Les Relations des Jésuites contiennent 6 tomes et défont le mythe du bon Sauvage de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, et aussi des légendes indiennes pour réclamer des territoires, ainsi que la fameuse «spiritualité amérindienne».

samedi, avril 14, 2007


by Larry Henderson
(London, Ontario)

Finally, there is the matter of The University of St. Michael's College, a wheel within a wheel, where I have held my contract for 28 years since 1966. During most of my tenure there, my closest friend was Father John Kelly, c.s.b. He was President of the College between 1958 and 1979 and President of the St. Michael's College Foundation until January of 1986.

In January of 1986, at the age of 75 and after 28 years as President of the College and its Foundation, Father Kelly was abruptly removed from the Foundation, the Board of the Toronto School of Theology, and several other Boards. Rather bluntly, he was told to pack his bags, leave the College within two weeks, and go to live in a small isolated house in Bond Head, Ontario. He died a few months later - on 26 September 1986.
Never before, as I indicated earlier in this book, in the 140-year history of the College, had a 'retired' priest been treated in this way. Kelly confessed to me in the last conversation I had with him that it was the only time in his life that he had been tempted to renounce his vows ('but once taken, Bob, always taken'):

We once chose another way,
And integral men and women
Are loyal to their vows: other-
Wise the precipice of Lemuria
Looms before us
Yet once more!
(ROD, Triad, Toronto: 1993)

In the same conversation Kelly revealed that the University of St. Michael's College had - literally - been sold, 'lock, stock, and barrel' a short time previously.

To whom? I didn't know at the time and Kelly knew I perhaps wouldn't understand even if he told me. It is clear from the article below who the buyers were: the forces of the New World Order.


There are certain things which members of the Roman Catholic Church are still unwilling to face. One of these is the fragmentation of our religion. This is not something for which the Church itself is to blame, due to its 'intransigence,' its 'backwardness,' or any of the jibes thrown at us today. It is solely due to the disloyalty of our dissidents.

There is no single cause for the phenomenon, no one failure which has to be corrected or put right. The dissidents themselves have dismembered the body of Mother Church, each tearing her apart, to make of her something which she is not. There are as many agendas in the Church today as there are people seeking to change her.
It is therefore untrue to say that we are still One, True Church when her own members are working against her, trying to alter her beliefs, remake her rituals, often in different and contradictory ways. It is important for the understanding of our time to realize that this is a demographic revolt, peculiar to the rich, urban populations of North America, Europe, Australia, etc. and not a popular rising against Mother Church.
We need to look, therefore, at some of the many different agendas behind what is now called the Catholic Revolution.


One of the most insidious agendas today is something which calls itself the 'Community Church'. This sometimes goes by the name of 'base-communities,' which began in the Third World under Marxist inspiration to help change the often oppressive social system. Many priests and religious were drawn into this work for ideological reasons. I encountered them in Brazil and in Africa and I noticed their independence of view, which paid little or no attention to the religious aspect of their vocation. Some priests did not say their office any more, and the Mass itself had become an occasion for revolutionary harangues.

In particular, the writer was struck by a remark by a nun, who said: 'Next, we will take the base communities to Canada.' In fact this is now happening. Social action is the primary expression of religion. There is a concerted attempt to involve laity in ministry and to obliterate the sacerdotal role of the priest. The number of officiating ministers has multiplied, as altar servers, readers, communion ministers, pastoral assistants, etc. In some parishes lay people concelebrate, in others the priest sits idly by while laity conduct the service.
No one who follows this agenda talks about holy days, vigils, or devotions any more. In fact, for them the community sanctifies faith, not the other way round. (A Gallup poll in 1991 says 23 per cent of US Catholics believe the Real Presence only exists because of their personal belief).

There is no way that this can be represented as the Catholic Church. The community church is represented by those who advocate it as a 'social network.' Its supporters frequently speak of it as 'fulfilling God's dream of a world healed of poverty, violence and injustice.' These are political ends. Christ did not come into the world to talk of dreams but of salvation.

Christ is notably absent from the community church. In fact, He is sometimes referred to as a 'failure' (presumably because He did not succeed in establishing the Kingdom on earth). The community church, therefore, is called upon to do what Christ could not do. 'Christianity must change,' say the Whiteheads, authors of Community of faith, crafting communities today, (1992) ,until it better matches the dream God is dreaming for us.'

