It is, of course, perfectly normal that with the advent of a new pope you will be asking yourselves: “What is going to happen now?” And this question, filled with hope, is based first and foremost on the promise of Our Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”. This we all know and believe. But it remains to be seen how we apply this in reality.
I’m sure you do not need me to tell you that things are not going well in the Church, that it is indeed a tragedy, a monumental catastrophe. I would even go further than that: I am sure that theologians from the beginning of the 20th century would have considered us heretics if they had heard what we are saying, which is not a personal opinion, but merely a description of the current situation. I mean that in the past, theologians would have considered what is actually happening today to be impossible, inconceivable. Remember the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, describing the situation in his own time, he said that “we may reasonably wonder whether the Son of perdition may not have already
arrived.” What would he say today?
On the one hand, we perceive this terrible crisis in the Church, and on the other, we believe in the promise of Our Lord. We know that the Good Lord is stronger.
So let us try to think things over: how could this happen? How could
Our Lord put things right?
There is a very simple answer: a new pope. A good pope; and then everything will be alright again! Hence our intimate and even unconscious
hope: here he is, this is the man! There is a new pope, so he is the one to do it! He is the one who must set things right, since things are going wrong, because Our Lord promised that things could not go too far and that someone had to get everything under control again. So, he is the man! Besides, there are many signs which support this point of view. For instance, on Good Friday, just before the death of John Paul II, Cardinal
Ratzinger, during the Stations of the Cross, gave a very realistic description of the Church. He said that the ship was sinking. Something
which is of course dramatic, in view of the promise of Our Lord that the ship will not sink – and we hear the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith telling us that the ship is sinking! He has said other things too, along the same lines. He has also criticized the new Mass several times in recent years. He has even written a book on the subject. All this seems to be pointing in the right direction.
The conservatives’ candidate at the conclave
We can also confirm, and this is not a mere supposition, that Benedict
XVI was elected in opposition to progressivism. We have information
on the way the conclave went . As you know, all the cardinals take an oath of secrecy on all that happens during the conclave. So do not ask me how we know, but we do know that there were some fifty cardinals who gave their vote to Cardinal Ratzinger, that Cardinal Martini had about twenty, that Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires also had around twenty. Cardinal Sodano got four all through the conclave. Of course, Cardinal
Martini is not a conservative. Obviously, during the first ballot he was the leader of the progressives.
With him there was a group of at least three cardinals who spearheaded
progressivism during the conclave: there was the Cardinal of Scotland, Cardinal McCormack and Cardinal Danneels. On the other side, there was a group of four or five cardinals. It seems that Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, a Colombian, worked the hardest for the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, together with Cardinal Castrillon, also a Colombian, and the Spanish Cardinal Herranz. It is also said that Cardinal Medina worked in favor of this election.
Very soon, seeing how few votes he had, Cardinal Martini realized that he could not manage alone, and he asked his voters to cast their ballots in favor of the cardinal of Buenos Aires, and thus at the second ballot, Cardinal Ratzinger had just over fifty votes, and a certain number of votes went to Cardinal Bergoglio. These two names came first.At that point, Cardinal Bergoglio got scared – perhaps that is too strong a word. He realized that he might be elected and that he was not ready for such a responsibility. So he withdrew. Consequently, for the third ballot, since there was only one candidate, by a very narrow margin, they say three votes, Cardinal Ratzinger was almost elected. That very evening, there was a fourth ballot, and this time he was elected with more than one
hundred votes. It was a disaster for the progressivists, who were truly
broken. All this gives us hope. Things are going in the right direction,
as the progressivists were defeated. And if we look at the cardinals,
certainly Cardinal Ratzinger is one of the best among them.
So then, all is well? It is not easy to speculate about the future! God alone knows the future. For us, a look into the future is always something very delicate. We may try to envisage what is probable, while at the same time knowing that when we speak about men, we are dealing with free will, and contingencies. And if I tell you: “It’s going to happen this way”, at the
same time, I am obliged to admit the possibility that it will not happen
like that at all. There is a certain probability, we cannot say any more than that.
What is this probability founded on, this look into the future of this pontificate? It is based on our knowledge of the past! We know Cardinal Ratzinger quite well and we think that between Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI there is not much difference in personality or character. So, our opinion of Benedict XVI is much the same as our opinion of Cardinal
Ratzinger. It is true that he has graces of state, it is true that he has the benefit of special assistance from the Holy Ghost, as the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, nevertheless his manner of reacting to problems, his way of tackling them, at least on the human level, will be much the same as when he was cardinal. A non-Thomistic formation So, what do we see in the man who is now Benedict XVI? What do we know of his formation? Let us begin with the theologian. He is a university professor, and in his biography, he himself tells us that he is not a Thomist. That he
does not even like Saint Thomas, at least in the way he was taught at the seminary. We must then conclude that he is not a philosopher, nor a theologian endowed with this intellectual frame of mind which Thomism provides.
If we recall that Leo XIII used to say that each article of the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas was a miracle, and that he declared that one single year in contact with St. Thomas bore more fruit than several years studying the Fathers of the Church… If we recall that Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi took away the title of Doctor, in the Church, from all
those who did not have a scholastic philosophical formation… can you
imagine?: all the doctors of theology, of canon law who did not study
scholastic philosophy had their title of doctor taken away, in the encyclical
Pascendi! Imagine this today, there would not be very many doctors left in the Church! So professor Ratzinger is not a Thomist. We will see later, in his writings and even in his way of acting, that there is something Hegelian, very definitely Hegelian: an evolutionist element, a new way of looking at the truth.
Classical perennial theology and philosophy see in the truth something which is absolutely above time. Indeed, truth is related to being, and being is beyond time. What is is, period. God described Himself thus: “I am Who am”, in immediate reference to being; and we know that God is immutable. So there is something immutable, unchanged in all that pertains to the essence of things. The first man, Adam, was as much a man as we are. And, what was good or bad at the time of Adam remains good or bad today. What in his day was virtue, is today a virtue. What in his day was a sin, a failing, remains today a sin, a failing. The snow was
white as it is today, on a fine day
the sky was blue just as it is today.
As soon as we look at the essence
of things, we are outside of time.
The outlook of the professor,
the theologian, of Cardinal Ratzinger,
is a new outlook. It is a
new way of looking which admits
a movement, an evolution of the
truth. I will give a few example to
illustrate this point.
