[ editor: We have noticed thing going missing on the internet. We were fortunate to be on the net when things were still open and free so learning the history of the Fr. Feeney Case was fairly easy. So to save from obscurity, the perceptive from Fr. Feeney's point of view.
What is happening to Fr. Altman is very similar to what happened to Fr. Feeney but no one was aware, as Fr. Feeney was, that the liberals had taken over many parts of the Church. Below is an except from the book : "Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation" by Bro. Robert Mary. We would also recomend another book "They Fought the Good Fight" by Br. Thomas Mary Sennott]
The Compromisers
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" is a solemnly defined dogma which has always been believed and taught by the Church. Were this not so, it could never have been defined ex cathedra in the first place, for no Pope can define a novelty, a truth not taught by the Church from the beginning. But it has been ignored and/or denied many times throughout the history of the Church. The Orthodox churches of the East and the hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant sects in the West stand as living testimonials to such denials.
But it was not until the middle of the last century that an organized
attack on the dogma from within the Church began to take form. The attackers were
traitorous Catholics who, unlike their Orthodox and Protestant forebears, did not
voluntarily leave the Church but stayed within to do their undermining in secret. These
subversives were the fruit of the social, philosophical and theological upheaval of the
eighteenth century known as the Masonic French Revolution. Their goal was to subvert the
Church. They were exposed and condemned as "modernists" by Pope Saint Pius X,
but then they merely burrowed more deeply underground and waited for their time to come.
Eventually, as they rose higher and higher in the leadership echelons of the Church, their
insidious doctrinal teachings produced many, many well-meaning but misguided dupes. These
we call Catholic liberals.
By 1940, Catholic liberalism was firmly entrenched in the Church. Its sentimental, muddle-headed thinking had already made heavy inroads among clergy and laity alike. It was during that year that a prominent Catholic laywoman, Catherine Goddard Clarke, sought the permission of the then-Archbishop of Boston, William Cardinal O’Connell, to establish an educational oasis of Catholic truth close to the renowned secular universities that dominated the area. The Cardinal readily agreed to the project, admonishing Mrs. Clarke to "teach the Faith without compromise," and cautioning her to remain independent of the universities lest it appear that he encouraged Catholics to attend them.
Thus, Saint Benedict Center came into existence in 1940 at the corner of Bow and Arrow Streets in Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
At that time, few were the true Catholics, like Cardinal O’Connell, who saw the grave dangers to the Faith posed by Catholic liberalism. Prominent among those few was the Jesuit, Father Leonard Feeney. Father came to Saint Benedict Center in l942. Within a short time, he was appointed Spiritual Director by the archdiocese and with the approval of the Jesuit Order. In her book, The Loyolas and the Cabots, Sister Catherine, M.I.C.M. (Catherine Clarke) has this to say about Father’s thinking in those early years:
Father Feeney had despaired of doing anything about Catholic liberalism until he was at the Center for several years. When so much became clear to us about the state of a world which would permit the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan; when the boys came back to study and found in every class, practically, the same philosophy which had brought on the war; when we came to the realization that we must speak out no matter who was hurt or whose sense of expediency was outraged, — Father knew that we at last saw the problem. And when Father had, finally, strong and holy men and girls (become so under his direction) who were as eager as he was to work for the Truth, then he knew that something could be done about it.
He changed, then, from the "poet priest" his admirers had known . . . . He became instead the thundering, fighting missionary who, warring in the name of the Wonderful Mediatrix of All Graces, God’s Mother, filled students with a love for God which sent them into all the churches around for daily Mass, which led them to spend their spare time studying the Scriptures and the Doctors, which fired them to make sacrifices so heroic that they left homes, parents, prestiges — to face disgrace, ignominy and persecution.
