Several years ago John Daly sent me an email in which he answered someone's query regarding Michael Dimond and his writings. Because he and his brother Peter have been, and still are, propagating error and are a danger to the faith I thought this email would be of value:




Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your courteous reply and your edifying gesture of removing the Dimond material pending clarification.

Unfortunately I lack the time to undertake a serious evaluation of Michael Dimond's writings, but I shall try to crash out a few rough notes here which may help you understand the problem.

First a few principles.

1. To write in public on matters of theological controversy it is necessary to be competent. That competence comprises the following elements:
a. Correct use of the mind - thinking straight. Distinguishing between a valid and an invalid argument; identifying a convincing proof, a probable proof, suggestive evidence, tenuous possibility and outright sophistry.

b. Sound general education: background familiarity with philosophy, history, etc.

c. The ability to write clear and correct English communicating exactly what one means.

d. Good all-round familiarity with all aspects of Catholic doctrine.

e. Ability to read the Church's language: Latin.

f. A profound knowledge of the specific subjects being written about.

g. Integrity. I do not mean by this a high degree of sanctity. I mean the minimal austere uprightness that would never twist the truth, abuse logic or muster up unjustified certitude on doubtful matters and would always retract any mistake made.

h. Orthodoxy - perfect submission to what the Church's authorities teach (which entails knowing what Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept as sound doctrine and the different ways in which the Church teaches us).

And Catholic controversial writing must similarly match certain minimal standards...
a. It must be clear.
b. It must be amply based on authorities with due references.
c. Its facts must be true and its arguments valid.
d. It must avoid overstatement.
e. It must be mild and charitable in expressing disagreement with other Catholics on controverted issues.

Now as a matter of fact, Michael Diamond does not possess that competence and his writings do not display those qualities. Indeed their failure to do so is so marked that serious Catholics simply do not take him seriously. A cursory glance would suffice to show them that this is one "voice crying in the wilderness" which may safely be left in the wilderness as it has no useful role to play in promoting the common good.

Probably the most salient characteristic of Dimond's writings is the habitual pretence at having shown what he has merely alleged or has supported by entirely spurious argument.

Here is a sample from Issue 5, p. 57:

Commenting on JP2's words "...Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, who is the perfect realization of human existence" (Fides et Ratio), Dimond comments:

"There you have it! Jesus Christ is the perfect realization of human existence. Or if you prefer it another way, look up the word 'realization' in a thesaurus and you will find that it means the same thing as the word 'understanding'. Antipope John Paul II is saying that Jesus Christ is the perfect understanding of human existence."

Well, XXXXX, to borrow a phrase, there you have it!

1. Obscurity. What do the words "Or if you prefer it another way" mean here? We haven't had "it" any way yet; we have just had JP2's words repeated with no indication of what is wrong with them.

2. Absurdity. To find out what a word means, if we are in doubt, we look it up in a dictionary, not a thesaurus, which is a collection of words of broadly similar, but not necessarily identical, meaning.

3. Further absurdity. Some words have several meanings. Finding in a thesaurus, or even a dictionary, that a word can mean one thing, does not preclude its perhaps having a second meaning.

4. Ignorance. As a matter of fact, the word "realization" is one of those words that has more than one meaning. Admittedly it often approximates to "understanding", but at other times it means "making real" or "giving actuality to".

5. Fallacious argument. Diamond presumes that JP2 means "understanding" when he says "realization". In fact, Diamond's case here amounts to tacitly admitting that in order to expose the heresy he believes is contained in JP2's words, he has to change those words to others which better suit his objective - a procedure justified on the basis of his thesaurus trick. Common sense shows where we shall end up if we may use a thesaurus to alter words in the statements of others to some other word included in the thesaurus as having a broadly similar meaning.

6. Factual error. Quite clearly the meaning intended by JP2 here is not "understanding" but "making real" or "actualisation".

7. False witness. While JP2's words here are not in conformity with traditional Catholic expression, and could be said to convey a whiff of Gnosticism, nevertheless, they are not, for a change, heretical. Human existence has indeed never been more perfectly made real than in Jesus Christ.

Such sophistry is rife in Dimond's writings. Four pages earlier you will find the following:

Commenting on JP2's words "Especially man must be given and restored to God, if he is to be fully restored to himself." (Redemptionis Donum), Dimond remarks:

"He says that man must be restored to God if he is to be restored to himself. This clearly indicates that man is God."

Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely. The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it. Does that "clearly indicate" that the elderly resident is the matron? Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of restoration to B. Dimond pretends that this logically implies that A and B are identical. It implies no such thing.