During the meeting in 1987 between
Archbishop Lefebvre and
Cardinal Ratzinger, our founder
insisted on the social kingship
of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was
insistent and showed this struggle
over what has been known since
the council, as religious liberty.
Archbishop Lefebvre: This is
contrary to Quanta Cura of Pius
Cardinal Ratzinger: But, Your
Grace, we are no longer at the time
of Quanta Cura.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Then, I
will wait till tomorrow, because tomorrow
we will no longer be at the
time of Vatican II!
As an aside, a cardinal told me
one day that Gaudium et Spes was
Let me give you another example
illustrating this idea of an
evolving truth. It is to be found in
the explanation given by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the
Faith at the time when they were
trying to justify Rosmini. You may
know that Pope John Paul II wanted
to beatify Rosmini, or at least to
pave the way for his beatification.
Paul VI had already established a
commission to study his beatification process. The problem with
Rosmini was that he had been condemned
by the Church. So, you had
a first commission, under Paul VI,
which said: No, it is not possible,
he has been condemned! But John
Paul II, who wanted to see this process
of beatification begin, set up
another commission… which came
to the same conclusion as the first.
So, it was prevented from making a
final judgment; it remained buried
in a file. So they went about it in a
roundabout way. They got a decree
from the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith which attempted
to explain something rather difficult to accept. Thus they tell us
that the condemnation of Rosmini,
considered from the Thomistic
viewpoint in force at that time,
was absolutely valid. But today,
things stand otherwise, that if we
look at Rosmini’s thesis with the
eyes of Rosmini, his doctrine is acceptable.
This is a totally subjective
approach to the truth. Rosmini
spoke, his work was understood.
The Church understood it and said
that what was understandable was
worthy of condemnation. But a little
later, they come and tell us that
it should not have been understood
that way, that you had to enter into
Rosmini’s mind to understand his
vision of things.
So, that was the end as far as
the truth was concerned! Please
note, it is the end of objective
truth; and this is something very,
very serious. This shows you who
Cardinal Ratzinger is, at least as
far as his theological formation is
concerned. I say it is Hegelian because
of yet another aspect. Together
with the evolutionist element,
you have the famous trilogy
is very striking when we consider,
now, no longer speculative truths
– these truths which you may reflect on, but which do not have a
direct practical application – but a
practical application according to
Cardinal Ratzinger. This dynamic
seeks to explain historical
events by a conflictual meeting
which ends up in a new state, presumably
better than the preceding
one, but which is the fruit of this
meeting, of this conflict between
the thesis and the antithesis. Here
is a very concrete application made
by the head of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The first time Cardinal Ratzinger
visited the seminary of the
Society of St. Peter in Wigratzbad,
he said to them: “You must keep the
old Mass as a counterweight to the new
Mass”. You see the antithesis. We
must keep some kind of balance. At
the moment, we are going towards
the left, so we must put some more
weight on the right. We need a
counterweight. “And later,” he said,
“we will make a new New Mass.” So
when this counterweight has neutralized
the progressive tendency,
as one more or less neutralizes
the other, then we will make a new
New Mass. Several times Cardinal
Ratzinger abandoned himself to
this practical application in a dialectic,
“Peritus” at Vatican II on the
side of the progressivist
Our first impression of professor
Ratzinger is strengthened by
observing his attitude and his relationships
during the council and
in the post-conciliar period. He
comes to the council as “peritus”,
i.e. as theologian of the Cardinal of
Munich. He is the youngest “peritus”.
His young colleague, Father
Medina, is today a cardinal. They
were both born in 1927. They were
the youngest participants at the
council, not bishops, but “periti”,
each helping one of the Council
His friends at the council were
Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac,
Hans Urs von Balthasar. These are
the big names of the Council. I do
not mean that they achieved great
things, but they caused great upheaval.
They had a very great influence on the Council. During the
Council, they used to say of Rahner:
“Rahner locutus est, causa finita
est”, he has spoken, the matter is
settled. However, shortly after the
council, Ratzinger, who was not yet
a cardinal, would distance himself
from Rahner and draw closer to
Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von
Balthasar. With them, he founded
the Communio movement, which
was an association of theologians,
with a publication also called Communio.
It was still progressive, but
it did not go as far as Rahner. Besides,
as years went by the progressivism
of the Council has come to
be regarded as conservatism today,
while these theologians have
not changed one iota. Urs von
Balthasar, a year before his death,
in 1987, received the Paul VI prize.
On this occasion, he declared: “If
hell exists, nobody is in it, for the only
thing there is in hell is sin, not sinners”.
He just missed getting the cardinal’s
hat – he died before he could
receive it… But, his friend Henri de
Lubac was made a cardinal. De Lubac
is famous for having been condemned
in 1950 for his book The
Supernatural, in which he explicitly
denies the supernatural. He established
a relationship between nature
and grace in such a way that
nature has a right to grace. So it
is no longer something gratuitous.
He has supposedly corrected his
thesis somewhat, but this is really
open to discussion.
This theological line of thinking
was followed by the man who
would soon become Cardinal
Ratzinger. Moreover, in 1985, when
he lamented the state of things in
the Church, he did not ascribe it
to the Council. According to him,
an erroneous interpretation of the
Council brought forth these bad
fruits, not the spirit of the Council
From Munich to Rome
There is a very interesting
event which, I believe, did determine
some change of attitude on
the part of Cardinal Ratzinger,
I refer to his appointment to the
bishopric of Munich. Up to that
day, he had been a professor, and at
that moment he entered, if we may
say so, the field of concrete realities.
Now he had to govern a diocese.
And in the face of this reality,
abstract ideas take on another dimension.
Suddenly you realize that
some theories which you could hold
in the abstract, do not work when
you try to apply them in reality. In
particular, on matters of obedience
and the exercise of authority in the
Church, it is clear that if those
intellectuals attempted to apply
their theories, they would not be
obeyed. It is worth noting that
even the progressives, when they
have to govern, like to be obeyed.
Then they do not like to be contradicted.
This makes them come
back to rather traditional methods,
at least as far as their governing is
In Munich, Ratzinger was even
one of his
to hold a
Theology at the
This would earn him the harsh
opposition of some of his former
friends. I think this was a good
lesson for him. It was a first step
back, a change of attitude up to a
certain point… which would gain
him a certain reputation of being a
conservative, a reputation which is
correct in some aspects.
