On March 13, 2004, Franz Cardinal Koenig died, aged
98 years. His death was marked by the reverent eulogies
of the "democratic" press of the whole world
for his many ecumenical undertakings. He was one of
the most prominent exponents of "dialogue"
with the modern world.
A
polyglot, a man of broad culture, considered a "specialist"
in the history of religions,1 he stood out
amongst the cardinals of the so-called "Rhine Alliance"
at the Second Vatican Council. He was part of that highly
active and lethal progressivist triad of German speakers:
Frings (Cologne), Doepfner (Munich), Koenig (Vienna).
At the time of the Council he was the head of the Secretariat
for dialogue with the non-believers. He was also a player
of primary importance-and a fairly autonomous one-in
the so-called Vatican Ostpolitik of unhappy memory,
initiated by Pope John XXIII. In keeping with the perspective
of the "opening" marked by the Council, he
did nothing to effectively counter the introduction
of legal abortion into Austria. This law was passed,
if we well remember, under the auspices of Koenig's
personal friend the Chancellor of Austria, socialist
Bruno Kreisky. Not only did he do nothing about this,
but he even distanced himself from Vatican directives
on this subject. According to some in the Curia, he
was also one of the chief electors of the current pontiff.
Koenig at the Second Vatican Council
We
also would like to commemorate this prince of the Church
by recalling his role in the Council. Here are some
salient moments:
1)
At a meeting of the
Central Preparatory Commission of the Council, Koenig
did not hesitate to declare his hope that the texts
of the schemata of the constitution would conform to
the "New Theology," already censured on several
occasions and in different ways by Pope Pius XII, in
particular in his encyclical Humani Generis. Koenig
said:
Our
hope is that the preparatory work of the Council may
correspond to contemporary theological thinking [i.e.,
the "New Theology-Ed.]] in
the Roman Church. It is desirable to teach, in the
preparatory work, in a wise and prudent manner, the
multiformity and all the dynamism of this thought,
without overlooking spiritual experiences, even those
which take place outside the Roman Church.2
And so it happened, thanks to the procedural intervention
of the progressivist faction in the conciliar commissions.
The hypocrisy of the expression "in a wise and
prudent manner" is striking; these adjectives reappear
many times in conciliar documents, generally serving
a similar function of obfuscation.
2)
Koenig was amongst the most
redoubtable enemies of the schema De Fontibus Revelationis,
which exposed the traditional doctrine of the two
fonts of Revelation-Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
In the November, 1961, meeting of the Central Preparatory
Commission he was amongst those who attacked this schema
most harshly, although he voted for it with a placet
iuxta modum.3
In later discussion in the aula in November, 1962-the
discussion that concluded with impasse leading to the
rejection of the schema-he was amongst those who voted
against it with a "categorical dissent."4
It
is interesting to recall that Cardinal Koenig was habitually
coached by the Jesuit Karl Rahner, a theologian redolent
of heresy, whose great protector he was at the Council:
From
the end of 1961 Cardinal Koenig had recourse to Fr.
Rahner, choosing him to examine the texts that the
Central Preparatory Commission, of which he was a
member, was approving for presentation to the Council.
On January 4, 1962, the Jesuit theologian sent the
Cardinal of Vienna a first series of critical observations
and proposals. The exchange continued throughout all
the first semester of this year, with the result that,
not only did Koenig ask Rahner to be his own theological
advisor, but that of the whole Austrian and German
episcopacy. Rahner habitually expressed very severe
perspectives on the schemata, putting Koenig on guard.
No sooner had it been decided to present De Fontibus
to the Council than Rahner prepared a "Disquisitio
brevis de Schemate De Fontibus Revelationis"
It is difficult to tell how widely this was diffused.
Rahner spoke of four hundred copies. By contrast with
the future alternative schema [which is very similar
to the actual constitution adopted, Dei Verbum-Ed.],
in this document Rahner was concerned with presenting
theology in a manner accessible to the bishops....5
Rahner became the advisor to Koenig and Doepfner.6
But how did Cardinal Koenig manage to outflank the Holy
Office's efforts to prevent the unfortunate Jesuit from
exerting influence on the Council? Let us consult the
diary of Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P.:
Septembers,
1962: Fr. K. Rahner
was supposed to submit all his writings to the Holy
Office. He declared that in this case he would renounce
making any publication of his work since he did not
want to fight with the Holy Office [he had in fact
decided to publish these works all the same, but under
pseudonyms -Ed.]. The Cardinal of Vienna (Koenig)
is bringing him as his theologian to the Council,
different bishops have written directly to the Pope
to complain about the measure taken against him....
October
12,1962: It's Fr. de
Lubac... .He gives information about recent interventions
of the Holy Office. Conclusion of the Rahner affair:
after the categorical intervention of German prelates,
the Holy Office has reversed course: in order not
to lose face, it has not retracted its decision but
has delegated its power of imprimatur to Cardinals
Koenig and Doepfner, the defenders of Fr. Rahner.7
Also
in October, 1962, Pope John XXIII personally named Rahner
a theological peritus [expert], definitively
tying the hands of the Holy Office.
