In several ways, Fr. Aidan’s Nichols’ Apologia is a keeping faith with positions he has held for many years. He remains full of hope about the conversion of Anglo-Catholics, even though he laments the unreadiness of the Church to admit more of what he regards as good and faithful Anglican tradition. He remains fond of the traditional French, even though he realizes that his Thomism might not be entirely theirs. He remains full of hope about the ability of the Church to reclaim her ancient essence.
“All who truly love the bridal Church have the capacity, in their time, place, situation, to awaken the sleeping beauty with a kiss,” he says. “For this love to eventuate one thing is necessary. We must refind something lying beyond any conceivable ecclesiastical structure or procedure and beyond, too, whatever panaceas are currently on offer for the earthly condition. We must rediscover something far greater: the essential supernaturality of the faith of the Church.”
On these matters and his unusually meditative youth, Fr. Nichols is fascinating. If John Henry Newman was insistent that one inalienable aspect of English Christianity was its appreciation of the Providential, nearly every chapter in this just, thoughtful, ebullient book confirms how much God’s Providence has meant to Fr. Nichols. It sustained him in an early home life that was the reverse of jolly, his mother dying of cancer when he was all but eight and his much older father succumbing to dementia before the author had left his teens. It fortified him for his life of faithful, scholarly itineracy. Indeed, he pointedly quotes the words with which Ken Platt (1921-98) the Blackpool comedian opened all his skits, “Allo, I’ll take me coat off but I’m not stoppin’.”
It certainly guided him, via a trip to Geneva when he was thirteen, to a recognition of the personal God. As he relates:
I went into the Russian church (a triumph—I later learned—of the revived Muscovite style, built by the Grand Duchess Anna Feodorovna, the sister-in-law of Alexander I), and gazed at the iconostasis. With the speed of a moment I took in the implications of the icons of Christ and his Mother and their veneration by a member of the faithful, who made a profound bow, then planted a kiss and by way of continued homage lit a taper. This was the incarnate Lord, the personal God made human in the Blessed Virgin—a notion that no amount of compulsory church attendance at school had managed to instill.
A Roman Catholic acquaintance at his Blackpool school reinforced his sense of the coherence and richness of the Roman Church. As he writes, “This was the start of my ‘path to Rome’. I was influenced by impressions of church interiors and devout practices in the Catholic cantons of Switzerland, but the decisive question was: By what authority? I sought a teaching Church which knew its own mandate and its own mind—something that could not be said of Anglicanism however reassuring its cultural face.”
Since Fr. Nichols’ life has been devoted to expounding various theological aspects of the “teaching Church,” there is much in the reminiscences about his own prolific, wide-ranging, scholarly work.
Yet there is one big surprise in the book and that is in his reaction to the fallout from his controversial stand against what he believes are the current pope’s deviations from magisterial Church teachings. In light of the doctrinal errors in which Pope Francis has persisted since Fr. Nichols’s co-signed letters questioning the doctrinal acceptability, first, of Amoris Laetetia and, secondly, of the Abhu Dhabi Declaration, it is striking how completely the author eschews any crowing. Certainly, his concern regarding these and other papal aberrations have been vindicated, even though few of his critics have had the grace to admit as much. Instead, Fr. Nichols contents himself with pointing out that the calamitous ambiguity that both matters caused continues unclarified. The imperturbable wit in him also accepts that his travails, in an age of so much doctrinal confusion, might have been unavoidable. “If you want a quiet life, do not get involved with God, Gospel, and Church,” he says at one point.
