Entrevue du cdl Burke avec Don Fier dans The Wanderer
Le Forum Catholique
Imprimer le Fil Complet
Jean Kinzler - 2020-01-18 14:50:44
Entrevue du cdl Burke avec Don Fier dans The Wanderer
Interview with Cardinal Burke… He Is With Us: Trusting In The Lord In Turbulent Times
December 26, 2019
By DON FIER
(Editor’s Note: His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Prefect Emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, recently visited the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wis. On December 9, His Eminence graciously granted The Wanderer a wide-ranging interview and offered many illuminating insights on matters that concern the Church in the present time. Below is part one of the interview; part two will appear in the next issue of The Wanderer, the issue to be published on January 2 and dated January 9.)
PART ONE
Q. More than a month has passed since the Pan-Amazon synod (October 3-28, 2019). Please offer your critique on the outcome of the synod as reflected in the final report. Did the document authored jointly by you and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, A Crusade of Prayer and Fasting, in which you identified distressing elements contained in the Instrumentum Laboris, have the desired effect? In your estimation, what is the most positive outcome of the synod? What is the most negative outcome?
A. The final report certainly seems to be an improvement over the Instrumentum Laboris, the working document. On the other hand, however, without any corrections to the working document, one has to assume that the fundamental ideas behind it, which Bishop Athanasius Schneider and I identified in A Crusade of Prayer and Fasting, are still in some way — implicitly if not explicitly — part of the final document. The determining factor, of course, will be the post-synodal apostolic exhortation that Pope Francis issues in response to the recommendations of the synod.
I wish to underscore once again that the final document constitutes solely recommendations from the synod. A synod has no legislative power in the Church — it has nothing to do with changing Church doctrine and discipline. The purpose of a synod is to assist the Pope in teaching the Church’s doctrine more effectively and applying its discipline more fully. This must be kept firmly in mind. I find that in many responses to the final document — from those who are writing about it — the false presumption that it somehow represents an authoritative teaching of the Church; it certainly does not.
What I find most positive about the final document is that the most egregious apostasy in the working document, namely the denial of the Lordship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion of a form of pantheism, the worship of so-called “Mother Earth,” is not explicitly promoted. Nevertheless, as I just observed, one has to know that this kind of thinking was in the mind of many of the synod fathers. Therefore, we need to be extremely cautious that no element of this pernicious apostasy enters into any kind of official document that follows.
We ourselves have to be strengthened in our faith in the Lordship of Our Lord Jesus Christ — He alone is our salvation. Our Lord is not just one part of this cosmos, which, according to the false teaching of the working document, is the font of God’s Revelation. We must firmly and unwaveringly recall the truth that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the fullness of the Revelation of God the Father.
I might observe here, too, that the recommendations of the synod must be weighed in terms of the representative participants in the synod, which came predominantly from a certain small part of the Church. The synod cannot, in any sense, be considered a synod of the bishops of the universal Church.
The most negative outcome of the final document, which is also a principal problem of the working document, is its position with regard to the ordination of the so-called viri probati — the ordination of men who are married and have a family — and the implicit compromise of what has been the consistent discipline of the Latin Church, namely, that the clergy should observe perfect continence.
This cannot be presented to the faithful as simply a measure for the Pan-Amazon region. We have seen this type of deceit played out before in the Church when the faithful are told that a compromise of some important discipline is only to be very limited. For example, we know that, if the Pope grants a relaxation of the Church’s discipline on clerical celibacy for the Pan-Amazon region, the Catholic Church in Germany has bishops asking for this same relaxation to follow immediately for their country. The argument will be used that, if it is good for the Pan-Amazon Church, then it is good for the universal Church.
Q. Two prominent themes that have emerged from the Vatican in recent months (as well as from the Pan-Amazon synod) are “synodal conversion” and “ecological conversion.” Can you explain what these terms are meant to convey and what their effect on the Church will be?
A. I must confess that I, too, do not know the precise meaning of these two terms. I have suspicions of what is behind them, but the people who are using them do not define them, and I think this is very pernicious.
The Church does not need a “synodal conversion.” She has had synodal structures from the very beginning of her existence in history, and the Church’s law has always provided for the respect of the bishops in union with the Holy Father in terms of having leadership of the Church. In turn, pastors should always respect the legitimate concerns of the faithful, a principle that is enshrined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (see canon 212).
