 SPECIAL INTERESTS |
|
On December 13, the Catholic Traditionalist Movement observed the 40th anniversary of the death of its Moderator, Bishop Blaise S. Kurz.
No matter how hard some people try to rewrite history, the fact remains that as early as May 22, 1966, Bishop Kurz was the first and only Roman Catholic Bishop to PUBLICLY raise the flag of resistance. Resistance, not to the Second Vatican Council itself, but to the deliberate and false interpretations and implementa-tions of that Council’s decrees which was used to destroy the Faith and the Church of our forefathers.
Unfortunately, the extreme left does not have the monopoly on falsifiers of history as we have seen. But the fact remains that it was only Bishop Kurz, who as early as 1966, publicly and formally associated himself with the Catholic Traditionalist Movement and its founder and leader Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw and assumed the position of “Bishop Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement.”
The fact remains that if only one or two other bishops had joined Bishop Kurz and the C.T.M. then, when humanly speaking, we still had a chance to win this fight for the True Church, with powerful Cardinals like Ottaviani, Spellman and Bacci effectively shielding us, the Church and its people would not be in the continued chaotic state they find themselves in today. But NO other bishop could be found ANYWHERE in the world to stand up and be counted. Bishop Kurz was ALONE in 1966 and remained ALONE as Bishop of the traditionalist Catholics in the world until the day he died, December 13, 1973.
This is the sad but true historical record that not even the falsifiers of the extreme right can change.
Bishop Kurz was born in a small German town in Bavaria, Germany called Sontheim on the feast of St. Blaise, February 3, 1894. He was ordained to the priesthood in the Franciscan Seminary in Neurenberg on December 21, 1919 by Cardinal von Faulhaber who later became the renowned opponent of the Nazis.
Fr. Kurz first assignment was as a Franciscan missionary in China. He labored very hard as a missionary and his exemplary and at times heroic conduct was noticed in Rome. In 1939 on the feast of Christ the King, in St. Peter’s Basilica, he was consecrated a bishop of God’s Church by Pope Pius XII himself. No question about Apostolic line of succession in this case. He received the title of Titular Bishop of Terenuti. With his consecration as bishop, came a transfer from his missionary work in China. Because he was unable to stay in his own diocese in Germany during the war and recognizing his abilities from his missionary work in China, the Holy See transferred him to the Diocese of Kokstad, South Africa where they needed a bishop with the capabilities that Bishop Kurz possessed. Kokstad is a small, but picturesque town on the slopes of the Drakensberg Mountains, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal overlooking South Africa’s southern coast. It is in this town of Kokstad, where the first contacts between the DePauw’s and Bishop Kurz took place. At this time Fr. DePauw’s brother, Fr. Adhemar, a Franciscan missionary in the Belgian Congo, became ill with an ear problem which threaten to make him deaf. His doctor at the mission told him that in order to recover from this ailment he needed to go to a better climate in the south. He was sent to Johannesburg initially and from there onto Kokstad.
When WWII broke out, the Protestant British military authorities in South Africa placed the Roman Catholic Bishop Kurz, a German citizen at the time, under arrest. It was only through the intervention and the posting of bail by Fr. Adhemar who at the time was a young Catholic Belgian Lieutenant, serving in the British African Corps that Bishop Kurz was returned to freedom.
The bishop was to spend eight years in Kokstad, living in a large institute for the deaf and mute, until he was asked by Pius XII to return to China where he had spent his first twenty years as a missionary. This was a very dangerous time in China since the country was coming closer and closer to falling under Communist domination. At the height of his spiritual and physical strength at the age of 54, Bishop Kurz accepted the Pope’s wish as an order and returned to Yungchow, China. On May 21, 1948 he was appointed Prefect-Apostolic of Yungchow. The bishop’s work there was both delicate and dangerous with the onslaught of the Communists.
This assignment was not to last as long as his first assignment in China. In 1949 the Communists were successful in taking over the complete mainland of China. With that takeover they began a brutal suppression of the Church. Many missionaries and bishops were imprisoned, tortured and killed.
Pope Pius XII, personally ordered Bishop Kurz to return to Rome but he wanted to stay with his Catholic flock even if it meant facing prison and even death. He wanted to be among those the Pope would later call; “the most valiant witnesses of Christ.” However, following the Pope’s order, he returned to Rome with the hope of some day returning to the land of his early apostolate. That exile was to last 24 years and his hope of one day returning to China was laid to rest with his mortal remains.
