Denver Newsroom, Sep 9, 2020 / 04:00 am (CNA).- Scholars of Pope Pius XII have countered claims that the wartime pope and the Catholic Church hierarchy were complicit in a controversial post-war custody battle over two Jewish orphans who were baptized Christians in France, then hidden from their relatives.
Researcher William Doino Jr. told CNA a recent article on the topic in The Atlantic is “both flawed and misleading, because it misrepresents and cites out of context a small portion of the newly released archives to advance a one-sided view of Pius XII– and omits key documents and evidence which contradict the article’s main allegations.”
He responded to historian David I. Kertzer, writing in The Atlantic, who has claimed that the archives have now revealed “the central role that the Vatican and the pope himself played in the kidnapping drama.”
“The Vatican helped direct efforts by local Church authorities to resist French court rulings and to keep the boys hidden, while at the same time carefully concealing the role that Rome was playing behind the scenes,” Kertzer wrote Aug. 27.
Those claims have also drawn criticism from Matteo Luigi Napolitano, professor of history of international relations at Italy’s University of Molise said in L’Osservatore Romano Sept. 3.
“Things are obviously much more complex if we look at the Jewish sources,” he said. “The Rabbinate wanted to maintain dialogue with the Vatican, while other organizations would have gone to the clash, to be exploited on the media level.”
The archives on Pope Pius XII’s pontificate were opened in 2020 for only four days before being closed again due to coronavirus restrictions. Napolitano said scholars have only had about forty days’ worth of work on the new material.
Napolitano is thus critical of the claims of Kertzer regarding the wartime papacy of Pius XII and the Finaly brothers controversy.
In February 1944, agents of the Gestapo arrested a refugee Jewish Austrian couple, Fritz and Annie Finaly, in a French village. They were transported to Auschwitz and killed. Their children, three-year-old Robert and two-year-old Gerald, were taken in by a Catholic woman, Antoinette Brun, who ran a foundling home in Grenoble.
Brun began the legal process to adopt them in 1945, when she learned their parents had been killed. At the same time, the boys’ relatives sought to take custody of them. An aunt from New Zealand asked the boys be sent to her, but Brun resisted. In 1948, she baptized the boys, making them Catholic in the eyes of the Church.
A custody struggle ensued, with both religious and national elements, citing the father’s reported desire to have his sons brought up in France, the boys’ reported desire to stay with Brun, calls to have the boys brought up Christian, and calls to return the boys to their family.
When courts said the boys should be placed with their relatives, the boys were taken by friends of Brun and hidden near France’s border with Spain.
Brun, a Catholic nun who helped her, and several Catholic clergymen were arrested.
“Several arrests were made, and the Church got some bad press. Contrary to what the critics claimed, however, the Catholics involved were not acting on behalf of the institutional Church,” said Ronald Rychlak, a law professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law and an expert on the history of Pius XII and the Nazis in the Second World War, wrote in an essay he sent to CNA in late August.
“When she was asked by the press about her Catholicism, Brun said she ‘didn’t give a fig for the pope.’ Bishop Alexandre Calliot of Grenoble took to the radio airwaves to demand that anyone with information about the missing boys contact the authorities. One of the first to comply was a priest in Spain who reported on their whereabouts.”
Doino characterized Brun as “a renegade Catholic.”
“She and a small group of collaborators evaded Church officials at every turn, after they demanded she return the children to their Jewish relatives,” he told CNA.
Doino pointed to an article he co-authored with Rychlak for Inside the Vatican Magazine’s a January-February 2005 issue, which used primary source documents and first-hand testimonies to disprove a claim he helped refuse to return baptized Jewish children to their surviving family members after the Second World War.
He told a Polish Catholic woman to return a baptized child to its father, saying it “was her duty as a Catholic not only to give back the child, but do it with good will and in friendship,” said Doino, who recommended Peter Hellman’s 1980 book Avenue of the Righteous.