3)
Historians note that the influence
of Rahner was also evident in the interventions of Cardinal
Koenig against the schema of the constitution De
Ecclesia developed under the control of the Doctrinal
Commission presided over by Cardinal Ottaviani:
Cardinal
Koenig asked for a briefer schema which would speak
not only of the rights of the Church but also of its
mission of bringing the benefits of the Gospel to
everyone in sincere involvement with non-Christian
peoples; nor could be omitted in the consideration
of the Church its eschatological and charismatic dimensions,
which were determined by it relationship with the
institution. It was further necessary to insert as
the fundamental image of the Church that of the people
of God, and appropriate to clarify not only the necessity
of the Church for the salvation of individuals, but
for the human race and the world as such, also the
non-believing world....Thus were re-adopted as it
were the central aspects of Rahner's criticism (of
the schema).8
4) Koenig
was among those who opposed
an ad hoc conciliar constitution on
the Blessed Virgin, maintaining that the schema De
Beata should be inserted in the constitution De
Ecclesia, as in fact was later done under the form
of a chapter of De Ecclesia.9
5)
He
tenaciously upheld the new heretical conception of collegiality
which, notwithstanding correctives, succeeded in penetrating
the constitution De Ecclesia, better known as
Lumen Gentium.10
6)
In regard to atheism, he presented
the following views in the Council: that many atheists
are atheists because they lack a correct understanding
of God; that the soul of man is naturally Christian
for which reason it is sufficient for the Church in
remedying evil to promote social justice and struggle
against religious ignorance; the Council should condemn
any form of persecution because freedom of conscience
should remain an inalienable right of every person.11
7)
He
was among those who defended the formula of "saving
truth" inserted in §11 of Chap.Ill of Dei Verbum
titled "Sacred Scripture: Its Divine Inspiration
and Its Interpretation." This highly ambiguous
formula took on an openly heretical sense since it seemed
to reduce the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture to the truth
concerning salvation alone.12
Dialogue
According to Cardinal Koenig
Let
us conclude our recollections by restating the concept
of "dialogue" as proposed by Cardinal Koenig:
Dialogue
places the interlocutors on a level of equality. In
this pursuit the Catholic is not considered as he
who possesses all the truth but as he who, possessing
the faith, seeks this truth with others, believers
and non-believers.13
From this less than clear passage it is apparent that
to have faith in Christ our Lord and to possess the
truth were for Cardinal Koenig two separate things.
The implication is that our Faith does not consist in
assenting to truth that is absolutely certain because
revealed by God. In fact the revealed truth that we
possess was placed by Koenig on the same level of the
truth that can be found in a dialogical quest, and thus
on the same level as any human truth, for the expression
of which the participation of everyone, non-believers
included, is desired. The reciprocal equivalence of
the parties to the dialogue carries with itself ipso
facto a subordination of the truth of Faith to a
truth which is put into play in the pursuit of an understanding
with heretics and unbelievers. Holy things are thrown
to the dogs.
Give
not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them
under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear
you (Mt. 7:6).
This deviant conception of "dialogue" is what
rules today in politically correct teaching. There is
perfect continuity between a Cardinal Koenig and a Walter
Cardinal Kasper, the current President of the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity. From the moment
that any proselytism is radically eliminated, the very
possibility of placing the conversion of the other-who
is now seen as an equal as partner in a dialogue from
which a common truth must emerge-manifestly represents
an open betrayal of the mission entrusted to the Catholic
Church by our Lord, and maintained by her over centuries:
Therefore
go and make all peoples my disciples, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, teaching them to observe everything that I have
commanded you" (Mt. 28:19,20).
Or
Lord taught us what we should call Cardinal Koenig and
"pastors" of his stripe:
Amen,
amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door
into the sheepfuld, but climbeth up another way, the
same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth
in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him
the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice;
and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth
them out" (Jn. 10:1-3).
Lord have pity on us, save us from the wolves disguised
as sheep who want to tear our souls apart. Send us priests;
send us holy priests; send us many holy priests!
Canonicus
Translated
exclusively for Angelus Press from the Italian edition
ofSiSiNoNo (May 15, 2004). Some editions for
clarity introduced by Fr. Kenneth Novak.
1.
At least by the progressive theologian Fr. Marie-Dominique
Chenu in his Notes quotidiennes au Concile: Journal
de Vatican II1962-1963 (Paris, 1995).
2.
Documentation Catholique, 58
(April 1, 1961), pp.445-47, cited in Giuseppe Alberigo,
Storia del Concilia Vaticano II (Bologna, 1995),
I, 324, note 476.
3.
Storia del Concilia Vaticano II,
I, p.327. "Placet
iuxta modum" that is, expressing approval
but with reservations.
4.
Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.
5.
Storia del Concilio Vaticano II,
II, pp.90-91.
6.
Ibid., p.98.
7.
Chenu, op. cit., pp. 60,70. The cardinals in
question had mobilized their respective episcopal conferences
and "outstanding" laymen. But the scandalous
"recovery" of Rahner would not have taken
place without the acquiescence of Pope John XXIII who,
in the name of a pretended reconciliation, had already
inserted exponents of the "New Theology" (censured
in different ways by his predecessors) among the consultors
of the Preparatory Theological Commission, which worked
from October 27, 1960, to March 10, 1962 (cf. Philippe
Levillain, La mecanique politique de Vatican II [Paris,
1975], p.77).
8.
Storia del Concilio Vaticano II,
II, 1 ff., 359, with note
88.
9.
Ibid., Ill,
pp.112-13.
10.
Ibid., IV,
pp.98-99.
11.
Ibid.,V, pp. 165,168.
12.
Ibid., V,
p.322. The formula was then modified on the intervention
of Pope Paul VI under the pressure of defenders of Church
Tradition, but a certain ambiguity has remained even
in the new text reads:
...[W]e
must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly,
faithfully an without error, teach that truth which
God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see
confided to the sacred Scriptures.
13.
ICI, n.322, p.20 from October 15, 1968, cited by Romano
Amerio, Iota Unum, (Italian edition, Milan-Naples:
Ricciardi, 1986), p.312, n.8.
