Una Voce:
The History of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce
n by leo darroch
gracewing, 504 pages, $35
In 1965, Evelyn Waugh wrote to the archbishop of Westminster of the growingn tide of liturgical changes: “Every attendance at Mass leaves me withoutn comfort or edification. I shall never, pray God, apostatize butn church-going is now a bitter trial.”
n The prominent Italian Catholic literary figure Tito Casini went further inn 1967, publishing the provocative tract La tunica stracciata (“Then Torn Tunic”), with a preface by a curial cardinal. He virulently took ton task the cardinal charged with implementing the reform, Giacomo Lercaro,n for “a perverted application [of the council] detested alike by Catholicsn and non-Catholics, believers and unbelievers, in the name of piety, unity,n concord, art, poetry and beauty.” Lercaro’s adept secretary, Fr. Annibalen Bugnini, would describe Casini’s work as “defamatory” and as a “poisonousn attack on the liturgical reform and on the conciliar renewal generally.” Asn the New Yorker of September 9, 1967, reported, Pope Paul VI wasn not pleased.n
n Casini and Waugh had a point. What began to happen to the Sacred Liturgy ofn the Western Rite of the Catholic Church in the 1960s (or perhaps earlier),n and which led to the production of brand-new rituals produced to meet then needs—almost self-consciously—of that ethereal entity “modern man,” wasn perceived as madness by many, and caused distress to a great number ofn faithful Catholics.n
n Catholics were a thoroughly obedient lot at the time. Bishops promptlyn implemented the changes ordered by Rome, and by and large the clergy andn faithful accepted them, whatever their misgivings. Casini, though, warnedn Lercaro that this would not last forever. He mentioned a farm laborer withn whom he had sung in the parish choir. In 1965 this man said to him, “To ben sure the Mass suited me better as it was before. But what the priest saysn goes for me and I does as I am told. If the priest says I must dance, thenn dance I will . . .” Two years later, after the choir had been disbanded, hen had changed his attitude. “Well,” he said, “to be sure if this isn what the priest wants now, I must say—I don’t know . . .”n
Increasingly, many did not know what to do in the face of what was widelyn perceived as the official, radical dissolution of the Catholic liturgy,n that ancient, multivalent reality, with its various ritual, literary,n musical, artistic, architectural, and other cultural components. At thatn time, it seemed that the only imperative was that one did not do n what had been done in the past. And in these circumstances, it is a sad butn well-known reality that many Catholics simply gave up attending Mass andn walked away.
n This was particularly true of the poor. In 2009, researchers from then University of Nebraska and Penn State found that Mass attendance among poorn white Catholics underwent a sudden and singular drop for the group bornn after 1960. They asked, “Did the Church do something to discouragen attendance among low-income Catholics during this time period? Are wen seeing lagged effects of Vatican II?”n
n Some, however, could not walk away. Indeed, in the “age of the laity,” asn the years after the council were so often called, some laypeoplen courageously and intelligently challenged the liturgical and culturaln iconoclasm of the day and preserved what they could of the Church’sn liturgical culture and the eternal truths which it enshrined. Theirs was ann uphill battle, certainly, but their convictions were clear, and theirn livelihoods—unlike those of the clergy—did not depend on uncriticaln obedience to ecclesiastical authority.n
n In Norway, France, England and Wales, Scotland, and Austria, concernednlaity began to organize. These groups, some of whom had adopted the name Una Voce (“With One Voice”), had by 1967 rapidly coalesced inton the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce. The organization, whichn Archbishop Bugnini later dismissed as having an “extremist bent,” quicklyn became truly international, with the incorporation of Una Voce n America in 1968.n
Una Voce’s history, faithfully compiled by Leo Darroch in then present volume, is indeed the history of lay men and women coming of age inn the life of the Church. It is not too much to say that following the Secondn Vatican Council, Una Voce formed a lay movement that, in spite of at timesn not insignificant opposition, came to be of singular importance. For at an time when the required obedience had anesthetized the greater part of then clergy (there were notable exceptions, but they were too few and generallyn regarded as idiosyncratic), it was the laity who enjoyed the freedomn necessary to organize themselves to promote the goods that were seeminglyn being squandered by the Church herself.