For the next several months Bishop Kurz resided in Rome. During this time the case of Bishop Kurz came to the attention of Cardinal Spellman who had a special soft spot in his heart for the victims of Communist persecution. He extended the hospitality of his archdiocese and of the United States of America to the Bishop. And so in the latter part of 1949, Bishop Kurz sailed to New York.
It is quite the coincidence that Fr. DePauw and Bishop Kurz both came to the United States only months apart in the same year and also both at the invitation of Cardinal Spellman. They were to meet for the first time through Fr. Adhemar shortly after arriving in this country. The first mention of Bishop Kurz in Fr. DePauw’s diary was his first meeting with him on November 16th, 1950.
Over the next two years, they would meet several times both in New York and Washington D.C. where in 1951 and 1952 Father served as assistant in the parish of The Immaculate Conception, while attending Catholic University.
Between 1949 and 1962, except for the an occasional Confirmation or Ordination ceremony in various dioceses throughout New York State and in Puerto Rico, Bishop Kurz performed the daily spiritual and other chores of a simple parish priest both in the Bronx and in Staten Island boroughs of New York City. Despite being the invited guest of the Cardinal of New York, the way Bishop Kurz was treated during those years by some pastors in some rectories was shameful. He spent most of his time in the parish of St. Mary’s of the Assumption in Port Richmond where the room he was given was described by Fr. De Pauw as no bigger then a broom closet.
There are numerous references in Fr. DePauw’s diary of having been with Bishop Kurz at various religious ceremonies and receptions during these years. But a closer relationship between the two did not develop until the Council years. As already published in our special newsletter for the 50th Anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, it was Bishop Kurz who invited Fr. DePauw to attend the Council with him as his personal expert and procurator in July of 1962. Unlike many of the American hierarchy who during the Council stayed at the finest and most luxurious hotels that Rome had to offer, they both stayed at Villa Maria Regina, which at that time was a guest house of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Rome.
Throughout the Council, even at the sessions which Fr. DePauw was not permitted to attend by the rector of the seminary in Emmitsburg, Bishop Kurz depended on Fr. DePauw’s expertise and advice on the various proposals which were put before the Council attendees. In the Fall of 1964, in gratitude for Fr. De Pauw’s Council work as his “peritus personalis” ,Bishop Kurz requested from Cardinal Shehan his Nihil Obstat to have Father made a monsignor. He asked it as a personal favor from one bishop to another on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of his Episcopal consecration. But Cardinal Shehan refused to give it to Bishop Kurz and even though the paperwork was already signed in Rome by the Secretariat of State Cardinal Ameleto Cicognani, it was withdrawn. Instead, Father received the Silver Medal of the Pontificate of Pope Paul VI. Bishop Kurz was very upset about this and took it as a personal insult to him as a bishop. He told Fr. De Pauw that the Silver Medal was a consolation on the part of the Holy Father and Cardinal Cicognani, as a reaction to the Baltimore archbishop’s refusal. There is much more to the story of Father’s being made a monsignor which is a story of dishonesty and an attempted case of failed chantage against Fr. De Pauw by the Cardinal of Baltimore. It basically came down to this; domestic prelate in exchange for giving up the C.T.M. This was made clear to Fr. De Pauw in a letter from the Bishop in February 1965. This would be the opening salvo on the part of the Cardinal of Baltimore in trying to silence Fr. De Pauw. Father would have none of it and chose honesty of conscience over the monsignorship.
Bishop Kurz and Fr. De Pauw at the Council
On December 31, 1964, Fr. DePauw sent the Catholic Traditionalist Manifesto, the constitution of what three months later would become the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, to all Catholic bishops throughout the world. Bishop Kurz was first along with Cardinals Spellman and Ottaviani to give his blessing and good wishes to what was to become a rough and tough fight for Truth and Tradition. And while many Johnny-come-latelies now try to rewrite history and portray others as the saviors of the True Catholic Faith, they were nowhere in sight in 1964.