By the Fall of 1947, it was no secret that Father Feeney was teaching the Catholic Faith with no compromise whatsoever, and with magnificent results. The Center was packed with intent listeners at every weekly lecture, particularly Father’s Thursday night session; conversions were multiplying rapidly; vocations to the religious life were being discovered with increasing frequency; and disenchanted students were leaving Harvard and other secular universities in the area in growing numbers — much to the irritation of these same universities. Liberal Catholics were being embarrassed by such unabashed "triumphalism" on the part of the Center. So, pressure began to be exerted on the Jesuits and the Archbishop of Boston to put the lid on Father Feeney and to remove him from the archdiocese.
What follows is a chronological outline of the key events leading up to and including the betrayal of Father and the Center, and, most importantly, the foundational dogma of the Catholic Church — Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. (For a thorough description of these tragic events, the reader is referred to Catherine Goddard Clarke’s book, The Loyolas and The Cabots.)
Fall, 1947
Father John Ryan, S.J., head of the Adult Education Institute of Boston College, speaking to Dr. Fakhri Maluf (now Brother Francis, M.I.C.M., but at that time a professor in the Philosophy Department of the college and the regular Tuesday night lecturer at Saint Benedict Center): "I do not agree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on salvation outside the Church."
May, 1948
Father Stephen A. Mulcahy, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston College, speaking to Mr. James R. Walsh of the Center, asked him not to teach what the Dean termed: "Father Feeney’s doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church."
August 8,1948
Ten short months after a visit to the Center, during which he addressed a packed house and lavishly praised Father Feeney and the Center for the great work being done, Archbishop Cushing stated in a speech at Milton, Massachusetts: "I cannot understand any Catholic who has any prejudice whatsoever against a Jew or other non-Catholic. If there is any Catholic organization harboring such prejudices, I will assume the responsibility of remedying it. A Catholic cannot harbor animosity against men, women or children of another creed, nationality or color. . . .some of the finest benefactors to the Boston Catholic Archdiocese are non-Catholics."
We add a parenthetical observation: As he admitted later, the Archbishop was not a theologian. Apparently, during the ten months after his visit, some person or persons succeeded in convincing him that the Church’s teaching on salvation was a prejudiced, bigoted dogma. He did not understand that to try to convert Jews and non-Catholics to the One True Faith is the greatest of charity.
August 25, l948
In a letter from Father J.J. McEleney, S.J., Provincial of the New England Province of the Society of Jesus, Father Feeney was suddenly and unexpectedly ordered to report to Holy Cross College in the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. He was to report on September 8th. This was a highly unusual transfer order, for Father had already been assigned to Saint Benedict Center for the year from July, 1948 to July, 1949. He immediately requested a meeting with his Father Provincial. The most important comments during their conversation were these:
Fr. Feeney:
"What is the point of my being changed?"
Fr. McEleney:
"Higher authorities."
Fr. Feeney:
"What is being objected to in what I am doing?"
Fr. McEleney:
"Your doctrine."
Fr. Feeney:
"My doctrine on what?"
Fr. McEleney:
"I’m sorry, we can’t go into that."
The reader will note that it was this admission by his Provincial, that he was being transferred in order to silence his preaching of an infallibly defined Catholic dogma, that later resolved Father Feeney’s conscience problem regarding obedience to the transfer order. It confirmed his decision not to obey the order. As a priest, his first obligation was to defend the Faith.
December 2, l948
Dr. Maluf was summoned for an interview with Father William L. Keleher, S.J., President of Boston College. The subject matter of the interview was Father Feeney’s resistance to the transfer order (on the grounds that it had become a conscience matter for him —the priority of doctrine over discipline) and a strong protest letter which students of the Center had sent to Father McEleney. Parts of the conversation follow:
Fr. Keleher:
"The occasion for my calling you today is the question of Saint Benedict Center, which is getting to be a matter of great concern to the authorities here.This measure, you see, did not proceed from Father McEleney, but from the Bishop, and we are anxious to keep in harmony with diocesan authorities."
Dr. Maluf:
"But the ultimate origin of this order did not proceed from the Bishop or the Archbishop. . . . It is fairly common knowledge at Harvard that certain people connected with Harvard were dissatisfied with the Center."
Fr. Keleher:
"Then you think that there are politics behind this measure?"
