Holy Cross Seminary

Frequently Asked Questions About Catholicism
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

Question: Is it permissible for a traditional Catholic to teach in a public school?

Answer: It is permissible for a traditional Catholic teacher to teach in a public school, but only provided that he or she does not compromise his Catholic principles.

Nevertheless, a Catholic who really loves his Faith would want to teach in a traditional Catholic environment, where the knowledge that he imparts can be integrated into the knowledge of God, religion and the Faith, and can be subordinated to the Divine Wisdom that we learn from our Catholic Faith. He will also appreciate the moral and disciplinary support that he finds in a Catholic school, and the harmony that exists within the faculty and between the direction and the students of the school.

He will consequently not be deceived by the apparently greater good of being a "lighthouse of truth in the stormy sea of indifferentism". A good Catholic teacher, determined to live a serious and profound spiritual life, will do much more good in a traditional Catholic school, in which he is backed up by his Principal and fellow teachers, than in the secular environment of a public school. For in the Catholic school, he can work to form an elite, which elite once formed will continue on his own work for souls. However in a secular environment he is limited to simply touching souls, and is unlikely to bring about a profound change in such souls, unless he can convince them to enter into a traditional Catholic school.

This having been said, it is certainly true that some teachers do not have the possibility of teaching in a traditional Catholic school, or cannot live without the income and benefits that the public school system provides. In such a case, it is permissible, provided that there is no danger to their own Faith, and provided that he or she stands up publicly for Catholic principles of Faith and morality. In this way, he or she would not be seen to cooperate in any way with the evil and falsehood that are propagated in public schools, nor to support the system without God that is destroying our youth, and could certainly be a blessing to the isolated souls that are seeking the truth.

Question: What is liberalism?

Answer: The difficulty in defining liberalism lies in its continual evolving and ever changing ideas, always mutating into new, more or less radical forms. It is often very difficult to seize a hold of, penetrating as it does in varying degrees, more or less well camouflaged, into every aspect of human activity and thought.

However, the principles of liberalism are very clear, and once they are understood the intellectual and moral perversion of this way of thinking and acting can be clearly seen.

Father Roussel, in his excellent work Liberalism & Catholicism (available from Angelus Press), defines the liberal in this way: "The liberal is a fanatic for independence, and proclaims it in every domain, even unto absurdity" (p.6). Consequently it consists not in any particular doctrine, but in a way of thinking. Liberalism is "a sickness of the mind, an orientation rather than a school, a perversion of sentiment based on pride, or a state of mind rather than a sect. Liberalism appears then as ‘a disordered affection of man for his independent liberty, which makes him abhor any limit, bond, yoke or discipline from the law or from authority’. (Ibid. p. 8)

The other author whose excellent exposé or liberalism is much recommended is Father Sarda y Salvany, in What is liberalism? He outlines in this way the radical principles which are the basis of its propaganda:

"1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, moral, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press."  (pp. 18 & 19)

It is consequently the placing of the individual, society, the people or freedom as absolutes in themselves, over and above Almighty God. One might wonder how it is that Catholics, who of our nature profess submission to God through our holy religion, could fall into such a trap. The answer is our natural desire of independence, on account of which liberalism is in accord with our fallen depraved human nature, and our natural tendency to follow Lucifer’s rebellious refusal to serve. Consequently we are always inventing ways to compromise the absolutes of our Faith with the spirit of the world, entirely penetrated by liberalism. Hence the development of "Catholic" liberalism throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries, that Archbishop Lefebvre does not hesitate to stigmatize as "the great betrayal". For an understanding of how these liberal principles became accepted by Vatican II, producing the novelty of religious liberty, the revolutionary idea that all religions should be equally free for as long as they do not impinge on others’ freedom, which is nothing short of the denial of Social Kingship of Christ, I refer you to the magnificent exposé by Archbishop Lefebvre They Have Uncrowned Him (Available from Angelus Press).

Allow me to sum up by quoting the magnificent 1888 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (Libertas praestantissimum – available from Angelus Press), in which he describes and condemns the varying kinds and degrees of liberalism, from the radical liberalism of those who refuse the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church to the moderate liberalism of those who promote separation of Church and State, or maintain that the Church ought to adapt itself to modern systems of government: "To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists. The form, however, of the sin is manifold: for in more ways than one can the will depart from the obedience which is due to God or to those who share the divine power" (§36)

Question: What is collegiality?

Answer: Collegiality is the application to the church of the principles of democracy, founded on the freemasonic revolutionary slogan of "liberty, equality, fraternity". It is an alternate, brought about since Vatican II, to the monarchical and hierarchical structure instituted by Christ, based upon personal responsibility of priests, bishops and Popes standing in Christ’s place. In fact, at the present time two parallel authorities exist for the government of the Church. On the one hand is the divinely instituted hierarchical authority, expressed through the Pope and the Roman Congregations over the entire Church, the Bishops over their dioceses, and the priests in their parishes. On the other hand is the revolutionary and democratic authority, a human creation imposed since Vatican II, according to which the episcopal college also has the authority to govern the entire church, the episcopal conferences of each country also have the authority to tell the bishops how to govern their diocese, the presbyteral council also counterbalances and limits the authority of the bishop in his diocese, and the parish council makes the important decision in parish government. Needless to say, there is a direct contradiction between these two authorities, and any authoritative government of the Church, including condemnation of heresies, is entirely paralyzed.

