La libertad religiosa

I. La oposición del Vaticano II y de la doctrina anterior a propósito de la libertad religiosa. 

II. La consecuencia teologal de esta oposición. 

III. Las consecuencias teológicas de la libertad religiosa.

I

La oposición más evidente entre la enseñanza de Vaticano II y la doctrina anteriormente enseñada por la Iglesia católica concierne a la libertad religiosa. Más precisamente, se trata de la existencia de un derecho a la libertad religiosa en el fuero externo y público, la existencia de un derecho a profesar públicamente la religión de su elección.

Se trata, por tanto, del derecho civil en materia religiosa.

La religión católica romana es la única religión verdadera; debido a su misión divina, tiene un derecho imprescriptible a la libertad civil para todo lo que concierne a esta misión. El punto, pues, donde existe la oposición es la libertad del ejercicio público de las falsas religiones y de los falsos cultos.

Por tanto, se debe eliminar lo que no está en cuestión:

• la libertad del acto de fe;
• el deber de buscar la verdad religiosa y de adherirse a ella;
• la obligación que emana de la conciencia errónea;
• la libertad de la Iglesia católica;
• el eventual deber del Estado de tolerar en ciertos casos los falsos cultos para evitar males mayores (deber que de ningún modo fundamenta un derecho correlativo en los súbditos).

Tampoco se trata, en este primer punto, de explicar o de justificar la enseñanza de Pío IX; se trata simplemente de constatar y recibir las condenas que él pronuncia, condenas de falsos principios sociales considerados en sí mismos, independientemente de su contexto filosófico (racionalismo, naturalismo) o histórico (individualismo).

Se trata de constatar que Dignitatis humanæ enseña como un derecho natural lo que Quanta Cura condena por derivar de un principio contrario a la Revelación divina: lo cual es estrictamente incompatible.

Finalmente, antes de manifestar esta oposición, creo útil precisar que una cosa es no ver el vínculo, la continuidad o la coherencia entre dos enseñanzas, y otra cosa es ver una incompatibilidad radical entre ellas.

En el primer caso, si se trata de enseñanzas que corresponden a la fe, se aplica el Credo ut intellegam. En el segundo caso, es imposible para la inteligencia humana, con la mejor buena voluntad del mundo, adherirse verdadera y simultáneamente a dos proposiciones contradictorias o contrarias.

Última precisión. Es necesario recibir los textos del Magisterio según su sentido obvio, que a veces puede ser técnico o difícil, y no según sentidos «traídos por los pelos» para hacerlos compatibles con otros.

Si se necesita una obra de 300 páginas para estirar un texto en un sentido, estirar el otro en el sentido opuesto, y encontrar casos particulares para afirmar solemnemente que hay identidad, continuidad y compatibilidad, cuando los sentidos primeros y claros se niegan a estas contorsiones, es porque hay un grave problema en el cual la fe (que se ejerce mediante la inteligencia natural) no es satisfecha.

Para borrar la oposición, no se puede, por tanto, recurrir a razonamientos de este tipo: «Señor Gendarme, le he hecho venir para presentar una denuncia contra mi vecino que se entrega a atentados contra el pudor: ¡nunca cierra la ventana de su cuarto de baño! 

—¡Ah, bueno! ¡Pero esa ventana no se ve desde su casa! 

—¡Sí, sí! Tome esta tabla de planchar, apóyela por un lado bajo la mesa y saque el otro extremo por la ventana. Sobre la mesa, coloque diez grandes diccionarios para hacer contrapeso. Al final de la tabla, en el exterior, coloque este taburete, súbase a él, inclínese hacia adelante sujetándose del canalón, y notará que se puede vislumbrar que su ventana está abierta. Verá que yo tenía razón. ¡Es insoportable!».

1. LOS TEXTOS

a) QUANTA CURA

«Además, contra la doctrina de la Sagrada Escritura, de la Iglesia y de los santos Padres, afirman sin vacilación que: 

«la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder el deber de reprimir mediante penas legales las violaciones de la ley católica, a no ser en la medida en que la tranquilidad pública lo exija. [A] 

«En consecuencia de esta idea absolutamente falsa del gobierno de las sociedades, no temen sostener esta opinión errónea, funesta al máximo para la Iglesia católica y la salvación de las almas, que Nuestro Predecesor Gregorio XVI, de feliz memoria, calificaba de 'delirio':

«"La libertad de conciencia y de cultos es un derecho propio de cada hombre; [B] 

«este derecho debe ser proclamado y garantizado por la ley en toda sociedad bien organizada". [C]»

Llamo [A], [B] y [C] a tres proposiciones condenadas. He aquí el texto en latín: 

[A] Optimam esse conditionem societatis, in qua imperio non agnoscitur officium coercendi sancitis pœnis violatores catholicæ religionis, nisi quatenus pax publica postulet. 

