Archbishop Levada being incensed by an altar girl
Ecumenical Archbishop Levada:
Head of Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
“I consider myself to be in the exact middle of the road as to where I should be as a bishop.”1
- Archbishop William Levada
by John Vennari
Updated intro from JV - 6/1/12: In light of the SSPX discussions with Rome, we are re-posting the following piece about Cardinal Levada, one of today’s most liberal and ecumenical prelates who was hand picked by Pope Benedict XVI to be head of the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican Discastery whose purpose is supposed to be ensuring the integrity of the Faith.
Cardinal Levada was the head of Rome’s side of the “doctrinal discussions” that took place with the Society of St. Pius X. It is unnerving to think that this man will have some sort of final say over the fate of the SSPX.
We now hear talk that Pope Benedict claims to need the SSPX to help him cure the crisis of Faith in the Church, even against the opposite sentiments of Vatican officials.
Yet if Pope Benedict really wants to correct the crisis in the Church:
• why would Pope Benedict appoint a man so thoroughly modernist to be head of the Vatican office to “defend the Faith”?
• and if Pope Benedict is somehow (as some people claim) forced to appoint such people in key positions, how will he be able to protect the SSPX if these Vatican officials demand concessions regarding the Council?
• and if Pope Benedict cannot even appoint a doctrinally upright prelate to be head of the Vatican office that is supposed to defend the Faith, how will he protect the SSPX from the onslaught by modernist bishops against the Society after any so-called “regularization”?
I invite you to read the following about Cardinal Levada – hand-picked by Pope Benedict XVI – and then ask yourself: Is picking a man like Cardinal Levada the action of someone who really wants to heal the crisis of Faith in the Church along the lines of Catholic Tradition?
Pope Benedict XVI appointed San Francisco’s Archbishop William Levada as Prefect of the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The announcement came on May 13, the same day Pope Benedict announced he had placed Pope John Paul II on the fasttrack to beatification, bypassing the prudent five-year waiting period.
By appointing Levada, Benedict XVI has indeed made good his promise to continue the post-Conciliar policies of Pope John Paul II. A “middle-of-the-road” American ecumenist with a proven reputation for compromise now fills the vacancy left by Cardinal Ratzinger. The spirit of Vatican II blazes forward under the new Pontificate.
The secular press repeatedly calls Archbishop Levada a doctrinal conservative, but this is not true. Levada is a man of Vatican II, an enthusiast for ecumenism and interreligious practice. He would have been condemned for his words and actions had he said and done them under Cardinal Ottaviani, his predecessor of the Holy Office.
The Politics of Compromise
One of the ways in which Archbishop Levada showed himself “middle of the road”, was his gingerly treatment of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. A handful of American bishops last year announced they would refuse Communion to such politicians, but Levada “took a more conciliatory approach to the controversy.” He said he would not refuse Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians until he could “listen to their concerns and offer them the opportunity for a truly fruitful examination of Catholic teaching.”
One wonders how much examination on the part of the politician is required if the prelate simply stated the truth in public: abortion is murder of innocent babies, a crime that cries to Heaven for vengeance, and Catholic politicians who support this carnage are in objective mortal sin and must be denied the sacraments. Levada’s position seems more in line with that of Cardinal Mahony from Los Angeles, who “favors educating Catholic politicians on the immorality of abortion, rather than imposing any religious sanctions.” It is the insipid Vatican II solution: endless dialogue that goes nowhere while babies are butchered daily — and by the thousands.
San Francisco’s Archbishop Levada, ever faithful to the middle-of-the-road, “took a neutral position on a second gay-rights initiative, saying he wanted to focus on defeating legalizing of doctor-assisted suicide.” Catholic writer Christopher Ferrara asks, “What does one thing have to do with another? Archbishop Levada simply sold out on the issue.”
Then there is the case of Father Carl Schipper, Academic Dean at Saint Patrick Seminary. According to Michael Rose’s Goodbye! Good Men!, Schipper was arrested following a six month investigation for soliciting sex with minors over the Internet and distributing pornographic material on line. The San Jose police, posing as 13 year old boys on the Internet, caught Father Schipper in the act of soliciting. Schipper pleaded no contest and was sentenced to six months in jail.