When he arrived in Rome, in
1982, he had this different attitude,
which in fact was a mixture, difficult to describe and even more difficult to imagine. On the one hand,
you could see a man who had the
faith. As a believer, he described
the faith of his parents when he was
a child: how beautiful that faith
was! You could see that he still had
it, that he loved the Catholic faith.
That was for the believer, but when
you looked at the theologian, that
was something else. He very much
liked certain modern ideas. Thus
he explained in his biography that
when he presented his second thesis
for his doctorate, it was refused
because of its modernism. He realized
that his thesis had two parts,
one was crossed out in red ink all
the way through, whereas the other
part which was more historical,
more or less held together. He presented
this second part once again.
It was thus that he obtained his
second doctorate in theology.
The next year, in 1983, he was
to adopt several positions in opposition
to the general trend. While
he was head of the Doctrine of
the Faith, he gave two conferences
in France, in which he reminded
the French bishops and faithful
that the basis of the catechism,
of any catechism, must be the Roman
Catechism, i.e. the Catechism
of the Council of Trent. And this
reminder given twice would earn
him the anger of the French bishops,
and not only their anger but
also a counter-attack. In the Documentation
Catholique a retraction by
the cardinal was published… which
he is said never to have written. It
was also said that at that point he
gave his resignation to the pope.
This was his first setback. What he Karl Rahner
said was very true, but it was not
Another fact: Assisi. We know
that Cardinal Ratzinger did not
agree with it. He did not go to the
first interreligious meeting in 1986.
He was still against it the second
time in 2002, but he was forced to
go. It is said that at the time of the
first Assisi meeting he wrote a letter
of resignation again. Personally,
I have heard it said four times
that Cardinal Ratzinger had given
his resignation. When Cardinal
Medina visited Le Barroux recently,
he said that he had given it
twice. There must be some truth
in this. He gave his resignation as
head of the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith several times
because of a disagreement with the
pope, in particular over Assisi.
He also reprimanded and condemned
some theologians, not
very many of them, but at least a
few. Something which never happened
under Paul VI. This is all to
So, I have given you, in piecemeal
form, some aspects of his personality,
trying to follow a chronological
order, so as to better define
his personality and try to see how
he will react in the office he holds
A correct diagnosis, but no efficient remedies
In 1989, there was the famous
Carter of Cologne by five hundred
theologians, mainly Germanspeaking.
They signed a statement
of protest against the Roman Magisterium,
because, according to
them, this Magisterium was impeding
the liberty of theologians.
It was a first wave, followed by
others. The French also manifested
their opposition. It is important
to realize the impact of this Charter
of Cologne which set in motion
all this controversy: five hundreds
theologians, that is to say five hundred
professors of universities,
theological faculties, seminaries,
in other words the great majority
of the Catholic intelligentsia of the
time, who protested against Rome
and against the Magisterium. In reply,
Cardinal Ratzinger published
a short study on this modernist
Here, we must be honest
and acknowledge that Cardinal
Ratzinger has remarkable finesse
when it comes to analysis. He pays
attention to every nuance to describe
as objectively as possible the
situation he is analyzing, and, generally
speaking, we can only agree
with what he states.
He noted three aspects of this
modern theology. The first characteristic
was the disappearance
of the idea of creation, replaced by
evolution. The problem with this,
is that if this world was not created,
there is no longer a Creator.
Consequently, we will soon no longer
Secondly, when they speak
about Our Lord Jesus Christ, they
no longer speak about the Son of
God, since in the first point it was
concluded that he did not exist.
Then what is left for Our Lord? He
is a superman, a revolutionary who
came to a bad end since he died on
Lastly, the disappearance of eschatology,
i.e. the four last things,
what happens after death: Heaven,
Purgatory, and hell. Very interestingly,
the cardinal shows that for
this theology, hell no longer exists,
purgatory does not get a mention,
but there is no Heaven either. If
there is no God, no personal God,
why should they invent heaven?
Heaven will be tomorrow here below.
It will be a future.
So after such a description
you expect some conclusions. If I
were to ask you: “Then what do we
do with this new theology?” I think
you would soon come up with radical
solutions like: the trashcan, the
vacuum-cleaner, the stake, excommunication…
Let us not talk about
it any more, we throw it all out and
that’s the end of it. Well, the cardinal
head of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith asks himself
the question as to what ought
to be done and he gives us the following
answer: We should try to
understand these theologians!
Such a conclusion is something of
a damp squib. You were expecting
an explosion, and then … nothing!
We will find the key to this
enigma in something he said this
year, before he became pope, to a
friend who is a priest: “You are a
fighter, I am a thinker.” This says a
lot, I even think it is an outstanding
feature of his personality.
In his recent book on the liturgy,
he again gives very convincing
arguments against the altar facing
the people. When you read that,
you can only be satisfied. His arguments
are so good. This poor altar
facing the people, well there is
not much left of it at the end of his
reasoning. Then comes the question:
what should we do about it.
Cardinal Ratzinger asks himself
the question. And once again he
dodges it: no, we will not go back
to the ancient altar. Why? Because
it would be too expensive, it would
be too much of an upheaval, and
cause too much confusion. The solution:
we will place a cross in the
middle of the altar, and this will be
the mystical East.
It is frustrating, yet that is truly
the answer he gives. And why?
Of course, we could say that he
was not pope when he wrote this
book. But, fundamentally there is
a problem, a real discrepancy between
the analysis and going back
to the root causes. You can see that
the conclusion is out of all proportion,
that it does not correspond
with the description he gives of the
situation. Is it because he has been
hit too often, because he thinks
he is not free, and cannot do as he
would like? This is a very benign
explanation. We will see if it is justified, now that he is at the head of
Concerning the Mass, Cardinal
Ratzinger has pleaded the cause
for the old Mass. It is absolutely
clear. He is indeed one of the few
who has talked about it. Cardinal
Stickler did it but more punctually.
But there are not many others who
have devoted a book to the subject.
I think that, in the official Church,
among the cardinals, if there is anyone
who spoke out against the new
Mass, giving arguments in favor
of the old, it is Cardinal Ratzinger.