In the Summer of 1965 Father was fired from the Seminary in Baltimore without cause as another attempt by Cardinal Shehan to try and silence Father. In a letter dated July 26th, the Cardinal ordered him to disassociate himself from the C.T.M. and assigned him as an assistant priest in a parish in Baltimore effective September 4th, “for the good of the Church in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. This was clearly an act of punishment against Fr. De Pauw for his involvement with the C.T.M. since only a few months before the Cardinal had written Father telling him that his reputation among the faculty and students of Mount St. Mary’s was “excellent.”. Father refused to accept this firing since he had been hired to teach at Mount St. Mary’s by an independent corporation, the Mount St. Mary’s Corporation, over which the Diocese of Baltimore had no control and therefore he contended only that corporation could fire him. Cardinal Shehan advised Father to either follow his order or get out of the Baltimore Diocese.
Once again Bishop Kurz would step in. At the suggestion of Cardinal Spellman, he agreed to incardinate Father into his diocese of Yungchow and then immediately make him his personal secretary. Bishop Kurz informed Cardinal Shehan of this, but the Cardinal refused to agree to this, stating that Fr. De Pauw must ask for the excardination himself. When this was done immediately, the Cardinal still refused the excardination on the grounds that Bishop Kurz’ diocese held no territory and that the Holy See would consider this a case of “quasi in fraudem legis”. The Cardinal, in his refusal even went so far as to doubt the very existence of the Diocese of Yungchow because of the Communist take over on mainland China. This opinion was most definitely not held by the Holy See since the Holy Office had ruled on this exact point in March of 1954 . At that time it stated that unless an Apostolic Administration was appointed to fill the see, the exiled bishops “preserve their jurisdiction except those who through special document from the Holy See have been relieved of their see.” In the case of Bishop Kurz neither of these exceptions applied. As a result his episcopal jurisdiction was never suspended either by Canon Law or by the Holy See.
Bishop Kurz was not only insulted by this answer from the Cardinal but was very upset at the way the Cardinal was treating Fr. De Pauw. It is important to note that while Cardinal Shehan was speaking for the Holy See, something he had no jurisdiction to do, members of the Curia, besides Cardinal Spellman, holding the highest positions in the Holy See, were telling Fr. De Pauw the exact opposite. In fact in one case, he was told that the approval of the Cardinal of Baltimore was not even needed for the incardination into Yungchow!
In October of 1965 when the last sessions of the Council were opening Fr. De Pauw went to the office of the Secretary General of the Council to renew his credentials. He was told “the Secretary General refuses to accept you as procurator.” When Father pressed the monsignor in charge at the time named Luppi, whether or not Archbishop Pericle Felici, who was the Secretary General of the Council, had actually said that, the monsignor then tried to make it appear that this was the rule. Father was told that he must have a Nihil Obstat from his ordinary before this could be done. However there was no such requirement in Canon Law and no such ruling had been made or ever existed. This “rule” had been fabricated as the result of a conversation between Cardinal Shehan and Archbishop Felici. Bishop Kurz went to the office of the Secretary General to speak to Archbishop Felici personally as to why his “peritus privatus” was being denied access to the Council. He was told that the Archbishop was attending a commission session and he would be unable to see him. Bishop Kurz walked out of the office stating to a stunned monsignor; “the whole thing stinks to hell.”
Bishop Kurz understood this move on the part of the Cardinal of Baltimore for what it was and got another Bishop, Berthold Buhl from Germany, to request Father as his procurator. At about the same time this was happening, Bishop Kurz stopped receiving the “Council Digest” of the American bishops and had to get it from another bishop. While Cardinal Shehan was doing everything he could to silence Fr. De Pauw, on November 5th, the Vatican issued a rescript with the Apostolic Blessing of Pope Paul VI for the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, signed by the secret chaplain of the Pope, Archbishop Diego Venini.
Bishop Berthold Buhl on the left with Fr. De Pauw at the Villa Maria Regina The bishop in the center is another exiled bishop from China, Bishop Haring
Bishop Kurz with Fr. De Pauw at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary
When the excardination process of Fr. De Pauw to Tivoli was completed on November 15, 1965, Bishop Kurz immediately informed Bishop Faveri that he was making Father his personal secretary to return with him to the United States when the Council closed. Bishop Faveri immediately gave his approval for Father to leave Tivoli for America since the purpose of this incardination had been made very clear to him. Two days later on November 17th, Bishop Kurz wrote to the Secretary of State Cardinal Cicognani and to Bishop Faveri renewing his request to make Father a monsignor. On November 30th, Bishop Kurz agreed to become publicly associated with the C.T.M. after learning that Archbishop Lefebvre had declined to accept a position of leadership or to give public support to any traditionalist groups then being organized in Europe or the United States. The Archbishop had told this to Fr. De Pauw in a meeting between the two in Paris on August 24th 1965.
