AN OPEN LETTER to the Priests of the Diocese of Campos

My Brothers in Christ and My Friends, With great sorrow I read today that you are now "considered perfectly inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church." I never knew you left. During those memorable days when I visited you in 1991 while doing research for my book on your great and honored Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, I had the privilege of witnessing the Catholic life of your diocese, the most perfect embodiment of the Catholic life in a contemporary setting which I have ever witnessed and so much more than I could ever imagine. What a blessing you have been granted! What extraordinary graces you have received, undoubtedly through the prayers and sacrifices and work of the unique Bishop who tended the flock of Campos as shepherd for so many decades. In what way were you not then Catholic? In what way were you separated from the Church?

Your announcement that the Holy Father has signed a "letter of entrance," welcoming you "in full ecclesial communion" along with "the Catholic faithful (you) assist" suggests that there had been some separation with Rome, that you were in fact in some sort of schism. Had not the Catholic Faith been handed down intact and in perfect fullness from Our Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles and through the Bishops of His Church until it came to be passed throughout the Diocese of Campos in our time by the fully Catholic Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer? What did he teach you which was not Catholic? Where did he lead you that left you separated from Rome and thus needing to "return"?

The sad fact is clear, even though the details are not yet fully revealed. You have signed an agreement with Modernist Rome and thereby turned your back on the great legacy of your great and beloved Bishop who left you in April of 1991, left you because God called him home, left you secure and Catholic and well provided for. His legacy has now been compromised through the compromise which must have been made with the current power players in Modernist and Progressive Rome, distinct and separate itself from Eternal Rome. To affect a compromise, one must assume leaving one’s position and moving toward a middle ground. The position you must leave is the fullness of the Tradition of the Catholic Faith; the new position you must reach is closer to the outskirts of the New Rome, the Rome of bureaucrats and ambiguous talk and ecumenism and collegiality and religious liberty, all the temptations and errors against which your good pastor so courageously and so comprehensively warned and instructed you.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his memorable and insightful address at the Harvard commencement ceremonies in 1978 stated that "a decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outsider observer notices in the West in our days." For many years the name of the Diocese of Campos has brought to Catholic souls battling error and decay in their own parishes, the clear and resounding call to Catholic courage. In our apostate times, perseverance becomes an act of courage. The colossal moral and spiritual stature of the small human man who was your Bishop stood as a model for Catholic courage. Do you now cut his memory and legacy down to merely human size? Will the name of Campos no longer loudly ring with courage but echo distantly with compromise?

Who can doubt your discomfort or not sympathize with the loneliness you must have felt over the years? A small group of priests, organized together as the Priestly Society of Saint Jean Marie Vianney, carrying on the work of Mother Church in isolation, unnoticed, ignored, except when vilified by the voices of those who long ago made their compromises. But what could be more indicative of your true role as alter Christi if not your work in loneliness and sorrow, with those mocking and derisive voices assailing you? To imagine yourselves now "inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" is no solution. You may have a few moments in bonhomie with red and scarlet and purple in the cool marble palaces of the Eternal City, but will Tradition continue in the Diocese of Campos after the compromising and celebrating? How have all other traditional groups fared once they have put themselves under the sway of Modernist Rome? I will not give you the litany of loss and change for you are already aware of it; I will just ask you where is the Traditional Bishop promised to the Fraternity of Saint Peter fourteen years ago? Are the prelates in Modernist Rome to be trusted? Will they deliver to you on the promises they have made? I quote the wise Solzhenitsyn again, "Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

You have announced that in a solemn ceremony to be held in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior by His Eminence, Cardinal Msgr. Dario Castrillon, Prefect of the Holy Congregation for the Clergy, in the name of the Holy Father, the Pope, on the 18th January, there will be a reading of documents and the singing of the "Te Deum." The 18th of January also begins the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" decreed by Rome which will culminate in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on January 24th, the second such ecumenical outrage in recent years, a kind of gathering condemned, as you well know, by earlier popes. Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in a joint statement with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre spoke with the voice of Roman Catholic Tradition in condemning the gathering of religions at Assisi in October of 1987 [sic; the event actually occurred in 1986], the first such outrageous ecumenical prayer venture. Have you forgotten his wise and proscriptive words? Will you now join your hands in prayer with Modernist Rome as it openly violates the First Commandment of God and prays with Lutherans and Anglicans and Muslims and Deists and animists in defiance of Catholic Tradition and then will you pretend still to be Traditionalists? Have you forgotten your own words when in your public Profession of Faith in 1982 you rejected "the ecumenism that makes the Faith grow cold and makes us forget our Catholic identity, seeking to negate the antagonism between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial..." ?