n Not that the laity had any authority in these matters, of course. Then history of Una Voce is the history of devout, intelligent, andn indeed obedient Catholic men and women (at times, to be sure, severelyn frustrated and almost driven to distraction) seeking for decades ton convince ecclesiastical authorities at every level, including the highest,n that the Church had made a fundamental error not in reforming or developingn her public worship—that she had done throughout history—but in excludingn substantial and important elements of her liturgical tradition (includingn Latin) in so doing. They argued that the almost complete prohibition of then older forms of worship was pastorally harmful, culturally deleterious, andn gravely unjust to the worthy aims of the fathers of the Second Vaticann Council.n
It is by no means an easy task to inform a naked emperor that he is wearingn no clothes, as the early Una Voce leaders learned only toon quickly. Darroch’s history is replete with polite but firm reminders fromn ecclesiastics that the old ways have been replaced by newer and better onesn and that everyone needs to make the best of them. A 1970 petition to Popen Paul VI requesting the preservation of the older rite of Mass received thisn reply from Cardinal Benno Gut, prefect of the Sacred Congregation forn Divine Worship: “You know that the decree . . . issued with then publication of the new Ordo provided for a certain period of transition. .n . . But after this period of transition all the faithful should get used ton the new form.” His Eminence conceded that the difficulties experienced byn many of the faithful with the new order were “due to (very genuine)n psychological inhibitions.” He concluded: “Your letter, written in such an distinguished tone, gives us the assurance that you will find then correct attitude.”
n Where, by 1970, Tito Casini’s farm laborer friend was with all of this wen do not know. But we do know that, among others, Una Voce did not duly “getn used to the new form” of the liturgy or “find the correct attitude” asn instructed. Locally and internationally, they did what they could ton promote the use of Latin in the liturgy and to lobby authority forn preservation of the classical liturgical rites.n
Darroch speaks of the “confusion, and indeed alarm” at the understandablyn “very chaotic situation” that had come about in the decade following then council. But from the outset Una Voce was blessed with then leadership of the German-born convert from Protestantism Eric den Saventhem—a providential unifier, spokesman, and coordinator of then movement. While for many years he too had received polite but firm repliesn entreating him and his associates to adopt the “correct attitude,” hisn vision was nothing less than prophetic. As early as June 1970, speaking asn the guest of honor at the annual meeting of Una Voce USA at then Liederkranz Club in Manhattan, de Saventhem would assert:
n A renaissance will come: asceticism and adoration as the mainspring ofn direct total dedication to Christ will return. Confraternities of priests,n vowed to celibacy and to an intense life of prayer and meditation will ben formed. Religious will regroup themselves into houses of strict observance.n A new form of Liturgical Movement will come into being, led by youngn priests and attracting mainly young people, in protest against the flat,n prosaic, philistine or delirious liturgies which will soon overgrow andn finally smother even the recently revised rites.n
n He continued:n
n It is vitally important that these new priests and religious, these newn young people with ardent hearts, should find—if only in a corner of then rambling mansion of the Church—the treasure of a truly Sacred Liturgy stilln glowing softly in the night. And it is our task, since we have been givenn the grace to appreciate the value of this heritage, to preserve it fromn spoliation, from becoming buried out of sight, despised and therefore lostn forever. It is our duty to keep it alive: by our own loving attachment, byn our support for the priests who make it shine in our churches, by ourn apostolate at all levels of persuasion.n
n Darroch gives chapter and verse of Una Voce’s tenacious pursuit of thisn noble aim, and while at times one may wonder whether his narrative couldn have benefitted from a further editorial revision, or indeed, in somen places, an extra footnote, his work provides an important historicaln testimonial to the slow but real progress that was made in the apostolaten de Saventhem so clearly outlined in 1970.n
The first breakthrough was made by the English. Through the good offices ofn Evelyn Waugh’s correspondent, Cardinal John Heenan, in 1971, a petitionn signed by prominent Anglophones, Catholic and non-Catholic alike (includingn two Anglican bishops) argued that the suppression of the older form of then Mass would be an irreparable cultural loss. Pope Paul VI, said to ben particularly moved by the signature, among others, of the novelist Agathan Christie, granted the requested permission for its occasional use—not,n however, without provoking the ire of the custodians of “the correctn attitude.”
n In addition to de Saventhem, four key personalities had a significantn impact on further progress (or lack of it). The first two are the Frenchn missionary Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the soon-to-be-canonized Popen Paul VI. The popular narrative is that Lefebvre wanted the old Mass andn Paul VI insisted on the new. But greater issues were at stake: Lefebvren was gravely concerned at the disintegration of Catholic life and teaching,n at the decline in the numbers of priests and religious, and at then direction in which the liturgical reform mandated by the council had gonen (he had himself signed the constitution on liturgical reform in 1963). Then liturgical question had become highly politicized, and in the midst of then widespread post-conciliar theological and pastoral turmoil, includingn liturgical disobedience and anarchy in some places, the celebration of then older rites was excluded a priori as a matter of obedience and ofn loyalty to the pope and to the council. Supporters were labeled with then pejorative term intégristes and held to be people tied to then past with closed minds who rejected the modern world. The older liturgyn was regarded as the banner under which such ecclesiasticalnreactionaries—assumed also to be linked intrinsically to political intégrisme—would gather. The ongoing clash of wills between then northern Frenchman Lefebvre and the Brescian pope resulted in Lefebvre’sn suspension and the further marginalization of those who sought to preserven the classical liturgy.n
n In November 1976, de Saventhem was curtly informed by Archbishop Giovannin Benelli of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, “The Sovereign Pontiff, forn grave reasons of which he alone is judge, has thought that he should notn dispense any longer from the obligation” of adopting the new Mass. Benellin complained that de Saventhem had “still not understood or admitted that thenhabitual obedience to the Pope, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, is and has always been an elementary duty for all then sons of the Church,” and advised him “to consult in all humility andn serenity a good catechism approved by the legitimate ecclesiasticaln authority.” Undaunted as ever, de Saventhem replied with a 3,400-wordn letter (well worthy of study) that asserted most incisively: “The crisis ofn the liturgy, the crisis of the Mass, most definitely both precedes andn transcends the conflict between Rome and Msgr Lefebvre.”n
This was a fact well understood by the third of our key figures—Josephn Ratzinger—created a cardinal by Paul VI in 1977 and called to serve as then prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by the newn pope, John Paul II, in 1982. Cardinal Ratzinger inherited the “Lefebvren file” under a pope who was by no means as intransigent on the liturgicaln questions as was his predecessor. Indeed, John Paul II had receivedn Lefebvre in personal audience only weeks after his election and was willingn to move forward in areas where Paul VI was not.
