~ Marxist War on the Papacy ~
Last year marked the 90th anniversary of Our Lady's apparition at Fatima. It also renewed interest in the indirect role played by an apparently repentant Communist, Ion Mihai Pacepa, in interpreting the reference to Russia in the message of Fatima.
What did Our Lady mean when she said that 'Russia would spread her errors' throughout the world if the Pope would not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with all the bishops of the world, in a public act of recognition of her role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces? She meant Communism: an anti-Christian creed launched in theory by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-nineteenth century and "baptized" with Russian blood in 1917. Its atheist agitators Lenin and Trotsky and their henchmen liquidated the Christian monarchy, declared history 'tabula rasa' and inaugurated a long era of militant hatred of mankind, especially the weak and powerless, whom they claimed to represent. Their modernised satellites now work all around the world, in politics, the media, government and education to continue the agenda of liberating the world from Christ. Not bad.
So who was Pacepa, and why should we take him seriously in relation to Fatima's declared war against Communism?
Lt. Gen. Pacepa was Ceausescu's highest ranking Intelligence officer in Romania under Communism. He defected to the United States in 1978, living thereafter in hiding in fear of his life and murder threats. His memoirs were called Red Horizons: The true Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu's Crimes, Life-Style and Corruption [Regnery Publishing: Washington, 1987]. Broadcast into Romania by Radio Free Europe, they brought down the regime in 1989. Neither a Catholic nor necessarily repentant of his own involvement in the spread of evil under Ceauescu, Red Horizons nonetheless still throws light on post-1989 mutations of the moral, social, economic and political philosophy known as Communism. The memoirs chart in detail the facts about Communism as a praxis: psycho-terror at every level, from government down to the grass-roots.
Insofar as Pacepa himself seems ignorant of Our Lady of Fatima we can say that his relationship to Our Lady's 1917 demand for a public consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart (not an optional act but a necessary act of reparation for the five sins against her Immaculate Heart, and as the pre-condition for the "era of peace") is oblique. However, his chronicle of the fruits of Communism in the form of militant atheism helps to reinforce the traditionalist interpretation of the anti-Fatima conspiracy in the international arena and in the Vatican, as we hope to demonstrate.
Pacepa on Hochhuth
Pacepa became newsworthy again in 2007 because he indicated that German dramatist Rolf Hochhuth was used by Moscow in the 1960s to spread anti-Rome propaganda throughout the world in keeping with Communism's long-term objectives, to eradicate all counter-creeds. Pacepa's red-hot story thus incriminates a writer who has implied he was a true-blue, genuinely independent thinker with a great love of objective truth, working on his own and not beholden to Moscow, Bonn or anybody else.
In a highly significant interview published on 25th January 2007 in National Review (USA) entitled "Moscow's Assault on the Vatican", Pacepa surprised the intelligentsia when he stated that Hochhuth's play The Deputy (1963) was intentional propaganda "commissioned" by Moscow to humiliate Pope Pius XII in the eyes of the Catholic world. Readers will remember that this play created an international furore in 1963. It alleged that Pope Pius XII had failed humanity and was in part responsible for the rise of Hitler and the genocide against the Jews. Even though the figure of the Pope is marginal in terms of the play's dynamic (he only makes his first appearance in Act IV), Pope Pius XII nonetheless emerged as a caricature of the "Pastor Angelicus" beloved by the faithful, who naturally took exception to all the calumnies and allegations. In 2002, the play was released as a film called Amen by Costas-Gavras with the result that the allegations and counter-allegations were rehearsed once again, proving Hochhuth's continuing ability to provoke the nation and the world. This seems to be his particular calling.
In 1967 he stirred up a hornet's nest with a play called Soldate, Nekrolog auf Genf ("Soldiers, Necrology in honour of Geneva") indicting Winston Churchill for the bombing of German cities. In 1989, his play Unbefleckte Empfägnis was a plea for the legalisation of surrogate motherhood, yet its title referred to Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. On 18th February 2005, in an interview with Junge Freiheit, he alleged that historian David Irving's inconsistencies and equivocations in respect to some of the facts of the Holocaust could be overlooked, since they were apparently proof he had a good, facetious and provocative sense of humour. In January 2007, a new play premiered in Berlin, a tragic-comedy about the life of Adolph Hitler which arguably helps to make the Hitler chapter in German history even more trivial than it already is, given its prominence in German life and letters.
He is, then, an agent provocateur par excellence. Whilst he does not join writers like Günter Grass, Siegfried Lenz, Dieter Hildebrandt and Martin Walser, whose long, "moral" careers as the conscience of the nation have been seriously called into question because of very recent revelations that they were all former members of the National Socialist Party or its satellites, Hochhuth does help to prove the contention that the intellectual edifice of the 1960s generation of hyper-moralists is falling apart in Germany, has become tired, repetitive and has degenerated into well-worn posturing. Germany is bored to death of "coming to terms with the past", not least because those that lead the campaign have been exposed as liars. Now that Pacepa has claimed Hochhuth was also just a smoke-screen we wonder whether his credibility is untarnished. Will he, too, have to surrender the moral high-ground?
Pacepa says that anti-Rome propaganda was exactly what Moscow wanted to weaken Communism's strongest antagonist, the Catholic Church. His claims raise many questions: In what sense has the prophecy of Our Lady of Fatima come true in and through Hochhuth's play and can we take Pacepa's witness seriously? Does Pacepa's intervention do anything to incriminate Hochhuth and revise the way his play has routinely been received? Is Hochhuth's play really an instrument used by Communist Moscow and their satellites in the "free" West to alienate Christians from the defender of all truth, peace and justice: namely, Christ in the true Church, the Catholic Church? It would seem obvious that this is so. The play apparently provides intelligent audiences with "evidence" of the Pope's failures as the Chief Shepherd of the Catholic Church and his apparent "complicity" in the Holocaust against the Jews; the evidence is his alleged silence, and the inference is that had he spoken up more vociferously and systematically Hitler would have changed his policies.