You may protest that you will maintain Traditionalism in your diocese, that you will still celebrate the Mass of All Time and teach the old catechisms and carry on in the Traditional ways. But do you not understand that in compromising you accept an absurd contradiction, an illogical proposition that any sane mind must condemn —that Mother Church in Her Divine Authority can teach contradictory ideas at different times and pretend they are both true. How can your Traditionalism co-exist with Modernism? How can the Mass of All Time be equivalent with the newfangled human contrivance? How can Catholics be forbidden from ecumenical prayer at one time and then encouraged in such actions at a later time? As Hamlet says, when staring at the skull of Yorick, the "gorge rises at it." Such a stark and deadly affront to reason is horrifying. Are you now willing to play this absurd Modernist game with Modernist Rome? Many weary and troubled Catholics will feel the weight of your decision. Already the remarks are circulating that you have "sold out" and "caved in" and "given up". The truth is you have abandoned reason. May I remind you of the words of a prayer you have often prayed? "...Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum..." As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end.

In his courageous statement of June 30, 1988, in Econe, on the occasion of the consecration of Traditional Bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, your courageous Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in his message of support and unity spoke the following words:

"It is sorrowful to see the lamentable blindness of so many confreres in the Episcopacy and the priesthood, who do not see, or who do not wish to see, the present crisis in order to be faithful to the mission which God has confided to us, to resist the modernism at present ruling."

You no longer "wish to see the present crisis"; you no longer wish "to resist the modernism at present ruling." By your action of compromise with the "modernism at present ruling," you have increased the sorrow of your great Bishop; you have increased the sorrow of your devoted friends. Our Lord in His agony in the garden certainly suffered from the hatred of His enemies, but such suffering was nothing compared to the certain knowledge that He would be betrayed and denied by His friends and disciples.

Again, I ask you: what is the function of that post (or, for that matter, any post)? I can think of two ends that a poster might have in mind.

The function of the post was in response to another post telling another poster that they hadn't established why Opus Dei is bad. I believe Opus Dei is bad for the Faith because I believe it is a de facto cult, I believe they place no value on the Traditions of the Church and I believe they are such defenders of John Paul II and everything he does that they lose credibility. We can disagree whether Opus Dei is bad or not, but the religion forum is full of opinions. That's why we are here.

So judge in your own case: is your post Wise or Foolish?

Neither. Not everything we do falls into one category of the other. Is it wise or foolish to order a pizza on Saturday night? Just stating my opinion, based upon personal experiences.

If your experience is not too personal, would you consider letting me know what it is that Opus Dei has done that disturbs you?

My three sisters were kicked out of an Opus Dei grade school, even though they were very devout practicing Catholics, received very good grades and paid full tuition. The reason: my parents would not permit them to formally join Opus Dei and become numeraries, super numeraries, etc. They were publicly humiliated in front of other students for not joining.

I have my own personal experience: I was confronted at a social gathering by some lay people who were active in Opus Dei (different city than my sisters). They asked if I had ever considered joining Opus Dei. I replied that I had considered it but decided against it. When asked why, I replied that I felt that since I was baptized a Catholic and a life-long practicing Catholic, I was already a member of the only group I thought I needed to belong to (i.e. the Catholic Church). They replied that I was a "Protestant to think like that" and that I needed more than a personal relationship with Christ. Anyway, being a practicing Catholic was not good enough for them.

I have other instances but these are just a couple of personal experiences which have led me to believe what I do about Opus Dei. In hindsight I probably should have stated my reasons again so that new posters and lurkers knew I was speaking from personal experience. For that I apologize.

I am deeply sorry for whatever I said that offended you. Please believe that it was not my intent.

Thank you and I appreciate your sincerity but an apology is not necessary. I will take your advice seriously and try to be more careful in the future. God Bless.

Don't know if you'd know or not, but is it a sin to hope for the excommunication of a person or people?

I would reference the following:

1. Ezechiel 18:32 and 33:11 - For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, return ye and live...Say to them: As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: and why will you die, O house of Israel?

2. Wisdom 1:13 - For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.

3. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 - I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

4. And, of course, the old favorite: Matthew 5:44 - But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

Those are the ones that I can think of off of the top of my head, that lead me to the conclusion that we are obligated to desire the salvation of all men in particular, even though we know that in general many will be lost and few will be saved. So I would say that if you wanted someone to be excommunicated because you didn't like being in the same Church as him, or you thought he deserved damnation, then I don't see how that would be lawful.