I fear that what is behind this is a kind of democratic or very Protestant idea of the Church in which, suddenly in our times, mixed meetings of clergy and laity (as is going on in Germany in their so-called “synodal way”) becomes somehow determinant of Church doctrine and discipline, apart from the apostolic tradition. This is simply nothing other than a “going away from” our Catholic faith.
With regard to “ecological conversion,” what I see behind this is a push for worship of “Mother Earth.” In truth, our mother is not the earth — our mother is the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sense that she gave birth to our Savior. We do not have another mother, certainly not a pagan idol like the Pachamama, which is very revelatory of what is behind this whole business.
Likewise, “ecological conversion” is being used as an argument for a one-world government. This is a masonic idea, an idea of completely secularized people who no longer recognize that the governance of the world is in the hands of God, Who entrusts it to individual governments, nations, and groupings of people according to nature itself.
The idea of a one-world government is fundamentally the same phenomenon that was displayed by the builders of the Tower of Babel who presumed to exercise the power of God on earth to unite heaven with earth, which is simply incorrect. What we truly need is a religious conversion, in other words, a strong teaching and practice of faith in God and obedience to the order with which He has created us.
In my judgment, these terms are very insidious and are being used to promote a certain agenda which has nothing to do with our Catholic faith.
As far as the environment and “ecological conversion” goes, the Church has always taught respect for nature. This is why it is taught that man is the steward of God’s creation and that he will have to render an account of the creation for which he has been entrusted. God created man in His own image and likeness, that is with intelligence and free will, precisely for the mission of stewardship of the earth. This is what should be taught to people, not a so-called “ecological conversion.”
Q. Did not Pope St. John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis authoritatively settle any question as to whether women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders? Why does the topic of women being ordained to the diaconate continue to be discussed, and why is it so prominent in the Pan-Amazon synod’s final report?
A. Yes, you are absolutely correct. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an exercise of the papal Magisterium. It is firmly rooted in the unchanging tradition of the Church and continues to have doctrinal force. Women cannot be ordained to Orders at any level, including the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate.
There is a movement being promoted by people who want the ordination of women to the priesthood. One of the women who served on the papal commission regarding this question said openly that she and those she represents are not interested in the diaconate, but the priesthood. Fundamentally, that is what would ultimately happen if women were to be ordained to the diaconate.
If one studies Church history, it is clear that the Church has never ordained deaconesses (woman deacons). Deaconesses were women who assisted at certain rites, for example, the Baptism of women. Women never received the Sacrament of Orders for assisting at such rites. Ordination of women simply cannot be — it represents a great defect in the final document of the Pan-Amazon synod.
Q. Is there a connection between the so-called binding “synod assembly” that began in Germany on the first Sunday of Advent and the Pan-Amazon synod? Is it proper that the term “binding” be included in the description of the German synod?
A. It is clear that the radical element in the German Church promoted very much the agenda and discussions leading up to the Pan-Amazon synod. A number of those who were involved in the work of preparing for the synod were, in fact, representing very much the current radical thought in Germany, which is behind this so-called “synodal way.”
No synod is binding — this is a contradiction in terms. A synod is a consultative organ of the Church and always has been. What happened is wrong. The two were most definitely connected and it is well-known that the German Church financially sponsored the Pan-Amazon synod.
Pagan Idols
Q. Were the actions of Alexander Tschugguel, who removed the Pachamama idols from Santa Maria in Traspontina and threw them in the Tiber River, an act of theft? What are your thoughts regarding the foundation of the St. Boniface Institute? Do you encourage formation of other lay apostolates that will enable the orthodox faithful to speak out?
A. In this case, it was a question of idolatry. Alexander did not steal anything but rather purged the temple of God of pagan idols. We have many examples of this in Sacred Scripture, most famously the Maccabean brothers as recounted in the Old Testament. In the eighth century, St. Boniface chopped down an oak tree that was sacred to the people he was evangelizing. In fact, this type of purging is a standard occurrence when missionaries go about their work of evangelization. At a certain point, after people have embraced the Christian faith, the missionaries destroy their pagan idols. The people are delighted by it because the Christian faith has freed them in Christ — they want to be liberated from pagan idols and any other kind of diabolical influence. So, what Alexander did was perfectly right; it was an expression of Catholic faith.