The most dangerous aspect of collegiality is this theory as it applies to the supreme authority of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals. Previously it was taught that this authority was entirely in the person of the Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, who can share this authority with the entire episcopate at the time of an Ecumenical Council. The Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen gentium, teaches the novelty that an episcopal college exists at all times, and that the bishops throughout the whole world make up that college, which together with the Pope, has the supreme authority. The college is consequently established as an alternate authority to that of the Pope alone, and this at all times, regardless of the Pope’s will. The Pope is consequently not able to go against the democratic majority of bishops, whose authority is equal to his, provided that these bishops are in communion with him. It is in these words that Lumen gentium states this: "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never part from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church" (§22).

We thank God that this denial of the Primacy of the Pope is contradicted by the Nota Explicativa that the more traditional Fathers at Vatican II forced Pope Paul VI to add to Lumen gentium. However, the liberal theologians do not take this explanatory note into account, and all they retained is the new collegiality, and its paralysis of personal authority.

Romano Amerio in Iota Unum has this comment to make: "There is a conflict between a process of democratization and the divinely constituted nature of the Church...The Church...did not form itself, nor did it establish its own government; in its essentials it was established in toto by Christ, who established its laws and laid down its constitution before summoning mankind to join it...The Church is therefore a unique kind of society, in which the head exists before the members and authority exists prior to the community. Any view that sees the Church as being based upon the people of God, conceived of in a democratic sense...is at odds with the reality of the Church." (p. 522-523)

Question: Are Catholics bound in conscience to accept all Papal teachings, or just infallible teachings?

Answer: Clearly Catholics have a duty to obey all Church teachings. However, there are varying degrees of obligation according to the different degree of authority that is attached to the teaching, and to how it is presented. You will find these distinctions in any standard textbook of dogmatic theology.

Dogmas defined ex cathedra must be accepted under pain of losing the Faith, in such a way that a person who professes the direct contradictory of an act of the extraordinary Magisterium defining such a dogma, is correctly called a heretic.

Dogmas are frequently taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Clearly we owe them the adhesion of our Faith, and a person who would knowingly deny one of these would be a formal heretic. The problem, however, is that of determining what really is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium (i.e. that which has always and everywhere been taught), and consequently that which really is infallible. This is the work of theology, but since human judgements are involved errors can enter in. It is consequently often not possible to call a person who denies such a dogma a formal heretic, until such time as his error has been condemned by an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium. This is what was done at the Council of Trent for the protestant errors, for example concerning justification and the sacraments.

There are other teachings of the Church which are neither a part of the Extraordinary Magisterium nor a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but which are authentically proposed by the Church. This includes the bulk of the teachings in the Papal encyclicals. Such teachings of the Authentic Magisterium are not infallible, but cannot be discarded for as much. As Pius XII stated in Humani Generis, and as John Paul II has reiterated, such teachings must be accepted with reverential respect. Allow me to quote from Humani Generis:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For...generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine." (§20).

However, since they do not invoke the full authority of the Church and are not infallible, they can be wrong. Needless to say they can only be rejected or refused if they are in direct contradiction with infallible teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. This is the case with the teachings of Vatican II, which refused to use its charisma of infallibility. It is an act of the Authentic Magisterium, which reiterates many dogmas infallibly taught by the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium, but which also includes novelties, such as religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality which must be refused because they are in direct contradiction with the Church’s previous teachings. e.g. Pius IX in Quanta Cura & Pius XI in Mortalium animos.

Question: What is Ecumenism?

Answer: The description of this movement of dialogue and mutual exchange on religious questions with non-Catholics, and this on a basis of equality, is first made in a Papal encyclical of Pope Pius XI, in Mortalium animos, "On Fostering True Religious Unity, published in 1928.

This is the Pope’s description: "Assured that there exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they seem to ground on this belief a hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life. With this object, congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion." (§2)

Follows immediately afterwards the Pope’s condemnation of "the panchristians", whose "fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic Faith" (§3): "Such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy (this is the error of indifferentism), inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God." (§2)

In his instruction on Ecumenism in 1949, Pope Pius XII ordered that, in opposition to such "dangerous indifferentism", "Catholic doctrine must be propounded and explained in its totality and in its integrity. It is not permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms what is comprised in the Catholic truth on the true nature and stages of justification, on the constitution of the Church, on the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, on the unique true union by the return of separated Christians to the one true Church of Christ".

And yet, this is precisely what has not been done since Vatican II, in attempting to follow the contrary request not to offend the sensitivities of our "separated brethren" in the Vatican II Decree "On Ecumenism" Unitatis Redintegratio. This is how that document defines Ecumenism, with none of the precautions laid out by Pope Pius XII against indifferentism: "The term ‘ecumenical movement’ indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized... to promote Christian unity (i.e. the apparent unity, outside the truth, of different denominations or churches getting along). These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult". The document also lists as other ecumenical  activities dialogue, cooperation for the common good of humanity and common prayer (U.R. §4). These activities are all based upon the belief, already condemned in advance by Pope Pius XI, that all religions are more or less good or praiseworthy, expressed in this way in the Vatican II document on Ecumenism: "Separated communities and churches as such...have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation" (U.R. §3). Clearly this leaves no place for the defined dogma, "Outside the Church, no salvation" (Lateran IV, Ds 802).

home | top of page | next page | list of questions