Church and State

Extracts from church and State , Burns and Oates 1952. For full text see www.sspxtheprieshood.com. Also read in conjunction with any post from www.ante-dinoscopus.blogspot.com



The teaching of Leo XIII“Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God” (Leo XIII). All authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, has for its final sanction the divine law. But, as the main object of the States existence differs from that which is the chief concern of the Church, we must distinguish a duality of function. Pope Leo XIII has restated for the benefit of modern society the principles which should determine the relations between Church and State. The Almighty, therefore, has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object Of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right”. (encyclical Immortale Dei 1885). Though both Church and State come from God, they are to be distinguished by the diversity of ends each has in view, a distinction which is the basis of the difference of powers enjoyed by each.



… The business of the State is to foster the common good of its citizens, to provide for their temporal well being. But, as man is so constituted that he cannot be happy even in this world unless his heart is set on his final end, which is God, the State cannot disregard these supra-temporal aspirations; it must, at least, indirectly, encourage whatever may assist their realization. Directly, however the State is concerned with promoting the public good by legislation in the interests of the political, social and private rights of its citizens. The application of its laws to particular cases and the settlement of individual claims and counter claims are subject to the States judiciary. Determining the effects of civil contracts, the punishment of law-breakers, the imposition of taxes, preparation for national defense, subsidizing the arts and sciences – these are the activities which properly engage the attention of the State. Nor can the State be accused of undue interference with personal liberty when it reinforces the moral law with positive statutes; for example, by forbidding blasphemy and public indecency. Propaganda in favour of philanthropic endeavour and personal unselfishness and, in general the fostering of an intellectual and moral atmosphere favourable to the practice of the natural virtues, especially justice and mutual well doing, fall likewise within the legitimate province of the State.


Power of the Church in political and social ordersIn none of these matters has the Church the right of direct interference. Occasions might arise, however when she must speak her mind even here. For the political and social orders, in so far as they fall under the moral law and the judgment of human conscience, are subject to the authority of the Church. This supremely important principle is not seldom overlooked: most often by those who resent the subjection of their political and social actions to any higher tribunal; though it is by no means unknown for the representatives of the Church to offend against it, for example in advocating merely personal views on political and social questions by an illegitimate appeal to alleged “Catholic Principles”. The Bishops it should be noted, are not qualified by their office to criticize the military strategy of a war, or express their views as to what the political and economic arrangements of a peace settlement should be; but they may, as pastors of their flocks and witnesses to the Gospel, pronounce upon the justice, or otherwise, of the issues involved.

Political elections as such, are no concern of bishops and priests, save in their capacity as private citizens; it is in fact their duty to remain strictly impartial, so as not to prejudice their position as spiritual guides to every section of their flock; but if a political party or individual candidates, are advocating measures opposed to the Church’s interests, then the faithful may be reminded of where their duty lies. Again, ecclesiastical authority is not empowered to sit in judgment upon purely economic questions of supply and demand, though clearly it may use its influence, let us say, to ensure that the workers are not deprived of a just wage. Thus many human situations can arise upon which the episcopate is entitled to give guidance, without being charges with “interference” In matters outside its sphere.

…Concordats
It is beyond the scope of these pages to enter into the detailed relations of the Church with the modern State. Liberal Democracy on the one hand, and the various forms of totalitarianism on the other, have given rise to a new set of problems, emphasized by the complete secularization of politics and an attitude towards religion ranging from sceptical indifference to fanatical hostility; but the principles of their solution remain the same. The Church will always claim the right to judge of politics in their ethical and religious bearings; but she will never descend into the political arena or allow herself to be identified with any human polity. If her own prerogatives are infringed she will make known her protest, not indeed on account of mere prestige, but lest she prove unfaithful to her mission. In situations where the ideal is unobtainable, she will tolerate much that is imperfect for the sake of the good that may be preserved. It is thus, that, without compromising her message she comes to terms, by means of a concordat, with governments in many ways opposed to her own interests. Such a diplomatic instrument is a treaty between the Holy See and a secular State touching the conservation and promotion of the interests of religion in that State. The extreme flexibility whereby the Church, in this way or by tacit agreement, can effect a modus vivendi with almost any political regime is a proof, not of unprincipled opportunism, but that she is committed to none. Here as in many other of her activities, she may appeal for her mandate to the example of the Apostle Paul “I became all things to all men, that I might save all”.



… No one has put this point more forcefully than Pope Pius XII, in words that refute forever the charge that Catholic Christianity oppresses the free life of the spirit under the weight of ecclesiastical formalism: “For although the juridical grounds upon which also the Church rests and is built have their origin in the divine constitution Given her by Christ, and although they contribute to the achievement of her supernatural purpose, nevertheless that which raises the Christian Society to a level utterly surpassing any order of nature is the Spirit of our Redeemer, the source of all graces, gifts and miraculous powers, perennially and intimately pervading the Church and acting in her. Just as the framework of our mortal body is indeed a marvellous work of the Creator, yet falls short of the sublime dignity of our soul, so the structure of the Christian Society, proof though it is of the wisdom of its divine Architect, is nevertheless something of a completely lower order in comparison with the spiritual gifts which enrich it and give it life, and with Him who is their divine source.”


