Calx Mariae issue 14, Autumn 2021

R E C O M M E N D E D P R I C E £ 5 . 0 0 , S E E P A G E 67 F O R D E TA I L S

MARIAE CALX

Rebuilding our Christian civilisation

FOCUS:

SAINT PIUS V A holy model for his time and ours

INCLUDING:

ENGLAND’S NEW RELATIONSHIPS AND SEX EDUCATION REGIME ONE YEAR ON by DR TO M RO GERS NO TO PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

The need to protect ourselves and our loved ones by JO HN S MEATO N A V O I C E O F T H E FA M I LY P U B L I C AT I O N

ISSUE 14

AU TUMN 2021

!

Y A D O T E

MAGAZINE

RECOMMENDED PR I CE £ 5 .0 0, S E E PA G E 67 F O R D E TA I L S

Rebuilding our Christian civilisation

MARIAE CALX

Rebuilding our Christi

an civilisation

ThRON e sto PAT OF ry mi THEan ssiCHU UNIdVER onRCH of PRO SAL THTEC TORO-L E PR OF THE IFEFAM MOILYVE ME NT IN FOCUS:

RECOMMENDED PR I CE £ 5 .0 0, S E E PA G E 6 3 F O R D E TA I L S

IB R SC B SU

MARIAE CALX

CLUDING:

ABORTION, THE AND THE POWERCRISIS IN THE CHURCH, OF THE PAST by DR JOSEPH SHAW Frequently ask REGARDING THE ed questions OF THE COVID-19 MORAL LICEITY VACCINES

A VOICE OF T H E FA M I LY P U BL I C AT I O

N

ISSUE 13

SUMMER 202 1

Voice of the Family’s quarterly magazine Calx Mariae (Heel of Mary) provides features and analysis to promote the culture of life, faith and the family. £5.00/SINGLE COPY or £18.00/ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO SUBSCR IBE OR SUPPORT OUR WOR K PLEASE VISIT:

www.voiceofthefamily.com F O R F U RT H E R I N F O R M AT I O N P L E A S E E M A I L e n q u i r y @ v o i c e o f t h e f a m i l y. c o m O R C A L L + 4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 3 3 9 3 8 1 8 8

W O R L D W I D E S H I P P I N G AVA I L A B L E

MARIAE CALX

ISSUE 14

AU TUMN 2021

CONTENTS 2

From the editor

3 No to passive euthanasia: The need to protect ourselves and our loved ones

by John Smeaton 5 Pro-life concerns with organ donation by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children 10 England’s new Relationships and Sex Education regime one year on

by Dr Tom Rogers 2 5 FOCUS Saint Pius V: A holy model for his time and ours 26 Saint Pius V: A holy Pope An interview with Prof. Roberto de Mattei

3

10

31 Pius V and the Mass

by Dr Joseph Shaw 37

Saint Pius V's prayer to Our Lord Jesus Christ

38 Traditionis Custodes: An act of weakness

by Cristiana de Magistris 42 The historical significance of the Battle of Lepanto: Christianity, the West, and Islam

by Massimo de Leonardis 25

26

45

On the devotion of the Rosary

49

A letter from a Benedictine monk

53 Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val: A perfect example of a servant of the Church

by Prof. Roberto de Mattei

31

43

56 Litany of humility

2

EDITORIAL BOARD Liam Gibson John Smeaton DESIGN & PRODUCTION EDITOR Selina Fang VOICE OF THE FAMILY 7 Bell Yard London WC2A 2JR United Kingdom Email: editor@voiceofthefamily.com www.voiceofthefamily.com/calxmariae DISCLAIMER: Great care is taken to credit photos and seek permission before publishing. If you have a query regarding copyright, please contact the Editor. No part of this magazine may be reproduced without written permission.

Donations for the continuation of this magazine in print will be gratefully received by Voice of the Family at the address above or online via:

www.voiceofthefamily.com/donate

Calx Mariae is published by Voice of the Family, formed in support of Catholic teaching on the family. The following truths are particularly at the heart of Voice of the Family’s work: 9 Marriage, the exclusive, life-long union of one man and one woman, is the foundation of a stable and flourishing society and is the greatest protector of children, born and unborn.

9 The procreative and unitive ends of marriage cannot licitly be separated; the rejection of this truth lies at the root of modern attacks on life and the family.

9 Parents are the primary educators of their children and the protection of this right is essential for building a new “culture of life”.

I S S N: 25 1 7- 6 4 5 5

Calx Mariae seeks to contribute to the rebuilding of Christian civilisation by providing features and analysis in the areas of life, family and culture. Our aim in producing this magazine is to strengthen our readers in the faith and in their witness to the truth about human life and the family.

OF T H E FA MI LY 2 0 21

S

aints are the torches that illuminate human history. Their holy lives form a bright thread of virtue running through the ages which is firmly fixed to the fabric of the Church’s teaching. At times this thread glows and glitters brightly, at times, it appears delicate, faint and fragile. In the darkness of our age, it may seem to have broken and its light gone out, leaving those searching for it feeling abandoned in the dark unable to find their way forward. The light of the saints today is most notable by its absence.

There are, perhaps, two consolations in this situation. Firstly, the pursuit of personal holiness and a firm belief not only in its possibility but also in its necessity.

Practical assistance in this is readily available from the invisible society of innumerable saints. Indeed, the one who is genuinely interested in holiness is never alone!

Nor is he ever bored. Sin is boring because it can never satisfy our soul. Virtue and sanctity, on the other hand, are always fresh and new, capable of endless patterns and combinations for the glory of God. We need only consider the immense variety of saints to be convinced of this.

Secondly, we can keep the examples of saints always before our eyes which will also greatly assist us with the first task. Paying tributes to the saints is a simple way to keep their example alive. The eclipse of the Church by those who despise her from the world and from within can be lifted, even if only a little, by studying the saints and invoking those who have given her great honour.

Pope Saint Pius V is such a saint and in this issue, we wish to honour him (p.25).

The Pope who laboured for the Church to shine in her true splendour – in the fullness of truth (countering the Protestant revolt issuing the Catechism of the Council of Trent), in her liturgy (the Roman Missal), in her prayer (the Breviary), in her laws (the Code of Canon Law), etc – brought it all together in personal devotion and holiness. Our consideration of this beacon of the 16th century is made all the more appropriate by the 450th anniversary of the great Battle of Lepanto this October – a battle where, thanks to the holy Pontiff, Christianity triumphed over the Ottomans.

The light of faith conquered the power of darkness and it can do so again.

It is hard to imagine anything that makes the darkness of our age more visible than the systematic destruction of our children’s innocence through sex education programmes in schools, including Catholic schools in England, with the blessing of our bishops. Whilst abortion kills the body of an innocent child, these programmes kill the soul, which is an even greater loss. And these evils go hand in hand. Former Planned Parenthood employees admit that the abortion industry pushes sex education to create a market for abortion. And even programmes that try to respect innocence, move this topic from the home to the public sphere, thus destroying the natural reserve of children. In this issue, Dr Tom Rogers returns to describe the disturbing new Relationships and Sex Education regime one year on from its introduction. He offers parents some practical advice on how they might resist (see p.10). Of course, for our children, as for ourselves, it is not enough to avoid sin, we must become holy.

Becoming holy is not an abstract idea but a concrete requirement for each of us. If we attain all of life’s good fortune – health, wealth, and prestige but do not become holy, this life would be a failure. And if in the eyes of the world, we appear a failure but become holy, we will have fulfilled the purpose for which we were created: namely, to know, love and serve God. Holiness, therefore, promotes man’s true happiness and the glory of God. But how to be holy? By following God’s will for us. How to do that? By studying the masters of holiness – the saints! In this task, we can turn with confidence to our Blessed Mother whom Saint Pius V declared the special help of Christians – Auxilium Christianorum, Ora pro nobis!

EDITOR Maria Madise

© VOIC E

FROM THE EDITOR

The need to protect ourselves and our loved ones

by J O H N S M E AT O N

A

lthough several attempts to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK have failed in recent years, in reality, the practice of passive euthanasia of those who are seriously ill or mentally incapacitated is growing in hospitals.

Ten years ago, Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary at the time, wrote: “Intentional killing by neglect has become more entrenched in England and Wales since the passing of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [legislation which SPUC fought very hard to defeat].

This was designed to permit doctors to end the lives of certain seriously ill or disabled people by withholding treatment and care – including even food and fluids in some cases. Without water, people die. Although active euthanasia (such as giving patients a lethal injection) remains rare in our experience, passive euthanasia is a major problem.”

A U T UMN 2021

SPUC has seen numerous cases where family and friends are powerless to ensure the continuation of basic care and hospital treatment for their incapacitated loved ones. Dying of thirst is a most horrible and painful way to die.

The only certain way to seek to avoid that situation in which all of us could find ourselves is to make appropriate preparations in good time and to put in place a Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Care Decisions (LPA). A lasting power of attorney (LPA) is a legal document that lets you (the “donor”) appoint one or more people (known as “attorneys”) to make welfare decisions on your behalf, including decisions about medical and clinical treatment, in accordance with the instructions which you have expressed, in the event of your becoming mentally incapacitated, in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

To facilitate that, SPUC has consulted the Society’s most dedicated and experienced medical and legal advisers and drafted guidance that sets out clearly what steps need to be taken in good time to protect ourselves and our loved ones for the time

pro-life action

NO TO PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

3

when, inevitably, we all reach that vulnerable stage in our lives.

In brief, the advice relating to completing Form LP1H, on Lasting Power of Attorney Health and Care Decisions, comprises of:

and in the case of medical and clinical treatment and nursing care, clinical and nursing staff, must not at any time deprive me of, nor withdraw or withhold from me, basic care, as below defined, and/or ordinary treatment, as below defined.

• a recommendation to appoint donees of lasting power of attorney for health and welfare

• I hereby make it particularly and expressly clear that the provision of hydration and nutrition, howsoever delivered and/or administered, must not be withdrawn or withheld from me unless to provide it will directly cause my death.

• a statement of instructions for “those responsible for administering my care … in the event of my becoming mentally incapacitated” • other advice including the importance of consulting a lawyer.

One may presume that in such cases, our next of kin automatically becomes our Lasting Power Attorney, but this is not the case. If one wishes anyone to make a decision on one’s behalf, then one must name them as your attorney. Anyone else will have no authority to decide.

Because the medical and legal language is not always easy to navigate, SPUC has taken particular care that the advice compiled offers the wording that will not permit withholding treatment, or food and water, also considered as treatment in some cases, in the event of becoming seriously ill.

It is increasingly possible, sadly, that the clinical team might claim the right to withdraw or withhold clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) on the basis that it is medical treatment and thus a matter purely for the treating clinicians to decide and not the lasting attorney. In this connection, we can recall the words of Lady Black, sitting in the UK Supreme Court, in An NHS Trust and ors v Y and anor [2018] UKSC 46, at paragraph 116: “However, it was decided as far back as the Bland case that CANH is in fact to be seen as medical treatment.”

It is therefore essential that the attorney be robust enough to tell the treating clinician that nutrition and hydration must nevertheless be provided, even by other means if necessary and that the patient must not be dehydrated or starved to death. Faced with this insistence by the attorney, the treating clinicians are unlikely then to withdraw or withhold CANH. Some details of SPUC instruction include: • Those responsible for administering my care, including nursing staff, family, friends and carers, 4

• I must not, at any time, be allowed to die of dehydration or starvation, howsoever attempted, and whether openly or whether by subreption, concealment or clandestine means. I must not, at any time, be unnecessarily deprived of consciousness. I wish to be able to spend as much time as possible with those whom I know and love, particularly my family.

• Although I accept the need for, and indeed I desire appropriate and necessary pain relief, I specifically refuse intervention of any kind, whether for pain relief or otherwise, to the extent that it will, on the balance of probabilities, hasten my death.

• Additionally, I specifically refuse, reject and decline any intervention which may be, or may be construed as, an act of mercy killing, euthanasia (whether passive or active) or assisted suicide.

• I am of the Catholic faith [possible to insert other options] and I do wish a priest to visit me if and when I am unwell or dying. I specifically insist that my religious wishes and beliefs be respected, that the services of such a representative of my faith not be withheld, withdrawn or impeded by anyone.

The advice also addresses the question of organ donation, procedures for decision making and the event of a deadlock between the Lasting Power Attorney and the medical team.

Registering one’s lasting power of attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) takes up to 12 weeks if there are no mistakes in the application.

If you would like to receive the advice SPUC has produced, please contact Lucinda Utley at SPUC headquarters at lucindautley@spuc.org.uk to have a copy posted or emailed to you.

CAL X M ARIA E

PRO-LIFE CONCERNS WITH ORGAN DONATION A briefing paper prepared by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)

O

n 20 May 2020 there was an important change to organ donation in England. Instead of opting in to becoming an organ donor you will have to opt out if you do not want your organs to be taken for transplant purposes. A system of “presumed consent” came into force. This means that unless you specifically register with the NHS that you do not want your organs to be used for transplantation after you have been declared legally dead, the state will have the power to take your organs.

This article will help you understand the facts about organ donation and will help you to decide whether you want to donate your organs.

Are organ donation and transplantation issues of pro-life concern?

Yes. Organ donation raises fundamental issues concerning: 1. Determination of death.

2. Respect for the human person and their remains when truly dead.

3. The meaning of gift giving.

A U T UMN 2021

1. Determination of death Tests for the determination of death vary from country to country and even within a single country.

Traditional criteria for determining death changed after the first successful human heart transplant in 1967 with the introduction in 1968 of the concept of “brain death”.

A person may legally be declared dead by reference to irreversible cessation of heartbeat, circulation and respiration (cardiopulmonary or circulatory death) or irreversible cessation of brain functions (neurological determination of death or “brain death”).

Organs for transplantation must be taken while there is circulation of the blood or within minutes after circulation has ceased. The majority of organs are extracted from donors who have been declared “brain dead”. These donors, although not able to take a breath on their own, have a beating heart, circulation, and respiration (exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the tissues) and are known as

5

pro-life action

“The majority of organs are extracted from donors who have been declared ‘brain dead’. These donors, although not able to take a breath on their own, have a beating heart, circulation, and respiration and are known as ‘heart beating donors’ .”

“heart beating donors”. In England, heart beating donors are legally declared to be dead by “brain death” criteria.

Some donor candidates have a functioning brain and are on a life-supporting ventilator. To take organs from these patients, a decision is made not to resuscitate the patient. The patient either remains in the ICU, or is moved to an operating room where they may have intra-vascular catheters placed and receive blood thinners in anticipation of the operation to take their organs. Without ventilator support, heart function may decrease until the patient is without a pulse or heartbeat, and then a waiting period of time ensues from the time of either absence of electrical heart activity or absence of pulsation, which may vary, usually

6

2 to 5 minutes but in some places as short at 75 seconds to as long as 20 minutes. Then the patient is pronounced legally dead and organ procurement continues. These patients are known as “non-heart beating donors” (donation after “circulatory” death, formerly “cardiac” death). It should be noted that the patient may be declared dead and considered a non-heart beating donor, even though their heart may not have stopped beating, but was not strong enough to produce a pulse. Sometimes the patient continues to have a pulse and/or does not stop all breathing efforts and so cannot be considered dead.

These patients are neither resuscitated nor put back on the ventilator but are taken back to a non-ICU room to die.

CAL X M ARIA E

p r o - l i f e c on c e r n s w i t h or g a n d on at i on

Dead donor rule and “brain death” In 1999, thirty-one years after the JAMA 1968 Harvard Committee article invented the concept of “brain death”, bioethicist John Robertson, writing in The Hastings Centre Report, used the term “the dead donor rule”.1 This term expresses the view that the taking of organs must not cause the death of the person and that vital unpaired organs should not be taken until after death. This begs the question of what true death is and how it is determined. “Brain death” is the fiction that its supporters claim fulfils the dead donor rule.

What are the problems with “brain death”?

The first problem is that “brain death” is not true death. So, when the procedures are initiated to take the organs, the patient is alive, but once the organs are excised, the patient is truly dead. A “brain death” declaration enables doctors to remove vital organs from a patient who has a beating heart, circulation and respiration, which are signs of life, although the patient may not be able to demonstrate consciousness, or able to take a breath on their own, and may even be close to death.

