Assisi

A District Superior of the Fraternity of Saint Peter
defends the scandal of Assisi
Father Dominique De Vriendt

Father Xavier Garban, the District Superior for France of the Fraternity of Saint Peter published a defense of the of prayer’s meeting in Assisi which happened last January. One recall that this so-called traditional Fraternity was founded by Pope John-Paul II in 1988 in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, as a “gracious alternative” to the Society of St Pius X which the Pope falsely pretended to be schismatic.

Father Garban starts his defense with “some keys to understand”:

“An act, like a text, says Father Garban, cannot be considered isolated but must be considered in the light of the whole work or teaching ... This is the rule which governs the interpretation of Holy Scripture. The same applies equally to the Church when she teaches or acts”.

Look out here already! This principle applies, it is true, without reservation to Holy Scripture, because there cannot be any real contradiction between one phrase of it and another. No part of Holy Scripture, being inspired by the Holy Ghost, can contain error.

The same principle applies also, without reservation, and for the same reason, to all the infallible teaching of the Church. But beyond this domain, contradiction is always possible. The private or non-infallible teaching of the Pope of today is not necessarily in conformity with the infallible teaching of all times or with the private teaching of another pope, or of this same pope on another occasion: there can be contradiction.

“Thus Assisi, Father Garban continues, cannot be ‘read’ without reference, among other things, to the recent declaration ‘Dominus Jesus’ which reminded us of the ardent obligation of evangelization and the mission vis-à-vis non-Christians at the same time as inter-religious dialogue”.

Let us make here a twofold comment:

1.  Supposed (dato non concesso – not conceding, but for the sake of the argument) that the declaration ‘Dominus Jesus’ is perfectly orthodox, would it be enough to thwart the accusation of scandal from the Assisi prayer meeting, this accusation of scandal being the principal one made by the Traditionalist against Assisi? Supposing again (dato non concesso) that the discourses which the Pope held on that occasion do not contain of themselves any heresy or affirmation contrary to the perenial teaching of the Church, can we conclude from this that the event itself of Assisi, with all the acts and discourses, has not been a cause of scandal, either for the Catholics, or for the non-Catholics? It is unfortunately obvious that this is not the case: we will manifest here below that there has been a serious scandal.

2.  The declaration ‘Dominus Jesus’ recalls, it is true, “the obligation of evangelization and of the mission vis-à-vis non-Christians”. Nevertheless it contains also unfortunately statements which are new in regard of the traditional doctrine, and these new statements dilute and even undermine the strenght and efficacity of them (see Father Laisney’s article in the next issue of Communicantes). Thus the declaration ‘Dominus Jesus’ does not sufficiently caution and oppose all the errors, especially those at the root of false ecumenism.

Father Garban continues his defense of Assisi:

“Nothing that the Church says or does should be considered without reference to her ancient Tradition, still living, which, unless proven otherwise against all probability, nourishes and illumines her actions as it does her teachings”.

But, precisely, is it the true Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, who acts in Assisi? That is the question, which Father Garban presupposes to be solved without even discussing it. Was the Pope present at Assisi as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, exercising his infallible authority as successor of saint Peter? Or, rather, was he present there as a private theologian, with personal, private opinions? This last scenario is, obviously, the true one. The fact that the behavior of the Pope at Assisi was a complete novelty and a clear break with Tradition is already sufficient proof of this. Thus, once again, Father Garban’s tentative to prove a priori that the pope’s initiative at Assisi is orthodox shows itself to be extremely fragile.

“To build a critique on the appearance of discontinuity, without searching first of all to solve the former, is radically contrary to the elementary reflexes of the Catholic faith”.

Once again, Father Garban is out of the track, his argumentation strikes the air. Because it is false to state that the traditionalist did not try to solve the discrepancy between the event of Assisi and the traditional Magisterium, and that this is the only reason for their resistance. On the contrary, it is by trying to solve this discrepancy that they were led to acknowledge that Assisi was opposed to Tradition, as Bishop Bernard Fellay explained well in his declaration of January 16, 2002 (see Communicantes No. 11, page 6).