I have been acquainted with Alexander for several years and am now following carefully the St. Boniface Institute, which he has founded together with other devout Austrian Catholics. I have a great deal of hope for what this apostolate will be able to do to protect and promote our Catholic faith in these times of great trial, confusion, and division.
My understanding is that the St. Boniface Institute will be for the whole Church. It was founded in Austria, of course, but the issues it will be addressing are international in scope. Alexander has come to the United States and visited other countries as well since the Pachamama incident. I listened to a speech he gave in Virginia just a couple weeks ago [Alexander gave a presentation in McLean, Va., on November 12, 2019]. It is very clear that he is addressing issues of the universal Church. His work, thus, is not limited to Austria.
I do encourage the formation of other lay apostolates in the name of the orthodox faithful, so they can speak out and defend the Catholic Faith. In fact, I would like to underscore that, because today there is a tremendous spread of confusion and error in the Church, and sadly many bishops are silent about it. All of us have a responsibility to defend our Catholic faith. In these times, it may be the lay faithful that need to show the real leadership similar to the manner in which Alexander has.
Q. The document signed by Pope Francis when he participated in an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar states that religious plurality is willed by God. Can such a declaration be reconciled with the message of the Gospel?
A. To suggest that God willed a plurality of religions is false; it is heretical. God does not will a plurality of religions. The Holy Father was confronted with this error by Bishop Athanasius Schneider during his ad limina visit, which was not too long after the Abu Dhabi statement was signed in February. The Pope listened carefully to the bishop’s arguments and indicated that he would clarify the matter. In the meantime, Catholic universities have been ordered to teach this declaration and so the confusion continues to spread.
The argument to justify the declaration is that this is the permissive will of God. In other words, God permits it but does not will it in the sense that, out of respect for the freedom of man, He permits that other religions be established. It is understood that what He permits is not His will and is, in effect, contrary to His will. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument that God wants a plurality of religions.
I have heard people say, in fact, that there should be no effort made to convert Muslims to the Catholic Faith because their religion has its own integrity because it is willed by God. That is simply wrong. God wills to save us through the Redemptive Incarnation of God the Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ — and that is that.
Incorrect Use Of The Catechism
Q. It has been reported that Pope Francis will be hosting an event at the Vatican in May 2020 with the theme Reinventing the Global Educational Alliance. In launching the initiative, the Holy Father said: “A global educational pact is needed to educate us in universal solidarity and a new humanism.” What is the impetus behind this meeting and what is likely to be accomplished? It sounds like an event to promote a one-world government.
A. It is. All of these things are connected. With the spread of Islam, especially in Europe but also in the United States, there is an effort to dull people’s consciousness about the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ as it is proclaimed in the Gospel. This is an area where the faithful must especially stand up and give witness to the truth.
It is my understanding that there are other initiatives that are attempting to teach the Abu Dhabi document in schools. This is troubling. It is similar to what happened in the whole area of sex education in recent generations.
Q. A change was approved earlier this year by Pope Francis in the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to the death penalty. Now it is being reported that additional changes will be made: (1) to define “ecological sins” against our “common home” and (2) that it is immoral to possess nuclear weapons even for the purpose of deterrence. Please offer your insights on the legitimacy of using the Catechism for such proclamations.
A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a proper instrument to introduce such matters. It is a collection of all the authoritative and constant teachings of the Church. It is not a tool for the proposal of new teachings. In fact, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty has not changed. Making a revision to the Catechism gives people the impression that the teaching has changed, but that is not correct. Pope St. John Paul II was very sensitive that the death penalty should be used with the greatest possible care. It was his thought that today there is a rare incidence of cases where the use of the death penalty is necessary because of other forms of reparation for the most grievous crimes. Yet, he never declared that the death penalty is evil — it is not.
In the same way, there are no new “ecological sins.” The same Ten Commandments that the Lord God gave us on Mount Sinai are in force today. We have to respect nature as well as our own human nature. So, I do not know what this can mean. Secondly, nuclear weapons are possessed as a form of deterrence as justified by moral argumentation.