A fantasy? By no means. All this is now being enacted for us in 'experimental' dioceses like Archbishop Ebacher's Gatineau-Hull, Archbishop McNeil's Edmonton, and Bishop Remi de Roo's Victoria, B.C., and also, in lesser degree, wherever there is a priest who has re-dedicated himself to the community church.
When the priest refuses to go into the sanctuary and stands among the people, these thoughts are present in his mind. When he turns his functions over to the people, he is teaching them to think communally. When he encourages them not to kneel, and gives them baker's bread for communion, and tells them they are priests of the Order of Melchizedek, he is training them for the community church.

Is this the future of the Catholic Church? If so, it is also the end of it.


I would like, if possible, to write something about feminism in the Church which is not a rant, but which might throw a more useful light on the subject from historical and cultural points of view.

Radical feminism is, of course, an agenda and like all agendas, it has a right to present its case. The case is understandable. Women today demand equality and feel they have a right to do whatever men do (though in one or two instances this is impossible). Hence the demand for women's ordination.

But here we come up against something which is more than mere prejudice or out-worn custom. In a world which distrusts the past and even detests it, it is hard to assert any law of nature. Yet biology does impose certain inescapable imperatives upon US.

Sex roles have become indeterminate, but no male has borne a child, and no woman has fathered one. Similarly, while some women have been goddesses, monotheism has always revealed God as Father.

God begets, woman nurtures the Son. The priest has always represented Christ in the eucharistic act, and that is why he is called 'Father'. The priest distributes the bread of Life, and the 5000 are fed. The pattern is carried out throughout the higher Creation, and indeed, it is imitated in biology, physics, and even psychology. We cannot fail to observe the predominance of the holon among the most complex forms nature presents to us, so that we can safely assume that wherever there is life it must be hierarchically organized.

Such is the ancient wisdom of the race, although it may seem, nonsense to those born since 1950.

Alfred Koestler, in his book The Ghost in the Machine, writes, 'The Will of God, or the Law of Nature, as the organizing and harmonizing principle of the universe, is one of the most powerful archetypes of human experience ... the most representative in all mythologies.' No wonder it is reflected in our liturgy!

These have been Catholic beliefs throughout history and were certainly known to Christ. They were known to the Holy Father when he wrote his recent letter on the ordination of women. We are talking about symbols, but they are the way we apprehend truth. To change the most profound symbols (Jung would call them archetypes) is to change our religion.

That is why radical feminism, as an agenda in the Church, is perceived as anti-Catholic. 'l am convinced', wrote Jung, 'that the impoverishment of symbols in our time has a meaning. We are the rightful heirs of Christian symbolism, but we have squandered our heritage.'

And that is why the most radical feminists do not really aim at the priesthood. They have set themselves the goal of undoing the very framework of the Church itself. At the Women in the church conference in Washington, DC in 1986 (which was attended by Bishop Remi de Roo of Victoria, BC), a Sister said, 'God is going to change. We women are going to bring an end to God. We will be the end of Him. We will change the world so much, He won't fit in any more.'

It is a terrifying agenda. No one could have foreseen, at the end of Vatican II, when the order of the Mass was changed, and people began to receive the eucharist in the hand, with extraordinary ministers giving it out instead of the priest, that all this would lead to words like those of Sister Kolbenschlag, quoted above.


'One world' has been a perennial shibboleth on the political scene through most of the 20th century. People old enough to recall the 1930s will remember Clarence Streit and his one-world campaign, which filled public halls all over the West. The only trouble was that it made no impression on Hitler.

One worldism worked its simplistic appeal in the 1960s so long as it seemed the appropriate answer to war - the trouble then was that it meant one-world under communism to the Kremlin.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a new twist has been given to the perennial dream - the Churches have taken it up. Nothing new about this: peacemaking is the Gospel way, and ecumenism is one of the new directions of Vatican II.

But now it has acquired a new meaning - literally, the overthrow of God. One world to many people means one God (or no God), equality of belief (or no belif), and an end to all theological disputes. The politically correct view.

This probably appeals to most people as a satisfactory outcome to our human story, at the end of the 20th century. It is a philosophy for people who don't know much about religion, and for whom religion is something you make up for yourself.

The surprising thing, which occupies us here, is that it appeals to a great many churchmen, specifically Roman Catholic. Among the great names we could mention are: Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal Glemp, Cardinal Etchegaray, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his many clerical followers, Fr. Gustavo Guiterex, the father of liberation theology, virtually the whole school of Maryknoll theology, and, quite possible, your own pastor.

None of this means that they are all extreme cases, yet many are. They do not hide it. Cardinal Bernardin sponsored the World Parliament of Religions in 1993, together with the Catholic Theological Union, and the Centre for the Study of Values, De Paul University, Chicago. (Funding also included the World Bank, the U. N. Development Program, UNESCO, etc.). It is worth mentioning that the Southern Baptist Conference and the Eastern Orthodox Church walked out.