[B] Libertatem conscientiæ et cultuum esse proprium cujuscumque hominis jus... 

[C] quod lege proclamari et asseri debet in omni recte constituta societate.

La proposición [A] es condenada por sí misma y declarada absolutamente (omnino) falsa: no es, por tanto, debido al naturalismo o al individualismo de quienes la profesaban en 1864 por lo que es reprobada; lo mismo ocurre con las proposiciones [B] y [C], calificadas conjuntamente como opinión errónea.

b) DIGNITATIS HUMANÆ

He aquí el § 2: 

«El Concilio Vaticano declara que la persona humana tiene derecho a la libertad religiosa [B'].

«Esta libertad consiste en que todos los hombres deben estar inmunes de coacción tanto por parte de personas particulares como de grupos sociales y de cualquier potestad humana, de tal manera que, 

«en materia religiosa, ni se obligue a nadie a obrar contra su conciencia, ni se le impida que actúe, dentro de los límites debidos, conforme a su conciencia, en privado y en público, solo o asociado con otros [A']. 

«Declara, además, que el derecho a la libertad religiosa tiene su fundamento en la dignidad misma de la persona humana, tal como la han dado a conocer la palabra de Dios y la misma razón. 

«Este derecho de la persona humana a la libertad religiosa en el ordenamiento jurídico de la sociedad debe ser reconocido de tal manera que constituya un derecho civil [C'].»

He llamado [B'], [A'] y [C'] a tres principios presentados como universales, independientes de las circunstancias, puesto que están fundados en la naturaleza misma del hombre bajo el aspecto de su dignidad. En la proposición [A'], lo que está en juego es: «impedido de actuar... en público...». 

[A'] Ita quidem ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam neque impediatur, quominus juxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites. 

[B'] Hæc Vaticana synodus declarat personam humanam jus habere ad libertatem religiosam.

[C'] Hoc jus personæ humanæ ad libertatem religiosam in juridica societatis ordinatione ita est agnoscendum, ut jus civile evadat.

El contenido de los límites debidos de [A'] se da en el § 7: se trata de las exigencias de la paz y de la moralidad públicas. Esto coincide con la tranquilidad pública de la que hace mención Quanta Cura, pero, de todas formas, esto corresponde a la aplicación del derecho, el cual es afirmado por sí mismo.

2. LA OPOSICIÓN

Por una parte, las proposiciones [B] y [C] condenadas por Quanta Cura son equivalentes a las proposiciones [B'] y [C'] enseñadas por Dignitatis Humanæ.

Por otra parte, la proposición [A] condenada por Quanta Cura está necesariamente implicada por la proposición [A'] enseñada por Vaticano II: y, por tanto, la condena de [A] arrastra la de [A'].

Repito que se trata de la libertad religiosa en el fuero externo público: ¿es o no un derecho natural? ¿Debe este derecho ser legalmente reconocido en la sociedad civil?

El encadenamiento entre [A'] y [A] se establece así: Si en materia religiosa nadie debe ser impedido de actuar en público según su conciencia (dentro de los límites debidos) [A'], entonces el poder público no debe reprimir mediante penas legales a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser en la medida en que la tranquilidad pública lo exija).

De ello se sigue que la condición de la sociedad donde no se reconoce al poder la carga de reprimir mediante penas legales a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser...) es mejor que la condición de la sociedad donde se reconoce al poder tal carga, lo que equivale a decir que la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder la carga de reprimir mediante la sanción de penas a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser...) [A].

Por lo demás, está muy claro que si la libertad religiosa es un derecho natural, ¡la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder la carga de violar ese derecho natural!

Por tanto, [A'] arrastra necesariamente a [A], y la condena de [A] arrastra la de [A'].

Quanta Cura y Dignitatis Humanæ son radicalmente incompatibles.

II

La contradicción, prácticamente palabra por palabra, está, pues, comprobada. Pío IX condena lo que Vaticano II enseña. El problema es, por tanto, grave, y aparece netamente más grave si se considera que nos encontramos ante dos casos de infalibilidad...

1. Quanta Cura ES UN ACTO PONTIFICIO ex cathedra

Basta leer la conclusión del documento para que esto sea plenamente evidente: «Acordándonos de Nuestro ministerio apostólico (...) reprobamos, proscribimos y condenamos con Nuestra autoridad apostólica todas y cada una de las perversas opiniones y doctrinas recordadas al principio de Nuestra carta; y queremos y mandamos que todos los hijos de la Iglesia católica las tengan absolutamente por reprobadas, proscritas y condenadas» [Denzinger 1699].