The will of Christ fulfilled in the Church
So it is that the Catholic Church remains, now as ever, the ultimate hope of the world. She is the one supra-national force able to integrate a civilization fast dissolving in ruins. Outside her visible communion there may be “broken lights”, half truths of authentic Christianity; but only within the fold can men respond to the full and objective will of Christ. Fittingly we may end with the memorable words of St Augustine “Let us love the Lord our God; let us love his Church; the Lord as our Father the Church as our Mother…What doth it profit thee not to offend the Father, who avenges an offence against the Mother? What doth it profit to confess the Lord, to honour God, to preach him, to acknowledge his Son, and to confess that he sits on the right hand of the Father, if you blaspheme his Church? Hold fast therefore, O dearly beloved, hold fast unswervingly to God as your Father, and the Church as your Mother.”

Reticence set aside

I publish now in May 2010, the writings explaining how anti-dinoscpus.blogspot came about.

Following my public denouncement (September 2009) it seems the moment to explain how anti-dinoscopus came about and why it was re-submitted, I give the facts to avoid the need for further erroneous speculation. Below are my views and observations from 1977-www.ante-dinoscopus.blogspot.com

With Burning Sorrow
The opening chapter in the book “The Living Flame” (the history of the first 25 years of the SSPX in the UK) is headed with this title ”With Burning Sorrow”. Surely there can be no better description of what any serious minded Catholic endures today, and has endured since Vatican II, be they man or woman, consecrated soul or a member of the laity.

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote of living through three world wars, the last being Vatican II which he refers to as the most terrible. The aftermath of this conflict remains with us still. Perhaps in a hundred years or so, at a future moment when the Church is restored to her soundness the events we are living through will be codified and laid down for all to see and understand and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be raised to the altars of the church as the modern day St Athanasius.

I was by God’s grace converted and received into the Traditional Catholic church on 28 May 1977 and began my life as a Catholic having lived previously beyond the pale. I had the further privilege of being confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre on the feast of Pentecost, 1978 at Ecốne.

England, once known as the Isle of Saints and Our Lady’s Dowry can claim to be a first fruit of the SSPX. Fr Peter Morgan an Englishman, was the first priest to be ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the Society on 29 June 1971. As a district of SSPX we are small in size and number and possibly considered as an irrelevance compared to the many major districts that now flourish but the steady and dogged practice of the faith by many here in the UK, both living and dead bear witness to “the Faith of our Fathers” as being alive and well, I believe we are loyal to SSPX. Those early years in the 70’s and 80’s were heady days, the days when all energies were directed towards the devotional life and sticking together with the SSPX as the provider of the true sacraments of the church.

The stewardship of the SSPX in the UK passed from Rev Fr. Peter Morgan to Rev Fr Edward Black. His trustworthy hand remained on the helm until the Autumn of 2000. There were of course difficulties, sedevacantism reared its ugly head, the introduction here in the UK of the 1962 liturgy , priestly departures for a variety of reasons - but it never crossed my mind to speak publicly on any issues during these years as full confidence in the Superior Fr Black, made it unnecessary, at least for me. We just got on with living the faith. The opening of additional churches and Mass centres created a dilution of the “feeling” of strength but generally special events like Corpus Christi, the Forty Hours Devotion, processions for Our Lady, first Friday vigils, pilgrimages etc. were well attended.


While Archbishop Lefebvre lived there were no need for qualms of any kind, the creation of the four bishops gave positive hope for the continuance of what had gone before and initially all seemed well in the first few years following the death of that great prelate in 1991.

The proliferation of the world wide web and most recently blog pages and twitter give the impression that everyone is now a Theologian, or Canon Lawyer - if not vested with papal authority ! What a mess.

I have seen wonderful young men enter the seminaries to become priests and how blessed I am that this is so and that the priestly society of St Pius X increases in numbers. However priests from the USA seminary in particular seemed to bring with them a politicized view of their ministry, their priesthood seemed secularized, I am left thinking something is not quite right and then convincing myself it is not so, over and over again.

I chanced upon the secular/ conspiracy/ Jewish domination “Theology” being carried by HE Bishop Williamson in doing a good turn. I was copying the talks he gave at St Josephs here in London for St Georges House, The publicized talks on “1984” and “Alice in Wonderland” made no sense to me, but the talks on papal encyclicals did - so I started to listen to what I was copying. My word was I shocked… I then started to look on the internet plus reading some of dinoscopus and the full impact of world wide damage being done by dear Bishop Williamson became apparent to me . At every point he was introducing his personal and distorted views on worldly issues from the platform of his Episcopal dignity.

So in 2008 literally after three to four months of prayers and research and anguishing I put on line anti-dinoscopus. What a terrible thing it is (of that I have no doubt) to admonish a Bishop of the church. I tremble yet at it but believe it was the right action to take, done as respectfully as I could muster. The thrust of anti-dinoscopus being to ask HE Bishop Williamson a number of questions. At the hand of a disreputable blog page I was vilified. Then In discussion with Fr Morgan I agreed as a mark of respect and courtesy to withdraw the blog believing that it had served its purpose.