We have to ask: what is in it for Catholics? I invite you to consider several quotations. Cardinal Glemp, of Poland, told Fideleter magazine (Nov./Dec. 1992) 'The Church does not have a monopoly on saving man. Many religions can do that. There are no false religions. All religions have truth. (I am indebted to John Cotter's book Syncretism, Angelus Books, 38 Jill's Ct. Barrie, On., L4M 4L7, for this and other quotes on this subject.).

The father of this philosophy in the Church is, of course, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin. A monitum against his writings is still in effect. Nevertheless, his influence among churchman is enormous. He has said: 'The Age of the Nation is past. The task before us now, if we would not perish, is to build the Earth.' This accurately reflects the views of many bishops, clergy and religious. The fact that he participated in a hoax which backfired (the Pitdown Man) to prove evolution has not diminished his influence.

Many more have been influenced by Fr. Thomas Merton, who developed a strongly pro-communist and pro-world government stand before he died in 1968, while attending a 'Spiritual Summit' conference in India. He told the Conference: 'We are already one. What we have to do is to rediscover our original unity.'

When the charismatic leaders of the Catholic world play down the Gospel call ('No man comes to the Father but through Me') we are in trouble. None of the Church leaders mentioned here (with the exception of Fr. Teihard) has been censured for what he has said. It has become more important to show a Catholic openness to One World than to maintain the original message of the Saviour. Faithful Catholics must expect trouble, therefore. We must expect persecution. We must expect the Cross. Few are those who are willing to endure it.


One of the most aggressively pushed agendas in the Church today is the New Age. This does not appear overtly, and a casual churchgoer might never notice it. But the undercurrent is alive with it.

A good place to look is the book rack at the back of the church. Pamphlets on 'Chakras, or spiritual energy centres,' 'Crystals and Meditation,' 'Channelling yourself,' notices for 'Centering prayer' in the parish hall, not to mention retreats with 'Journaling, guided meditation, and visualization,' etc.

Harmless? you say. But it has taken over whole convents, retreat houses, schools, etc. It is the start of a new religion, and Catholic premises and leadership are being used for it. And since Catholicism is the predominant religion in North America, it represents millions of people, reciting mantras and performing yoga in the House of God.

How did this ever get started? When changes began after Vatican II, the idea of change itself had great appeal - and not least among the clergy and religious. We did not want to think we're a rigid and unimaginative people. But where did it stop? It didn't.

Worse, we were infected by a spirit of rebellion against authority, a mood which seized all of society and has not yet run its course. Not to put too strong a word on it, we learned to hate the past - and the past included Jesus Christ.

In fact, it was Father Matthew Fox, the guru of the New Age, who said himself, 'Beware the gods of the past.' So we began worshipping the future, in which we were all to be gods.

Ever seeking a new thing, as St. Paul says, we turned our eyes to the East, we experimented with mind-bending techniques, we told ourselves all power in heaven and earth was ours, and a great deal more nonsense.

And then the most extraordinary thing happened. Big Business took up the New Age. Companies like Procter and Gambel, Ford, Polaroid, signed up New Age consultants, and began to compel their employees to undergo New Age practises, like T.M. (the Transcendental Meditation) and encounter sessions. It become fashionable.

Harmless? Yet there is a devil in it somewhere. First of all, what has become of Jesus Christ? The New Age has no use for Him, His divinity, His message, His sacrifice. The emphasis is all on spirit worship and primitive religion.

At this summer's Catholic Religious Education Conference in Los Angeles, a male liturgical dancer wore a mini-loin cloth, with nothing on underneath - and this at a Mass! Protests were heard, and Cardinal Mahony's own newspaper, Tidings, called the protesters 'dissidents'!

Unfortunately, the National Catholic Education Association has been a fountainhead of New Age propaganda. Sister Judith Bisignano told the convention, 'Children are an oppressed minority and certainly Catholic schools have the ability and the freedom to be leaders of the New Age model.'

Teachers seem to have a particular affinity for the New Age. Laura McArthur, the late head of Toronto Right to Life, once told me that a well known Toronto teacher had given her son a copy of Fr. Fox's book, A Musical, Mystical Bear. That is as far as New Age religion goes.

Of course, books like that show how thin, how threadbare the whole New Age philosophy is. I once asked a grocer what was really in cream cheese. He said, 'It's cheese for people who don't like cheese!' That's New Age. Religion for people who don't like religion.


The most seductive of all agendas, however, is that of the Permissive Church. People have been indoctrinated into the concept of their 'rights'. The most common phrase today is 'I have a right.' Especially a 'right to happiness'.

