Sun, 21 May 2017 | Cover | Page 08

Fenton Dairies

of the Catholic doctrine. And yet, when the chips are down, the doctrine of Christ always comes through. … This trip has taught me one thing: I definitely am a believer. It has also shown me that some of the leaders in the Church appear not to believe."

On October 9, 1962, four days before the opening of the Council, he wrote: "It is a crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath. Poor Cardinal Ottaviani must have failed to have our own profession passed by the Central Commission. It contained his condemnation of Fr. John Courtney Murray."

On the opening day of the Council, which was the 45th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, he wrote the following about his prophetic fear that the Council could bring trouble to the Church: "I had always thought that this council was dangerous," wrote Fenton. "It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish.

Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way." (Oct. 13, 1962) He expressed the same fear in an article he wrote for the American Ecclesiastical Review, which was published in the same month (October 1962). In the piece, he warned that there was no guarantee that the Council would be a success. He went on to observe that most people mistakenly "imagine that the Council will automatically be a success, and that, as a result, there is no particular need of any prayers for the attainment of the ends for which it was conceived and summoned."

1 He then added:

"Many seem to have imagined that the calling of an ecumenical council was like pushing a magic button, which would automatically and painlessly do away with all of the difficulties being faced by the true Church of Jesus Christ during the second half of the 20th Century. And, as is obvious from a study of the history of previous general councils, and from the consideration of the very nature of the Catholic Church, it is plain that there could be no more serious misconception. The fact of the matter is that the success of the ecumenical council really depends on the effectiveness and the ardour of the prayers of the Faithful."

2

1 Msgr. Fenton, Joseph, "The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council" (American Ecclesiastical Review, October 1962); cited in "1962 Warning: Vatican II May Fail," by John Vennari, ( Catholic Family News, November, 2001).

2 Ibid.

He went on to add:

"It is by no means automatically certain the council will be successful (…) It is possible that the council might act otherwise than with the fullness of supernatural prudence. It is possible that, seen in this perspective, it may not be successful."

3

His fear was realized almost immediately. In his diary entry from October 19, 1962, he discussed the problems with the Council’s schema on the liturgy: "I started to read the material on the Liturgy, and I was shocked at the bad theology. (…) they speak of the Church working ‘quousque unum ovile fiat et unus pastor’ (until there be one fold and one shepherd), as if that condition were not already achieved" (October 19, 1962 pp. 71-72). Another diary entry from the same day discusses an anticipated proposal by the French bishops to shift the focus of the Council from the doctrinal to the pastoral level.

In a moment of frustration, he also complained that the recent Popes (after Pius X) had been liberals who filled the Church with liberal prelates. He wrote:

"Dulac wants me to contact Vagnozzi about a reply to some French bishops.

It seems that these men intend very soon to propose that the Council pass up all the doctrinal schemata and settle for some ‘pastoral’ stuff. I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts: since the death of St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. Father Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of Cardinal Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as Msgr. John Quinn and the sneak Fr. McManus have been put on. Fr. Tavard is there as an American. God help us! From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church ["Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani"]. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now.

We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ." (October 19, 1962, pp. 74 75).

Two weeks into the Council, he again expressed his fears that the Council would end badly for the Church:

"As far as I can see the Church is going to be very badly hurt by this Council. The opposition between the liberals and the loyal Catholics has been brought out into the open. Yesterday a Dutch (Holland) bishop gave a nasty talk in which he claimed to be speaking for all of his countrymen. He charged that the claims (really statements of fact) about theological imperfection in the schema were ‘exaggerated.’ The poor fellow seemed to imagine that a little lack of precision is all right in

3 Ibid.

a conciliar document. I am disgusted with talk of this kind. Another wild liberal speech was made by the auxiliary of Lyons." (October 27, 1962, pp 88-89).

Four days later, on Wednesday, October 31, he expresses his surprise in seeing how liberal the episcopate was at the time, and makes several predictions that would soon come to pass:

"Being at the Council is, of course, the great experience of my life. But, at the same time, it has been a great disappointment. I never thought that the episcopate was so liberal. This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we know it.

There will be vernacular masses, and, worse still, there will be some wretched theology in the constitutions.