But let us go a little further and
see how far he will go to defend the
Last year, in reply
to one of our faithful who had
written to him asking the freedom
of the Mass for all, he wrote: We
cannot give the freedom of the
Mass, because the faithful are vaccinated
against it. It would not be
accepted. – That is why his solution
would be to make a new Mass:
a new new Mass based on the old.
This is what he proposed last year
as a cardinal. The new Mass as it is
now, is no good, the old one is not
acceptable either. So, we are going
to “cobble together” a sort of mishmash
of new-old, old-new.
Cardinal Ratzinger and the Society
of Saint Pius X
And now, in concrete terms,
what can we say concerning Tradition,
concerning us, the Society
of Saint Pius X? I think Cardinal
Ratzinger knows us best, he has
followed us since the beginning.
In 1982, he took up the dossier
after Cardinal Seper and would
have dealings – official as well as
unofficial – with Archbishop Lefebvre,
with the Society. He presided
over the drafting of the 1988 agreement
before the consecrations.
But before that, there were two or
three strange endeavors. Some
seminarians had left us as a result
of the undermining operations
made by Rome. Thus, we were
obliged to send away nine seminarians
from Ecône. These nine
seminarians went to Rome, and a
seminary was founded for them,
Mater Ecclesiæ, if I remember well,
and it was supposedly traditional.
They were promised the moon,
but all this came to an abrupt end.
One of those who had taken part
in this sad saga, wrote to Archbishop
Lefebvre, just before the consecrations,
telling him how right he
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who
was practically the founder of the
Society of Saint Peter. For those
who do not know, it was founded
by Rome in opposition to the Society
of Saint Pius X. In the report
by Cardinal Gagnon, or at least in
his estimation, it was said at the
time of the consecrations, that between
60 and 80% of the priests
and faithful would leave Archbishop
Lefebvre. Hence the hammer
blow tactics against Archbishop
Lefebvre, by that I mean the excommunication. And then, they
opened wide the doors to all those
who had not been smashed down,
so that they would go over to the
Society of Saint Peter.
This Society was founded expressly
against us, and it is still like
that today. In the dioceses, the
bishops see red when our Society
arrives, and they try to neutralize
us by inviting the Society of Saint
Peter. Sometimes they say openly:
“No, we won’t give you anything unless
the Society of Saint Pius X becomes established
here. Then, yes, we will open
a Saint Peter chapel.”
Two years ago, Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos wanted to get rid of
the secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Msgr.
Perl. But Mgr. Perl found a defender
and a protector who opposed his
eviction from Ecclesia Dei. It was
In these circumstances, what is
Cardinal Ratzinger’s viewpoint on
the Society? I think he feels frustrated
that the agreements of 1988
did not succeed. And then, it is
true that we did not hesitate to attack
him on all sides. That is not
something pleasant, and I can understand
that he did not like it too
Looking back at recent events,
we can notice some strange bedfellows.
Here are some facts.
Last year, a group of conservative
cardinals got together with
the idea of doing something for
Tradition. That is something new,
but it is true that they know perfectly
well that the Church is not
doing well. Confronted with this
disastrous situation, Rome turned
her eyes towards the traditionalists
in general, i.e., all those attached
to the old Mass, and not
only the Society of Saint Pius X.
And so these cardinals gathered to
see what could be done in favor of
Tradition. Two trends appeared.
According to one, the Society of
Saint Pius X which is the backbone
of Tradition should be supported
– and we know which cardinal
supported this argument. According
to the other, on the contrary,
Saint Peter’s/Ecclesia Dei should be
strengthened, while eroding our
Society, and here again we know
which cardinals were supporting
This year, two cardinals, one of
them Cardinal Ratzinger, went to
see Pope John Paul II. They went
to the Holy Father to ask him to appoint
as secretary of the Congregation
for the Liturgy a bishop who is
convinced that the Church will not
come out of this crisis without a return
to the old Mass, a bishop who
says that the priest cannot find his
identity in the new Mass. His position
is known in Rome. It was this
bishop who was proposed as secretary
for the Congregation for the
Liturgy. This was a point in Cardinal
Ratzinger’s favor. But the bishop
in question was not appointed,
because the secretary of the pope
had already promised the office to
someone else. This is how things
are done in the Church!
Another example of these
strange bedfellows. Cardinal Medina
explained that he made efforts
at the time of the publication
of the 3rd typical edition of the New
Mass to include as an appendix
nothing less than the old Mass. – It
is remarkable to see where Cardinal
Medina stands at this moment
in time, when we know that there
was a time when he wanted to put a
condemnation and interdiction of
the old Mass in the typical edition.
Then it was the Secretariat of State
who forbade him to do so. Now he
wanted to introduce the old Mass.
And this time it would not be the
Secretariat of State which would
prevent him from doing so. It
would be neither a secretariat nor
a congregation. It would be a man,
the pope’s Master of Ceremonies,
who kicked up such a fuss with
John Paul II, that they had to give
it up. So you see how the history of
the Church is made!
Benedict XVI and Vatican II
And now, what about Benedict
XVI? Clearly he was elected in reaction.
During the few days before
the conclave, he invited the cardinals
to talk freely. For the first
time, they talked among themselves
of the serious problems of
the Church. Between themselves
they admitted firmly that things
were not going well. And we may
well believe that the vision of this
tragedy of the Church impelled
some cardinals to elect Benedict
XVI. There is an expectation in
the Church, even on the part of the
hierarchy, in view of the disastrous
state of the Church.
Look at the number of vocations,
it is not exactly brilliant! A
diocese like Dublin can see a whole
year without a single priestly vocation.
We have sunk very low. Some
years ago, in all the novitiates of
Ireland there were 150 novices to
replace 32,000 sisters. It is even
more striking for the brothers.
To replace 10,000 brothers, in all
the novitiates of all the congregations
of Ireland there were 5 novices.
Last year, or the year before,
for the whole order of the Jesuits
there were only seven perpetual
professions. This for an order
which numbered 32,000 members
20 years ago. There must be about
25,000 today. No one can be in any
doubt what these figures mean.
Cardinal Castrillon was once
talking about the state of the Roman
universities. In reply to his interviewer
he said: “The pontifical universities
of Rome are filled with heretics”,
and he added: “Yes, it is terrible.
I hope the new head of the Congregation
will be strong enough to restore order
there.” And two years later, the
head of the Congregation for the
Clergy declared: “We just can’t do
anything about it”. This is how they
speak in the Roman curia about
the pontifical universities: we just
can’t do anything about it!