How true is this? The great Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, said this sounds as odd as saying 'everyone has a right to good luck!' 'We depend for a very great deal of our happiness on circumstances outside our control.'

If we put happiness first - our own happiness - we are pretty sure to make a lot of other people miserable. Ye this is what a permissive society means. Now it has been accommodated in North America by the Church that follows the permissive agenda. The first move in this direction was made by the Canadian bishops who made Humanae Vitae (not a new teaching) a permissive document, since they said it need not be followed if your conscience was against it. Soon everyone decided to follow their conscience in pretty well everything.

The theologians were quick to agree that the right to happiness was a deeper insight into our faith. 'Godliness,' the late Fr. André Guindon told us, 'is not so much concerned with sexual matters as it is with liking and loving others'. According to this theory the practice of adultery, homosexuality or promiscuity should not be regarded as sinful. But those who have adopted the permissive agenda evidently believe that Scripture has to be re-interpreted, or 'inculturated,' in order to suit our modern perceptions. And, if pressed they can call on Scripture scholars to state that the Word of God is not God's word at all. The Lord of the Universe is not the God of hangups and no-nos, they say.

Sin, therefore, has been removed from the agenda of the permissive society, or at least transferred to other matters, such as offenses against social justice and the environment. Thus reordering the universe, which has always shown us that everything in life has to be paid for, has turned the Catholic Church (or those who follow this agenda) into one of the main agents of permissiveness.

How else are we to characterize the most obsessive emphasis placed on sex education? 'Young people are going to have sex anyway, says the Sister in charge of sex education,'so we may as well tell them how to have safe sex,' meaning condoms. Some courses, like the New Creation series, are written by people who actively encourage pre-marital sex.

How can this happen in a Catholic school? The answer has to be that educators do not fight sexual promiscuity, they believe in it! Don't say it's not happening. Just this summer, in the diocese of Rochester, NY, a seminar on homosexuality was held at Holy Name Church, at which it claimed that early Christians celebrated homosexual marriages. And in nearby Toronto, workshops in St. Bonaventure Church, attended by teachers and parents, heard the homosexual lifestyle called good, normal and legal. (The meetings were held under the auspices of the Toronto Metro Separate School Board).

Thus we see the Catholic school system pushing the permissive agenda to the point of proselytizing an immoral way of life - at least immoral in any sense that Catholicism has ever held.

The result is that much of the Church in North America has abandoned the Decalogue (most of the commandments are nonos) in favour of a secular philosophy which fits more agreeably with the prevailing culture. It is possible that this is acceptable to a number of Catholics. That is why Catholics contracept, abort, and divorce at approximately the same rate as non-Catholics . But never before has the Church taught sinfulness.

And this is why I believe the permissive agenda is the most dangerous of all the agendas in the Church today.


It is important to stress that the agendas mentioned here are not freakish side issues on the Catholic scene. For millions of Catholics they are the issues, either singly or together. Even more important, they have, either singly or together, seduced many of our Catholic leaders, our Catholic teachers, our Catholic press.

We have become an agenda people, that is to say, we are obsessed by our agendas, and nothing else seems to matter to us. Our agendas have become our religion.

None of these agendas mentioned here have anything to do with religion. Community church people care less about sacramental religion than they do about running the Church themselves.

These agendas are, in fact, sub-cultures which have found a home in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, many priests and bishops have entertained them, confusing the people and leading to the loss of souls. They have welcomed the non-religious, and driven out the faithful.

The common factor in all these agendas is the total absence of sacramental religion. There is no mention of the saving of souls, the reparation for sins, the attainment of heaven. Have we ceased to believe in these things? If so, we do not have a Church, we have a collection of special interests, using the name of the Church to promote themselves. This cannot continue. The fact that some shreds of religious practice are still employed to support our agendas does not justify anything. Without genuine religious belief, we are on our own.

Faith means faith in the supernatural. Think of Nathaniel under the fig tree. Think of the Temple built in three days. The Pope continues to preach the whole Deposit of Faith, but are Catholics listening? If they listened, they would know that the Holy Father is leading a new age of evangelism. There is no time left for agendas, and that is 'Christ Jesus, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.'

The above article was first published in Challenge: A Magazine of Catholic News and Opinion (Toronto, September 1994).

"Think not that I am come to bring peace on eafth: I come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. And he that taketh up not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." -Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-38

'you cannot silence my thoughts. I learned them from Jesus Christ, who made a terrible joy, and sent it to overturn governments 'W.B. Yeats, Where There is Nothing.

Aucun commentaire:

Archives du blogue