My fundamental point, however, is that introducing these three elements is not a correct use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.thewandererpress.com
---
The Wanderer Interviews Cardinal Burke (Part 2) . . . He Is With Us: Trusting In The Lord In Turbulent Times
January 8, 2020
By DON FIER
(Editor’s Note: His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Prefect Emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, recently visited the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wis. On December 9, His Eminence graciously granted The Wanderer a wide-ranging interview and offered many illuminating insights on matters that concern the Church in the present time. Below is part two of this two-part of interview; part one appeared in the issue of December 26, 2019.)
PART TWO
Q. Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, is the editor of a soon-to-be-published volume entitled Catechism of the Catholic Church with Theological Commentary (its publication has been delayed for several months, but it appears it will now be available in early 2020). Can you tell us anything about this new catechism and what its authoritative scope will be?
A. This new issue of the Catechism will not have the authority of the text that was approved for promulgation in 1994, which will continue to be the authoritative text. Whatever commentary Archbishop Fisichella and other contributors offer in the new volume will have the worth of their fidelity to the unchanging doctrine of the Church. This is not some new Catechism of the Catholic Church and should not be viewed as such. I, for my part, urge people to study the officially released Catechism. Once again, I emphasize that whatever authority the new edition has will depend on the correctness of its fidelity to doctrine.
Q. At the recent USCCB General Assembly in Baltimore, papal nuncio Archbishop Christophe Pierre stated that “the pastoral thrust of this pontificate must reach the American people, especially as families continue to demand of dioceses and parishes the accompaniment envisioned by Amoris Laetitia.” In other words, as many new reports put it, the U.S. bishops are “to get in line with the magisterium of Pope Francis.” Does not the Gospel message demand, rather, that evangelization and pastoral practices entail proclaiming the unchanging truth [i.e., “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15)]? With such an emphasis being placed on Amoris Laetitia, do you foresee any possibility that the five dubia will finally be answered? If not, how can this apostolic exhortation be used validly for “pastoral accompaniment”?
A. I do not believe that the Holy Father will ever answer the five dubia — so much time has passed, and he has not yet done so. If he were to answer the five dubia in accord with the Church’s perennial teaching, it would mean that false pastoral interpretations of Amoris Laetitia could not go forward. In other words, what has always been forbidden in the Church, namely, that those who are living in a marital way with someone who is not really their husband or wife should not present themselves to receive the sacraments, would have to be taught. Most certainly, such liaisons do not constitute a valid marriage. Our Lord’s teachings are clear: Marriage is indissoluble, faithful, and between one man and one woman.
With regard to the notion of “pastoral accompaniment,” while the Church is always accompanying all her members and trying to assist them in leading holy lives, the question becomes: “Where is this accompaniment going?” When you accompany someone, you accompany them to a destination. The destination that must be sought is fidelity to the word of Christ, including His plan for marriage. This means that when people in an irregular matrimonial union are being accompanied, they must be helped to not to receive the sacraments until they are able to rectify their situation, their canonical status.
Q. Another issue that surfaced at the USCCB General Assembly was in regard to whether or not abortion continues to be the pre-eminent social issue. Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego is reported to have stated: “It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face in the world of Catholic social teaching. It is not.” Fortunately, by a vote of 143-69, the original language was retained. What could possibly compare to abortion as a social issue in light of the fact that over 60 million unborn babies have been aborted in the U.S. since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision became the “law of the land” in 1973?
A. It is absolutely clear that abortion is the pre-eminent social issue. Abortion, from the very first days of the Church, has always been considered to be among the most grievous of sins. In the moral law, the first and principal law has to do with the respect for human life. Attacks on innocent, defenseless human life in any way — let alone to the degree in which more than 60 million abortions have been performed — is absolutely the pre-eminent social issue of the time. Until we restore respect for human life, none of the teaching on the other social issues has any solid foundation.
What disappoints me most is that 69 bishops would have voted in favor of removing that language — that is an ominous sign. Even though they didn’t prevail (thanks be to God!), what is the situation of the 69 bishops who do not consider abortion to be the pre-eminent social issue? We must thank God for those bishops who did speak up — and we must pray that more and more faithful bishops will also make their voices heard.