Rychlak said Pius XII approved an agreement negotiated between Cardinal Pierre-Marie Gerlier of Lyons and the chief rabbi of Paris: the children would go to their relatives in France, but would be allowed free choice of religion. The pope approved this despite some leading advisors who wanted to reject any agreement in which Catholic children would live in a Jewish home.
In Kertzer’s telling, a Vatican document from Catholic sources in Grenoble appeared to describe positively Brun’s refusal to return the children.
Napolitano, however, said that Jewish sources show that the Bishop of Grenoble and the Archbishop of Lyons both worked with the judicial authority to track down the brothers after they were concealed in Spain.
Jewish sources reported that “the French clergy have already intervened with the Spanish clergy and that they are on the point of taking the children home.”
Napolitano said Vittorio Segre, press officer at the Israeli Embassy in Paris during the controversy, shows a “much more complex picture.”
In Segre’s account, the embassy officer said it is “logical to assume that there was support from the Vatican” for the agreement of Cardinal Gerlier through the former secretary of Charles de Gaulle, who was charged with tracking down the Finaly brothers.
According to Segre, there was “never a conflict between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community.” De Gaulle’s former secretary “worked in complete freedom, without encountering obstacles in the hierarchies.”
“There were difficulties, but they came from a much lower level,” said Segre.
While Kertzer’s essay claimed that relevant documents were now reported for the first time, Rychlak compared his work to a 2004 controversy in which the New York Times reported on a document from a French archive purporting to show Vatican authorization for church authorities not to return “hidden” Jewish children to their families if they had been baptized.
“To those of us who had studied the work of Pius XII, the directive immediately seemed suspicious, and for good reason,” Rychlak wrote. “The real directive, dated October 23, 1946, and authorized by Pope Pius XII, was quickly found in the Vatican archives. It was quite different from what had been reported in the news.”
“The directive told the rescuers to return these children, baptized or not, to blood-related relatives who came to get them,” Rychlak said. “Over and above that, if no relatives survived to reclaim the children, and if individuals or organizations unrelated to the children now wished to adopt them or transfer them to a new environment, each request was to be examined on a case-by-case basis, always with a sense of justice for the child, and with a sense of what their parents would have wanted for them.”
“This directive is perfectly in line with Judeo-Christian compassion and responsibility. It is also very probative of Pius XII’s mindset on these issues,” he said, saying this is far better evidence than internal memoranda.
Kertzer said other newly revealed documents justify repeated claims that Pius XII had been persuaded “not to speak out in protest after the Germans rounded up and deported Rome’s Jews in 1943.” He claimed memoranda was “steeped in anti-Semitic language.”
“The silence of Pius XII during the Holocaust has long engendered bitter debates about the Roman Catholic Church and Jews,” he said, repeating a claim long disputed by the Pope’s defenders.
For Kertzer, one piece of evidence is a December 1943 memo from Monsignor Angelo Dell’Acqua, an official in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, about whether it was right to openly and officially protest mistreatment of Jews by Germans. Kertzer interpreted the memo as a sign of anti-Semitism and Church silence.
However, Napolitano said the note came just two months after the Oct. 16, 1943 Nazi raid on Rome’s Jewish ghetto, which resulted in over 1,000 Jews being deported to Auschwitz.
Vatican officials objected to that raid, but were also aware of the danger of reprisals from the Nazis. Napolitano cited the diary of Slovakian ambassador Karl Sidor, which said: “On the orders of the Holy Father, more than one hundred Jews and Italian officers are hidden in the Jesuit Generalate. Likewise, Jews with their entire families are hidden in every convent. The Holy Father provides for their nourishment. Money and food arrive from the Vatican. This is very important news. This is the way the Vatican is dealing with the Jews.”
Documents from the Pius XII papacy, Napolitano said, come in the context of Church efforts “not to compromise the network of aid that had been activated throughout Rome to ensure that Jews and wanted people of all kinds escaped arrest and deportation.”
“It does not seem that Kertzer takes this into account,” Napolitano wrote in L’Osservatore Romano.