Yet I would also refer to the following:

1. Psalms 17: 36 - ...thy discipline hath corrected me unto the end: and thy discipline, the same shall teach me.

2. Wisdom 12:1-2 - O how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things! And therefore though chastisest them that err, by little and little: and admonishest them , and speakest to them, concerning the things wherein they offend: that leaving their wickedness, they may believe in thee, O Lord

3. Ecclesiasticus 18:13 - He hath mercy, and teacheth, and correcteth, as a shepherd doth his flock.

4. Proverbs 29:15 - The rod and reproof give wisdom.

5. 1 Timothy 5:20 - Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.

From those I would conclude that there are two times when we can desire someone's excommunication: first, if our end in so desiring is that by their punishment they might be made aware of their sin and repent; second, if our end be so that others will be instructed and that scandal will be prevented from spreading.

So, for example, I earnestly desire the excommunication of John Kerry. He really seems to be under the impression that it is possible to be a good Catholic and rabidly pro-abortion at the same time. He also gives many Catholics the same impression. After all, if he is a "Catholic in good standing", why can't I be pro-choice, too, or even have an abortion (well *I* couldn't, anatomically speaking, but you get the idea)?

So while I cannot say with absolute certainty that if John Kerry died today, he would be roasting in hell, objectively his participation in that sin is certainly sufficient to qualify as "a grave matter", and therefore his chances of salvation would be astronomically increased if he should repent of his involvement with the culture of death. But he will probably never do so when from all sides his position is respected as one which Catholics can hold in good conscience.

So I am lead to believe that his excommunication would be a good ordained to the greater salvation of souls, principally his own. Therefore I desire it for the sake of the love which Christ commands me to have for him.

And as a Catholic, is it a sin to tell somebody to drop dead?

Matthew 5:22 - But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I would have to say yes.

Also, profanity is a venial sin, right?

I must admit I do not know.

Neither. Not everything we do falls into one category of the other.

I tend to disagree. From the definition of St. Thomas, an act is Wise if it is rightly ordered toward its proper end. Now any action either attains its end, or it does not. If it attains its end, it does so either intrinsically (and is therefore Wise) or extrinsically (and is therefore Foolish, and attains its end out of mere luck). Again, if it fails to attain its end, it does so either intrinsically (and is therefore Foolish), or extrinsically (and therefore the act itself is Wise, but is frustrated only by circumstance).

But as every agent acts with an end in mind, it seems to me that every act must be either ordered to its end or not, no?

Is it wise or foolish to order a pizza on Saturday night?

If you were hungry, and you felt like pizza, it seems like ordering pizza would attain the end of satisfying your desire, and would therefore be wise. You might say that this is a rather small wisdom, but then again it was a rather small example. That some ends are lesser than others does not mean that they are not ends, or that they are matters of complete indifference. If a matter cannot be even wise or foolish, certainly it cannot ascend still higher to be virtuous or sinful: yet temperance is a virtue and gluttony a sin. So I think we must conclude that even meals should be approached with a certain seriousness, which is probably why we pray before them.

I am inclined say that there is nothing in this world so small that it cannot be an occasion for pleasing God, or offending him, for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all.

It never occurred to me that anyone did not think that we are in a crisis.

"Crisis" is a relative term applied to a turning point in any given situation. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Church history might recognize that the Church has always existed in a state of perpetual "crisis". So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.

3. St. Thomas teaches that the denial of a single article of faith means that a person does not have divine faith even in the articles to which he assents.

I'm not certain that the conviction that contraception is intrisically evil is an article of faith, but since the Church does teach such and assent to the magesterium is an article of faith I'll take your point. But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.

As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy". The thinking must be that God doesn't come into the bedroom. In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"

I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?

Hi Grey Ghost II, hope you had a happy Thanksgiving.

So is it wise or foolish that you are posting on the internet rather than praying?

I believe that there is some confusion. According to the definition that we have been using so far in this discussion, Wisdom consists in ordering an act correctly to its end. So posting on the internet is Wise if it is well ordered to edify and communicate the truth. Praying is Wise if it is well ordered to the ends of prayer (principally greater union with God).

Now, as to the preference for one end over another, that is outside the scope of the definition of Wisdom that we have been using (which I will readily admit is probably only a partial definition). So we must examine the question on other lines.

It is clear that prayer is more excellent than posting. However, I believe that the simplistic conclusion, that one should always choose to pray rather than post, is incorrect. In general, the argument, "X is better than Y, therefore one ought always to do X and never do Y" seems to me to present a logical fallacy. By such reason, no one could ever justify eating, yet it is written, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. If one should never eat or drink, it would be impossible to eat for the glory of God. So I say that all things ought not be compared to each other, but rather all things ought to be considered in the light of God and his purposes.