Dr. Maluf:
"I have no doubt whatsoever about it."
Fr. Keleher:
"I have the highest respect for Father Feeney, and I have always been edified by his exemplary life . . . . I believe that the work of Saint Benedict Center is the work of God. It has given to our Order not merely in quantity a large number of vocations, but some vocations of whom the whole Jesuit Order is extremely proud. . . . Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his doctrine on salvation. . . . . He kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’"
Dr. Maluf:
"The doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church is a defined dogma."
Fr. Keleher:
"I have never gone into the theology of it but I know that not merely our department of Religion here at Boston College, but also the theologians at St. John’s Seminary and Weston College disagree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on the salvation of non-Catholics."
January, 1949
When Dr. Maluf was dismissed from the faculty of the Graduate School, he went to the office of the Dean, Father George A. O’Donnell, S.J., to ask the reason:
Fr. O’Donnell:
"I am going to be frank with you, Fakhri. You are teaching a doctrine which is not in agreement with the doctrine of the majority of theologians at the present time in this area."
April 13,1949 (Wednesday of Holy Week)
As a result of a letter they had sent to Father Jean Baptiste Janssens, General of the Society of Jesus, in which they charged Boston College with teaching heresy contrary to the infallible definitions of the Popes, Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio were summoned to appear before Father Keleher. Here are the highlights of the meeting:
Fr. Keleher:
"I have written to you in connection with the letter you sent to the General. . . . I have received instructions . . . that the signatories of that letter be presented singly before a board . . . and be asked certain questions by me. . . . You will merely be asked to retract your statements and, in case you refuse to do that, your connection with Boston College will be severed as of this moment."
Dr. Maluf:
"If it is a question of retracting those three statements in our letter to the General, I, on my part, can tell you that I am not capable of doing that."
Mr. Walsh:
"And neither am I."
Mr. Ewaskio:
"And neither am I."
Dr. Maluf:
"Are you definitely giving us the alternative of retracting those statements or of being fired?"
Fr. Keleher:
"Yes, I am."
Dr. Maluf:
"All right. You have taken the measure, and you take responsibility for it."
April 14, l949 (Holy Thursday)
Father Keleher issued a statement to the press explaining the dismissal of the professors which read, in part:
They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance.
Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at Boston College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.
April 16, l949 (Holy Saturday)
Father Feeney issued a statement to the press in which he defended the three professors, plus a fourth, David Supple, who was a teacher at Boston College High School.
April 18, l949 (Easter Monday)
Without any warning, Archbishop Cushing silenced Father Feeney and placed the Center under interdict. The decree read as follows:
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church, has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Subsequent to this betrayal of Father Feeney and the most fundamental dogma of the Church, Archbishop Cushing scandalized every soul in the Boston Archdiocese with this flippant public proclamation: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense! "
Many Catholics in the traditionalist camp — priests and laymen alike — have, in the past, publicized their preconceived notion that the controversy involving Father Feeney was merely a matter of his "over-reacting" in attempting to defend the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation," thus, he went to the extreme of denying "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood." Therefore, the Church had to silence him and, ultimately, excommunicate him for his obstinacy.
What we have related above shows clearly how wrong that pre-conceived notion is. Father Feeney’s insistence that there is no salvation outside the Church — that was the crux of the controversy!
When the four professors were fired from Boston College in 1949 for teaching "ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance," were they fired because they rejected "baptism of desire?" No! They were fired because they were teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
When Father Feeney defended the four professors publicly, he was silenced by Archbishop Cushing. Did the Archbishop silence Father for rejecting "baptism of desire?" No! He silenced Father and interdicted Saint Benedict Center because they were preaching — much to the dismay of the Harvard establishment — the Church’s uncompromising dogma on salvation.
When Archbishop Cushing, a former B’nai B’rith Man-of-the-Year, burst forth in ecumaniacal fervor to an approving audience: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!", was he concerned about "baptism of desire?" Of course not!