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether discussion took place at the USCCB General Assembly regarding recent surveys indicating that “nones” (those having no religious affiliation) is now the largest religion in the United States, and that 69 percent of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? What can the U.S. Bishops do to reverse these distressing trends that seem to worsen year by year?
A. I have no information about discussions that took place at the General Assembly. However, I would wholeheartedly agree that the two issues you mention should have been at the forefront of the concerns of the United States Bishops. Faith in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is at the heart of our Catholic faith. If 69 percent of those who profess to be Catholic do not believe in the Real Presence, their beliefs are not in accord with the Catholic Faith. Everything possible must be done to correct this.
The unfortunate drift of so many people to identify with no religious affiliation should be of immense concern to the U.S. Bishops. It must mean that in some way that the Church is becoming more and more identified as just one more secular reality that people can choose or not choose, instead of the sign of salvation and the light of the nations.
It is my conviction that we must dedicate ourselves to teaching, in homilies and other instructional formats, the Catholic Faith in its full integrity. Most of all, we must instruct the people in the fundamental truths like the Real Presence. Clearly, priests must be encouraged to preach frequently on these matters and give strong witness through Eucharistic devotions such as Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Eucharistic processions, etc.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen comes to mind as I speak on this topic. His message went out on TV to all Americans. Certainly, the percentage of Catholics in those days was no larger than it is today. Yet, he was one of the most popular figures on the airwaves — people wanted to hear the truths of our faith that he taught.
In our times, we have become too politically correct, too concerned about pleasing people. Rather, we must tell people the truth, certainly in the most attractive way possible, but without ever compromising the full integrity of the truth.
Q. In light of the recent news report that a priest in South Carolina denied Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden, please explain the Church’s teaching on the priest’s action. More recently, Fr. James Martin, SJ, also appeared in the news for his comments on a similar matter. How would you counsel bishops and priests who hold that reception of Holy Communion should not be “politicalized”?
A. The incident regarding Fr. James Martin that you allude to occurred in the Diocese of Grand Rapids, Michigan. A priest rightly told a judge who was living in an open lesbian relationship that she should not approach the altar to receive Holy Communion until she corrects her situation. I am pleased to say that Bishop David Walkowiak made an excellent statement in support of the priest. It is clear to me that Fr. Martin does not teach the Catholic Faith in these matters and has no particular authority to make statements on this point of Church discipline.
What the priest did in South Carolina was right and just — would that more priests would act in a similar manner!
I wrote an extensive article in 2007 on the Church’s discipline regarding the denial of Holy Communion to those persevering in manifest grave sin which I plan to update and reissue soon [see https://mariancatechist.com/cardinal-burke-on-canon-915/]. I demonstrate that in the whole tradition of the Church, the discipline with regard to not admitting people who are involved in public grave sin, after having been admonished, has been constant and that it certainly applies to those who publicly support abortion and so-called same-sex marriage legislation.
This whole matter is not a question of politics — it is a question of the moral law. The moral law applies to politicians as much as anyone else. If one is ignorant of the truth and promotes abortion legislation, that is one thing. But if one is a professed Roman Catholic who has been admonished that he (or she) cannot support legislation against the natural moral law, he (or she) is bound to be obedient to that law. How can bishops stay out of the matter, when politicians who profess to be Catholic are giving scandal to the whole nation by voting in favor of abortion? How can they silently stand by?
I remember an incident in 2004 when a non-Catholic, high-ranking government official in Washington, D.C., asked me if I thought the Church’s teaching on abortion could possibly change. I recall being shocked by the question and responded, “How can you ask that question?” After all, the question was one of the natural moral law and did not have to do with any specific denominational or confessional matter. “Well,” he replied, “I could give you the names of probably 80 to 100 Catholic legislators who regularly vote in favor of abortion legislation. So, I figure it cannot be a very firm teaching of your Church.” This is a major scandal!
Q. Do you have any insights or expectations regarding George Cardinal Pell’s appeal to Australia’s highest court?
A. I have great hope that Cardinal Pell will finally receive a just judgment. There is no question in my mind that the accusation made against him by a single person who remains unidentified could not have plausibly happened in the way in which the Cardinal is accused. I personally do not think the incident actually occurred.
