Since the beginning of this year, there seems to be an intensification of progressivist activity within the Catholic Church in Germany in order to liberalize the Church’s teaching on, and assessment of, homosexuality. As if a dam has broken, one initiative rapidly follows another. It seems as if Germany might become the guiding country with regard to this issue, just as the Amazon region might become the leader of reform with regard to married priests, in the sense of a “decentralized Church” as recently outlined by the progressivist theologian Father Paul Zulehner. The near future will tell us more. Let us for now recount some of these new German statements here.

In the January issue of the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz, there is an interview with Cardinal Reinhard Marx. As the President of the German Bishops’ Conference and a papal adviser, Marx proposed that the Catholic Church rethink her teaching on sexual morality in which case he argued against “blind rigorism.” For him, it is “difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” Marx applied this statement not only to men and women in “irregular situations,” but also to those in a homosexual relationship, saying that there has to be “a respect for a decision made in freedom” and in light of one’s “conscience”; he added that one also has “to listen to the voice of the Church.”

Not long after this piece of news broke (already a few days before the new year started, on 27 December 2017) – and after the German Bishops’ official news website immediately reported on this statement by Marx – there came the now-widely-discussed call for a blessing of homosexual couples which had been issued in an interview, on 10 January, given by the Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, of Osnabrück. Bode then stated that it would be important to discuss this entire matter, adding:

We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess, in a differentiated manner, a relationship between two homosexual persons. […] Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?

Only three days later, on 13 January, the German bishops’ website Katholisch.de published an interview with Professor Benedikt Kranemann who is a liturgy scholar at the Catholic Theology department at the University of Erfurt. Kranemann is also an adviser to the German Bishops’ Conference. In that 13 January interview, this German professor bluntly stated that, thus far,

there has not yet been a real theological discussion in the Catholic Church about in what ritual form such a salvific promise [sic] from God – because that is what a blessing stands for – could be expressed for these [homosexual] couples.

Kranemann added that “I find it theologically problematic if one makes a blessing dependent upon the moral assessment of human conduct.” To support his argument, he referred to the blessing of cars “where the drivers receive a blessing independently of their way of driving.” According to Kranemann, the blessing of a homosexual couple is not not necessarily a first step which then leads to a sacrament. “Blessings are manifold; some lead to sacraments, others not.”

As if speaking about a “human right to a blessing,” Kranemann further explains:

I consider it to be theologically problematic if one denies such a blessing to people  who consider it to be necessary for them. People also have the right that the grace of God should be extended to them, as the pastoral theologian Ottmar Fuchs has explained in his recent studies.

At the end of this interview, Professor Kranemann lauds Bishop Bode for his own initiative, saying: “And I think it is good that Bishop Bode – no less than the Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference – is pushing this topic now.”

Just four days after this Kranemann interview, on 18 January, Professor Stephan Goertz raised his own voice in support of homosexual unions in the Catholic Church. Writing for the religion section of the prominent German newspaper Die Zeit, Christ&Welt, Goertz entitles his article: “Praise the Luck, Brothers!” As is to be expected, Katholisch.de published a report about this new article, and even presented it one day before the official publication date.

Goertz is professor of moral theology at the University of Mainz and is a known supporter of relaxing the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality. Already in 2015, he wondered whether homosexual unions could not have a “sacramental character.” He had just then published a book which is entitled: Who Am I to Judge? Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Now, in 2018, Goertz sees much (progressive and favorable) movement within the Catholic Church with regard to this topic. He highlights the three recent statements by Cardinal Marx, Bishop Bode, as well as Archbishop Heiner Koch of Berlin (who stated in 2017 that “same-sex cohabitation can be valued through other institutional arrangements without opening up the legal institute of marriage”); and says that they have “attracted attention.” Goertz sees that it is “legitimate that the Catholic Church comes in the 21^th century to a new assessment of homosexual relationships.” Too long, he adds, the Church has had a “rigoristic attitude” toward homosexuality. “Now, under Pope Francis, there has been a change.” The Church now trusts more in the moral competence and judgment of the the people, according to Goertz. “The scope of freedom is being carefully widened.” With a hopeful outlook, he predicts that, were the Church to change her views in this matter, and recognize “the good and the right” in homosexual relationships, “the crampedness in dealing with homosexual caregivers (male and female) would come to an end.”

As one German Catholic observer put it, so far not one German bishop has come out to resist any of these recent liberalizing initiatives as promoted by the German Bishops’ Conference.

It is important to note here that there are links between these new progressivist initiatives concerning homosexuality and those concerning contraception. As Edward Pentin recently showed, two of the speakers at a series of talks about “re-thinking Humanae Vitae” hosted by the Gregorian University in Rome – Father Maurizio Chiodi (who now claims that contraception might sometimes be required) and Father Miguel Yanez – both also participated at a presentation of a book edited by Professor Goertz (together with Caroline Witting). As Pentin keenly puts it, in this new Goertz book “it is argued that Amoris Laetitia represents a paradigm shift for all moral theology and especially in interpreting Humanae Vitae.”