One signal benefit of the autobiography’s revisiting the controversial letters is to show how much more prescient than merely controversial they now seem. “The deafening silence that ensued was disorienting, not to say subversive,” he admits in one passage. Yet he also reveals that he:
was not among those signatories who thought the letters simply set down markers for the future. No doubt naively, I expected that a substantial proportion of the cardinals (the first letter) or the bishops (the second) would take a stand on the chief issues involved. In that eventuality, it might quite reasonably be expected that the pope would reconsider his position (in either of the possible senses to be given to that phrase). The second of the two letters achieved a great deal of publicity, since it raised the issue of a pope who, by negligence or misdirection, strays into doctrinal error (heresy): a possibility widely canvassed by theologians of the Renaissance and the Catholic Reformation, acknowledged at the First Vatican Council, and discussed by canonists of the period which preceded its later twentieth-century successor. If, as a schoolboy of seventeen, I had been required to abjure heresy, why should not a pope, confronted with his own at best ambiguous statements, be equally required to affirm orthodoxy? It is far more important that the Petrine office-holder, who embodies in his own person the claim to doctrinal purity of the sancta romana ecclesia, be absolutely scrupulous in such matters than it is for any mere practicing theologian (say, for instance, Balthasar). Naturally, no Catholic could possibly enjoy raising this issue (unless they are ‘Sedevacantists’). So the number of initial signatories to the second letter was predictably fewer than with the first, and the names of those who had been approached (and had agreed) correspondingly more prominent in the press. The language used in the second letter was certainly strong. But the seriousness of the situation called for a kind of description that eschews diplomatic formulae of an ambiguous kind. The gains in clarity made by the two last popes were at stake. Not that those popes had themselves proposed doctrinal novelties. The ‘gains in clarity’ they achieved were inroads on the relativistic fog that has settled on the maze of modern life.
Of course, with the current pope’s ratification of his doctrinal head’s Fiducia Supplicans, the “relativistic fog” against which Fr. Nichols inveighs has only deepened. Any accurate history of the Francis papacy would have to begin by evoking the ubiquity of fog that opens Dickens’ Bleak House (1853): “Fog everywhere… Fog creeping… Fog lying out in the yards… fog drooping… fog in the eyes and throats… fog in the stem and bowl of afternoon pipes…”
If few even faithful Catholics risk incurring the backlash that met Fr. Nichols’ defense of the integrity of magisterial Church teaching, their silence cannot change the stakes that the memoirist so indisputably sets out in his Apologia. “The reiteration by St John Paul II of classic Christian teaching on the moral life, the conjugal life, and the sacramental life,” he writes, “as found in, respectively, Veritatis splendor in 1993, Familiaris consortio in 1981, and, between those dates, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, could hardly be expected to survive the triumph of a successor document on the same topics—marriage and the family, the character of moral norms, the relation between the Commandments and sanctifying grace, if the new document—Amoris laetitia—be taken to ratify the very theological dissent the Johanno-Pauline texts were intended to unchurch.”
Here, indeed, is the apparent repudiation of magisterial teaching that the Francis papacy has been allowed to achieve. Yet, where courageous but easily marginalized prelates and laity are its only critics, such repudiation proceeds apace, especially in circumstances where “changes to the personnel and policy of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family, and the Pontifical Academy for Life, as well as the general tenor of such events as the Pontifical Gregorian University conference ‘Moral Theology and Amoris Laetitia,’ held in the spring of 2022, confirm the unsettling of the moral magisterium not only of the Polish pope, so recently canonized, but of the wider precedent tradition of the Church.”
And, as Fr. Nichols dryly observes, the lack of any effective challenges to the papal vagaries has long bred a kind of authoritarian intolerance in the pope and his friends. The example Fr. Nichols adduces has an almost comical ruthlessness. “When the finest living Italian moral theologian, Livio Melina, sought to argue that Amoris laetitia might conceivably be interpreted in such a way as to leave untouched the fundamental ethical doctrine of the philosopher-pope, he found himself summarily removed from his headship of the very pontifical institute which bears John Paul II’s name.”
Another well-meaning, indeed, irenical figure, Bishop Jean Lafitte, author of the excellent, if laboriously entitled Christ: The Destiny of the Human Person: A Journey into Filial Anthropology (Gracewing) was recently removed from his post as Prelate of the Sovereign Order of Malta for detailing what had been the orthodox zest of the Pontifical Academy of Life before Pope Francis and his friends set about demolishing it. So much for the current’s pope’s vaunted delight in dialogue.
A good example of Fr. Nichols’ playful wit can be found in his portrayal of the response of the English Dominicans to his papal criticism. Despite their never being known themselves for what the author nicely calls “ultra-papalism,” they were not over-eager to come to their fellow Dominican’s defense. Why?
