August/September
2004
A report on the dissolute
state of the Church in South Africa and the hirelings who have run
it into the ground. Emblematic of post-conciliar prelates across the
board, crushing the Old Mass and its adherents has underpinned their
assault on the Faith and tradition.
The
Serpent and the Fox
DR. RORY DONELLAN
Part I: Death of "The
Serpent's Eyes"
O Denis Hurley,
O forlorn disciples,
|
Ye who the
things of God, which ought to be
|
The brides
of holiness, rapaciously
|
For silver
and for gold do prostitute,
|
Now it behoves
for you the trumpet sound,
|
Because in
this third Bolgia ye abide.
|
(Adapted from Dante's
Inferno, 19)
|
On the 13th
of February 2004, Modernists everywhere mourned the death of 88-year-old
Archbishop Denis E. Hurley, OMI. To regular readers of Christian
Order he probably needs no introduction. For those trying hard
to forget the trauma of his long tenure in KwaZulu-Natal, the mere
mention of his name is probably a penance. But before he is beatified
by our badly misguided brethren in the liberal media, the record needs
to be set straight. In truth, his impending beatification is no less
a myth than the Loch Ness monster. It was not without good reason
that the Zulus named him "Mhlwemamba" (meaning "the
serpent's eyes"). Divinely charged with courageously championing
the Catholic cause, he instead poisoned his flock with an arch-liberal
agenda.
"Achievements"
To summarise just a few
of his so-called "achievements," Archbishop Hurley was:
-
a
destroyer of the Sacred Liturgy (as chairman of ICEL)
-
staunch supporter of artificial contraception (as a proud, public
Humanae Vitae-dissenter even to the end)
-
a
gung-ho liberation theologian
-
a
passionate lover of Teilhard de Chardin
-
an ardent advocate of women's ordination and married priests
-
a
shameless ecumaniac of the worst kind (promoting inter-Communion
at every opportunity)
-
the
wrecking-ball behind the demolition of the ornate high altar and
nearly every other sacred item in the sanctuary of Durban's Emmanuel
Cathedral
To the uninitiated, these
observations and others which follow may seem harsh or even hard to
swallow. Yet they are all true and all on public record.
For instance, a February
16th 2004 Cape Times obituary cheerfully entitled "Clerics
pay tribute to tower of courage" noted that:
"He was outspoken
and known for …his support for artificial contraception and married
priests, two issues on which the church refuses to budge. He publicly
disagreed with Paul VI, pope from 1963-1978, over his encyclical
Humanae Vitae, which reiterated the church's official objection
to methods of "artificial contraception" such as the Pill.
After retiring as archbishop of Durban in 1993, Hurley spoke up
in favour of married priests and woman priests, topics that are
highly controversial in the Catholic Church."
Remember that this was
a bishop who branded tradition-minded priests "disobedient,"
as we shall see.
Serpent & friends
Excerpts from the book
Denis Hurley: A Portrait by Friends (Cluster Publications,
2001) edited by presbyterian Anthony Gamley, are even more revealing.
Please note that I am not for one minute advocating that anyone buy
this fairy-tale, especially since sales will be used to fund the ecumaniac
Diakonia Council of Churches. In fact, this publication probably belongs
in the dirt-bin next to Basil Hume: By His Friends [see
CO, June/July 1999]. That
this one-sided compilation is dominated by non-Catholics tells half
the story, even though "Catholic" here is used in its most
liberal sense, as Colin Gardner, one of the contributors, explains:
In pastoral matters
(for example on the question of failed marriages and more generally
in relation to freedom ofconscience), in liturgical concerns (where
he played a role promoting the clarity and resonance of current
practices), in catechetics (where he has always favoured dynamic
allegiance rather than mere doctrinal adherence), in ecumenical
openness, in his analysis of societies, Denis Hurley has allowed
himself to be a bold and original thinker. I admire a number of
the positions adopted by our current Pope, but, along with many
others, I have to disagree with him on many others. I sometimes
describe myself as a non-papist Catholic, by which I mean that in
my view many of the most powerful spiritual currents within the
Church do not really flow through John Paul 2. I have sometimes
thought that I need to describe myself as a Hurleyan Catholic.