For the record: Father Feeney’s position on "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" was first published in his book, Bread of Life, in October, 1952. That was three and one-half years after the doctrinal dispute had erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston with the firing of the professors, the silencing of Father and the interdicting of the Center!
The reader will notice that, despite the continuous assertions by the Jesuits at Boston College that they did not agree with the defined dogma on salvation, and despite the fact that Father’s teaching of this dogma was obviously at the heart of the entire controversy, not once did any of his antagonists dare accuse him of heresy. Instead, when his conscience would not permit him to accept an order, the obeying of which would have been a tacit denial of doctrine, they simply ignored his conscience problem, refused to give him a hearing on that problem, and high-handedly insisted on obedience "or else." In all of Father’s subsequent dealings with the hierarchy, this false principle of discipline (obedience) having a higher priority than doctrine was the order of the day.
Archbishop Cushing silenced Father for "grave offense against the laws of the Church," and not for "teaching a doctrine which is not in agreement with the doctrine of the majority of theologians at the present time in this area," as the Jesuits themselves had identified the issue. The Archbishop was careful not to name "doctrine" as the real issue.
When, on October 10, 1949, Father was dismissed from the Jesuit Order, the notice of dismissal stated the cause as "a crime of serious and permanent disobedience," not the fact that Father did not agree with the "majority of theologians at the present time in this area." The Jesuits, too, were careful not to name "doctrine" as the real issue.
And when, finally, in February, 1953, Father was excommunicated by a
decree of the Holy Office, it was "on account of grave disobedience of Church
Authority." Even the Holy Office would not name "doctrine" as the real
issue.
The "Excommunication"
On August 8, 1949 — almost four months after the silencing of Father Feeney — the Holy Office issued a document, a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Boston and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No. 122/49.*
On September 3, 1949, this Protocol was published in part in The Pilot, the official news organ of the Archdiocese of Boston. Three years later, on September 4, 1952, it was published in full in The Pilot under cover of an explanatory memorandum from Archbishop Cushing.
On September 24, 1952, three weeks after its publication in full, the Center addressed a letter to Pope Pius XII in which it protested: "This Protocol is substantially defective in that it contains heresy insofar as it states that one can be saved under certain conditions outside the Roman Catholic Church and without personal submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and consequently is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See."**
* According to the Catholic Dictionary, a Protocol is a "preliminary memorandum in negotiations, serving as basis for final agreement."
** The Acta Apostolicae Sedis is a monthly publication established as the official journal of the Holy See. Decrees and decisions published therein are thereby officially promulgated and made effective.
Public reaction to the initial publication of parts of the Protocol letter in The Pilot of September 3, 1949, was predictable. The Worcester Telegram, for instance, ran a typical headline:
Vatican Rules Against Hub Dissidents
Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False
Similar headlines and follow-up stories in papers throughout the country produced not one protesting "peep" from the chanceries of the United States. This was 1949; the Pope was Pius XII, yet not one bishop spoke out in defense of a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Church! What a scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike! And what proof that this severe weakness in doctrinal teaching existed in the seminaries of America since at least the later decades of the nineteenth century!
As usual, the long, detailed letter to the Holy Father dated September 24, 1952, went unanswered. But one month later, in a letter from Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office dated October 25, 1952, Father Feeney was summoned to Rome:
The . . . Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
However, His Holiness . . . has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, . . . you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities . . . of the Holy Office as soon as possible.
On October 30, 1952, Father sent a respectful reply to the Cardinal requesting a statement of the charges being made against him — as required by Canon Law. On November 22, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo sent a terse reply:
Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are evading the issue . . . You are to come to Rome immediately where you will be informed of the charges lodged against you. . . . If you do not present yourself . . . before the 31st December this act of disobedience will be made public together with the canonical penalties.
N.B. . . . The Apostolic Delegate has been authorized to provide for the expenses of your journey."
On December 2, 1952, Father responded, repeating his request for a statement of charges and quoting Canon Law to prove that he had a right to receive such a statement:
Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your letter of October 25, l952. I had presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear before your Sacred Tribunal. As a citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon l715 especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me. This canon requires that the citation contain at least a general statement of the charges. Under the norms of Canon 1723 any proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a complaint of nullity.