This left a vacancy in the San Francisco seminary. Archbishop Levada then called back to the seminary staff Father Gerald Cole-man, S.S., from his sabbatical leave. Father Coleman is well-known for advancing the homosexual agenda. For example, Father Coleman, spoke of “the importance” of seminaries recognizing and accepting their sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Father Coleman also had publicly called for civil law to “in some fashion recognize these faithful and loving (homosexual) unions by ac-cording them certain rights and obligations, thus assisting (homosexual) persons in unions with clear and specified benefits.”
Perhaps Levada acquired a reputation as a conservative because of his opposition to other areas of the homosexual agenda. In early summer of 2000, when a Gay Pride Festival was scheduled in Rome, Levada traveled to the Holy City. He organized a viewing at the Vatican of a video from San Francisco’s vile Gay Pride parade, to warn Rome what it was in for. The video was then shown to Italian politicians, as the Vatican mobilized to prevent the Festival’s occurrence. The nine-day event took place nonetheless.
On April 3, 2004, Archbishop Levada and another bishop, along with 1,000 Catholics, conducted a five-block march to protest same-sex marriages in San Francisco.
Nice show, but the Catholic Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, who issued marriage licenses to homosexual couples, was not disciplined by Archbishop Levada for doing so. The Archbishop hinted that if the offense continued, the Mayor might be refused Holy Communion. Shortly after, however, when The San Francisco Chronicle asked the archdiocese whether Catholic politicians who support abortion and same-sex marriage would be denied Communion, the Archbishop declined comment. An archdiocesan spokesman said, “Archbishop Levada serves on the U.S. Catholic bishops ad hoc committee reviewing this issue and he wants to focus on discussions within the Church rather than making a public comment at this time.” Once again, Levada sidestepped the issue.
At the same time, Catholic Mayor Newsom boasted that he receives Communion on those Sundays he decides to go to Mass, and that “his conscience is clear”. Mayor Newsom also said at a press conference that he disagreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching on stem cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage and birth-control. Levada did nothing against the Mayor’s public scoff of the Catholic religion. Under Levada’s watch, Catholic politicians (including pro-abortion Rep. Nancy Pelosi) could wipe their boots on Catholic truth with impunity.
Clerical Abuse Cover-up
No one would call Catholic World News a traditionalist publication. But Philip Lawler, the journal’s editor, is clearly shaken by Levada’s rise to prominence. Calling the appointment “shocking”, he explains that the Prefect of the CDF is the second-most influential leader in the universal Church. He also laments that Levada’s style of compromise on major issues such as same-sex benefits and pro-abortion Catholic politicians, “undermined positions taken by other American prelates who had chosen to take a clear stand and risk a direct clash with the popular culture.”
Levada’s track record in the clerical sex-abuse is abysmal. The Portland diocese which he led from 1986 to 1996 is now bankrupt because of payments won in court by abuse victims. “Several of the devastating lawsuits” says Lawler, “involved priests who were restored to parish work by Archbishop Levada after having beeen accused of molesting children.” Levada also protected these priests from criminal prosecution after the Archbishop learned of their crimes.
Of Levada’s activities in San Francisco, Lawler writes, “In San Francisco, the archbishop has been roundly denounced by sex-abuse victims for what they see as his uncooperative attitude in efforts to identify and punish clerical abuse.” Lawler explains that these denunciations came not only from the abuse victims, but from one of Levada’s own men. Lawler writes, “James Jenkins, a layman chosen by the archbishop to chair an independent review board examining child-abuse allegations, eventually resigned in protest, charging that Levada had stymied the work of the board through ‘deception, manipulation and control’.”
Then in 1999, Bishop Patrick Zieman of the neighboring diocese of Santa Rosa was forced to resign after news surfaced that he had blackmailed a priest to serve as his on-call homosexual partner. Bishop Zieman, due to extravagant spending, left the diocese with a colossal $30 million debt. Archbishop Levada, who was made the temporary apostolic administrator in the vacancy, not only refrained from condemning Zieman’s actions, but asked the faithful to join him “in thanking [Zieman] for the energy and gifts he has shared far and wide.” Levada also covered up Zieman’s financial misdeeds calling them merely “poor investment decisions,” and said at a February 2000 press conference that it is inappropriate for a layman to call for criminal prosecution of Bishop Zieman.
What renders all of this even more disturbing is that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, since 2002, is now commissioned with investigating charges of clerical abuse. Benedict XVI has chosen a man with a history of compromise and cover-up to head this central discastery.
