SSPX AMERICA BASHING

Let's take another look at that phrase in the Declaration of Independence: "...Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Society criticizes this statement as being un-Catholic in spirit. Their error is in the failure to distinguish between the ability to do something on one hand (power) and the right to delegate the use of a power (authority) on the other. When the Society sees one or the other it is all the same. To them it reads that man is claiming himself as the source of all authority rather than God from Whom all legitimate authority is derived. The Society takes the heretical position that authority flows from God to government directly (Gallicanism).

In reality, we all have a certain power and authority (which comes ultimately from God) in our various situations in life. We may confer the right to exercise a certain power upon others so that they may act for us. A "Power of Attorney," for instance, gives someone the right to act for us under certain circumstances. Remembering the words of Leo XIII, as God gives to us in secular matters, so we may give to others.

Yet this is exactly the concept the Society rails against, and, again we see the Society out of step with the Church. In the formation of a government it is the same thing except that individuals now act in a collective manner to form a government. They give that government specific powers to be exercised on behalf of the people who formed the government. In this there is no conflict with Catholic teaching in spite of the ravings of Society spokesmen. We have but to look to St. Thomas Aquinas and Robert Cardinal Bellarmine for confirmation of that. The heretical notion that authority flows from God to government is the Protestant concept of the Divine Right of Kings - Gallicanism.

Pope Leo XIII wrote to Cardinal Gibbons, in Testem Benevolentiae, referred to as the Encyclical on Americanism, in which he clearly states the proper relationship of the Church to the world. In an earlier letter he had said "...We have also shown the difference between the Church which is of Divine Right, and all other associations which subsist by the free will of men."(*) In this Leo is telling us that the forms of government and how they are constituted are left by God to man. Therefore "Governments...derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" just as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is clear from what Pope Leo XIII has said that the Society's objections are without foundation. Yet the encyclical on Americanism, with which the average layman who supports the Society is unfamiliar, is used by the Society over and over again to bash our country.

* Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885

Bishop Williamson had brought in to the seminary, Dr. John Rao, who referred to our governmental form as that "entire corrupt system" in spite of the fact that he contradicts such great lights of the Church as Bellarmine and Aquinas. In their ignorance of things Catholic or American, dominated by a clergy steeped in foreign influences, thoughts and philosophies, the poor SSPX seminarians absorb this claptrap. It's no wonder that an anti-American sentiment pervades the Society, its seminarians, the student bodies at St. Mary's in Kansas and, from what I'm told, even the poor kids at the Society location at Post Falls, Idaho.  And what of the other Society locations that have "schools?" How are those children being propagandized to hate their country and its traditions? Prudence, therefore, dictates that you try to dissuade any parents you know, that might be considering it, from placing their children into these "schools."

AMERICANISM

For some years now the SSPX has been hitting on the subject of Americanism. The excommunicated and schismatic Bishop Williamson brought to the seminary the aforementioned "Novus Ordo" professor from St. John's University, John Rao, to lecture the seminarians on the subject. The Bishop must have looked far and wide to find someone who held to his jaded and distorted understanding of the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. If this wasn't the case, he surely could have gotten a "traditional" Catholic to bash the United States and its organic laws - i.e., the U. S. Constitution.

To understand the issue of Americanism we need to find out why it became an issue. In 1891 a book was published entitled The Life of Father Hecker. Fr. Hecker (1819-1888) was a convert to Catholicism and the founder of the Paulist Fathers (July 1858) of which he remained its Superior General until his death. In all of his activities the thing he kept uppermost in his mind was the dominant motive for his priestly life - the winning of American Protestants to the Catholic faith.

In 1859, in a letter to Fr. Adrien-Emmanuel Rouquette, Fr. Hecker told of his aspirations for the new order.

"While most helpless and by others regarded as a fool, it was my most intimate conviction that God's Providence was preparing me for a great work, the conversion of our countrymen. The conversion of the American people to the Catholic faith has ripened into a conviction with me which lies beyond the region of doubt. My life, my labors, and my death [sic*] is consecrated to it. No other aim as an end outside of my own salvation and perfection can occupy my attention a moment. But all other things in view of this, -- art, science, literature, etc., etc. enter in as a part of the means, and command my interest, and demand all the encouragement within my reach. In the union of Catholic faith and American civilization a new birth awaits them all, and a future for the Church brighter than any past. This is briefly my 'Credo.' Individually the faith has been identified with American life. Our effort is to identify Catholicity with American life in a religious association. I feel confident of its practicability. I entertain the hope of our opening a door to our young men who aim at consecrating their lives to God and Religion, and of our Institution becoming in the hands of Divine Providence a means of spreading the Faith among our people." Hecker to Rouquette * sic - meaning, to be understood as it reads - Ed. note.