Hochhuth's play is still routinely staged and read and taught in schools and universities, not least as an example of the genre of "documentary drama", even though the work is a very clever mix of fact, fiction, allegation, hypothesis and invective. In that its major thesis is so easy to understand the play is undoubtedly the single most serious lever sustaining militant hatred of the person of Pope Pius XII in particular and Catholicism in general: as if both were the enemies of mankind when, in fact, the papacy and the Church are mankind's greatest allies. The Rowohlt edition of the play in German was into its thirty-ninth printing in December 2006. It has been translated into twenty-eight languages. It is probably the single most successful example in recent history of the way the theatre can orchestrate and sustain mass hysteria. It has done this for forty-five years.
Crusade against Communism
Why did a man who has devoted his life to various publicity stunts, yet claiming to be no more than a simple German patriot, destabilize the diplomatic status quo in post-1945 European politics by first staging his play in 1963, at the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the thaw in relations between East and West? Was the timing fortuitous or could it conceivably be seen as part of Moscow's attempt to destroy the moral fabric of the Christian West? Indeed, why is it necessary to place his play in terms of an ongoing ideological war between Moscow and Rome, first launched in 1917?
The answer is that Pope Pius XI had anathematized the creed of Communism in Divini Redemptoris on the Feast of St. Joseph, 1937. For that reason alone Moscow always hated and feared Rome. The encyclical exposed to public scrutiny the investment of Communist doctrine in ideologies anathema to Christ and true peace, namely: moral, social, economic and political disorder all stemming from a principled hatred of the order given the world by God the Father, for the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls.
Rejecting the transcendental altogether, Communism posits a purely temporal or sensual man, without an immortal soul to save. It thus appeals to the basic instincts in us, of survival, revenge and hatred. It tries to turn vices into virtues, tending to bestow a veneer of moral authority on ideological, spiritual, moral, economic and social warfare against the given order. Addressed to the "proletariat" to encourage them to rise up, shed blood and destroy all evidence of the historical past, it now appeals to all kinds of intellectuals who favour secularization or the emancipation of the world from religion, seen as the ultimate enemy of man. As Communism specifically singled out Christianity as the "opium of the people" it comes as no surprise that its "arguments" seek to produce the great parody of the true Christian in human souls: man living for himself alone, as if he were his own God, his own Christ and his own Pope, able to save and redeem himself from his own sins.
Knowing all of this, Pope Pius XI's encyclical made unambiguouly clear to the confused and floundering that Communism was and is atheist by definition, making it a public enemy of all who profess a belief in God the Father. At the same time, anxious to protect his children from deception, Pius XI also took the opportunity to repeat his predecessors' condemnations, demonstrating the continuity and credibility of Catholic thought and the Holy Father's concern for the common good of humanity. This sustained commitment to protecting the weak from the strong always proves the Church's legitimacy and the role of the Pope as a Shepherd of lost sheep, warning them of the given dangers to the Faith posed by creeds masquerading as human, even though anti-human.
Catholics were still being warned on 1st July 1949 that to support the creed in any form was to attract the ultimate penalty: excommunication. Pope Pius XII issued another warning against the inroads being made by atheism in Anni Sacri (1950), and condemned the advances made by Communism in China in Ad Sinarum Gentem (1954) and Ad Apostolorum Principis (1958).
Pacepa meets Casaroli
In his 25th January 2007 interview, Pacepa stated that, as a Romanian Intelligence Officer, he had met a high flyer in the Vatican Diplomatic Service, Agostino Casaroli (1914-1998), who later went on to become Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II from 1979-1990. Pacepa says he met him at the behest of the KGB in connection with their "Seat-12" plot to destabilize the Church.
Our first clarification is that this is proof that Moscow really had a plot to destabilize the Church, and that it is not a fiction or an illusion held to by deranged Right wing "fanatics". The plot was called "Seat-12" for a very good reason. The See of Peter is the seat of Holy Mother Church and Pope Pius was the twelfth Pope to take the name of Pius, thus "Seat-12".
The idea that Msgr. Casaroli even received an emissary from Moscow, given this plot, evokes an unthinkable scenario: the idea of a kind of collaboration between Moscow and Rome, or, at the very least, the idea of Moscow instrumentalising the foolish in the Vatican to their own advantage. The Church's gesture of permitting an interview between Casaroli and the representative of a Communist regime was apparently made on a false pretext. Pacepa alleges that Communist Romania really wanted to restore relations with the Holy See, which had been severed in 1951. The high flyer Casaroli thus arranged for Pacepa's men to have access to the Secret Vatican Archives in the early 1960s, apparently with a view to examining Pope Pius XII's record, and as a sort of good will gesture to "repentant" Communists.
How seriously can we take Pacepa's story? In part the result of the proverbial "quid pro quo" - the Vatican had recently got back a Romanian bishop, Augustin Pacha (1870-1954), who had been imprisoned in the Communist East bloc and who died shortly after his release in 1954 - it is nonetheless highly unlikely that the upper echelons of the Church would ever have granted Communist Romania in any shape or form access to the Archives. The story seems really ridiculous, at least in terms of public policy. The Vatican knew of the existence of espionage, counter-espionage and disinformation policies and practices, as well as having evidence of the continuing persecution of Catholics by Communist regimes. It also knew exactly what daily life was like under a Communist dictatorship for the population as a whole: misery.
Moreover, recent papers are normally always a source of controversy. They are kept secret until passions die down and reserved to bona fide scholars but only once the normal rule of inaccessibility for some years has been observed. The notion of Agostino Casaroli suddenly giving Romanian agents direct access to the Vatican's Secret Archives and the very recent papers of a Pope who had just died (in 1958) is only plausible if we assume as given that Casaroli was working on his own, that he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he was happy to allow Communist agents to have access to sensitive material, even though it would be used against the Church.
"Seat-12" plot and Ostpolitik?
This scenario has some plausibility if we presuppose the "new" appeasement of Communism by the Vatican, which commentators link to a historic secret meeting which took place in a flat belonging to Abbé Lagarde in Metz on August 18th 1962, involving Cardinals Tisserant and Wllebrands and Archbishop Nikodim of Moscow. That this meeting took place none of the participants deny. Its purpose, however, can only be pieced together, by academic and Catholic historians among others.
