Letter to Pope John Paul II (14 January 1992)
Your Holiness,
I am now in my seventy-seventh year; I was educated in the old and traditional way. Today, I find myself in complete disagreement with the Catholic Church in America and with the behavior of many (most?) of its leaders.
Let us start with the name. In Europe, the Church was always called the Roman Catholic Church. In America today, the "Roman" is almost never used, except by Traditionalists. Perhaps the idea is to differentiate the modern American Church from the old Roman Church?
Let us look at some of the more crass behavior coming out of this modern Church. Pastoral letters, which should be reserved for religious matters, are used to support left-wing politics. One church has special Masses for [male and female sodomites]. One member of the hierarchy, popularly known as the "Red Bishop," travels around his diocese to advertise the beauty of Communism. Other bishops lead demonstrations for disarmament. During the Persian Gulf War, one bishop encouraged members of the U.S. Armed Forces to disobey orders to fight. In one diocese, church bells were rung to celebrate the victory of... a local sports team. It goes on and on....
So much for our bishops. And what is going on in parishes? What are people being taught? By way of illustration, I enclose copies of essays which appeared in three recent bulletins in one of the parishes in my neighborhood.
I am not a theologian, but "Eucharist: Memorial, Meal, and Sacrifice" [Robert Newmes, Liguori Publications, 1991] did not "smell right," so I asked for the opinions of someone more familiar with doctrine than I am. I enclose his response. [Webmaster's note: This is reproduced below as a postscript.] And I ask you: which piece is in accordance with what the Church at least used to teach?
If Mr. Newmes' essay represents what is being taught to the priests coming out of today's seminaries, it is no wonder that some of them have actually refused to give Communion to parishioners who still insist on kneeling to receive the Blessed Sacrament.
Or look at "Priests and Scandals" [Rev. Louis Miller, C.SS.R., Liguori Publications, 1991]. It is hard to argue against charity and compassion, but this essay hardly seems to exhaust the subject. According to press reports, fifty-three American priests are under indictment for molesting children. Their superiors frequently seem to be more interested in hushing up scandals than in preventing them. (One clerical child molester under indictment was simply transferred to... another school!) [Webmaster's note: Documentary evidence of such things in the Archdiocese of Boston revealed through legal process in January 2002 precipitated the emergence of the issue as a major media scandal, fully ten years after these lines were written.] Father Miller's essay suggests that it is now Church policy, in the name of mercy, to tolerate child abuse and protect its practitioners from the consequences of their actions and, what is more, that Catholic parents should put up with this.
It is written: "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt. XVIII.6) Bishops who neglect their duty by tolerating clerical child abuse also deserve to be thrown in the sea; at most, I might allow that the rock around their necks be a bit lighter!
Now look at "Faith and Religion" [Rev. Bob Earl, C.SS.R., Liguori Publications, 1991]. Father Earl writes: "Jesus experienced human life to clarify that all that is human is sacred and that people truly are God's children." All that is human is sacred? Sin is human, but sin is not sacred. Are homosexuality, murder, adultery, and theft all sacred? Did Hitler and Stalin, who were definitely human, do sacred things? Then we read: "Faith teaches that God not only dwells in heaven but is truly and deeply present in all things and in the hearts of people." I was taught that, in order to enjoy God's presence by sanctifying grace, a sinner had to repent of his sins and avoid them in the future. Father Earl's essay suggests that it is now Church policy to deny sin (except for greed and pollution?), to deny the need for repentance and forgiveness, and to deny the Church's doctrines on grace.
I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.... What kind of spirit prevails in a Church which does and teaches such things. Perhaps your predecessor, Pope Paul VI, was right: the spirit of Satan has entered the sanctuary.
But possibly Malachi Martin was right: feeling helpless in the face of the massive apostasy within the Church, you have given up and decided to focus your interest on politics!
I wonder what happened to the Message of Fatima?! The whole situation inspires me to bitter irony and mistrust. Perhaps you fear to consecrate Russia to Our Blessed Mother because you worry that many bishops will refuse to follow you and will go into schism. (Are they not in schism already?) But maybe Boris Yeltsin will try to persuade you: "Holy Father, I am a politician and I know that the situation in Russia is hopeless. Our only hope is if you do what you were told at Fatima."
The situation in Russia is tragic and far from settled. It is very possible that, through consecration (and subsequent conversion of the Russian people), Russia can give to the entire world a different direction. If it is not consecrated, Russia may become God's whip and punish the whole world. The responsibility is yours. I wonder, I wonder....