A year later when the news media all over the world headlined the open credibility conflict between Fr. DePauw and the Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore, regarding Fr. DePauw’s excardination from Baltimore and incarnation into Tivoli, it was only Bishop Kurz who stood alone in defending Fr. DePauw in the public arena. Despite being involved “up to their eyeballs” in the process, neither Cardinal Spellman nor Cardinal Ottaviani defended Fr. DePauw’s reputation against one of their own in the cardinal’s club. Someday in the not to distant future those details will be made public. The historical record will be told to set those straight who said that neither Cardinal Spellman nor Cardinal Ottaviani ever backed Fr. DePauw because they never came out publicly and said so.
The lack of public support on the part of both Cardinals Spellman and Ottaviani, which the Bishop saw as cowardice, plus the “diabolical madness” as he called it, of Cardinal Shehan, made him disgusted and he said he wanted to go before the world’s media and reveal everything he knows. This was stated in a meeting with Fr. De Pauw on January 15th, 1966. Fr. De Pauw urged him to be restrained so as not to embarrass either Cardinal publicly. Two days later the New York Times carried an exclusive story to their news organization datelined from Rome, stating “Italian Bishop won’t accept De Pauw …situation is cloudy.” Fr. De Pauw was unable to restrain the Bishop any longer and he demanded that he wanted to put out a public statement. The original draft of the statement was prepared by Father Adhemar, but was rejected by the Bishop as not strong enough. Fr. De Pauw was able to convince him however, that too harsh a statement would do more harm then good.
Bishop Kurz and Fr. De Pauw reviewing May 22nd Declaration announcing that he would become Bishop Moderator of the C.T.M.
It was then left to Bishop Kurz to set the record straight in the dispute with the Cardinal of Baltimore and he did so by putting his personal integrity as a bishop on the line. This was an act of unbelievable courage on the part of the Bishop, to stake his own personal integrity as a bishop against that of a Cardinal of the Church. But he did so believing how unjust and uncharitable as well as how untruthful the Cardinal of Baltimore was being. Of course this was not the first time Bishop Kurz had dealt with the untruthfulness of Cardinal Shehan. And so on January 17th, 1966, he made the following public declaration to the news media, the text of which had been previously sent privately to Pope Paul VI.
After this public backing of the C.T.M. leader, the Bishop was subjected to a firestorm of unbelievable proportions by his fellow bishops here in America to retract that statement and his now public backing of the Movement. On January 18th, 1966, Father received a telegram from Cardinal Shehan informing him that the day before he had received a letter from the Apostolic Delegate Vagnozzi stating that the Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani had informed him that Fr. De Pauw was still a priest of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. He directed Father to come to his office on January 21st“to receive instructions for the future.” In reaction to this ultimatum from Cardinal Shehan, Bishop Kurz ordered Fr. De Pauw, his personal secretary, not to report to Baltimore and to make a statement to the press to that effect. The Bishop then sent a strongly worded letter to Cardinal Shehan informing him of the same.
Very heavy pressure was inflicted on the Bishop to retract his support. Rather than retract his statement and support, the Bishop issued an even stronger public statement. It was something Cardinal Spellman was too scared to do himself. It was something which Cardinal Ottaviani did not do either. The Secretariat of State, Cardinal Cicognani, threatened Bishop Kurz not to do it , even though Cardinal Cicognani was well aware that Fr. DePauw’s version of the November 10th to the 15th , 1965 events was in fact the truth. Bishop Kurz was also threatened by the Apostolic Delgate Egidio Vagnozzi, not to make that stronger public statement. Even though the Apostolic Delegate also knew that Fr. De Pauw’s version of the November 10th to15th, 1965 events was in fact true. He also was aware of the veiled retribution being directed at Fr. DePauw by the seminary and the Diocese of Baltimore since sending the Manifesto to the bishops. He had inquired in a meeting on January 14, 1965, with Fr. De Pauw whether or not the seminary had fired him for it.
The Apostolic Delegate at that same meeting had read and approved of the Manifesto. He had offered to help rewrite parts of it to make it more palatable to the bishops. He encouraged Father and told him “if they do anything to you, appeal to Rome, and I will back you up.” After encouraging Fr. De Pauw in 1964 and early 1965, he led the betrayal of him here in the U.S. in late 1965 and 1966. In 1967, Egidio Vagnozzi receoved the Cardinals hat, “coincidence” I don’t think so!