It is certain that Cardinal Ratzinger,
now pope Benedict XVI,
realizes the pitiable state of the
Church. He knows that the Church
is in a terrible situation. And also,
he knows the third secret of Fatima.
Then what can we expect? It has
to be said, there is a problem which
casts a shadow over our hope. The
problem is that Benedict XVI remains
attached to the Council. It
is his work, his brainchild. He acknowledges,
of course, that there
are some developments which are
not acceptable – which means that
there is, nevertheless, at least one
which is acceptable.
As for us, our position regarding
the Council is very simple: it
contains errors and ambiguities
which pave the way for even worse
errors. What inspired the text and
what makes it unacceptable, was a
non-Catholic spirit. Such is our position
concerning the Council. Obviously,
you can find in it certain
elements which are true. But the
whole is unassimilable. And that is
why, considering the whole, we refuse
to sign a declaration concerning the Council, which, in one way
or another, might give the impression
that we adhere to this Council.
Let us take an image from domestic
life. We are quarreling
with Rome, they say: “it’s soup”, we
say: “no it’s not”, “It is”, “It isn’t”. Finally
Rome says to us: “You won’t
have to drink that soup, but at least
you must say it is soup.” And we answer:
“We know quite well it is soup,
but it has been poisoned.” So it must
no longer be called soup, it must
be called poison. And if we call it
soup we deceive people because
they are going to believe they can
drink it. The question is not to
know whether it is a soup or not,
it is to know whether or not it is
poison, whether it will do us good
or kill us. That’s the real problem.
Confronted with that problem it is
useless to argue about whether it is
soup or not. It is causing harm, so
we do not want to drink it.
Then Rome tries to find a “palatable”
formula: “The Council in the
light of Tradition”. But given the context
in which this formula is used,
it is not agreeable to us. For what
does it mean: “I accept the council in
the light of Tradition”? What does it
mean when they accuse us of having
a wrong idea of Tradition. In
the very text of excommunication
of Archbishop Lefebvre, we read
that he committed a fault in consecrating
bishops, because he had
an incomplete notion of Tradition.
And they would propose that we
sign a declaration saying that we
accept the Council in the light of
Likewise, concerning the Mass,
the formulæ that Rome proposes
to us are correct, but only out
of context. So, they now ask us to
acknowledge that the New Mass
is valid, if it is celebrated with the
intention of performing the sacrifice of Our Lord. This is even more
precise than what theology demands,
which is to celebrate with
the intention of doing what the
Church wants. This phrase in itself
is acceptable, but it is the same
as with my image of the soup. The
New Mass, even when valid, is poisoned.
That is why we do not drink
it. That is why we tell you: “Don’t
Why is there this lack of understanding
between the Roman
authorities and us? Because they
do not manage to extricate themselves
from the Council, from the
Council and its reforms.
We feel clearly that they are
uncomfortable with us. They acknowledge
that what we do is
Catholic. Cardinal Castrillon told
us so positively: “You are neither heretics
nor schismatic”. So the problem
is not on our side. Rome’s attitude
towards us can be summed up like
this: We let you continue, for what
you do is good; but we would like
you to say that what we do is also
good. And we are well aware
of a desire on their part, to make
us feel guilty: You did wrong. You
performed consecrations against
the will of the pope. This should
not have been done. You say that
the Council is bad, that the New
Mass is bad. This is not possible.
It was recognized by the pope. It
is infallible. As the same Cardinal
Castrillon said during a conference
in Munster: “The New Mass was recognized
by the pope. It is infallible. It
is good.” During a discussion, the
head of the Congregation for the
Clergy told me: “The pope and I like
the New Mass. We think it is more apostolic.
It is true that it lacks something,
and it must be compensated for by an
adequate catechesis.” Then I recalled
the definition of evil given by St.
Thomas Aquinas: “Evil is the privation
of a due good. It is something which
must be there which is lacking. Now,
you yourself, Eminence, acknowledge
that there is something missing from
this New Mass. So you acknowledge
that it is evil.” I received no answer
from the cardinal.
It should be said that men of
the Church, and not the Church,
have erred. Now the Roman authorities
do not want to enter this
kind of logic. And as they do not
want to tackle the problem where
it really is, they cannot take the
measures needed to get out of this
crisis. That’s the trouble!
Reunification with the Orthodox
If you look again at our new
pope, you see that the beginnings
of his pontificate do not leave much
room for hope. In his sermon at the
taking of possession of the Chair of
St. Peter at the Lateran, he spoke
of the bishop of Rome. The Lateran
is the church of the bishop of
Rome. He did speak of the potestas
docendi. It was a long time since
the power to teach had been mentioned
. But when it came to the
primacy, i.e. not only the power to
teach, but also to rule, to govern,
this primacy, for him, is reduced to
a “primacy of love”. The interpretations
which can be made of this expression
Benedict XVI has an idea. He
even announced that it would be
one of the key-ideas of his pontificate.
He will concentrate all his
energy and all the energy of the
Church on this idea. This idea is
the reunification with the Orthodox.
That is good. They are the
closest to us. Thus the scope of ecumenism
will be reduced appreciably.
They will no longer talk too
much about interreligious dialogue
as in Assisi. Yes, but… the idea,
which was already Cardinal Ratzinger’s,
is that to bring about this
reunification – since the Orthodox
do not accept the primacy of Peter
– we have to go back to the conception
we had of the pope at the time
when we were all in agreement. In
other words, we should come back
to the notion of the pope such as
it was in the first millennium. It is
an idea deeply rooted in Cardinal
Ratzinger, which is now expressed
by Benedict XVI.
At Bari, on the occasion of the
Eucharistic Congress, he made it
very clear that one of the goals of
his pontificate was reunification
with the Orthodox. If it were according
to the Catholic idea, there
would be nothing to say against it.
But the problem is that the Roman
authorities have a concept of
unity that I wish I could understand.
John Paul II said it would be
“neither an absorption, nor a fusion”.
What can be the unity without the
absorption or fusion of two beings
which are at present, separated?
Cardinal Kasper is more explicit:
“It will not be an agglomeration of
Churches”, because that is a concept
which is too political, too administrative.
