Originally published in The Reign of Mary, Issue No. 161

The Multiplicity of Words: Why Do Modernists Publish Such Lengthy Writings?

A careful perusal of modernist writing will typically reveal three characteristics: ambiguity, the creation of new words, and a seeming interminable length. Let us look briefly at these characteristics, especially concerning Francis’ latest document, Amoris Laetitia.

Ambiguity: The First Hallmark of Modernist Writings

Modernists are famous (or rather, infamous) for writing ambiguous sentences with double meaning. A conservative will take the writing as being orthodox (although it usually takes some bending and “interpretation”), while a liberal sees the particular writing as supporting his cause (which, of course, is the real intention of the modernists). By deftly phrasing things in a way that allows, after some finagling, a Catholic interpretation, the modernists hide behind the claim of doctrinal soundness. If the liberals use these documents to support their cause, the modernist can always feign to have been misunderstood, while secretly rejoicing at the destruction of Catholic orthodoxy that results.

A perfect example of this ambiguity can be seen in the documents of Vatican II. Just one example will suffice: In its decree on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), the council states: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (paragraph 36). But then the same paragraph of the decree goes on to say: “But since the use of the mother tongue… may frequently be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.” That wording was code to fellow modernists, providing a justification for the virtual elimination of the use of Latin. Within a few years of the conclusion of the council, the Latin language was virtually consigned to the trash bin of history. Not only was its use eliminated from the liturgy, but seminaries ceased to teach it, to the point that today it would be difficult to find a Conciliar clergyman who has even a basic grasp of the language.

The same tactic was employed in the document on ecumenism (concerning the practice of inter-faith) and throughout the documents of this false council. The intent is always the same — to hide behind supposedly orthodox writings, always claiming that the liberals are misinterpreting them. True Catholic teaching, on the other hand, is unambiguous. Take the documents of the Council of Trent, for example. The attentive reader of these sacred documents will come away with no doubt whatsoever on the teaching of the Church on any given issue. Holy Mother Church is always clear, precise and utterly unambiguous in her teachings.

The Creation of Fancy Words

Anyone who has been educated in a modern American university has likely had to suffer through the class of a professor inebriated with a conviction of his own superior knowledge. To demonstrate his brilliant ascendancy to the students (and himself), the proud professor will coin new terms, never heard before. This tactic impresses the auditors and convinces the arrogant educator of his own excellence. Modernists use similar tactics. When they make up new terms, their purpose is to dazzle the simple reader with their expertise, so that the poor reader won’t even think of questioning the modernist.

A perfect example can be found in the writing of then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, in his defense of John Paul II’s acceptance of the liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East as valid. After this decision was handed down, some traditional scholars expressed their horror that a supposed pope would approve as valid a rite that didn’t even have a consecration! Ratzinger came to the rescue with this gem: “The words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way….” Dispersed euchological way? Apparently, he means to say that, although there is no consecration, the entire rite expresses faith in the eucharist and is therefore valid. The fancy new word euchological is meant to impress the reader and silence any further questions.

The Multiplicity of Words: A Tell-Tale Sign of Modernist Writing

But the use of ambiguity and high-sounding words are not the only tactics employed by the modernist. He typically drones on and on at great length. But why so much verbiage? The reason, I believe, is that it is easier to disguise erroneous teaching when it is shrouded by a large content of orthodox writing. Again, we can refer to the length of the Vatican II conciliar documents. One can read for pages and not find anything objectionable. But read a bit further and you will find the error. Like a needle hidden in a haystack, the error lurks hidden, surrounded by a great deal of seemingly innocuous writing.

But some will say that certain traditional Catholic doctrinal writings are lengthy. We might refer to the documents of the Council of Trent, or certain encyclicals of the Twentieth century, such as Pascendi. But there is a difference: the traditional Catholic teachings are clear and to the point, pithy and unambiguous. The only reason for their occasional length is the amount of matter to be treated. Take the Council of Trent, for example. There are numerous documents on a wide array of topics, due to the errors of Protestantism. In other words, the length was necessitated by the many errors to be exposed and repudiated.

Modernists, on the other hand, will say little in a great number of words. If someone calls attention to an error, he will be reminded that the writing is so lengthy that he should not concentrate on one small section. Rather, he will be told that he is not interpreting it correctly. Or is he? To answer this question, let us look at the recent document of Francis, (called an Apostolic Exhortation) on the family, which was published in early April.

