Learn about Papal Teachings
“With what great care”
QUANTA CURA
condemning Naturalism, Liberalism, Indifferentism, Communism and Socialism
Encyclical of Pope Pius IX
8 December, 1864

The importance of this encyclical is really that it constitutes the preamble of the Syllabus in which Pope Pius IX set forth a summary of the modern errors that he had condemned, or that had been formally condemned by his predecessors. It is a subject of special interest to us today. The stir that the publication of this document caused even among Catholics is well known. To recall to mind truths in an encyclical is passable, but to draw up a precise catalogue of condemned propositions is something else.

The Liberals’ Reaction to the Syllabus

The liberal Catholics reacted violently. For them, the Holy Father exaggerated, it was unacceptable. The Syllabus was not suitable to modern times, for the Pope did not take into account the society of the times and the evolution of ideas, etc. In short, they said exactly what the Modernists and Progressives say today about adaptation to the world, aggiornamento, etc. The Bishop of Orleans, Mgr Dupanloup, became the spokesman of the discontented Catholics: The Pope wanted to clarify certain points, pronounce condemnations, yet the key is to know how to interpret them [...] In short, take some and leave some! And so the liberal Catholics were appeased. Bishop Dupanloup was not condemned, and this is what caused Pope Pius IX’s attempt to rectify this situation to fail. By evasions and insincere submissions to authority, the liberal Catholics succeeded in destroying the effects of these acts of the magisterium.

The Progressives and the Modernists cannot even bear to hear the name of the Syllabus . They are infuriated by it, they hold that the document is without authority. But this is false; on the contrary the Syllabus was confirmed by the bishops, by the popes, and, as we have seen, by Leo XIII in his encyclical Immortale Dei. The Syllabus therefore takes on a very great worth. Pope St Pius X often reiterated in a very explicit manner the condemnation of the denounced errors. But, as Leo XIII was to observe, the popes were not heeded, and the evil has continued to spread.

The encyclical Quanta Cura exposes the situation as Pope Pius IX saw it, and it corresponds in an uncanny way to what the Church has known since Vatican II. It is frightening

“De Libertate Religiosa, as meant by Cardinal Bea, is freedom accorded in principle to all the religions.”

Condemnation of Naturalism in Politics

“[...] We, to the extreme grief of Our soul, beheld a horrible tempest stirred up by so many erroneous opinions, and the dreadful and never enough to be lamented mischiefs which redound to Christian people from such errors; and We then, in discharge of Our Apostolic Ministerial Office, [...] condemned the monstrous and portentous opinions, [...] which are in the highest degree hostile, not only to the Catholic Church, and to her salutary doctrine and venerable laws, but also to the everlasting law of nature engraven by God upon the hearts of all men, and to right reason; and out of which almost all errors originate.”

Pius IX confirms the same condemnation pronounced by Pope Gregory XVI [...] He continues:

“For you know well, Venerable Brethren, that at this time there are found not a few who, applying to civil intercourse the impious and absurd principles of what they call Naturalism, dare teach “that the best form of Society, and the exigencies of civil progress, absolutely require human society to be constituted and governed without any regard whatsoever to Religion, [...] or at least without making any distinction between true and false religions [...]”

The State’s Duty: Repress Religious Error

Pope Pius IX continues: “Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert, that ‘the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the Government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic Religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it.’”

Yet this is exactly the position that was affirmed by the [Vatican II] declaration on Religious Liberty; to be opposed to all coercion, even public, is tantamount to pronouncing oneself against the Catholic State. A Catholic State is one that affirms that the Catholic religion is the religion of the State, and is the only religion recognized by the government. It is evident that as far as possible [...] it should keep errors from spreading. For if it did not, that would end not only by destroying the Church, but also by overthrowing the [...] country. This is what has happened in many countries [...] Or else, if a Catholic head of State acts against error, he is suppressed: such was the history of the president of the State of Ecuador, Garcia Moreno[...]

A Right to Freedom of Error

All of this, which had been affirmed by Pius IX, was denied by the declaration on Religious Liberty:

“From this totally false notion of social government they fear not to uphold [...] that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right [...] to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas [...] We know from the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how faith and Christian wisdom ought to avoid this most mischievous vanity.”