From another of his "friends,"
Velisiwe Mary Mkhwanazi's comes the following account:
When I co-founded
Women's Ordination South Africa (WOSA) I knew it was the beginning
of a journey of a lifetime because we are challenging our Catholic
Church to ordain women as priests. My friend, Archbishop Hurley,
fully supports the idea. He once said that we have a long way to
go and therefore should not give up, because it will eventually
happen…As he once said to a group of WOSA members protesting on
this issue outside Emmanuel Cathedral: 'Be patient, sisters: just
a few more years!'
And for those who still
doubt his opposition to priestly celibacy, Professor Philippe Denis
relates:
In March 2002 a
journalist from The Mercury interviewed me on the reports
of sexual abuse of nuns by Catholic priests… The scandal was the
tacit approval of these practices by countless Church officials.
Asked if the rule of clerical celibacy contributed to the problem,
I said that many Catholics, including myself, were of the opinion
that celibacy was a charism freely given by the Spirit to some people
and that it should not be imposed on all candidates for the priesthood.
Clerical celibacy as currently practiced in the Catholic Church
not only caused immense suffering to the priests themselves: it
also created havoc in the lives of numerous women and children…
I was not quite sure how the Catholic bishops would receive this
statement. One reaction came from Hurley: "I read what you
wrote in The Mercury and I liked it… It is time for the Church
to re-examine its position. We need to move ahead.
Elsewhere in the same
book, Professor Brenda Gourley, former vice-chancellor of the University
of Natal quotes Archbishop Hurley as follows:
"Brenda,
will it help for you to know that at the Second Vatican Council
there were many of us who said that at the Third Vatican Council
they would bring their spouses?"
When Phillip Tobias,
a fellow worshipper of Teilhard de Chardin praises Hurley's "love
of synthesis" he is not far off the mark, although Pope St Pius
X's description of Modernist theology of this sort as the "synthesis
of all heresies" is certainly more accurate. Clearly, Bishop
Hurley could not conceive that evolutionist theories are the only
things evolving at any significant rate when he wrote to Dr. Tobias:
"I never
cease to thank God that theology and science are on sisterly terms
in our days, and that men like Teilhard were given to us to bring
about this happy situation."
Another contributor to
the book, Alec Erwin, the South African minister of trade and industry
(also an avowed atheist and card-carrying member of the South African
Communist Party) explains how Archbishop Hurley was very accepting
of his militant communist views - never once discouraging his agenda,
or seeking his conversion.
One wonders what Cardinal
Mindszenty might have said in similar circumstances?
Robert Blair Kaiser,
the old Time correspondent, hit the liberal nail on the head
when he readily acknowledges Hurley's many attempts to "implement
in the Church of Durban what he had quickly understood to be the spirit
of Vatican 2".
Unsurprisingly, none
of this information prevented Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor from
joining the chorus, hailing "his courageous and outspoken witness
to Christian and human values."
Vindictive Serpent: The Leslie persecution
I beg to differ, Eminence.
Bishop Denis was both a traitor, and a traditionalist-hater. Turning
a blind (serpent's) eye to homosexual deviants in the seminary (and
at least one of his parishes too), Hurley went out of his way to humiliate
priests who held steadfastly to the Faith of their forebears.
One of these priests,
Reverend Father Eldred Leslie, due to devotion to the traditional
Latin Mass, remains persona non grata in the archdiocese of Durban
for close to 20 years; stripped of all the worldly benefits accorded
his colleagues, he now lives alone with humble means – yielding much
of the little he owns to those less fortunate than himself. The numerous
hungry Africans continually crowding his door are a testimony to a
life of selfless charity.
Yet in return he is still
met with episcopal scorn and contempt. It wasn't that he never used
the revised missal at all. No, for more than ten years Father Leslie
persevered with the "new liturgy" as best he could, out
of a sense of duty to poor parishioners with nowhere else to turn,
but years of blind obedience to the modernist dictates of Bishop Denis
eventually took its toll, and so when the flaws finally became overwhelmingly
obvious, in conscience, he found he could no longer persist with the
façade.
After painstaking personal
deliberations, he decided to return to the Holy Mass of his ordination
– starting once a week on Sunday – after his normal Masses were complete.