It is no defence to say that JP2 does indeed believe that man is God and has said this elsewhere. He does not say it here.

And if I wished to devote a couple of hours to the task I could find fifty similar sophistries in this one study.

Please do not misunderstand me, XXXX: the vast bulk of the JP2 texts Dimond has diligently collected in this issue are indeed unorthodox, and taken as a whole they constitute an overwhelming case that JP2 does indeed habitually hold and teach a heresy according to which Christ's incarnation directly divinised the whole of mankind, rather than merely making possible the divinisation realised by grace in favour of the just.

But Dimond's own commentaries are so exaggerated, so tendentious, so slapdash, so wanting in logical rigour or theological exactitude as to be worse than worthless.

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed (and there are various answers to Dimond already on the Web, contributed by JP2ers). And in any event, it will be no merit to anyone on the Day of Judgment to have been convinced by Dimond's shoddy reasoning to reject the Polish heresiarch.

Now, here is a passage from issue No.3, p. 30. Dimond is commenting on a text from the Council of Trent (Chapter 4, Session 6, On Justification) which he claims has been mistranslated.

"Mistranslation...'In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace...; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it...'

"One who reads the mistranslation of this passage from Trent would probably think that Trent is teaching that one can enter into the state of grace either through Baptism or by the desire for it. However an accurate translation renders the meaning of Trent totally different. In fact the original Latin of the passage 'except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it,' is 'sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto'.

"True Translation - 'and this translation...cannot be effected WITHOUT...the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'...

"...The subtle change of 'without' to 'except through' changes the entire meaning of the statement. The word 'without' used in this passage means that justification CANNOT happen without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Trent is simply distinguishing between the requirements for infant baptism as opposed to [sic] that of adults. Infants cannot desire baptism. Therefore in their case only the laver of regeneration is required to effect the sacrament. Adults on the other hand must have the desire for the sacrament that they are receiving..."
XXXX, the mind capable of conceiving the ideas herein expressed is a ruined instrument for the apprehension of truth. And the mind capable of being deceived by them is sadly lacking in discernment, to say the least.

Trent dogmatically teaches that justification is impossible without either (a) Baptism, or (b) desire for Baptism.

Dimond brazenly declares that it means no such thing. It means, in his view, to affirm that justification is in all cases impossible without baptism, and that in addition to baptism, desire for the sacrament is also needed in the case of adults.

Now the word "or" does not have that meaning. Hunt in as many Thesauri as you will. The Dimond meaning is not even, at a stretch, a possible meaning of the text he is writing about. Trent's words cannot possibly bear the meaning Dimond attaches to them.

The person who "changes the entire meaning of the statement" is Dimond.

Here is a comparison. A nation's laws affirm that no foreigner may reside in it unless he is the spouse of a citizen or a naturalised citizen.

What lawyer would have the effrontery to claim that a naturalised citizen has no right of residence because he is unmarried? Or that the spouse of a citizen must leave because he is not naturalised?

Now suppose, to indulge Mr Dimond, that in fact, in this land, adult foreigners are never allowed to become naturalised citizens unless they are married to a citizen, though children can be naturalised without this condition.

Plainly this does not alter the fact that the law envisages at least some possible cases in which either of the two factors suffices without the other.

But in any event, Dimond's claim is vitiated by the fact that while pontificating on alleged mistranslations of Latin, he does not actually know the language. Theologians writing in Latin (and Mr Dimond has never read one, for he does not have the ability to do so) would never dream of using the word "votum" (desire/vow) to express the intention that must be had by the recipient of a sacrament during its administration. The claim is merely ludicrous as anyone familiar with ecclesiastical Latin will confirm to you.

So we find Mr Dimond:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(c) Pretending to a competence in Latin he needs but does not possess.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent actually defined.

Yes indeed, XXXX. That brings us to the issue of Mr Dimond's own unorthodoxy.

First we find him denying the de fide truth that Baptism of Desire suffices for justification (which even Fr Feeney accepted!), and indeed for salvation. Trent is quite clear. St Thomas is quite clear. The Doctors are quite clear. Canon Law is quite clear. Historical examples of unbaptised canonised saints are numerous and clear. The theologians are unanimous. But Dimond denies this dogma because he doesn't SEE how it is compatible with other texts. That's how heresy happens. The reason he doesn't understand is that he doesn't have the background education in philosophy and theology. Sad, but not a justification - no one invited him to adopt his present "apostolate".