Yet the text of the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Digitatis Humanae, section 2) affirms that “this right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.” It also claims that every religion has the right to be publicly organized in civil society and have its own schools, newspapers, and to teach by the spoken or written word. All of this is clearly contained in Dignitatis Humanae [...]

Religious Liberty or Toleration?
Bea vs. Ottaviani

It is for this reason that [...] Cardinal Ottaviani was so vigorously opposed to Cardinal Bea, who absolutely wanted to see the Council adopt religious liberty. He had written at the head of his schema De Libertate Religiosa, whereas Cardinal Orraviani had written De Tolerantia Religiosa.

The difference is quite clear: error is tolerated to the degree that it cannot be suppressed, but if one can, one should [...] The Church has always recognized this. Pope Leo XIII stated this in his encyclical Libertas: toleration is a legitimate course of action.

But De Libertate Religiosa, as meant by Cardinal Bea, is freedom accorded in principle to all the religions, freedom of opinion, freedom for all to publicly express whatever they will. Such a view exactly contradicts what Pope Pius IX proclaimed in his encyclical Quanta Cura. It is unthinkable!

Influence of Fr Courtney Murray

One of the principal driving forces behind the Declaration on Religious Liberty was Fr John Courtney Murray, an American.

He was one of the dominant members of the commission entrusted with its preparation. In his book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Fr Ralph Wiltgen devoted an entire page to proving the influence of Fr Murray in drafting this text on religious liberty.

In The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty Michael Davies reveals [...] the transcripts of lengthy conversations between Murray, the Holy Office, and the theologians. His doctrines were condemned at that time. The Holy Office forbade him to defend them and to continue writing [...] it was he who was chosen to draft the text of the Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted by Vatican II. It is unthinkable! [...] Then who is right now? Is it the Holy Office that condemned Fr Murray, by founding its decision on the traditional doctrine of the Church, or is it Fr Murray, whose ideas have been adopted by the Council?

Council “Experts” Under Condemnation of the Holy Office

It is impossible to deny this [penetration of Liberalism into the Council] It is obvious that people who had been condemned by the Holy Office were chosen to be experts at the Council: Fr Edward Schillebeeckx had been condemned, and he was an expert at the Council.

During a meeting of the Central Preparatory Commission [...] I asked the following question: “Cardinal Ottaviani just said that the experts chosen must not have been condemned by the Holy Office; yet I know three of them who have been: how is it that they appear on the list of experts?” The Cardinal did not reply at that moment, but on leaving the meeting he passed by me, and took me by the arm and said: “I know it well, but it’s the boss who wants them there....”

This was just the style of John XXIII. For him, there was never any evil.... “ Oh, no, he is a good guy, you’ll see. When he is with everyone he will see the light; all will be well.” Meanwhile, it is they who won.

Let us return to the study of the encyclical Quanta Cura.

Condemnation of Freedom of All Religions

Introducing the Syllabus in the encyclical, Pope Pius IX begins, as we have seen, by particularly condemning the fact that many want to: “apply to civil intercourse the impious and absurd principles of what they call Naturalism....”

Not a few, then, were to be found in his epoch...:

“...who dare teach that the best form of Society, and the exigencies of civil progress, absolutely require human society to be constituted and governed without any regard whatsoever in Religion, as if this [Religion] did not even exist, or at least without making any distinction between true and false religions” [...]

This is the heart of our opposition to the Modern Rome [...] When we sent dossiers to Rome explaining our position, most notably a half-a-dozen pages published as a booklet by the journal Itinéraires, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy Office, we received no reply. If no one answers us, it is because they are incapable of refuting our arguments

[...] Pius IX, like Gregory XVI in l832, denounces those who: “...from this totally false notion of social government, ...fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion [...] which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, the insanity, namely, that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law (Mirari Vos).”

Yet that is what the Council affirms: everyone can practice his religion. So who is right? As for us, we hold to the doctrine expressed by Gregory XVI and Pius IX, reiterated by Leo XIII, and then by St Pius X and Pius XII [...] If the magisterium of Pius IX is now worthless, then so is that of his predecessors, as well as his successors [...]