He also faulted Kertzer’s depiction of Dell’Acqua as an anti-Semite, given that the priest was a close collaborator with Pope John XXIII, who would not have named him a bishop and apostolic nuncio to France “if he had the slightest suspicion of his anti-Semitic inclinations.” Similarly, Paul VI, another pioneer in Catholic-Jewish relations, would not have elevated Dell’Acqua to the cardinalate.
“These are logical discrepancies that Kertzer does not resolve,” said Napolitano. “But history, like nature, does not allow for leaps.”
[…]
Lord Jesus Christ preserve us for Your clemency.
My loyalty is with Vigano.
“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Corinthians 1:11-13
Paul wasn’t crucified, he was beheaded since he was a Roman Citizen.
Correct! And it is said that St. Paul ‘s head bounced three times on the ground before stopping. Nonetheless, there is never an excuse for schism.
Dear GF – that was a totally different situation.
Really?
Then maybe you and he should start your own church, like Luther.
As long as Francis is allowed by true Catholics, clergy and laity, to exercise the OFFICE of Pope, something he has clearly rejected by his words and actions, he will continue to make use of that Office to the detriment of the Church. As he has surrounded himself with modernists like himself, there is little hope that the present Vatican will do the right thing and remove him. That means that the Church Herself, outside of Her present “government” must do what is necessary. All through history, it has been the priests, good bishops and faithful laity that has served to keep The Church holy and in keeping with Christ’s commands.
You are SO right, dear Valerie.
As Jesus taught us, the littlest ones are greatest in His eyes.
“For those who defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.” Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Totally depends on how we define ‘rebellion’.
The fuse has been lit. At the very least, ecclesiastical history will now forever record that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been publicly charged in detail with heresy and apostasy by one of the most eminent prelates in the Vatican Curia.
Yeah, I think if anyone is to be on trial for schism, it isn’t AB Vigano.
FSSPX News website had said, unlike Archbishop Viganò, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the legitimacy of the Church. Although the following position published by Lefebvre 1974 is similar to what Archbishop Viganò has said:
“We adhere
with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and the traditions necessary to maintain it, and to Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and the new Protestant trend which was clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council in all the reforms which flowed from it” (Declaration Archbishop Lefebvre 1974).
Compare that with:
“I have no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity. I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void” (Statement Archbishop Viganò 2024).
Difference may be seen in Viganò’s direct refutation of Pope Francis from Lefebvre’s indirect reference to Pope Paul VI as part of the Modernist Church. What they have in common is the allegation of a faithful Church to which they claim allegiance and a false Church which they repudiate. This identifies a problematic dynamic within the Church, the distancing of one, Left or Right from the other among its members, the Right frequently questioning the legitimacy of the pope. It would be beneficial for those who disagree with specious policies, non binding doctrines like Fiducia Supplicans to resist the errors but refrain from accusations of the illegitimacy of this pontificate.
Otherwise from a justice standpoint, it could be added in defense of Archbishop Viganò, that as an insider, is his access to first hand information that we don’t possess. For example in the recent defense of Pope Francis, “Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick”, that report argued the Pontiff’s lack of knowledge of the McCarrick dossier, that report also confirmed several personal meetings [prior to the Archbishop’s allegation that Francis lied when he claimed no knowledge of the dossier] between Francis and Viganò of which Pope Francis says he remembers the meetings but nothing about the content.
Furthermore, there was the silence, a refusal to respond to the allegation that he lied in having no knowledge – but responded only when an accusation was made public of a prosecution case on Viganò’s family financial matters – the Pope remarking, “See! See!, That’s why I kept silent”. Anyone with intelligence can see through that response.
From Viganò’s conscientious perspective considering what he may have gleaned from personal contact he may possess what he honestly believes substantiates his accusations. We, lacking that presumed knowledge cannot place ourselves in his position nor can we say he lacks justification. Although it’s prudent to add that he may have had a greater influence in benefit of the Church on the allegations of errors and mismanagement if he followed the examples of Cardinals Raymond Burke and Joseph Zen.
Excellent points, Fr. Morello.
I think I remember reading an argument that Pope Francis is both the head of the true Church and a valid Pope, and also the leader of the false church. I can see that theory fitting what Archbishop Vigano has said, but he does not clearly state it.