In this letter, Fr. Hecker has shown his great zeal to bring the separated brethren back to the fold. Conspicuously absent is anything dealing with the United States government, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or any other such thing. In the year of 1891 one of his conferees (Fr. Hecker died in 1888) Fr. Walter Elliott, C.S.P., published the book that became a center of the controversy called Americanism.

In another book, Documents of American Catholic History (John Tracy Ellis - 1956) we are told that

"Only once in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States was its orthodoxy of doctrine called in question. The episode grew out of a series of differences within the hierarchy due to the liberal and conservative approach of the bishops to problems such as the secret societies, the teachings of Henry George,* and Catholic participation in the World's Parliament of Religions at Chicago in 1893. The flourishing state of American Catholicism had, meanwhile, attracted the attention of European observers, especially in France where the Church was harassed by the policies of an anti-clerical government. As a consequence, some French Catholic leaders advocated a closer imitation of the Church in the United States, a policy which aroused violent dissent among the more conservative leaders of the French Church. (Enter - the book) A crisis ensued when a careless French translation of The Life of Father Hecker appeared in 1897. The controversy became so heated on both sides of the Atlantic over American (Catholic) teaching and methods that Leo XIII finally took the matter into his own hands and after careful investigation issued a letter (Testem Benevolentiae) to Cardinal Gibbons on the subject." Documents of American Catholic History

*Henry George, b. Philadelphia, Sept. 2, 1839, d. Oct. 29, 1897, was an American social reformer whose Progress and Poverty (1880) won him international fame. In it he asserted that working the land was a natural right and that landlords were not entitled to reap the profits from it. He advocated a tax on land equal to its total economic rent -- that is, the amount by which its value exceeded the value of land in other, less productive uses. Such a tax, he said, would eliminate the need for other taxes. His exposition of the SINGLE TAX theory made George a much sought after lecturer. In 1886 he ran for mayor of New York City; he was defeated, although he ran ahead of Theodore Roosevelt.

What, you ask, was the nature of this "teaching and methods" of which the Holy Father spoke? Now we get down to the crux of this matter on Americanism and we will see how the Society of St. Pius the Tenth has dishonestly used this subject to cover their anti-American tendencies. Quoting from the encyclical (and here we see the tie-in with the book on Fr. Hecker):

"The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned are based may be reduced to this: that, in order the more easily to bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern popular theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held." Testem Benevolentiae

Returning to the author Ellis we read that

"The Pope was careful to say that the erring doctrines had been imputed to the American Catholics by a foreign source, that the issue had nothing to do with the legitimate patriotism of the American (which included our form of government and organic laws -Ed. note), and that he was not accusing the Catholics of the United States of holding these views; he was merely warning that if such doctrines were being taught, they were erroneous." Documents of American Catholic History

The reply of Cardinal Gibbons and the majority of the American bishops was that "this Americanism as it has been called, has nothing in common with the views, aspirations, doctrine and conduct of Americans." Documents of American Catholic History

To better give the flavor of what the Pontiff meant, here are additional excerpts from Testem Benevolentiae of some of these condemned ideas -

"...that a certain liberty ought to be introduced into the Church, so that, limiting the exercise and vigilance of its powers, each one of the faithful may act more freely in pursuance of his own natural bent and capacity."

"If anyone positively affirms that he can consent to the saving preaching of the Gospel without the illumination of the Holy Ghost, who imparts sweetness to all to consent to and accept the truth, he is misled by a heretical spirit."

"God in His infinite providence has decreed that men for the most part should be saved by men; hence He has appointed that those whom He calls to a loftier degree of holiness should be led thereto by men, 'in order that,' as Chrysostom says, 'we should be taught by God through men...'"

"...those who affect these novelties extol beyond measure the natural virtues as more in accordance with the ways and requirements of the present day."

"With this opinion about natural virtue, another is intimately connected, according to which all Christian virtues are divided, as it were, into two classes, passive as they say, and active; and they add the former were better suited for the past times, but the latter are more in keeping with the present. It is plain what is to be thought of such divisions of the virtues. There is not and cannot be a virtue which is really passive. 'Virtue,' says St. Thomas, 'denotes a certain perfection of a power; but the object of a power is an act, and an act of virtue is nothing else than the good use of our free will' (I. II. a. I - Summa), the divine grace of course helping, if the act of virtue is supernatural. The one who would have Christian virtues to be adapted, some to one age and others to another, has forgotten the words of the Apostle 'Whom he foreknew he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son' (Romans, viii, 29).