On January 9, 1953, came another terse reply from the Cardinal:
In reply to your letter of the 2nd Dec. 1952 asking for further explanations, . . . the Holy Office communicates to you herewith the orders received from His Holiness, that you are to present yourself to this Congregation before the 31st January 1953, under pain of excommunication incurred automatically (ipso facto) in case of failure to present yourself on the date indicated. This decision of His Holiness has been made after the arrival of the latest documents from St. Benedict Center.
This letter from the Holy Office deserves special comment. Cardinal Pizzardo here exhibits an odd eagerness to condemn Father Feeney. He threatens Father with excommunication if he does not present himself by January 31st. This he has the authority to do. However, he has no authority to threaten anyone with an ipso facto excommunication unless it be for an obstinate disregard of Divine or ecclesiastical law.
There is no ecclesiastical law the compliance or non-compliance with which would make it possible for an order to be given requiring that a priest must come to Rome by such and such a date — or else! Therefore, by not presenting himself to the Holy Office by January 31st, Father Feeney committed no crime meriting an ipso facto excommunication. What he did do — that is, in the external forum of the Church — was provide a reason for an unjust and (as later events proved) heretical tribunal to excommunicate him juridically.
No tribunal is necessary for an ipso facto excommunication. The deed of the culprit, in itself (eo ipso), places him outside the Church, not only in foro externo (if the act is publically known), but in foro interno (his very conscience accusing).
But the offense alleged against Father Feeney — not obeying a summons — provided matter for a court, or a judge, to weigh. The matter was judged and, prescinding from any extenuating circumstances or prior canonically-valid protestations by the accused, found to be a serious infraction. Then, the judge — according to the only verifying witness, the Notary Marius Crovini — passed sentence and excommunicated Father Feeney.
According to the Church’s own canons distinguishing two types of excommunication, Father Feeney could not be excommunicated ipso facto (latae sententiae, i.e., the sentence having been carried out) because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such an automatic expulsion. However, Father could be excommunicated ab homine (by a judge), and that public form of excommunication is called ferendae sententiae (of the sentence that must be carried out). Under the former type of sentence there is always intrinsic guilt, for the sin is intrinsic in the very nature of the act. However, in the latter type of sentence, for legal validity, there must be some questionable matter of doctrine or discipline against which the accused has been inculpated. Even then the external judgment of guilt passed by the tribunal remains a human judgment, and binds only the Church militant, not the court of heaven. And even this imposition on the Church militant can be prudently and respectfully disregarded if the excommunicant is innocent and the salvation of souls warrants certain readjustments along the normal path of hierarchical obediences.
In other words, just as in the sacrament of Confession, the power of the keys is not arbitrary. It is a prescribed power, which can only have efficacy if certain conditions are met. And those conditions depend on the sincerity of the recipient. God will not forgive the impenitent, even if such a one confesses his sins truthfully. And God will not withdraw His grace from one who is unjustly, though — in foro externo — validly, excommunicated. And, finally, God is not bound by any other word than His own Word.
On January 13, 1953, Father sent a long and strong letter to the Cardinal protesting the following:
a) Violation of the "secrecy of the Holy Office" in leaking their correspondence to the public press.
b) The Cardinal’s repeated threats of imposing penalties without either accusations or proceedings, as required by the Sacred Canons and the common law of the Church.
c) The dissemination of Protocol 122/49 as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Holy See, knowing it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Father ended this last communication to Cardinal Pizzardo with a statement of righteous indignation:
I very seriously question both the good faith and the validity of any attempt to excommunicate me because I dared to call the substance of this decree to your attention, and because I dared to insist on my rights under it in both my letters of October 30 and December 2, 1952.