El Papa Pío IX habló infaliblemente cada vez que en la encíclica condenó errores concernientes a la fe o a las costumbres; es entonces infaliblemente como esos errores fueron y permanecen condenados. Y este es el caso de la libertad religiosa.

2. Dignitatis Humanæ ES UN ACTO CONCILIAR INFALIBLE

En efecto, el decreto afirma tres veces que la libertad religiosa está fundada en la Revelación divina, porque se deriva de la dignidad del hombre tal como Dios la ha revelado: 

§ 2: «Declara, además, que el derecho a la libertad religiosa tiene su fundamento en la dignidad de la persona humana, tal como la han dado a conocer la Palabra de Dios y la misma razón». 

§ 9: «Esta doctrina de la libertad tiene sus raíces en la Revelación divina, lo cual, para los cristianos, es un título más para serle santamente fieles». 

§ 12: «La Iglesia, por consiguiente, fiel a la verdad del Evangelio, sigue el camino que siguieron Cristo y los Apóstoles cuando reconoce el principio de la libertad religiosa como conforme a la dignidad del hombre y a la Revelación divina, y fomenta una tal libertad».

3. IMPOSIBILIDAD DE UN DOBLE ACTO DE FE

Si nos quedamos ahí, nos encontramos ante una imposibilidad: habría que creer por fe divina y católica y simultáneamente dos proposiciones que no pueden ser verdaderas al mismo tiempo: la libertad religiosa (la libertad civil en materia religiosa) es contraria a la Revelación divina; la libertad religiosa es conforme a la Revelación divina y fundada en ella.

Es, por tanto, imposible creer que Pío IX es Papa y que Vaticano II es un concilio ecuménico. Es o lo uno o lo otro.

Y no es una libre elección que se deje a la apreciación del fiel: es la fe misma, la fe católica ejercida, la que debe indicar, sin duda ni ambigüedad, a qué parte rendir la adhesión necesaria y a qué parte, el rechazo necesario.

4. CONVERGENCIA Y ANTERIORIDAD

La fe católica nos hace adherirnos imperativamente a la proposición: Pío IX es Papa, Vaticano II es un falso concilio y la libertad religiosa es un falso derecho. Y esto por dos razones:

• por una razón material y secundaria: la libertad religiosa ha sido condenada muchas veces; esta condena expresa, por tanto, la doctrina perenne de la Iglesia;
• por una razón formal y principal, la anterioridad, vitalmente integrada en el acto de fe. No hay que olvidar tener en cuenta que en la tierra la Iglesia católica vive en el tiempo; esto es esencial para su carácter de Iglesia militante.

Cuando Dignitatis Humanæ enseña que la libertad religiosa está fundada en la revelación divina, esta declaración conciliar se dirige a almas que, debido a Quanta Cura y a la enseñanza y práctica seculares de la Iglesia, ya creen en la fe que dicha libertad religiosa es contraria a la Revelación divina.

La fe teologal prohíbe al creyante (que se adhiere anterior y tranquilamente a Quanta Cura) poner en duda la fe. Y así, con la llegada de Dignitatis Humanæ, solo hay tres soluciones posibles: ausencia de contradicción, ausencia de necesidad de adherirse, ausencia de autoridad.

Por tanto, tras haber verificado que efectivamente hay contradicción según el sentido obvio de los textos, tras haber constatado que Dignitatis Humanæ impera una adhesión de fe, el creyante debe necesariamente rechazar su adhesión al texto de Dignitatis Humanæ y a la autoridad que se lo enseña.

Es, pues, la fe católica la que impide considerar a Vaticano II como un verdadero concilio, y por tanto considerar a Pablo VI (de quien Vaticano II extrae toda su autoridad) como un verdadero Papa.

III

Brevemente, enumeremos las consecuencias de la enseñanza de Vaticano II, no desde el punto de vista de la contradicción, sino desde el punto de vista de su contenido.