Father Garban then tries another argument:

“The Holy Father, as the Lord himself, is prophet. This prophetic function in which he (the Pope) participates, consists less in predicting the future like the prophets of the Old Testament than to foresee in the etymological sense of the term and thus to prepare. Proper to prophecy is to remain partially obscure to those who hear it, but also to he whom it is given to explain it. Perhaps are we touching here the mystery of Assisi”.

We enter here an extremely confused, and dangerous terrain. Because, true, Our Lord is Prophet and his Church, as a whole, continues to benefit of this prophetical spirit. But the Holy Ghost can use whoever He wishes in the Church to predict or foresee the future. History of the Church reveals to us that the prophetic spirit has been given to bishops, as well as to priests, and even laypeople.

Certainly, certain special and eminent graces for the governing of the Church are reserved to the Pope, and, among these graces, probably, at times, the ability to predict or to prepare the future. But it is certainly false, ridiculous and dangerous to suppose that every single action or initiative of the Pope will necessarily be prophetic, just because they come from him. He is free. He may resist or oppose the graces given him. And he is infallible only at certain very precise conditions and situations. If he teaches novelties as regard to the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, it is clear that it cannot be the Holy Ghost, the genuine spirit of prophecy which inspires him. What spirit is it then?

With this kind of argumentation, Father Garban opens the way to papolatry (the worship of the pope as a God) and to blind and unconditional obedience which we may give to no one but to God. The Catholic Faith does not teach the same as Father Garban seems to imply concerning the authority of the Pope and the true obedience due to him. If he were right, how could he explain that saint Paul said, concerning his dispute with saint Peter on the important question of the mosaic customs: “I withstood him (Peter) to his face, because he was deserving of blame” (Gal. 2: 11). And saint Peter himself admitted that he was wrong. Again, the attempt of Father Garban to justify a priory the meeting of prayer of Assisi is completely void. It is not enough to state: Assisi must be orthodox, because it is the Pope who did it.

“This has been the object, and the only object of Assisi: to pray for peace. It has not been a Congress, but a meeting for prayer”. (...) “Let us say right away that the prayers of Assisi happened without any ambiguity. The Holy Father had announced that he wanted to avoid ‘not only syncretism, but also all appearance of syncretism’.” (...) “As says the official formula ... the participants at Assisi did ‘not come to pray together, but to be together to pray’. The difference is essential.”

Our commentary:

1.  It is not enough that the intention of the Pope was to avoid all syncretism. He probably believes that his actions at Assisi did not imply the admission that all religions are equal. But his subjective intentions do not change the reality of his objective actions. The question is, did the actions of the Pope, in these particular circumstances, cause a scandal, on occasion of sin for the Catholics as well as for the non-Catholics? It appears to us impossible to answer no to this question.

2.  There was no prayer said in common, argues Father Garban. Catholics at Assisi did not participate in the prayers, or sacrifices of the other religions. Granted, at least considering the non-Christian religions, although there has been common prayers with the different Christian denominations (like the Our Father and the Creed said in common with the Orthodox ...). Let us admit that there has not been that day in Assisi a direct ‘communicatio in sacris’, a direct participation of the Pope in a false cult, which would have been a very serious sin against the first Commandmant, a serious offense against the Truth and the Holiness of the one true God.

Nevertheless, the question of the scandal is always there. According to saint Thomas Aquinas (see below) scandal on serious matter is a mortal sin against charity.

Have the words and the gestures of the Holy Father been sufficiently clear and explicit to exclude, on the part of the representatives of the false cults, any interpretation that would be syncretic or that would tend towards indifferentism? Or, on the contrary, has not the Pope (even though unwillingly) let it be supposed that God could be satisfied with any religion whatsoever, regardless of the good subjective faith?

Are the pagans of Assisi necessarily in bad faith when they deduct, from the attitude of the Pope, that the Church does not teach, or no longer teaches, that the religion of Christ is the only true religion, that it is obligatory for everyone, or that the differences of religions do not prevent God from hearing prayers?