Let us also recall here that it was at that same Roman university – the Gregorian University – that, in May of 2015, the controversial “shadow council” or “Day of Study” took place which, organized among others by the German bishops, seems to have prepared the way for Amoris Laetitia, as well as for the change of other areas of the Church’s moral teaching. One of the speakers of that event, Professor Anne-Marie Pelletier of Paris, France, had in the meantime received the honor of being asked by Pope Francis to write the Meditations for the 2017 Stations of the Cross in Rome.

Thus we shall continue to bear truthful witness in the face of the complete destruction of the moral edifice of the Catholic Church, as it has been both encouraged by Pope Francis in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and as it has been also discerningly criticized by Professor Josef Seifert as a potential “moral atomic bomb.”

On Twitter, Barros’ “most vocal accuser”, Juan Carlos Cruz, lashed out about the absurdity of the pope expecting proof from his abuse:

“As if one could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros standing next to him watching everything. These people from above are crazy and @Pontifex is talking about reparation to the victims. We remain the same and his forgiveness remains empty.”

Barros reiterated his outrage in an exchange with Crux‘ Austen Ivereigh, when the latter questioned his claims. “Does he need a photo, a selfie, as proof? Sorry Austen, we did not think of it as we were being abused and Juan Barros watching.”

According to the Associated Press, the pope’s “astonishing” comments “drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates.”

A group of Karadima victims spoke out against the pope’s words yesterday, saying, “This is serious and we cannot accept it … what he has done today is offensive and painful, and it also reveals an unknown face of the Pontiff.”

Talking Tough on Sex Abuse 

Those who are surprised by the pope’s comments in Chile are likely more familiar with his tough talk on clerical sex abuse. In September 2015, Pope Francis addressed victims of abuse at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia in clear, unequivocal terms:

I carry in my heart the stories, the suffering and the pain of the minors who were sexually abused by priests. I’m overwhelmed by the shame that people who were in charge of caring for those young ones raped them and caused them great damages. I regret this profoundly. God weeps! The crimes and sins of sexual abuse to minors can’t be kept a secret anymore. I commit to the zealous oversight of the Church to protect minors, and I promise that everyone responsible will be held accountable.

In June of the following year, the pope issued a new motu proprio letter taking steps further than just words. Entitled “Come una madre amorevole” (As a Loving Mother), the letter established norms seeking the removal of bishops who have, “through negligence, committed or omitted acts that have caused grave harm to others, either with regard to physical persons, or with regard to the community itself.”  At the time, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that the letter “clarifies that negligence regarding cases of sexual abuse committed against children or vulnerable adults are among the ‘grave causes’ that justify removal from ecclesiastical Offices, even of Bishops.”

During his current visit to South America, Gerard O’Connell of America magazine tweeted about a moment where the pope expressed solidarity with victims:

Vatican spokesman, Greg Burke, said Pope Francis “listened, prayed and cried” with a small group of victims abused by priests, when he met them at the nunciature in Santiago, after lunch today. He spent around half an hour with them, alone, without anyone else present.

Nevertheless, by the end of the trip, the pope expressed his indignance at accusations against Barros from known victims of Fr. Karadima.

Empty Words: The Way Francis Really Deals With Abusers

Despite powerful words and moving gestures, the pope’s track record on dealing with perpetrators of abuse or those who covered for them has been wildly inconsistent. While there have been some cases — like that of the conservative Bishop Robert Finn of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, who was removed on the basis of what some have termed “politically motivated” charges of neglect — other, more egregious examples have not only gone ignored, but in some cases have been actively thwarted or even promoted by Francis. As we reported in October, 2015, not long after his statement in Philadelphia, the pope’s words and actions on the matter are often worlds apart.

Bishop Barros

The case of Bishop Barros and the controversy that surrounds it is nothing new, though his harsh response in Chile is now bringing attention to an issue that many have never heard about before this week. The appointment of Barros by Francis in 2015 was, in fact, so controversial, that five members of the pope’s anti-abuse commission expressed“concern and incredulity” at the assignment. Similarly, Barros’ installation Mass was forced to be cut short when hundreds of protesters showed up.

It was at this time that Francis first showed his contempt for victims in Chile — a contempt his recent words appear to confirm. In a video from May of 2015, Francis accused those who implicated Barros of being “dumb”:

“The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” Pope Francis told a group of tourists on St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City, because it “has let its head be filled with what politicians say, judging a bishop without any proof.”

“Don’t be led by the nose by the leftists who orchestrated all of this,” the pope said.