On February 13, 1953, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring Father Feeney "excommunicated." It read as follows:
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto [sic], has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the Headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
The Appeal to Pope Pius XII
Father Leonard Feeney never doubted for one moment that he was doing God’s will in all the actions he took in defense of the salvation dogma. Let the hierarchy do what they will, this priest of Our Lady was ready and willing to follow her Son to his own crucifixion outside the walls of the city. Like Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Father knew that he too could be cast out of the synagogue. An excommunication, even one passed by a pope, is not protected by the charism of infallibility. It is a disciplinary power that can be, and at times has been, abused.
In foro interno, Father’s conscience was never disturbed. However, in foro externo, he felt obliged to issue a public protest against the unjustness of the excommunication, and — perhaps in an effort to upset the complacency of the perpetrators — he also called attention to the many glaring canonical defects that were recurrent throughout his entire ordeal, leading up to and including the decree of excommunication itself. On July 16, 1953, Saint Benedict Center, writing in Father’s name, sent a letter of appeal to the Pope in which these defects were pointed out. It was sent to the Holy Father through the then Pro-Secretary of State for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (later Pope Paul VI). It read, in part, as follows:
2. Because the first interest of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the preservation of the Faith, we have been reluctant to make any formal representations to the Holy See concerning any secondary matters relating to our activities. Your Excellency is well aware that the first obligation of every Catholic is to defend with his lifeblood every doctrine of his Holy Faith. In doing this, he has the assurance both of his own salvation, and even if persecuted by fellow Catholics, of his ultimate vindication by the Church. The lives of the saints amply demonstrate this. Many of the saints were vilified, interdicted, excommunicated, and even martyred by those of their own Faith. We refer specifically to Saints Athanasius, Ignatius of Constantinople, Alphonsus Ligouri, John the Baptist de la Salle, Thomas of Hereford, Thomas a’Becket, Joan of Arc, John Fisher and Thomas More.
While our duty is clear, and we are encouraged in its performance by the example of these great saints, and also while we have the unfailing consolation of knowing that we will never be abandoned by our Holy Mother the Church, it is necessary in the interest of justice and for the avoidance of grave scandal to communicate with the Holy See formally and directly concerning many matters which concern us.
3. Foremost, therefore, in our minds, is the matter of the purported decree of excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. We hereby enter a Complaint of Nullity against this purported decree of excommunication, which was dated February 13, 1953. . .
The appeal then went on to cite the breaches of the legal procedure which the Church’s own laws require her prelates to follow in the promulgation of an excommunication ferendae sententiae.
No answer was ever received to this Complaint of Nullity. But all the charges made in the letter were amply verified by the use made of the "excommunication" in the press. To give one example, a widely circulated dispatch dated March 1, 1953, originating with the National Catholic Welfare Conference, had this to say:
The excommunication decree was issued February 13, and officially published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on February 16, which gives a full review of the former Jesuit’s case and of his recalcitrance in refusing to accept the warnings of the Holy See. . .
The fact is that neither the decree of February 13, nor the Acta of February 16, contains the slightest hint of a "review of the former Jesuit’s case." But the press had transmitted to the world the very message which the modernists wanted transmitted: It is unwise to profess the doctrine "Outside the Church there is no salvation." And the press also unanimously agreed that Rome had spoken and that the case had been disposed of.
Thus, the forces of Anti-Christ proved their ascendancy in the world of today by placing the most important dogma of the Church under a cloud, using for this purpose the very machinery of Holy Church herself.
The "Reconciliation"
After the vilification of our Order and the "excommunication" of Father Feeney, we were forced into some twenty years of "exile." In 1958 we moved to Still River, Massachusetts, in the Diocese of Worcester. Sister Catherine died in 1968. It was now 1972. During those years the forces of liberalism had made enormous headway inside the Church. Nevertheless, they still clearly considered our Order a serious obstacle. For, about this time we were becoming uneasy over indications that secret negotiations between certain ranking prelates and several members of the Order had been taking place. When the alarming rumors reached Father Feeney’s ears, he repeatedly forbade any members to have any dealings with the hierarchy without his expressed approval.