To announce, as the Pope has done, that they wished to avoid any appearance of syncretism, that they did not wish to mix religions, or to unite cults, is to use words that are too vague, that do not suffice, in these circumstances, to avoid scandal, because they too easily appear to be contradicted by the actions. The Pope did not appear to wish to mix religions. That is one thing. But didn’t he appear to approve prayers in any cult? To dispell that fatal error, it was necessary for the Pope to make it clearly and expressly known, that he does not recognise merit in error, or in false religions; that the only true God is Jesus Christ; and that the only cult which can please Him is the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The pagans, even of good faith, could be right in thus reasoning from Assisi, “Behold the Pope, the vicar of that Jesus who calls himself the Son of God, who invites us to pray to our own gods at the same time as he, and for the same purpose, each one using our own prayers, expressions of our own beliefs, each one having to respect the beliefs and the religious traditions of the others. We conclude from this that the Catholic religion no longer demands the supremacy or the exclusive authority of religious truth, and that she admits that our beliefs and our pagan religious traditions are good. When the Pope, in his discourse, invites us to pray to God ‘in the truth’, absolutely nothing, in these discourses from Assisi, makes it understood that the Church considers itself as possessing all the truth and that what the Church teaches is obligatory for everyone. When the Pope, in his discourse, mentioned Jesus Christ, he was careful to make it clear that he was speaking particularly to the Christians. We conclude from this that we do not have to change our religion to embrace Christianity. Our prayers to our gods are good”.

Our remark: this interpretation of the words and the gestures of the Pope, even if it be false, even if another interpretation may arise, is, at least, very possible. The words of the Pope at Assisi do not suffice to impede it. They therefore surely constitute an occasion of spiritual ruin for these pagans, thus being a scandal in a most serious matter.

Let us now focus on the Catholics: are they not authorised, if not conduced to think this of Assisi, “Since the Pope himself invites the representatives of all the religions to pray to their gods at the same time as he, for a common intention, and not mentioning Jesus Christ except when addressing himself to the Christians, must the missionaries continue to turn the pagans away from their idols and to preach Jesus Christ to them? Is Jesus Christ, truly, the one true God, the only Saviour? Is the faith in Him and in all that His Church teaches truly obligatory for everyone? We begin to have our doubts”.

Our remark: this interpretation of the words and the actions of the Pope at Assisi, is, at least, very possible, even if it reveals itself to be false. The words and the actions of the Pope at Assisi do not suffice to impede it. They therefore surely constitute an occasion of spiritual ruin for these Catholics, thus being a scandal, a grave danger for the faith.

Objection: in the declaration Dominus Jesus, Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned that Jesus Christ is true God, the only Saviour of all men, and that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

Response: in such a circumstance (Assisi) that the reminder of these truths be absolutely necessary to avoid scandal for the representatives of the other religions, the Pope has not breathed a word about it. This culpable silence, on this occasion, is sufficient to cause a doubt to creep into the minds of many Catholics. In practice, would the faith in Christ be so necessary? Would it even be totally true? The fact that this doubt is possible, constitutes a scandal in the literal sense, and in serious matter. See what Saint Thomas says about scandal, and what Saint Paul says of it, concerning meats sacrificed to idols (see below).

Being aware, no doubt, of the extreme weakness of the arguments put forward up until now to defend the reunion at Assisi, Father Garban closes his text by launching into a stupefying endeavour: the reunion at Assisi would be consistent with Tradition. More precisely, he tries to prove that “John Paul II had done nothing of his own invention by calling all men of good will to pray for peace, whatsoever their denomination”. This is what he writes:

“In 1986, in a study published by the magazine La Pensée Catholique, Father Luc Lefebvre had revealed several anterior pontifical declarations that announced already that which John Paul II would do at Assisi. Thus in 1937, Pius XI, in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris (against Communism) wrote: ‘In opposition to the violent effort of the powers of darkness to wrench from the hearts of men even the idea of God, We hope very much that the Christians would join themselves with all those – and they form the greater part of humanity – who believe that God exists and who adore Him’.”