Cardinal Danneels

Also of particular note is the pope’s closeness with Cardinal Godfried Danneels from Belgium, who has become perhaps the most notorious member of the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” — a group of curial conspirators who worked together to ensure Bergoglio’s election to the papacy. Danneels was caught on tape in 2010 trying to stop a sex abuse victim from going public. As Marcantonio Colonna later reported in The Dictator Pope, Danneels’ home and his diocesan offices were later raided by police, who seized computers and documentation on abuse allegations. “For reasons that remain unclear,” wrote Colonna “the seized evidence was declared to have been inadmissible, the documents returned to the archdiocese and the investigation was abruptly closed. This despite the fact that individuals had come forward with almost five hundred separate complaints, including many that alleged Danneels had used his power and connections to shield clerical sex abusers.” [emphasis added]

Nevertheless, Colonna writes that according to Danneels, the 2013 conclave was for him “a personal resurrection experience.” And sure enough, if one looks closely at the photos of the new pope on the Loggia, standing there in shadows is the triumphant-looking kingmaker himself, the once-disgraced Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels:

Later, Danneels — a man who was implicated and even recorded in the act of covering up the clerical abuse of children — would be personally invited by the pope to both synods on the family. 

Father Inzoli

In a January, 2017 report, Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote of a “child abuse scandal” “coming for Pope Francis”. Dougherty detailed the way clerics accused of abuse were able to avoid discipline under Francis by means of powerful friends and connections:

Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname “Don Mercedes.” He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.

But Don Mercedes was “with cardinal friends,” we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a “a life of humility and prayer.” These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.

This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.

Francis was subsequently forced to laicize Inzoli last summer. But not until the predator priest had shown up at a family conference where he had no business being. For his part, it was Cardinal Coccopalmerio who had petitionedFrancis to give an apartment in the CDF building to his secretary, Msgr. Luigi Capozzi — an apartment reports later indicated were raided by Vatican police, where last year they allegedly broke up “a drug-fueled, homosexual debauched party.” (Coccopalmerio had also reportedly requested that Capozzi be raised to the episcopacy.)

A Seemingly Impervious Papacy Begins to Crack

For years, Francis’ progressive-friendly papacy has made him nearly bulletproof with the secular press and the progressive Catholic media. His infamous “Who am I to judge?” comment about a known homosexual priest in his employ helped to land him on the cover of “LGBT news” magazine The Advocate as “Person of the Year” in 2013. He has also graced the covers of Rolling Stone, Time, Newsweek, Esquire, Fortune, People, and Vanity Fair, among others — almost always in a positive context. It’s a distinction virtually unknown to his recent predecessors, who more often than not found themselves maligned for their teachings.

But the victim-shaming by the pope this week may mark a change in his fortunes. A few months ago, a Google search of “Pope Francis” and “Sex Abuse” was likely to return our October, 2015 report on Danneels and Barros on the first page of results. But in the wake of the pope’s inconceivably tone-deaf comments in Chile, our report has been buried in a deluge of new stories from major outlets around the world. Rumors of the pope’s temper are a thing of legend, but always from behind closed doors, clouded in anonymous sources. His indignation over the Barros accusations is a rare misstep from arguably the most media-savvy pope in history. Nevertheless, the clerical sex abuse crisis is a powerful third rail in the Church’s relations with the secular world. The damage done here likely won’t soon be forgotten.

Beginning of the End, Or Blip on the Radar? 

I’ve said from the outset of 2018 that I think this is the year Francis’ fortunes will turn. The world has reached “peak Francis,” and those who love him, love him for his push towards a new, progressive iteration of Catholicism. The faithful, on the other hand, have had more than their fill of his appetite for destruction. What is certain is that his outrageous comments about abuse victims will not endear him to either camp, lowering his stock among supporters and cementing his reputation among critics.

Still, Francis has enormous good will in the bank among those with a vested interest in the furtherance of his agenda. The news of a papal award being given to one of the most notorious abortion promoters in the world began making international headlines just days after the joint reports first appeared here and at The Lepanto Institute. For the global Left, this was nothing but a feather in the pope’s cap, but the story was quickly drowned out with coos of wistful approval from women the world over (including true believers) when news broke that Francis had offered, on the spot, to officiate the wedding of two flight attendants on a recent papal flight. The couple, so the story went, was planning to marry in 2010 when their parish was damaged by an earthquake. Although they have been living together in a civil marriage for years and have two children, they never found the time to be married in a Catholic Church. The “impromptu” wedding was quickly picked up as yet another heartwarming story demonstrating the humanity of “the people’s pope” — nevermind that it broke a bunch of canon laws, made a triviality of something sacred, set a terrible precedent that will put priests the world over in a tough situation, and was, contrary to a calculated pretense of spontaneity, actually planned out a month in advance. In other words, it was a cheap and transparent PR stunt, but it appears to have done some good for the pope’s damaged image.

When all the smiley face emojis and animated hearts fade, however, the question will remain: how many tricks does a papacy that sees clerical abuse victims unafraid to stand up for themselves as “dumb” people full of “calumny” need to stay afloat? For that matter, how many tricks does it have left?

The Internet is famous for having a short attention span, but there are some things people have a hard time forgetting. Abusing spiritual power to take advantage of children and vulnerable young adults is one of them. With the armor of this papacy finally cracking, it appears there may finally be a chance for the world to see what some of us have long known: the ugly reality that lies beneath.

This interview was conducted in person during a retreat given by Fr. Cassian in Chicago for American oblates of the Benedictine monastery in Norcia. Fr. Cassian graciously allowed the author to publish a transcript of the interview.

Julian Kwasniewski: Did you want to become a monk at a young age?