Of Miters and Yarmulkes
Archbishop Levada is no stranger to the Vatican. From 1976 to 1982, he worked at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He and Cardinal Ratzinger were reported to be friends. Levada was the only American on the seven-bishop editorial committee that produced the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Of the New Catechism, Levada said it “was not meant to ignore or reverse the work of the Second Vatican Council”. He praised Vatican II’s ambiguous Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as containing “wonderful teaching”. And throughout his career, Vatican II’s new interreligious orientation was the wind in his sails.
In September 1988, while he was Archbishop of Portland, Oregon, Levada and a Lutheran bishop led a joint worship service for a combined congregation of Lutherans and Catholics. He was also the first American bishop to visit a synagogue, and continued to visit synagogues while Archbishop of San Francisco.
March 5, 1996 saw Archbishop Levada take part in an interfaith prayer service at a San Francisco synagogue to remember the victims of a wave of bombing attacks against Israelis. “Catholic Archbishop Levada”, said The San Francisco Chronicle, “was seated prominently on the bimah or pulpit of the synagogue, in the company of the rabbis. Levada delivered a brief but powerful prayer to the one God common to Jews, Christians and Muslims, in which he described the bombing campaign in Israel as and repulsive’.”
First, there is no one God “common to Jews, Christ-ians and Muslims”, since the true God is the Blessed Trinity, denied by Jews and Muslims.
Second, the sad bloodshed of the victims aside, the Archbishop’s religious visit to a synagogue is an affront to Catholic and biblical teaching. The synagogue is set up against the manifest will of Jesus Christ. Our Lord put an end to the religion of the Old Covenant, and had harsh words for those who reject Him. He said to the Jews, “If you do not believe that I am He (the Messiah) you will die in your sins.” (John 8:28)
Saint John, faithful to his Divine Master, taught likewise, “He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.” (1 John 5:12) Saint John also warned that he who denies that Jesus has not come in the flesh is “... a seducer and an anti-christ”. (2 John 1:7) But today’s Jewish religion, like no other religion, holds the rejection of Jesus Christ as its central tenet.
A Catholic prelate who visits and prays at a synagogue betrays Jesus Christ, as the visit grants public legitimacy to a religion that holds Jesus Christ in disdain, believing Him to be a liar and deceiver. It tells Jews that their religion which spurns Christ is of equal value with the Catholic religion in which Christ is the center of all.
This was precisely the effect of Pope John Paul’s first visit to the synagogue in Rome on April 13, 1986, an unprecedented ecumenical event. Rabbi Elio Toaff of the Rome synagogue said that as a result of the Pope’s visit, “a turning point in the history of the church” was made, one that “puts the two religions on a level of equality.”
Only fifty years ago, any well-trained seminarian could have explained the disastrous consequences of the Pope’s ecumenical visit to the synagogue. It corrupts the integrity of the Faith and it leaves the Jew in the darkness of his false religion. Saint Ambrose taught clearly the incompatibility of Christian religion with the Jewish religion. “The veil of the temple was torn”, said St. Ambrose, “to signify the division between the two groups of people and the profanation of the synagogue. The old veil was torn to let the Church hang the new veil of Faith.” In other words, what God has torn asunder, let no man join together. It is cruelty to the Jew for a Catholic leader to tell him by word or example that he will find salvation by living his life detached from Jesus Christ.
Archbishop Levada, however, called Pope John Paul II’s visit to the synagogue a “good example,” and directly went about imitating him. There is little doubt that the Vatican’s new “Guardian of the Faith” at the CDF is permeated with the error that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant. This theological bankruptcy, sadly, also extends to Pope Benedict XVI, who announced he will perform a Wojtylian-like visit to a synagogue when he travels to Cologne for World Youth Day.
On December 1, 1999, Archbishop Levada participated in a San Francisco interfaith event called, “A Call to Oneness”, A Conference on Compassion and HIV/AIDS Diseases. Political leaders along with key representatives from various religions including Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Native American, Protestant, schismatic Orthodox and Hinduism took part in the event. As part of the proceedings, the Archbishop also allowed a World AIDS day ceremony to take place in the archdiocese’s St. Mary’s Cathedral.