Perhaps he was naïve not to foresee the unpleasant reaction he
would receive, or perhaps he has more stubborn courage than most.
Anyway, Bishop Denis
was indeed displeased, and so in a display meant to discourage other
"dissidents", sought to publicly castigate his most orthodox
priest.
On the 7th
April 1989 he wrote "a letter from the archbishop concerning
Father Eldred Leslie" to every parish in the diocese informing
them that he had withdrawn "the authorization granted him
to perform priestly ministry…I took this step because…it was impossible
for me to continue taking responsibility for his ministry. Sadly a
consequence of this is that his celebration of Mass, his preaching
and instructing and ministering to the sick and dying are in themselves
rebellious actions. Moreover the absolution he imparts in the sacrament
of penance is invalid and marriages at which he assists as officiating
priest are also invalid in the eyes of the Church. A further consequence
is that those who knowingly and willingly accept his ministry and
support him in his attitude are guilty of grave disobedience to lawful
authority in the Church".
It's ironic that Hurley
banished a faithful priest for persisting with the traditional Latin
Mass, and yet saw no problem "taking responsibility" for
the ministry of Father Pierre Lavoipierre who was returned to his
parish within a week and remains in good standing in the archdiocese
despite public prosecution for possession of perverted homosexual
pornography as this excerpt from the Daily News (23rd
August 1991) confirms: "52 year old Fr. Pierre Etienne Lavoipierre
was sentenced in the Pinetown Magistrates Court to R500.00 and
6 months imprisonment, suspended for 5 years, for having in his possession
4 pornographic videos containing homosexual scenes. He pleaded guilty."
In response to Hurley's
calumny, Father Leslie wrote his archbishop a humble letter dated
15th May 1989 in which he stated:
"…With respect,
Your Grace, never once have I expressed unwillingness to submit
to your authority lawfully exercised. I have indicated that, in
conscience, I could not submit to what I am convinced is clearly
an abuse of that authority, an abuse which denies Catholics, priests
and laity, their right, under the law, to the Immemorial rite of
Mass and to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nor have I ever
indicated to you that the promulgation of the new Order of Mass
lacked binding force… What I have maintained and still do maintain
is that imposition of the new rite as of obligation and the prohibition
of the old rite are "ultra vires" and I have provided
sufficient evidence to support this. Eminent canonists have agreed
that the Immemorial rite has not been abolished and, in law, is
freely available to Catholics."
Obviously not satisfied
with the damage he had already done to Father Leslie's good name,
Bishop Denis slandered him in an even more public way, asserting in
a letter to the editor of the Daily News (published January
7th 1994):"Father Eldred Leslie has refused to
obey a Church law concerning the celebration of Mass. As a result
Father Eldred Leslie is not entitled to perform any priestly ministry
in the Catholic Archdiocese of Durban or anywhere else in the world."
In the wake of this latest
attack, a couple of letters to the Daily News editor expressing
support for Father Leslie soon followed, such as one by L. Onody:
"I write in
support of Father Leslie whose suspension by the remorseless Bishop
Denis Hurley was nonsensical and groundless. While Father Leslie's
sermons, traditional Masses and priestly activities have helped
hundreds of Catholics to strengthen their faith, the unrepentant,
retired archbishop has caused great damage to the faith, by permitting
even encouraging, that which is forbidden, such as altar girls,
liturgical dancing, bread of questionable validity etc."
Finally, Father Leslie
defended himself in a letter published on the 26th January
1994:
"It is unfortunate
that Archbishop Denis Hurley should accuse me of refusing to obey
a Church law concerning the celebration of Mass. This, it is respectfully
submitted, does not accord with the facts. On no occasion have I
ever refused to obey such a law. On the contrary. For several years
now my efforts have been devoted, inter alia, to upholding and defending
the rule of law against local official policy of denying priests
and laity their right, under the law freely to offer, or assist
at the Immemorial Rite of Holy Mass and to follow the traditional
teaching of the Catholic Church. The archbishop does not mention
which law I allegedly refused to obey. I can only surmise that he
refers to "Missale Romanum", the document that introduced
the new order of Mass. In our discussions, the archbishop wished
me to acknowledge that this document abolished, or at least, replaced
the so called Tridentine Mass. In conscience, I could not do so
since a careful reading revealed that the document contained not
one word prohibiting the old Roman Rite. Confirmation of this position
comes from Rome…"
Bishop Denis then attempted
a rebuttal of this defence with another open letter on the 17th
March 1994:
"Father Leslie
tried to refute my allegation that he was acting in disobedience
to a law of the Catholic Church concerning the celebration of Mass….