(Here incidentally is what St Alphonsus has to say on the topic in his Moral Theology Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”. "

For Mr Dimond, this is just proof that Doctors of the Church are not infallible and can err. The possibility that Dimond himself is not infallible and can err fails to occur to his bloated ego. What is clear is that St Alphonsus, not misled by any supposedly inexact translations, understands the Trent text in the sense that Dimond (a non-Latinist) rejects and that St Alphonsus holds as de fide a proposition that Dimond emphatically rejects as a heresy. And while the Doctors of the Church are not individually infallible (only collectively) it is quite certain that the Church does not accord the accolade of Doctor to persons who represent heresy as dogma and dogma as heresy. Plainly any humble, prudent and docile Catholic will adhere to St Alphonsus, not to Dimond - not that the Trent text is in any way ambiguous.

Moreover, it is only by a startling inconsistency, of which he must surely be conscious, that Dimond fails to brand St Alphonsus Liguori as a heretic, for in referring to contemporary Catholics he invariably calls them heretics when he thinks they err on dogmatic subjects. Of course this is particularly terrible when, as on the Baptism in voto subject, Dimond is the one who errs and those he condemns are orthodox. But even when he is right, it is a certain truth that to be a heretic there must be direct error against dogma, held with pertinacity - i.e. realisation that one's opinion conflicts with dogma. And Dimond rides roughshod over the pertinacity requirement, perhaps under the illusion that pertinacity is always presumed, whereas in fact it is presumed only where there are solid grounds for such a presumption. Thus he dismisses from the Church, as he himself admits, nearly all traditional priests, and indeed the laity.

Another grave departure from Catholic orthodoxy is found in Dimond's attitude to those papal decrees and declarations, encyclicals, etc., which fall short of the requirements for pertaining to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Dimond sees no difficulty in arguing that as they are not guaranteed by direct infallibility, they may well contain error and that Catholics are free to reject their contents, indeed sometimes bound to...

As a matter of fact, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, and as any serious student of Catholic doctrine knows, Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents also, and the words of Our Lord "He that heareth you, heareth me" apply to them. Dimond rejects that truth by a combination of ignorance and necessity, for he cannot admit a fact that would at a stroke destroy his false doctrine concerning Baptism in voto.

Another grotesque error is one that Dimond has invented himself - namely that Karol Wojtyla is himself the Antichrist in person. What emerges from his attempts to defend this error is that he has not studied Catholic doctrine about the Antichrist. He simply does not know that the Antichrist will reign politically over the whole world for 3 1/2 years, assassinate Henoch and Elias in Jerusalem, witness their resurrection, attempt to fly up to heaven himself (like Simon Magus of old) and then fall dead to the ground, struck by the breath of Christ. The Antichrist is not JP2, nor was he Paul VI as the late Bill Strojie claimed. These men were/are very wicked and were/are antichrists, but THE Antichrist is still to come (perhaps quite soon) and Mr Dimond is not helping to prepare Catholics for the event. He is merely spreading cloud and obscurity on grave matters.

Further criticisms would include Dimond's penchant for making highly controversial statements without providing adequate references and proof - for instance his claim that Baptism in voto was not mentioned in the original catechism of the Council of Trent and was added in the nineteenth century; that Baptism in voto was not mentioned in the original Catechism of St Pius X or approved by that pope, etc.

Then there are his merely misleading references. For instance, he attributes to Fr Leonard Feeney the words, "Anyone who says the New Mass is a traitor to the Catholic Faith," with a reference to From the Housetops, #24, 1983, p. 54. Incautious readers would casually assume that this was an article written by Fr Leonard Feeney to express his view. But in fact Fr Feeney was already dead. He died in 1978, though not before having himself said the New Mass. Dimond simply can't be trusted.

There we are, XXXX. I am sorry that time prevents me from being more thorough, but I think I have written enough to make it clear why I do not wish to be associated with Michael Dimond in any way.

To help you evaluate other writers on current controversies, may I suggest that you acquire a second-hand copy of Fr Edward Leen: What Is Education? and study in it what an educated Catholic mind is supposed to be like. Perhaps the most marked characteristic of the mind is that it is judicious. I would strongly recommend limiting contemporary writers you publish on your site to those to whom the word "judicious" could reasonably be applied.

Incidentally, to OCR Fr Leen's book and make it available on the Web would be a signal service to the common good.

God bless you.

In Domino et Domina,

John Daly

I have come to the sad conclusion that the Dimond brothers (or demon brothers, as some of my friends call them) are pertinacious heretics. I see no other way of explaining their obstinate rejection of Church dogma, and their apparent private interpretation of the Council of Trent and the Fathers of the Church.

Thus, I would say their writings are about as reliable as those of other heretics such as Martin Luther or Joseph Ratzinger.