Fr. Cassian: Well, not exactly. I wanted to become a priest at a young age. But I did not even hear about monks until I was in college.

JK: Really?

FC: I didn’t even know they existed. So that was a gift of God.

JK: Well, what was your first monastic experience, then? How did you first find out about monks?

FC: I was at Indiana University, as a freshman, which is only two hours from St. Meinrad. There were two monks from St. Meinrad at the university that year studying. And so I met them at the daily Mass crowd; that was my first contact with monks. Then, later, I went to St. Meinrad with some other friends on a kind of picnic, that’s all. There was obviously the action of God; it was like love at first sight. I was hooked immediately. I had already been thinking about changing my major and all that sort of thing and was interested in the seminary once again. Since St. Meinrad ran a seminary, I transferred from Indiana University to the college seminary at St. Meinrad in my sophomore year. I lived around monks…

JK: …and that was the end of it!

FC: Yes.

JK: So you were a monk at St. Meinrad’s first.

CF: That’s right.

JK: And when did you, from St. Meinrad, become involved with the founding of Norcia?

FC: I entered St. Meinrad in 1979. I was ordained in ’84, in April, and in June sent to Rome to study. So I had five years – I’m just giving a little sketch here – five years for my graduate studies in Rome. Afterward, I went back to St. Meinrad and taught for four years, then was sent back to Rome in ’93 to teach at the Benedictine University there. As I lived there at Sant’Anselmo, it became clear to me that I wanted a more authentic monastic life, because Sant’Anselmo takes sort of the lowest common denominator of all the monasteries in the world…and it’s not terribly satisfying. I had always been full of high monastic ideals and so was searching for what I should do. In 1995, a priest friend of mine, who was studying in Rome, he and I went on holiday together. It was while on the train from Rome to Naples that I received the inspiration to found a new monastery – from God, because it just came to me in a flash.

JK: Did you see something specific, like passing Norcia, or something else?

FC: No, no. I didn’t know anything about Norcia – well, I knew of its existence – but it did not enter into the picture at this point. This is 1995. I went back to St. Meinrad at Christmastime and asked the new abbot if I could make a foundation. Much to my surprise, he said, “Yes.” But it took three years for that to mature – three years of testing the spirits to see if they were from God. So it wasn’t until 1998 that the abbot primate had the project for me. He wanted to found a monastery in Rome, at Sant’Anselmo (where I still was), to care for the place and supply manpower for the Benedictine university there. So between my inspiration and the abbot primate’s desire, that’s how the monastery was founded, in Rome, in 1998. It moved to Norcia two years later because the abbot primate had a heart attack and resigned in September of 2000, and I needed to find a new solution for the life of the community because he had basically been our “protector.” At that time, the bishop of Spoleto-Norcia invited us to transfer to Norcia, to re-establish monastic life at the very birthplace of St. Benedict. So that’s how we got to Norcia, in late November of 2000.

JK: Now you were ordained in, and all your experience at St. Meinrad was in, the Novus Ordo?

FC: Correct.

JK: How, then, did you find out about the traditional Mass?

FC: Well…in a gradual way. That is, at Sant’Anselmo, as a student, I belonged to the “Latin Chapel,” as there were different language groups that prayed Lauds and Mass together every day. I gravitated toward the Latin Chapel, learning how to offer the New Mass, in Latin. I studied Latin with a famous Latinist in Rome while I was doing my other studies there, so I discovered the beauty of the Roman Rite in Latin – but the Novus Ordo – and with the chant. I also learned the chant repertoire, which is mostly the same as that of the Usus Antiquior.

And here’s another step to the Old Mass: I was very interested, because of my studies in liturgy, in the Byzantine Rite. One summer, I spent two months in Greece living in a Byzantine House of Studies, going to the Holy Mountain (Mount Athos). I was asked even to live at the Greek college in Rome, to assist there. It didn’t work out, but I was interested. Through the Byzantine Rite I discovered a different ethos of liturgy. Now, that’s important; I discovered the traditional Latin Mass through the Byzantine Rite, because of the very similar ethos.

It was not until ’93 or ’94, when I returned to Sant’Anselmo to teach, that I met a monk from Le Barroux who was also studying there. He invited me to go and visit them, and I did. It was an experience similar to the one I had at St. Meinrad in 1973 – of being just blown off my feet! When I experienced the Liturgy there, I thought, “Oh! Well, this is what it’s supposed to be like!” It was this kind of insight. A moment of insight. Extraordinarily beautiful. It just took my breath away, because of that beauty. I had already studied the orations from an academic point of view (liturgical history and all those things), so it was sort of the way of the whole thing coming together in a unit.

JK: While we are talking about beauty in the Mass, and specifically in the Old Mass, could you comment a little bit on the way that, in your experience, the celebration of Mass can be related to the verse in Scripture that says, “Enoch walked with the Lord and was seen no more, for God took him”?

FC: That’s interesting…what connection do you see there?

JK: Well, the priest as an alter Christus… How is it that in the Mass, God takes the priest, and he is seen no more? And how is this the case in the Old Mass, but not in the New?