1. La libertad religiosa no es el indiferentismo, pero inexorablemente conduce a él. Dignitatis humanæ enseña que la libertad religiosa es un derecho, y un derecho que debe tener cabida en todas las legislaciones. Pero para los cristianos ordinarios (y todos lo somos), para los pobres, para los ut in pluribus (la mayoría), lo que es legal es moral o llega a serlo muy pronto (los promotores del «matrimonio civil» contaban con ello, y lo lograron). Y así, si todas las religiones deben ser legalmente dejadas libres, es porque están moralmente permitidas, se dicen espontáneamente, o poco a poco, los pobres. Vaticano II no enseña el indiferentismo, pero su libertad religiosa a él conduce los espíritus tan ciertamente como cualquier discurso. Y quizás de manera más duradera, por estar moldeada en el orden legislativo.
2. El derecho afirmado por Dignitatis humanæ puede parecer periférico a la doctrina católica, pero contiene en germen la destrucción de todo el orden moral. Porque afirmar que un derecho (es decir, lo que es justo: jus est justum) puede tener un objeto malo (una falsa religión), es la negación misma del derecho. Nos enfrentamos, para empezar, a un derecho civil; pero se pasará muy pronto al derecho moral. Es bien sabido que cuando se quiere introducir un falso principio, se hace en un ámbito periférico, o mal conocido, o de escasa importancia. Una vez que se ha hecho aceptar, ya no queda sino esperar...
3. Hay en el fondo de la libertad religiosa un cambio de la concepción de la naturaleza humana. Lo que constituye la motivación profunda de Dignitatis humanæ, lo que domina en los debates que la prepararon, lo que subyace en el texto entero, es que la libertad es el primer atributo del hombre, su característica esencial, el fundamento de todos sus derechos, el criterio último del bien y del mal sociales. Si los términos de la declaración no son tan explícitos, es, sin embargo, en la perspectiva de la libertad, y de la libertad reivindicada, donde ella se sitúa desde el principio, incluso antes de evocar a Dios y la necesidad de buscarle y servirle. Este desplazamiento y esta hipertrofia de la libertad que, de modo natural de los actos humanos, es promovida al rango de divinidad oculta en el hombre, no son expresados por Dignitatis humanæ sino en el orden social. Pero como la vida en sociedad es la perfección natural de la vida humana, es, por tanto, la naturaleza misma la que se concibe como primordialmente finalizada por la libertad. Es el personalismo llevado a su punto de ebullición, es la reedición in causa del non serviam.
4. Hay una consecuencia inmediata de la afirmación del falso derecho a la libertad civil en materia religiosa que concierne a la concepción del bien común de la sociedad. Este ya no incluirá en sus elementos constitutivos la posesión común y pacífica de la verdadera religión. Esta desnaturalización proviene de una especie de necesidad y la manifiesta: ya que el bien común ya no es considerado como el impulso común, la ayuda mutua necesaria, para el conocimiento de la verdad y la realización del bien, sino como una armonización de las libertades individuales.
5. Desde ese momento, el reinado social de Jesucristo ya no está orgánicamente ligado al bien común sino que aparece como un elemento advenedizo «pegado», opcional, anticuado, heterogéneo a la marcha de la humanidad hacia la libertad, ligado a las circunstancias, a lo sumo individual, folclórico. Debe dejar su lugar al reinado del hombre... ¡bonita perspectiva!

Regresar a la página principal del Testamento del P. Hervé Belmont.

Mists of "Revelationism" and the light of Faith

Saint Thérèse de Lisieux

Itinéraires n° 181 (March 1974), pp. 177-187

By Roger Thomas CALMEL, O.P.

I call "revelationism" an inordinate reliance on private revelations; a reliance that is not sufficiently enlightened and corrected by reason and faith. Experience shows that Christians afflicted with either "apparitionism" or "revelationism" are difficult people to cure. I would at least hope that their illness is not too contagious, which is why I am writing this note.

To be sure, I do not reproach these brothers in the faith for believing in the marvelous of a private order, nor for its indispensable role in the Church, but rather for practically placing it above Scripture and Tradition; furthermore, for equating the most diverse marvelous events; and finally, for allowing their inner life to be thrown off track by the marvelous, instead of placing it under the domain of the theological virtues, which are the true center of all life in Christ.

Thus, one finds certain Christians who grant exactly the same credit to childish and bizarre revelations, supposedly received by privileged souls, as they do to the messages of Lourdes, which are so limpid, so sober, and so consonant with Catholic dogma. And what can be said of those Christians who, relying on the visions of these famous privileged souls, know much more about the Passion of our Lord than the evangelists themselves. An author not long ago overwhelmed us with devotional tracts about the secret sorrows of Our Lord. These tracts indicate a troubled, unhealthy, and, frankly, unhinged imagination in the visionary, who, moreover, is impossible to identify.

Yet, the same author is now beginning to distribute a copious compilation that is presented to us alternately as an "encyclopedia of Christian prophetism" and as "the book of the century". "Hurry," says the six-page advertising flyer, "hurry to order it from Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France." Hurry all the more because it is five minutes to midnight. It is Five Minutes to Midnight—such is the title of the prophetic and encyclopedic work that announces to us that "Paris will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah, that three days of darkness will end the announced calamities, and that, after catastrophes of all kinds, only a quarter of humanity will remain, and perhaps even less".