n The thaw had begun, and Ratzinger worked diligently, though as Darrochn demonstrates, “the correct attitude” had many partisans in both the Vaticann and in the worldwide episcopate who opposed any concession. Nevertheless,n in 1984 Rome gave permission for the use of the older form of Massn throughout the world. Its fine print meant that local bishops, however,n could effectively prohibit it if they wished—and very many did.n
n This opening facilitated further work by Ratzinger toward then regularization of Archbishop Lefebvre’s situation, and the clarification ofn the legal status of the older liturgy itself. The former almostn led to a reconciliation in 1988, but years of (perhaps understandable)n mistrust of “Rome” led Lefebvre to renege on the signed agreement and incurn the penalty of excommunication for the illicit consecration of bishops. Then latter—the legal status of the rites—was studied by a special commission ofn cardinals, whose clear conclusion that the older rites were never legallyn abrogated was almost promulgated in 1989 by John Paul II, who, inn the end, gave in to the fierce opposition of the cardinal presidents of then episcopal conferences of France, Germany, Switzerland, and England andn Wales, who flew to Rome for an urgent meeting with the pope so as ton prevent any liberalization of the older rites.n
n Lefebvre’s disobedience prompted John Paul II to offer those ofn Lefebvre’s followers who did not wish to break with the Church all thatn the archbishop had rejected, including the celebration of the older liturgyn in its entirety—not just the Mass. One could now be a Catholic in goodn standing without adopting “the correct attitude.” The wall had beenn breached. The realization of de Saventhem’s vision had begun.n
Among those who could not follow the archbishop after the 1988 consecrationsn was the fourth key individual, Michael Davies, a former soldier, an teacher, and a convert who became a prolific popular author and speaker inndefense of liturgical tradition. Elected to the presidency of Una Voce in 1995, Davies moved the organization forward in years that weren not as bleak as previous ones, but still not without challenges arisingn from those who wished to contain at all costs the “damage” caused by then breach opened in 1988.
n Davies’s meetings with Ratzinger convinced him that this cardinal didn indeed understand what was at stake, and although his hands were tied by an largely hostile Curia, Davies trusted Ratzinger. Why? Because Ratzingern did indeed “get it.” In 1997 he would write with his customary insight:n
n What we previously knew only in theory has become for us a practicaln experience: the Church stands and falls with the Liturgy. When then adoration of the divine Trinity declines, when the faith no longer appearsn in its fullness in the Liturgy of the Church, when man’s words, hisn thoughts, his intentions are suffocating him, then faith will have lost then place where it is expressed and where it dwells. For that reason, the truen celebration of the Sacred Liturgy is the centre of any renewal of then Church whatever.n
n Joseph Ratzinger’s election to the papacy in 2005 as Pope Benedict XVInproved decisive. His 2007 motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, established the right to the older liturgicaln rites to all those faithful who request them—regardless of the preferencen of the local bishop.n
nLefebvre, de Saventhem, and Davies did not live to see Summorum Pontificum, but they and countless others—many of whomn enjoy their rightful place in Darroch’s history—did all that they could ton ensure that the Catholic Church did not in the end dispose of the riches ofn her traditional liturgy. Frequently they did so at great cost and in then face of an almost abusive contempt from those in authority.n
n They sowed “in tears,” as the Psalmist sings, but their heirsn today—including, as de Saventhem had predicted, significant numbers ofnfaithful and intelligent young people—stand “cum exsultatione, portantes manipulos suos,” joyfully reaping an harvest that has matured steadily, rooted in and fertilized by the faithfuln perseverance of these heroic lay men and women (see Ps. 126:5–6). Pleasen God the grandchildren of Casini’s farmer are among them.n
Dom Alcuin Reid is the founding prior of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France.
Photo by Christophe117 via Creative Commons. Image cropped.