The new appeasement came to be known as Ostpolitik and seemed like a prelude to Pope John XXIII's Pacem in Terris about peace in our time (published on Maundy Thursday 1963 to the acclaim of the whole world), an encyclical which seemed to be blind in its optimism about human progress, positing collaboration between the State and the Church of a kind never before entertained by the Church. Pacem in Terris went further. It even seemed to have adopted the Communist doctrine of peaceful coexistence first elaborated by Lenin, then Stalin and by Khrushchev: applying it in terms of a revised idea of the Catholic Church as the protector of man's temporal needs, as if these were more important than his daily war with his sins and his immortal soul; as if the conflict between the spirit of the world and the spirit of eternity were no longer given; as if spiritual combat as such were passe. It held to the idea that the Catholic Church could coexist peacefully with non-Catholic states, even though the historical record showed that non-Catholic states and governments always specialized in persecuting the Church.
Pope John XXIII assumed, therefore, that the historical record was irrelevant and there was no conflict between Church and State, such that a peaceful coexistence was really possible. But on what terms? Modern man had apparently come of age, emancipated from the strictures of Catholic theology and spirituality! The Medieval world was apparently for nostalgics. Heaven and Hell were no more than anthropological states of being, shorthand for political, economic, social and moral deprivations which could be supplied for, if only the State and the Church cooperated better to administer to man's temporal needs.
According to Pope John XXIII the Church in the post-1960s world had a role in the world for the world. The Pope seemed to prevaricate about the eternal idea of the Church as the protector of man against all that prevents him from taking his immortal soul seriously. In this reading, the Pope was no more than the chief architect of Masonry's long-term goal, of causing the auto-destruction of the Catholic Church through the infiltration of counter-doctrines capable of unseating traditional theology. So, for all intents and purposes, Pope John XXIII had conceded that temporal well-being was more important than the salvation of man's immortal soul. Enlightenment secularism had finally found a home in Holy Mother Church. No wonder Pope John XXIII to this day is the darling of the Liberals.
Ostpolitik was the logical application of this war on theology and adoption of secular philosophy. The Enlightenment tenet about man as God effectively caused the Church to abandon truth, for the sake of a modus vivendi with evil. She thus passed over in silence the truth about Communism's anti-human record, the gulags, the persecution of all with any religious faith, the hatred of the intelligentsia and all in political resistance, the hatred of the "proletariat" even though they were supposed to be the beneficiaries of Communism. The Church was prepared not to embarrass Moscow in public in order to accommodate the Second Vatican Council's new agenda of "aggiornamento": of reaching out to the world, abandoning Her anathemas, Her condemnations and judgments, all for the sake of a new "mercy".
The Church's decision not to renew its historic condemnation in relation to any named country, at the request of Moscow, for the sake of the "new theology" or praxis, has come to be known as Ecumenism or Pan-Christianity, common-place today throughout the Church. The correlative is appeasement of errors, heresies and schisms, not their condemnation, as if dogma and doctrine were optional for salvation. This is all part of the historical record, of the gradual creation of 'Newchurch', as some have called it.
On the strength of this promise not to mention truth, observers from the Orthodox Churches in Communist countries were permitted to attend the Council, even though the Church had no intention of challenging them to convert. Moreover, the Church knew that many of its members were undercover KGB agents, that the Orthodox hated Catholics and were persecuting them. Indeed, Moscow's genocide against Ukrainian Catholics was one of the best kept secrets. Silence about it was strategically necessary for the sake of the new show-case of global unity. Wooing the Orthodox was the centre piece of another "great" Cardinal, Franz König of Vienna, who founded "Pro Oriente" on 4th November 1964 as part of this campaign to draw a veil over reality. Machiavelli or Christ?
Cardinal Casaroli's own memoirs bear out all the detail of this his life's work. In the name of Ostpolitik he visited Communist regimes to negotiate an ambiguous modus vivendi with them. Not everyone fell for it. When he visited Cuba in 1974 and produced eulogies to the Communist regime thereafter, valiant defender of the faith Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira (founder of Tradition, Family and Property) published a Declaration of Resistance to Vatican 'Ostpolitik' which was published in 45 newspapers in Brazil and 21 newspapers in 10 other countries. Speaking from his position as a Professor at a pontifical university in Brazil, this challenge was not without its significance. But it had no effect. Ostpolitik continued.
The historical record thus implicates Cardinals Casaroli and König, and Cardinals Montini and Roncalli, both of whom took their appeasement with them into the papacy. They were all implicated in the new strategy that positively contradicted the unequivocal position of Pope Pius XII, who had devoted his life to maintaining the historic condemnation of Communism and was not prepared to make any concessions with Christ's sworn enemies. That stance had given us martyrs throughout the East Bloc, many of them Primates of their countries. Their refusal to cooperate with the regimes vastly increased the authority of the Church; their mock trials and fabricated evidence of their "crimes" against Communism only served to enhance the faith of ordinary people.
We recall Cardinal Stepinac (Croatia), Cardinal Slipyj (Ukraine), Passionist Bishop Eugen Bossilkov (Bulgaria), Cardinal Wysinski (Poland) and Cardinal Mindszenty (Hungary); Cardinal Stepinac and Bishop Bossilkov have already been beatified. The portrait of Bishop Bossilkov graces the entrance of the Russicum in Rome, so great was his contribution to the martyr Church under Communism. All prelates were instrumental in saving lives, Jewish lives included, since God made us all in His own image. The causes for the beatification of Cardinal Slipyj, Cardinal Wyszynski and Cardinal Mindszenty have already been opened.