Then on March 28, 2003, Archbishop Levada hosted a “Spirit of Assisi” event at the Archdiocese’s St. Mary’s Cathedral entitled, “Interfaith Prayer Service in a Time of National Crisis,” sponsored by the San Francisco Interfaith Council. According to the Jewish Bulletin, the participants encountered “the sweet aroma of incense and the gentle sounds of traditional, Jewish and Christian lit-urgy blended with gospel music, Arabic and a Buddhist chime.” From the pulpit of the Catholic cathedral, Rabbi Alan Lew read from Psalm 30, and then led the Mourner’s Kaddish, first in Aramaic, then in English. Archbishop Levada, the Jewish Bulletin reported, “set the inclusive tone for the service from the outset.” Levada said, “With all the religions and cultural diversity here, may we know together that our hearts beat as one in prayer to Almighty God for peace today.” Also at the gathering, Norman Fischer of the Everyday Zen Foundation said “We are here to live in harmony.”
Levada’s pan-religious gatherings could not be more contrary to perennial papal teaching, including that of Pope Pius VII who said, “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of religion is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish perfidy.” Here, Pius VII was condemning equality of religious in civil society. How much more would he condemn a multi-religious gathering in a Catholic cathedral.
Archbishop Levada also gave faculties to priests from the schismatic Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) to operate in parishes in his diocese. The CPA is a human institution created by the Chinese communist government that does not recognize the Pope as its head. Catholics in China are forced to join this schismatic puppet "church", as the Communist government has declared the true Catholic Church “illegal”, and has jailed, persecuted and murdered Catholics who refuse to submit to this schismatic institution. In an Open Letter to the Vatican Joseph Kung from the Cardinal Kung Foundation complained that the CPA priests given faculties by Levada “were allowed to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman Catholic Churches and to administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention was made in parish bulletins that the priest in question belong to the CPA and no explanation was made about the schismatic nature of the CPA.”
In April 2003, Archbishop Levada embarked on an ecumenical pilgrimage with leaders of two other denominations: the Episcopalian Right Rev. William Swing, and the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Anthony, both from San Francisco. The purpose of the trip was to visit Canterbury, Rome and Istanbul, “the centers of their respected branches of Christianity [sic] ... jointly meeting with the leaders of each body and praying together at holy sites.” They described their pilgrimage “as promoting Christian unity, as well as offering a witness to peaceful coexistence against the backdrop of the Iraqi war.”
Yet this pilgrimage is nothing more than a witness to a counterfeit religion condemned by the Popes. In his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, which condemned the pan-religious ecumenism practiced today, Pope Pius XI said that this pan-Christian initiative presents a “false Christianity, quite alien to the true Church of Christ.”
Pope Pius XI wrote that the Holy See has “always forbidden” Catholics to take part in interreligious assemblies. He rightly insisted, “unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one faith of Christians ... There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.” This is likewise the clear teaching of the perennial magisterium, especially that of Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, Pope Saint Pius X’s Ex Quo, and Pope Pius XII’s Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement. Pope Pius XI further warned that the “fair and alluring words” of the pan-Christian initiative “cloak a most deadly error subversive to the Catholic Faith”.
Nonetheless, the three bishops on their ecumenical pilgrimage were warmly received by John Paul II. They also visited the Vatican’s Walter Cardinal Kasper, the man who rejoices that Vatican II forsook the truth that non-Catholics must convert to the Catholic Church for unity and salvation. “Today” said Kasper, “we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” By his ecumenical pilgrimage and other interfaith activities, Archbishop Levada shows himself to be in basic agreement with Cardinal Kasper’s heterodox views.
One of Levada’s ecumenical comrades on the ecumenical pilgrimage, the Episcopalian Bishop William Swing, is a colorful character himself. Swing is the founder of the New Age “United Religions” initiative — a United Nations of religions — that works in tandem with the leftist Gorbachev Foundation and the syncretic World Council for Religion and Peace. It encompasses all religions, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, B’hai, Shinto, you name it. Swing’s initiative bears an eerie resemblance to the Masonic “Church Universal” that New Age Alice Baily predicted would arise at the end of the 20th Century.
Can anyone imagine solid Catholic bishops such as Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Saint Francis de Sales, or Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto globe-trotting with a pan-religious flower-child like William Swing? Yet Levada not only considered Swing a friend, but joined him in a lengthy, undoubtedly expensive, ecumenical pilgrimage as a “symbol of unity” — a false unity condemned by all pre-Vatican II Popes. Not surprisingly, the pilgrimage included a stop in Frankfurt, Germany, where the three bishops and their entourages visited a former concentration camp and prayed at a synagogue.