These punishments are by no means impossible, but one would like prophets or prophetesses to produce sufficient credentials to grant them credence. To accredit their own message, saints as eminent as Joan or Bernadette did not dispense themselves from doing so. Furthermore, is it quite appropriate to mix commercial interests and religious sentiment in a prospectus; to appeal to the fear of God while simultaneously deploying the tricks of advertising, for you are told flat out that this book is "the book of the century... one needs to have it on hand at all times... it exerts a calming influence on the reader"? All of this does not seem very serious.

But combating the merchants of revelations hardly attracts me. Discarding spoiled food is not enough to nourish souls. Let us rather seek the life-giving nourishment of the Divine Scriptures. And since the revelationists speak to us so much about the Lord's judgments on human history, let us recall the teachings of Revelation as reported to us by the inspired texts. Let us also recall, on the same subject, the solid doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors. We believe in the return of the Lord: "Credo... in unum Dominum Jesum Christum... et iterum, venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis."

However, we are not fixated on the day and the hour, for it is not within the Lord's mission to make them known to us (Matt. xxiv, 36). We know that not only will there come, at the end, a supreme antichrist, but also that, throughout the course of history, there will be prefigurations of the antichrist. Not only will there be the final general apostasy predicted in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (II Thess. ii, 3-12), but beforehand, we will experience prefigurations of the apostasy. Not only at the very end of ends will faith be almost extinguished and charity alive only among a small number—so much will coldness and selfishness have spread death into the souls of men; not only, therefore, at the end of history will humanity be almost entirely without faith and without love, but there will also be, during the course of history, prefigurations of this darkening and this sort of extinction of spiritual life. We, Christians, have always known, in particular the apostle Saint John and since Saint Augustine, that a final antichrist would come but that he had precursors since apostolic times (I Jn. ii, 18). We know that the Apocalypse is not an anticipated chronology but a theology of history in the form of symbols that repeat, recapitulate, and mutually clarify one another. We know that chapter xxiv of Saint Matthew, and chapters xvii (latter part) and xxi of Saint Luke do not concern exclusively two generations: the generation contemporary with the first coming of the Lord, which saw the ruin of the temple, and the final generation, which will see the glorious return of Jesus Christ; but these chapters are also addressed, in many respects, to the generations situated between the two. The Lord deemed worthy of His infallible teaching, regarding the judgments He passes on the unfolding of history, the numerous intermediate generations which were to be, by far, those that would count the most faithful, those that would form the most important part of His Church.

There is one sign of the end that will have no prior repetition: that is the conversion of the Jewish people as a people. But as for this very sign, no one is in a position to say exactly where it should be placed before the end of the world. For the other signs—apostasy, antichrist, expansion of the Gospel, spiritual death, wars, and cataclysms—we know that even if they develop according to a sort of linear progress, they also proceed by cyclical repetitions. Toward which of these repetitions we are marching, God only knows.

Therefore, to the intermediate generations between the one that witnessed the ruin of Jerusalem and the one that will see the end of the world, the Lord gave a double revelation: at the same time that He announced the overflows of iniquity and prodigious punishments, He guaranteed us the permanence of the sources of courage and consolation. Whatever the historical refinements of iniquity may be, these days of trial, however dangerous they may be, will be shortened for the sake of the elect (Matt. xxiv, 22); secondly, no one will be able to snatch the sheep from the hand of the Good Shepherd (Jn. x, 28-29); thirdly, Redemption will never cease to be near, and we must lift up our heads, levate capita vestra (Lk. xxi, 28), toward Him whose Heart is open for us (Jn. xix, 37); fourthly, the Holy Spirit will not cease to bear witness to Christ (Jn. xvi, 1-15), even when the apostasy seems to submerge everything.

To sum it all up, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. xvi, 18), against Peter, and against the faith; against the Mass (1) and against the sacraments, even when the man of lawlessness sits in the holy place (II Thess. ii, 4 and Matt. xxiv, 15). There is, therefore, a double revelation regarding divine judgments and punishments. These contrasting aspects must not be isolated and separated. When private revelations concern the interventions of divine justice, they must fit faithfully into this perspective of canonical revelation.