… I met dozens of bishops that I know. But I realize that I am all alone. … On the way back from the Council I stopped in to see Cardinal Ottaviani. He seemed shaken by what had happened the day before.

I feel for him. We had a good visit."

(Wednesday, October 31, 1962, p. 95, 96).

The following month, he spoke of those at the Council who were promoting the New Theology, which had just been condemned by Pope Pius XII.

"Ottaviani spoke of the people who are trying to reject this schema as people who favor the New Theology, and who are trying to sow cockle. He was very firm. I could see that the Frenchmen were quite hostile. Fr.

Tromp gave a lot of defense of the schema. … Tromp has just pointed out that a pastoral council should not be non-doctrinal. Tromp is being very good. He is defending the schemata.

He definitely is not going to break to the opposition. We are hearing history. What is the theological note of what is contained in the doctrinal constitution?" (November 13, 1963, pp. 104-105)

The entry for the next day is interesting because we begin to see that the Liberals were doing with doctrine exactly what they are doing now with morality, namely, separating (and opposing) doctrine from practice. Fenton notes that Cardinal Ottaviani spoke out against this error:

"Today the 1st speaker is Ottaviani.

He is magnificent. He insists: 1) They must consider this schema, 2) Pastoral & doctrinal are not opposed, 3) We should not have the New Theology.

… Cardinal Lienart is against [the schema]. (…) He takes no cognizance of the fact that this has been the language of Catholic theology since Trent. He imagines that the language is ‘cold’. He uses the ‘separated brethren’ [terminology] of a lousy theologian. (November 14, 1962, p.

110-111)

The entry for November 23 begins to reveal which side Pope John XXIII was on. Fenton explains that the vote to reject the schema (a schema which was supported by the conservatives) did not pass. In response, John XXIII simply changed the rules by reducing the twothird requirement down to 50% (which the liberals had), and viola the problem was solved. This allowed the schema to be discarded, thereby scoring a victory for the liberals. Regarding this event, Fenton wrote:

"This has been one of the most adventurous weeks of my life.

Tuesday they took the vote. It was about 60% against the schema and 40% for it. They announced that, since the opponents did not gather the required two-thirds, they would continue with the discussion of the schema. I was delighted, of course. For several days the old man [Ottaviani] had been taking it on the chin. … At noon, [name unreadable] called me … [and] told me the bad news. At the Pope’s own order the rules were changed and the schema was thrown out. A new commission was set up including Cardinal Meyer, Alfrink, and Lienart. On the same day Time Magazine came out with a dirty personal attack against Ottaviani. I went up to see the old man in the afternoon. He is angry and he talks about more action from our side. … As I left, Paul [last name unreadable] was going in. He was crying. And he said that this was the time of the devils" (November 23, 1962).

Two days later, Fenton wrote that John XXIII was "definitely a lefty":

"After supper I finished the Tederchi book. It is a scorcher. It simply shows that some other people believe what I have thought for several months, namely, that John XXIII is definitely a lefty. This nonsense to the effect that he is ‘deceived’ or ‘mal servite’ is disgraceful. He is the boss." (November 25, 1962, pp 120-121).

The following day, he wrote:

"The articles in the Milan Corriere della Sera tell of the Pope’s connection with Fr. Ernesto Buonaiuti [previously excommunicated for Modernism], and they make him look like a real Modernist, at heart. He probably is. In light of what Tederchi has written, it is easy to see why Cardinal Ottaviani has taken such a bad beating in the Council from the Pope." (Nov. 26, 1962)

In May of the following year, the diary entry discusses the Conservative-Liberal question. Fenton explains that, in his opinion, the Liberals at the Council differed from the Liberals of the 19th century, such as de Lamennais. In reality, however, the difference was likely only one of tactic. The difference that Fr. Fenton refers to is that the 19th century Liberals denied doctrine directly, whereas the liberal Bishops at the Council did not. Their tactic was much more crafty (and more successful):

Continued Next Page

Continued from Page 7

[image] [image]

First officers of the Catholic Theological Society of America , left to right: Fr.

James E. Rea, Fr. Gerard Yelle, Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. Francis J. Connell