Your tragedy — and, therefore, the Church's and the whole world's — may be: that you conduct politics with the princes of the world and even with your own bishops! Remember, however, that Christ said that: "My kingdom is not of this world."
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Faithfully yours,
Waclaw Bakierowski.
Comments on Robert Newmes' "Eucharist: Memorial, Meal, and Sacrifice" [Anonymous]
In terms of the impression left and the message conveyed, this piece is uncatholic and heretical, even if a tricky lawyer could "prove" otherwise. There is just barely enough here which is Catholic in order to mislead.
First and foremost, the Mass is a [propitiatory] sacrifice: the continuation in time of Christ's offering of Himself to the Father at Calvary on our behalf and for our salvation. Furthermore, under the appearance of bread and wine, Christ is as much present in the Blessed Sacrament as He was on the cross. Any treatment of the Mass which omits or confuses these two facts cannot be considered Catholic. It is "of the Faith" [de fide] to believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and in the Real Presence. Emphasis on other aspects of the Mass to the detriment of these two is a matter of using a part to obscure the whole and of using the secondary to obscure the primary.
Although a baptized person who worthily attends a Mass also offers his own self and joins in offering Christ to the Father ("the common priesthood of the faithful"), our sacrifice is made "through Him, with him, and in Him" and in union with Christ's sacrifice [made present through the agency of the ordained priest], which remains primary.
The Mass is unitive in that it is offered for all men, living and deceased, and in that, by being united with Jesus Christ, we are also united with each other.
Only secondarily and derivatively is the Mass a memorial and a meal. As a memorial, it is a memorial of both the Last Supper and Calvary. As a meal, it is noteworthy because of what we eat: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life everlasting." If the Real Presence and the element of sacrifice were not intrinsically part of the Mass, we could say our own "mass" whenever we wanted simply by thinking pious thoughts while chomping down on our steak and potatoes!
Going through this piece from the top, we can extract certain propositions which underlie what the author is saying.
1) "The Eucharist is an incomprehensible mystery. Attempting to define it is difficult and even dangerous. Pronouncements about one aspect of this truth can never be the whole truth." The Church is unable truthfully to say anything definite about the Mass (and, by implication, about anything else). This denies the Church's teaching authority.
2) "Rather, one must continually probe the essence of the mystery, seeking always deeper insights into the heart of this matter." We are obliged to come to our own conclusions ("insights" — a favorite modern term) about the Mass (and, again by implication, about everything else); any conclusions we come to are changeable and equally good. This is complete relativism.
3) "Gathering with our sisters and brothers to break bread at the Lord's table is an act of long memory." The Mass is performed by the community. This is a denial of Christ's priesthood and of the sacramental priesthood.
4) "We are first enriched by the Scriptures that serve as the collective memory of a people in relationship with God." The Scriptures are made by men on the basis of what they remember about their experiences dealing with God. This denies that the Scriptures are God's revealed truth.
5) "Reflecting on [New Testament 'stories of Jesus eating meals with his disciples and others'] enables us to see more clearly how we are united with Christ through his shared celebration and how our meal mirrors the noble fellowship experienced by Christ and his disciples." a) It is in its aspect as a meal that the Mass primarily unifies us with Christ. Au contraire: our primary unity with Christ in the Mass is in joining ourselves in like intentions to His sacrifice at Calvary as explained above. b) Christ is a colleague with whom we have a relationship which is on the natural and social plane. Rather, Christ is our Lord, our God, and our Savior; we can reverently say other things about Him, but He is not our buddy!
6) "Christ's commitment to all people called him to the total sacrifice that resulted in the supreme gift of self on the cross. To share in the Eucharist is to share in Christ's self-giving lifestyle. Christ's gift to us in the Eucharist is himself. Our gift in the Eucharist is the free self-giving of our time, our talent, and our love." Christ's sacrifice of Himself which took place on the Cross has no continuation in the Mass; it is now our turn to sacrifice ourselves, primarily by good works. This denies the sacrificial nature of the Mass; enough said about this above. (Our duty to offer ourselves to God is very real and applies to everything that we are and do, but this is another matter.)
Most of this is Protestant; some of it even a Luther or a Calvin would reject. The author nowhere shows his colors by stating these propositions directly. Logically, however, what he does say is founded on these propositions. He is either confused or trying to confuse his readers; there is no third possibility.
Any priest who would sign his own name to this piece with full understanding and endorsement may very well not be saying Mass with the right intention and, as a result, may not be saying a valid Mass.