But we are still wondering
what it might be. As with this
expression “unity in diversity”; unity
means one, diversity means several,
is it then “the one in the many”? This
formula is very fashionable in the
New Age movement, and perhaps
also in today’s Europe, but when
all is said and done, it must be one
or the other, not both. It cannot be
both at the same time, or we must
say that circles are square.
In fact that is an image I often
use to explain ecumenism today:
Supposing that each religion or
Christian denomination is a geometrical
figure, how can we bring
back to unity all these geometrical
figures, while, of course, each one
remains what it is, for that is diversity!
Well! It’s not that difficult.
Each geometrical figure only has to
admit that it is a circle. Of course,
this is tantamount to the suspension
of the principle of non-contradiction.
That is the problem. But
if you manage to solve it, all well
This is just what happens with
ecumenism. They want to make us
believe that squares are triangles
or rhombuses, and that all these
figures are circles. So, they tell us:
“We all have the same faith.” This
was affirmed by John Paul II: “All
the Christians have the same faith.”
We know very well that this is not
true! Cardinal Kasper explains
that, in order to have the same
faith, it is not necessary to have the
same creed. In plain English, you
only need to know how to round
off the corners!
The fundamental issue: the truth
This false ecumenism enables
us to put our finger on the gravity
of the situation. It is not merely
a question of liturgical rubrics
– three swings more or less of the
censer – here we are dealing with
the question of truth. “What is
truth?”. Today they do not even
ask this famous question of Pilate.
People live their lives without even
asking it. They don’t care about it.
Unity will be “everybody is nice, everybody
is good”. And so much the
worse for truth! We have reached
that point. Neither the truth, nor
the question of good are any concern
for modern man.
How many bishops, how many
priests, no longer believe, do not
believe that Our Lord is God. As
a proof of this I will only take the
case of Cardinal Kasper, who wrote
a book entitled Jesus, the Christ, in
which he tells us that when we love
someone we tend to exaggerate.
And that is why there are so many
miracles in the Gospels. The Evangelists
who loved Jesus, exaggerated
the number of his miracles! And
Kasper takes up his scissors to cut
out almost everything. He leaves
in a few cures, because even today
we witness them, so they could
have happened at the time of Our
Lord. He even dares to say that it
was never said that Our Lord is the
Son of God. But if we put forth
the argument of the cross-examination
of Caiphas: “I beseech thee,
in the name of God, tell us if you are
the Son of God”, and Jesus’ answer:
“I am”, Kasper answers back: you
understand, at that time Jesus was
under duress! Today he is a cardinal,
and he does not have the faith!
How many cardinals do not have
the faith? Benedict XVI is in the
midst of them. What is he going to
do? What can he do? What does
he want to do?
What may we hope for?
In the present state of the
Church, how can we foresee the future
pontificate of Benedict XVI?
To sum up in an image, I would
say that if we consider the pontificate of John Paul II as being in free
fall, we could probably see that of
Benedict XVI as a fall with a parachute.
The problem is to know the
size of the parachute. It will follow
the same direction but more
slowly. He will brake, I think. But
what will be the result? You know,
when you go fast, you slam on the
brakes, but you do not quite know
what is going to happen to the car.
Normally it slows down. But sometimes
it goes into a ditch… And
then, it all depends on the size of
the parachute. If it is small, we will
see practically no difference. If it
is big, it may slow things down noticeably.
I believe that Benedict XVI
will try to put the brakes on. Could
we hope for more? Yes, of course
we must hope for more, but not
from men. Once again, our hope is
in God. The promises of Our Lord
hold good forever; they were good
under John Paul II, they are good
under Benedict XVI. And the
Good Lord uses all things to make
his Church go where He wants.
If you want a personal opinion,
I think that if – and this cannot be
totally excluded – if Benedict XVI
finds himself in a crisis situation,
if he is driven into a corner, for instance
by a violent and threatening
reaction on the part of the progressives,
or because of a political crisis,
or persecutions, I think that if
he is placed in such circumstances,
the pope will make the right
choice. I believe this on the evidence
of his reactions so far.
This means that the Church is
ailing, of course, but Her sufferings
have a salutary value. Of course, we
would never wish for persecution
any more than we would wish to
break a leg. But if that fracture enabled
us to save our life, we would
not hesitate, would we?
I am not saying that this is what
is certainly going to happen. But I
think we must be under no illusion
as to the situation in the world and
in the Church. The laws passed all
over the world today are slowly but
surely making Catholic life impossible.
This means that sooner or
later, the Christian will be obliged
to say: No, I cannot! And what
does any State do when you tell it
no? It puts you in prison. Today
they are putting people in prison
who say no to abortion, or who do
nothing more that pray the Rosary
some 50 or 100 yards from a place
where abortions are performed.
And this in a country as liberal as
the United States. So you see, it is
not difficult to go to prison for a
good cause nowadays.
We must be ready. We must
get ready. You will ask me how
we should do this. It is very simple.
Our Lord gave us a rule to prepare
ourselves for great trials. It is
a golden rule, yet extremely simple:
fidelity in little things. In other
words: we must do our duty of
state. Fidelity in little things assures
us of fidelity in great things.
Our Lord Himself told us so.
Retaining relations with Rome
What are we asking from
Rome? Very simply, we want to be
and remain Catholic. We cannot
ask for less: That the Church be
Catholic, that our Mother Church
be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
We ask for nothing more,
but for nothing less. We ask for
the whole faith, all the sacraments,
all the discipline. That is our goal.
What are our means? Of course,
it is not up to us to convert Rome.
Yet, we can collaborate, cooperate. We must do all we can. And
in this all we can, there is first of all
the duty to keep our relations with
Rome. We must not break away.
It is a mistake to draw away from
the pope, the curia and the bishops
and to end up saying: “We are the
only ones left”.
If you need proof, you know
that all those who begin like that
always end up giving themselves a
pope, their pope. Today there are
some fifteen of them! One of them
wrote to me. He calls himself Peter
II. And he asked me permission
to keep the Blessed Sacrament in
his garage! That’s how they end up!
There is another, a Pius XIII, a capuchin
who said to himself: “Now
that I’m pope, I need cardinals”. So he
appointed an Australian cardinal.
A few days later he consecrated
him bishop, while he was himself a
simple Capuchin priest! And three
days later, he had himself consecrated
bishop by the man he had
just consecrated bishop! It’s ridiculous!