As beloved Jesus Christ instructs us: “No one can serve two masters!”
Excellent comment.
Archbishop Vigano’s move ties the Church into proving one or more of the following, right at this time, or, as from this time:
1. heresy
2, apostasy
3. schismatic leadership
4. non-election
5. non-election by non-intent
6. non-election by non-eligibility.
Maybe there is more he has in mind and we can not surmise about it for the present.
It helps understanding to read universi Dominici gregis which are regulations regarding a Conclave and the biography of Godfried Danneels in which he openly states how he and his group violated them
Thus, we suffer illegitimate pronouncements & actions from an illegitimate pope.
Very helpful thank you. I’m bound to accept the election of Bergoglio since I personally do not know of any voiding defect.
In such a case if it should arise, that something arouses suspicion for me about that, still I must reserve judgment on it, or, finality of decision, or disservice of faith or prudence or impartiality or sound reasoning on my part, until it should be substantiated.
Bergoglio’s majority was well in excess of the required two-thirds margin. It suggests that if there were collusion but the number of individual electors involved does not reduce the voted majority below that margin, the election was not compromised. It would, however, then be up to the new Pope to deal correctly with the “now proven” problem, so uncovered. And also be for us to assess if the new Pope is being true resolving the issue in faith, rationality and prudence.
Right now it could possibly be a mere case that Archbishop has over-shot the issues. I would take no glee from it.
God bless.
‘ Benedict issued De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis on 11 June 2007 after two years as pope. In this five-paragraph document, Benedict denied the cardinal electors the options John Paul had allowed them and retained only John Paul’s determination that a change was required after many ballots had failed to produce a result. He restored the two-thirds majority rule. ….. Benedict resigned the papacy on 11 February 2013, effective 28 February. On 22 February he issued his second set of instructions on the papal election process, Normas nonnullas. Following his resignation, cardinals had questioned the rule that they delay starting the conclave until 15 days after the papacy fell vacant. Benedict allowed them to begin earlier “if all the Cardinal electors are present” while keeping their ability to delay the start until 20 days pass “for serious reasons”.He modified the oath of secrecy to be taken by all support personnel, making excommunication the automatic punishment (latae sententiae) for violations of the oath, which had previously been punished at the discretion of the new pope. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election_reforms_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI
During the 4th century, St. Athanasius found himself in a similar position as Archbishop Vigano. Athanasius was almost the lone voice against the Arian heresy held by the overwhelming majority of bishops. Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius who refused to accept the validity of the excommunication, as Vigano likely will do if he is excommunicated.
It was Athanasius against the world, and in the end, the almost lone voice of the excommunicated Athanasius was right.
Is the Church in that same position today?
Excellent reminder of another courageous bishop who spoke truth to power in defense of the Church; history has vindicated St A
No. Vigano is in open opposition to discipline and refuses to even submit himself before his superiors as is his duty. If he is to be excommunicated, he may only be vindicated by the Church, whom he has chosen in this event to cut his last ties with.
Dear ‘EENS’ that’s not the key issue.
In the opinion of many Catholic experts, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is far more obedient to our KING, Jersus Christ than the revisionist PF administration.
Also, the PF administration has amply demonstrated that it has no interest in proper jurisprudence but is openly biased against everyone who offers logical and factual criticisms. They use a loaded dice.
In PF’s Rome, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò would not get a fair go.
In fact, his life could be endangered if he ventured into the dragon’s den.
Maybe Archbishop Vigano needs hip surgery. Certainly Rome has soom excellent medical doctors.
Dear Patrick – you must be thinking of how convenient it was for the PF lot when Pope Benedict and then Cardinal Pell (were) exited.
Agreed. St. Athanasius never hid. And Pope Liberius was never free, having an imperial sword on his neck. It cannot be said for sure that he freely acted to do anything.
Archbishop Vigano is paranoid, secluded and deluded. Cardinals Burke, Zen, Müller, et al., have not been disobedient or fomented schism. They are acting like St. Athanasius.
