ALSO AGAINST HUMANI GENERIS
It is now unmistakably clear that Montini went behind the back of Pius XII as he set about achieving those philo-modernist and utopian dreams of his youth which had prompted him to associate (and he was the only priest to do so) with Count Gallaratti-Scotti's salon. This was the same Gallaratti-Scotti who represented the essence of modernism in Lombardy and Montini, having become Paul VI, and whose tenth anniversary after death was celebrated in these unmistakable terms by L'Osservatore Romano on July 7, 1976:
"In his (the Count's) last years, a great consolation came to him from the Vatican Council since he felt that all that bitterness of spirit that he had endured in his younger days [coming from all those condemnations of Modernism] had not been suffered in vain; the Church was now well on to its hard and difficult way in which, nevertheless, many things we had been hoping for in the past were now in the process of becoming a living reality."
Now it is Jean Guitton himself who is going to expose Montini, while still Substitute, in the very act of treachery against Pope Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis. In his book, Paul VI Secret, he faithfully transcribed that very same evening, those notes which he had taken down during a chat with Msgr. Montini concerning the great encyclical against neo-modernism, which had just been published.
To Guitton's expressed fear that Humani generis might be interpreted as an obstacle to the "progress of thought," Montini, still Proto-Secretary of State under Pius XII, answers:
"You have doubtlessly noticed for yourself the shades of meaning to be found in this pontifical text. For example, the encyclical never once refers to errors (errores). It speaks only of opinions (opiniones)[as if errors were not also and precisely opinions!]. This indicates that the Holy See does not aim at condemning actual errors, but rather those ways of thinking, which could give, rise to errors, but which in themselves remain respectable.
On the other hand, there are 3 reasons why this encyclical should not be deformed: first, there is the expressed will of the Holy Father. The second reason is the French episcopate's frame of mind, which is so broad-minded and receptive to contemporary currents of thought.
Without doubt, any given episcopate is always liable (for it is in direct contact with souls, since it must be faithful to its mandate, which is a pastoral charge, as they say)...it is liable, I say, to broaden the ways of doctrine and the faith [in this sentence is to found, in embryonic form, the entire 'spirit' of Vatican II's pastoral care]. And, admittedly, it would be justified in doing so. Here is Rome; we also have the duty of watching over the doctrinal aspects (of the Faith). We remain particularly sensitive to everything, which could corrupt the purity of (Catholic) doctrine, which is truth. The Sovereign Pontiff must keep the deposit of the Faith, as St. Paul says. And now for the third reason. It will be short; the French are intelligent."
Montini the Substitute's dishonesty proved to be of unequalled gravity. Pius XII, in Humani generis, had condemned the "new theology" in the gravest and most solemn of terms as he had underscored its fatal consequences for the Faith. He had also charged, so as not to be wanting in his "sacred Duty," the bishops and the superiors general of the religious orders, "and binding them most seriously in conscience" to take most seriously "that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or to the faithful." The teachers of Catholic institutes, continued the Pope, "know that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which we have ordained."
And there we have, barely a stone's throwaway from the Pope, in the very bosom of the Secretariat of State, Montini unscrupulously declaring that these errors condemned by Pope Pius XII were, on the contrary, "respectable" opinions. Indeed, he was actually promoting them by confidentially assuring people that such was the "formal will" of Pius XII himself.
Montini claimed that he [Pius XII] had drafted Humani generis alone and in spite of himself. Given the weighty task of authority, he could not allow himself to do otherwise (a typically modernist theory of authority, to which we will presently return), but also claimed that Rome trusted in the French episcopate's "broad-mindedness" which would favor the widening of the "ways of doctrine and of the faith" and - with one last wink - he, Montini, was fully aware that the French were "intelligent," and... a word to the wise is enough! And so, thus it was that as Pius XII slammed the doors to neo-modernism, Montini, his Substitute in the Secretariat of State, was busy opening them again behind his back.
Yet, once again betrayal was standing at Pius XII's door. G. Martina S.J .in his previously quoted work, Vatican II-An Appraisal and Prospects, (pp. 56-57) after having drawn our attention to the interpretation of Humani generis as proposed by the Substitute Montini to his close friend Jean Guitton, continues, "But [Montini's] effort to dilute the purpose and aim of that solemn pontifical document was not to succeed thanks to Pius XII, who went straightaway to the editor of Civilta Cattolica to protest against the underhanded efforts being used to minimize his encyclical, which did not simply constitute a grave and solemn warning, and who also deplored and complained of the shocking carelessness of those agents and members representing the Society of Jesus to whom he had turned in 1946, exhorting them to faithfully follow his Pontifical orders."