A donor heart, for example, is harvested after a declaration of “brain death” in a living person with a beating heart and circulation, who instead of being considered a living person, albeit with an injured brain, is considered a “heart beating cadaver”. Publicity to encourage people to donate their organs does not reveal that heart beating donors may move when the organs are taken unless given drugs to prevent movement. Transplant surgeons know this, and they also know that the person’s blood pressure goes up when an incision is made.

Some anaesthetists recommend that the supposed “cadaver” should be anaesthetised when his/her organs are removed.

2. Respect for the human person and their remains when truly dead It matters to people what happens to their bodies after death. Many people have specific instructions about their funeral arrangements. Families may dedicate a lot of time to organising the funeral of a loved one.

A U T UMN 2021

There should be full disclosure of what is involved in organ donation for both donor and recipient.

Are organ donors fully aware of what will happen to their bodies?

Probably not. Most organ donors are not given full and complete information and therefore cannot give truly informed consent. Most organ donors, including those who give explicit consent in accord with whatever information was provided before they die, are unaware that their heart may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc. It is also the case that “brain dead” people (such as pregnant women who are given ventilation, nutrition and hydration and perhaps other medical support) can survive for months while demonstrating integrated bodily activity of a kind that arguably indicates that life still remains.

There is also reason for concern over how quickly a medical team might “move in” following cessation of cardiac functioning (known as “donation after circulatory death” or DCD; previously known as “donation after cardiac death”). Fears that death is declared too quickly, to obtain usable organs, have been expressed and discussed by well-informed commentators.2 One worrying development noted in Australia has been the move from declaring that organ removal must be attempted only after “irreversible” loss of cardiac function to saying that it must only be attempted after “permanent” loss of cardiac function, where the latter can include scenarios where a decision has already been made that resuscitation not be attempted. As one report puts it, “One cannot rightly claim that death has occurred if cardiac function could be restored, even if a decision has been made not to do so.”3 Should relatives have a say before an organ is taken from a loved one?

Yes. Even if an adult donor has given “informed consent” to organ donation after death is declared, objections to donation raised by close relatives should be seriously considered given that a life and death decision is involved. The relatives may have more explicit information about the current 7

pro-life action

medical condition of the prospective donor and know that the patient himself/herself would have wanted an advocate for preserving and protecting their life in what are now known, not hypothetical circumstances.

This is particularly the case with retrieval of organs from heart beating donors, which can be most distressing for relatives who believe – not without evidence – that their loved one may still be alive.

However, there are also more general concerns about respect for the feelings of relatives, including in situations where no information exists on the potential donor’s wishes, but relatives are reluctant for organ harvesting to go ahead. Relatives should not be asked merely for information on the wishes of the potential donor, about which nothing may be known. Organ harvesting should not take place against relatives’ objections, as a matter of humanity.

3. The meaning of gift giving A major objection to the change in organ donation in England to presumed consent is that the State is seen as effectively owning the bodies of its citizens.

The role of the State is to protect and respect the person during life and their remains after death.

Presumed consent to organ donation means that the State owns your body after a declaration of “brain death” or “heart death” and any opposition of your relatives may be (though it need not be) disregarded.

A gift is something freely given. You cannot donate your organs, i.e. give them as a gift, if the State has already usurped ownership on the part of your body and you have not even considered the matter.

Under the new system of presumed consent, you can opt out of “donating” your organs. But if you do not opt out, your organs may be harvested and your relatives may be powerless to stop this.

What about vulnerable adults and children?

Clearly adults with learning or mental disabilities will likely be unable to understand what is involved in organ donation. They may not have the capacity to opt out of organ donation. Their caregivers should serve the best interests of those they look after and be ready to speak out should the question of organ donation arise.

8

Parents should take the time now to think carefully about whether they would want to give consent to donate their child’s organs. Not spending time now to gather information needed for clear thinking about this means that if a tragic accident should take place involving a child or teenager, distraught and grief-stricken parents may make a decision to donate their child’s organs without full knowledge of what is involved.

Pressure may be placed on parents as there is a shortage of children’s organs. This has been attributed to the reluctance of parents to donate their child’s organs.4 Is there an ethical approach to organ transplantation?

The issues discussed above must be faced by anyone wishing to promote ethical forms of organ donation to protect donors. These issues should also be considered by those for whom an organ transplant has been suggested. Those who have been told they could receive a transplant are entitled to full information about what is involved for the donor.

In seeking to benefit a patient whose need for organs may be urgent and compelling, the rights of the potential donor and their family must always be respected.

Developing an ethical approach to organ donation: • Not all organs need to be taken from “brain dead” heart beating donors or after tests for “brain death”. A person in need of a donated organ should obtain in advance full and complete information about how the organ will be retrieved.

• There should be increased opportunity for relatives to object to organ donation.

• Taking organs should not occur without full and complete information provided to both the donor and recipient.

• Alternatives to organ transplantation should be developed. There have been reports that heart transplants could be obsolete within 10 years because they help so few people. Heart pumps and stem cells, it has been said, have the potential to help many more people.5

CAL X M ARIA E

p r o - l i f e c on c e r n s w i t h or g a n d on at i on

“If you are an adult living in England, and you do not opt out of organ donation, you will be considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when you are declared ‘dead’.”

The law has changed on organ donation, but you still have a choice about whether to donate your organs or not.

If you are an adult living in England, and you do not opt out of organ donation, you will be considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when you are declared “dead”.

The only circumstance in which the State will not presume you have consented to donate your organs is if you are in an excluded category: Those excluded will be people under 18, people who have lived in England for less than 12 months or who are not living here voluntarily, and people who lack the capacity to understand the change.

A person cannot become an organ donor if they have or are suspected of having: • • • •

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) Ebola virus disease Active cancer HIV

A U T UMN 2021

To opt out of organ donation you should go online to NHS Blood and Transplant to the page “Register your decision”. On this page you can “Register” or “Opt out”. Alternatively, you may wish to communicate your decision by phoning: 0300 123 2323.

Once you have made your choice you will be advised by the NHS to inform one or more relatives or friends of your decision. It is important that others know your position. You will also receive a letter in the post confirming your decision, which you should keep in a safe place. Your family and friends should know where this letter is kept in case of an emergency.

Endnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Robertson, J.A., The Dead Donor Rule, in The Hastings Center Report 1999, The Hastings Center: Garrison, NY. p. 6-14.

See the discussions of DCD, and also of brain death, in Jason T. Eberl (ed) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics Gewerbeststrasse: Springer International Publishing (2017). http://bioethics.org.uk/Ontheethicsoforgantransplantationfinal.pdf https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/get-involved/news/parents-less-likely-todonate-child-s-organs/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/12/03/heart-transplants-likely-obsolete-within-10-years-says-heart/

9

analysis

ENGLAND’S NEW RELATIONSHIPS AND SEX EDUCATION REGIME ONE YEAR ON Parents must keep on fighting on the solid rock of faith

by D R T O M R O G E R S

I

n my previous two articles which have appeared in Calx Mariae (in no 4 and no 10), I detailed the way in which Church leaders in England and Wales had in recent years consistently betrayed Catholic parents and their children and, indeed, all the children of our nation, through their public support for the pro-LGBT anti-life Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) regime which has now been imposed in all schools in England.

This came about by way of the Children and Social Work Act (2017), which resulted in official RSE Regulations (2019) and Statutory Guidance (2019) which, amongst other serious problems, undermine and, for the most part, entirely remove

10

the parental right of withdrawal from RSE lessons; impose secular liberal views of sex and relationships as options to be respected; force schools to integrate into their programmes LGBT lifestyles as a positive equivalence to real marriage, and serve to facilitate underage sex by signposting children to confidential contraception and abortion services.

I explained how, despite reassurances from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England & Wales (CBCEW), and their agency the Catholic Education Service (CES), that Catholic schools can and do continue to teach RSE perfectly in line with Church teaching (and leaving aside the fate of the 90 per cent of children in England and Wales not attending Catholic schools), the evidence shows a very different picture. In fact, publications from the CES, endorsed by the Bishops, reveal a Church establishment that has very much embraced the LGBT agenda and wants children in Catholic schools to be educated according to this anti-Christian ideology.

CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

“Most of the anticipated problems of the new regime have become a reality. It was always very obvious to us that, without an effective right of withdrawal from RSHE, the value of parental consultations would be at best questionable.”

The obligation on all primary schools in England to deliver mandatory Relationships and Health Education, and for all secondary schools in England to deliver mandatory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) came into force in September 2020 (delayed from the original set date of September 2019). As we are one year on from the start of this new regime (albeit after various reprieves due to the COVID restrictions), now is a timely point to examine what exactly the experience of parents in practice has so far been, as well as what problems are likely to develop in the near future, and what parents can still do at this stage to mobilise and take action in defence of their children. We will also look at how Church leaders have responded to the growing concerns of Catholic parents and the faithful, and how programmes they have endorsed are being used in Catholic schools to undermine and distort their children’s understanding of Christian truth, particularly in the area of homosexuality. With the stubborn refusal of most in the Church hierarchy even to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem, Catholic parents must turn to Christ in faith like never before and trust in His willingness to deliver them from what may seem like an impossible situation.

To what extent are parents being consulted?

With many schools failing to undertake their required parental consultations prior to the delivery of RSHE in September 2020, mostly using COVID restrictions as a justification, supporters of SPUC and other pro-family organisations successfully lobbied the Government to delay full implementation of the new subjects until meaningful consultations could take place. Schools were granted flexibility to delay until April 2021, and then, when various A U T UMN 2021

COVID restrictions continued, until September 2021. Where schools, however, did opt to start delivery earlier in the 2020/21 academic year then those subjects were indeed mandatory, and many parents for the first time felt the effect of being denied their natural rights as the primary educators of their children. Consequently, the numbers approaching parental support and advocacy groups like Safe at School and Parent Power have been steadily increasing.

Most of the anticipated problems of the new regime have become a reality. Firstly, it was always very obvious to us that, without an effective right of withdrawal from RSHE, the value of parental consultations would be at best questionable. Parents are unable to withdraw their children from Relationships or Health Education because, apparently, these subjects “support all young people to be happy, healthy and safe”.1 Parents are able to withdraw their children from officially undefined “sex education” at primary school (though, according to the Statutory RSHE Guidance, it is “good practice” that this should be following a meeting with the head teacher), but they are only able to “request” withdrawal from the also officially undefined “sex education” parts of RSHE at secondary school.

The final decision rests with the head teacher. When the child reaches the age of either 14 or 15 (“up to and until three terms before the child turns 16”) then the child is able to overrule both parents and head teacher and opt into “sex education” if they so wish.2 Although bizarrely they are not judged correspondingly mature and autonomous enough to opt themselves out.

Even if a school was extremely conscientious about parental rights then practical reason suggests that a “one size fits all” model of RSHE in the 11

analysis

classroom could not possibly cater for the different views of so many different parents about what should be taught to their children about sex and relationships – even within a faith school. The Department for Education (DfE) knew full well how unworkable for schools and unsatisfactory for parents such a process of consultation would be (it was certainly pointed out to them enough times during the public consultation process), which is why they could pretend to respect the role of the parent as “primary educator” whilst simultaneously taking away the only thing that truly makes that concept meaningful – the right of withdrawal. Indeed the DfE was eager to confirm in further guidance that “schools ultimately make the final decisions and engagement does not amount to a parental veto”.3 With the Government affirming that, in the end, parents will effectively have to “like it or lump it”, then naturally many schools would not feel the need or incentive to be as responsive to parents’ concerns as they would be if the bargaining chip of “veto” or withdrawal was available to them.

Powers of influence available to parents Despite the very real problems, there are also certain positive aspects of both the law and the Statutory Guidance that parents can use to their advantage in protecting their children. One of the first things we ask parents when they come to us at Safe at School for help is: has the school undertaken a parental consultation over its RSHE policy – and, if so, how was that undertaken and when? The legal requirement to hold a parental consultation over the school’s policy is very clear and quite strong in parents’ favour. The RSHE Regulations 2019 (which have the status of law, since they were enacted in Parliament by Statutory Instrument), state that either the “governing body” (if it is a “maintained”, i.e. state funded, school) or the “proprietor” (in the case of an “independent”, i.e. privately funded, school) “must consult parents of registered pupils at the school before making or revising” the schools’ RSHE policy, which they are also responsible for making publicly available on the website or, for anyone on request, a copy in print [my emphasis].4 “Consultation”, by its very nature, implies a two-way process whereby the “consulted” party is

12

expected to have at least some degree of influence over the outcome of the discussion or process, if not even be required to provide their consent for a proposed course of action. We would not say we were going to “consult” someone, for instance, if we were simply going to tell them what we had already decided to do anyway. No wonder therefore that the Government has since instead been speaking in terms of “parental engagement” – a much vaguer term, even though that is not what the letter of the law states.5 In our experience schools have tended to be extremely sloppy in their understanding and following of the law in this area – and Catholic schools have been amongst the worst offenders. A common tendency for schools is to go ahead in making an RSHE policy without the slightest recourse to parents’ views, and then to “engage” with parents – often in the form of an invitation to “email us any feedback you have” – only on the RSHE programme or resource package they have decided to adopt or already bought in (e.g. the Jigsaw or Ten Ten programme). Parents, if they are lucky, might be invited to a Zoom meeting, often at an inconvenient time, where they have a chance to learn more about what the school has already decided to do and to ask a few futile questions. Parents who have expended time and energy responding with concerned and thoughtful feedback are frequently informed, in effect, that “we discussed all the feedback received at our recent governors’ meeting, considered it very carefully – and then decided to do what we had already decided to do anyway”.

The first challenge parents can make in such cases is that, by law, schools must “consult” (not just “engage”) on the RSHE policy, which should precede any chosen programme of resources because it sets out the principles and values on which that content is based, as well as when and how that content is delivered. According to the Statutory Guidance, the RSHE policy, following consultation with parents, should, for instance, define what is included in “Relationships Education” as distinct from “Sex Education”, and should “set out the subject content, how it is taught and who is responsible for teaching it”; it should “describe how the subject is monitored and evaluated”, and also include information on CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

why parents can or cannot withdraw their children from the various elements. The important point of principle is that parents, according to both the law and the Statutory Guidance, are supposed to be “consulted” (i.e. have meaningful input) on deciding all of these matters – including what they should be able to withdraw or “request” withdrawal from (what will be “relationships education” as opposed to “sex education”).

Catholic schools and Ten Ten’s “Living Life to the Full” In the case of Catholic schools, we commonly find that they rarely offer any meaningful opportunity to consult on the actual policy – typically they will copy and paste the CES model RSE curriculum (possibly with a few minor additions), and then offer a cursory parental “survey” on the pre-decided programme of resources, which at the moment is most often Ten Ten’s “Living Life to the Full” – the Catholic Church in England and Wales’s flagship RSHE programme which, problematically, has involved a teacher-training partnership with both the CES and the DfE. Parents at Catholic schools are often informed, when they do raise concerns about the lack of meaningful consultation, that they “should be reassured that the RSHE programme being used is the one endorsed by the diocese and the Bishops and is taught fully in line with Cath-

A U T UMN 2021

olic teaching”. In effect the parents are being told that their views are not valid because their diocese or the Bishops have already decided what is being taught – even when the parent is unhappy with the proposed material because they consider it to be actually not in line with Catholic teaching. According to the law, however, the responsibility for the “making or amending” of the RSHE policy, as we have seen, is not with the dioceses or even the Bishops, but rather the school’s governing body (or “proprietor” in the case of an independent school) in consultation with parents.

In the case of the many Catholic schools who have adopted Ten Ten, parents will usually find themselves, for the purposes of “consultation”, sent a link to an “online parental portal” and “consultation tool” in order to provide their feedback. Anticipating, or even promoting, a cursory response the short parental survey is designed to take a mere “4 mins” to complete and, although there is space for some free-text feedback, it is mostly made up of multiple choice response questions that appear designed both to convince the parent that a) this really is an authentically Catholic course for their children and b) their rights and role as the primary educator of their children is being highly valued and respected. For example, the parent is asked pre-

13

analysis

“The foundational problem is that ‘Living Life to the Full’ , is ‘based on and rooted in the CES model RSE programme’ , and so purports to provide both a ‘Christian perspective’ and a ‘balanced view’ of other perspectives at the same time.”

sumptuously to agree or disagree (including “strongly”) with the statement that “I am comfortable with the Catholic ethos of the programme”; whereas a more useful and appropriate statement would have been: “I am confident that the programme upholds and promotes authentic Catholic teaching”.