Since their martyrdom is so threatening, crypto-Communists in the West to this day hold to the view that Blessed Cardinal Stepinac was himself working hand in glove with some of the most shady aspects of the regime in power in the region. He has successfully been stylized as a crypto-Fascist, in order to keep the focus on lies. The allegation is that he was upholding the Ustascha regime when, in fact, he was not. And the timing of this most recent propaganda campaign to discredit the work of a great man, who helped save many Jews in Croatia? Blessed Stepinac's beatification ceremony in 1998. For the full story of the amazing details of life behind the Iron Curtain readers should refer to Jonathan Luxmoore and Jolanta Babiuch's The Vatican and the Red Flag .
Only Fr. Gruner's magazine Fatima Crusader has systematically followed this unedifying counter-story of the Vatican's turn-about on Communism. Some of its ugly contours only began to take shape in the public imagination with the continuing controversy of the Third Secret of Fatima, when it was not revealed by the Pope in 1960 as expected by Catholics world-wide.
So what is at stake? Nothing less than Our Lady of Fatima's political role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces: in saving mankind from auto-destruction at the hands of militant atheism, or Communism applied systematically to all aspects of human reality. That is why She stands squarely between Rome and Moscow as the guarantor of the real peace against the false peace that was engineered in the name of Ostpolitik. Both Catholic devotees of Our Lady and non-Catholic commentators of Our Lady's status in the Catholic Church routinely fail to note her efficacity in the political world, preferring to see her as no more than a pious focus for religious feelings of a generically Catholic kind. But that leaves untouched the curious anomaly of Bill and Hilary Clinton visiting Fatima, and of countless Russian intellectuals since 1917 visiting Fatima. Why would they have bothered to go if they had not understood that Fatima was not just about traditional Catholic devotion to the Mother of God, but in some way was an address to mankind as a whole, and political élites in particular?
Attempt to expose Casaroli?
Pacepa says that between 1960 and 1963 the Romanian Secret Service was permitted access to the Vatican Secret Archives and the Apostolic Library, as a result of Casaroli's influence. Incriminating evidence against Casaroli appears to pile up by implication in Pacepa's story, when we bear in mind that Casaroli told Pacepa that the Vatican would also condescend to an interest free loan to Romania in return for the favour of access. This would imply that the Vatican positively longed for Romanian agents to enter the Secret Vatican Archives as the quid pro quo for recognition of the regime in Romania: Ceausescu's regime. Yet it seems extremely far-fetched. Pacepa does not draw out the full implications of Casaroli's role here, which is why some suggest he might just be another attempt at a smoke-screen. We need always be aware that to assume benign objectives in agents of Communism amounts in practice to perfect sabotage of the Church's historic condemnation of Communism. There never was any evidence that countries behind the Iron Curtain were in any way sympathetic to objective historical research on the Church's role in recent history, nor to the Catholic Church's role in supporting the victims of Communism.
So what should we conclude? Was Casaroli a KGB agent or a Mason, or was he merely sympathetic to Communism's longer term objectives, the liquidation of the true Church? Or is Pacepa a liar who was paid a large sum of money to stir up passions among the weak and vacillating in 2007, to keep us all in a state of war?
No incriminating evidence
That is by the by, as far as this interview is concerned. Pacepa's objective is not to "uncover" Casaroli. Rather, he wishes to defend the purity of intention of Pope Pius XII, even though he has no intention of entering the Catholic Church, which is curious. Pacepa notes that no incriminating evidence was found against Pope Pius XII as a result of the "research" conducted in the Archives by Romanian under-cover agents.
Moscow was disappointed. Yet Moscow was wedded to its objective of circulating disinformation to inflame hatred against the Church. It wished to find material to portray Pope Pius XII to the world as a crypto-Fascist and anti-Semite. Why? Because anti-Rome propaganda was crucial to sustaining all Communist regimes in their ideology, which posited the Pope and Rome as part of the internationalist conspiracy (variously referred to as Imperialism or Capitalism) to deny the proletariat its rightful freedom to live in defiance of the existence of God. This ideology additionally believed in the supremacy of the intellectuals over the masses, so that atheist intellectuals naturally encouraged a radical hatred of nearly all forms of religious faith and all resistance fighters, especially those who were prepared to resist unto martyrdom. They resented the very existence of another source of allegiance: namely, the universal Church. Ergo, finding proof of the Pope as an enemy of mankind was fairly important.
What to conclude? Pacepa implies that the agents must have fabricated evidence of Pope Pius XII the monster, whose "silence" is believed by a majority of Liberals world-wide to this day, and who is held responsible for the spread of evil. The copies of "documents" which KGB agents supposedly photographed were thus not documents, but false papers doctored by KGB disinformation expert Agayants. Pacepa implies that these were then winged to Hochhuth, who we assume was sufficiently deluded to "believe" them and assume they amounted to infallible authentic proof of Pope Pius XII's "sins" or "crimes against humanity", even though we know him to have saved the lives of countless Jews and valiantly fought appeasement of Communism in any shape or form.
Casaroli's successor as Secretary of State, the recently retired Cardinal Angelo Sodano, published his own memoirs in 2000. He makes no reference to Pacepa or to the criticisms that commentators have made of Ostpolitik. Entitled Il Martirio della Pazienza (The Martyrdom of Patience), he impudently stylises himself as a "martyr of peace", arguing that Ostpolitik was bringing a helpful "modus vivendi" to Catholics living under Communism.
Whilst in human terms the appeasement by the Vatican of Communist regimes did lead to a lessening of some of the strictures placed on ordinary folk, the policy of Ostpolitik was predicated on a false version of the nature of the Church. It assumes that the Church is a human community of people (which it is), yet at the expense of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and source of divine truths which all individuals must embrace as coming from the loving God, their source. There should not, of course, be a conflict between the human and divine aspects of the Church, since the Church is a seamless whole, so that negotiation should not necessarily entail compromise. But it did in these circumstances: since Metz (1962), Pacem in Terris (1963), through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and afterwards, as appeasement multiplied to the extent that the Church is now in irreversible decline, at least as measured by the decline in mass attendance, baptisms, communions, confessions, confirmations, marriages and, last but not least, the birth-rate. Plus confusion about virtually every dogma and doctrine. All of that the work of the "synthesis of all heresies", as Pope St. Pius X termed Modernism. Tom Horwood, who worked for six years with the bishops of England and Wales, has just published a new book on the "failure of the Catholic Church in Britain", in which he says that if present indicators continue there will barely be a Catholic Church in Britain in 2041. Scares about Modernism are not scares; they are facts.