I have tried for years to get Father Leslie to read with unbiased
eyes the following words which are a translation of part of the
Latin text of the decree. These words can be found in the introductory
pages of any altar missal of the new rite. They are headed Apostolic
Constitution. After describing the changes made in the rite of Mass
Pope Paul VI concludes: "What we have prescribed in this
constitution shall begin to be enforced from the first Sunday of
Advent of this year, November 30. We decree that these laws and
prescriptions be firm and effective now and in future, notwithstanding,
in the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances
issued by our predecessors…" If that does not convey that
the old rite has been abrogated in favor of the new, what do words
mean?"
Father Leslie waited
a while before countering in the Daily News on the 13th
April 1994:
"With due respect
to Archbishop Denis Hurley, it can be confidently stated that an
unbiased reader of the constitution "Missale Romanum"
would arrive at a conclusion opposite to his… The clause quoted
by the archbishop, standard in documents of the nature of the constitution,
is an enactment clause bringing the new rite into operation. It
refers to the contents of "Missale Romanum." These contents
contain no provision for the abolition of the old Rite of Mass.
Canon 22 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was in vogue when
the constitution was promulgated, requires that, if a later law
sets out to abolish a former law, it must explicitly mention this
in a repealing clause. This is a fundamental legal principle which
is not adhered to in the constitution. If the archbishop will refer
to my correspondence with him, he will observe that I do not deny
that Pope Paul VI decreed the firmness and effectiveness of what
"Missale Romanum" prescribes; only what it does not prescribe,
viz the abolition of the old Rite of Mass…".
Despite his sound arguments,
there was no reprieve from the vindicative Bishop Hurley, nor from
his successor, Cardinal Napier.
As before, Father Leslie
continued his offer of assistance to the archbishop:
"During my
last visit to Durban, I was distressed to learn that it had become
necessary for you to issue a pastoral letter on the short supply
of clergy and its effect on the availability of Holy Mass and pastoral
services. As you know, Your Grace, it is my great desire to return
to full time work in the Archdiocese and I am more than willing
to offer my services to alleviate the pressure on other priests.
Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you kindly make available to
me and to our traditional Catholic layfolk, a church or chapel where
the Holy Sacrifice may be freely celebrated in the "Tridentine"
rite (using the 1962 Roman Missal) as the law provides. I would
gladly take responsibility, under your Grace, for the pastoral welfare
of those who assist at Mass at this church or chapel, including
the catechization of the young and adults and pastoral visitation.
Should you desire me to assist other hard pressed priests for confession,
devotions etc. my services would be available to them…"
Despite the crisis, his
helping hands continue to be ignored.
J.D.A. Hull probably
summed it up best in another letter in the Daily News:
"… I have been
somewhat surprised at certain attitudes of the archbishop. He has
set himself up as accuser, prosecutor, judge and executioner in
his own cause. This does not augur well for justice."
Serpentine 'justice'
Yes, it's true that Bishop
Denis did help defeat unjust apartheid laws, for which he would have
gained great respect and merit if only he did not degenerate into
liberation theology and lend such vociferous support to abortifacient
"contraceptives".
It is not unreasonable
to suggest that by promoting abortifacients "contraceptives,"
Archbishop Hurley probably caused the deaths of far more innocent
Africans than can be attributed to the entire apartheid regime. Remember
that one of the ways oral contraceptives work is to thin the endometrium,
so that the fertilized ovum cannot implant – and is thus aborted.
Inviting perhaps the
country's most militant pro-abortion politician at the time (Helen
Suzman) to speak from the Cathedral pulpit is also difficult to reconcile
with his supposed concern for justice.
Of course, in stark contrast
to this latter sacrilege, in the very same sanctuary, the traditional
Latin Mass can no longer be accommodated – not even once in more than
30 years.