FC: Ah, very good. That’s wonderful – that is, it is an important insight, and it is wonderful that you connect that passage with it.

JK: It’s just an odd expression…curious, one might say.

FC: You’re absolutely right. In the Old Mass, the personality of the priest does not matter. His office matters, and he and the people together are facing the Lord. Conversus ad Dominum. And for that reason the role of the priest is an objectiveone. It’s not subjective, and for that reason he disappears. That is, obviously, he is the mediator between the congregation and God, leading the congregation toward God, but because of the objectivity of the structure, he disappears. That is very salutary, because the Mass is not about the priest; it’s about God. In the Novus Ordo, because of the versus populum practice, and because of all the options of the priest inserting something like a comment, or spontaneity, the role of the priest becomes terribly subjective. Therefore, he becomes the focus of attention, so the New Mass is terribly clericalized because it’s all about the priest, as opposed to the Old Mass. And this is unfortunate.

JK: People sometimes say, “Oh, there’s too much respect paid to the priest in the Old Mass,” like all the kissings of his hands and moving things for him and things of that sort, but really the Novus Ordo, in fact, makes a much greater deal of the priest.

FC: That’s right.

JK: In Compline we have the verse: “Offer up the sacrifice of praise and trust in the Lord; for many say, Who sheweth us good things?” Can you talk about how young men today are not being shown “good things” liturgically, and how they won’t be attracted to God, to a priestly or monastic vocation, unless they see this beauty in the liturgy?

FC: The good things are abundant. The Tradition of our faith, our liturgy, our prayer, our mysticism…those good things are extraordinary and available but not presented to people, not known…forgotten, in large part. So young men don’t see those good things. They see other manifestations of the Church, which, in the practice after the Council, tend to be very horizontal and earthly oriented: “social action” and “doing good.” Well, doing good, of course, is important and good, but the transcendent is often missing. Simply “doing good” is not enough of a motivation for giving your entire life to God. That motivation has to be union with God. I think we have really cheated ourselves by abandoning that wealth of tradition, which focuses on God. It doesn’t neglect good works, for heaven’s sake! But it focuses on God.

JK: Talking about monastic life, and as one who has seen a lot of vocations – some that worked and others that didn’t – how would you reflect on the words of Christ: “Many are called, but few are chosen”? It seems mysterious; many are called but few chosen?

FC: I would interpret it this way: it is not that God calls many and then sort of sifts through them and chooses only some of those. I think it is rather, “Many are called, but few respond” – that sense of being chosen. And few respond because, like the rich young man in the Gospel, there are many things that in a superficial way seem more attractive. And if they could only experience the transcendence that we spoke of earlier, they would see another beauty. Then things would change for them.

JK: In conversation with people who attend the traditional liturgy, one hears so frequently: “Oh, I was captured by the beauty of the Mass.” But going back a little, do you remember anything of your first Mass?

FC: No, nothing. But here’s something curious: in the monastic way of looking at things, the monastic vocation is primary, and the priesthood is secondary. Now, that runs contrary to the way a lot of pious people think. That would be somewhat scandalous, perhaps. But that’s the way it is in the monastery: your monastic commitment is primary, and the priesthood is secondary. The priesthood is splendid, wonderful, but it means that the life of the monk-priest (if I can put a hyphen there) does whatever kind of work needs to be done in the monastery. He might be assigned to say Mass; he might be assigned to wash the dishes. He might be assigned to hear confessions, or he might be assigned to sweep the floor. In a certain sense, all of that is harmonious; in one sense, it does not matter. The care of souls on the part of the monk-priest is something that is integrated into his monastic life. It’s not the “be-all and end-all” of his vocation; it’s an outgrowth of the monastic charism. So there is a whole different view of the priesthood from [that of] the diocesan priesthood where it is the “be-all and end-all,” whereas for the monk, being a monk is the “be-all and end-all.”

JK: That makes sense. So, talking of this monastic vocation, according to my parents, when I was about five years old, I asked you what it was like to be a monk, and you said, “It’s wonderful!” Could you say a little bit more about this? What is the attractiveness of the monastic vocation? How it is wonderful?

FC: What’s wonderful about the monastic vocation is God, in the first place. Perhaps I could tell a little anecdote. Maybe that will describe it better. When I was a small boy, about five years old, my mother gave me a children’s Bible storybook. I was a precocious child, as you were, and could read at five years old and was happy to read this Bible storybook. So I came across this story about Exodus 3 and the burning bush. I remember reading it, because it was not dumbed down, and it was recorded, as Scripture says, what God says from the Bush: He said His Name, “I AM WHO AM.” Even as a child of five years old, I thought, “Well, nobody talks like that. That’s very strange!” I felt the wonderful attractiveness of God in that strangeness, in His revealing His Name…a very odd name. In the monastic life, there are all kinds of moments like that when you encounter the living God. That being the goal – and, as St. John Cassian describes, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the daily visitation of Christ in the soul – the rest of the life is ordered to that, which means asceticism and struggling with your vices and recognition of reality the way it is, and trying to order all things to the worship of God, which means beauty and music and liturgy and architecture, everything. But it is also focused on that hunger for God, that desire for God. For me, there is nothing else in the world I would rather do.