"...it is also maintained that the way and the method which Catholics have followed thus far for recalling those who differ from us is to be abandoned and another resorted to. In that matter, it suffices to advert that it is not prudent, Beloved Son (speaking to Cardinal Gibbons), to neglect what antiquity, with its long experience, guided as it is by apostolic teaching, has stamped with its approval."

Clearly, we can see that the Holy Father was talking of those within the Church (who alone, properly, have authority to teach the faith) who might be persuaded to "adapt" their methods to "modern man" to bring the "separated brethren" back to the Church. Pope Leo speaks not at all about the governmental makeup of our country which is one of the "other associations which subsist by the free will of men." Nor does he speak to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or anything else like that. The SSPX is deceitful when they use this encyclical to cloak their anti-American fervor in the garb of Catholicity.

But how did all this Society stuff about Americanism really get started anyhow? In the Autumn 1987 issue of the Verbum, the Society's US seminary's newsletter, Bishop (then Father) Williamson came out with the first real broadside against our country (it seems he has never forgiven us for the bloody nose that England got from the colonials in 1781).

I wrote letter after letter to Williamson to get a printed clarification of the term Americanism as used by Cardinal Gibbons to Pope Leo XIII and how that term is widely used by people like myself, for I call myself and Americanist - a term which holds the contemporary political terms of Republican and Democrat in contempt. But Bishop Williamson refused to give ground in his obstinate error. His manner of use of that term held those that referred to themselves by that name, up to ridicule, scorn and suspicion in the eyes of others that patronized Society Mass locations but were not familiar with the finer points of the name Americanism.

It may be just coincident that Williamson decided to attack "Americanists" but I don't think so. It may also have been a coincidence that so many members of the John Birch Society (JBS) were involved in the early development and growth of SSPX chapels and missions and who happened to call themselves Americanist. But why would he do so?

Back in 1983 when "the nine" were kicked out of the Society, their leader at the time was Fr. Clarence Kelly, who had been northeast District Superior (at the time, the Society had two United States Districts, the Northeast, under Kelly, and the Southwest, under Fr. Hector Bolduc). Fr. Kelly, at the request of Robert Welch, the founder of the JBS, wrote a book called Conspiracy Against God and Man. I believe that once the new leaders of the Society realized how involved members of the Birch Society were in their missions and chapels, they decided to try to neutralize them using the phony issue of Americanism.

Was it a coincidence that about the same time (1987) Fr. Lafitte starting attacking the Birch Society directly through his newsletter from the Society's retreat house in Ridgefield, Connecticut?  Or was it a coincidence that Fr. DeLallo, supposedly without permission, writes a book attacking the JBS and then a few years later follows that one up with another (also without permission?).

The John Birch Society holds completely to a strict construction of the Constitution, as it applies to government, and warns Americans of the way those that run government have strayed from constitutional proscriptions.  The members of the JBS understand the Constitution and, therefore, the nature of our government in the same manner as the writers of the Federalist Papers.  When the SSPX attacks the JBS and its members because of what they believe, it essentially attacks the political foundations of our nation.

It should also be explained that members of the JBS are students of the "conspiracy," as opposed to the "accident," theory of history. As such they are accustomed to reading between the lines to understand the meanings of things. This may also explain the SSPX's vendetta against them for JBS members are often the first to smell a rat. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt (with whom I am loath to agree with about anything) "in politics, when something happens, you can bet it was planned that way." The same is true of most things whether caused by a politician or a leader of the SSPX.

The encyclical of Pope Leo XIII deals with matters of a Divine Right while the matter of secular government is that which "subsists by the free will of men."   That really gets the SSPX's goat because they have no claim over that last matter of jurisdiction; especially when they know they have no jurisdiction either in matters divine.  That's why, over the years, they've come out many sermons, letters and articles on what they speciously (having the ring of truth but actually false, erroneous, unsound, and devoid of truth) call supplied jurisdiction.  They're trying like the devil (no pun intended) to convince those who don't know any better that they have the legitimacy of Rome.  Destroy jurisdiction and you've destroyed the SSPX. Without jurisdiction they're just like any other Protestant sect that has broken with the Church and refuses obedience to the Holy Father.  Except most Protestants are honest enough not to claim that they're Catholic.