The substitution of a purely human Church at the expense of a Church of inerrant doctrine and dogma amounts to blasphemy in point of fact. That is why it is regrettable that post-1960 Vatican diplomats entered into dialogue with representatives of Communist regimes. From Metz to the present day, Vatican diplomats have been helping "us" to believe that the Faith is no more than a private matter. It is because of their prevarications about the Faith as truth that Vatican architects of Ostpolitik have attracted so much internal criticism from traditional Catholics, who alone point out that the Balamand Declaration of 24th June 1993 and its variants - which now bind Catholic prelates to Ecumenical goals in countries where there has been warfare between the Orthodox and Catholics - are just the new kind of persecution.
The Orthodox are in schism. They are not 'sister Churches', even though Ecumenical prelates and Popes characteristically imply that the Anglican "branch Theory" of Christendom - condemned by a number of encyclicals under Pope Leo XIII - is apparently alright. Is anything at stake, or are Christians all an undifferentiated mass? The Orthodox reject the Primacy of Peter; quibble about the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory and the Filioque Clause of the Credo; have a married priesthood and accept divorce. Pretending that these are immaterial prevarications is to condone schism and heresy. To allow both to become institutionalized, this time in the bosom of the true Church, is to invite a meditation on Our Lord's words that not all shepherds are good shepherds, but rather wolves dressed up in sheep's clothing!
The new deals, based on the false equality of the Catholic Church with those not in communion with Her, make conversion and submission to Peter redundant. Indeed, as Vatican historian Hansjakob Stehle points out, the turn came about when Pope John XXIII chose to interpret the words of the message of Fatima in a "new" light. Conversion stopped meaning what it meant to Pope Pius XII and the Church throughout history. It was revised to mean improvement in human terms, and in terms of the Communist doctrine of peaceful coexistence elaborated by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev - which to Communists was just a synonym for war using new means.
Thus, the volte-face works subversively at the expense of Our Lady of Fatima's own "peace plan" from 1917. For we know that this entails the Church as a visible Church demonstrably consecrating Russia, the source of Communist errors and heresies, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to cancel the debt incurred by humanity for Communism's blasphemy of negating the existence of God. That consecration has to be executed by a Pope with all the bishops of the world; we still await it, given that the consecrations of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not what God asked for. We await a public demonstration of the existence and unity of the visible Church, the only true Church outside of which there is no salvation, guided by the Holy Ghost and carrying out the Will of an infallible God who loves His creation, man, who was entrusted by Christ to His mother at the foot of the cross when He said to St. John the Evangelist: "Son, behold your mother!"
Instead of peace for all, which is the will of a loving God, who has chosen Our Lady as the architect of true peace on earth, Ostpolitik assumes that Our Lady is no more than a faintly arcane feature of Catholic life. Ostpolitik is thus applied Communism. It is purely pragmatic. It shares with Communism a naturalistic point of departure. It wanted to establish a diplomatic modus vivendi with Communist regimes and some Catholics, yet on terms which effectively caused the Church to compromise/deny the Primacy of Peter and to legitimise sin and evil.
Yet that is all anti-Christ, proving how vital it is to Satan's long-term objectives to drive as many wedges between Catholics as possible, to destroy unity and efficacity. Why did God give us a visible Church, with a visible Head, the Pope, if not to protect the good of all people, all of whom are created in God's image? What is the rock on which Christ built his Church if it is only to benefit a small gang of Catholics? The Petrine Office alone has authority and power to protect the universality of mankind from all that is counter to Christ, like the universal counter-creed of Communism, on the grand assumption that it is both the will of God and the desire of man to submit to the sweet yoke and the easy burden which is Christ. Hence the condemnations of Communism made by the Extraordinary Magisterium throughout the nineteenth century and especially in 1937 were made by the Pope, in the name of Christ, for the benefit of the universality of mankind, not just a sect of Catholics, because Christ alone can guarantee us what it is we want for our bodies and souls in time and through eternity.
Therefore, those Vatican diplomats who encouraged archbishops, bishops and cardinals behind the Iron Curtain to make accommodations with the regime were guilty of scandal, and of provoking legitimate authority to divest itself of its authority by ignoring those infallible condemnations. To become implicated in this game implies a prevarication about the Petrine Office at the very least, and of authority in general.
The 'peace' that indulging in duplicity about Peter has secured for some is only part of the on-going war. The appeasement certainly gave many Catholics behind the Iron Curtain from the 1960s onwards an easier life; but the avoidance of general condemnations of Communism by the Holy See from 1962 onwards - the work of Pope John XXIII and Pacem in Terris (1963) in particular - seriously compromised the authority of the Church and the ability of the Church to protect the maximum number of souls from being seduced by the Evil one. The diplomats have dabbled in the heresy that the Church is no more than a human sect or negotiating facility like any other in the secular world, able to negotiate for better terms with others, who also see human beings in purely pragmatic terms: as having temporal needs which should be controlled by political policy. Yet the doctrine that the State governs humanity is Communism. Cardinal Sodano as a member of the Catholic Church should have denounced this pseudo-truth and defended the real truth - that the Catholic Church alone has the remit from God to govern humanity. This is a revealed truth, not a personal opinion held to by a group of self-designated Catholics.
As it is entirely logical that a counter-universal creed like Communism needs to eliminate the source of so much public opposition to Communism, namely the Petrine Office, and destroy the credentials of the Church in the eyes of the faithful, it is equally logical that the Evil One seek out souls who prefer the softly-softly approach. As usual, the Evil One knows his catechism better than the average Catholic. But Cardinal Sodano assumes throughout his memoirs that the diplomatic concessions and overtures made to atheist dictators for the sake of the human survival of the Church in the East bloc (in terms of a watered down "Catholic" presence and prelates not willing or happy to challenge Communist ideology from the pulpit) were not morally ambiguous. He glosses his own role in appeasement of Communism as a diplomatic tour de force.