In terms of the programme itself, I can comment only on what is actually made available to parents for “consultation” purposes in their online portal.

Firstly, this is not the complete set of resources that will actually be used in the classroom, but rather an overview, with example previews, of the programme specially selected for parents. There are many presentations and hours of video content that teachers may use in the classroom, but which parents will never get to see – they are expected to take what is not presented to them on trust. Parents have requested full access to the teachers’ suite of content, only to be informed by their children’s schools that Ten Ten will not allow them to do this due to “copyright” or “licensing” reasons. When

14

parents insist on seeing everything their children will see, the best that is offered to them is an invitation to come and view the resources on the school premises under supervision of a member of staff. This is clearly an obstacle as not all concerned parents are able or willing to come into the school and sit for hours in front of one of their computers, pouring over hours of content with an impatient teacher hovering over them. This is not, however, a problem unique to the use of the Ten Ten programme, but is, parents are finding, common with most other such programmes. For example, Jigsaw, one of the most popular RSHE/PSHE programmes used by schools, also notoriously prohibits schools, via its licensing agreement, from allowing parents viewing access to the teacher’s resources.6 Unfortunately the Statutory RSHE Guidance (2019) stipulates only that schools should “provide examples of the resources that they plan to use” [my emphasis] and so “examples” are all that most parents are provided with.7 However, in the case of Ten Ten’s “Living Life to the Full”, even what is being readily presented to parents is enough to raise alarm bells for those concerned about their children receiving RSHE lessons in line with their Christian faith. The foundational problem is that “Living Life to the Full”, according to the online introduction for parents, is “based on and rooted in the CES model RSE programme”, and so purports to provide both a “Christian perspective” and a “balanced view” of other perspectives at the same time. In line with the Bishops’ current approach generally towards RSHE in Catholic schools, they are, in effect, trying to serve two masters – God and the State, though the Catholic education system at the moment ap-

CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

pears more fearfully concerned with appeasing the authority of the latter.

For the preview two young Ten Ten presenters, male and female, take parents on a brief tour, with examples, of what their children will learn in each module. For instance, in a session on “Abortion and Pregnancy”, Year 10 pupils (aged 15-16 in secondary school) are encouraged to be “open minded” on abortion. The session features an overview of how abortions are performed, and both positive and negative experiences of abortion are shared so there is “balance”. Dr Calum Miller then makes a range of important points about the “myths” regarding abortion and here, as overall, coverage is much more weighted towards the pro-life side of the debate. However, pupils would not necessarily be left with an idea of the grave sinfulness of abortion according to Church teaching. A Year 9 session (for ages 13-14), “through practical knowledge and Church teaching, equips pupils to be in control of their choices regarding ‘Fertility and Contraception’”. Pupils are introduced in a relatively positive way to the Church’s teaching on the meaning of the sexual act – for the purposes of “bonding” and “opening themselves up to the possibility of creating new life”. Pupils, however, then learn all about using the different methods of artificial contraception, including their pros and cons in terms of efficacy and ease of use, via an interview with a doctor or sexual health worker, without any reference whatsoever to the “intrinsic evil”, according to the Church, of such practices. “Emergency contraception” is explained as being “taken after sex with the aim of preventing pregnancy from occurring”, without mention that one of the intended mechanisms of the Morning After Pill is abortifacient (“pregnancy” being implicitly defined here, wrongly and without explanation, as beginning with implantation). The option of using NFP within marriage is discussed here in a very positive way but, again, pupils are left with the notion that, although this may be the ideal, it would not be the end of the world to fall back on any of these other methods, including in a relationship outside of marriage. And fundamentally, there is no instruction on God’s positive command for married life, that is to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue A U T UMN 2021

it” (Gen 1:28; 9:7). Similarly, another Year 9 session on “Marriage” explores the “different types of committed relationships”, including co-habitation, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, and although “Sacramental marriage between two Christians” is certainly the most comprehensively covered and positively endorsed option on offer, with some very good encouraging content; again, the “positive-only” message has the potential to leave pupils thinking of it as an “ideal”, rather than the only place for sexual relations acceptable to God. The sessions in which LGBT issues are introduced and discussed are the most concerning. A Year 8 (ages 12-13) session on “Appreciating Difference” looks at “the huge, and often negative, impact that gender stereotypes have had on our culture […] such as that a woman’s place in the home [cue pictures of 1950s housewives] or that men are more natural leaders” [showing Hillary Clinton in debate with Donald Trump], and how “it’s really important that we challenge gender stereotypes”. After acknowledging that there actually are certain natural biological differences between men and women, our presenters move on “to talk about the ‘T’ in LGBT”. Pupils learn that “transgender” people have a different “gender identity” to their biological sex and that “some transgender people opt for medical intervention to transition from one sex to another”, and when they have “transitioned” their “biological sex” they are “known as transsexual”. The pair then passionately inform us how “protection of LGBT people is enshrined in law through the Equality Act of 2010” and how “transgender people are protected from discrimination”, before misinforming parents and students about how “schools have a legal responsibility to provide equal opportunities for all pupils who identify as transgender”, which apparently “means adjustments such as change of uniform, or name, or pronoun”. Pupils are then introduced to the “different perspectives that are held around this topic of gender identity”, which does include the Church’s positive teaching that “biological sex is fundamental to our identity” and “part of the gift given to us by God”. However, pupils are consequently overall left with a series of mixed messages on the topic to negotiate, with perhaps the most 15

analysis

powerful one being that they best obey what is (mis-) presented as the law of the land, through an overtly kind and accommodating acceptance of anyone’s chosen “gender identity”.

Most of these sessions at least take some time, if imperfectly, to present positively the option of being faithful to Christ and authentic Church teaching.

However, another Year 8 lesson, “Wider World”, concerned with “discrimination”, employs every tired LGBT propaganda tool in the book to cosh children over the head with the unbiblical principle that any negative view of homosexuality, or of unrepentant practising homosexuals, is profoundly wrong and, it is implied, sinful. In this session “pupils learn that we are called to love and respect one another as children of God with value and dignity that far surpasses our culture, race, religion, sexual orientation, choices and attitudes”.

The “Nine Legally Protected Characteristics” are again brought in with great moral gravity as if they had been handed down by God on Mount Sinai.

“Choosing not to smile at someone because […] of who they’re holding hands with” is presented as a “seed of prejudice” which can lead to discrimination and ultimately, it is implied (by way of the session’s opening example), to a repeat of the Nazi holocaust. They explain that they are focusing on “homophobic bullying” because apparently “it is rife across the UK and in schools too”. Parents are informed that “pupils then hear the real-life story of Nick from Ukraine where same-sex civil partnership is illegal, and he and his boyfriend were even turned away from renting an apartment because of their sexuality”. So Catholics therefore, it may seem, have a duty to at least support same-sex civil partnerships and could knowingly facilitate acts of sodomy. There are then a series of blithely presented straw-men statements caricaturing some of the perceived myths about Catholic teaching: “Doesn’t the Catholic Church HATE GAYS? Don’t Catholics think it’s a SIN to be gay? Isn’t the Church against same-sex people LOVING each other?”. The “Answers”, of course, are “NO! NO! and NO!”. “These are good questions though,” they explain, but they don’t have time to go into what exactly they are going to teach our children in response to them here. There is, of course, absolutely no reference at 16

all in this presentation to the negative consequences, or to the Church’s teaching on the sinfulness, of homosexual acts, so most pupils would be left impressed with the idea that we should only ever regard anything to do with “LGBT” in an uncritically positive and celebratory light.

Ten Ten’s presentation of the LGBT agenda therefore follows very much in the vein of Made in God’s Image: Challenging Homophobic and Biphobic Bullying in Schools (2018) – one of the scandalous CES propaganda documents, along with Learning to Love: An Introduction to Catholic Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) for Catholic Educators (2017), which were critiqued in my previous article, highlighting the way in which they gravely distort and misrepresent Scripture and authentic Catholic teaching.8 Learning to Love refers to same sex relationships as being able to constitute “an exalted form of love” and, on behalf of the Church, “applaud[s] the great progress that has been made in countering all forms of discrimination against homosexuality in recent times, and wish[es] to collaborate with efforts to make such discrimination obsolete” (p.17); whilst Made in God’s Image provides schools with a whole scheme of work to promote acceptance of the LGBT agenda, instructing adolescent boys and girls that an “aversion” to homosexuality is “based on irrational fear” (p.16). Despite repeated requests from concerned parents, grandparents and other Catholic faithful to Cardinal Nichols and the Bishops to withdraw these publications, they are still, to this date, promoted as official resources of the Catholic Education Service. Indeed, Church leaders simply refuse even to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem with them. For instance, Bishop Patrick Mckinney (Nottingham) – one of at least five English bishops who support LGBTQ+ Masses and “ministries” in their dioceses9 – has stated that Made in God’s Image is approved by the Bishops and “does not promote homosexuality”, whilst the Diocesan Education Service (Birmingham) has stated, on behalf of Archbishop Bernard Longley, that these documents “have been written and produced by experts in theology and education”, and “in producing them much time will have been spent scrutinising them in prayer and discernment to ensure that they reflect the doctrines and teachCAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

“Learning to Love refers to same sex relationships as being able to constitute ‘an exalted form of love’ and, on behalf of the Church, ‘applaud[s] the great progress that has been made in countering all forms of discrimination against homosexuality in recent times’ .” ings of the Church”.10 There must therefore be a lot of prayerful and discerning Catholic theologians working with Stonewall and LGBT Youth Scotland, from whom much of the content of Made in God’s Image has been copied and pasted.11 The Coalition in Defence of Primary Educators: Correspondence with the Bishops The Coalition in Defence of Primary Educators (CDPE) was formed by concerned Catholic parents and members of the faithful in December 2019, following a pilgrimage of reparation in Walsingham, and is led by SPUC, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Catholic Man UK. On 12 September 2020, the leaders of these organisations, following public witness of kneeling and prayer of the Rosary in the piazza before Westminster Cathedral, hand delivered a letter to H.E. Vincent

A U T UMN 2021

Cardinal Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster and President of the CBCEW, regarding the Bishops’ Conference’s support for legislation imposing pro-LGBT Relationships and Sex Education on school children in England. Rev Canon Christopher Thomas, General Secretary of the CBCEW, replied on behalf of Cardinal Nichols (27 September 2020), but provided evasive answers to the specific concerns raised in the correspondence, claiming that RSHE was being taught in Catholic schools “in line with Church teaching” and was unaffected

by Government legislation and regulations. The Coalition responded (21 November) with a detailed explanation of the law and how, with the active support of the Catholic hierarchy, it now puts parents in an impossible position, as well as providing

17

analysis

“The Statutory RSHE Guidance can be used by OFSTED to require even primary schools to teach LGBT issues – through the requirement to teach 'respect' for different types of family structure, or the importance of 'marriage', which the Guidance regards as also constituting a union between two people of the same sex. Furthermore, the OFSTED guidance states that ‘if a school does not promote pupils’ awareness and understanding of all the protected characteristics effectively’ ,this may result in a ‘requires improvement judgement for personal development’.”

further evidence that CES documents and resources on RSHE undermined authentic Church teaching.

The Coalition specifically called on Cardinal Nichols and the CBCEW to 1) publicly support the campaign to reinstate the parental right of withdrawal, 2) publicly challenge the new OFSTED guidance forcing schools to teach the LGBT agenda (see below), 3) publicly support parents who choose to withdraw their children from RSE teaching that they know is contrary to the Catholic faith and their best parental judgement, and 4) publicly withdraw from circulation the CES model RSE curriculum 18

(Autumn 2019), Learning to love (2017), Made in God’s Image (2018) “with a view to removing text which gives rise to serious scandal and thoroughly review the content of, and the approaches adopted in, these publications”. Canon Thomas again responded on behalf of Cardinal Nichols (10 December) but answers to the specific concerns raised were similarly evasive and misleading. The Coalition, however, again responded comprehensively (11 May) with a repeat of the original requests made, after which Canon Thomas replied (28 May) by simply repeating previous statements and referring Coalition leaders to a much circulated FAQs document from the Department of Catholic Education and Formation which had already been extensively critiqued in the previous correspondence. Many of the faithful have also written letters to their Bishops around the country and have generally had very similar responses. The correspondence between the CDPE and Cardinal Nichols’ office can be accessed via www.primaryeducators.org.uk.

The threat of new OFSTED guidance on “teaching the protected characteristics” The situation for parents, as well as for conscientious schools and teachers trying to resist the corruption of their children, has actually worsened due to new OFSTED guidance on “Inspecting teaching

CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

of the protected characteristics in schools”, first published in September 2020.12 This guidance for school inspectors was clearly timed to coincide with the coming into force of the new RSHE regime and is also the DfE’s underhand way of forcing even all primary schools to promote the LGBT agenda, since increasing numbers of parents and schools were becoming aware that the Statutory Guidance did not make LGBT teaching mandatory for primary schools (p.15), with supplementary (non-statutory) “information” from the DfE stating only that “primary schools are strongly encouraged and enabled to cover LGBT content when teaching about different types of families” [my emphasis].13 The new OFSTED guidance, however, states that all schools – including (Catholic) primary schools – face being sanctioned with a “requires improvement” judgement for “personal development of pupils” for not “promoting awareness of all of the protected characteristics”. The nine “protected characteristics” of the 2010 Equality Act include “sexual orientation”, “gender reassignment” and “marriage and civil partnership” (with the state also, since 2013, recognising “marriage” to include “same sex marriage”). In practice, OFSTED has used this manufactured requirement, even before their September 2020 guidance, in order to fail faith schools, especially Orthodox Jewish primary schools, who will not teach young children positively to accept homosexuality and transgenderism, and they have now stated that they will take this approach with all schools.14 Canon Thomas, responding on behalf of Cardinal Nichols, completely sidestepped this fact when it was pointed out to His Eminence in a letter (21 November 2020) from the CDPE. He rightly stated in his response (10 December 2020) that the OFSTED guidance “will not have an impact on the leadership and management judgement” – however, OFSTED guidance also adds that this is “as long as the school can satisfy inspectors that it has still fulfilled the requirements of the DfE’s statutory guidance”. The Statutory RSHE Guidance, however, is worded in such a way that it can still be used by OFSTED to require even primary schools to teach LGBT issues – for instance, through the requirement to teach “respect” for different types A U T UMN 2021

of family structure, or the importance of “marriage”, which the RSHE Guidance regards as also constituting a union between two people of the same sex (see pp.19-22). Furthermore, the same OFSTED guidance states that “if a school does not promote pupils’ awareness and understanding of all the protected characteristics effectively”, this may result in a “requires improvement judgement for personal development” [our emphasis].

So the OFSTED guidance is effectively stating that primary schools may well be downgraded for not teaching LGBT anyway – not just as part of the “leadership and management judgement”, on the grounds that they are not fully following the Statutory RSE Guidance (though there is still potential for this to happen), but rather in reference to the “personal development” of pupils criteria, because OFSTED are claiming that this is what is required by the school’s Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. It could be contended that the OFSTED guidance in this respect is ultra vires because the Equality Act is not supposed to apply to the curriculum (and this might be subject to legal challenge), but otherwise this leaves OFSTED clear scope to downgrade a primary school for not promoting LGBT ideology to young children.

The Coalition has requested of the Bishops that they must vigorously challenge the OFSTED guidance on behalf of the Church (21 Nov 2020, 11 May 2021). However, the evidence suggests that the Catholic education establishment is instead more than happy to comply with the indoctrination even of our youngest, most innocent children.

A recent communication (3 May 2021) from Ten Ten refers to this latest guidance from OFSTED and enthusiastically expresses how LGBT-friendly their programme already is, providing an outline of how children are groomed into embracing this ideology from the early years of primary school onwards, and ensuring it is very well “integrated” by secondary school: • In KS1 [ages 5-7], we look at family structures (particularly KS1, Module 2, Unit 2: Special People) and provide guidance for schools on talking about different family structures.

19

analysis

• In Lower KS2 [ages 7-9], we explore similarities and differences (LKS2 Module 1, Unit 2: We Don’t Have To Be The Same) and deepen children’s exploration of family and others in LKS2 Mod2 Unit 2: Family, Friend and Others.