However, no pressure from any source was to deter the Bishop so he reconfirmed his prior January 17th statement on May 22nd, 1966 in the Garden City Hotel on Long Island before a speech to be given by Fr. De Pauw before a packed hall. The speech was delayed for some time because of the threats which had been made against the Bishop by the Secretariat of State and the Apostolic Delegate. But having survived and gone through all he had already in his lifetime, he was not to be deterred and went ahead and not only reconfirmed his January 17th statement but added as well the following:
In the full realization of my responsibility as a bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, solemnly expressed in the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Episcopal collegiality under the supremacy of our Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, I recommend the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to all Catholics willing to defend our church. While the active leadership of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement will remain with Father De Pauw, I have today accepted the position offered me by that Movement’s Board of Director’s, and “will henceforth publicly function as Bishop Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement.”
Despite his recommending the C.T.M. to all bishops and to all priests as the God given instrument to save their priesthood and their Church, NOT ONE bishop, repeat, NOT ONE bishop was willing to take their place next to Bishop Kurz or Fr. De Pauw. Not even Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to join them. NOT ONE priest, not even among the some one hundred and sixty priests, who in the greatest tradition of Nicodemus, had secretly joined the C.T.M., was willing to stand next to the Bishop or Father publicly either.
So disillusioned was Bishop Kurz by this fact that it led him to comment later, in not so glowing terms, describing his fellow bishops and the priests as “dirty rats who in 1966 for all times forfeited their right to ever open their mouths as spokesmen for orthodox Roman Catholics.”
In December of 1966, the Diocese of Baltimore triumphantly communicated to the press a document signed by three so-called “consultors” of the Roman Curia’s Congregation of the Council in which they gave their opinion that the 1965 transfer of Father from Baltimore to Tivoli was invalid. The document, dated September 30th, was missing the signature of the Cardinal Prefector any of that Congregation’s secretaries thereby rendering the document as juridically non-existent and morally unjust. Fr. De Pauw had received this document on October 22, 1966 and rejected it on these grounds. On October 25, Father informed Archbishop Pietro Palazzini, who was the Secretary of the Congregation of the Council of his rejection. Bishop Kurz followed that up with a letter on December 7th, officially informing the Holy See that both his and Fr. De Pauw’s position was unchanged. He stated that unless the Supreme Pontiff personally or the Roman Rota rule differently, they would continue to base their position on the official documents signed, counter signed and sealed in Rome during November 1965. The official documents proved that Fr. De Pauw was validly transferred from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Baltimore to that of the Bishop of Tivoli-Rome who in turn released Fr. De Pauw to serve as his personal secretary residing in New York City.
The death of Cardinal Spellman, in December of 1967 further disillusioned Bishop Kurz since the Cardinal had been his official host and the behind the scenes protector of the C.T.M. At the age of 73, the bishop was now in failing health and decided he would return to Germany to see his long time doctor whom he trusted. He also longed for the peace and serenity of his native Bavaria. Who could blame him after the life he had. During this time Fr. De Pauw was looking to open a chapel as a fully functioning Roman Catholic parish. He hoped that it would be the model for similar chapels throughout the United States and in fact throughout the world where traditionalist Roman Catholics could once again feel at home in their churches.
Bishop Kurz played an important role in the opening of the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, New York and its establishment as the new headquarters of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement which up until then had been in the Pan Am building in New York City
After the Chapel was opened in June of 1968, the Bishop delayed his returned to Germany in order to solemnly dedicate the Chapel on August 10, 1968. On that same day he administered the Sacrament of Confirmation to 164 children of the Chapel. Fr. De Pauw tried to convince him to stay in Westbury and offered him fairly comfortable quarters. But the bishop had his heart set on returning to Germany. He left with the solemn promise to continue to function as the Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. This was a promise which he kept till his last day. He also promised to return to Westbury at regular intervals to administer Confirmation to the children for as long as his health permitted. He did so two more times on May 24, 1969, and again on October 18, 1970. He described those visits back to Westbury as the happiest days of his latter years.