Of course, the purposes of God are to some extent unfathomable, but I think they err who say God is utterly beyone comprehension. For it is clear from God's own creation that he made both the greater and the lesser. So although Scripture says that He made man a little less than the angels, He did not make only angels, but also men, and still more beasts, and insensate things, and inanimate things also.

Therefore I would conclude that just as we must remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil, we must also remember that the lesser of two goods is still good, and therefore any good thing that we do is pleasing to God, even if there are other things which are more pleasing. And while certainly, they are especially beloved of God who have chosen to give their lives entirely to prayer, for they have chosen the better part, and it will not be taken from them, Martha was saved as well, if ordained to a lesser glory than Mary in heaven.

Do you not agree?

To an extent, yes, but with your overall point I must disagree. To say that the Church has been in a "perpetual" crisis, as though we can make no distinction between the state of the Church during the 13th century and the 14th century, or the 19th and the 20th, is incorrect. It is more accurate to say that the Church has gone through a "series" of crises, or as G. K. Chesterton described it, a series of crucifixions and resurrections. That the present situation is not unprecedented, I grant you. That never before in the history of the Faith has the state of the Chruch been dramatically superior, I do not.

So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.

While we must know that the Providence of God will bring us through this Crisis, as it brought us through the persecutions, and the Deformation, and the Revolution, etc., we must also remember that the Providence of God is never an excuse for our own inactivity, and right action must be based upon an accurate assessment of the situation.

But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.

But ignored by who? There have always been heretics, we might even say that there have always been more infideles then fideles (although I am not sure, I am willing to concede it for the argument), but that 8-9 out of 10 Catholics should have materially apostasied from the Faith on a number of doctrinal points is extremely severe, no? And while that might have been the case at the height of the Arians, it was certainly not the case at the height of the Scholastics.

As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy".

Sola Scriptura is a blasphemous doctrine when applied to Sacred Scripture, but at least in that case it is to a certain extent understandable, given that the Bible *is* the inerrant Word of God, after all. Inasmuch as a Protestant actually reads the Bible without reading into it, he does a laudable and edifying thing. But to take this doctrine and apply it to the writings of men, as many Americans have done, is naked idolatry. The Constitution, no matter how excellent, is a creature. If people choose any teaching of the Constitution over the teaching of the Church, then professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man...changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator. So while I am interested in the causes of this apostasy, and thank you for your analysis (which I tend to agree with), I must say with St. Paul that they "are without excuse." The Constitution can never be pitted against Revelation, or the Supreme Court against the Magisterium.

In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"

Respectfully, I must disagree. To counter in that fashion would be to concede the very principle we are trying to win. To place the Church on the level of some mere corporation, which should be "allowed" to have an influence, is an insult to the Bride of Christ. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. To the Church, and to Peter its earthly head, God gave the power to bind whatsoever he will on earth, and it shall be bound in heaven. To the Apostles and their successors Christ gave the authority of teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

To their rebellious assertion that God does not/should not/is not permitted/etc to come into their bedroom I would simply answer, Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me. And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me: and night shall be my light in my pleasures. But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light as day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast protected me from my mother's womb....My bone is not hidden from thee, which thou hast made in secret: and my substance in the lower parts of the earth.

To the equally impudent assertion that God has no right over "their bodies", I would answer know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.

In my opinion, we cannot try to convince the world to accept this or that principle of Catholic teaching in a way that mitigates the fundamental rights of Christ as our King: not president, not prime minister, not duly elected representative - KING. So while of course I do not think that it was your intent to obscure this fact, I think that would be the practical effect of your argument.

I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?

I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.

So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.

But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.

As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy".

In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"

I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?

I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, none of which I disagree with, except tactics.

In my opinion, we cannot try to convince the world to accept this or that principle of Catholic teaching in a way that mitigates the fundamental rights of Christ as our King: not president, not prime minister, not duly elected representative - KING. So while of course I do not think that it was your intent to obscure this fact, I think that would be the practical effect of your argument.

The fact that Christ is King is already obscured. You can quote scripture all you want but for someone who has denied God's authority over one's body and denied the Church's teaching "access to their bedroom", probably isn't going to recognize an excerpt from a psalm as authoritative.

Pointing out the logical inconsistency in their position, the admittance of one insitution (a corporation motivated by profit)to their bedroom and not another ( the Church, motivated by eternal salvation ) is a good start. The apostle exhorts us to be all things to all people, and there are instances when we must get into the mindsets of those who we are trying to enlighten in order to have any practical effect. In my humble opinion.

I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.

It is a fine order by all accounts. My understanding is that there are more applicants than places available so I wish you great fortune in being admitted. God bless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.