• In Upper KS2 [ages 9-11], we explore difference once again through the Paradise Street series, including discussion around “two mums and two dads” etc.

• From Year 7 [ages 11+], we make it clear to students that the teaching of Relationship Education is for all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we begin to introduce scenarios that include people with the protected characteristics.

• In Year 8 [ages 12-13], we provide substantial teaching on the Protected Characteristics, an in-depth look at transgender people, and homophobia.

• In later years in secondary schools, we return to these topics in age-appropriate ways, ensuring that the teaching is appropriately integrated into the curriculum.15 With such a well-established LGBTQ+ inclusive programme already in place, Ten Ten can proudly declare, in response to the OFSTED requirements, that “We are pleased to say that we believe the content of ‘Living Life to the Full’ is already pretty robust; moreover, we have some new developments planned for 2021/22 to support you and your school in your teaching of the statutory curriculum”. In other words, things are set to get even worse for children and conscientious parents in most Catholic schools over the new academic year.

The prospects for Catholic parents, children and teachers After being so comprehensively betrayed and stonewalled by their shepherds, what is the situation now for Catholic parents and their children – including in Catholic schools? If parents have not been able to influence RSHE teaching for the better via the consultation process, what recourse do they have when their children are facing mandatory anti-Christian LGBT Relationships Education in their classrooms? What is the actual experience of

20

parents at present and what can we predict for the next academic year?

An instructive example comes in the form of a recent case which Safe at School has been involved with, concerning a Catholic primary school, St Catherine’s, in Barnet, North London. In common with other parents Mrs Natasha Collins had been notified that the school would be delivering RSHE, according to the new Government regulations, and that the chosen programme would be Ten Ten’s “Living Life to the Full”. She was not aware that any consultation had taken place (though the school claims parents had been consulted), and she struggled to find out exactly what the school would be teaching her children in RSHE each week, especially as she knew the Ten Ten parental portal only showed a small selection of what the teachers would use. She was particularly concerned with mentions of “teaching the protected characteristics”, as well as about some of the lessons that were being delivered, such as NSPCC online safety lessons about “Nudes, Sexting and Porn”, which she knew were both unnecessary and inappropriate for her 8-year-old child.

Another parent alerted her to the fact that the book The Boy in the Dress, by celebrity author David Walliams, was being made available for children to read within the school. The Boy in the Dress is about a 12-year-old boy called Dennis, who enjoys cross-dressing; it is aimed at readers aged 8 to 12, and is intended to teach children that transvestism is healthy and acceptable and not something of which to be ashamed. Mrs Collins complained to the head teacher, Mrs Maureen Kelly, asking for its removal, but was informed that the book was “inconsequential” and the head teacher refused to do so after being supported in her stance by the Westminster Diocese Education Service, who informed her that they have “no policy” on or directive for such books.

However, the diocesan representative did suggest that “each pupil’s ‘fundamental right to have their life respected’ is relevant here, and the CES model curriculum stipulates children are taught ‘everyone expresses their uniqueness in different ways and that being different is not always easy’”.16 Given that dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is explicitly condemned in the Bible (Deut 22:5) this CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

is of course an extraordinary statement for any Catholic education service to make. Matters got worse, however, when the school announced in its parents’ newsletter that they would be celebrating “Pride Month” for the whole month of June 2021. The parent, Mrs Collins, again complained, but when it was clear that her very justified concerns were not being taken seriously, either by the school or the Catholic education authorities, she felt she had no choice, following Gospel principles (Mt 18:17), but to take her complaint to the wider Church. She went to a Catholic media outlet who ran a story about the scandal of a Catholic primary school celebrating Pride Month and promoting cross dressing.17 This ended up with her being accused of “spreading hate” and being banned from accessing the school premises and from any school meetings (including virtual meetings; as well as from contacting any of the staff (except the head teacher) about her children.18 She is currently looking into various options, including what legal recourse she may have against the school.

If a parent can find themselves silenced in this way after attempting to protect their children, in a Catholic school, from the celebration of gay “pride month”, then we might well see this as a disturbing sign of what is to come. In some other more positive recent cases Safe at School has dealt with, A U T UMN 2021

however, the head teacher has either not acted to sanction the parent after withdrawing their child from an unsuitable RSHE lesson, or they have relented and allowed them to withdraw. The situation will, to a certain extent, be different from school to school. We are very much moving into unchartered waters. The law itself is somewhat of a grey area.

The 1996 Education Act (Part 1; Ch.1, Section 7) puts an obligation on parents to provide a suitable full-time education for their child “either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”. “Regular attendance” at school is normally interpreted as following the school’s attendance policy which usually requires all absences to be authorised. Head teachers have the authority to issue fixed penalty fines for unauthorised non-attendance, which most frequently happens, for instance, when parents take their children away on holiday during term time without permission. The local authority can take a range of actions, including prosecution, against a parent where school absence over time becomes very problematic without what is judged to be a good reason. It is hard to imagine that a parent withdrawing their child from an RSHE lesson, due to content they consider to be unsuitable for them, could be judged to be acting unreasonably and deserving of sanction, as long as school attendance remains otherwise “regular” – especially if 21

analysis

The correspondence between the Coalition in Defence of Primary Educators and Cardinal Nichols’ office can be accessed via www.primaryeducators.org.uk. the parent is stating that they will provide alternative RSHE provision themselves at home, according to their best judgement and values. However, we are, of course, in a culture where the educational and legal establishments are not necessarily sympathetic to parental rights – especially when it comes to the perceived necessity of practical sex education and the inculcated acceptance of all things LGBT. Home education is of course an option which has grown exponentially in popularity in recent times. Figures published by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services show that 19,510 children have been removed from school registers since the start of the 2020/21 academic year alone.19 The school closures and enforced COVID isolations of the past 18 months have prompted countless parents to try home education themselves for the first time, and many have found it a positive experience, both for themselves and their children, which they wish to continue. Along with parents’ rights being undermined in the area of RSHE, the threat of schools being involved in any rollout of the experimental COVID vaccinations to children may also prove a factor prompting further exodus in the year to come (Ministers have recently announced that 16-17-year olds will be offered the jab without the need for parental consent, and there are already growing calls for this to be extended to 12-year olds). However, home education is not a practical solution for all parents, and, in any case, it may not necessarily be the long-term safe haven it promises to be, with the 22

Government announcing its intention to introduce compulsory registration for home educators, which may, it is feared, also facilitate further forms of state intrusion, including inspection.20 I have mainly been focusing in this article on the situation from the point of view of parents. Safe at School, however, has also been approached over the past year by an increasing number of teachers needing support in resisting the compulsion to promote the LGBT agenda to the children in their care. This has included Catholic teachers who have found their jobs and livelihoods under severe threat after refusing to deliver lessons promoting LGBT ideology, which are now becoming all-pervasive across the curriculum. This is another group of faithful Catholics who have been completely abandoned by their Bishops.

In such a position we must all now turn to almighty God for our true deliverance and for our children’s protection like never before. That, in itself, in faith should be a source of pure hope and confidence. The God who created the Universe; who parted the Red Sea to deliver His people from Pharoah’s army (Exod 14:10-31), who smote via an angel 185,000 Assyrian soldiers who had besieged beleaguered Jerusalem when King Hezekiah turned to Him in faith (2 Kings 19:15-37), surely can and will deliver our children from the evil education policies that are so harmful both to their temporal well-being and their eternal salvation. We are all in this together, and we would encourage concerned CAL X M ARIA E

e n g l a n d ' s n e w r e l at i on s h i p s a n d s e x e d u c at i on r e g i m e on e y e a r on

parents and teachers to approach Safe at School for help and support wherever required. As we have seen, there are a number of practical approaches at our disposal which can and do often produce positive results. This is a battle that is now being fought by parents and teachers on the frontline of our schools, and we will win this school by school.

I would also encourage all of the faithful, including clergy, to sign up to support the Coalition in Defence of Primary Educators. This is above all a spiritual battle and, as in many other areas we face, it cannot be won without prayer and action from a renewed Church Militant to transform Christ’s Church from within, in order to be what it should be, a beacon of light and truth to the rest of our society and to our world.

Dr Tom Rogers is the SPUC Education Manager. He has been working full-time for the pro-life cause since 2016.

An academic and educationalist, he previously lectured in English literature at university, and has also taught in the secondary and further education sectors. He is married with three children.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Endnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Baroness Berridge, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the School System, Response to Parliamentary Question, UIN HL9548, 10 November 2020.

Department for Education, Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education: Statutory guidance for governing bodies, proprietors, head teachers, principals, senior leadership teams, teachers, 2019; pp.18-19, 24.

Department for Education, Parental Engagement on Relationships Education (2019), p.2.

Statutory Instrument 2019 No.924 Education, England: The Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019, 9 May 2019. See section 8 (80B) (3) (p.3) with regard to maintained schools; section 12 (2A) (f) (p.4) with regard to independent schools, and section 13 (25) (5) (p.5) with reference to non-maintained special schools.

This term, for instance, is used throughout the Department for Education’s Parental Engagement on Relationships Education (2019), which was published some months after the passing of the RSHE Regulations 2019.

The Jigsaw Terms & Conditions state: “5.2. Jigsaw grants to the Customer a non-exclusive licence to copy and distribute the Materials to the Customer’s teaching staff (not to parents/pupils or anyone outside of the school staff) and to use the Materials for the sole purpose of delivering tuition to the Customer’s pupils on personal, social, health and economic education, including the right to upload and distribute copies of the Materials onto the Customer’s secure, password protected, online/virtual learning environment, so that the Materials may be viewed and downloaded by the Customer's teaching staff only. Save as provided in this clause 5.2, the Customer is prohibited from issuing, distributing or otherwise communicating the Materials to the public, including the following: 5.2.1. distributing the Materials (or any part of them) to, or otherwise making them available to, parents/ guardians (with the exception of the Jigsaw Families Programme materials designated for use at home) of the Customer's pupils or any other third party (e.g. teachers or pupils in another school/educational establishment); 5.2.2. hosting copies of the Materials (or any part of them) on the Customer’s website.” https://www.jigsawpshe.com/ DfE RSHE Statutory Guidance 2019. p.13.

Catholic Education Service, St Mary’s University, Made in God’s Image: Challenging homophobic and biphobic bullying in Catholic schools (2017;

A U T UMN 2021

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

2nd edn. 2018); https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/CES-Project_Homophobic-Bullying-Book- let_JUN18_PROOF-9.pdf ; Department of Catholic Education and Formation Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales, Learning to Love: An introduction to Catholic Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) for Catholic Educators, March 2017; https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/Learning2love.pdf.pdf Other English bishops officially supporting LGBT Masses and/or “ministries” in their dioceses include Cardinal Vincent Nichols (Westminster), Bishop John Arnold (Salford), Bishop Declan Lang (Clifton), Bishop Terence Drainey (Middlesborough), and the former Bishop of Northampton, Peter Doyle, openly supported changing Church teaching on homosexuality. See Paul Smeaton, "LGBT ‘Pride’ Masses taking over multiple Catholic dioceses in England”, Lifesite, 4th Nov 2019; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ lgbt-pride-masses-taking-over-multiple-catholic-dioceses-in-england/ Rt Rev Patrick Mckinney (9 April 2019) and Maggie Duggan, Deputy Director for Catholic Education, on behalf of Archbishop Bernard Longley (20 May 2021) in letters to members of the faithful (on file).

The Countercultural Father blog (12 May 2017), for instance, notes that (in relation to the first 2017 edition) “A cursory glance at the relevant documents suggests that one page of Made in God’s Image (page 3) is lifted verbatim from Stonewall’s document (page 6) and no fewer than seven (pp. 12, 14, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26) are lifted verbatim or (in a few cases) in large part from the LGBT Youth Scotland document (pp. 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31)”; http://ccfather. blogspot.com/2017/05/ schrodingers-funding.html OFSTED, “Guidance: Inspecting teaching of the protected characteristics in schools”, Updated 19 April 2021 [first published 17 September 2020]; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspecting-teaching-of-the-protected-characteristics-in-schools/inspecting-teaching-of-the-protected-characteristics-in-schools Department for Education, Government response: Relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education: FAQs: Information from the Department for Education about the introduction of compulsory relationships education and RSE from September 2020, 5 April 2019; Last updated 9 July 2020; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education-faqs For instance, in May 2017 Vishnitz Girls School, an Orthodox Jewish primary school, failed its third OFSTED inspection in a year specifically because the school acknowledged that it did not teach its young children (aged 3-11) about homosexuality and transgenderism. The original report stated that “the school’s approach means that pupils are shielded from learning about certain differences between people, such as sexual orientation. [...]

They acknowledge that they do not teach pupils about all the protected characteristics [of the Equality Act 2010], particularly those relating to gender re-assignment and sexual orientation. This means that pupils have a limited understanding of the different lifestyles and partnerships that individuals may choose in present-day society.” OFSTED, “Vishnitz Girls School: School Progress Monitoring Inspection Report”, 10 May 2017 (ref.

138516). Note, following the justifiably negative publicity on publication of this report, OFSTED subsequently replaced the original report with a redacted version (ref. 138515_5) on its website – one which had removed any direct references to “sexual orientation” and “gender reassignment”, hence attempting to conceal the real reason why the school was failed.

Gateshead Jewish Primary (Nov 2019) and Yesoday Hatorah (May 2017) were also failed by OFSTED, in similarly worded reports, because they did not teach on “all of the protected characteristics”.

Ten Ten Resources, “The First Monday Email: Catholic Primary Schools”, May 2021 [on file].

Email (6 April 2021) from head teacher, St Catherine’s RC Primary School, Barnet, to Mrs Collins (on file).

See Jules Gomes, “Catholic school defends cross-dressing kids” (24 June 2021) and “Crossdressing Catholic school bans mom” (7 July 2021) , Church Militant; https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholic-schooldefends-book-on-cross-dressing; https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/ article/cross-dressing-book-catholic-school-bans-mum Letters (20 and 30 July 2021) from head teacher, St Catherine’s RC Primary School, Barnet, to Mrs Collins (on file).

Parliamentary question from Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice, answered

by Baroness Berridge, UIN HL 560, 25 May 2021.

Ibid.

23

focus

SAINT PIUS V A holy model for his time and ours

On 7 October this year we celebrate the 450th anniversary of the great victory at Lepanto, thanks to the prayers and tireless work of Saint Pius V. Saint Pius V emerged as a powerful figure in the tumultuous setting of his time. Michele Ghislieri was born in 1504, in Bosco Marengo, Piedmont. He entered the Order of Preachers at the age of 14 and became distinguished due to his personal piety and the orthodoxy of his faith, so much so that in 1558 he was appointed Summus ac perpetuus inquisitor, general inquisitor for life of all Christendom. Having been consecrated bishop of Nepi and Sutri, and then created cardinal, he participated in a stormy conclave after the death of Pius IV. He was elected Pope on 7 January 1566 thanks to the decisive support of Charles Cardinal Borromeo who was also to be elevated to the glory of the altars.

As Pope, it would be difficult to find an aspect in the life of the Church that Saint Pius V did not attend to. He was a great reformer of morals. He re-established ecclesiastical discipline, fought sodomy, simony, and restored the liturgy of the Church devastated by Protestantism.

At its last session, the Council of Trent had mandated Pope Pius IV to proceed with the publication of the Catechism, the Breviary, and the Missal. It was his successor, Pius V, who promulgated the three documents: in 1566 the Catechism; in 1568 the Breviary; and in 1570 the Roman Missal. The Catechism, Missal and Breviary are different but complementary expressions of the same faith of the Church.

The name of Pius V, whom Georges Cardinal Grente (1872-1959) called “the Pope of the great battles”, is associated above all else with the triumph of Lepanto. The great Pontiff employed all his forces to create a “Holy League” against the Ottomans. He supported the military commitment financially and also with the constitution of a papal fleet, but above all, he secured the victory with the efficacy of his prayers. The Pontiff attributed the triumph of the Christian armada to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin; in her honour, he instituted the feast of the Holy Rosary and added the invocation “Auxilium Christianorum” to the Litany of Loreto.