It’s sad. These are false solutions
which lead nowhere. You’ve
got bishops everywhere! a bishop
in each garage! and popes! That is
not the way.
We can see clearly, that in the
official Church today, there are
still souls, priests, bishops who do
not show themselves too much, but
are, without a doubt, still Catholic,
without the least shadow of doubt.
But we can say that only we, who
are faithful to Tradition, keep the
doctrine in its entirety alive, and
that alas, there are many Catholics
who are no longer truly so. That is
what makes it so difficult.
In a cancer, if you have a tumor
which is well confined, you can try
to have it removed. But if you have
a general cancer, if the illness is everywhere,
they you do not even try
to remove anything. Because they
no longer know what they should
leave and what they should remove.
Doctors are powerless. That is the
state of the Church. It is a cancer
so widespread that we can no longer
take up the surgeon’s knife to
remove the tumors. In the past,
you had a heretical priest here, a
heretical bishop there, they were
removed and that was the end of it.
Now the evil is so widespread that
even Rome no longer dares to take
up the knife.
Do not ask me how
this is possible. This is part of the
mystery of the Church. We can see
here an association between the
Mystical Body and the sufferings
of Our Lord on the Cross. We can
see plainly that the Church is going
through the same state as Our
Lord, an unheard-of Passion. Can
this go on until death, as for Our
Lord? Will there be an apparent
death, like the disappearance of
the Church? I wonder if the released
part of the 3rd secret of Fatima
does not deal with this Passion.
At the end it speaks of a massacre:
a procession which follows the
pope, with bishops, religious and
faithful from all walks of life, and
they are all killed. This vision ends
with angels offering this blood to
God, and this blood will return
as graces on those who are left. It
looks as if like there is an apparent
disappearance of the Church.
This interpretation is not exactly
that given by Rome, but I am doing
nothing more than describing
purely and simply, the vision.
Our duty to bear witness
We are living in a truly unprecedented
you can see for yourselves that
with courage, efforts, tears and
toil, we can still manage to live as
Christians today. We manage to
do this because the grace of God
is still working. The proof: our little
Society which keeps growing in
the midst of all this.
To bear witness, this is our very
simple task. We are in this world
and those around us see it very
well. You do not realize the impact
produced by these Catholic families
with children who still behave
almost as they should. You do not
realize how much this impresses
people around us. Just a little fact
on this subject: an Italian teaching
sister came to the ordinations at
Ecône. At the end of the Mass, she
was in tears, deeply moved. Why?
She had seen lots of little children,
a whole swarm of them in all this
crowd, under a hot sun, and they
were as good as gold for five hours.
She told us: “I can’t keep my children
quiet for ten minutes. And here is
a crowd of children who are so good.”
She was deeply impressed. She left
her congregation to join us.
This also happened during our
pilgrimage to Rome. We simply
gave the example of Catholic living.
We did nothing extraordinary. We
were just there. We knelt to pray
the Rosary for almost an hour. But
you do not see that any more. In
the past this was perfectly normal.
This is what strikes people, things
as simple as these. You do not have
to look for anything extraordinary.
This makes people think, and I include
theologians and bishops. The
head of a dicastery in Rome, when
he saw those processions, said: “But
they are Catholic, we must do something
for them.” He was stunned
– Because, you know we are represented
as devils by all the newspapers.
We can still do much. Of
course, it is with our Crosses that
we go forward, but we must show
that the Catholic religion still exists,
that it is possible in this world,
and that this is the way to gain
Enlightening the bishops and
Our task is to maintain this
minimal relationship in order to
get the message across by example.
That is why we mustn’t cut
ourselves off completely. We must
convert. Once again, it is not we
who convert, it is God. But we can
bring our little stone. Thus we take
advantage of these relations to provide
Rome with theological studies
which show that there are really
serious problems with the texts
of the Council, and those which
followed. It is a long-term process…
until the Roman authorities
consent to think about it, and
talk about it. But we lose nothing
in telling the truth, even when it
There is also much work to be
done with bishops and priests. This
annoys them, as you can imagine.
And then suddenly, there is a
French bishop who tells you: “I am
very pleased that you visit my priests.
They need that. Carry on!” Another,
also in France, said: “The Church
need you. But, I beg you, stay as you are.
Do not change!” At the same time,
we keep receiving blows from other
bishops, but we receive them willingly
if this will help them to see
clearly one day. Those who are beginning
to understand are not very
brave. They know only too well
that if they opened their mouth
they would get their head chopped
off . Some even say to us: “Pray for
me because I must speak out.”
I believe that Rome is wrong
about the state of the Church.
The progressives make a lot of
noise. There are a certain number,
but there are still faithful who
are quite ready to go back to the
old Mass. They must certainly be
prepared, but they are many more
than we think.
With priests, it is more difficult. Our experience shows us that
there is a certain category which
does not want to hear anything.
The category of the 67-75 year olds,
those who are as old as the council,
who had to give up all that existed
before. They threw themselves into
all those new things and today
they cannot manage to come back.
It is disturbing. It is painful. That
is the age group which is most affected.
The oldest, over 75 years
old have no problem, at least most
of them. And very surprisingly the
youngest are very open. They know
nothing, that is true. But nevertheless
they are open.
A curate came to
me and said: “Look,
when I visit my faithful,
they ask me why did
you change the Church?
Why did you change the
Mass? We want the other
Mass, the old one.”
And this priest admitted:
“I would like to say
it, but I do not know it. I
have never seen it. I am
28. When I try to ask the
older priests, I get scolded.
Would you teach me
the old Mass? What was
the Church like in the
past? I know how it is
since Vatican II, but before,
I do not know.”
Another edifying example. A
boy used to go to the new Mass.
One day, he learned that there
were martyrs who died for the
Mass. And he said to himself: “No,
that is not possible”. He was troubled
by this historical fact, because,
for him, you could not die for the
Mass, that just was not possible.
Until one day, he learnt that there
was another Mass. That interested
him. He searched, and he found us.
He is now a seminarian.
Did you know that in modern
seminaries, groups of candidates
to the priesthood gather during
the night to study St. Thomas, so
as to receive an antidote to what
they have been taught during the
day? It even happens that we receive
phone calls from seminarians
who ask us: “Our professor of Holy
Scripture told us that there were three
Isaiahs. This seems to me a bit strange.