Coat of Arms of Bishop Kurz
Fr. De Pauw welcoming Bishop Kurz to the Ave Maria Chapel, August 10, 1968 Due to illness the Confirmations which were planned for 1972 and 1973 had to be cancelled. His health did not permit him to make the long trip from Germany to Westbury. But he did not abandon the children in Westbury. He sought a replacement for himself. He asked a fellow Franciscan Bishop, Jorge Pflaum from Bolivia, to fill in for him and confirm in Westbury. The Bishop was one of those conservative bishops which Fr. De Pauw knew very well from the Council days. Bishop Pflaum had told Bishop Kurz he was willing stand in for him and to confirm at the Chapel.
However, Bishop Pflaum reneged on his promise to Bishop Kurz and refused to confirm. All efforts by Fr. De Pauw to contact him failed. Instead of contacting Fr. De Pauw to set the date for Confirmation, he boarded a plane to Bolivia without so much as a word to either Fr. De Pauw or Bishop Kurz.
Bishop Jorge Pflaum of Concepcion, Bolivia with Bishop Kurz and Fr. De Pauw
After this disappointing episode, Fr. De Pauw wrote to French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in April of 1973 asking him to fill in for Bishop Kurz. The answer Father received, April 12th,1973, Father’s ordination anniversary, read as follows:
“As far as confirmation is concerned, it is clear that this is a very delicate thing for me to do…I have to be very prudent in this area.”
Archbishop Lefebvre told Fr. De Pauw he would prefer to discuss this in person and told him he was planning to come to the United States in the summer of 1973. However the Archbishop did not make that trip. In the spring of 1974 after the death of Bishop Kurz, Father learned that the Archbishop was once again planning a trip to the United States and he wrote to him in April of that year renewing his invitation to administer Confirmation to some 200 children. As with the last invitation, Father offered to pay for all his travel and accommodation expenses. The reply in a letter dated April 29, 1974 was:
“I must confess that I am still not quite certain of going there, and that I probably will postpone this trip till later, perhaps during the month of November.”
By the time Archbishop Lefebvre did come to the U.S. in the Fall of 1974, he was in open rebellion against the Pope. Father had also subsequently learned that when Archbishop Lefebvre cancelled a planned meeting with him in New York City in the summer of 1971, the Archbishop had indeed flown to the United States and met with several American bishops and entered into an accord, to if not publicly fight the C.T.M., then to at least ignore it and its leader. In the Fall of 1974, Father received a communication from someone representing the Archbishop inviting Father to bring the children of the Chapel to a nearby hotel to receive Confirmation from the Archbishop.
Despite the clear efforts of the Archbishop to sabotage the C.T.M., for the good of the children of the Ave Maria Chapel, Father considered accepting this offer and sought the advice of Cardinal Ottaviani, the Apostolic Delegate Jean Jadot and Bishop DeKesel. In all three cases Father was told to have nothing to do with the planned Confimation by the Archbishop.
In November of 1970, Bishop Kurz did ordain one priest not connected with the C.T.M. It was at the request of Archbishop Lefebvre who told Bishop Kurz he did not have the jurisdiction to do so himself. The Archbishop had told Bishop Kurz that he would attend the Ordination but never showed up. In his report to Fr. De Pauw after the ordination he told Father that Archbishop Lefebvre had a seminary near Fribourg, Switzerland and that six of the seminarians from that seminary came to the ordination ceremony. He told Father that Archbishop Lefebvre was planning on forming a new congregation in order to ordain the young men. He also told Father that because the Archbishop is“persona ingratissima in Rome” he assumes that he will be asked to perform further ordinations. He also told Father that before the ordination he received a letter from the Archbishop expressing his pleasure that there are still some Catholic Bishops left. Not long after that ordination the Bishop received a letter from the new Apostolic Delegate in Washington, Liugi Raimondi, inquiring about the ordination. He requested to know the name of the priest, and who his ordinary was and the canonical title of ordination. The Bishop had performed the ordination “sub titulo missionis” , for his mission in China since he was still the Prefect Apostolic of Yungchow. When the Bishop advised Fr. De Pauw that he planned to ordain another seminarian who was of late vocation, Fr. De Pauw advised him not to do so as Father suspected a canonical trap was being laid for the Bishop in light of the letter from the Apostolic Delegate. During the time of 1972 and 1973, the Bishop was once again subjected to heavy pressure from what he described as “some characters” in Rome and in Germany, to fall in line with the rest of the bishops. Fr. De Pauw advised Bishop Kurz that he should return to the United States and to Westbury where he could live out the remainder of his life in the company of friends who would show him the respect he deserved. The Bishop was convinced and decided that he would return as soon as his health permitted him to travel. In the meantime, Fr. De Pauw set about building a new rectory for him on the recently acquired property across the street from the Chapel.