Their journal, New Blackfriars, had published articles critical of Paul VI’s support, in the encyclical Humanae vitae, for the traditional blanket prohibition (no pun intended) on artificial contraception. Under John Paul II an entire issue had been devoted to an attack on the doctrinal ‘restoration’ (really, rectification, the French would say redressement) mounted by the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its prefect, Joseph Ratzinger. So a surge of resentment at criticism of a pope seemed somewhat out of corporate character. It was, however, true that, in regard to Blackfriars, Oxford, a permanent private hall of the University of Oxford, and hence a prominent public organization in English Catholicism, to shake off a reputation for left-wing dissent only in order to gain one for its right-wing equivalent was not, in public relations terms, especially advantageous.
Clearly, when Aidan Nichols, OP found himself odd man out there was little rallying round from his fellow English Dominicans.
That the punishment doled out to Fr. Nicholas for sticking his neck out for the dogmatic principle should have been exile to Jamaica gives his heroic testimony a farcical twist. In the Church of Jorge Bergoglio, there is a kind of poetic justice that one of our best theologians should be sent to a place where there are no books and the local Catholics feel obliged to ape their more popular “Evangelical and Pentecostal competitors” by mingling “their worship with African folklore”—“storytelling” always trumping “doctrinal instruction.” Here, predictably enough, in the midst of fairly raucous liturgical services, Fr. Nichols’ affinity for the “teaching Church” would find neither echo nor comprehension.
Yet the faithful humility that Fr. Nichols has exhibited since he decided in good faith to sign the two letters that set off such controversy is summed up by something he says at the very end of his admirable memoir. “I certainly did not want to be an occasion of serious division… where there was a spectrum of opinion on delicate issues.”
Apologia: A Memoir
By Fr. Aidan Nichols
Gracewing, 2023
Paperback, 150 pages
(Editor’s note: This review has been updated for clarity.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Fr. Nichols is a great inspiration. It has been a blessing to fight along side you in the fog. And I consider myself doubly blessed after each skirmish to retreat unmolested into my Growlery. Being a “nobody” theologian has its benefits.
All the best to you, Fr. Aidan. And be of good cheer – at least they haven’t tried to rip out your tongue and maim your writing hand like poor St. Maximus…Happy Easter!
We read from Fr. Nichols: “When […] Livio Melina sought to argue that Amoris laetitia might conceivably be interpreted in such a way as to leave untouched the fundamental ethical doctrine of the philosopher-pope, he found himself summarily removed from his headship [!] of the very pontifical institute which bears John Paul II’s name.”
There it is: the Pope Francis Project is about (somebody’s?) sociology;
While “Christian truth […] is not an ideology” (Centesimus Annus, CA, n. 46), and Catholic Social Teaching “belongs to the field…of theology and particularly moral theology” (Rerum Novarum, n. 143; and CA, n. 55).
Other than that abrupt paradigm shift, and about the role of women in “Alice in Wonderland”: “Off with their heads!” demanded the Queen of Hearts.
And then there’s the Big Picture: Archbishop Paglia, Grand Chancellor of the (renamed) John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences, and his worse-than-Rupnik cathedral artistry: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leading-vatican-archbishop-featured-in-homoerotic-painting-he-commissioned
By co-signing a 2019 letter with known borderline sedevacantists like Peter Kwasniewski and other teachers calling Pope Francis a heretic, Aidan Nichols has wasted the good reputation he had in having authored a number of theology books which are required readings in presbyterate seminary and deacon formation programs. Nichols and the other signatories thought of themselves as more Catholic than the Pope to be able to pass the judgment of heresy. By their private interpretation of the magisterium they turned no different than Protestants with their private interpretation of scripture.
The fruits of Amoralist Laetitia is the pastoral heresy of Sfiducia Supplicans, etc.
Do you believe that it is objectively evil to judge Fr. Nichols? “Judge not.” (Matthew 7)
If so, why do you believe that it is sometimes God’s will to tolerate concubinage? “You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20)
If you do not accept both, who is selectively choosing from the Word of God: You or Fr. Nichols?
Dear Deacon “Dom,”
Would you care to back up your accusation against Peter Kwasniewski of sedevacantism? If you can’t or won’t, you are guilty of calumny.
With respect Deacon Dom, “borderline sedevacantist” sounds rather improbable. Like borderline pregnant. The Papal See is either vacant or it’s not.
Perhaps Deacon Dom meant something less logical like “borderline crazy.” Fr. Nichols was reckless indeed to lose the good opinion of Deacon Dom. Such a misfortune is truly tragic. What could possibly be more important?