The translation given by the Holy See at the time said this instead: “In the combat engaged by the powers of darkness against even the idea of the Divinity, We remain hopeful that the fight will be valiantly sustained, not only by those who glory in bearing the name of Christ, but also by all the men (and they are the immense majority in the world) who still believe in God and adore Him. We therefore renew the call that was sent forth, five years ago, in our encyclical Caritate Christi, that all the believers will apply themselves with loyalty and courage ‘to preserve the human race from the grave peril that menaces it’.”

Here there is not the least trace of ecumenism. The Pope simply expresses his wish that even non-Catholics, who still believe in God, would also fight against the scourge of Communism which is by its nature atheistic. He does not tell them to pray to their idols or to offer their sacrifices to their false gods. He asks them to fight, apparently politically and socially. There is no question here of any cult.

One can see, therefore, that it is false to claim that Pius XI prepared the way for John Paul II and for Assisi. Pius XI, on the contrary, would certainly be horrified by such an inter-religious scenario that has become the standard of John Paul II.

Furthermore, if it was true that Pius XI had taught the theology of Assisi, why did not John Paul II make reference to him? In his encyclical Ut unum sint on Ecumenism, there cannot be found a single reference to Popes Pius X, Pius XI, or Pius XII. The greater part of the 162 notes refer to the period after the beginning of the Council (1962). Does there exist a clearer sign of the spirit of novelty, of rupture with Tradition than this? If John Paul II had been able to find a single affirmation approving the theology of Assisi by Pius XI or any other Pope before the Vatican Council, he would have used it.

“Is not the fact alone,” continues Father Garban, “that he (the Vicar of Christ) has been so visibly heard at Assisi, is it not the sign that a direct grace coming from heaven has in a certain manner deeply touched the hearts? And that the participants, without perhaps even acknowledging it, have through this implicitly recognised a mysterious pre-eminence in Christ and in His Vicar?”

There is here a very subjective sentimentalism which leads to a blindness to reality. Yes, everyone present had listened to the Pope at Assisi. But everyone had also listened to all the other religious representatives who had been able to voice themselves. We cannot imagine that all of these idolaters desired with impatience to listen to the good news of the Gospels. We rather suppose that many of them were happy to have an occasion to publicly instruct the Pope of their beliefs.

Father Garban feigns to come up with another manifestation of a link between Pius XI and the spirit of Assisi: “Let us hear once more the words of Pius XI who in 1932 (...) wrote in the encyclical Caritate Christi, clearly summoning all men whose vision was turned towards God: ‘It is precisely prayer which, according to the Apostle, must bring the gift of peace; the prayer that one addresses to the heavenly Father who is the Father of all men; the prayer that is the common expression of the sentiments of a family, of this great family which extends beyond the functions of all the countries, of all the continents’.”

What does this text have to do with Assisi? Does Pius XI here encourage the false religions to offer sacrifices to their idols or to profane Catholic basilicas? Absolutely not. One must truly stretch the meaning of the text to say that by this Pius XI invites the pagans to pray to their idols for peace. Further on, in the paragraph that immediately follows that cited by Father Garban, and which he was careful not to reproduce, Pius XI clearly shows that he wishes to speak of prayer to the true God:

“Men who in every nation pray to the same God for peace on earth will not enkindle flames of discord amongst the peoples; men who set themselves to pray to the Divine Majesty will not favour, in their country, a desire of domination, nor that disordered love for their country which makes of it a god. Men who lift their eyes to ‘the God of peace and of love’ (II Cor. 13:11), who turn towards Him through the intercession of Christ who is ‘our Peace’ (Eph. 2:14) will never rest until that peace that the world cannot give descends from Him who gives all good things to ‘men of good will’(Luke 2:14).”

The attempt of Father Garban to justify Assisi is a complete failure. And yet he is one of the authorities of the Fraternity of Saint Peter. We see, alas, that Archbishop Lefebvre was quite right in mistrusting an agreement with Rome: psychologically, those who submit to the conditions of Rome in the framework of the Ecclesia Dei Commission are led to conform themselves to the spirit of Vatican II, the revolution in the Church, or at least to give up the battle against it.