In November of 1973, the Bishop informed Fr. De Pauw that his health had improved enough for him to make the trip to Westbury and to set a date for the next Confirmation as soon as the new rectory was completed. Its completion was expected in May of 1974. Bishop Kurz himself selected, Easter Sunday of 1974 as the date that Fr. De Pauw should announce to the people his decision to permanently return to Westbury where he planned to spend the last years of his life at, as he described it, “the only place in the world where the true Faith has never died.”
Work on the new rectory however was nearing completion in November of 1973 and on November 20th, Father wrote to the Bishop informing him of this telling him he would be able to move into it by Christmas. He told him to start making the arrangements and offered to get his plane ticket.
That November 20th letter was the last communication of Fr. De Pauw to Bishop Kurz and was left unanswered. Instead of receiving a reply from him, a month later Father received, word that the Bishop had died on December 13th. The date he received this information was December 19th, the same day the Bishop was buried. Thus, Fr. De Pauw was prevented from attending and conducting his funeral but even more so, from burying his mortal remains on Long Island in the nearby Pinelawn Cemetery, in a plot Father had personally purchased for him and where he would forever be among his C.T.M. people.
Instead, he was buried in the cemetery of the Franciscan seminary of Neurenberg, Germany, where he had been ordained to the priesthood 54 years earlier almost to the exact day. He was buried in a grave with some 20 other Franciscan missionaries with the simple epitaph of “Missionary Bishop of China”. No mention of his 54 years of service and suffering for the Church, and of course to be expected, no mention of his defense of the True Faith and Church as Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. In October, 2011, current President of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Richard Cuneo, flew to Germany to visit the grave of Bishop Kurz in anticipation of the upcoming 40th anniversary of his death. It was the first time any member of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement had visited his grave.
His death was a significant loss to the C.T.M. and to Fr. De Pauw personally whom he described in his statement to the news media on December 30, 1973, as “a respected father and a personal friend”. This did not change any policy or operation where the Movement was concerned and did not change the Ave Maria Chapel.
Since the Bishop’s death in 1973, those on the right have sought to marginalize Bishop Kurz. They sarcastically ask how many priests he ordained to carry on the fight for Truth and Tradition. How many bishops did he consecrate to keep alive the Apostolic succession which he received directly from Pope Pius XII? Some even claim they never heard of him.
Well, it is our job to set the historical record straight. And that historical record shows that if it were not for Bishop Kurz, Father never would have been able to accomplish what he did. The historical record also shows that in those critical early days of raising the flag of resistance to those who sought to destroy our Church, Bishop Kurz was critical to that effort. Were it not for his critical Episcopal role, while it would not have altered Fr. De Pauw’s course, it certainly would not have been as effective and certainly more difficult. His courage and Episcopal authority was essential especially in the public forum. In conjunction with the behind the scenes authority of Cardinal’s Spellman and Ottaviani, he was able to effectively counter every effort on the part of Cardinal Shehan to silence Fr. De Pauw and stop the Catholic Traditionalist Movement.
The historical record shows that his part was crucial to the success of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to become an effective voice in the fight for Truth and Tradition and he did so without leading those people in his charge into schism.
And so the Catholic Traditionalist Movement remembers him grate-fully for his crucial role in the fight for Truth and Tradition when NO ONE ELSE DARED TO DO SO!
CURIA VESCOVILLE Tivoli, Italy Nov.30 1965 TIVOLI After a thorough examination of your letter, we certify that Reverend Father Gommar A. De Pauw, a priest of this diocese, with our permission and with our pleasure presently will leave this diocese because he will travel to other places in America and in other countries to continue his studies. We also certify that for the abovementioned priest there exists no impediment whatsoever of irregularity, excommunication or interdict, and that he is not restricted by any suspension. We also earnestly recommend him to all the bishops and superiors of all the places he will visit or stay. We also ask them to give him the permission to celebrate Mass in their diocese. To the truth of these statements etc….. Issued in Tivoli, November 30 1965 +Aloysius Faveri By Marius Iacovelli Vicar General
Bishop Kurz and Fr. De Pauw in front of the Ave Maria Chapel August 10, 1968
|