Today, thanks to Hurley's
influence as President of the South African Catholic Bishops Conference
not even a single "indult" Mass is supported anywhere in
the entire country – despite repeated petitions from the faithful.
In short, Bishop Denis
was a menace. But that shouldn't prevent us from praying fervently for
the repose of his soul. As I put to him in a letter (entitled "forgiveness
and prayers") less than a month before his departure: "Sadly,
it'll probably only be after your death when you realize that traditional
Catholics, the ones you've gone out of your way to persecute, are your
true friends. Requiescat in pace!"
Part II: Fox in Sheep's Clothing
"It is better
to take refuge in the Lord,
|
than to put
confidence in princes."
|
Psalms 118:9
|
The crowds who rejoiced
when Bishop Wilfrid Fox Napier, OFM was favoured for the red hat,
didn't have long to celebrate. It soon became clear that the havoc
under Hurley was far from finished.
Initial contact
I first had occasion
to correspond with the newly crowned "prince of the Church"
because of the completely out-of-control Cawcutt case in Cape Town
[See "Homosexuality and the Church in South Africa" by Frank
Sokolic, CO, Aug/Sept 2002].
Unfortunately, His Eminence
offered only the lame excuse that his jurisdiction extended only as
far as Durban and Umzimkulu.
Even when informed that
"Gay Pride" had been given permission to hold an "interfaith
service" in a Catholic Church in Bishop Cawcutt's diocese, no
action was taken.
On the 12th
December, two days after the "service" in the Sacred Heart
Church in Somerset Road, Cape Town, I wrote the following letter to
Cardinal Napier:
I know Cape Town
is not within your jurisdiction, but because I raised this distasteful
matter with you recently, I present you with the latest in this
ongoing sordid saga in the hopes that, with a collective effort,
further abuses can be prevented. By permitting GAY PRIDE to celebrate
homosexuality in one of their churches even to the protest of the
local flock, the bishops of Cape Town have shown a flagrant disregard
for Catholic teaching, not to mention disrespect for the Pope and
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who specifically address this issue in
a pastoral letter on the care of homosexual persons (Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986). Bishop Cawcutt's "sincere"
repentance for previously promoting his own homosexual agenda seems
very difficult to reconcile with recent events.
The only response I received
was by telephone some months later, after signing a petition to Cardinal
Napier in which we, a coalition of concerned Catholic laity, humbly
and prayerfully requested the following of the South African Catholic
Bishops Conference:
1. Withdrawal from
the South African Council of Churches (SACC), which endorses the
"marriage" of homosexual persons in the so-called "Equality
Bill"
2. Stringent adherence
to the measures mandated by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for
Religious on February 2, 1961 on the "Careful Selection and
Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders."
[This states that "those who are affected by the depraved inclination
for homosexuality or pederasty must be excluded from the vows of
religion and from ordination" - Ed.]
In denial
Cardinal Napier vociferously
objected to our "arrogant tone" and "baseless insinuations".
According to His Eminence, without firm evidence of widespread homosexuality
among clergy in the region, a re-iteration of the Vatican's 1961 instruction
would be counter-productive: it would give the impression that there
is a problem when - as far as he's concerned - none exists.
He denied that the Catholic
Church in South Africa, through the South African Council of Churches
(SACC) ever, even indirectly, supported homosexual marriages. He felt
that any statement which may have been made to that effect, should
be construed as the opinion of an individual and not the entire SACC.
Similarly, after I raised the matter, he emphasized that Bishop Cawcutt's
widely publicized comments in support of homosexual "marriage"
were not made in his capacity as spokesperson of the SACBC.
Apparently, the Gay Pride
interfaith service at the Sacred Heart Church in Cape Town was only
allowed to take place because Archbishop Henry had been "deceived"
as to the nature of the event. Anyway, the Cardinal felt it was not
his place, nor that of the SACBC, nor mine to intervene in the affairs
of the Archdiocese of Cape Town.
On the 24th
September 2002, I replied to His Eminence:
I wish to respond
in writing to some of the points you raised in our recent telephone
conversation.