I was wondering how the average layman can identify 'reliable' sources. Speaking only for myself, but perhaps this may include others, I am perfectly incapable of participating in theological arguments and, perhaps, what is worse, probably just as incapable at identifying competent sources. Since most laymen don't have these qualifications, how do we protect ourselves from arguments that may look to us valid, but don't supply convincing proof, but only tenuous at best. Some clerics, et. al., may not have all the requirements to write on theological matters (they have good will), but do so write, and the lay people may be dragged into theological positions that are at variance with the Church because of their incompetence.

How does a lay person today identify competent sources when our Holy Mother is now silent?

To further elaborate on my prior reply, and to bring in another topic I started (Validity or Invalidity of NO sacraments), this necessity of competence has some very real consequences right now. Earlier this year, as most of you know, the SSPX published a treatise entitled Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid. If nothing else, the SSPX could usually be counted on to have undisputed valid orders. If they act on this particular document, a real mess could ensue.

Having read this article, I was less than convinced by the author's arguments. However, I know I'm a complete dolt when it comes to matters like this. My usual barometer for gauging the Catholicity of some writing is to compare it to someone like Fr. Fahey (or a papal encyclical). When I read a papal encyclical prior to John XXIII, most times I'm left breathless with the beauty and truth of the writing and its contents. I often have to pause just to consume the majesty of the document.

Granted this article was not of the same type as the ones I just mentioned, but the arguments presented left me wondering. For example, they describe Dom Botte (the principal architect of the new Episcopal Consecration Rite) as 'competent', but then spend many paragraphs describing an outright modernist: proud, arrogant, hateful to Holy Mother Church, etc. Modernism is totally antithetical to Catholicism. So, how does the average layman treat an article like this. What if the author is wrong? What if he's right, and I don't believe it?

Secondarily, a response from a sede cleric (Absolutely Null ....), also left me wondering. I was also left unconvinced by this article. So, again, how does the average layman judge competence in weighty matters like this?

Teresa, that is an excellent reply. I have followed them. And they certainly do point out with a keen sense of what they see to be orthodox and not. Apparently we do not have presently a magesterium which is capable of dispelling the errors. I have their information, but am wary as what to do with it?? Do I give scandal if I distribute their literature??

Linda,

I fear you may have misunderstood my first reply. I was in no way supporting the Brothers Dimond, and their position. I was only trying to find out how laymen judge theological competence when we don't have our Holy Mother Church as sure guide. Sorry, for the confusion .

BTW, I do think you would give scandal by distributing their (I think you mean Dimond Brothers) literature. I'd trash it, if I were you (just my opinion, however).

Dear Teresa,

It seems to me as though your last post but one already went along way towards answering your own question. You habitually try to compare authors you are unsure of with standards you are sure of - papal encyclicals, saints, writers who rely heavily on papal sources, St Thomas and other saints. We could all safely follow that rule.

Perhaps another step is to check whether we need to be using so many contemporary writers whose status is not guaranteed, be they good or bad. I would say it is a safe rule that only a minority of our religious reading should be drawn from periodicals, forums, blogs or recently published books. Let the bulk of our diet be solid pre-Vatican II authors, the older and more approved the better. Let's really develop a taste for those encyclicals, for Dom Gueranger, for Fr Fahey, for St Thomas Aquinas, for St Alphonsus Liguori, for the Gospel soundly commented, for the Fathers.

After all, if these men lead us astray we may safely say to our divine Judge - Lord I erred because I followed those your Church most told me to trust. If on the other hand we err through placing unwarranted trust in contemporary writers, we shall not have that defence. From the slick Michael Davies to the hectoring Dimonds, from blatant frauds like Chris Ferrara to better-disguised wolves such as...well, never mind: we seldom have any real need for their views.

Granted there are contemporary topics that merit study and for obvious reasons are not directly tackled by pre-conciliar authors: you mentioned the problem of whether the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid. The problem of the V2 popes is another. Which Masses one can in conscience attend is another.

Here there is no simple solution and one has to do one's best to follow the arguments for it is never safe to nail one's colours uncritically to the mast of any single living author. On the consecration rite, we have the obvious fact that we must steer clear unless all serious objections to validity have been very clearly and satisfyingly refuted. The refutation we are offered is based on the idea that the supposed "essential form" of the new rite, though different from that Pius XII declared necessary, closely resembles forms used in the East. On closer inspection it emerges that these forms have not been stated by the Church to be the essential form of those rites, that the resemblance is not that close, that the alleged historical Eastern forms are scholarly constructs rather than texts we know to have existed and been approved as valid, etc.