The Latest Vatican Document: Amoris Laetitia

These characteristics of modernist writing, especially the length, can be seen in the latest Vatican document signed by “Pope” Francis. This much-anticipated document is the result of two years of meetings, discussions and debate on the family. The central question deals with what to do about those who are divorced and remarried, and who then wish to receive the sacraments in the Conciliar Church. Oh, and the document is 255 pages in length!

Since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, (hereafter referred to as AL), there has been an intense debate among cardinals, bishops, theologians, and laity in the Conciliar Church. This debate revolves around the question: Has anything changed in the Church’s discipline regarding giving communion to persons who are divorced and remarried — in other words, persons who are living in sin. Many astute individuals claim there has been a rupture with the past, a new teaching that contradicts traditional teaching. Others claim that is not true. Let’s look at a few comments from prominent individuals.

Up to now, the Conciliar Church has referred to those living in invalid marriages as living in an “irregular” situation. (They are always careful to find euphemisms, so as not to offend anyone.) But Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn stated: “My great joy as a result of this document resides in the fact that it coherently overcomes that artificial, superficial, clear division between ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ (marital relationships)” (statement made on April 8, in presenting AL).

On the other hand, a more conservative bishop stated: “If we analyze certain statements of AL with intellectual honesty within their proper context, we find ourselves faced with difficulties when trying to interpret them in accordance with the traditional doctrine of the Church” (Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, in mid-April). A Catholic professor even went so far as to state: “Paragraph 305 together with footnote 351 — in which it is stated that believers can be allowed to the sacraments ‘in an objective situation of sin’ ‘because of mitigating factors’ — directly contradicts (Catholic teaching). That this represents a rupture emerges without any doubt for every thinking person who knows the respective texts.” (Prof. Robert Spaeman, German Catholic philosopher, in an April interview).

So that’s it — a footnote. After all the writing, one finds footnote #351, which allows communion to the divorced and remarried. In answer to the Catholics who object, one cardinal responds: “It must be asked whether a footnote of about three lines is sufficient to overthrow the entire teachings of Popes and Councils on this subject. Certainly not!” (Cardinal Walter Brandmueller, interview with the German news agency KNA, in early May).

So the debate goes on. But is there a need for any debate? After all, who is to provide the correct interpretation? Would it not be the arch-heretic Francis himself? What is his interpretation? We can look to an interview which he gave on an airplane, returning to Rome, shortly after the publication of AL. He was asked by a journalist if the teaching of AL in any way changed the Church’s stance toward the divorced and remarried, by now allowing them to receive the sacraments without separating. His response: “I can say Yes. PERIOD.” It is very interesting that he concluded his brief answer by saying the word Period. That makes his comment emphatic and purposeful. Of course, it has long been known that he has wanted to change the Church teaching on this question. Privately, he has told individual divorced persons that they can go to communion, and if their pastors tell them they cannot, then they should go to a different church and receive communion. He has also made the absurd comment that we must respect their consciences, as though the Church does not have the authority and the role to correctly form the consciences of the faithful.

But let us see what one more commentator has to say about this controversy. Professor Robert de Mattei is a conservative Italian Catholic scholar. He stated, regarding the teaching of AL: “Nothing changes in doctrine but everything is changed in praxis…. The circumstances and the situation, according to the new morality, dissolve the concept of intrinsic evil and public and permanent sin… The rule of the Church was ‘the divorced, remarried civilly, who live together, cannot receive the Eucharist.’ Amoris Laetitia in contrast, establishes: ‘the divorced and remarried, in some cases, can receive Holy Communion.'”

So there you have it. Some defenders of Francis will insist that the official teaching of the Church has not changed, but in practice, what will happen? Those divorced persons who know Francis’ intentions will consider that they now have every right to go to communion. And they can point to any number of statements in support. But they can especially cite paragraph #305 and its accompanying footnote in a “papal” document, surrounded by 255 pages, as the source for their change in practice. And who can argue with them? After all, it is right there, whether in a footnote or not.

And lest we be accused of misrepresentation, here is a portion of the actual text of the offensive paragraph: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin — which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such — a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (351) Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.” And footnote #351 contains the following: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.” (If anyone would like to read the entire section, or the entire document for that matter, it can easily be found on the Internet at ) this link.

This paragraph #305 is a masterpiece of ambiguity and confusing words, and it is buried in a document that goes on for 255 pages! So beware the modernist writings. Our Lord, in referring to prayer, tells us to not be so concerned to pray with lengthy speech: “And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard” (Matthew, 6:7). This sound advice from the lips of Jesus Himself can also apply to writing. Modernists say much, but in that very multitude of words error lurks. Let us be on our guard against these clever deceits of the devil.