I am sorry that
you found our humble requests "arrogant". Our aim was
to share our concerns and suggest solutions to the problem, not
just of homosexual priests, but of homosexuality in South African
society in general. Given the plethora of ephebophilic abuse being
reported throughout the Catholic world, not to mention the involvement
of Church officials in this country in highly publicized homosexual
scandals, surely you can understand our concern?
Sadly, nothing you've
said so far has given us much re-assurance. Remarks which give the
impression that Catholic priests with a homosexual orientation exist
only in the Archdiocese of Cape Town (and are therefore Archbishop
Henry's problem) have done little to dispel doubts. Of course, if
the Vatican's 1961 Instruction was strictly enforced everywhere,
as we've asked, there would be less cause for doubt.
Contrary to your
claims, we're not demanding to know the names of homosexually disordered
priests banished from parishes and seminaries, although we would
like to know what measures you and other South Africa bishops have
taken to ensure that gays are not ordained.
For instance, do
the vocations/seminary directors and the psychiatrists/psychologists
employed by the Church have a clear idea that sexually disorientated
men are unsuitable candidate priests? Have you considered implementing
a "Courage" as opposed to a "Dignity" or "Gay
Pride" apostolate? Even a simple statement of intent would
suffice. Although you indicated that the Catholic Church was not
party to any endorsement of homosexual "marriage" (under
the Equality Bill), you don't seem to have registered your objections
either. Nor have recent court decisions to allow adoption by gay
couples met with much opposition from Catholic clergy in this country.
Only the silence
in the face of widespread abuse of contraceptives (read abortifacients)
- and yes by Catholics in your archdiocese too - is more deafening.
To reverse the deplorable situation that exists thanks to noted
Humanae Vitae dissenters like your predecessor Archbishop
Denis Hurley is going to take some effort.
While I am sure
you appreciate that homosexual activists, radical feminists, modernists,
Catholics for a Free Choice, Call to Action, the women's ordination
brigade etc. are enemies of Christ's Church; with "friends"
like some of your colleagues in the South African Council of Churches,
who needs enemies?
On the 25th
September 2002, I received the following email response:
Dear Dr Donnellan
Re: Membership of
the SACBC is governed by the Constitution of the SACC which binds
members Church's specific [sic] basic tenets of the Christian
Faith. No where are controversial moral questions mentioned nor
are they binding on member Churches.
I regret that you
are not always informed about what the SACBC is saying about current
issues.
We issue the statements,
the media chooses what to report.
Yours sincerely
+Wilfrid Cardinal
Napier OFM
Protecting the perverts
On Friday October 4,
2002, I replied to the Cardinal, also in an email letter:
I took the trouble
to scour the SACBC website for unreported statements on any of the
current issues we've raised. Although I wasn't able to detect any
document dealing with the problems of homosexual priests and bishops,
adoption by gay couples, homosexual "marriage" etc., my
search wasn't entirely fruitless, since I was able to revisit your
pastoral letter dated 9th May 2002. May I commend you for not only
confirming the link between paedophilia and pornography (including
child pornography), but also for pointing out media "schizophrenia"
on sexual matters. I'm referring particularly to the following paragraph:
"If the media
rightly exposes the horrible acts of child abuse by clerics and
religious - it has the same duty to expose the rotten conditions
in society which encourage widespread evils such as child abuse,
the portrayal of sex, pornography and even child pornography available
on the internet - and indeed all kinds of videos reflecting sexual
perversion and bestiality."
However, while not
wishing to detract from your very pertinent points, have you considered
that a similar double-standard may be in operation in the local
Church? For instance, given your excellent understanding of the
relationship between pornography and sexual abuse, how is that a
priest like Father Lavoipierre, known to have indulged himself in
pornographic filth, is accorded unrestricted access to innocent
Catholic youth in your archdiocese while Reverend Father Eldred
Leslie must languish under suspension for more than 10 years because
of a desire to celebrate the Tridentine Mass?
Please note that like
Bishop's Cawcutt's sordid saga, Father Lavoipierre's involvement with
homosexual pornography isn't "baseless insinuation" but
public knowledge (see Part I).