Surely this is one case where even if one retains a theoretical doubt there is little doubt as to which course is safe to follow in practice.

John

Does anyone know it the Dimonds still believe that JPII was THE Antichrist?

Dear X,

<SNIP>

On the so-called "three baptisms," that is a polemical term invented to
prejudice the mind against the common doctrine of the theologians. There is
only one baptism. There are three ways of receiving the grace of baptism.
I have read all of the arguments. I read them many years ago and
periodically somebody pokes them under my nose again and I review them. The
problem is not that the arguments are implausible - they are obviously very
plausible as they have convinced good and intelligent men. But the problem
is that these arguments are not made by ANY authorised expert in the Faith
whose job it was to explain the Faith. Satan loves to trap us however he
can, and his favourite (because it was his first) trick is to appeal to our
vanity. He convinces us that we are competent to examine the arguments
ourselves, instead of relying upon the theologians. We are "good" he tells
us quietly. We want only to know the truth, he whispers. We should look at
these arguments and see if they are sound, he urges us. No! We should ask
the proponents of these strange theories to quote the theologians or stand
self-condemned. And let them not quote a Father or two, and think that they
have satisfied the requirements of humility. No, they must quote
theologians from the past five hundred years and then, when they find that
they cannot, they must admit that if their oh-so-plausible arguments are
sound, then the Church herself has permitted her authorised experts to teach
gross error for hundreds of years and she has never stopped them or even
complained!

Such a church may suit people who want to do their own theology - be their
own gods, in fact - but it doesn't suit Catholics, for whom the hierarchy is
the proximate rule of faith to which we must conform our beliefs, however
humiliating or painful it is to do so.

Sorry for the lecture. Your sentiments in general are really very Catholic
and beautiful, and I do hope you can at least see that those of us who
refuse to discuss the BOD/BOB arguments are not necessarily lacking charity,
but rather we are zealous for the purity of the Faith and for the honour of
Holy Mother Church, which is insulted by those who accuse her of not
noticing error and heresy being taught in all of her schools and seminaries
for hundreds of years. That is a blasphemy which pious ears should find
deeply offensive.

Yours in Christ our Glorious King,
John Lane.

Back in December 1999 I had an informal debate with Peter Dimond over his heretical denial of baptism of blood and desire. When I brought to his attention that Saint Alphonsus held that BOD was de fide, this was his response:

"Clearly then, baptism of desire is incompatible with these Papal pronouncements, and if St. Alphonsus were alive I would point that out to him, and he would agree, as he now agrees with us in Heaven."


Yes, you read that correctly, Pete seems to think that he is somehow superior to Saint Alphonsus when it comes to theology! I ask any good and rational thinking Catholic; how can anyone take these blokes seriously?

I have yet to see the Dimond brothers make a retraction when they are shown to be in error. For example, when I wrote to inform them that John Paul II could justify his use of a "papal" chair with an inverted cross as being the famous "Mamertine cross," I received no response and they continue to use it as an example of JPII's supposed Satanism. You see, I would not be too surprised if it were revealed that JPII was in fact a Satanist, I just despise deceptive arguments that attempt to bolster one's position when in actuality they discredit it. Other un-retracted errors include believing that JPII was THE Antichrist and of course baptism of desire and blood.

This brings me to a newly discovered one: Paul VI and his wearing of the rationale or the "breastplate" of the Jewish high-priest. They have several pictures on their web site demonstrating Paul VI's obvious use of the high-priest's rationale. The first thing that pops up in the mind of a traditional Catholic is that this is further proof of the unorthodoxy of Paul VI and his new church. Now, if the Dimond brothers were the great researchers and teachers that they clam to be they would have found out that the rationale was in fact not only used by certain Roman Catholic bishops, but was part of the pontifical robes of the Roman Pontiff himself. The proof of this is shown on pages 309-311 of the American Ecclesiastical Review Volume XXIII.

Page 310: "The evidence is quite clear. Not only is the breast-plate of the Supreme Pontiff mentioned among the liturgical vestments of the Christian Church by such writers as Amalarius, Fortunatus, Rhabanus, Maurus, and Durandus, but there are also a number of wall paintings and sculptures, previous to the thirteenth century, in which the pectoral shield (or choschen mishpat of the Hebrew high-priest) is pictured as part of the pontifical robes. Thus, in one of the arches of the south entrance to the Rheims Cathedral there stands the statue of a pontiff, above life size and wearing the rationale judicii, the mysterious Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament."