Kwasniewski’s “sedevacantism” described as “borderline” is an open-ended assessment. His previous pattern of vile and disrespectful bashing of Pope Francis and the liturgical reforms of Vatican II has reached a peak in the 2019 letter judging the Pope a heretic. The flow of logic in that letter is that since Francis is a heretic he automatically lost his office making the seat of Peter vacant, hence the sedevacantist position. The letter signers then called on the bishops of the world who have the canonical authority to officially ratify their position. Last year, Kwasniewski went beyond the 2019 letter to buttress his sedevacantist position that the Petrine office is vacant and Francis is not the rightful Pope by encouraging Bishop Strickland to disobey and not recognize Pope Francis’s order to vacate the episcopal see of Tyler, TX.
Deacon Dom, I attended one of his lectures last year and while most of what he talked about was over my head, in no way did he suggest the Papal See was empty.
You either believe there’s a valid Pope or there’s not. Minus a real Pope in Rome,
wouldn’t you go worship elsewhere? Goodness knows there’s a variety of Orthodox options.
Regarding Peter Kwasniewski, see:
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/interviews/some-thoughts-on-the-papacy-an-interview-with-peter-a-kwasniewski/
https://onepeterfive.com/are-traditionalists-guilty-of-private-judgment-over-the-popes/
For the record, Peter Kwasniewski is no unfaithful critic. The comment here suggesting otherwise is false. In a recent interview, Kwasniewski makes this crystal clear:
“There is, of course, the danger that Catholics will become so impatient with a bad pope or bad bishops that they will be tempted to ‘break free’ from the institution and try, somehow, to set up a ‘safe place’ far away from this corrupt hierarchy. But that is quite impossible to do. We can be faithful critics of what has gone wrong, but we must remain in union with the pope and the bishops, at least to the extent of accepting what they do and teach that is in harmony with the Faith or not obviously in disharmony with it. It’s like being a member of a family in which one has to keep a certain distance from some relatives, without, as it were, disowning them. Not an easy situation, and one sometimes feels these days as if one is walking on a tightrope. But that is our challenge, given to us by Divine Providence, and we cannot either contradict our reason or abandon our love for Holy Mother Church.“
So says the man defending the October 7th Hamas atrocities.
I have no doubt that the future looks good for the defenders of the Truth even though their numbers seem few. I suspect that those courageous enough to speak out against false teachers in the Church have always been voices crying out in the wilderness. Out of all the followers of Christ who saw him heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into wine and multiply fishes and loaves of bread to feed the hungry, only two had the courage to remain at his side during his agony and death. The rest hid in fear like so many Churchmen today.
Long after this most error-ridden pontificate vanishes from the scene, men like Aiden Nichols will be remembered as thoughtful and courageous followers of the One who is Truth personified. Francis will be remembered as an autocratic, ill-tempered, prideful, obstinate, socialist demagogue who preached dialogue but refused to speak with any one who dared to disagree with him.
In my mind, the image of the Church’s response to the Bergoglian Mistake will be two young Austrian Catholics taking it upon themselves to remove the Pachamama idols from a church in Rome and throwing them into the Tiber after that disastrous experiment in Amazonian witchcraft. These Austrian men are models for the Church; not the timid of heart.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but to add insult to injury, the current occupier of Peter’s Chair later apologized — not to those offended by the Pachamama idols, but to those offended by what the two Austrians did.
I think you’re correct. That said, I make it a practice to ignore what Francis says and does. I spend the bulk of my time praying that his successor is a true shepherd.
What is that young Austrian man doing today? I haven’t heard much about him since the Pachamama incident.
mrscracker: Neither have I. My guess is that they’re back in Austria, eschewing the glare of fame, giving witness to Christ and, with God’s grace, trying to secure eternal life. Would that the Vatican hierarchs were doing the same.
I don’t see much about Alexander online but it seems he did a podcast with Dr. Gavin Ashenden last year. I wish him & his family the very best.
Reading of Nichols’ experience in the Russian church in Geneva, I couldn’t help but think of my plain Mennonite in-laws with whom I spent some of this past Easter weekend. Seeing what Catholics and Orthodox would consider the glorious architecture of this church, as well as someone bowing before an icon, kissing it, and lighting a taper in front of it would strike them as the sort of idolatry condemned again and again in the Old Testament. How can one even begin to convince them otherwise?