Disciplinary measures were immediately taken against de Lubac and his "gang" by the Society, as well as against Montini by Pius XII, who promoted him to Archbishop of Milan, but who never named him Cardinal; neither did he ever wish to receive him in private audience thereafter.
POWER OF AUTHORITY AT THE SERVICE OF ERROR
Things being as they were, and coming back to the letter "of Pius XII" to Blondel, we can hardly be surprised to learn one day that Pius XII, who had never even signed it, knew practically nothing about it and what he did learn, he learned only bit by bit, and badly at that. Montini, who was acting as if he were the Pope without being so, put the supreme authority of Peter's successors at the service of the "new theology." And from that very moment, the effects of that betrayal have proven to be extremely disastrous.
On July 8, 1945, La Documentation Catholique published a letter carrying the signature of the Substitute Montini and under the title of "the Pope's letter to Blondel," together with a highly flattering account of Blondel's "main works and doctrine." This statement (falsely attributed to Pope Pius XII!) deplored those "two erroneous exclusivisms: rationalism and... Catholic theology which for opposite reasons had shown "ostracism" and "incomprehension" towards Blondel's new "Christian philosophy" which on the contrary - the article triumphantly concluded - has been completely ratified by this statement of His Holiness Pope Pius XII which we are pleased to publish at this time."
Shortly after this, Bruno de Solages, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse and a friend of de Lubac, entering the fray in Blondel's defense, confronted Father Garrigou-Lagrange with the argument of...authority: that is, the letter "sent by Pius XII via Monsignor Montini" "significantly praising" Blondel's works (cf. A. Russo, Henri de Lubac...p.347). Then, in 1946, Gerard Phillips, writing in Erasmus (pp. 202-205) used this same letter in defending the naturalized supernatural of de Lubac: "If Fr. de Lubac has resolutely refuted the possibility of pure nature, he is not any more blameworthy than the Augustinian authors whom the Holy See, on more than one occasion, has seen to protect, just as it has recently done in favor of Maurice Blondel" (quoted by H. de Lubac in Memoria Intorno Alla Mia Opera [Memoirs concerning My Works] Jaca Book, p.68).
In Italy, Monsignor Natale Bussi, whom Mgsr Rossano later unmasked as being a philo-modernist (cf. Courrier de Rome no.134, April 1992), in the Italian translation of Falcon's apologetics (ed. Paoline 1951), annihilated the strict as well as rigorous refutations of Blondel's errors by the following asterisk added to note 1 on page 39:
"Obviously, we are not able to fathom Blondel's ideas by the use of those developments which L. Laberthoniere (condemned by the Holy Office) has brought to the principle of immanence although Blondel, in the last few years, received assurances from the highest (Vatican) authorities regarding the orthodoxy of his doctrine. These assurances were given in a letter dated December 2, 1944 coming from the Secretariat of State (of the Vatican), a letter expressing, however, one single remark concerning several of Blondel's own expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be stated in more precise terms."
In short, "Pius XII's" letter, carrying Montini's signature, constituted an early type of testing-ground for the post-conciliar disasters: the "new theology" would be in a position to sweep away all resistance and impose itself on the Catholic world only on the support, even if ever so "discreet," of the Catholic Church's supreme authority. It was afforded this opportunity with Montini's accession to the Chair of St. Peter.
Ever since his exile to Milan, the archbishop of Milan (Montini) never ceased stirring up the "new theologians" against Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis (against neo-modernism), and finally, under Pope John XXIII, he was able to favor them even more, given the influence he had over Roncalli (Pope John XXIII). In his work, Henri de Lubac - Sin Organisches Lebenswerk, Urs von Balthasar bears witness to this fact in the following terms:
"In 1946,Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange launched a full-scale attack against de Lubac and his friends as well as their "new theology" and Pope Pius XII, now really annoyed, joined in the fray with the L'Osservatore Romano publishing his speeches. Jannsens, the Father General, showed himself loyal to de Lubac, but as the attacks coming from all quarters and from all countries intensified, the more his behavior took on a diplomatic hue. They even went so far as to scrutinize that which could possibly appear suspect in other works. With the advent of Humani generis, papal thunderbolts came crashing down upon the Lyons Scholasticate and de Lubac was singled out as the chief scapegoat... his books, henceforth defamed, were taken off the shelves of the libraries of Society of Jesus and withdrawn from bookstores..."
