved him. And there would have been no protests. He tells the story himself in his book: “ I espoused the Word. ” Instead, he produced his “ Profession of faith ” – with barely an attempt to disguise his heresy – and presented it to Cardinal Lefebvre, who is always the one chosen for this sort of task. And we read, in Cardonnel's own words: “ Thanks to Cardinal Lefebvre's good offices, the Pope sent me his congratulations and good wishes for the future. ”

Following his rehabilitation, he has gone from bad to worse, safe from any further interference. His latest effort is a long screed full of hatred against God the Father Himself, whom he likens to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, and then to “ a beast ”. You see where your encouragement of his sin and madness has led him ?

If I am wrong, why do you not condemn this abominable book ?

And what about SCHILLEBEECKX ? One fine day in October 1968, the news leaked out that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was going to examine his writings. It was his friend Karl Rahner, charged with his defence, who had told the press, in defiance of the confidentiality of the Holy Office. The maffia of “ Concilium ” protested violently against such an attack upon human rights, freedom of research, the autonomy of theologians... but they could hardly be said to have influenced general opinion, to have caused a public outcry.

Yet Rome withdrew… Were you frightened ? Most shameful of all, the Congregation denied having even opened any sort of doctrinal process against the Dutch theologian, adding the outrageous comment: “ and there is no particular reason why there should have been one. ” And: “ There has not been such a doctrinal process since 1800 at least ”, at the very moment when – admittedly as a result of my pressure – they were in the middle of my own ! Most of the statement is couched in such shameful, servile terms that the Osservatore Romano felt unable to print the rest. But the fact remains that the writings of Schillebeeckx contained enough to warrant a doctrinal process – and that would have served the greater good of the Church and helped to rid her of all heresies. How do you expect those who continue to fight for Truth not to lose heart when they see how ready Rome is to capitulate ?

What about HANS KUNG ? He and I were both summoned before the Holy Office at the same time. I went; he refused to go. And he continues as before to criticise the Church and her divine institutions, while he is photographed, smiling, at the Pope's side. He goes on with his “ theological updating ”, and tramples your Humanae Vitae under foot. In his latest book, Infallible ? An Enquiry, he sets about destroying the dogma solemnly proclaimed by the First Vatican Council. The Italian translation of the book has just been published in Rome itself. If you allow this, then we know that everything is permitted, even a direct assault on your own function.

We see now why the Church is full of rot, from her Head down. People don't know what to believe, or whether they are supposed to believe at all. Your friend Fr. SIX, who used to be perfectly reasonable until he was appointed to some Secretariat for Non-believers, now tells them it is natural and honest to have no beliefs, and that we have much to learn from atheists. I mention him among a hundred others because he is a disciple of yours and quotes you in support of this statement, and of his forecast that Christianity will largely have to give up its place to atheism. For, thanks to you and Vatican II, so he tells us, this has now been rehabilitated, and in this he is right.

Then there is Dom Bernard BESRET, one-time Abbot of Boquen la Thélème and its three monks, who teaches that Christ is God because He is wholly Man ! And HOURDIN, who told his hundreds of thousands of readers in a perfectly matter-of-fact way that Jesus was the “ son of the Virgin Mary and of Joseph the carpenter... ” (Christmas 1971 issue of La Vie Catholique). And Mr. CESBRON, the new Chairman of Catholic Aid, who refuses to refer to the Virgin Mary as Mother of God because this title – proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD – would make her the “ creator of the creator ” !! Then we have Rev. Xavier LEON-DUFOUR, who believes that the Body of Jesus must have disintegrated within the tomb in two days, because it could not be found there. “ Resurrection ” for him means something entirely other than the reanimation of the same body... And so on and so forth.

Time and again, we are told that the new ideas, the new “ theological research ” – in other words, every new form of corruption of the Faith – are vouched for by the Council. And the worst of it is that this is true ! The faithful are undergoing a continuous spiritual torture. Present day “ catechetics ” no longer recognises any distinction between body and soul, or personal survival after death. The existence of Hell is no longer taught, nor do priests today speak of the Bliss of Heaven.

You have indeed succeeded in involving your people in your quest for a political Utopia. Their faith in God has been replaced by faith in man, and they have forgotten all about seeking the Kingdom of God and everlasting life, in their concern with the building of the earthly city. They have deserted the churches because they are concerned only with physical well-being and pleasure. Under Pope Paul VI, Devotion has gone, leaving only Culture, and the Mass has become the sharing of the same bread in a friendly repast.

The main interest of our priests, and no less of our nuns, consecrated virgins but yesterday, is to find out more and more about sex. To learn the basic facts does not take long, and so they spend hours studying it as an art and a science, with its anomalies and unnatural perversions, together with the various methods of contraception and abortion. Under the Pontificate of Paul VI the Church, once admired by the world for her continence, now leads in the obsession with sex; her theologians are supporting the liberalisation of abortion.

UNDER POPE Paul VI, a phrase that reminds us of our Creed: SUB PONTIO PILATO...


When the Church of all time forbade all heresy and schism, was she or was she not acting rightly, and with justice and charity ? It was a supreme law that ensured the safeguarding of her Faith: that every error, every attack upon dogma, morals, the liturgy or the Sacraments, upon the institutions of the Church, was followed up and suppressed, without any exception. The Faith was upheld by Law – the law of the Church and the law of the Catholic State.

You have turned order into a chaos where the Pope himself, and equally the lowest clerk in a newspaper office, are broadcasting their own new and wild theories. And the wilder they are, the more noble and apostolic they are said to be. It is only those who defend the Faith who are treated with suspicion and contempt. If this goes on, the Church will go to her ruin.

I could bring my Liber to a conclusion here… There is enough written already to condemn you. For as you know, Most Holy Father, every true reform of the Church, in capite et in membris requires first that the Sovereign Pontiff should himself be above any suspicion in matters of Faith, and secondly, that he should not hesitate to strike at heresy wherever it is to be found, even at the highest levels of the Church.

Both these requirements affect you directly. For it is you yourself who are in the vanguard of all heresy today, it is you who spreads it or guarantees the indemnity of those who do so. How then can you still continue to be the Head of the Church – which is ever pure and above suspicion – of the Church which, with the help of Our Lady, shall crush underfoot all the heresies of the world ?