The willingness, of what had grown by now to be a majority of the Brothers, to establish a reconciliation with the hierarchy greatly disturbed the loyal community of sisters living in Saint Anne’s House, and the by now minority faction of loyal brothers still residing with the others in Saint Thérèse House.
Brother Hugh found the climate of betrayal too much to bear. In 1972, along with several younger brothers, he vacated Saint Thérèse House and, on the same property, built a new home for any of the brothers who wished to continue the doctrinal battle without compromise. Father Feeney, too worn down by ill health to join them, and too fatherly to admit at this stage that any of his spiritual children would actually betray him, remained at Saint Thérèse House.
Brother Francis, who initially had given his own home in Cambridge to help house the once indefatigable young apostles of our Crusade, wished Brother Hugh well, but insisted on staying with the Brothers of Saint Thérèse House, where he hoped to rekindle any sparks of loyalty he could find. That hope, however, was sadly defused. It became clear that he and Brother Hugh would have to continue on alone. Father Feeney blessed them both with the words: "Do whatever it takes to save the Crusade!"
By August 23, 1972, it was evident that Father had been disobeyed and that our suspicions had been well founded. On that day our Crusade was insidiously compromised by the disloyal faction. For that was the day on which Auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley of Boston, accompanied by Father Richard J. Shmaruk, quietly arrived at Saint Thérèse House. Father did not know the purpose of their visit, and no members of the other houses at the Center were aware that it was taking place.
The members of the House, including Father, met with their guests in the spacious front room. To edify his visitors, Father had all members recite, in unison, a memory drill on the important dates in the history of the world. Then, by prearrangement, one of the sisters suggested that they recite the creeds of the Church, one of which is the Athanasian Creed. Father enthusiastically agreed. And presto! The unsuspecting Father Feeney was "back in the Church!"
Now, the Athanasian Creed begins with these words:
Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly . . .
So, Father was "back in the Church" by professing the very doctrine for which he was "put out!"
Or at least the preliminary step in that direction had been taken. But, of course, this mysterious "reconciliation" was every bit as spurious as the earlier "excommunication."
One year later, we learned that all had been approved and that it would soon be publicized that Father Feeney had "returned to the fold," evidently having renounced his former stand. For this reason, we published on September 17, 1973, and widely distributed, a message from Father Feeney and the Center to our fellow Catholics. It reiterated our firm position on the doctrine and closed, saying:
. . . Some individuals, with no authorization to represent our Institute, are now seeking by devious means to compromise our Crusade. We wish to inform our spiritual fathers and our fellow Catholics there can be no compromise. We still profess the same Faith, out of which no one at all can be saved, as we did a quarter of a century ago.
Six months later, in March of 1974, the defection from the Crusade was finally consummated by the disloyal faction when its compromising members individually made a formal submission to Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. Press releases announcing the supposed reconciliation of Father Feeney and the Center subsequently appeared on September 26, 1974. That was one year after Father emphatically denounced those who were seeking to compromise our Crusade through their devious machinations with the liberal hierarchy.
One Bishop’s "Dead Horse"
News accounts concerning these events repeatedly referred to letters from Rome, purportedly written in connection with our case. Normally, such correspondence should have been sent to Father Feeney as the Superior of the Order. But Father had received nothing more than rumors. He therefore authorized two loyal members to obtain whatever documentation was available from Bishop Flanagan, Ordinary of the Worcester Diocese. Brother Francis and Brother Hugh (since deceased) called on the Bishop. When asked the purpose of their visit, the following discussion ensued:
Brother Hugh:
We were sent by Father. We read in the papers that letters have been sent from Rome in connection with our case. We would like, if possible, to see all the documents that pertain to Saint Benedict Center and to Father Feeney.
Bishop Flanagan:
Let me first explain to you how this whole thing started and how I got involved in it. There was a bishops’ meeting about two years ago, and Cardinal Medeiros mentioned that he would like to see the Father Feeney case disposed of. He was anxious to send a statement to Rome saying that Father’s health was not too good and that he would hate to have him die apparently outside the Church. I expressed my enthusiastic approval of this policy.