Yet, this is not what is found in the various publications of the revelationists. These writings have just what is needed to panic and terrorize souls. Not only do they claim to pinpoint the day and the hour of where we stand in the preparations and prefigurations of the end—which already shows no lack of audacity —but in their simplistic eagerness to predict the day and the hour, they accustom those who listen to them to live in the irrational, preferring unverified rumors over the light of common sense and wisely conducted reflection. They have no true, realistic concern for specifying the remedies that it is always in our power to apply, whatever state we may be in regarding the repetition of the end.

Furthermore, they are much more preoccupied with curiously seeking what span of time separates us from the end than with strengthening themselves in faith—faith in the grace of redemption, which is always sufficient regardless of the remoteness or proximity of the Parousia. "It is five minutes to midnight," the manufacturers of prophetic encyclopedias tell us ; but they will not know how to tell us this: whether it is five minutes to midnight or half past ten, it is, in any case, the hour to do what lies within us to attend a good Mass with the proper dispositions ; it is the hour to meditate upon and recite the Rosary ; it is the hour to serve our neighbor without complicity in their weaknesses and without irritation at their miseries ; it is the hour to make exceptional sacrifices to preserve children from corruption and to ensure the existence of true Christian schools ; it is the hour, finally, for clerics to live even more according to the dignity of their state and to deepen their ecclesiastical sciences, instead of wasting their time deciphering the nonsense with which the indiscreet publicity of apparitionists of every stripe submerges us.

We obviously do not reject private prophecies on the pretext that they announce divine punishments: plague and fire, war and famine, and catastrophes of all kinds. We reject them all the less under such a pretext because fearsome predictions are an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our merciful Savior gave Himself as king and as judge ; judge not only at the end of the world, but also judge over the course of history. Ipsius sunt tempora et sæcula (2). The predictions about the ruin of Jerusalem, the terrible end of the world, and the persecutions of Christians cannot be removed from the Gospels and the Epistles. On several occasions, Jesus spoke as a prophet of doom. But He is a prophet of doom within a Gospel climate, and that is what changes everything, making His prophecy a nourishment for living by divine grace, a source of inner peace and beatitude. Beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur (3).

Thus, we will take care not to despise private prophecies when they are prophecies of doom, and precisely for that reason ; but we demand two things: first, sufficient credentials to accept that the messenger or visionary speaks to us from God, in God's name, and not from their own making ; which presupposes this second condition, that their prophecy aligns with that path of peace, conversion, and supernatural equilibrium which is the path of the Gospel. In a word, that private prophecies, even comminatory ones, maintain themselves at that level of elevation, sobriety, and purity which belongs to the Gospel.

The Great Monarch and the Great Pope: this is one of the chapters of the famous encyclopedia. That is all very fine, but in any case, if the Lord, in His mercy, wishes once again to give France a leader who is wise and holy, docile to the See of Peter but free from papism—if the Lord deigns to grant our country this quite extraordinary mercy—well, a preparation is indispensable. Yet this preparation will not happen if too many Christians allow themselves to be carried away by the epidemic of revelationism.

It can be good to sometimes recall "the prophecy of Saint Pius X" (4):

"What shall I say now to you, sons of France, who groan under the weight of persecution? The people that made an alliance with God at the baptismal fonts of Reims will repent and return to its first vocation... Faults will not go unpunished, but she will never perish, the daughter of so many merits, so many sighs, and so many tears. A day will come, and we hope it is not far off, when France, like Saul on the road to Damascus, will be enveloped in a heavenly light and will hear a Voice repeating to her: 'My daughter, why do you persecute Me?' And upon her reply: 'Who are You, Lord?' the Voice will answer: 'I am Jesus whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the goad, because, in your obstinacy, you ruin yourself.' And she, trembling and astonished, will say: 'Lord, what do You want me to do?' And He: 'Arise, wash away the stains that have disfigured you, awaken in your bosom the dormant sentiments and the pact of our alliance, and go, eldest Daughter of the Church, predestined nation, vessel of election, go carry as in the past My name before all the peoples and all the kings of the earth.'"

The recall of such a prophecy can be useful. Still, it would need to be done with logic and honesty, for it is as dishonest as it is illogical to hold out hope for God's mercy regarding the future of the nation while failing to do the little that lies within us in the present hour.

The present hour is one where, the celebration of the Mass being terribly threatened, it is all the more necessary to maintain it, and thus to say it and attend it with the required dispositions. It is the hour when, the true catechism being difficult to ensure, there is all the more reason to get to work on it. It is the hour when family legislation (if one can call it that) is becoming criminal and monstrous; we must therefore fight it with all our strength. It is the hour when the innovations of Paul VI are struck with the most legitimate suspicion, as proven by the overwhelming list compiled by the Libellus of Abbé de Nantes ; let us therefore have the courage to see that, by the novelties of that particular pontiff, we are not bound. It is the hour when bishops, molded and maneuvered by collegiality, attempt to enforce a religious syncretism that is simultaneously Masonic, Communist, and Christian ; we do not have to follow such bishops. It is the hour, finally, when we must bear witness to the faith of all time with dispositions of fortitude and humility that must be constantly renewed, for our witness is not in the face of a violent persecution—which would accelerate and simplify many things—but in the face of a Modernist revolution inspired by the demons of the worst entanglements.