The Occupied Church

For 20 centuries the Church always affirmed the same thing, faithful to its message and to tradition. But for three or four centuries, Liberalism has succeeded in getting hold of society, then in the twentieth century it entered the Church, and has now won over the hierarchy [...] Of course the Church itself cannot err, cannot change; but she has been infiltrated by men who do not belong to the Church. They have invaded the Church, and occupied the highest offices, but they do not constitute the Church [...] (Pope John Paul II) expresses desires, but he doesn’t manage to bring them about or to impose them. He is afraid of the people at Rome who say that Tradition is finished. As long as the Pope does not expel them from Rome, there is no hope of a change [...]

The crisis didn’t happen in the space of a decade; it began in the sixteenth century, when men rebelled against God and decided to laicise the States, to chase the Church from civil society, and to banish Our Lord [...]

Liberation Theology

The error that consists in pushing aside religion from civic life has consequences, which Pius IX points out:

“Religion has been excluded from civil Society, and the doctrine and authority of divine Revelation, or the true and germane notion of justice and human right have been obscured and lost, and material or brute force substituted in the place of true justice and legitimate right [...] “

Behold the ideas that have gained a foothold in the Church, Liberation Theology is an example: envy is breathed into hearts and souls by talk of the division of wealth, of a “standard” of living, as if that were paramount. They put religion at the service of this envy; priests only preach that the same opportunities, the same pleasures are everybody’s due.

Who speaks, then, of eternal life? What is this false terrestrial paradise that will never exist? [...] The essential is not to seek riches and comfort

Destruction of Religious Orders and Christian Education

Pius IX continues: “For this reason, also, these same men persecute with such bitter hatred the Religious Orders, who have deserved so well of Religion, civil Society, and Letters; they loudly declare that these Orders have no right to exist, and, in so doing, make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics. For, as was most wisely taught by Our Predecessor of illustrious memory Pius VI, ‘the abolition of Religious Orders injures the state of public profession of the Evangelical counsels; injures a mode of life recommended by the Church, as in conformity with Apostolical doctrine; does wrong to the illustrious founders whom we venerate upon our altars, and who constituted these societies under the inspiration of God’ [Letter to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, 10 March, l79l].”

Evidently, these religious orders dwelt in simplicity, in poverty, in the renunciation of the goods of this world. But this was so contrary to the principles of modern society, that it was necessary to get rid of an example so bothersome for the propagation of modern ideas.

Unfortunately, now it is the orders that are destroying themselves. Since the Council, many have practically suppressed poverty, obedience, sometimes chastity. There is not even the consolation of being able to blame the enemies of the Church! Hence the necessity of restoring the religious orders: Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, in order to give anew the example of holiness which the world needs so much:

“Not content with abolishing Religion in public Society, they desire further to banish it from families and private life. Teaching and professing these most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare ‘that domestic society or the family, derives all its reason of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be concluded that from civil law descend and depend all the rights of parents over their children, and, above all, the right of instructing and educating them.’”

Hence, too, the right to divorce! And also, the right to take away from parents and the Church the education of youth in order to corrupt it, says the Pope.

The Infallibility of Quanta Cura

Having thus exposed the errors, Pope Pius IX concludes, not without having made clear that he speaks in virtue of his Apostolic mandate. There has been much discussion as to whether this encyclical bears the mark of infallibility. It is clear that, to introduce his Syllabus , the Pope not only invoked his Apostolic authority, but also used the terms used by the popes when they wished to proclaim a doctrine infallibly. All of the conditions have been fulfilled for the text of this document to bear the seal of infallibility. Let us read what Pius IX then writes:

“Amid so great a perversity of depraved opinions, We, remembering Our Apostolic duty and solicitous before all things for Our most holy Religion, [...] have considered the moment opportune to raise anew Our Apostolic voice. Therefore do We, by our Apostolic authority, reprobate, denounce, and condemn generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this Letter, and We wish that they may be held as reprobated, denounced, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church.”

The Pope then encourages the bishops to remind the faithful of what he has said, and then he calls for prayer [...] “We have thought it good to open [...] the heavenly treasures of the Church confided to Our dispensation, so that the faithful, more strongly drawn towards true piety, and purified from the stain of their sins by the Sacrament of Penance, may more confidently offer up their prayers to God and obtain His mercy and grace “ [...] and he declares a year of jubilee: “[...] a Plenary Indulgence, in the manner of a Jubilee, during one month, up to the end of the coming year l865.”