I took this matter up
in another letter on October 30, 2002:
Your Eminence,
While you must be
very busy with other important matters, perhaps you may find time
to act on or even just respond to my respectful requests that all
censures on Reverend Father Eldred Leslie be lifted. Why must this
poor faithful priest continue to suffer suspension after more than
10 years? Is celebration of the Tridentine Mass such a heinous crime
that he must be shunned by the faithful for over a decade? Isn't
it a sad reflection on the state of the Church that muslims, buddhists
and even pagans are welcomed with open arms in the name of ecumenism
while orthodox priests like Reverend Father Eldred Leslie must languish
in a form of "gulag"?
Hopefully another
10 years of unfair "excommunication" won't lapse before
you feel moved to redress the wrongs of the past.
Finally, after a couple
more written requests for clarification, Cardinal Napier favoured
me with a telephonic response explaining that he couldn't answer my
previous letters until he had discussed the matter with Archbishop
Hurley, which he did on Sunday December 1, 2002 (the 1st Sunday of
Advent).
The Cardinal supported
Archbishop Hurley's decision, stating that "he acted as any good
bishop would have done in the circumstances." According to Cardinal
Napier, Father Leslie didn't merely express a preference for the traditional
Latin Mass, but refused to continue saying the new Mass and went so
far as to make negative public remarks about the Novus Ordo, a stand
he felt was incompatible with the Catholic Faith. He said that since
Father Leslie's comments against the new Mass were made publicly,
he would have to publicly recant them before there could be any talk
of reconciliation.
Ignorance and animus
His Eminence then returned
to my letter, describing my reference to the "modernist dictates"
of his predecessor as "libelous" and correcting my "erroneous
opinion" that Bishop Hurley had suppressed the traditional Latin
Mass in this archdiocese. He explained that Bishop Hurley had faithfully
followed the decision of the Church to replace the old Latin liturgy
with the vernacular Mass.
When I protested, he
assured me that the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass had been abrogated by
Pope Paul VI!
I countered that in some
dioceses priests were permitted to continue with the traditional Latin
Mass pointing to the situation in Campos, Brazil - which he ignored,
declaring that from "the early 1970s" the Novus Ordo had
officially replaced the "Latin Mass".
Cardinal Napier then
asked me why I thought the Latin Mass was preferable when nobody today
spoke or even understood Latin to which I replied that I found it
to be more prayerful, respectful and reverent – pointing to the prayerful
silences, the orientation towards the Eucharist and pious practices
like genuflections. He said that the [new] "Mass could still
be said in Latin", but that the Church had chosen to instead
use the language of the people as far as possible since the Mass
is primarily a "gathering of the community at the table of the
last supper which was far from silent".
I interjected that the
Mass was also a Sacrifice, which he quipped "wasn't silent either".
He said that he found the Tridentine Mass to be elitist, an opinion
that was confirmed by the "elitist" tendencies of most of
the adherents. The "strong language and arrogant tone"
of my letters hadn't helped either.
Before continuing my
crusade for Father Leslie and the traditional Latin Mass, I was "strongly
advised" to "give Father Pierre Laviopierre a call to get
a balanced version of events" and refrain from efforts to sully
the great legacy of Bishop Hurley.
I thanked the Cardinal
for taking time to address my letters, and the conversation ended.
Illiberal liberal
It is ironic that in
a region where ecumania reigns supreme, no place can be found for
Father Leslie unless he publicly converts to the new liberal religion.
Of course, no-one else is required to convert these days as the Southern
African Bishops Conference "Directory on Ecumenism" clearly
states:.
As regards conversions
…we affirm that any form of proselytism is unworthy witness. Instead…the
emphasis should fall on seeking unity between Christian Churches.
and later on:
It is against freedom
of religion and the dignity of women that a wife should be expected
to join the Church of her husband or that pressure be put on either
spouse to convert.
Another respectful letter
of request for a "wide and generous application of the Roman
Missal of 1962" (as advocated by our Pope), at the same time
pointing out some problems under his predecessor, met with the following:
Your unkind and
uncharitable remarks about Archbishop Denis Hurley are not only
unfair or unjust, they are also untrue. What liturgical aberrations
did Archbishop Denis instigate, may I ask? I certainly am not aware
of any, because if anything Archbishop Hurley was and still is scrupulously
conscientious about, it is the liturgy and its correct implementation.