Pius V died in Rome on 1 May 1572. He was canonised by Clement XI on 22 May 1712 and his feast is on 5 May. His body can still be venerated in the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. Commemorating Pius V during the celebrations for the second centenary of his canonisation, Cardinal Serafini (1852-1918), archbishop of Spoleto and assessor of the Holy Office, said: “If I consider him as a religious in his cell, centred on piety and study, Pius V appears to me as the perfect disciple of the great patriarch Dominic. If I consider him as inquisitor, he seems to me to emulate the many members of the illustrious Order of Preachers who gave their sweat, blood and lives in the defence of the faith. If I consider him as a shepherd of souls, he is the model of pastors. Finally, if I gaze on him raised up on the Chair of Peter, his brief pontificate is so packed full of grandiose works that few can equal it, especially in the 16th century; none surpass it.”

Saint Pius V therefore represents not an historic figure but exactly the sort of Pope whom the Church today ought to be praying for: he is a holy model of his time and ours.

25

SAINT PIUS V: A holy Pope AN INTERVIE W WITH PR OF. R OBERTO DE M AT TEI Calx Mariae had the pleasure of speaking with Professor Roberto de Mattei, a renowned Church historian and President of the Lepanto Foundation in Rome. Professor de Mattei is also the author of the recently published biography of Saint Pius V: the legendary Pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, standardised the Mass and defeated the Ottoman Empire (Sophia Institute Press). With the 450th anniversary of the great Battle of Lepanto approaching, we took this opportunity to discuss the significance of St Pius V for his time and for ours.

not an abstract institution, it needs to be represented, embodied by concrete men. This means that we must love the papacy because it is a divine institution, but we cannot love it abstractly. We must love the papacy concretely in the men who represented it with greater perfection. And since we cannot love what we do not know, we must know which were the best popes in history; the holiest popes, the popes who governed the Church with greater perfection.

And among the popes of the modern era, the short but intense pontificate of Pius V (1566-1572) seems to me a model, because of his holiness in governing the Church and for the richness of his teaching.

CALX MARIAE: St Pius V is recognised as one of the holiest, most courageous and influential popes in the history of the Church. Your biography of him has been called powerful and compelling. What does his pontificate which was outstanding in his own time as well as in history teach us about the papacy in general?

ROBERTO DE MATTEI: All popes have a divine mission, but they can fulfil this mission in different ways. They can be saints or sinners, they can be good popes or bad popes. The papacy, however, is 26

CM: How does Pope Pius V compare with his immediate predecessors and what was the context for his election as pope?

RdM: At the beginning of the 16th century, the city of Rome, the seat of the Catholic Church, offered the spectacle of a great flowering of the arts, but also that of a profound moral decadence. The new humanistic mentality had generated a deadly embrace between the Church of Rome and the world.

The popes lived like splendid Italian princes: they were great humanists like Nicholas V, refined diplomats like Alexander VI, leaders like Julius II, but their temporal interests prevailed over supernatural ones, the episcopate was corrupt, the religious life decadent. This moral decay paved the way for the Protestant Revolution.

CAL X M ARIA E

saint pius v: a holy pope

Pius V’s asceticism, which presupposed a life of abnegation, sacrifice, and spiritual battle, in full abandonment to Divine Providence, was diametrically opposed to the humanistic spirit that was based on the search for material and spiritual pleasure.

In the time of Saint Pius V, the Church had, as today, external and internal enemies. The main external enemy were the Turks, who wanted to conquer Europe and transform St Peter's Basilica into a mosque, as they had done with the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The internal enemies were not only the followers of Luther and Calvin, who sought to extend heresy throughout Christendom but also their accomplices and sympathisers within the ecclesiastical world: the representatives of that “Third Party”, which sought a “middle way” between truth and error.

The occasion for the crucial confrontation between these opposing tendencies within the Church was no less than the conclave that elected Saint Pius V. When on 20 December 1565 the cardinals met in the Palazzo dei Papi del Quirinale to elect the successor of Pius IV, the Sacred College was essentially divided into two parties, which had confronted each other in previous years. This division corresponded to two different ways of dealing with the Protestant heresy. The first party argued that there should be no possible compromises with heresy, while the second party was an advocate of the “outstretched hand” towards Protestantism.

There was no one in the conclave more intransigent than Michele Cardinal Ghislieri, who had been the Supreme Inquisitor General of the whole of Christendom. And it was he, with the decisive support of another cardinal saint, Carlo Borromeo, who was elected to the papal throne on 7 January 1566 with the name of Pius V. CM: Before his accession, very little was done to address the consequences of the Protestant revolt. What was so significant about the way Pius V dealt with Queen Elizabeth of England?

RdM: A Florentine banker, Roberto Ridolfi (15311612) was the agent of Pius V in England. Ridolfi lived in London for many years, and his financial activity made the frequency of his travel and the variety of his relationships natural. The Pope gave

A U T UMN 2021

him the mission of working to restore the Catholic Church in England. Ridolfi had made contact with the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland to whom, with the agreement of Pius V, he had assured consistent help in their project of relieving the English people. Insurrection broke out in Durham and Ripon on 16 November 1569, but failed for the lack of the decisive help that Philip II and Charles IX had promised. On 25 February 1570, Pius V signed and promulgated the bull Regnans in Excelsis, with which he pronounced a sentence of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth I, declaring her to have lapsed from her claimed right to the English crown; her subjects were not bound to their oath of fidelity towards her, and under pain of excommunication they could not show her obedience.

Despite the failure of the insurgency, under Pius V the great movement of Catholic rebirth in England began, sealed by the blood of hundreds of martyrs. The bull of excommunication of Elizabeth I, criticised by “political” Catholics, constituted the foundation and presupposition of this missionary epic and represents one of the high points of the pontificate of Saint Pius V. CM: Before Pius V became pope, he was the Inquisitor General for the whole of Christendom. Today Catholics are made to feel ashamed of the Inquisition but how did it come about and what should we understand regarding its role?

RdM: The Inquisition is an ecclesiastical tribunal that still exists today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The existence of this tribunal is a consequence of the nature of the Church, which is not only an invisible Mystical Body but is also a visible society, with its authorities and its laws, given by Our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Christian society of the Middle Ages, heresy which publicly violated the First Commandment was considered a crime such as theft and murder and the sovereigns, not the Church, applied temporal penalties to the guilty, such as prison or, in exceptional cases, death. The Church intervened to regulate the trials and ensure they took place on an orderly basis. Specialists have shown that the procedure of the Inquisition was in fact a step forward in the history of law because of the guarantees it granted

27

focus

BATTLE OF LEPANTO IN 1571, DON JUAN OF AUSTRIA AND CARDINALS. FRANCISCAN CHURCH OF THE VISITATION IN EIN KEREM, ISRAEL.

to the accused and the seriousness with which trials were carried out.

The Inquisition, begun in order to seek the truth, did not punish for the sake of punishing, but rather to amend, correct, and convert the guilty. Zeal for souls was always the main characteristic of the inquisitor Michael Ghislieri, who visited heretics each day in prison, praying for their salvation. Pius V, pastor of the universal Church, wanted to remain, until the last day of his life, the Summus Inquisitor, the Grand Inquisitor of Christianity, in order to prevent even one iota of the Depositum Fidei – the deposit of faith, from being changed in the tradition of the Church.

CM: Without the involvement of Pius V it is doubtful whether the Holy League would have existed and Ottoman expansion into Europe may never have been checked. What was the full importance of the League’s victory at Lepanto in the light of history?

RdM: The Christian victory of Lepanto on 7 October 1571, whose 450th anniversary is commemorated in 2021, is closely tied to the name of St Pius V. On his tomb, in the Basilica of Santa 28

Maria Maggiore, we see the Pope, seated on his throne, as he hands the banner of the Christian fleet to Don John of Austria, the winner of the Battle of Lepanto.

The pontiff knew that there would be no possible truce with Islam until the Ottoman Empire was definitely annihilated. Pius V was the true author of the Holy League promulgated on 27 May 1571 in St Peter’s Basilica. The clauses established that Pope Pius V, King Philip II of Spain, and the Republic of Venice constituted “a perpetual League, both offensive and defensive, against the Turks” in order to recover all the places usurped by them from the Christians, including Tunis, Algeria, and Tripoli.

Although Pius V never used the term “crusade”, perhaps because by his time it was reserved for the indulgence valid in Spain, there is no doubt that the santissima expeditio he conceived and promoted in 1570 fully corresponded to the traditional concept of the crusade.

The victory of Lepanto was not for him a point of arrival but the beginning of a possible reconquest of the Christian East. At the centre of Pius V’s worries during the last months of his life was the defence of Christendom from Islam. Death prevented the holy pontiff from fulfilling his great dream of restoring religious and political peace to Christendom and vanquishing its internal and external enemies.

CM: As a Dominican, Pope Pius V had always promoted the Rosary but this was particularly true in respect of the Holy League. And afterwards, he attributed the victory at Lepanto to Our Lady when he named the anniversary of the battle, 7 October, the feast of Our Lady of Victories and proclaimed her Auxilium Christianorum, the help of Christians. Could the victory at Lepanto be seen as pre-figuring the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart?

RdM: Leo XIII in his encyclical Supremi Apostolatus Officio (1 September 1883), wrote that the efficacy and power of the devotion of the Holy Rosary “was wondrously exhibited in the sixteenth century when the vast forces of the Turks threatened to impose on nearly the whole of Europe the yoke of superstition and barbarism. At that time the Supreme Pontiff, St Pius V, after rousing the sentiment of a common defence among all the Christian princes, strove,

CAL X M ARIA E

saint pius v: a holy pope

above all, with the greatest zeal, to obtain for Christendom the favour of the most powerful Mother of God. So noble an example offered to heaven and earth in those times rallied around him all the minds and hearts of the age. And thus Christ’s faithful warriors, prepared to sacrifice their life and blood for the salvation of their faith and their country, proceeded undauntedly to meet their foe near the Gulf of Corinth, while those who were unable to take part formed a pious band of supplicants, who called on Mary and unitedly saluted her again and again in the words of the Rosary, imploring her to grant the victory to their companions engaged in battle. Our Sovereign Lady did grant her aid; for, in the naval battle by the Echinades Islands, the Christian fleet gained a magnificent victory, with no great loss to itself, in which the enemy were routed with great slaughter.” (no 4) St John Bosco, a great devotee to Maria Auxilium Christianorum, was convinced that Our Lady was preparing a greater and more magnificent victory for the future of the Church than that of Lepanto.

In 1917 Our Lady, in Fatima, confirmed this hope.

CM: As well as being a historian and an author you are also President of the Lepanto Foundation. Why was that name chosen and how has its name shaped its aims?

RdM: The Lepanto Foundation derives its name from the Lepanto Cultural Centre which I founded and directed in Rome from 1981 to 2006. The name “Lepanto” was chosen because it expresses the idea of an active and militant Christianity. The main enemy in 1981 was not Islam, but communism which then represented the greatest threat to the Christian West. When on 7 October 2001 we commemorated the 430th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto in Rome, the attack on the Twin Towers on 11 September had revealed to the world the reappearance of an ancient enemy: Islam. Saint Pius V offers us the model of that lived and militant Christianity that inspires us.

Lepanto is not the banner of an armed war but the symbol of the spiritual attitude. This spirit is a fruit of the blood shed by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary.

THE BATTLE OF LEPANTO (C.1665) BY JUAN DE TOLEDO AND MATEO GILARTE. CHURCH OF SAINT DOMINIC IN MURCIA, SPAIN.

A U T UMN 2021

29

focus

CM: So many of the problems faced by Pius V are still with us today. How might Pius V’s example guide the Church back to a path of sanity and fidelity to the Gospel?

RdM: In the 16th century, because the humanistic and pagan spirit had penetrated the heart of the Church, it was necessary to bring to a conclusion a spiritual reform. St Pius V accomplished the great Tridentine reform, and he felt especially close to those souls who offered their life for the reform of the Church, such as St Cajetan, St Philip Neri, St Ignatius of Loyola, St Charles Borromeo and many others. The history of the 16th century teaches us that the true reformers are the saints, who have not attributed the faults of men to the Church but have assumed those faults upon themselves, in the image of Our Lord. They did not claim to change the constitution of the Church, but they strove to change themselves and through their example to change others. The false reformers, on the other hand, are those who argue that the cause of evil lies not in the men of the Church, but in the Church itself and who therefore want to change the way of government, the sacraments, the teaching of the Church, adapting them to their own opinions or those of the world. They say they do it to return to the Gospel message and therefore they reject the Tradition of the Church.

The Church in its history has known the pseudo-reform of the heretics and the true reform of the saints who have united moral integrity of their lives with the integral fidelity to the Tradition of the Church, which is none other than the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ, always alive and always current, full of all the memories of the past and all the hopes of the future.

CM: People sometimes speak of the Mass of Pius V implying that he formulated the Latin liturgy. How accurate is this impression? What had been the state of the liturgy before he issued his encyclical on the Mass, Quo Primum (14 July 1570)? Did Pope Pius V reform the Mass or did he verify and validate what had been handed down by tradition? What is the relevance of Quo Primum today?

RdM: In the 16th century, faced with the liturgical chaos caused by the Protestant Revolution, the Council of Trent wanted to restore the traditional conception of the Mass, above all on the doctrinal level. Pius V implemented the instructions of the 30

Council of Trent and restored the Roman Missal with the bull Quo Primum of 1570. This bull does not introduce anything new but restores the liturgy of the Church disfigured by Protestant and humanist innovations.

The Mass of St Pius V perfectly expresses the Catholic regula fidei. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI on 28 April 1969.

The motu proprio of Benedict XVI Summorum Pontificum (2007) reiterated that the ancient Roman Rite was never and never could have been abrogated and confirmed the right of every priest to celebrate it and of the faithful to assist it. No pope has the right to abrogate or change a rite that dates back to the Apostolic Tradition and has been formed over the centuries, such as the so-called Mass of St Pius V, as the great liturgist Msgr. Klaus Gamber confirms in the volume that, in the French edition, bears a preface by Cardinal Ratzinger (La Réforme liturgique en question, Editions Sainte-Madeleine, 1992).

We must thank Saint Pius V for the gift of this Missal which has survived the centuries.

CM: What is the laity’s role at a time of heresy and division in the church, particularly today? To what principles should the laity adhere in order to “maintain a firm balance in the storm” as you put it in a recent article?

RdM: In the stormy situation in which we live, the Catholic Church gives the only compass that can guide us on the right path, which is that of the salvation of our souls.

We must not separate ourselves from the Church, and to be united to Her we need three fundamental points of reference: an unshakable fidelity to the perennial Magisterium of the Church; a devout respect for ecclesiastical authority, which derives from the first apostles by episcopal succession; the adherence to the Sacraments, which transmit to us the life of grace, which is Jesus Christ Himself, the only way, truth and life.

Prof. Roberto de Mattei is a former professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University of Rome. He founded, and oversees, the Lepanto Foundation that operates in Washington and in Rome. He directs the magazine Radici Cristiane and the Corrispondenza Romana News Agency.

CAL X M ARIA E

PIUS V AND THE MASS

by DR J O S E P H S H AW

I

n 1570 Pope St Pius V promulgated a new edition of the Missale Romanum, the Roman Missal, as mandated by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The event was an important one, but it has often been misunderstood. At a moment of liturgical crisis, it would be good to remind ourselves of its real significance.

Superficially, there is a strong parallel with what happened in 1969, when the Novus Ordo Missae was published following the Second Vatican Council.

Each General Council mandated a revision of the liturgical books, without going into great detail about what this revision would involve. The reigning Pontiff in each case appointed a commission

to carry out the necessary work, and promulgated the result.

However, there are three important areas in which the parallel breaks down: indeed, assuming the parallel holds true has created myths which often attach to the 1570 Missal.

Myth 1. In 1570, the Tridentine Mass was new.

In 1969 the Novus Ordo Missae was new. It contains features never seen before in the liturgy of the Western Church, or only introduced in the run-up to its final promulgation, including the possibility of using the vernacular throughout, and a multi-year lectionary.

By contrast, the 1570 Missal was almost identical to the first printed edition of the Roman Missal, that of 1475, which copied earlier editions of the Roman Missal. These went back through the Missale Romano Seraphicum of the 13th century to the Roman liturgy of the early centuries.

Pontifical High Mass in St Peter’s basilica, celebrated by Mgr Konzon during the 17th international pilgrimage to Rome of the Populous Summorum Pontificum, October 2018.