Hochhuth denies Moscow manipulation
Pacepa's story caused a political storm in Germany - a country which has always been faintly embarrassed by the way Hochhuth was able to destabilize relations with the Vatican after The Deputy was first staged by Communist Erwin Piscator in Berlin. And he did more than make the Germans blush. During the Second Vatican Council the Jews were very worried about its impact on discussions designed to revise Catholic-Jewish relations. The Israeli Foreign Ministry even asked the National Theatre of Israel to remove The Deputy from its 1963 programme to achieve this political end.
Hochhuth denies that he was being used by the KGB. He denies he played a political role in the international arena of destabilizing the status quo; he refuses to accept that his "feelings" might have been instrumentalised by another power for another, more malignant political goal. He holds to his own version of himself as the aimable idealist, who acquired private proof of Pope Pius XII's indifference to human suffering in times of war. The proof is not in documents, but rather in points of view: the view that the Pope was silent when he should have been vocal, on the assumption that more vocal protests would have definitively reversed the era of evil and prevented the Holocaust.
Hochhuth still alleges that he used his own personal contacts in Rome, interviewing real historical witnesses, who were not fabrications of his own imagination. What is his story? That he had discussions with a talkative bishop, whose name he has never revealed. German politicians are now asking Hochhuth, for the sake of the historical record, to reveal names. Thus far Hochhuth refuses to be drawn, preferring to allege that he is himself the victim of a slur campaign.
Meanwhile, respected scholar Fr. Peter Gumpel S.J., postulator for the cause of Pope Pius XII, reasons that we have little reason to doubt Pacepa, and still every reason to remain sceptical about Hochhuth. The Secretary of the Secret Vatican Archives, Sergio Pagano, himself an excellent scholar, has chimed in to point out that in the period under question the KGB could not have found Pope Pius XII's letters in the Secret Vatican Archives anyway, since they were not housed there at the time. So where does that leave us?
Communism versus Fascism
Once again, Pacepa's intervention about Hochhuth recalls the fatal errors of Ostpolitik from 1960-1989 and thereafter. It revives our fears rasied by private revelations such as Our Lady of Salette's warning about Rome as the "seat of Anti-Christ", Blessed Elena Aiello's vision of the red flag over the Vatican, and Bella Dodd's statements to the effect that the KGB meant to infiltrate the Church to undermine Her from within. It also chimes in with the work of repentant Communist Stéphane Courtois, whose Black Book of Communism  recently tried to steer the public debate back to essential issues.
Courtois' book is a full frontal attack on Communism and the way the European intelligentsia has fallen for it in 1917 as now. Its merit is that it points out that the crimes of Communism and the victims of Communism way exceed those of Fascism. Even if we quibble about the number of Communist victims, the total is seriously higher compared to the generally accepted figure of 8 million victims of Fascism at Auschwitz and other death camps. Stéphane Courtois thus tries to mediate in this dispute, doing something to compensate for the extreme media interest in Fascism. His point is to draw attention to the weakness of identifying Fascism with Auschwitz, since that misrepresents Hitler's war, which was a general war against anybody who did not share his world-view and desire for a revolutionary destruction of the Old World Order.
The equation of Fascism with Auschwitz is also mostly the work of crypto-Communists of the Intellectual Left who are selling the soft illusions of designer Communism in our day to muddled audiences, delivering us up to an age in which we all collectively mourn the passing of the Jews, as if they were the chosen race, and as if they were the only victims of authoritarian perversity: otherwise known as the new philo-semitism, the extreme alternative to anti-semitism; both wrong. Courtois asks us to consider why crypto-Communists who have transformed themselves into 'moderate' Liberals over time blindly overlook the crimes in their own pedigree? Is it a tactical oversight, part of a longer-term strategy? Yes. It serves the longer term Communist goal of delivering Europe from her Christian roots and points to the continuing existence of militant atheism, which underpins Communism, in our present intelligentsia.
The critique of Pacepa and Courtois also forms a useful block in relation to the research by intelligence historians Harvey Klehr and Christopher Andrew, who have had access to the KGB's files in Moscow since the Fall of the Berlin Wall. The material converges. The Venona Files and the Mitrokhin Archives found in Moscow confirm Catholic Senator Joe McCarthy's claims that the operations of the KGB in the West after 1917 did implicate the highest echelons of government, not just low ranking officials like Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg and the rest; that Catholic anti-Communism in America was on the right track in general since there really was a conspiracy organized from Moscow to infiltrate the West at all levels, not just government and education. The intention was to bring the West into moral submission to Communism by converting the world to the typical manifestations of practical atheism: materialism and sensualism.
Strategies for achieving these marvellous goals? Systematic denigration of our historical past, the promotion of anti-Americanism and the anti-authority principle in the educational system, all in keeping with Marxist dialectics.
Where to find such activities unheeded? Universities!
Colonial Studies, Cultural Studies, Multi-Cultural Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Comparative Religion, Feminist Studies, German-Jewish Studies, German-Turkish Studies and Gay Studies are all relatively new subjects for academia. Are they just the latest mutations in the heresy of Communism? In their least sophisticated form they tend to inspire "legitimate" hatred of our historical past, casting it as a single conspiracy to restrain the birth of the true spirit of absolute emancipation from the Triune God and His laws. In the West, the lever works in its most blatant form where it assumes that God and Christ are the enemy of the human race. Building on that insinuation, the next step is to attempt to emancipate baptized souls from their duty to submit to Christian morality. The promotion of immorality as natural and normal, especially unnatural vices, are its most persuasive attempt at a viable counter-voice to Christ, and they draw on the historical record by assuming that classes of people like Jews, homosexuals and Moslems have apparently been persecuted by Christians. That over-simplifies the historical record in a way which we cannot address in this article, but facts are not required here. The rhetoric holds that all should be permitted the right to have, be and experience on their own terms, independent of any "repressive" authority. This is the dream of emancipation from Christ come true.