Such is the present hour. Yet this diagnosis, incomplete though it may be, is not the one we find in the confused and irrational chatter of the revelationists ; it is the diagnosis we make by using the reason God has given us, illuminated by the lights of faith and theological reflection. It is therefore in the present hour, such as it is, that we must sanctify ourselves and bear witness ; and all the more so since we ask God that, for the years to come, the prophecy of Saint Pius X may be realized in some way. The current period, as much as and more than previous periods, requires of the Christian a spiritual attitude of lucidity, realism, faith, charity, and hope. Yet it is not these reasonable and theological attitudes that the producers and retailers of revelationist papers foster in souls of good will.

The revelationists dun our ears with nebulous, feverish, sentimental messages, but they do not truly attach themselves to the messages of holiness from the most authoritative mystics: the author of the Imitation, Saint John of the Cross, the little Thérèse... Of private prophecy within the Church, they seem to know only one aspect: the announcement of divine punishments. Yet there are other aspects—not opposed to the first, undoubtedly, but far superior: these are charisms of a doctrinal order, such as the teaching of wisdom, the sermo scientiæ, which is granted to some great saints for the edification of souls. This sermo sapientiæ is not, properly speaking, a charism granted to women (5); one must say, however, that a message like that of the little Thérèse's way of childhood derives from a true charism. It restricts far too much the favors that the Spirit of Christ grants to the Church to see charisms only in the comminatory messages given in apparitions, even if the message is orthodox and the seer worthy of credit.

One of the gravest flaws of the revelationists is this: they have not seriously meditated on the life and death of the saints who were most deeply engaged in private prophecy, apparitions, the marvelous, and miracles: a Joan of Arc, a Margaret Mary, a Catherine Labouré, a Bernadette, the children of Fatima. In the life and death of these authentic privileged souls, there was nothing, but what was simple, calm, and limpid; neither panic nor exaltation. Their message was the least twisted imaginable, the least complicated. For this message they were ready to give their lives, and indeed, Saint Joan of Arc was a martyr. However, it was not in the isolated and, as it were, exorbitant marvelous that Joan and the others had situated and fixed their souls; it was like all Christians, like all saints, in faith, hope, and charity.

They held to their message only because it formed part of the exceptional duty that God commanded them to fulfill, just as He commands an ordinary duty to most people; an ordinary duty that must be fulfilled with perfect love. These messengers held to their message solely because this primary fidelity was for them the condition for living the theological virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; therein lay the soul of their spiritual life. Their life is no more conceivable without the intervention of the marvelous than without fidelity to bearing witness to this marvelous, but the soul of their life is charity, not the marvelous. The marvelous—revelations and prophecies—of which they were the faithful messengers, is indispensable to the existence and holiness of the Church, and to the conversion and survival of France. The mystical body cannot do without graces gratis datae here below. But it is grace gratum faciens—the grace of virtues and gifts—which is its living soul.

Joan, Margaret Mary, Catherine Labouré, Bernadette, the children of Fatima—these messengers of the most exceptional marvelous—never ceased, while communicating and defending their message, to strengthen themselves in sanctifying grace, in the most humble and realistic love. One understands then how their message, not only by the equilibrium of its content but by the manner of its transmission, was not panicking but pacifying, both for their neighbor and for themselves.

The Church does not reject, cannot reject, the marvelous, revelations, and miracles; but the Church places theological life and holiness above them, without comparison. Faithful to this doctrine, taking great care not to dismiss on principle the manifestations of the marvelous, but without being foolishly credulous or vainly panicked, having put private revelations that deserve trust (notably private revelations of universal scope) in their proper place, we will use them to the best advantage in the light of faith—faith which is active through charity (Gal. v, 6).

