From this morning’s newsflash:
I began my conversation with the monsignor indicated to me by Cardinal Gagnon as he lay dying with the simple fact of Gagnon’s passing in August of 2007.
We spoke in Italian. The conversation took place in the fall of 2007.
“I was sorry to hear of Cardinal Gagnon’s passing,” I said.
“Yes, so was I,” the monsignor said. “He was a great servant of the Church. He suffered a great deal.”
“I knew him,” I said. “He was always helpful to me, especially when I was beginning.”
“He was a kind man.”
And then we began our usual conversation, on the state of the Church, the latest news in the Vatican, and so forth. Our conversation turned naturally to the publication on July 7, 2007, of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which promoted wider use of the old rite of the Mass.
“I’m confused,” I said.
“Why?” he said.
“The whole thing,” I said. “What happened at the Second Vatican Council, the Constitution on the Liturgy, the Commission established to revise the Mass, Monsignor Bugnini… And now, 40 years later, we seem to be still in a state of confusion. It seems like all the things we held sacred — all the things we loved — have been trampled upon.”
“You are too gloomy,” he said, waving his hand dismissively. “Yes, things have been trampled upon, but the essential remains. Don’t lose heart.”
“Does the essential remain?” I asked. “Look around. We have some who don’t care about any traditions at all, they look at the ‘old Church’ as narrow and guilt-ridden, and they will do anything not to go back. And we have many traditionalists who seem to focus solely on externals — it sometimes seems an idolatry of the ritual…”
“I don’t see it that black-and-white,” the monsignor said. “You are leaving out all the individuals, all their acts of sacrifice, their good humor, their prayer. You have fallen into a trap. In the fight over truth, don’t forget grace. Remember, there is God, the Holy Spirit, Mary…”
“But why do so many seem not to care?”
“Some are thoughtless. Some are persuaded the Church should be changed. Some just flow with the tide. Some are motivated by money. And then there are those who serve other masters. That was the case with Bugnini…”
I was startled. Not because of what he said, because it is an old allegation, but because of the way he said it, as if it was something settled, beyond discussion.
“Of course, I have heard that,” I said, “but why do you say it so bluntly, as if it were certain? I thought it was just an allegation?”
“It is certain,” he said. “At least, as certain as anything can be in this world. He went to a meeting in the Secretariat of State, with his briefcase. It was in 1975. Later that evening, when everyone had gone home, a monsignor found the briefcase Bugnini had left behind. The monsignor decided to open it to see who the owner was. And when he opened it, he found letters inside addressed to Bugnini, as to a brother, from the Grand Master of Italian Freemasonry…”
“But could those letters have been forgeries?” I asked. “Could someone have opened the briefcase, seen it was Bugnini’s, and then slipped these false documents inside, to frame him?”
"Well, theoretically, I suppose, that is possible. [Note to readers: Bugnini himself always said the allegations were false, that he was never a freemason, and that the charges were made against him by disgruntled conservatives who opposed the work he had done on the liturgy.] But Paul VI, at least, didn’t think so. When the evidence was brought to him, he came to the conclusion that Bugnini needed to be removed immediately from his post. Bugnini was made the papal nuncio in Iran. After more than 25 years as the head of the liturgical reform, he was abruptly fired and sent to a country where there are hardly any Catholics at all. It was a type of banishment.
“That is very sad,” I said.
“No,” he said, “it is very human… And today, 35 years later, it is in the past. It is something we can do nothing about.”
“But if this is really true,” I said, “then Paul VI may have approved of the new Mass under ‘false pretences,’ as it were. Wouldn’t that raise questions about the entire liturgical reform? And why, then, did Paul VI not go back to the drawing board, if he believed what you say was true?”
(For more on the letters in the briefcase, see:
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_075_BugniniMason.htm)
==============================
The Monsignor Sums Up
“Look,” the monsignor said, “no matter how many defeats the Church suffers, no matter how many betrayals, there is always hope…”
“But the losses are so great,” I said, “it is as if the link between our time and the past has been severed…”
“No!” He looked fiercely at me. “You yourself are evidence that it has not been severed. And so am I. And I tell you, that even were you to fall, and betray the faith, and even were I to fall, and even if all around us were to fall, still, the Church will not be defeated. She will prevail. Non praevalebunt!”
And I looked at him and marveled at his faith.
And I still had not asked him about the Gagnon dossier…
=========================================
(More to come…)