What does the Church say?” That
happened in Austria. We were
asked the same question by a seminarian
In this new generation of priests
there is something very surprising
which leaves the men in charge of
vocations in modern seminaries
completely dumbfounded. Suddenly,
they realize that there are underground
associations of seminarians
in their seminaries who want to be
conservative. Of course, when they
are discovered, they are sent away.
Nowadays it is a sin to be conservative.
So you understand why we are
obliged to say that things are not
going well. We have the duty to tell
Rome: We do not want any compromise,
any slipshod agreement.
We want to be Catholics, period.
And we expect nothing less from
In 2004, Cardinal Castrillon
was talking to me about the Society;
he said: “I am discouraged”. But,
I am not discouraged at all. We can
see that the Good Lord is at work.
Of course, we cannot say that the
renewal of the Church is achieved,
but it is like all those little green
shoots in the middle of the desert.
You see one here, another there,
and you know, when you see them
in the midst of the desert, that the
Good Lord is going to make green
grass grow everywhere one day.
What about Ecclesia Dei?
In the present situation, what is
going to happen to us? According
to the information we have, Cardinal
Ratzinger – and he is not the
only one – was already working last
year on a reinforcement of Ecclesia
Dei. We may think that now that he
is pope, he will carry on this work
of reinforcement of Ecclesia Dei. He
will give more weight to this commission,
increase its staff. Thus, he
will support even more those who
want the old Mass. But this will remain
limited to the societies recognized
by Ecclesia Dei: Saint Peter,
Christ the King, and so on… Paradoxically,
all this helps us, because
the Good Lord uses the Society
of Saint Peter as a springboard towards
the Society of Saint Pius X.
In the final analysis, the result
of the indult is that Rome miscalculated.
By opening the doors, the
authorities thought they would
bring the faithful to the New
Mass. In fact, the opposite is happening,
so that we can only rejoice
over any overture in favor of the
Why does this liberty favor a
move in this direction and not in
the other? Because the Old Mass,
in itself has an extraordinary power.
It demands faith, it gives the
faith. And when you have had a
taste of the traditional faith, you
want all that it implies. There are
priests who said the New Mass,
and then said the Old Mass again,
once, twice, three times. And then
they said: “Never will we say the
New Mass again.” On the contrary,
I know a priest who does not dare
to say the Old Mass again, because
he acknowledges that afterwards
he will no longer be able to say the
new one. You feel like telling him:
“Go on, have a little courage!”
This Mass nourishes. It is truly
the heart of the Church. The
heart pumps the blood around the
whole body. And the blood brings
life, oxygen. The heart is the pump
of our body, and the supernatural
pump of the Church, which brings
life to the whole Mystical Body, is
the Mass. By feeding the pump,
you regenerate the whole body.
This is why we are asking for the
liberty of the Mass. We know very
well that it is not all, that there are
heresies to be fought. But we have
to begin somewhere, and first of all
with something very concrete.
At present, we need a change of
atmosphere, we must make the authorities
acknowledge in the facts,
that Tradition is not some archaeological,
or prehistoric oddity. It
is the normal state of things. It is
even the only normal state of the
Church. – Of course, this will not
be achieved in a day.
So Rome will work on reinforcing
the Ecclesia Dei commission.
We may suppose that they will ignore
us. So, for a while, our situation
might be more difficult than
it was under John Paul II, because
many people will be deceived and
say to themselves: “that’s it , it’s
great, we’ve won”, whereas, actually,
nothing has yet been gained .The
strengthening of Ecclesia Dei will
probably mean, at one point, the
creation of entities more or less exempt
from the jurisdiction of local
bishops. The Roman authorities
will be obliged to grant some kind
of exemption in spite of the violent
opposition of the bishops. At present,
they try to avoid going against
this opposition, but they realize
that this situation is unjust. They
know that the faithful who want
the Old Mass have every right to
it. Yes, Rome knows perfectly well
that this Mass cannot be forbidden.
Cardinals have started to say
so. Among them, the former Head
of the Congregation for the Liturgy,
Cardinal Medina, who has declared:
“I did some research. There
is no text forbidding the Old Mass.”
Now, saying that it is not forbidden,
is tantamount to acknowledging
that it is allowed.
Rome knows it – by Rome, I
mean the curia, John Paul II, and
now Benedict XVI – they know
that the Tridentine Mass was never
forbidden and that it cannot be
forbidden, that there is no juridical
nor theological argument allowing
them to forbid this Mass.
They know it, and so one day, this
injustice done to the Church and
to the Old Mass will disappear. Let
us pray that this happen as soon as
possible. Let us pray that it may
happen during this pontificate,
for it is quite possible that it could
happen under this pontificate.
All that can be done in favor of
Tradition is beneficial. What has
been the result since the consecrations
up to now?
In the United
States – these are the official figures
for the indult Mass – 150,000
faithful have access to the Tridentine
Mass. Were it not for the consecrations,
these faithful would not
have the Tridentine Mass today.
Victory after the battle
In conclusion, what are our
present dispositions? There is
hope, assured hope. Why assured?
Because it is based not on man, but
on the Good Lord, who is faithful
to His promises, and who nevertheless
wants to make use of His
Let us pray specifically that the
grace of God be so strong that it
overcome all the shortcomings
of those who hold office in the
Church. God can do it, and he may
even have decided to grant this
grace in answer to our prayers and
sacrifices. For there is an amazing
solidarity in the Mystical Body. Let
us make sure we don’t forget it.
Instead of reproaching these
poor bishops and priests who live
scandalous lives, let us pray for
them. Thus we do them much
more good, we do much more good
to the Church than when we insult
them. We ask God to make His
grace come down upon them.
I believe the Blessed Virgin.
Fatima is not over! We are living in
the time of the Blessed Virgin. I am
convinced, when I see all that has
been happening since the 19th century,
that we are living in the time
of the Blessed Virgin. In the end my
Immaculate Heart will triumph.
But the battle precedes triumph.
Victory comes after the
battle, not before; just like resurrection
comes after death. Today
they only want to preach the risen
Christ, but before He rose, He had
So let us bear in mind that victory
comes after the battle. And
let us not forget that we are now in
the thick of the battle. Let us ask
Our Lady to put her mantle over
us, under her protection, in her army,
to play our part in this victory
by using all our energy in the current
Courage! Keep on fighting.
It’s not over yet. The Immaculate
Heart will triumph.