A U T UMN 2021

31

focus

The revision ordered by the Council of Trent was a matter of checking and re-checking, referring to copies of the Missal from the previous two centuries, to get the best possible text. To give just one example, the well-known Advent chant referring to Our Lady, “Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just: let the earth be opened, and bud forth a saviour”, (Isaiah 45:8: in Latin, “Rorate caeli…”) continued “and let justice spring up together…” in the 1474 Missal, but this was corrected to “The heavens tell of the glory of God, and the firmament announces the works of his hands” (Psalm 18:2, Vulgate). It seems that printers, out of laziness or carelessness, had replaced the psalm-verse which should have followed the antiphon with a continuation of the text of the antiphon itself.

If this sounds rather obscure and technical, you are not wrong. Mass-goers would have needed keen ears and a photographic memory to notice the difference between the 1570 Missal and its predecessors.

Myth 2. The 1570 Missal was simplified compared with its predecessors.

The 1969 Mass was vastly simplified compared to the 1962 Missal, in accordance with the mandate of Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium 50 “rites are to be simplified” and passim). The 1570 Roman Missal was also quite simple – the word “austere” is often used — compared with Missals used in France and elsewhere in the preceding centuries. It is to this “Gallican” tradition we owe some glorious liturgical texts, such as the Sequences Lauda Sion for Corpus Christi, and Dies irae for Masses for the Dead. There are four Sequences in the 1570 Missal but many more in the Gallican liturgy – there is one for Christmas for example – but these were not removed in 1570, because they had never made it into the Roman Missal. As far as the Tridentine reform was concerned, the Gallican Missals were to continue with all their glorious complexity, which brings us to the next point.

RORATE CAELI FROM THE SAN DOMENICO MISSAL (C.1425). MUSEUM OF SAN MARCO, FLORENCE.

32

CAL X M ARIA E

pius v and the mass

“Theological debates and preaching can tell us the latest thing, if it is worth hearing, but the ancient liturgy brings us something quite different: the atmosphere and the very words of the age of the Fathers of the Church, which have embedded themselves in Catholic spirituality and art for centuries, both before St Pius V’s time and since.”

Myth 3. The 1570 Missal replaced the other Missals in use in the Church up to that time.

The Gallican Missals of France were among a great many Missals in use in the 16th century: several in England, more in Germany; Milan in Italy had the Ambrosian Missal, and the Mozarabic Missal was used in parts of Spain. Similarly, the Dominicans, the Carthusians, the Carmelites, and the Norbertines, all had their own missals, and the Franciscans, wherever they were, used the Roman Missal. All these had for centuries influenced and been influenced by the Roman Missal, whose authority and prestige was particularly great, so they had a good deal in common, but there were still noticeable differences.

St Pius V allowed all Missals which had existed for more than 200 years to continue in use. The point of this requirement was to exclude any which had been tainted by the influence of Protestantism and other heresies. All the above mentioned Missals continued in use after 1570, except the English ones which were the victims of the Reformation (the Sarum alone survived a little longer). Eventually the French and German Missals fell out of use, a process which was not complete until well into the 19th century. The Ambrosian and Mozarabic Missals, and those of the religious orders, continued in use up to Vatican II, and most of them continue in use today.

St Pius V allowed dioceses and religious orders to adopt the Roman Missal if they wished, and it was by this process of adoption that priests being trained for the English Mission started being taught the Roman Missal, and the French and German dioceses eventually lost their distinctive liturgical books. St Pius established the principle that all priests in the A U T UMN 2021

Latin Church could use the Roman Missal, but he did not eliminate the alternatives.

What is true is that the Council of Trent was an important milestone in the assertion of the authority of the papacy over the liturgy. Up to that time bishops could authorise new liturgical texts, and in the context of the turmoil of the Protestant Revolt, this was a dangerous situation. Some bishops became Protestant, casting aside their office and liturgy; more insidiously, others tried to continue as normal while introducing heresy into their preaching and services. Successive popes had hesitated to denounce and remove from office bishops who had lost the faith, or were simply corrupt, in case they went into open schism. Sometimes the situation could be retrieved by faithful Catholics on the ground, who did the work of preaching and rooting out corruption which the bishops failed to do: this

33

focus

was a particular talent of the newly-founded Jesuits.

But it was clearly essential to take control of the liturgy away from bishops.

This raises the question, of course: if the liturgy was not safe in the hands of bishops, would it be safe in the hands of popes? Bishops were supposed to be guardians of the faith and of the traditions of their churches, but having an obligation and obeying it are not the same thing. Popes have the same obligation, and like their fellow bishops are also human. That St Pius V’s reverence for tradition was not shared by all popes was apparent even before 1570. The Council of Trent considered, though it did not settle, the controversy over the new-fangled Breviary of Quiñonez. This strange production, more suited to saying than singing, which violated the principle that the whole Book of Psalms be read in the course of each week, was actually enforced

by Pope Urban VII on diocesan clergy in 1535.

Pope St Pius V abolished it in 1568.

The Breviary of Quiñonez was an example of the superficially rational and convenient liturgical option which was to tempt the guardians of the Church again and again as the centuries passed.

The next victims of this tendency were the ancient hymns of the Breviary. In 1631 Pope Urban VIII published new versions of them, because he thought the Latin was not very elegant. Although never accepted by the religious orders, these maimed versions, which are more difficult to sing, remain in some versions of the breviary to this day.

A similar project was undertaken with the equally unsingable Latin Psalter by Cardinal Augustin Bea, and promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1947.

If you want to know whether you are looking at a translation of Cardinal Bea’s hobby-horse, try looking up Psalm 83:7, the origin of the phrase “valley of tears”, the “valle lacrimarum” of the Salve Regina. Bea removed it as insufficiently close to the original Hebrew, and the Knox translation accordingly gives us “valley of thirst”. The Second Vatican Council ordered that a new translation be made, “to take into account the style of Christian Latin, the liturgical use of psalms, also when sung, and the entire tradition of the Latin Church” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 91). Sadly, this instruction was not very closely followed, and we now have yet another 34

unsingable version of the Latin Psalter which bears little resemblance to what our forefathers in the Faith used, the “Neo-Vulgate”, which sticks with Bea’s per vallem sitientiem.

One problem is that a liturgy based on the latest scholarship and fashion will quite quickly go out of date and out of fashion. Fifty years ago the best scholarship told us that in the Early Church Mass was usually celebrated with the priest facing the people; today it says the opposite. The poor scholarship of the 1950s justified the re-arrangement of tens of thousands of sanctuaries, at an unimaginable cost and the destruction of irreplaceable historic art. Are we going to put them all back now?

Again, what of the decidedly dated theories of child development which contributed to the Directory on Masses with Children in 1974? What of the studies on attention spans which influenced debates about how long the readings should be for the reformed Lectionary of 1969? Should the Neo-Vulgate have been done all over again when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are we to be prisoners of the state of knowledge of the 1950s and 1960s forever?

To keep the entire liturgy up to date would mean revising it thoroughly each generation. This would imply a total loss of liturgical continuity. Middle aged people would not worship as they had as children, let alone as their grandparents worshipped.

And then again, we cannot be sure that a new scholarly consensus is better founded than the old one.

If you want to buy a car or a suit which won’t look “very last year” a year from now, don’t get the very latest fashion in colour or design, but something more classical. The liturgy which Pope St Pius V restored for the Church was served by historical scholarship, certainly, but this scholarship was about preserving the inheritance of the past, not giving us the latest insights. Theological debates and preaching can tell us the latest thing, if it is worth hearing, but the ancient liturgy brings us something quite different: the atmosphere and the very words of the age of the Fathers of the Church, which have embedded themselves in Catholic spirituality and art for centuries, both before St Pius V’s time and since. When the liturgy seems puzzling, or the Latin tradition differs from the Greek or Hebrew, this is not necessarily a sign of some school-boy error CAL X M ARIA E

pius v and the mass

“The liturgy is like some large and complex work of art.

It may have passages which are puzzling, or even look out of place, but this is a challenge to us to understand it better, and not find a way to flatten it out so it has nothing distinctive to say to us.” which ought to be corrected: it often reflects the “tradition of the Latin Church”, which is teaching us some important truth.

The liturgy is like some large and complex work of art. It may have passages which are puzzling, or even look out of place, but this is a challenge to us to understand it better, and not find a way to flatten it out so it has nothing distinctive to say to us. It can be the most puzzling features which hold our attention for the longest, and have the greatest power to transform us. Again, we can understand things we cannot explain. That the lessons of the liturgy cannot be codified as a book of copy-book aphorisms is a point in its favour, not a point against it.

A U T UMN 2021

St Pius V teaches us that if we respect and love the liturgy of our predecessors in the faith, they can speak to us through it, and God can speak through them.

Dr Joseph Shaw teaches Philosophy in Oxford University. He is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He is married with nine children.

35

36

CAL X M ARIA E

PRAYER TO OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST A prayer which Pope Saint Pius V used to make in his most pressing needs Saint Pius V would start this prayer on Friday at 3pm before a crucifix, in order to conform himself to the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He would pray it for 15 days, after which he would celebrate a Mass in honour of the Passion of Our Lord. He also recited it during the Battle of Lepanto.

In nómine Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Amen.

Pater noster. Ave María. Glória Patri.

O MY LORD JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED, Son of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, open Thine ears, and listen to me as Thou didst listen to the Eternal Father on Mount Tabor.

Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cæli et terræ. Et in Jesum Christum, Fílium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum: qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto, natus ex María Vírgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifíxus, mórtuus, et sepúltus: descéndit ad ínferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad cælos; sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis: inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos.

Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclésiam Cathólicam, Sanctórum communiónem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam ætérnam. Amen.

O MY LORD JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED, Son of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, open Thine eyes, and look upon me as Thou didst look from the tree of the Cross upon Thy dear Mother sorrowing and afflicted.

Credo in Deum.

O MY LORD JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED, Son of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, open Thy blessed mouth, and speak to me as Thou didst speak to St John when Thou gavest him for a son to Thine own most beloved Mother.

Credo in Deum.

O MY LORD JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED, Son of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, open Thine arms and embrace me as Thou didst open them upon the Cross to embrace the whole human race.

Credo in Deum.

O MY LORD JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED, Son of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, open Thy Heart and receive therein my heart, and hear me in all that I ask of Thee, if it be agreeable to Thy most holy will.

Credo in Deum.

V. Nos cum prole pia. R. Benedícat Virgo María. Amen.

A U T UMN 2021

37

Traditionis Custodes:

AN ACT OF WEAKNESS

by CRISTIANA DE MAGISTRIS

A

fter a calm and careful reading of the recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, with none of the acrimony and indignation that a biased and draconian document like this one almost inevitably arouses, the text seems not an act of strength but of weakness, a song of the swan that, nearing his end, does not sing with a more beautiful voice but with a louder one.

The document presents a number of canonical anomalies that jurists will have to examine carefully.

The priority for us is to dwell on a single point, the liturgical, whose scope seems absolutely revolutionary and untenable. Article 1 of the document, as if to set the tone for everything that follows, states: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite”.

There is much that could be said about that “in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II”, seeing that the missal of Paul VI – as has been amply demonstrated – went far beyond the conciliar dictate, coining a liturgy from scratch, in complete discontinuity not only with the tradition epitomised in the missal of St Pius V but also with the will of the council fathers themselves.

In any case, this liturgy made “at the drafting table” (Cardinal Ratzinger) can no longer be considered part of the Roman Rite. No less a personality than Monsignor Gamber affirmed this vigorously after the new missal went into effect. The new liturgy is a “Ritus modernus”, he said, no longer a “Ritus Romanus”. Fr Louis Bouyer, a member of the Liturgical Movement, who on the whole was in favour of the conciliar innovations, was forced to affirm: “We must speak clearly: today there is in the Catholic Church practically no liturgy worthy of this name”. “Today,” Monsignor Gamber stressed, referring to the reformed liturgy, “we find ourselves before the ruins of an almost bimillennial Tradition.” Fr Joseph Gelineau, one of the supporters of the renewal, was able to say: “Let those who, like

38

me, have known and sung a solemn Gregorian Mass in Latin remember it, if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass we have now. It is not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures that are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This must be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (le rite romain tel que nous avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit).”

That the Roman Rite no longer survives in the reformed missal of Paul VI is affirmed by liturgist friends and enemies of Tradition. Therefore, the reformed missal, as Klaus Gamber states, deserves the title of missal modernus but not romanus.

In the light of these elementary liturgical considerations, how is Article 1 of the motu proprio to be understood? To which is added the surprising and tendentious statement in the letter to the bishops: “It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed ‘in faithful observance of the Tradition’. Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements CAL X M ARIA E

traditionis custodes: an act of weakness

of the Roman Rite”. And it concludes: “in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements”. Now it must be made quite clear that in the missal of Paul VI the Roman Canon is not – even in its editio typica – the Roman Canon of the missal of Saint Pius V. It is the one that most resembles it, but is by no means the same thing. Fr R. T. Calmel OP wrote a good four articles between 1968 and 1975, later grouped under the evocative title “Public reparation to the outraged Roman Canon” (in the new missal) to explain its beauty and immutability, as well as the antinomies existing between the Roman Canon of the missal of St Pius V and that of Paul VI. We are saddened – yes, we too are saddened – to find in a pontifical document (moreover addressed to the bishops) such incompetence. But such it is. And it is not alone. It also remains to be explained what the missal of St Pius V is now, since it is no longer an expression of the Roman Rite, the missal of Paul VI being the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

After more than 400 years of life, has it perhaps ceased to be the Roman Rite?

The other serious problem that arises is the legitimacy of such an act. Again Klaus Gamber, in his study “The reform of the Roman liturgy”, wonders if a supreme pontiff can modify a rite. And he answers in the negative, since the pope is the custodian and guarantor of the liturgy (as well as of dogma), not its master. “No document of the Church,” Gamber writes, “not even the Code of Canon Law, expressly says that the pope, as Supreme Pastor of the Church, has the right to abolish the traditional rite. The pope’s plena et suprema potestas falls under clear limitations […]. More than one author (Gaetano, Suarez) expresses the opinion that the pope’s powers do not include the abolition of the traditional rite. […] It is certainly not the task of the Apostolic See to destroy a rite of Apostolic Tradition, but its duty is to maintain it and pass it on.” It follows that the Roman Rite presented in the missal of St Pius V has not been abrogated or repealed, and all priests retain the right to celebrate the Mass and the faithful to attend it.

Finally, it is astonishing and painful to read in the Letter to the Bishops that the intent of this motu proprio is none other than that of St Pius V after the Council of Trent: “I take comfort in this deciS UM ME R 2021

sion from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum”. But Saint Pius V did the exact opposite of what Pope Francis has done with this motu proprio. It is true that Saint Pius V established a single Missale Romanum for the whole Latin Church, but this missal – unlike that of Paul VI imposed by Francis – was only restored, in compliance with the Tridentine decrees, to be an instrument of unity for all Catholics because it was older, not because it was newer. How can the missal of Paul VI be an instrument of unity if (in addition to a myriad of other problems) it has reached a creativity, that is, a diversity, “almost unbearable”, as the pontiff himself recognizes? Furthermore, the “proven antiquity” of the rites desired by the Pope of Lepanto required an uninterrupted continuity of at least 200 years.

This means that the modern rite of Paul VI, under the Grand Inquisitor, would have been elegantly crossed out, without any hope, not even a remote one, of being able to triumph as the sole rite of all Christendom. Not to mention that with the bull Quo primum, St Pius V armoured his Missal in perpetuum, making it irrevocable. The motu proprio, therefore, invokes the authority of one who condemns it. Here too it is surprising to note such historical ineptitude in a pontifical document.

In conclusion, the motu proprio, if one wishes to read it in depth, is the recognition of a defeat. It is an apparent act of strength that covers a basic weakness and incompetence. The reformed missal has been a catastrophe on every level: liturgical, dogmatic, moral. The result, plain for all to see, is that it has emptied churches, convents, and seminaries. Not being able to impose it by virtue of tradition, which it does not convey, one wishes to impose it by dint of law. But this is an underhanded operation, founded on deception, and therefore destined to fail. It is not a fatal stroke dealt against the Roman Rite, but the euthanasia of the modern rite. It is not a death blow, but a life-giving pruning of the missal of St Pius V, which – by the hatred it arouses among the modernist fringes of the hierarchy – confirms that it is “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”, handed down to us by our fathers for us to pass on to our children, even if we should have to crimson it with our blood.