To live uprightly in the Church, it is not enough for the Christian to say to himself: the teaching of the hierarchical magisterium is sufficient; if there is anything else, I do not want to know about it. For the magisterium itself is obliged to know that there is something else; not indeed another teaching than that of which the hierarchy has the deposit and vigilant custody, but other miraculous voices of faithful messengers, who have the mission to speak in order to draw attention to this very teaching dispensed by the magisterium. There is no other magisterium than that of the hierarchy—an inspired magisterium that would be superior to it and before which the first would have to lower its flag; but there are other messengers than those of the hierarchy—inspired, miraculous messengers whom the hierarchical dignitaries must accept to hear, even though it belongs to the hierarchy to conclude and decide. The Catholic notion of the Church certainly does not exclude charisms (6), but it subordinates them to the hierarchy. It does not exclude private revelations; it merely demands that they not be private illusions, and furthermore, that these revelations be in agreement with Revelation.

At no time in the history of the Church has the voice of the true hierarchy—not the insinuations of the Modernist hierarchy, thus at no time has the true hierarchy, guaranteed in an ordinary and official capacity by the charism of truth (Saint Irenaeus)—pretended to stifle inspired and miraculous voices. For these voices, if they come from God, far from contradicting Revelation, repeat it, make it understood, persuading hearts with a more penetrating accent and, as it were, in a tone more suited to new situations.

Thus, the words of the hierarchical magisterium on the Sacred Heart of Jesus were not changed by the private revelations of Saint Margaret Mary, but, after those revelations, the same words were spoken with more vehemence and echoed with greater enthusiasm. In 1854, the great voice of the Roman Pontiff had resounded in the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception, but this voice only set the crowds in motion and mobilized nations for prayer and penance following the appearances of the Immaculate to Saint Bernadette. One could make similar observations regarding devotion to the Rosary and consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary: without the inspired voice of the seers of Fatima, the voice of the ordinary magisterium would not have imposed itself so deeply upon Christian souls.

And what can be said of comminatory private revelations? The warnings of the twenty-fourth chapter of Saint Matthew are always there, and the Church always makes them heard on the last Sunday after Pentecost; only a liturgy of Modernist inspiration and fabrication attempts to make them forgotten. Therefore, the Church always causes the oracles of the twenty-fourth chapter of Saint Matthew to resound in the ears of the faithful ; but for these warnings to be taken seriously by so many modern Christians who turn in circles in their sins—with a daze as thick as that of Noah's contemporaries on the very eve of the deluge—to awaken the sleepers, it is necessary that, according to historical circumstances, the teaching of the hierarchical magisterium on divine judgments be not modified, not bent in a millenarian direction, but faithfully echoed by messengers charged with transmitting comminatory revelations.

We only ask of these messengers that they present themselves with sufficient guarantees, just as we expect of the message that it be consonant with the Gospel.

All this is to say that private revelations and, generally speaking, all charisms have a place in the life of the Church—a role that is not negligible, not supererogatory, but necessary. They must therefore be put in their proper place: subordinating them to the authority of the true magisterium (entirely different from the false Modernist magisterium), placing them within the line of divine Revelation, and letting ourselves be awakened, touched, converted, and edified by the miraculous accent with which they repeat to us the words of eternal life.

Footnotes:

Note: We believe that these footnotes were added by Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet.

(1) On this specific subject (permanence of the Mass), see Malvenda, O.P., in the Dissertation on the Antichrist, no. 22, which follows the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians in the Bible de Vence, Vol. 16, Paris 1773. The so-called Bible de Vence adapts and completes the Bible of Dom Calmet.

(2) Blessing of the Paschal Candle during the Easter Vigil.

(3) Note ad 2 in IIa-IIae, quest. 174, art. 6: "God is more inclined to avert the scourges with which He threatens us than to withdraw the benefits He promises us."

(4) Consistory of November 29, 1911. [Editor's Note (Quicumque): Father Calmel rightly writes "the prophecy of Saint Pius X" in quotation marks, as it would be somewhat abusive to affirm that Saint Pius X prophesied. Saint Pius X is expressing a wish here, a desire of his paternal heart, and for this, he borrows this text from one of his masters: Cardinal Pie. For this "prophetic" text is in reality a citation from the funeral oration of General de Lamoricière pronounced by Msgr. Pie on December 5, 1865 (Œuvres, V, 506-507). As a simple priest in 1846, he had already manifested this hope of conversion (Œuvres sacerdotales, 332-333). On September 28, 1879, in his discourse upon taking possession of the presbyteral title of N.-D. de la Victoire, Cardinal Pie expressed himself in the exact same terms (Œuvres, X, 63-64)].

(5) See on this subject the IIa-IIae, in the treatise on states (as it is called), question 177. — The end of the IIa-IIae actually contains three major treatises: that of the states of perfection, which concludes everything, comes after the treatise on charisms (graces gratis data) and forms of life (active or contemplative).

(6) Reread Rom. xii, I Cor. xii, Eph. iv, I Thess. v, 16-22.