If anything I am
much more lenient as I am of the African Synod generation, who's
experience over a 10-year period of close working together with
the Holy Father and his co-workers at the Vatican on the interesting
and challenging question of the inculturation of the faith and in
particular the liturgy. So I don't know where you get the idea that
the only direction that the Pope is pointing is backwards!
I wish too that
you would respect the rightful aspirations of the 95% Catholics
of the Archdiocese who are quite happy with the way the Vatican
2 liturgical reforms have made it possible for them to participate
actively in their acts of worship as the People of God at one with
their priest and bishop.
In reply, His Eminence
was gently reminded of Archbishop Hurley's well-documented dissent,
especially the determined abortifacient "contraceptive"
campaign not to mention active promotion of his beloved Teilhard de
Chardin..
"What liturgical
aberrations did Archbishop Denis instigate?"
It is difficult to know
where to start. Since the Cardinal, like Hurley, is intimately linked
with ICEL, he cannot be unaware of the embarrassment ICEL has caused
to the Church.
Of course, if he was
indeed "much more lenient", you might have expected him
to permit the return the traditional Latin Mass according to the "wide
and generous application" advocated by our Holy Father, Pope
John Paul II. It seems that "much more lenient" applies
only to liberals, and more especially those excited about the "interesting
and challenging question of inculturation".
Inculturated basket case
In South Africa, "inculturation"
includes such sacrileges as the slaughtering of animals - sheep, goats
and even cows- on the altar as part of the Mass. Catholic World
Report of May 2000 outlined this dire predicament:
One controversy—caused
by the suggestions that the role of saints is similar to that of
revered ancestors in African cultures—had barely subsided among
the Catholics of South Africa. Now a new dispute began, involving
suggestions that African culture could be incorporated into Catholic
liturgy through animal bloodletting during the Mass.
On the controversy…Archbishop
Buti Thlagale of Bloemfontein… [is implicated among] the supporters
of a proposal to include elements of animal sacrifice in the Catholic
liturgy.
Father Smangaliso
Mkhatshwa, a Catholic priest who is also the deputy minister of
education in the South African government, was the first prominent
figure to come out in support of the calls—first introduced by some
black priests—for the incorporation of animal sacrifices into the
liturgy…. On a practical note, he admitted that the architecture
of Catholic church buildings might have to be "reviewed"
in order to accommodate the requirements of animal sacrifice.
Father Mkhatshwa
has already shown his willingness to depart from orthodox Catholic
teaching, voting in 1996 to support a proposal for legalized abortion
on demand… [In fact, Fr.
Mkhatshwa, did not formally support abortion-on-demand, but
just as shockingly preferred to abstain from taking sides
in the vote over the slaughter of pre-born babies - Ed. CO]
Unfortunately even though
Archbishop Buti Thlagale continues to foster these radical forms of
"inculturation", and speaks glowingly on the subject at
every opportunity, he has never been censured or asked to retract
any of his statements in this regard. Among other unconventional activities,
such as playing an active role in the "Parliament of the World's
Religions" in Cape Town in December 1999, Archbishop Thlagale
also has the dubious distinction of being listed on the board of directors
of "LoveLife", a group active in the promotion of condoms
using pornographic advertising.
This is how "LoveLife"
was described in a special report for The Guardian published
May 22, 2003:
They are young and
gorgeous, scantily clad, if at all, and with sex on the brain. When
not unbuckling belts, rolling in bed, entwining legs and sliding
hands towards nether regions, they are talking about sex. And they
are everywhere. On billboards and television, in newspapers and
magazines, suffusing South Africa with what resembles a racy advertising
campaign for Coca-Cola or Levis. In fact, this is an HIV/AIDS prevention
campaign, one of the most audacious and controversial to be attempted
in Africa, and the use of branding techniques is intentional. If
it works safe sex will become as hip and ubiquitous as Coke.
Instead of being asked
to resign, some months ago Archbishop Thlagale was elevated from the
small town of Bloemfontein (where he was relatively harmless) to head
the archdiocese of Johannesburg, the largest see in the country.
All told, those looking
to Africa in general, and South Africa in particular for the promised
"springtime in the Church" are likely to have their hopes
dashed.
It is safer to accept
that, apart from isolated pockets like Campos, the apostasy is truly
universal.