JK: So the monastic life – the heart of it – is the daily visitation of God. And there’s nothing that gets better than that in life!

FC: Yes. It’s a great summary.

{ One does not have to become a monk to encounter God in the Traditional Latin Mass; just find a church were the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated and go to Mass there regularly.}

In my article “The Fifty-Year Descent to Footnote 351: Our Progressive Desensitization to the Most Holy Eucharist,” I spoke of how the liturgical reform’s many sudden and drastic changes in ritual and ceremonial have contributed to a continual erosion of belief in the Mass as a true and proper Sacrifice and in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. In the present article, I wish to look at a closely related topic, namely, how the holy fear of God, which begins in the dreading of His just punishments for sin and matures into love of Him for His own sake and a desire to dwell with Him forever in heaven, has been undermined by the systematic removal of texts from the liturgy concerning the reality of hell and our need for vigilance and self-denial in order to steer clear of it.

There are many articles that show how radically the prayers were altered in the missal of the Novus Ordo, whether to downplay the subordination of earthly to heavenly things (as, for instance, with St. Albert), or to “purge the mythical element” (as with St. Catherine), or to avoid addressing Christ directly as God (as occurred in Advent), or to downplay the kingship of Christ over societies and governments (as with the reinvention of Christ the King). The list goes on and on, as Lauren Pristas, Anthony Cekada, and other authors have shown. Here, my purpose is more modest: I will focus on texts that mention hell, and we will see how they have fared in the time between the 1962 Missale Romanum and its intended replacement of less than a decade later.

The Requiem Mass

The most obvious and eloquent testimony to the Church’s doctrine about the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, and hell, as well as their adjunct, purgatory) is the traditional Requiem Mass, which was prayed in the Latin Rite for so many centuries unchanged and is still used wherever the Latin Mass flourishes. The Requiem Mass organically developed in such a way that there is a balance in its texts between, on the one hand, consolation and confidence in heaven, and, on the other hand, the fear of punishment with prayers for the rescuing of the soul from hell. It is simply catholic in this regard, taking into account the fullness of Gospel teaching about the afterlife. Needless to say, all of these texts must be recited or sung at every Requiem Mass—nothing is “optional,” just as neither are death, judgment, and an eternal destiny of bliss or pain optional.

The Requiem is certainly not lacking in consoling or confident prayers. Look at the Introit, the Epistle (1 Thess 4:13–18), the Gradual (Ps 111:7), the Gospel (John 11:21–27), the Secret, the Communion, and the Postcommunion: all of these ask for a merciful pardon and eternal rest, and express confidence that the soul with faith in Christ “will be in everlasting remembrance” and “not fear the evil hearing” (Gradual). The Tract seems to waver between light and darkness:

Absolve, O Lord, the souls of all the faithful departed from every bond of sin: and by the help of Thy grace, may they be enabled to escape the avenging judgment and enjoy the happiness of light eternal.

The Sequence, the famous “Dies Irae,” gives free rein to terrifying and trembling truths:

The day of wrath, that awful day, shall reduce the world to ashes, as David and the Sibyl prophesied. How great will be the terror, when the Judge shall come to examine all things rigorously! … The written book shall be brought forth, containing all for which the world must be judged. When, therefore, the Judge shall be seated, whatsoever is hidden shall be brought to light, naught shall remain unpunished. What then shall I, unhappy man, allege? Whom shall I invoke as protector, when even the just shall hardly be secure? O King of awful majesty, who of Thy free gift savest them that are to be saved, save me, O fount of mercy! … My prayers are not worthy, but Thou who art good, grant in Thy kindness that I may not burn in the everlasting fire. Give me a place among Thy sheep and separate me from the goats, setting me on Thy right side. When the reprobate, covered with confusion, shall have been sentenced to the cruel flames, call me with the blessed.

The Offertory continues in a similar vein:

O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, deliver the souls of all the faithful departed from the pains of hell and the bottomless pit. Deliver them from the jaws of the lion, that hell not swallow them up, that they be not plunged into darkness. But let the holy standard-bearer Michael lead them into that holy light, R. which once Thou didst promise to Abraham and to his seed. V. Lord, we offer unto Thee sacrifices of praise and prayers; accept them on behalf of those whom we remember this day: Lord, make them pass from death to life, R. which Thou once promised to Abraham and to his seed.[1]

Perhaps most telling of all is the Collect appointed for the day of death or burial:

O God, whose property is ever to have mercy and to spare, we humbly entreat Thee on behalf of thy servant N., whom Thou hast bidden this day to pass out of this world, that Thou wouldst not deliver him into the hands of the enemy, nor forget him forever, but command that he be taken up by Thy holy angels and borne to the fatherland of paradise; that as he put his hope and faith in Thee, he will not suffer the pains of hell, but may possess everlasting joys.

These are strong prayers that deal unabashedly with the gaping jaws of hell and the possibility that we may be consumed by them for unrepented sins. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church; but they may very well prevail against you or me.

