Continued...
they undermined doctrine
indirectly
practices
that were opposed to
doctrine.
indirect
doctrine
Lumen Gentium.
and what he did in response:
The following day he wrote:
de Mysterium Ecclesiae.
Five days later we see his frustration
over what he was witnessing:
in the Church itself,
fine domani
segregatio
So he spoke out in full
congregatio
admiratio.
Dei Verbum:
The following month he wrote:
A week later, he wrote:
Continued on Page 10
Vatican Council II in Session
by shifting the focus to the "pastoral" level and promoting
This same tactic, which was employed so successfully by the Left to undermine doctrine, is now being used to undermine morality, as we see in the current attacks on the indissolubility of marriage, and the sinfulness of adultery. It is an
attack on doctrine, which they think enables them to escape doctrinal error.
From the May 11, 1963 diary entry:
"The Conservative-Liberal question: This, I think, is the matter in which most Catholics are interested today.
To be honest and scholarly in this area, we must first of all define our terms. … Liberal Catholicism … is the system of thought by which the teachings of the Catholic Church were represented as compatible with the maxim that guided the French Revolution. In practice the men who advocated the
of separation of Church and State, as these have been condemned by the Popes since Leo XIII, are called Liberal Catholics. … But the men who are called Liberals today, at least the Fathers of the Council who are called Liberals as distinct from the groups known by the reporters as conservative, are definitely not Liberal in the sense that Felicité de Lamennais was a liberal Catholic. Practically, these men who are Fathers of the Council, and who are designated as Liberal by the press, are those who seek a ‘pastoral’ rather than a ‘scholastic’ approach to the teaching and the legislation of the Council. …" (May 11, 1963).
After the experience of the past 50 years, it seems more likely that the Liberals at the Council were identical to de Lamennais in the sense of embracing the liberal doctrines, and only differed in the tactic used to promote their errors: instead of publicly denying the doctrines they rejected (which would get them in trouble), they undermined doctrine indirectly by focusing on "pastoral solutions," which favored and paved the way for the acceptance of the Liberal doctrine.
Fenton continued by noting that although a council is not a theological textbook, if the conciliar teaching is not precise, or if it passes over important aspects of doctrine, it can lead to confusion:
"Of course, the teaching as well as the directives of the ecumenical council should be portrayed in the fullest sense of the term.
The statement of the Council is not a theological text book. At the same time, however, a declaration by a council can cause confusion or finally can actually be harmful when, even though there is no error about faith or morals in it, the statement passes over Truths which are, and which have long been generally recognized as assertions of Catholic doctrine.
On this point, as in other areas, the Fathers of the Council need prudence and they need your prayers" (May 11, 1963).
In September of 1963, he discussed the schema on the Church, which would become the conciliar document
He notes that the first chapter contains the language of Fr. George Tyrrell, who was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X for Modernism. Fenton explains how he was made aware of this
"Fr. Ed Hanahoe gave me two books on Modernism. In one of them I found evidence that the teaching in the first chapter of the new schema on the Church [uses] the language … of Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act."
(September 24, 1963)
"I met Bishop Fearns, and told him about the first chapter. He was startled and hurt to hear about Tyrrell.
Thank God he has some interested in theology. … After Mass I went to see Cardinal Ottaviani. He was astounded about the Tyrrell thing. He wants the exact quote, which I shall give him tomorrow. … Then I went to go see Staffa. He was likewise astounded about the Tyrrell affair." (Sept. 25, 1963)
The next day he wrote: "…I learned that a group of periti had written a Latin letter to the individual bishops, warning them about the ‘New Theology,’ and explaining their responsibilities to them." (September 26, 1963). Unfortunately, warning them of their responsibility to oppose the New Theology did not bear fruit, as evidenced from the fact that Father Henrici, S.J. would boast, after the Council, that the New Theology, which had just been condemned by Pope Pius XII, "became the official theology of Vatican II."
On November 18, 1963, Fenton mentions a paper he wrote in which he urged that they not refer to the Church as a "sacrament":
"This morning I wrote a little paper urging the changing of the word ‘sacramentum’ in the
I gave it to Charue at the beginning of the meeting. I know that it will go into the round file [i.e., the trash can], but at least I tried."
"If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end." (November 23, 1962)
What Fr. Fenton perceived as a possible end to the Church (which he knew by faith was not possible) would instead be a faith-shaking crisis of the Church to an unimaginable degree – a crisis that would cause many to lose their faith
by imaging that the visible society of the Church had morphed into an entirely new entity.
In his diary, Fr. Fenton also comments on other world events. For example, on the day of the Kennedy assassination, he wrote:
"Everyone here is talking about the mess in Dallas. Last night I saw the murderer of Oswald on the … TV.
There were people in the public room, and among them were a young couple from Dallas. They knew a great deal about Rubinstein [Jack Ruby?]. The whole affair appears to be a very deep plot, in which some of the leaders of the police were involved."
In the diary entry two days later, Fenton shows that the "self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians" of his day had a sense of humor. He wrote:
"Cardinal Ottaviani was delighted with two poems I gave him before the meeting. He wants me to write them out for him. I have written them on an envelope. Here they are: "1: There are Weigel and Rahner and Küng Whose praises are everywhere süng.
But some
Old Ottaviani Will see that they’re properly hüng.
"2: Old Suenens dislikes
The bishops are churls So let’s bring in the girl In spite of the world’s
Then, in a different color ink, he added a third poem:
"3: Hanahoe, Fenton, and King Their names have a militant ring They argue for Rome But were silenced at home It was, perhaps, a very good thing."
(November 25, 1963)
On June 4, 1964, he writes the following about the schema on divine revelation, which would become
"The 3th chapter, on the New Testament, has gone by without discussion. I am afraid that this will turn out to be harmful to the Church.
There is nothing erroneous in the material we have passed. But there is a great deal that is incomplete and misleading. … [name illegible] again attacks the attempts made by the Progressives to sneak in ‘Scripture alone’ as a norm." (June 4, 1964)
In his October 3, 1964 entry, Fenton notes that the Church’s teaching on birth control was being publicly attacked by two Cardinals:
"A couple of days ago, Cardinals Suenens and Leger, among others, hit out at the Church’s teaching on birth control. Some fellow from Mill Hill told the reporters … that this was the happiest day of his life. He must have had a sad existence."
"At the moment, it looks like the schematas on the Church and on ecumenism will be ready for Saturday. The latter will be proposed without the chapter on religious liberty and on the Jews. We are much better off now than we were toward the end of the 1st and 2nd sessons. Fr. Charles Davis has inherited Küng’s position as king of the nuts. At the moment they are debating whether the schema on the Church in the modern world is addressed to Catholics & Christians or to the world. There have been some silly speeches. " (Nov. 16, 1964)
"Msgr. Joseph Quinn just told me that the H.O. [Holy Office] is being abolished and that Cardinal Ottaviani will not be the head of the new, nonsupreme, congregation which will take its place. The old man is being humiliated. He is a saint." (Nov. 21, 1964)
Referring to the text on religious liberty, which would become Dignitatis Humanae, he writes:
"The text of [schema no.] 13 is being rushed through. We are supposed to be finished by Sat., Oct. 30. It is like the last days of Congress, when everything goes through without a moment’s halt. … The part on ecumenism is a joke. It reads like a 19th century text, or a second-rate article in a leftist magazine." (October 28, 1965).
Fenton’s statement about everything being rushed through at the end of the Council is interesting in light of something that was discovered by Fr. Brian Harrison. When Fr. Harrison researched the Acts of the Council, he discovered that one of the more
![[image]](images/image_20170521__2__09_0_large_gray.jpg)