Levada and the True Mass
Archbishop Levada, while in Oregon, allowed an “indult” Tridentine Mass. Once he came to San Francisco, however, he refused to establish the indult. George Neumayer wrote that Levada was probably afraid to anger and alienate priests attached to his predecessor’s policies. Archbishop Quinn, the former Ordinary of San Francisco, vehemently opposed the Latin Mass, saying of the indult, “Not in my diocese.” Quinn also called the indult “divisive” in a letter to a diocesan priest who petitioned for it in 1984.
Neumayer quoted an acquaintance of Levada who said, “I’m not surprised by it. He (Levada) is keenly aware of priestly backlash ... And he knows, like most American prelates, that traditionalists are an expendable group, what with their lack of money and institutions.” The fact that Levada angered those traditional Catholics petitioning for the indult seemed not to trouble him at all.
Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly “suspended” Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the “suspension”, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and that “we don’t use it any more”.
This is a mockery to the infallible Council of Trent, that committed the Church to this precise scholastic definition, hallowed by long usage. Even Pope Paul VI’s 1965 Mysterium Fidei reiterated that the parish priest is duty-bound to speak of “Transubstantiation.” (#54) Levada’s approach is also an insult to “modern man” to whom post-Conciliar churchmen constantly claim to be appealing. It implies that modern man is too stupid to comprehend a term that 2nd grade Catholic school children grasped only fifty years ago.
Shaky Moral Teaching
In a 1995 San Francisco Chronicle interview when he first arrived in San Francisco, Archbishop Levada was asked about the Catholic teaching on birth control and (immoral) devices for AIDS prevention. His answers were not exactly lucent. He said, “The Catholic Church does not teach against the regulation of birth, but says artificial contraception is not in God’s plan. But natural family planning is not given the same attention in the medical community as artificial contraception.”
Clearly, the Archbishop does not even think to reiterate the true Catholic teaching on the goodness of large families, nor does he mention that according to Catholic Moral teaching, any sort of birth regulation for a Catholic can only be for the gravest of reasons. Once again, NFP is falsely touted as a legitimate means of “Catholic” birth control.
Regarding devices for protection against AIDS, Archbishop Levada said, “Certainly if someone has decided not to follow the path of abstinence, and engage in extramarital sexual relations, that already is something that is not in accord with God’s plan. It could be the better part of their choice to use the protections that are available.”
This response is a variation on Martin Luther, “Sin strong, but protect yourself stronger.” Mind you, Levada is saying this to a secular newspaper read by millions, and in San Francisco, no less.
Levada goes on to say that the Church does not believe there should be a widespread campaign to promote the use of these devices, and that the “better policy” is one that “corresponds to God’s plan, to refrain from sex until you marry and are faithful to one person.”
Better policy? Why are men like Levada afraid to speak the simple truth: that the human acts under discussion are mortal sins that send a soul to hell for eternity? Why use the delicate phrase “not in accord with God’s plan”, with no mention of the horrifying eternal consequences for discarding God’s plan? How can a Catholic Archbishop possibly advance the falsehood that for those who will deliberately sin anyway, “it could be a better part of their choice to use the protections that are available”? Does he not know that use of these “protections” are intrinsically evil? That no set of circumstances can justify employing them? Even for the sake of AIDS prevention, has he forgotten Saint Paul’s warning that we may not do evil that good may come from it? Is he not aware that the lesser of two evils is still an evil? And that evil can never be the direct object of our will? Levada’s moral theology appears to be as wobbly as his ecumenical theology.
All of what has been said reveals Archbishop Levada to be a child of Vatican II, a creature of the age, a prelate who side-stepped hot issues in his diocese, a churchman who covered-up clerical abuse and transferred known abusers to active parishes, a man whom no right-thinking Catholic would allow to teach religion to his children.
Yet out of all the bishops on the planet, Archbishop Levada is the man chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to be the alleged “watchdog of orthodoxy”, and to occupy the second most influential position in the Catholic Church worldwide.
Our Lady, Conqueror of All Heresies, pray for us!
1. “William Levada”, The San Francisco Chronicle, Don Lattin, October 22, 1995.
2. “Levada Enters Fray over Holy Rite; No Blanket Denial of Communion for Stand on Abortion”, The San Francisco Chronicle, June 24, 2004.