As I told Fr. Goettler in a letter "the SSPX is the new Protestantism of the twentieth century (and now the twenty-first); that they are going the same way as the Old Catholics; that they're only going to be a pitiful footnote in the pages of history, noted only for the destruction they've caused and the people they've led away from Catholicism into schism and heresy.  Truly sad for something that could have been a great help to the Church it turned its back on."

Lastly, concerning Pope Leo XIII's comment on Americanism and the use of that term, I submit the following.  I submit it because it is the proper understanding of a term that I use to describe my own philosophy for government.

"If, indeed, by that name be designated the characteristic qualities which reflect honor on the people of America, just as other nations have what is special to them; or if it implies the condition of your commonwealths, or the laws and customs which prevail in them, there is surely no reason why We should deem that it ought to be discarded." Testem Benevolentiae

Personally, I'll let Pope Leo XIII, the Vicar of Christ on earth, speak to this issue rather than the leadership of a schismatic, neo-heretical group such as the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. So much for the non-issue of Americanism.

SSPX HYPOCRISY ONCE AGAIN

The circulation of the book, mentioned earlier, by Fr. DeLallo, was a source of controversy. When asked if Fr. DeLallo had Society approval to publish his book, we were told that Fr. DeLallo had done so without the permission of his superiors. Really! He was apparently given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. It is evident the word of Society leaders isn't worth the paper DeLallo's book is written on because, as I've noted previously, he's done it again.*

* The date this paragraph is being written in 7/6/95. In case you hadn't heard the story, DeLallo was supposedly heir apparent to Fr. Scott as District Superior. But, it appears, he has been chastised and did not get that coveted position supposedly because of the backlash his second anti-American screed has caused amongst Society patrons. Then he was supposedly been exiled somewhere until things cool down. At least that's the story. If anyone knows any different, drop me a line or e-mail me and clue me in. - Ed. note.  Update July, 2001 - as of yet, no one has responded to refute this supposition.  As another note to this, another bit of turmoil developed when a couple of years later Frs. Scott and Angles were supposedly given orders to go to other Society locations.  As they are both where they had been, it seems that the rumors we're heard about them thumbing their noses at the Society leadership is true.

It seems that as long as you follow the Society party line and are willing to stab your fellow Americans in the back, the Society will allow you to write and publish what you want.  And if you're a real good Society running-dog your writings will attack a pro-American patriotic, educational organization (the JBS) or the nature and form of the American government.

But there's more hypocrisy.  Back around the mid-eighties another Society priest, Fr. Christopher Hunter, also wrote a book. But, unlike Fr. DeLallo, Fr. Hunter went through the Society's chain of command in requesting permission to publish his book.   Having seen a rough copy I can tell you that it is an excellent rebuttal to the cock-eyed theories of the anti-American writers the Society favors.  It is, in my estimation, a well done and scholarly work, but, its chief drawback, according to SSPX standards, is that it defends American institutions and traditions.  Do I need to tell you the answer Fr. Hunter received to his request to publish?

Of this unpublished manuscript we also have the testimony of Mr. John Parrot who wrote that Fr. Hunter had "researched many of the historical arguments against them (American institutions) by a prominent traditionalist writer [and] he wrote an unpublished manuscript in which he argued in favor of those institutions, on the premise that they were in harmony with Catholic theology as well as Catholic political philosophy."

In the February 1987 issue of the Angelus there appeared an article written by Fr. Hunter entitled Catholics and the Republic.  In this excellent article, Fr. Hunter shows that while the Founding Fathers in the main were not Catholic, nevertheless, the thoughts and principles adopted by them for a form of government for our country were indeed Catholic.

Fr. Hunter showed in a study of the founders writings the similarity to the writings of such eminent churchmen as Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas - probably two of the greatest intellects of the Catholic Church - as well as the great historical writer Dr. James J. Walsh, a prolific writer who, we have been told, wrote one book a year for forty years. These I'll take any day over the pretentious "theologians" and historians of the Society.

In comparison to Fr. Hunter's writings, it is an accurate characterization to say that the rehashed and certifiably discredited meanderings served up by Fr. DeLallo are very much like the kind of yellow journalism you'd expect to find when reading the latest edition of the Inquirer, the Verbum or Ozone Al's latest book.   Yet, Fr. DeLallo can publish, Fr. Hunter can not. Clearly another example of the Society's anti-American bias and of the double standard used by the SSPX leadership.

As I said in a letter I sent out in January of 1993, do not expect to see an end to anti-American diatribes. And sure enough in the October 1993 issue of the Angelus we were presented with another in the continuing series of harangues of the SSPX in their continuing onslaught against our country. And so, it will continue.