Thank you for your critique of the Dimond brothers, Dr. Tardugno. I have at times wondered if they were themselves "double agents" of some sort. When the average conservative Catholic hears the word "sedevacante' he thinks Dimond Brothers. The huge amount of movies, magazines and tapes, the interview on an extremely popular radio show - seem almost to be what has been called a "limited hangout". This "limited hangout" is a psycholgical manipulation; the purpose is to control the very people who need to know the truth of a matter. Using vivid, emotionally charged images and language, the limted hangout "reveals all" and satisfies the legitimate search for truth with a longed-for sense of the chaos being under control. The ultimate purpose is to obscure the very truth a person of good will was searching for, and to make all people who have come to the conclusions drawn look downright crazy. I think it's safe to say that the Dimond Brothers have had a hand in discouraging nice people from asking each other, "Would the Holy Ghost actually allow a real Pope to do such a thing?".

I am posting here an old letter which does not directly concern the Dimonds but comments on some of the same errors. It may prove useful to someone.
I have changed my correspondent's name to "XXX".

Dear XXX,

Before embarking on any attempt to explain why I believe what I believe, I should like first to summarise what it is. I don't want you to assume that you know what my position is except insofar as I have stated it. For although I disagree with some aspects of what I understand to be your position, there are other parts of it with which I am in considerable sympathy. In particular, I am well aware that the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church has been explained away by liberal theologians who either claim (heretically) that it is subject to exceptions, or else foist on it an interpretation far different from that intended by the popes and bishops who have promulgated and defended it. On the other hand I certainly don't think it means that a person under instruction in the Catholic faith who is run over and killed while on his way to be received into the Church is necessarily damned.

Secondly, I realise that some careless writers about theology (especially vernacular writers whom I generally eschew anyhow) have made misleading statements about baptism. Some say, for instance, that there are three baptisms. Of course there are not: the New testament teaches formally that there is just one baptism as there is just one Lord and one Faith. Others say that a catechumen who dies before baptism is saved. Extraordinary! Even if he dies after baptism, we have no assurance that he is saved - much less so if he dies before it. Others again say that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Holy Church, on the other hand, follows her Divine teacher in saying that it is absolutely necessary. And so do I.

But the bad news, from your point of view, is that recognising that some of your opponents are in the wrong doesn't mean that I think you are in the right. (One of Satan's favourite tricks is to create two rival camps and convince people that they have to choose one or the other: if you're not a Democrat, you must be a Republican; if you're not a Novus-Ordo-goer, you must be SSPX; if you don't like or approve of rock music, you must like jazz; if you don't want to get married, you must be a you-know-what; if you disapprove of polluted, industrialised, chemicalised modern society, you must be a fan of the New Age, etc, etc.) The questions which remain between us are not whether there is salvation outside the Church, but exactly what is meant, for the purposes of eligibility to be saved, by being in the Church; and not whether Baptism is necessary for salvation, but in what way Baptism is necessary for salvation.

On the first of these two questions I am attaching a short study summarising what I believe to be the correct position. [See below.] Please note that this study is not a controversial document setting out to prove anything. It is purely explanatory and I offer it simply on the basis that it is as well to be clear about exactly what a man believes before grabbing him, intellectually speaking, by the throat and telling him he is wrong.

For the rest of this letter I shall now move on to the second question: the one about baptism. On this topic, I maintain that a person who dies un-baptised may yet be saved, if the other conditions of salvation are fulfilled, by virtue of his desire for baptism - God taking the will for the deed when it is no fault of the person in question that he was not yet baptised.

There are a great many Catholic authorities I could quote in defence of this position, but I am going to pluck up my courage and take my stand on the one which you have already indicated to me that you are aware of and believe to be worthless. It is the following words of the Council of Trent: "This...translation [i.e. from the state of original sin into the state of grace 'of the adoption of sons' (Romans 8:15)] after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it..." (Denzinger 796)

As you well realise, the man in the street is liable to take this as implying unmistakably that the justification of the person still in original sin may be brought about either (a) by baptism, or (b) by the desire for baptism. Hence you informed me that: "...the decree does not state that: this transition [the justification of the sinner] CAN be effected WITH the water of regeneration or the desire for it. Rather, the decree does state that this transition...canNOT be effected withOUT the water of regeneration or the desire for it."

Now, XXX, there is no doubt that what you say is true, but is the distinction you make of the slightest relevance, or are the two phrases which you so carefully distinguish in fact exactly equivalent in meaning? I maintain they are interchangeable for all practical purposes and in the judgment of any man of balanced mind, familiar with the ordinary rules of the use of language, of logic and of ecclesiastical usage - and that no one would try to suggest that the words of the decree do not imply the words of your first proposition above unless he was carefully trying to avoid admitting something which he finds uncomfortable.