The lever also works insidiously to allege that all pre-Reformation history is darkness, with the Messianic idea that as Christ had failed to be an efficacious Messiah, others must take his place to usher in the true light. It revives all the old-fashioned anti-Catholic polemic about the wickedness of the Medieval world, which is why topics like the witch-trials, the Inquisition, the Church as hostile to female rights and same-sex tendencies are now en vogue; where subject matter is presented in inflammatory terms designed to inspire hatred of Christian culture. In promoting undifferentiated multi-culturalism it implies that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are doctrinally equal. Yet this is a heresy from a Christian point of view, since that would imply that Christ was not a Messiah but just a prophet, as the Jews and Moslems readily say he is.
In packaging many of these ideas in glamourous language about peace, rights, progress and modernism, it is anti-rational, casting the scope for peaceful coexistence of three world religions as easy, when history and contemporary reality shows us that the irreconcilable doctrinal differences can only be countered by preaching the true Christ, the real Messiah, against those who wish to demote him, denying His divinity, denying His right to reign supreme over souls in time and eternity. Its utopianism is adolescent, insinuating a passive indifference to complexity of thought and action. It is the work of a generation of intellectuals who were formed by the 1968 sexual, political and cultural revolution in the West.
The discussion of popular culture and mass culture - also new areas of study - fits in to this relatively new political frame, to ease us away from high culture which tends to be edifying and educational. Legitimising popular and mass culture in turn becomes the efficient cause of more anti-rational, anti-intellectual, anti-historical acceptance of all that is low-quality, morally spurious or designed to universalize sin: as if man had not been redeemed by Christ; no more than an undifferentiated consumer of market goods, desires, instincts and needs. Can it really be true that students go to university to study soap operas?
The anti-Christian apostolate was at the heart of Karl Marx and Nietzsche, whose blasphemies were legion; but it is also the work of smooth-talking Liberals who secretly defer to Marx and Nietzsche as the source of all revealed truth, yet do not identify themselves as his followers, and who resent their own baptism, preferring emancipation from Church and State as the highest truth. They appeal to their audiences to resent their own baptism. Since the intellectuals have young student audiences as their "sitting" targets, this is more than regrettable.
The recent release of archival material from within the Soviet Union has thus lead directly to the belated vindication of a heroic man, Senator Joe McCarthy, who gave his name to a whole era in American history. This has done little to silence the cries of Liberals, for whom the surname McCarthy is synonymous with repression. As McCarthy himself said, that was because the Liberals were part of the plot: "fellow travellers".
As crypto-Communists they were the fellow travellers because they were able to misinterpret the data and orchestrate hysteria, thereby turning the man trying to save America and the West into a common criminal, whilst the real Machiavellian criminals in Moscow and elsewhere merrily went about their business. In this regard, the counter-part to Hochhuth in America is dramatist Arthur Miller. He was as successful with his play The Crucible (1953) as Hochhuth was with The Deputy. It sustains exactly the same kind of anti-Catholic fever and hatred of the Catholic Church by making Senator Joe McCarthy - rather than the Communist satellites at work in government, education and the media - the tyrant, the bigot and the threat to America. Apparently, Senator McCarthy is not the Catholic patriot he actually was: trying his best to draw attention to the way Communism worked in practice, infiltrating its way into the Western psyche. A new biography of by M. Stanton Evans appeared in November 2007 with Random House. Its title is Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. It has used the more recent archival material to vindicate a much maligned man.
Hochhuth's verbal sources
Another possibility raised by Pacepa's new allegations is more concrete and does not rely on speculation about Casaroli having been a "traitor" in the Vatican. This scenario in fact vindicates Hochhuth as not having lied about the existence of genuine sources in the Vatican for his claim that Pope Pius XII did not do enough. There are two candidates.
Firstly a certain Monsignor Bruno Wüstenberg (1912-1984) working in the Vatican wished to take revenge on Pope Pius XII for not having promoted him. He lived beyond his means, drove a sports car and had an open homosexual liaison. He had been research assistant to Alberto Giovannetti, who in the year 1959/1960 was involved in putting the Vatican's case for Pope Pius XII to the people, using documents. As a German speaker, Msgr. Wüstenberg had written the foreword to the German edition, Der Vatikan und der Krieg, published in 1961.
The story runs that Wüstenberg, therefore, had a personal motive for whispering calumnies about Pope Pius XII as incompetent into Hochhuth's ear, which Hochhuth took to be gospel truth, allowing him to construct his case for Pope Pius XII as complicit with the spread of evil. Hochhuth protected Wüstenberg's name for as long he was alive. It was following his death in 1984 that Hochhuth went public to the effect that the cleric was his Vatican source.
In a recent interview on Bavarian Radio, however, Hochhuth indicates that Wüstenberg's role in Rome was restricted to reassuring him that throughout the war years the Pope never mentioned the Jews by name, despite denunciations of war and exhortations of peace and condemnations of murder. Since 1999 commentators have been suggesting that Wüstenberg did not just have a motive for discrediting Pope Pius XII, but that he may even have used his privileged access to documents and falsified material, handing it on to Hochhuth, who has always maintained he was using authentic material he got on his exploratory visit to Rome.
The other candidate who might have unwittingly caused Hochhuth to believe that he had genuine support for his thesis was Bishop Alois Hudal (1885-1963), who, like Msgr. Wüstenberg, had an axe to grind with his superiors in Rome. He resigned at the request of the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, on 30th June 1952, for his outspoken political opinions. This he resented for the rest of his life, casting himself as a victim of Vatican intrigue, alleging that both the Allies and the Curia disliked him, when he felt he had fought for the greater good of the Church.
From the Vatican's point of view he was controversial. His early book on National Socialism entitled Die Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus appeared in 1937, and was an academic attempt at a break-down of the philosophy which had just become fashionable throughout Germany. Far from being a blind advocate of the kind of National Socialism written by Hitler and Rosenberg, the book is the work of a German patriot who is trying to see what aspects of the philosophy are redeemable from a Christian and political point of view. As a Catholic he was particularly aware of the threat posed by Bolshevism, which is one reason why he was sympathetic to the very possibility of the Church approving only those aspects which were genuinely German, genuinely patriotic, and genuinely Christian. Neither Msgr. Pacelli (the future Pius XII) nor Pope Pius XI liked this. While Cardinal Merry del Val thought it might be a productive way of winning the regime over to a reformulation of its philosophy. Certainly, the German and Austrian bishops hated him.