The first trial resulted in a hung jury; the jury in the second trial then condemned him. In an unsuccessful appeal before three judges, the most learned of the judges [Justice Mark Weinberg] disagreed with the vote of the other two and wrote a lengthy and very learned dissent.
I am hopeful that at the level of the Supreme Court, they will re-judge in favor of Justice Weinberg’s opinion. I hope they read his observations and realize how unjust the present decision is.
Q. What is motivating the revolutionary element in the Church?
A. To me, it is what has always been behind this type of revolution. It is a question of pride; it is a question of thinking we know better than the law of God, the Ten Commandments, and the Church’s unchanging magisterial teaching with regard to faith and morals.
People want to be able to freely define the meaning of human life, to define marriage, to define human nature itself. This is pride in its most horrible manifestation.
So, I think the motivation is pride and the absence of an obedience to the Word of God.
Q. In a time of continuing confusion with regard to doctrine and discipline in the Church, who has legitimate authority to determine if new teachings and pastoral practices represent apostasy? To whom should faithful priests and members of the laity reach out to get authoritative answers and thus remain in fidelity to authentic Church teaching?
A. The only answer in the situation in which we find ourselves at present is to fall back on the constant teaching of the Church, which is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the official magisterial teaching of the Church. That has to be our point of reference. It is available to good priests and faithful members of the laity — and they must have recourse to it.
As an example, when the Arian heresy was rampant, and the heretical element was seemingly going to prevail because the majority of Catholics had become Arians, it was by the heroic insistence on what the Church had always taught about the two natures and one divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the truth prevailed.
It was at the cost of great suffering. St. Athanasius, for example, was sent into exile. At one point, Pope Liberius excommunicated him for “the sake of peace” in a political decision of sorts. St. Athanasius accepted all the suffering inflicted upon him and remained steadfast in fighting for the truth. That is precisely what needs to happen again today.
Faithful priests and members of the laity must be prepared. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its unaltered form, which contains magisterial teaching. People keep talking about the “Pope Francis magisterium.” Recently, I talked to two young priests who conveyed a conversation they had with third young priest who was studying moral theology. He said to them: “We have Pope Francis’ magisterium that is completely new; we now have to abandon all the old categories and develop a new theology to match this magisterium.” This is simply preposterous — this is not the magisterium! Priests and the lay faithful must understand this.
The Sacred Heart
Q. What specific practices and devotions do you recommend for those who are struggling to hold on to their faith? Are there words of encouragement and hope you can offer to those who are battling discouragement?
A. I would especially urge devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is also the Heart of Christ the King of Heaven and Earth. We must have recourse to the practice of this devotion to assist us in recognizing Christ’s living presence with us in the Church in times when He doesn’t seem to be present because of all the confusion and even error. Likewise, we should take part in Eucharistic adoration and make frequent visits to adore the Most Blessed Sacrament.
In addition, I recommend devotion to Our Blessed Mother, especially the Rosary which the Church, in times of tremendous danger to the Faith, has commended to the faithful. For example, on the occasion of the Muslim invasion of Europe in the sixteenth century, Pope St. Pius V implored the people to pray the Rosary and Our Lady powerfully intervened. Other Popes, in situations when the Faith has been seriously threatened, have also encouraged the praying of the Rosary. Likewise, Our Lady of Fatima urged the praying of the Rosary. For my part, I recommend that people pray five decades of the Rosary every day if possible.
I would also strongly urge people to take part in the Operation Storm Heaven campaign [see https://www.catholicaction.org/take_heaven_by_storm]. Many people in all parts of the world are participating — it is something we need desperately.
We simply cannot lose hope that Our Lord is with us even though it is difficult to understand why He stays His hand in a time of confusion and error. The situation is getting so bad. For example, consider the recent procession of the pagan idol into St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome — even in front of the tomb of St. Peter.
In former times, Our Lord would intervene in some way to put an end to such practices. But for some reason He is permitting it now. This is a cause for us to purify our Catholic faith of any foreign influences, especially idolatrous influences. Above all, we must never lose trust that He is with us. To express that trust, we must commit to knowing Him better through the Word of God as handed down in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to worship Him, to pray, to be strong in our devotions, and to make sure that our daily lives are coherent with the Catholic Faith we profess.
thewandererpress.com
http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=885232