Imagine you went to buy a new car and you saw a sign advising potential purchasers that "cars may not be removed from the premises without payment in cash or by a recognised credit card." Having selected your Porsche you brightly present to the salesman your platinum American Express card. He accepts it, fills in the docket and returns it to you for signature. You sign and ask for the keys of the car. "Oh no," he replies, you can't have the car for a month. I have to get in another one to replace it first."

Naturally you are aggrieved. "But look at the sign," you say, "I can take my vehicle as soon as I have paid in cash or given you my credit card." "No, no, no," replies the car-salesman, "You must be logical. The sign says that you may NOT remove your purchase withOUT cash or credit. But it does NOT say that you MAY remove it WITH cash or credit. That would be a completely gratuitous conclusion. Go back to your classes in grammar and logic. I'll give you the keys to your auto when you can promise you have read the whole of the Material Logic of John of St Thomas in the original."

Wouldn't it be fair to call that salesman a con-man, XXX? And which are worse, XXX, theological con-men or automobile con-men? Because your argument is just as bogus as the car-salesman's. It is the same argument in fact. And it completely overlooks the fact that a list of conditions may equally well be presented in positive form or negative form. (E.g. "Driving test candidates cannot be presented unless they speak English or have a translator" is the same as "Driving test candidates must either speak English or have a translator.) To suggest that the negative form does not imply the positive corollary is to accuse whoever made the original statement of playing with words in order to deceive. And the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council is not out to mislead; it is out to teach.

I will bend over backwards in your favour, XXX, and admit that I might understand your wish to evade the natural and obvious sense of the teaching of Trent, if it were something completely unique and otherwise unheard of in Catholic theology. But it isn't, is it? I am sure you know as well as I do that the possibility of the salvation of one who has not been actually baptised is unmistakably taught by St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, all theologians of recent centuries, the Roman Breviary (St Emerentiana), St Bede (Hist. Eccl., Bk 1, ch. 7), St Augustine (the greatest of the Fathers (in at least two places), St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Fulgentius, Pope Innocent II, The Code of Canon Law, etc, etc.

(Note that I have deliberately omitted St Ambrose and any other text you might be tempted to try to explain away!) And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there should be theological error in the Breviary, Canon Law, etc. And what is more it is as sure as eggs are eggs that between the time of St Thomas and the time of the Feeney brothers no one even called into doubt the "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire", while all theologians, catechisms and the rest taught it as a matter of course. Do you really think the whole Church can err in doctrine for 700 years without anyone raising his voice to protest, not even popes and saints, XXX? Do you?

To be honest, I think that your real problem lies elsewhere. I suspect that you can't see how this text of Trent (supported by the other authorities I have referred to) can possibly mean what it quite obviously does mean. Because you see difficulties in reconciling it with other doctrines. But if that is the case, the first step is to admit honestly that you have a difficulty; not use your will to compel your intellect to assent to what you don't and can't see. That is called obscurantism, and it never yet got anyone any nearer heaven.

Our Lord indeed said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But does this actually mean, "Unless a man have water physically poured over his head subsequently to his birth, with the correct formula being pronounced by the minister at the same time, he cannot be saved"? You may think it means that, but that is an interpretation based on your own opinion. It is not the interpretation held by St Thomas who had, I expect you will agree, a greater mind than yours and greater Divine light too.

Let me quote to you what I wrote on this subject to a former friend of mine, Charles Coulombe, whom you may have heard of as he is a journalist and religious writer on your side of the Atlantic (well, actually he lives on the Pacific coast).

"On the subject of Fr Feeney you draw attention to the second canon of the Council of Trent on Baptism as being a teaching of the Church which is contradicted by the notion of baptism of desire: If anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' [John 3:5], let him be anathema. "But those of us who accept the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire do not deny this. We are thoroughly persuaded that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism, just as we are thoroughly persuaded that wheaten bread is necessary for Holy Communion and that a validly ordained priest with the necessary jurisdiction is needed for the sacrament of Penance. We maintain, however, that just as spiritual communion can produce the spiritual effects of actual sacramental Communion, and just as an act of perfect contrition can produce the spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance (each in the absence of the pre-requisites for the sacrament itself) so too, desire for Baptism, coupled with the necessary pre-dispositions of Faith, Hope and Charity, can produce the spiritual effects of Baptism in the absence of water. So we do not maintain that water is not necessary for Baptism and we do not maintain that Baptism is not necessary for salvation: we simply maintain that Baptism in voto [in desire] is capable of producing all the internal effects of Baptism in re [real or actual Baptism]. And there is not the slightest contradiction between this and the Canon you quote. "In fact, the canon in question was particularly directed at the doctrine of Calvin that the word 'water' in chapter 3 of St John was purely a metaphor indicating the grace of the Holy Ghost."