This makes clear the importance Pius IX wanted to attach to this encyclical, which now is considered as backwards and outmoded. †

The False Religions:
The Devil’s Invention

Nowadays if one says that the other religions are false religions the progressives are furious. They cannot bear to hear it. “Then you condemn all the other religions? Are all the other religions bad?” they ask accusingly. It is a visceral reaction on their part, and this reaction is in conformity with the fundamental principle of Liberalism, that is, all religions are good. “You think that only the Catholic religion is good and is able to do good in society, but consider the piety of the Moslems or the Buddhists,” they say.

The popes were not liberals, they remained firm in the Faith, and always deliberately distinguished the true from the false religions. For from what spirit do the false religions come? Do they come from the spirit of God, or do they come from Satan? If they are false, then they take their origin from the spirit of error, the spirit of lies, and the father of lies and of error is the devil. The false religions were invented by the devil expressly in order to separate entire peoples and entire countries from Our Lord, and to impede them from becoming Catholic, and from hearing the Truth. There is no doubt about it. It is thus that it is virtually impossible to convert the Moslems.

For 15 years at Dakar (Senegal) I found myself in the midst of three million Moslems, one hundred thousand Catholics, and four hundred thousand animists, and if during these 15 years I saw the conversion of 10 Moslems, that was surely the maximum (I mean real conversions, the conversion from Islam to Catholicism.) I don’t mean to say that there was not a certain influence thanks to our school, where we had enrolments of 10 to 15% Moslems. I didn’t want a greater percentage, or else that would have imposed Islam on our schools. Once they are strong enough, they assert themselves and take control, and seek to convert others. When they are weak, they listen and keep silent.

The young people in our schools certainly were influenced, and perhaps some of them desired baptism (baptism of desire) — this is quite possible. But it is very difficult for a young man to convert practically to Catholicism, for he is banished from his family, and he knows that he risks being poisoned. Only university students succeed in converting because they are independent. They know their future is assured and so they no longer need their families and can leave for Europe where they can convert. But it is practically impossible to convert someone within his family. By inspiring the Islamic religion, the devil truly succeeded in preventing the conversion of millions of men.

It was relatively easy to convert the Protestants. There were always many Protestants who converted before the Council. But now there aren’t many of these conversions any more. This is understandable because the Church no longer presents herself as an ideal the Protestants should desire, as the Church herself has become Protestantized. She now holds little attraction for them. † [ Archbishop Lefebvre, on Quanta Cura

Who Were They?

Pope Pius IX, (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) was elected Pope in 1846, and took the name of Pius in memory of Pope Pius VII, whom he revered for his stand against Napoleon. His first encyclical, Qui Pluribus, is the first Papal condemnation of the error of Communism.

On 8 December, 1854, he proclaimed ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

During his reign the revolutionaries finally robbed the Church of the Papal States in 1870. Throughout the late 19th century there was scarcely a country, Catholic or Protestant, where the rights of the Church were not abused.
Pope Pius IX made the Feast of the Sacred Heart to be universal, with the rank of double major. He established 45 dioceses in the United States. In his last encyclical, Quod nunquam, Pius condemned Bismark’s persecution of the Church (the Kulturkampf ). He died on 7 February, 1878.

The Pope of Infallibility: During its fourth solemn session, on 18 July, 1870, the First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility as a dogma of the Church.

Fr John Courtney Murray, S.J., (1904-1967), was one of the principal driving forces behind the Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae. He was born in New York City, and studied at the Gregorian University in Rome. In 1941 he was named editor of the Jesuit journal Theological Studies.

	Fr John Courtney Murray, S.J., on the cover of Time magazine, 12/12/60

In 1943 Fr Murray helped draft and promote an interfaith statement, the Declaration on World Peace. Several American bishops consulted him on issues such as censorship and birth control. He was against punishments and in favour of public debate in these matters. Fr Murray taught that Western culture understood human dignity better than the Roman authorities did. Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Vatican Curia, arranged the Vatican command, in 1954, that Fr Murray cease writing on religious freedom. He flouted this order, and was eventually invited to the second session of Vatican II, where he drafted what eventually became Dignitatis Humanae. Fr Murray was a father of ecumenism, teaching that it is positively wrong to claim that one religion is superior to other religions.