Don’t bother. Anyone of even a remote Protestant vintage will continue to believe the calumny that Catholics worship statues. We do not, and every Catholic knows it. Over time your behavior as a Catholic will tell them the truth.
I appreciate the reply. I stopped fighting religious wars years ago. My in-laws aren’t by any means rabid anti-Catholics. After almost 30 years, I’d hoped that they would have mellowed out, as they seem to have done; however, not long ago a niece told my wife and me that her parents were still “concerned.” Unfortunately, I’m not too quick on the uptake, or I would have replied, “They needn’t be.”
Hello Ken. I actually have dear traditional Mennonite friends & in the past have spent many hours with them & their community. My children visited their one room school for a day, we sewed & shared many meals together, & my daughters spent a couple weekends visiting a couple Mennonite families, helping one with their bakery & the other with the farm chores. I even brought my daughter’s First Communion veil to a Mennonite sewing circle & got help stitching the slippery material.
We certainly have different ideas about worship & doctrine but so do other faith communities. I think we have much more common ground than not, so I try to focus on that.
God bless!
Unaware Fr Aidan Nichols’ another victim of His Holiness’ purge to cleanse the Church. Strategically placed where his glorious theological affinity to Christ as revealed within tradition Catholicism has little coherence. Jamaica.
Short reveals Nichols’ lonely faithful warrior status within his own Dominican Order, the presumed purveyors of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Orthodoxy now leaning Leftward Ho with the rest of our carpetbagger theologians. He warned of the New Age overtaking Christianity in The New Age Movement. A Cosmic Christ found everywhere and in everyone. He exposed his Dominican brother Fr Matthew Fox’s paradigm shift theology of the transreality Christ also present in Nature. Nichols’ great virtue is humility evident in his acceptance of Tsarist like exile to the Siberia [relatively speaking] of Christianity. The growing new white martyrdom.
I think if I was able to choose a place for exile I’d choose Jamaica.
🙂
Just a bit of hyperbole on my part mrscracker for effect. I’m reminded of Cardinal Burke’s exile to Malta when Pope Francis responded to reporters saying “He likes to travel”. Perhaps he’ll eventually banish Cardinal Gerhard Muller to New York State. We’d love to have him.
We’d like Cardinal Muller here, too. Perhaps we could share him if he’s exiled. Summers with y’all, winters down here.
🙂
Kingston? Be serious.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/jamaica-travel-advisory.html
I am serious, God’s Fool. I just returned from a visit to Jamaica recently. It’s a gorgeous place with wonderful people & incredible food. Parts of the island do have serious gang-related crime issues, it’s true but so do a number of US cities. We have a city a couple hours down the road that should be on a State Dept. “Do Not Travel” alert also but it gets tons of tourists all the same.
The quote from this article is disconcerting…”Yet there is one big surprise in the book and that is in his reaction to the fallout from his controversial stand against the current pope’s deviations from magisterial Church teachings.”
While I too struggle with this Pontificate, I don’t think it is good for Catholic World Report to publish articles that declares that Pope Francis has deviated from Magisterial teaching. That is a very serious charge to casually level against the Successor of St. Peter.
These two sentences should be studied:
““The reiteration by St John Paul II of classic Christian teaching on the moral life, the conjugal life, and the sacramental life,” he writes, “as found in, respectively, Veritatis splendor in 1993, Familiaris consortio in 1981, and, between those dates, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, could hardly be expected to survive the triumph of a successor document on the same topics—marriage and the family, the character of moral norms, the relation between the Commandments and sanctifying grace, if the new document—Amoris laetitia—be taken to ratify the very theological dissent the Johanno-Pauline texts were intended to unchurch.”
Here, indeed, is the apparent repudiation of magisterial teaching that the Francis papacy has been allowed to achieve. ”
The words “if” and “apparent” seem not to have made any difference in your interpretation and accusation. These careful and distinguishing conditional words make of your assertion a rash and false judgment.
The Word is important and so are our words. The letter of St. James reiterates the point.
What aspect of John Henry Newman’s view on English Christianity does Fr. Aidan Nichols affirm in his book, and how has God’s Providence influenced his personal journey? Visit us IT Telkom