3. “Bay Area Bishops Decline Comment”, The San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2004.
4. “Say it Isn’t So! Archbishop Levada as Head of the CDF????”, Christopher Ferrara, Fatima Perspectives, May 12, 2005, www.fatima.org
5. Goodbye! Good Men, Michael Rose, (Aquinas Publications, 2002) p. 49.
6. “Gays at the Gate”, The Weekend Australian, June 10, 2000.
7. “Looking Ahead”, SF Weekly, April 21, 2004.
8. “Questions on Sex Issues, Politicians and Sacraments”, The San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2004.
9. “Archbishop Levada: The Pope’s Surprising Choice”, Philip Lawler, May 14, 2005, Catholic World News, online forum.
10. “Proposed Catechism Stirs Dispute Among Scholars”, New York Times, March 8, 1990.
11. “How to Keep the Lord’s Day Holy: Year of the Eucharist Pastoral Letter”, Archbishop William Levada, March 31, 2005.
12. “Hundreds in S.F. Mourn Israeli Victims. The San Francisco Chronicle, March 6, 1996.
13. Matthew 27:63.
14. Pope John Paul II was the first Pope in history to visit a synagogue, with the exception of Saint Peter who, unlike John Paul II, went to the synagogue on an unecumenical visit to preach to the Jews the necessity of accepting Jesus Christ for salvation. The conversion of the Jews, sadly, was not John Paul’s aim. See “The Secret of John Paul II’s Success”, John Vennari, Catholic Family News, June, 2005.
15. “Mutual Declaration of Respect: Pope John Paul Makes a Historic Visit to a Synagogue”, Time, April 28, 1986.
16. Cited from Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abe Daniel Le Roux, (Gladysdale: Instauration Press, 1989), p. 129.
17. “Some Reflections on Pope John Paul II and the Jews”, Archbishop Levada, April 11, 2000.
18. “Benedict XVI to Visit Cologne Cathedral”, Zenit, May 13, 2005.
19. “Political and Faith Leaders Join Forces At Unprecedented Gathering to Address HIV/AIDS”, Business Wire, December 1, 1999.
20. A.S.F. Rabbi, Cantor, “Take Podium at Interfaith Peace Service”, Jewish Bulletin, March 28, 2003.
21. “Open Letter” to the Vatican by Joseph Kung, Cardinal Kung Foundation, March 28, 2000. See http: //www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/ cpa/openletter.html#_Toc482165996.
22. Pope Pius VII, Letter, Post tam diurturnas, quoted from The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism, Father Denis Fahey, p. 10.
23. “Bishop’s Pilgrimage Offers Symbol of Unity”, John Allen, National Catholic Reporter, April 23, 2003.
24. Adista, February 26, 2001: “La decisione del Vaticano II alla quale il papa si attiene, E8 assolutamente chiara: noi intendiamo l’ecumene oggi non piF9 nel senso dell’ecumene del ritorno, secondo il quale gli altri devono ‘convertirsi’ e diventare ‘cattolici.’ Questo E8 stato espressamente abbandonato dal Vaticano II.”
25. See “One World Church Starts Up”, Cornelia Ferreira, Catholic Family News, November, 1997.
26. “Forbidding Tradition: Why Won’t the Pope’s Man Grant the Pope’s Indult?”, George Neumayer, San Francisco Faith, March, 1999. Ironically, Mr. Neumayer quotes in this article Cardinal Ratzinger’s positive words about the Tridentine Mass. It will be interesting to see how Levada will deal with Traditional Catholics as head of the CDF. Levada has shown himself all along to be a “company man”, so we can be fairly certain that Levada’s approach will be what Pope Ratzinger wants it to be. Just what that approach will be remains to be seen.
27. See Priest Where is Thy Mass? Mass? Where is Thy Priest?, (Kansas City, Angelus, 2004), pp. 67-70.
28. “William Levada”, The San Francisco Chronicle, Don Lattin, October 22, 1995.
29. Again, even the post-Counciliar Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (1968) taught that an act that is deliberately contraceptive is “intrinsically wrong.” (#14)
Orignally published in the June 2005 Catholic Family News
CLICK HERE to send Letter to the Editor
May 16: Vatican Communique on the Society of St. Pius X
May 16, 2012 - VIS: Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:
As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [under Cardinal Levada] met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.
In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.
Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly.
The Oath Against Modernism vs. the 'Hermeneutic of Continuity'