39

!

Y A D O T P U N G SI

JOIN OUR ONLINE VIDEO CATECHISM COURSE A unique opportunity for children and their families to learn the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith according to the classic

Baltimore Catechism Presented by

FR ANTHONY PILLARI JCL, MCL, STL Produced by LYDIA KEOGH PLEASE VISIT:

www.olrfamilycatechism.com

“A fundamental and most serious obligation of parents is the catechesis of their children, as the catechesis of children is also a principal obligation of pastors or parish priests.

In the totally secularized culture in which we live today, parents and pastors face a difficult challenge in communicating the truths, goods and beauties of the Catholic Faith to children.

Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism provides an inestimable help to parents, by responding to the maternal counsels of the Virgin Mother of God during her apparitions at Fatima in 1917 and by drawing upon the centuries-old wisdom of the Baltimore Catechism, with its roots in the incomparable Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Father Anthony Pillari presents the questions and answers of the Catechism to children of today, in order that an ever fuller knowledge of the faith and an ever deeper love of Our Lord will lead to their strong witness to Christ in the world and finally to their eternal salvation.

Of special merit is the consistent emphasis on memorization, so that the saving truths of the faith may become ever more the key which opens up the meaning of life lived in Christ for children and young people.

I highly recommend Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism to parents as an invaluable tool in fulfilling their irreplaceable duty to educate their children in the Faith, in prayer, devotion and Sacred Worship, as the highest and most perfect expression of the Faith, and in the daily witness of Faith through the life of the virtues.

Finally, I express heartfelt gratitude to the Voice of the Family for making possible this most wonderful gift for parents and their children.”

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE OF LEPANTO:

Christianity, the West, and Islam

by MASSIMO DE LEONARDIS

BATTLE OF LEPANTO. H. LETTER (ACTIVE LATE 16TH CENTURY). NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM, LONDON.

W

hen we consider the significance of the Battle of Lepanto in its key figures and events, we recall not just a military victory of a Christian fleet over the Turkish Muslim navy but a triumph which, above all, was a religious and political one.

In an exaggerated demythologisation of glorious pages in the military history of Christianity, strategic value and religious legitimacy have sometimes been denied to the Battle of Lepanto.

True peace It is forgotten that the Church is a peacemaker but rejects pacifism. Pius XII in fact stated in 1952: “The Church must take into account the dark powers that have always operated in history (...) she distrusts any pacifist propaganda in which the

42

word of peace is abused to conceal undisclosed purposes.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church today reaffirms the validity of the “traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine” (no. 2309).

On 1 January 2006, in the message In truth, peace, Benedict XVI stated: “Peace cannot be reduced to the simple absence of armed conflict, but needs to be understood as ‘the fruit of an order which has been planted in human society by its divine Founder’ (…) [only] acknowledgement of the full truth of God is the first, indispensable condition for consolidating the truth of peace”.

CAL X M ARIA E

t h e b at t l e o f l e p a n t o

“Saint Pius V ordered solemn prayers, in particular the recitation of the Rosary, and processions of penance, and the Sultan exclaimed: ‘ I am more afraid of this pope’s prayers than of all the emperor’s forces’.”

The immense importance of the Christian victory Illustrious historians have noted the strategic value of the victory at Lepanto. Fernand Braudel writes: “[If] instead of paying attention only to what happened at Lepanto, one were to think of the preceding situation, the victory would appear as the end of a form of misery, the end of a real inferiority complex of Christianity, the end of a likewise real supremacy of the Turkish fleet (…)

Before making a mockery of Lepanto, following in the footsteps of Voltaire, it is perhaps reasonable to consider the immediate significance of the victory. It was enormous.”

The British historian John Keegan lists Lepanto among the 15 decisive naval battles in history, “of durable and more than local importance” because it marked the end of Ottoman naval power and “[the] Muslim advance in [the] western Mediterranean [was] checked”.

Angelo Tamborra states that “Lepanto decisively ended that spirit of resignation and almost of obsessive fear which had laid the West low, caught from the ‘myth’ of the invincible Turk”, and that the battle marked the “definitive decline of the Turkish thalassocracy in the Mediterranean”.

Clash between Cross and Crescent The use of two different terms to define European civilisation should be noted: “Christendom” and “the West”. Lepanto was a naval battle, but it was above all a clash between the Cross and the crescent, between Christendom and Islam.

A divided Christendom, because Lepanto is located almost in the middle of that century and a half which, from the end of the 15th century to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, saw the secularisation A U T UMN 2021

of international relations; the medieval Res publica Christiana was replaced with the balance of power in Europe.

Not only did the Protestant revolution break the religious unity of Europe, but national interests sometimes prevailed over religious motivations even for Catholic states. The thoroughly Christian kings of France made agreements with the Turks for the sake of opposing the Habsburgs, and their ships were not present at Lepanto. However, it should also be remembered that Queen Elizabeth I of England, a schismatic, had called a few years earlier for prayers of thanksgiving for the end of the Turkish siege of Malta.

The fundamental role of Saint Pius V Saint Pius V, therefore, appears to deserve a great deal more credit for gathering so much of a divided Christendom for a battle of military, civil, and religious importance. The Pope was the architect of the coalition that won in Lepanto. He sent nuncios to the Italian princes, to the Doge of Venice, to the Kings of Poland and France.

To finance the war effort, in addition to the longstanding authorisation for the Grand Master of the Order of Malta to mortgage the benefices of France and Spain he imposed a tithe on the income of the monasteries, three tithes on the clergy of Naples, collected 40,000 gold scudi from the attendants of the papal court, and obtained another 13,000 from the sale of precious stones, granted the Venetians the right to withdraw 100,000 scudi from ecclesiastical revenues, and renewed the privilege of the Cruzada, or bull of the Crusade, in favour of the Spaniards.

A master of historiography, Nicolò Rodolico, writes: 43

focus

“Above material interests, ambitions, possessions and riches, there was a Crusader who summoned Christendom: Pius V. It was not the Cyprus of the Venetians that was in danger, but the Cross of Christ in Europe was threatened. The moving words of the pope succeeded in reconciling Venetians and Spaniards.”

A League was established in Rome on 20 May 1571, enrolling the Pope, the King of Spain, the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Duke of Savoy, the Order of Malta, the Republic of Lucca, the Marquis of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, and the Duke of Urbino. “The differences that may arise among the contracting parties”, the treaty of alliance stipulated, “will be resolved by the pope”.

Saint Pius V ordered solemn prayers, in particular the recitation of the Rosary, and processions of penance, and the Sultan exclaimed: “I am more afraid of this pope’s prayers than of all the emperor’s forces”.

At five o’clock in the evening, when the battle was over, the Pope was attending to the business of the curia with some prelates when he stopped, went to a window and stared to the East as if in an ecstasy, and then exclaimed: “Let us not deal with business anymore, but go to thank God. The Christian fleet has obtained the victory.”

Saint Pius V attributed the triumph of Lepanto to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin: he wanted the invocation “Auxilium Christianorum, ora pro nobis” to be added to the Litany of Loreto and set 7 October as the feast in honour of Our Lady of Victory.

Saint Pius V died seven months later, and without its architect, the Christian League was unable to fully exploit the victory. Not surprisingly, at the news of the Pope's death, the Sultan called for three days of festivities in Constantinople.

This article was first published in the magazine Radici Cristiane.

The epochal clash The clash between the Christian and Muslim fleets off the coast of Lepanto (today Nafpaktos) began on the morning of 7 October 1571. The Christian fleet was under the supreme command of Don John of Austria, illegitimate son of the late Emperor Charles V, with the admirals Sebastiano Veniero and Agostino Barbarigo from Venice, Marcantonio Colonna from Rome, and Gian Andrea Doria from Genoa.

It comprised roughly of 208 galleys, 36 from Naples and Sicily (under Spanish rule), 22 from Genoa, 23 from the Papal States, 18 from other Italian states, 14 from Spain, and 3 from Malta. There were also lesser ships for a total of about 280, 1,800 pieces of artillery, 34,000 soldiers, 13,000 sailors, and 43,000 oarsmen.

The Turkish fleet had around 230 galleys and 60 smaller ships, 750 guns, 34,000 soldiers, 13,000 sailors, and 41,000 oarsmen (mostly Christian slaves).

The Christian victory was clear: the League had roughly 7,500 dead and 20,000 wounded and lost 12 galleys, the Turks 30,000 dead and 10,000 prisoners, around 100 ships burned or sunk and 130 captured; 15,000 Christian slaves were freed.

44

CAL X M ARIA E

On the devotion of the

ROSARY

THE FIFTEEN MYSTERIES AND THE VIRGIN OF THE ROSARY (C.1515–20). NETHERLANDISH PAINTER (POSSIBLY GOSWIJN VAN DER WEYDEN).

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, NEW YORK.

“Not only do We earnestly exhort all Christians to give themselves to the recital of the pious devotion of the Rosary publicly, or privately in their own house and family, and that unceasingly, but we also desire that the whole of the month of October in this year should be consecrated to the Holy Queen of the Rosary.”

POPE LEO XIII, 1883

45

focus

This devotion, so great and so confident, to the august Queen of Heaven, has never shone forth with such brilliancy as when the militant Church of God has seemed to be endangered by the violence of heresy spread abroad, or by an intolerable moral corruption, or by the attacks of powerful enemies. Ancient and modern history and the more sacred annals of the Church bear witness to public and private supplications addressed to the Mother of God, to the help she has granted in return, and to the peace and tranquillity which she had obtained from God. Hence her illustrious titles of helper, consoler, mighty in war, victorious, and peace-giver. And amongst these is specially to be commemorated that familiar title derived from the Rosary by which the signal benefits she has gained for the whole of Christendom have been solemnly perpetuated. There is none among you,venerable brethren, who will not remember how great trouble and grief God's Holy Church suffered from the Albigensian heretics, who sprung from the sect of the later Manicheans, and who filled the South of France and other portions of the Latin world with their pernicious errors, and carrying everywhere the terror of their arms, strove far and wide to rule by massacre and ruin. Our merciful God, as you know, raised up against these most direful enemies a most holy man, the illustrious parent and founder of the Dominican Order.

Great in the integrity of his doctrine, in his example

46

CAL X M ARIA E

on the devotion of the rosary

of virtue, and by his apostolic labours, he proceeded undauntedly to attack the enemies of the Catholic Church, not by force of arms; but trusting wholly to that devotion which he was the first to institute under the name of the Holy Rosary, which was disseminated through the length and breadth of the earth by him and his pupils. Guided, in fact, by divine inspiration and grace, he foresaw that this devotion, like a most powerful warlike weapon, would be the means of putting the enemy to flight, and of confounding their audacity and mad impiety. Such was indeed its result. Thanks to this new method of prayer when adopted and properly carried out as instituted by the Holy Father St Dominic - piety, faith, and union began to return, and the projects and devices of the heretics to fall to pieces.

Many wanderers also returned to the way of salvation, and the wrath of the impious was restrained by the arms of those Catholics who had determined to repel their violence.

The efficacy and power of this devotion was also wondrously exhibited in the sixteenth century, when the vast forces of the Turks threatened to impose on nearly the whole of Europe the yoke of superstition and barbarism. At that time the Supreme Pontiff, St Pius V, after rousing the sentiment of a common defence among all the Christian princes, strove, above all, with the greatest zeal, to obtain for Christendom the favour of the most powerful Mother of God. So noble an example offered to heaven and earth in those times rallied around him all the minds and hearts of the age. And thus Christ's faithful warriors, prepared to sacrifice their life and blood for the salvation of their faith and their country, proceeded undauntedly to meet their foe near the Gulf of Corinth, while those who were unable to take part formed a pious band of supplicants, who called on Mary, and unitedly saluted her again and again in the words of the Rosary, imploring her to grant the victory to their companions engaged in battle. Our Sovereign Lady did grant her aid; for in the naval battle by the Echinades Islands, the Christian fleet gained a magnificent victory, with no great loss to itself, in which the enemy were routed with great slaughter.

And it was to preserve the memory of this great boon thus granted, that the same Most Holy Pontiff desired that a feast in honour of Our Lady of Victories should celebrate the anniversary of so memorable a struggle, the feast which Gregory XIII dedicated under the title of “The Holy Rosary”.

Similarly, important successes were in the last century gained over the Turks at Temeswar, in Pannonia, and at Corfu; and in both cases these engagements coincided with feasts of the Blessed Virgin and with the conclusion of public devotions of the Rosary.

And this led our predecessor, Clement XI, in his gratitude, to decree that the Blessed Mother of God should every year be especially honoured in her Rosary by the whole Church.

A U T UMN 2021

47

focus

Since, therefore, it is clearly evident that this form of prayer is particularly pleasing to the Blessed Virgin, and that it is especially suitable as a means of defence for the Church and all Christians, it is in no way wonderful that several others of Our Predecessors have made it their aim to favour and increase its spread by their high recommendations. Thus Urban IV, testified that “every day the Rosary obtained fresh boon for Christianity”.

Sixtus IV declared that this method of prayer “redounded to the honour of God and the Blessed Virgin, and was well suited to obviate impending dangers”; Leo X that “it was instituted to oppose pernicious heresiarchs and heresies”; while Julius III called it “the glory of the Church”. So also St Pius V, that “with the spread of this devotion the meditations of the faithful have begun to be more inflamed, their prayers more fervent, and they have suddenly become different men; the darkness of heresy has been dissipated, and the light of Catholic faith has broken forth again”. Lastly Gregory XIII in his turn pronounced that “the Rosary had been instituted by St Dominic to appease the anger of God and to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Moved by these thoughts and by the examples of Our Predecessors, We have deemed it most opportune for similar reasons to institute solemn prayers and to endeavour by adopting those addressed to the Blessed Virgin in the recital of the Rosary to obtain from her son Jesus Christ a similar aid against present dangers. You have before your eyes, Venerable Brethren, the trials to which the Church is daily exposed; Christian piety, public morality, nay, even faith itself, the supreme good and beginning of all the other virtues, all are daily menaced with the greatest perils.

Nor are you only spectators of the difficulty of the situation, but your charity, like Ours, is keenly wounded; for it is one of the most painful and grievous sights to see so many souls, redeemed by the blood of Christ, snatched from salvation by the whirlwind of an age of error, precipitated into the abyss of eternal death. Our need of divine help is as great today as when the great Dominic introduced the use of the Rosary of Mary as a balm for the wounds of his contemporaries.

Extract from the encyclical of Leo XII on the devotion of the Rosary, 1 September 1883

48

CAL X M ARIA E

THE DISPOSITIONS FOR PRAYER I: THE LORD’S PRAYER Calx Mariae is pleased to continue the series of letters from a Benedictine monk discussing some of the most important virtues and principles in the Rule of St Benedict – the rule on which the Western monastic tradition and Christian civilisation in Europe were founded.

fa i t h of o u r fat h e r s

A letter from a Benedictine monk

In the Prologue of his Rule, St Benedict, the patron saint of Europe writes: “We have therefore to establish a school of the Lord’s service, in the institution of which we hope we are going to establish nothing harsh, nothing burdensome. But if, prompted by the desire to attain to equity, anything be set forth somewhat strictly for the correction of vice or the preservation of charity, do not therefore in fear and terror flee back from the way of salvation of which the beginning cannot but be a narrow entrance. For it is by progressing in the life of conversion and faith that, with heart enlarged and in ineffable sweetness of love, one runs in the way of God’s commandments, so that never deserting His discipleship but persevering until death in His doctrine within the monastery, we may partake by patience in the suffering of Christ and become worthy inheritors of His kingdom.”

After looking at virtues like humility, obedience, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice in the Rule of St Benedict, in this edition we continue with St Benedict’s teaching on prayer.

SAINT BENEDICT'S VISION OF THE GLOBE AND THE THREE ANGELS (1658 - 1660). ALONSO CANO. PRADO MUSEUM, MADRID.

A U T UMN 2021

49

fa i t h of o u r fat h e r s

I would like to dedicate my next series of reflections to St Benedict’s teaching on prayer.