That is the end of the quotation from an old correspondence (circa 1987) - one example of many (I have been debating this subject with Feeneyites since 1983). I have only succeeded in convincing one of the true Catholic position because the Feeney idea is a bit like Islam - it has its own built-in protection against conversion. It just feels so solid and Catholic to insist on believing that the Church just means, well, exactly what she says. Doesn't it?

But Feeney-ism doesn't take account of all that the Church has said that bears on the subject, and that is why no informed Catholic wishing to adhere to the mind of the Church can do other than reject it.

Well, XXX, it's over to you now. I do sincerely request you to pray for light during our discussions, and promise Our Blessed Lady that you are ready to make any sacrifice in order to remain faithful to Catholic doctrine, if she will only give you light to see and understand it. May your guardian angel guide you as you reflect. Yours in Domino, John Daly

End of cut and paste. I will now cut and paste the document which was an attachment to the original message to XXX:

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Only invincible ignorance can excuse from grave sin anyone who fails to do so. Those who are invincibly ignorant of the duty of joining the Church will not be held guilty by God of failing to do so. But they are not therefore to be considered automatically in the way of salvation. If they fail to observe the natural law engraved on their consciences, and the divine positive law insofar as it is known to them, they will certainly be lost.

Nor is fidelity to his conscience enough for the salvation of such a person. Salvation is a supernatural good which can be obtained only by living the supernatural life - it is never a reward for merely natural virtue. Now actual grace is freely distributed by God to all men, but sanctifying grace, the supernatural life, is found exclusively in the supernatural society founded by God. The state of grace exists, to be sure, in some persons who are not visibly united with the Church in her external communion, but only because they are, in fact, already within her in voto - by desire. For the state of grace, or supernatural life, is what salvation depends on. And if it were possible to possess supernatural life outside the Church, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church would be false.

Nor is this a mere matter of precept to which exceptions may exist. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. And whereas invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. Those who failed to clamber aboard Noah's Ark were all drowned in the Flood, irrespective of whether this failure was due to invincible ignorance or not. Does it follow that God will punish by deprival of salvation those who were guilty of no sin by their failure to join the Church? It does not. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the duty to enter the Church, but faithfully obeys the dictates of conscience, will receive the supernatural enlightenment necessary to enable him to make an act of supernatural faith. If he co-operates with actual grace by making this act, he can proceed to the act of hope and the act of charity, thereby acquiring the state of sanctifying grace - supernatural life. In this case he is united with the Catholic Church by desire (which remains partly implicit), for by faith he believes whatever God has revealed (even if he knows very little of what that revelation contains) and by charity he desires to accomplish the will of God (though he does not realise that this implies joining the Catholic Church.)

What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, whereas one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith: (i) the existence of a single God, (ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked (iii) the triune nature of God and (iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation. (A minority of recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred. )

God will make known His revelation of the necessary articles to anyone who is faithful to conscience, so that the necessary means of salvation may not be wanting to him. The statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is, therefore, absolutely true and admits of no exception whatsoever. For the purposes of eligibility for salvation, the Church includes not only recognised Catholics, but also catechumens and all those who, being invincibly ignorant of the duty to join her, possess true supernatural faith, explicit as to the necessary articles, allowing them to be counted Catholics in voto - by desire.

Invincible ignorance is neither a sacrament nor a virtue: it cannot therefore sanctify or save. It simply excuses the breach of the law of which one is invincibly ignorant. The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant "faith" meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one's sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God's existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one's conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.

Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church's faith and to be united with her at least in voto.

Of those who die outside the visible communion of the Church, it is certain that the following are damned: 1. All those who manifestly lack supernatural faith; 2. All those who die in a state of manifest sin against the natural law known to all men, or to the revealed law of God insofar as they are aware of it; and 3. All those who are manifestly not invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church. Hence the Holy See has repeatedly condemned the practice of even conjecturing about the final destiny of such persons, as though it were a matter of doubt.

As to those who die outside the Church's visible communion, but after a life of apparent virtue, with the possibility of invincible ignorance of the Church and true supernatural faith, their salvation is certainly possible. However, it would be a mistake to presume that case to be a common one. For if, for such people, actual membership of the visible Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it remains the ordinary means of salvation, and the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not readily to be conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.

"The theologians are unanimous."

Several theologians rejected the concept of Baptism of Desire.

Pax Christi !

Rosarie stated

Who?