We all know the storm that burst early this year following the repeated “one too many times declaration” from Bishop Williamson over the Holocaust.

I of course with many other people who attend the SSPX Mass looked to Bishop Fellay for the definitive word on the debacle, and the compliance of all his priests with his words. I give some of his early statements:


“We, the Society, are a religious organization, part of the Catholic Church. Our aim, energies, and means have to be used for the purpose of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. This is accomplished by preaching the truths of Revelation given by Our Lord and through the grace of the sacraments.”

“…. He (BW) has damaged us and hurt our reputation. We have very clearly distanced ourselves. He was not ordained as a bishop for his own personal purpose but for the common good of the church, to spread the revealed truth. “

“…That will happen ( removal from SSPX) if he denies the Holocaust again. It is probably better for everyone if he stays quiet and stays in a corner somewhere. I want him to disappear from the public eye for a good while.”

“..The problem is that his comments have been linked to his office. “

“…These statements have not only caused a limitation on Bishop Williamson’s movement, but they have caused severe damage to the Society as a whole. This is seen first in different material ways, such as having lost several churches or Mass centers, places we rented, whose owners now refuse to rent to us ( in more than one country). Also, several projects which were designed for the growth of the Society have simply been lost because of this story. Thus, even materially, the Society’s growth has been prevented because of this situation. I may say that the worst part of the situation is the fact that our enemies and adversaries have used his statements to make the whole Society infamous: “The Society is anti-Semitic or influenced by Nazism.” This is, of course, not true, but they have tried to imply consequences on the religious level by these kinds of statements.,”

Further very active promotions of Bishop Williamson are taking place on the www and many hundreds of videos which carry the poisoned views have not been removed from You Tube. Any one who understands even a little about You Tube will know that if Bishop Williamson wished videos to be removed they could and would be. I can only presume he does not wish it. His publisher Mr Heiner continues to promote through the blog true restoration much that is incipiently hamrful.

It seems to me reasonable to expect that a genuine "true restoration" and a healing of the breach in the SSPX would come from following the directives of Bishop Fellay. Removing from You Tube and the world wide web in general every vestige of secular opinions that have brought the SSPX into disrepute. If this is not done clearly the harm to the SSPX continues. A war on the internet is raging, a war in virtual reality that has disastrously over spilled into the real lives of traditional Catholics throughout the world.

The repercussions of this genuine scandal are far more severe on the continent than they are here in the UK, a fact which seems to be lost on the potty minority who proclaim they are ”for” Bishop Williamson. Personally I am “for” the true seven sacraments of the Church in order to save my soul.

Therefore, with dismay and a heavy heart, on the 1st July I advised Switzerland and Fr Morgan that I intended to re-introduce an amended blog of anti-dinoscopus. I invited Switzerland to request me not to do so but they did not respond. I was aware though that Fr Morgan intended to take steps against me and I respect his right as a priest and District Superior to do that. Thus in the September 2009 Newsletter I was publicly denounced for my action.

My blog page is rather more for what it is about than against Bishop Williamson. Anyone who works out what dinoscopus means will see that! The madness of all this is its irrelevance and that includes my blogs. My duty is to save my soul, to keep the commandments and laws of the church, to live my faith on a daily basis so when God Calls me home I am not found wanting but in full confidence of His saving Grace and mercy.

Do any of Bishop Williamsons secular opinions alter that responsibility NO
Does how many Jewish people died in WWII alter that responsibility NO
Does what happened on 9/11 alter that responsibility NO
Does who was Jack the Ripper alter that responsibility NO
Does any worldly conspiracy of any kind alter that responsibility NO
Does my age or gender alter that responsibility NO
Does sickness, health, wealth or poverty alter that responsibility NO
Does war or peace alter that responsibility NO
Does Jewish or Muslim domination alter that responsibility NO


Obviously some of the above can make the practice of the faith more or less difficult. The list could go on but this is the nub! I look to Bishop and priest to feed and nurture my soul on the word of God. To lead and direct me in the way of sanctity and to leave all worldly matters outside the church please.!

Conclusion

How heartily I wish and pray that Bishop Williamson should be renowned for his sanctity in emulation of Archbishop Lefebvre, that his “casting out” should have been in imitation of Christ in which case he would have returned to us a spiritual hero, a giant among men. I hope for unity and singleness of purpose among the clergy of SSPX and pray as it is my duty to do for all the priests and Bishops of the Society,

especially for Bishop Fellay who has the unenviable responsibility of being Superior General. Well might the sentiments expressed by St. Pius X in an allocution apply to him at this time.

"In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men.... All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: what are those wounds in the midst of thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: with these was I wounded in the house of them that loved me. I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

St. Pius X, allocution upon the occasion of the Beatification of Joan of Arc in 1908 emphasis in the original


Sincerely, Dorothy Banks 19 October 2009 (placed on line regretfully on 5 May 2010)


** see ‘The Teaching of the Catholic Church’ Burns & Oates 1952. Chapter xx The Church on Earth, part xi Church and state- for an explanation of the rightful stance of the Church on politics and social conditions.