Dear GF, surely that is a very eccentric view of the actual circumstances?
Submission to superiors is never absolute. Any duty to submit is forfeited when superiors are spiritually and morally bankrupt. The faithful owe no duty to submit to a renegade pope.
Great point! When it comes to pope Francis, I’ve been suspicious about him for several years because he’s always given ambiguous answers to many subjects which, in the end, he ended up supporting!
It will be interesting how this works out. Will the Archbishop be excommunicated? Stripped of Episcopal and Priestly powers? Or basically just ignored? We shall see.
Here’s Archbishop Vigano on the verge of being excommunicated.
While Rupnik is free to indiscriminately desecrate the most sacred places and forcibly defile the most vulnerable of holy women.
It’s very clear. Bergoglio is the one who deserves to be booted.
Amen.
Two camps debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote. Bravo. There is hope for the Chruch with men like Vigano.
God bless Archbishop Viganò. He has been in hiding for good reason. If he showed up in Rome, he would probably be poisoned.
These Bishops need to remember they must obey the Pope because he is head of the Roman Catholic Church,
If a Latin Mass means so much to a Bishop, especially in the United States where Religious Practices are free, Let them start their own American Catholic Church, where all Mass are in Latin and they could even make Donald Trump a Bishop like evangelicals (60% of American Catholics support him more than fellow Catholic Joe Biden)
As for me, I’m a Roman Catholic and I stand by Pope Frances.
Pardon my laughter.
A devout and faithful Catholic can smell the rot of CINO-Biden’s hypocritical shell of Catholicism which would kill any baby the mother didn’t want though she enjoyed the conceiving of same.
No, the Latin Mass does not mean much to the American Catholic Bishops, witnessing the decreased numbers they’ve permitted under the rule of Francis.
Lastly, Trump is a married and divorced man. He has never attended seminary, has never received the sacrament of Ordination to Holy Orders, and he is not even a Catholic, so your imagination needs a bit of reigning in.
Francis is not a woman, so perhaps you may reconsider how you spell his name. Just remember this little mnemonic: Francis, egotist, narcissist–his “I” is greater than any other letter.
Brilliant!
As with any debate or disagreement, if certain of your position, recoiling or hiding should not be an option to strengthen your argument. If Viganò is right, he should have the courage to face the Curia, win or lose. This the vow he took.
Dear Henry,
If you’d had the horror experience I’ve had of going into a judicial process, with trust that the truth would prevail and then discovering that all those involved had coluded to use any means whatever to destroy me, you would not be urging Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to submit to PF’s ‘Star Chamber’, pseudo-legal process.
It would be the height of naivette to think justice is of any interest to PF & Co.
Sorry to say this; but still trusting in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Even Jesus walked through the crowd of his townspeople ready to throw him over the cliff. There is a time for every reason. Jesus’ time had not yet come, and Vigano’s may never come.
Staying away from the hands of Francis’ hench-hit-men is a justifiably reasonable and smart move.
May St. Michael the Archangel, through the power of God, protect and defend the good Archbishop if it be God’s will.
I’m not Catholic but this pope is the least Christian pope I’ve ever seen.
If Catholics really & truly knew what was going on behind closed doors of the Vatican, they would be dumbfounded. I understand Archbishop Viganò I find it sad that there are not more couragous bishops like him. I fully stand with Archbishop Viganò.There is much I could say, but I will leave it at that. God bless Carlo Maria Viganò.🙏🏼
Sedevacantism is courageous? Hardly.
If he doesn’t accept the authority of Vatican 2 and also Pope Francis as Pope, why has he been in the Church all these years? And if he doesn’t accept Vatican 2, then what about the Pope’s who came after Vatican 2? Paul 6th, Pope John Paul1st, Pope John Paul 2nd, Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis? Who does Vigano think he is to decide who is a legitimate Pope? And to decide on the authority of Vatican 2? Vigano is guilty of schism!!
Sorry, dear Joseph, that is not the actual situation at all.
“I maintain that the errors and heresies to which [Francis] adhered before, during, and after his election, along with the intention he held in his apparent acceptance of the papacy, render his elevation to the throne null and void,” Viganò wrote.