Research on bishop Hudal is flourishing at the present time, since he is also the name associated with the wartime project to get refugees and victims out of Europe to South America. Not surprisingly the crypto-Communists and doctrinaire Liberals are doing their best to stylize him as a crypto-Fascist of the worst kind, since many of the people who got out at the end of the war, as a result of the Vatican's humanitarian interventions, were Nazis. Hochhuth told the Roman correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Hansjakob Stehle, that Bishop Hudal was the source for the claim that Pope Pius XII had not done enough, since he met up with him in Grottaferrata on a famous research trip he made to Rome in the 1960s.
What can we conclude?
Hochhuth has exploited the animus that both Monsignor Wüstenberg and Bishop Hudal had in respect of a superior who had contradicted their ambitions or wounded their pride. Their insinuations to him that Pope Pius XII was an incompetent successor to Peter are understandable in human and psychological terms as the ramblings of disappointed men. They have unfortunately furnished an entirely different apostolate with the wrong kind of legitimacy. Hochhuth did not have the discernment or knowledge to see that he was dealing with two men with bruised egos, and has turned their passing comments into Liberal doctrines.
Indeed, the claim that Pope Pius XII was a failure is one of many mandatory positions on the Intellectual Left. Yet what is the failure in point of fact? It is no more than a question of emphasis, rather than principle.
In 1937 the Papacy had already condemned Fascism in principle and in public, with the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, wherein Fascism was dismissed as a pagan ideology, anathema to Christ. Thereafter, the Church disciplined Catholic members of the National Socialist Party by refusing them the sacraments, and warned souls from the pulpit of the dangers to Germany, morality and their immortal souls of giving any kind of credence to Hitler. More importantly, Pope Pius XII's radio speeches and elsewhere had condemned all killings as infringements of the divine commandment not to kill, which is universally binding. After the election of Hitler the Church held the German people to the terms of the concordat, which enabled them by example to prove that Hitler had no serious intention of permitting the Church Her right to exist, but was rather committed to policies to undermine, usurp and deny Her claims over souls. On that basis the Third Reich yielded many martyr-priests who died in Auschwitz, Buchenwald or Dachau for condemning National Socialism from the pulpit. Yet despite this brave and unequivocal response, Hochhuth claims he is authorized to allege that the Church prevaricated about Hitler. On what basis?
Hochhuth's claim is that the Church failed in not making more explicit reference to the Jews by name. His speculative idea runs like this: had there been more explicit references to Hitler's policy towards the Jews, Hitler would have relented and been intimidated by the Church's condemnations, to the extent that he would have halted the work of his men in the gas chambers. This presupposes that Hitler was a rational man; it also presupposes that so deep-seated a pragmatist was willing to gain from kow-towing to the Church on this matter; it presupposes that the men running the camps would have deferred to his authority; it also assumes that Hitler was willing to repeat the symbolic Canossa submission to the Papacy (involving the conflict between the Pope and the German Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV) which since the eleventh century has been a synonym for wounded, national pride.
The latest book on Hitler now demonstrates that Hitler had a special mission and secret plot to seize the Vatican and kidnap the Pope, so great was his hatred of his greatest antagonist. We remember that Hitler did surrender to pressure and stopped his euthanasia programme when Cardinal Clemens von Galen condemned it from the pulpit. Yet we know the answer to why the Pope did not interfere in the same way over the Jews. The Pope was asked by priests and others from the death-camps to remember that there were always reprisals when the Pope spoke, precisely because Hitler despised him more than he despised any other person on earth, since he was competing with him for authority over souls. We also know that Catholics in Holland were punished when the Pope mentioned the death-camps and condemned what was going on there. Famously, St. Edith Stein was deported from Holland to the death camps as part of the reprisal.
Yet Hochhuth overlooks these crucial human considerations, aimed at limiting bloodshed, and alleges that the comparative silence means Pope Pius XII was complicit with the genocide against the Jews; that what he did do was inadequate considering the gravity of the crime; that Pope Pius XII and the Church are "guilty" in relation to Auschwitz. This is exculpation at work. It means, logically, that Hitler and his government and officers were not guilty, or not really guilty, amongst other things. It means that Hitler's Fascism was not guilty. It means that facts like the enormous humanitarian work done by the Church on behalf of the Jews in this period can be negated, for rhetorical purposes. It points to a chronic inability to accept the necessity of sabotage from within as the only efficacious way of undermining the policies of a man dedicated to Evil. It means making lies more important than truth.
Pacepa has assisted Hochhuth's apostolate, in giving yet more publicity to a very old set of confusions, lies, half-truths and prevarications. Pacepa may have helped to vindicate him on the concrete question of whether or not documents were involved. But that will do nothing to hide Hochhuth's engagement in German and European history, apparently on the side of the weak, frail and innocent, speaking up to protect the victims (Jews) from their persecutors (Catholics).
So who, in the end, is Rolf Hochhuth? Despite the appearance of middle-class normality he remains to this day a doctrinaire Marxist, replaying Marxism's lies about truth and history in all his plays and public speeches, underpinned by an equally implacable atheism. In interviews from 1991 to the present, he has explicitly denied that Christ is the God-Man; does not believe in the Resurrection; and thinks that since Auschwitz we would be advised not to believe in the existence of God.
As a corrective to his emotive rhetoric, readers might like to read Catholic historian Michael Burleigh's Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany c. 1900-1945  and The Third Reich: A New History  - a reminder of the ultimate sources for the hatred of man as this was played out in real time in Germany.
As for Hochhuth the historian, the point is that his atheistic Marxism is the part of the story that Catholics do not understand. This is far more serious and important than the small question of the possible sources for The Deputy.