This is not as straightforward as it might seem, however, because St Benedict does not give a systematic teaching on prayer. And yet, one could say that the whole Rule is ultimately about prayer. That which St John Cassian says in his ninth conference about the life of a monk could aptly summarise the entire purpose of St Benedict’s Rule: The end of every monk and the perfection of his heart incline him to constant and uninterrupted perseverance in prayer. What St Benedict often stresses in the Rule is the proper disposition one should have for prayer, or better, the disposition one must have in order for prayer to spontaneously come forth from the heart. This disposition is formed by the three monastic virtues of humility, silence and obedience: humility before the perfect holiness of God; silence before the awesome mystery of God, and obedience to the God who is our Creator, Redeemer and Lord.

Our obedience, furthermore, is made possible by the four cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice. If you’ve noticed, it is precisely these virtues that have formed the themes of my reflections to you thus far. Without having planned it so, we have already been preparing the way to speak about prayer.

The word St Benedict uses that best summarises the proper disposition for prayer is compunction. It is to this sublime spiritual state that I will dedicate my next letters, but the subject for the present meditation is the prayer Christ Himself taught us: The Pater Noster.

In Chapter 13 of the Rule, St Benedict establishes that the Pater Noster should be sung out loud by the Abbot for all the monks to hear at the conclusion of Lauds and Vespers, while at the other hours it should be prayed silently. This means St Benedict expected his monks to pray the Pater Noster at least eight times every day; if we include attendance at the daily conventual Mass, at private Mass, at morning chapter, and at meal prayers, we end up praying it about 12 -15 times a day. It is thus a central part of our lives as Benedictines, and, furthermore, at the heart of all Christian prayer.

50

Pater Noster. Our Father.

The opening words unveil to us the source of every blessing: to have God as our Father, begotten by His grace at baptism. Having received Christ in faith, we have become His brothers and sisters, and with Him, through Him and in Him can call upon His Father as our own Father. Christ alone can say “My Father”; we dare not speak like this, but always say “Our Father”, that is, Christ’s and ours. He is always “Our Father”, even for the hermit who prays in solitude, even when we pray by ourselves in the privacy of our room, because He is only Our Father insofar as we are in union with Christ.

Qui es in caelis. Who art in heaven.

By saying that God is in heaven, we remind ourselves that we should be seeking heavenly gifts – His grace, love and mercy, for us and for our loved ones, which will fully blossom in eternal life.

Sanctificetur nomen tuum. Hallowed be Thy name.

The name of God is infinitely holy, regardless of whether we acknowledge it to be so or not. Thus, when we say “hallowed be Thy name”, we are asking that His name be made sanctified in us by a holy way of life. Essentially, we are asking that we may “hallow” His name by leading a life consonant with His goodness and perfection, and in this way make known to others His unspeakable holiness.

Adveniat Regnum tuum. Thy kingdom come.

In asking that God’s kingdom come to us we are praying first for ourselves, that His dominion of mercy and goodness may increase more and more in our souls, and secondly for the whole world, that His peaceful rule may gradually establish itself in every human heart.

Fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

It seems to me that this petition is the heart and soul of the whole prayer. It is in this union of our will with God’s will that Our Lady’s whole perfection is to be found, and she expressed it perfectly in her words to the Angel Gabriel, “Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Be it done unto me according to your word.” Our Lord prayed in almost the same words in the garden of Gethsemane, when, uniting His human will to that of His heavenly Father, and CAL X M ARIA E

a let ter fr om a benedictine monk

GOD THE FATHER (C.1510–1517). ATTRIBUTED TO GIOVANNI BATTISTA CIMA DA CONEGLIANO. COURTAULD INSTITUTE OF ART, LONDON.

thereby effecting our redemption, said, “Pater, si non potest hic calix transire nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua.

Father, if this chalice cannot pass without me drinking of it, Thy will be done.” In continual prayer of the Our Father, we learn from Christ and His holy Mother to pronounce our own Fiat to God, especially amidst trying circumstances in which He seems to have abandoned us.

Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.

Give us this day our daily bread.

One could say that in this petition are focused all requests concerning temporal needs. By asking for bread, the most basic source of human nourishment, we bring before God every bodily and merely earthly need. But we are not asking for earthly sustenance alone; the Greek word epiousion, which is translated into Latin as quotidianum, “daily”, is also be rendered by the word supersubstantialem, “supersubstantial”, which signifies a spiritual and supernatural food, i.e. one that feeds our unseen soul even as it feeds our visible body. This food, of course, is Christ Himself in the most holy Eucharist, for He says “Ego sum panis vivus qui de caelo descendi. I am A U T UMN 2021

the living bread that came down from Heaven.”

We are thus asking God to share with us the bread that the angels themselves feed upon, the Incarnate Word and Son of God. We receive this bread in Holy Communion, and beyond that moment of sacramental Communion, we can renew, deepen, and enjoy our union with Christ in spiritual communion, especially when linked to prayerful reflection of Christ in the Scriptures or meditation on His life, passion, death and resurrection.

Et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

This petition is the most difficult part of the whole prayer. In it we promise to forgive our enemies so that God may forgive us! To be sure, we all want to be forgiven by God; but perhaps our desire to forgive others who have wronged us may not be so strong, especially when they seem to have seriously wronged us. St John Cassian tells us of some people who would fall silent at the words, “as we forgive those who trespass against us”, so as to hold on to their grudges! St Benedict willed that the Pater 51

fa i t h of o u r fat h e r s

Consequently, we ask to be delivered from all evils that would test us beyond our strength, as well as from the evil one, who incessantly seeks to separate us from God. In closing, I would like to offer you Dante’s poetic rendition and commentary on the Pater Noster:

DETAIL FROM THE LAST JUDGEMENT (C.1440). FRA ANGELICO. GEMÄLDEGALERIE, BERLIN.

Noster be sung out loud by the Abbot precisely so that the monks would hear those words and cleanse themselves of ill will and resentment.

By holding on to grudges we only hurt ourselves, for we deprive ourselves of mercy. Christ assures us in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) that unless we forgive our enemies, our heavenly father will not forgive us. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.

St Anthony the Great once said, “Whoever has not experienced temptation cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” He even added, “Without temptations no-one can be saved.”1 What these surprising words reveal is that it is by means of temptations that God tests our virtue and makes it grow. Through temptations He allows us to know our fragility and recognize our need for His grace, and this makes us humble. Since there are not a few hidden boons in temptations, we do not want Him to take them away absolutely, but simply ask Him not to test us beyond our strength, and to assist us in the hour of temptation with His grace so that we may resist and stay in His good favour. And this interpretation is made clear by the last petition, which asks to be delivered from evil. According to St John Cassian, the only evil is sin, and it is ultimately that from which we ask to be delivered.

52

Our Father, you who dwell in Heaven above, not circumscribed by what you fashioned first but dwelling there to show your greater love, Praised be your name, praised be your power and might by every creature in the universe, as thanking your sweet Spirit is but right.

Let the peace of your kingdom come to us, for should it not, with all our inborn powers we never will attain it on our own.

And as your angels make a sacrifice of their wills unto you, singing hosanna, so may we men make sacrifice of ours.

Give us this day our daily bread, the manna without which he who struggles all the more goes backward through this bitter wilderness.

And as we pardon everyone from whom we suffer wrong, be kind to pardon us, and never look upon what we deserve.

Put not our strength, so easily cast down, to the test with the ancient adversary, but free us from the one who goads us on.2 Endnotes: 1.

2.

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Abba Anthony, #5 Purgatorio, XI, 1-19; Anthony Esolen translation.

CAL X M ARIA E

CARDINAL RAFAEL MERRY DEL VAL A perfect example of a servant of the Church

by PROF. ROBERTO DE MATTEI

I

n an age in which the hurricane of confusion is assailing the Mystical Bride of Christ, the great figure of one clergyman stands out as an ideal model for all those who want to serve the Church today: the figure of Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val, Archbishop of Nicaea and Secretary of State under Saint Pius X. The second child of Marquis Rafael and Countess Giuseppina de Zulueta, Rafael Merry del Val was born on 10 October 1865 in London, where his father was then Secretary of the Spanish Embassy.

Given the different nationalities of his ancestors, in his veins flowed the blood of illustrious families of Ireland, Spain, England, Scotland, and Holland: in particular, the blood of his paternal family was ennobled by that shed by one of his glorious ancestors, Saint Dominguito del Val, crucified, when

A U T UMN 2021

not yet seven years old, by Jews out of hatred for faith in Christ on Good Friday of 1250.

From a very young age Rafael Merry del Val had no doubts about the ecclesiastical vocation that Providence opened to him in a dazzling way: he became in charge of pontifical missions at 22, with the title of “monsignor” ​​even before he was ordained a priest; president of the Pontifical Academy of Ecclesiastical Nobles at 34; archbishop at 35; cardinal and Secretary of State at 38, alongside a pope destined to go down in Church history as a giant!

Yet Rafael Merry del Val followed this path out of obedience, not out of inclination: his dream – summarised in the epigraph he wanted carved on his tomb: “Da mihi animas, coetera tolle” – had been to dedicate himself to the apostolate. Zeal for the conversion of Protestants, especially Anglicans, had

53

c a r d i n a l r a f a e l m e r r y d e l va l

The next day the Patriarch of Venice ascended the Chair of Peter with the name of Pius X. In the evening, the new pope granted his first audience to Msgr Merry del Val, who was saying goodbye.

Placing his hand on the young prelate’s shoulder, he said in an almost reproachful tone: “Monsignor, do you want to abandon me? No, no: stay, stay with me. I haven’t decided anything yet: I don’t know what I am going to do. For now I have no one; stay with me as Pro-Secretary of State... then we’ll see. Do me this charity.”

led him to choose the Scottish College of Rome for his studies, but Leo XIII, receiving him in an audience, had firmly told him: “No! Not at the Scottish College, at the Academy of Ecclesiastical Nobles!” The future cardinal Merry del Val obeyed the Pope’s wish and in obedience found the perfection of his vocation. Almost at the end of his earthly life, closing one of his letters of 28 October 1928, he wrote: “How the years have flown! ... Forty years a priest, twenty-eight that I have been a bishop and twenty-five as cardinal. How different my life has been from that I had hoped and prayed for! God’s will be done!”

Leo XIII had intuited the virtues and abilities of the young clergyman, but it was his successor who would inextricably link his name to his pontificate.

In the conclave that followed the death of Leo XIII, the votes of the Sacred College had gone to Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto, Patriarch of Venice. While in the silence of the Pauline Chapel he begged the Lord to remove the tremendous chalice of the pontificate from his lips, the future Saint Pius X saw a figure draw up beside him: it was Msgr Merry del Val, secretary of the conclave, who had come with the order to repeat the appeal of the cardinal dean, whispering these simple words: “Courage, Eminence!”

54

This first meeting sealed the fate of two men so different by birth, education, and temperament, but united in one mind and in one heart by the inscrutable designs of Providence. On 18 October 1903, with a letter in his own writing, Saint Pius X appointed Msgr Merry del Val Secretary of State and cardinal.

When Msgr Merry del Val received the news, he begged and pleaded with the Pope to assign someone else to this position. After listening to his reasons, Saint Pius X simply replied: “Accept! it is God’s will. We will work and suffer together for the love of the Church.”

In the Vatican court, it was somewhat surprising that the Pope had assigned such a young and, moreover, non-Italian prelate to such an office. To a cardinal who had ventured a timid observation on the youth of Msgr Merry del Val, Pius X replied with these words: “I chose him because he is a polyglot. Born in England, educated in Belgium, Spanish by nationality, lived in Italy, the son of a diplomat and a diplomat himself, he knows the problems of all the countries. He is very modest, he is a saint. He comes here every morning and informs me of all matters in the world. I never have to explain anything to him. He also has no foibles.”

From that time forward, for eleven years, in an intimate and profound union of mind and heart, without interruption and without uncertainty, Cardinal Merry del Val bound his life to that of the intrepid Pontiff, supporting him in all battles, starting with the epic one against modernism.

CAL X M ARIA E

a p e r f e c t e x a m p l e o f a s e r va n t o f t h e c h u r c h

“Eleven years,” observes Msgr Dal Gal, “‘cor unum et anima una’ with his Pope and with his Sovereign, with his Master and with his Father, in every event and in every affair, in joy and pain, amid the anguish of Gethsemane and in the glory of the Resurrection, amid the ephemeral jubilation of the Church’s enemies as in the greatness of the same faith and the same immortal hope.”

On the evening of 19 August 1914, Cardinal Merry del Val had the comfort of receiving the last avowal of the dying pope. The holy pontiff, who could no longer speak but was still lucid, clasped his Secretary of State for a long time with both hands, wanting to express to him in this silent gesture all his gratitude for his unlimited dedication to the papal throne and to his person.

In the conclave of 1922, which according to the account of one of its protagonists, Cardinal Gasparri, was one of the most contested in history, Cardinal Merry del Val was close to being elected to the pontificate. An election that would perhaps have changed the course of the Church’s history in this century.

Cardinal Merry del Val was a perfect example of a true aristocrat, not only of blood, but above all of spirit. In him, as is typical of true nobility, magnificence and grandeur were associated with the deepest simplicity and humility.

When he passed through the streets of Rome – the French academician René Bazin noted – “he was the object of universal admiration: one looked at him with interest, one greeted him with fondness”; but when he appeared in the splendor of the Vatican Basilica it seemed that an irresistible charm emanated from his person. “Cardinal Merry del Val, seated on the throne, with liturgical vestments,” an American journalist recalls, “in his marvelous figure gave the idea of ​​the majesty, grandeur, and universality of the Church.”

Until his death, as Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica he celebrated the liturgical ceremonies with scrupulous accuracy and with incomparable dignity.

Crowds of Romans and foreigners came flocking to these as if to an event. In his princely dignity he embodied, against all pauperism and egalitarianism, the splendor of the Roman Church.

A U T UMN 2021

This magnificence was never separated from a profound humility: it was indeed the fruit of his interior life. “The Holy Mass of the most pious Cardinal,” one prelate testifies, “was the revelation of his interior life and the soul of his entire apostolate.” One Polish princess was able to say: “Only once did I see Cardinal Merry del Val praying in St Peter’s. It is to him that I owe my return to the Catholic Church.”

The litany of humility he recited every day as well as the sackcloth he wore under his cassock were an expression of that profound Catholic spirit which manifests itself in denying oneself everything in order to offer all greatness and all splendour to the Church in perfect abandonment to Divine Providence.

In the morning offering, which he recited every day before celebrating Mass, the Prince of the Church prayed like this: “I am willing, O my God, to accept from Your hands, and in the way that pleases You most, health or sickness, wealth or poverty, long life or short life, honours or misfortunes, friendships or aversions, and so on with other things, choosing only what is most in keeping with Your glory.

And if You are good enough to call me to imitate You more closely and intimately in poverty, ignominy, and suffering, O dear Jesus, here I am, ready.”

Until the day of his unexpected death on 26 February 1930, when he was still at the height of his powers, Cardinal Merry del Val remained within the Church the point of reference for all those who took the brilliant pontificate of Saint Pius X as their ideal. In 1953, when Pius X was being elevated to the honours of the altar, his cause for beatification was introduced and he was proclaimed Servant of God. Accepting honours as a cross, Cardinal Merry del Val always sought obscurity for himself and exaltation for the Holy Church. Now, alongside Saint Pius X, he awaits the triumph of that Church which he served so faithfully and which from Heaven protects all those who fight for this triumph.

55

LITANY OF HUMILIT Y by the Servant of God, Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val O Jesus, meek and humble of heart, hear me.

From the desire of being esteemed, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being loved, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being extolled, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being honoured, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being praised, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being preferred to others, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being consulted, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the desire of being approved, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being humiliated, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being despised, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of suffering rebukes, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being calumniated, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being forgotten, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being ridiculed, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being wronged, deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being suspected, deliver me, O Jesus.

That others may be loved more than I, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That others may be esteemed more than I, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That others may be chosen and I set aside, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That others may be praised and I go unnoticed, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That others may be preferred to me in everything, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should, O Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it!

56

sa v e t h e d at e

HEALTH OF THE SICK AND

salvation of souls Church and society in this dark hour of history

A day conference on

23 OCT 2021 . ROME C onf eren c e v i d e os w i l l b e a vai l abl e im m e di at el y af t er th e ev ent.

W W W.V O I C E O F T H E F A M I L Y. C O M

“…she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen 3:15)