Then, little by little - according to von Balthasar - the climate began to clear up in favor of the neo-modernists: "From Archbishop Montini came words of support and encouragement. It was he who later on, having become Pope Paul VI, insisted that de Lubac speak on Teilhard de Chardin at the close of the Thomistic Congress in the great chancery Hall... To the point of John XXIII's naming de Lubac as consultor in the drafting plans for the Commission on Theology together with Fr. Congar."
Having been made Cardinal by John XXIII who thus paved the way to the Pontifical Throne in spite of Pope Pius XII's efforts to deny him this possibility, Montini was finally elected Pope Paul VI and immediately set out to put all the strength of his newly-acquired authority - and what authority! - at the service of the "new theology.”
THE PERSISTENCE OF THE “HESITANT POPE”
Enthroned as Paul VI, Montini began to open wide the conciliar doors to the "new theologians" to a much greater extent than he had previously succeeded in doing through his influence over John XXIII.
"Many well known theologians [some still under suspicion by the Holy Office and some having already been condemned] absent at the beginning (of Vatican II) began to gradually join the circles of experts (periti), thanks to Paul VI's discreet influence as he showed them his favor and received them in private audiences, concelebrated with them and praised them for their close collaboration" (R. Latourelle S.J., Vatican II – An Appraisal and Prospects, ed. Citadelle-Assise, a joint project carried out three university institutes of the Society of Jesus in Rome together with the participation of the Paul VI Institute of Brescia).
Paul VI exerted the same "discreet influence" on the Council Fathers who not knowing what was actually happening and putting all their trust in "Peter" were gradually being brought around to the point of accepting and ratifying that very same "new theology" which Pius XII had already condemned in Humani generis.
Recalling to mind that which the Jesuit Henrici (recently named bishop!) wrote: "As for the 'aggiornamento' [aggiornamento: an updating, especially with regard to the policy of modernizing Roman Catholic institutions, one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council, 1962- 1965], the Council Fathers had to depend (they could not do otherwise) on the work previously done by the theologians before the Council...To those texts approved by the Council, the Council fathers gave, so to speak, a kind of ecclesiastical authentication. If those texts seemed strangely new, it was only because the work of the (new) theologians as well as the state of Catholic theology at the end of the 1950's were, to a great extent, unknown to those who were strangers to these new texts and ideas (and many council Fathers could be found in this group). Another reason why these texts seemed new was the fact that now a part of the results of this work, which until quite recently had been (strongly) censured (by the Church), was henceforth considered as being orthodox" (Communio, Nov.- Dec. 1990).
The "prudence" shown by Paul VI who, as Msgr. A. Bugnini testifies, only wished to avoid foreseeable as well as undesirable reactions (cf. A. Bugnini La Reforme Liturgique, pp. 297-299), served to bolster the legend of his being a hesitant or indecisive Pope, but the facts are there, proving that Paul VI knew what he wanted. He acted with "discretion," indeed, but also with a still greater obstinacy: "With a stubborn and methodical firmness which gives the lie to an equally stubborn legend, he [Paul VI] steers the barque," de Lubac wrote with admiration in 1963. (Memoirs Concerning My Works, Jaca Book, p. 420).
Among some of the greatest of de Lubac's opponents stood the Rector of the Gregorian University (in Rome), Father Charles Boyer, whom we have already quoted. In the following lines, de Lubac himself reveals with just what "discretion" and "firmness" Paul VI humiliated and forced this highly-skilled and well-known theologian to surrender in humiliation while at one fell swoop, he rehabilitated without any form of reason other than his own (papal) authority, those two representatives of neo-modernism, de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, whose works had been previously condemned by a monitum [a solemn warning] from the Holy Office:
"In Teilhard Posthume," de Lubac writes, "I referred to a conference that I was asked to make on him in Rome in 1963. The invitation had been extended to me by Fr. Charles Boyer, Prefect at the Gregorian. I have just come across his letter. When we realize that Fr. Boyer was formerly Teilhard's greatest adversary in Rome (and just as much mine!), this letter takes on its full meaning. (See letter below)