“He also said he has “no reason to consider myself separate from communion with the holy Church and with the papacy, which I have always served with filial devotion and fidelity.”
We can know through both Faith and Reason, that by denouncing a schismatic who could not possibly be a Vicar of Christ, because prior to his election to The Papacy, he denied Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Himself Has Entrusted To His Church, Archbishop Vigano maintains communion with The Body Of Christ, which exists “Through Him, With Him, And In Him, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost(Filioque).
To denounce the election of Jorge Bergoglio to The Papacy, is to affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that “it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque). To affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to affirm the Papacy, and thus affirm every validly elected Vicar of Christ, and Magisterial Teaching grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Jorge Bergoglio, unlike every validly elected Pope, rejects The Office Of The MUNUS, grounded in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith That Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Is “Forever”, thus Pope Benedict could not have resigned The Office Of The MUNUS because for a validly elected Pope it remains “Forever”. Even if Pope Benedict was in error when he abdicated The Ministerial Office, who can deny, that by stepping aside, Pope Benedict XVI illuminated the fact that Jorge Bergoglio was not in communion with Christ and The Magisterium Of His Church and could not have possibly hold The MUNUS because he rejected The Deposit Of Faith, and thus Ecclesial Communion, and thus Sacramental Communion. For this is our Sacred Heritage: The Sacred Heritage of all human persons, from the moment of conception, Salvation Is Of The Jews, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
The pope should resign in order to preserve the RC church from to much liberal ideas .
To keep the traditions as they should be and start a new conclave in order to elect
a more traditional pope .
I humbly ask Pope Francis to consider all that he has done and said and resign for the goodness of the whole RC Church .
Praise be God .
I’m saddened that vigano does not support pope Francis ,at this point in time everybody should be on pope Francis side, with the world gone mad he needs all the support he can get 😇
Francis needs all the support he can get. Right. Would that be help covering for sexual predators, help meeting with homosexualist priests, help undermining the traditional Latin mass,and help dismissing conservative prelates? If that’s the case, the less help and support Francis gets, the better.
Archbishop Vigano would have done better to stick with his early and discrediting revelation that the McCarrick phenomenon was not new news in the Vatican…
A BRIDGE TOO FAR, now, to explicitly pronounce that the pope is not a pope, and to seem to reject Vatican II (but what he seems to say latest is only that the apostasy started there, not that the “real” (Benedict’s distinction) Council, by its very nature and Documents, was the definitive cause).
Archbishop Vigano should have posed his accusations as questions, about the Church cohabiting with the One World Order. The rhyming GNOSTICISM of inventing a script and then prohibiting all contrarian views as inadmissible or even “backwardist”.
Then, instead of surrendering the possible high ground to legal proceedings against a schism, the full spectrum within the Church could be asking, where is the real DIALOGUE? Still a remote possibility…and a remotely possible substitute for what is seen by many as a self-gratifying and self-ratifying “Synod-on-Synodality”. Say what??? A “couple” of synods…
In graduate school even at a secular university, TRUTH can still happen. Why am I reminded, here, of a penetrating professor who denounced research papers that engaged in wool-gathering without demonstrable conclusions worthy of readers outside the echo chamber? Papers larded up with self-referential purple prose and very selectively read references—”a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5).
WHEN is a synod a crypto-synod?…Accountable only to itself rather than, say, to the relevant particulars of the Council Documents (e.g., Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3 with the Prefatory Note), or to the irreducible Apostolic Succession, or to the Magisterium and the explicitly incorporated Natural Law with its moral absolutes (the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor), or to the real Holy Spirit in union with the Son—“Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8)? Or, instead, in step with the 5,000-word Fiducia Supplicans and even cohabiting with the irregular “couples,” as such?
QUESTION: For the fatally overreaching Archbishop Vigano and the fatally self-ratifying synod-on-synodality, both (!), to what extent might the professor’s meme equally apply: “intellectual masturbation”?
Vigano for Pope! Strickland for Cardinal!