At this point, let us give the law and tradition of the Church in such matters, in the classic expression of Pope Saint Innocent I, who stated: "Communion once broken off cannot be renewed until the persons concerned give proof that the reasons for which communion was broken off are no longer operative." We continue Bishop Flanagan’s remarks:
We sent a statement to Rome. The response came back: "Yes, by all means." The only requirement was that Father should make a profession of Faith. Bishop Lawrence Riley then went to the Center with Father Shmaruk. Father was very happy to say all the Creeds that you have. He was willing to recite every single Creed. And that was all that was required. And, now, is there any possibility for everyone to get together? Would you be willing also to do what the group at Saint Thérèse House have already done?
Brother Hugh:
We intend to come out this year stronger than ever in defense of the Doctrine. Would you, as our Ordinary, oppose that?
Bishop Flanagan:
That Doctrine is now a dead horse. Let’s be practical. The whole spirit after Vatican II is against it. You are talking about a dead horse. That thing is dead. Let’s bury it.
Brother Francis:
We feel now more than ever the necessity of upholding the Doctrine, precisely because of what has been happening to the Church since Vatican II.
Brother Hugh:
If we come out stronger than ever and spread the Doctrine throughout the country, would you be against that? What agreement have the Brothers of Saint Thérèse House made?
Bishop Flanagan:
The understanding is that they will not talk about it. The understanding is that it is a dead horse and we will forget all about it.
Brother Hugh:
As the Ordinary, would you do something about it?
Bishop Flanagan:
Well, as I said, the understanding is that they will not publicly talk about the Doctrine. There are other things in the Church we recommend very strongly. They can preach devotion to Mary. They can be a conservative group in the Church. We need a conservative group in the Church.
Then the Bishop opened his folder and showed the documents. He could not provide copies to be brought to Father because of the confidential nature of the letters! One was from the Holy Office regarding Father, indicating that on account of his "age and infirmity" they were willing to lift the censures. The other document concerned the brothers of Saint Thérèse House who were to be received back into the Church individually.
Brother Hugh:
What about Sister Catherine and the four brothers who have died? Did they die outside the Church?
Bishop Flanagan:
Oh, no. The only one excommunicated was Father Feeney. We don’t quite know why it was done, but Father Feeney was on the record excommunicated nominatim. The most you could say of the rest was that they were under interdict. Notice that the account about the reconciliation says: ". . . from any censures they may have incurred." The phrasing was deliberate.
Brother Francis:
But why, then, did they have to make a profession of Faith? And why did they have to promise silence on a dogma defined ex cathedra by the popes? When the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani became known to us, we all — including the group from Saint Thérèse House — signed a statement denouncing it as heretical and scandalous. Did they have to withdraw that statement?
Bishop Flanagan:
In the Church today a latitudinarian attitude prevails. Some are questioning the Real Presence, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Infallibility of the Pope, without being put out of the Church.
Brother Francis:
Is this the traditional concept of Catholic orthodoxy? You allow people to question the Trinity? We say that if we are truly in heresy, we should be excommunicated. We want to hold the Catholic Truth; we do not want to be one extreme balancing another. Are we Catholics or Hegelians?
Bishop Flanagan:
To return to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter, it has become part of the teaching of the Church. You find it in Denzinger [a compilation of doctrinal documents of different grades of authority].
Brother Francis:
The Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter is far below the authority of the doctrine it nullifies. The Holy Father spoke recently of something he called the "auto-demolition of the Church." Well, here is a perfect example of that abuse — the use that was made of that scandalous document by the liberal theologians.
In concluding, the Brothers told His Excellency that we of the Order are not conscious of having done anything that puts us outside the Church. Any gesture of submission on our part would only mean admission that we have been wrong in our doctrinal stand. We are faithful Catholics who have never done other than our duty to defend the Faith. We are obedient to all those who hold authority over us whenever they act within the bounds of that authority as constituted by God.
This meeting took place on October 18, 1974.