Such a liturgy presents the whole of the Catholic Faith. Once again: lex orandi, lex credendi. We believe as we pray. And what we do not pray, we will sooner or later cease to believe—it will be replaced by ersatz doctrine of dubious pedigree.

The Witness of the Lex Orandi

A wholesome recognition of eternal consequences may be seen in any number of places in the traditional Roman missal. Here is the Collect for the feast of St. Nicholas on December 6:

O God, who didst adorn the blessed Bishop Nicholas with countless miracles: grant, we beseech Thee, that by his merits and prayers we may be delivered from the flames of hell.

(In the Novus Ordo, this has been tamed into: “We humbly implore your mercy, Lord: protect us in all dangers through the prayers of the Bishop Saint Nicholas, that the way of salvation may lie open before us.”)

The Friday of Passion Week includes this galvanizing Collect:

Mercifully pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts: that we who restrain ourselves from sin by voluntary chastisement may rather suffer for a time than be condemned to eternal punishment.

The Collect for the Mass of Maundy Thursday speaks with clarity about the fate of Judas:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each retribution according to his merits, so having cleared away our former guilt, he may bestow on us the grace of His resurrection.

The Second Sunday after Easter prays in its Collect:

O God, who, by the humility of Thy Son, hast lifted up a fallen world, grant unending joy to Thy faithful; that those whom Thou hast snatched from the perils of endless death, Thou mayest cause to enjoy neverending delights.

The Third Sunday after Pentecost offers one of those magnificent Collects that says so much in so few words, and can be prayed with fervor by anyone who has the slightest self-knowledge:

O God, the protector of all that trust in Thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy, multiply Thy mercies upon us: that having Thee for our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not those which are eternal.

Of course, the only Eucharistic Prayer ever used in the usus antiquior is the 6^th-century Roman Canon, which forthrightly implores the Divine Majesty:

We beseech Thee, O Lord, to be appeased and accept this oblation of our service, as also of Thy whole family, and to dispose our days in Thy peace, snatch us from eternal damnation, and count us in the flock of Thine elect.

In addition, one could cite pertinent verses from the Sequences Stabat Mater and Lauda Sion, which, while still given as options in the Novus Ordo, are generally skipped over, due to length; they are, as usual, required in the old Latin Mass on certain days of the year.

Gentle reader, would you believe me if I said that none of the foregoing liturgical texts have survived the liturgical reform? But it is true. In some cases, the texts were removed altogether and can be found nowhere in the new books. In other cases, certain texts (such as the Offertory of the Requiem) can be found in a recondite and rarely-used book like the Graduale Romanum, or tucked away as a fourteenth option somewhere, but in practice they have disappeared from the life of the Church. The only place they thrive is where they are front and center as a required part of her public worship, namely, in communities that avail themselves of the traditional liturgy.

“The Word of God is Not Chained” (2 Tim 2:9) 

Beyond such prayers, hell is mentioned many times each year in the Gospel readings of the traditional Latin Mass, which, thankfully, retains the ancient one-year cycle of readings, rather than the gargantuan off-rhythm two- and three-year cycles of the Novus Ordo. In the usus antiquior, the solemn pronouncement of Our Lord in chapter 12 of the Gospel of St. Luke—“I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him”—is read at least four times in the year, namely, for the feast of St. Justin Martyr (April 14), SS. John and Paul (June 26), the Holy Maccabees (August 1), and SS. Tiburtius and Susanna (August 11), as well as any other time the common of several martyrs might be used. In comparison, this passage is read onceevery other year in the Novus Ordo. The parallel passage in chapter 10 of the Gospel of St. Matthew—“And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell”—is read for four feasts, those of St. Polycarp (January 26), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (March 18), St. Athanasius (May 2), and St. Irenaeus (July 3). In the Novus Ordo, it is read on one Saturday each year, and one Sunday every third year.

Matthew 5:22, “Whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire,” is part of the Gospel on the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost. In the Novus Ordo, this fortunately appears two weekdays per year, and one Sunday every third year. The pericope of Matthew 18:1–10, which includes these haunting words—

Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

—is read at least twice each year in the usus antiquior, namely, for the Dedication of St. Michael Archangel (September 29) and the Holy Guardian Angels (October 2). In the Novus Ordo, astonishingly, these verses are never read at all: the “friendly” verses 1–5, 10, and 12–14 are read a number of times, but the above-cited verses about hell-fire are excised. Too scary, I guess.

If I have done the math correctly, over a three-year period, one who attends the traditional Latin Mass daily will hear these particular hell-mentioning Gospels 33 times, while one who attends the Novus Ordo will hear them 13 times.[2]Obviously, there are a lot of other factors one would need to take into account for a full comparison of the presentation of the four last things in both forms of the Roman Rite, a project that exceeds the purpose of this article. Nevertheless, the comparison just given already exposes the kind of deep differences in lex orandi that I am claiming are relevant for understanding the confusion of our times in doctrine (lex credendi) and morals (lex vivendi).[3]

Spiritual Consequences for the Faithful

We have seen that the traditional liturgy prays for the living and the dead in a realistic manner and instructs us accordingly, emphasizing the mercy of God and the attainability of eternal life but not neglecting the Lord’s “avenging judgment” and the real possibility of damnation. The liturgy inculcates in us a lively awareness of our weakness and dependency on grace, the gravity of sin, the need for penance and asceticism, and the fundamental role that fear of the Lord must play in our interior life. The basic attitude of the worshiper is the one praised by the Psalmist: “Serve ye the Lord in fear, and rejoice before Him with trembling” (Ps 2:11).[4]

Instructed by the Mass of the Ages and other liturgical texts,[5] we believe that (a) not everyone automatically goes to heaven, (b) there is an almighty, all-knowing, all-just Judge who will scrutinize our works and give us what we ourselves have sought in our choices—whether glory or shame, beatitude or damnation; (c) the departed soul desperately needs our prayers because we wish them to be released from the agonies of purgatory, and one of the ways that happens is when members of the Church Militant offer prayers and penances for the dead.

Our actions in this life have eternal consequences, for good or for ill. One of those actions we must discern is whether we are living right now in accordance with the commandments of God, especially the Ten Commandments. This is not an optional examination of conscience for the extra-pious but a required examination for every human being who has reached the use of reason. In other words, no one may excuse himself before the Judge by saying: “I didn’t know I was supposed to examine my conscience on whether or not I was adhering to the Ten Commandments.” There are some things no one can be blamed for not knowing if they were never told, but there are other things—the natural moral law, in particular—that we are obliged to know and are capable of knowing. Moreover, the Catholic, having examined his conscience in this manner, must make a discernment about whether he is in a state of sanctifying grace, that he may approach the heavenly Banquet to receive the wounded and glorified Flesh of the Savior. This, after all, is the teaching of no less an authority that the Apostle St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29:

Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eatheth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.

But these verses, too, have been entirely omitted from the Novus Ordo. One begins to detect a pattern in all of this. The frightening fact, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Novus Ordo systematically downplays the reality of hell.[6]

The virtual disappearance of certain liturgical prayers and readings, and the significant reduction of others, is surely part of the reason, arguably the principal reason, that today’s Catholics are inclined to hold both universal salvation AND an “everyone is welcome” attitude about who may receive Holy Communion. The one view fits the other hand-in-glove.

The Amoris Laetitia debacle can be solved only when there is a broad return to traditional (i.e., Catholic) teaching on all of these subjects. The restoration of this teaching depends for its penetration, efficacy, and longevity on zealous adherence to traditional liturgies (Eastern and Western) where they already flourish, and their complete restoration wherever they do not. As far away as this goal seems, we must never tire of pursuing it, for the bond that unites the lex orandi, the lex credendi, and the lex vivendi is intrinsic, indissoluble, and inevitable.

NOTES

[1] Incidentally, the great antiquity of this Offertory is evident in a number of features. First, it preserves the form of a responsory, which was the original form of all the offertory antiphons. As time went on, the other offertory chants were shortened, but this one always remained in full. (The original verses for other Offertory chants are available in the Offertoriale published by Solesmes.) Second, its Old Testament resonances are characteristic of the classic prayer of the Roman Church, in particular the mention of the promise to Abraham and to his seed (i.e., Christ, as St. Paul teaches in Galatians), and the use of the phrase “sacrifice of praise,” which is how the 6^th-century Roman Canon describes the Eucharistic oblation. We are peering here into the very heart of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

[2] The numbers I am adding together are (4+4+4)+(4+4+4)+(1+1+1)+(2+2+2) for the usus antiquior Gospels, and (1+0+1)+(1+1+2)+(2+2+3)+(0+0+0) for the Novus Ordo.

[3] The ideal study aid for this question is Matthew P. Hazell’s Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite (n.p.: Lectionary Study Press, 2016). My Foreword to this volume goes into a number of other disturbing aspects of the revised lectionary. Recently I wrote about the significance of the fact that the Gospel of the wedding feast at Cana is read every year in the traditional Mass (Second Sunday after Epiphany) but only once every three years in the Novus Ordo (Second Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C).

[4]St. Augustine comments on this verse: “Serve the Lord with fear, lest what is said, You kings and judges of the earth,turn into pride: And rejoice with trembling. Very excellently is rejoice added, lest serve the Lord with fear should seem to tend to misery. But again, lest this same rejoicing should run on to unrestrained inconsiderateness, there is added with trembling, that it might avail for a warning, and for the careful guarding of holiness.”

[5] Such as the Athanasian Creed Quicumque vult, whose opening words are like a throwing-down of the gauntlet to indifferentism and universalism: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

[6] We often see the same thing in the dumbed-down versions of traditional prayers that are used in many catechism classes today. I came across an Act of Contrition in a CCD classroom that read more or less as follows: “My Lord, I am sorry for my sins. Help me to live like Jesus and to love everyone I meet. Amen.” A prayer of this sort does not adequately express either perfect or imperfect contrition. Contrast it with one of the traditional versions of the Act of Contrition: “O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all of my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because these sins have offended Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Amen.”