Letter from Father Tyn to Card. Ratzinger and the Related Reply (1985)
The Importance of the Metaphysical Foundation of Morality: Recovering Moral Customs for the Church and Humanity's Journey Toward the Kingdom of God (Subtitle added by the translator)
I present the correspondence between Father Tomas Tyn and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1985. In it, the Reader will discern a profound convergence of thought regarding the significance of the metaphysical foundation of morality. This shared perspective underscores its pivotal role in recovering moral customs and advancing the Church and humanity along their historical journey toward the Kingdom of God.
This correspondence was previously published in my book Father Tomas Tyn: A Post-Conciliar Traditionalist (Fede & Cultura, Verona, 2007, pp. 122–139).
I have added a note addressing its contemporary relevance to aid the reader in situating this exchange within the context of Pope Francis's current pontificate. Of particular importance is the relationship between the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo, a matter that remains central to ongoing theological and liturgical discussions.
In Father Tomas Tyn, we observe both a wholehearted acceptance of the Novus Ordo and a profound admiration for the Vetus Ordo.
It is well known how Pope Benedict XVI, through the landmark Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, sought to promote the Novus Ordo while affirming its relationship to the Vetus Ordo. Although Father Tomas passed away before the promulgation of this Motu Proprio, there is no doubt that he would have welcomed it with great favor.
In light of the Servant of God’s unwavering obedience to the authority of the Pope, we can also reasonably surmise that he would have dutifully embraced Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, despite its restrictions on the celebration of the Vetus Ordo, intended to address certain liturgical abuses.
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, OP
Fontanellato, January 3, 2023
Letter of the Servant of God to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger with the Cardinal's Response
Below is the translation of a letter written by Father Tomas Tyn, OP, to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later Pope Benedict XVI. Dated August 4, 1985, the feast of Saint Dominic, this letter conveys Father Tomas’s joy at the publication of the Report on the Faith and articulates his hopes and concerns regarding the life of the Church.
Text of the Letter from the Servant of God, Father Tomas Tyn, OP
Your Eminence,
I would not dare to disturb the well-deserved rest of such an eminent and beloved Father in Christ were I not compelled by immense joy at the publication of Your Excellency’s recent work, Report on the Faith. This book radiates the light of the Catholic faith amidst the profound darkness of our difficult times.
When the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council concluded in 1965, I was but fifteen years old. Yet, after carefully reading and thoroughly studying its documents—despite being unable to compare them with other writings due to the circumstances in my homeland of Bohemia, where such texts were proscribed as dangerous by those opposed to God—I experienced great joy. However, that joy soon gave way to sorrow, as we witnessed the cruel disfigurement of the Church’s immaculate bride by misguided interpretations and applications of what was, in itself, sound doctrine. This deformation deeply saddened the hearts of the faithful and all who share the Church’s sensus fidelium.[1]
In your book, Most Reverend Father in Christ, after enduring a long period of affliction, I was comforted to read a sentiment I have held from the beginning: we must return to the true Council—that is, to the one in harmony with the tradition of centuries of Catholic Christianity and interpreted in that light. The most pernicious error of our time is the attempt to divide the Magisterium into two distinct epochs, one before and one after the Council, tearing them apart and setting them in opposition to one another. Your Excellency has insightfully exposed this danger in your book.
This artificial opposition between two so-called "magisteriums," separated by time, is nothing but a manifestation of that vulgar and troubling historicism inherited from modernism—a troublesome legacy burdening our age and confounding the minds of the faithful. Yet, the roots of historicism, evolutionism, and other irrational denials of the principle of causality and sound metaphysics run even deeper.
There is not only a crisis of faith, but, in a certain sense, a prior crisis of human reason, particularly in its “sapiential” aspect—philosophical and, indeed, metaphysical—seriously damaged by positivistic reductionism. It is not without reason that Your Excellency’s predecessors cautioned Galileo Galilei, not against science per se, but against the dangers of absolute scientism.
All these errors, however, are rooted in the subjectivism that the encyclical Pascendi of Saint Pius X identifies and condemns as the poisonous spirit of modernism. Indeed, how can the man of our time render to God the obedience of faith if, even in the purely natural order, he believes himself to be the creator and supreme author of "his truths"? It is, therefore, unsurprising that we have arrived at historicism: if truth is only valid concerning the subject, who is subject to the changes of time, it follows that truth itself must change over time.
Another defect emanating from subjectivism and relativism is the total, uncritical subversion of metaphysics—and with it, the very preambles of faith—which is passively accepted and even celebrated by the current mentality as though it were something praiseworthy.
The positivism that continues to ravage the intellectual life of our time seeks to replace wisdom with science, reducing the former entirely to the latter. It is crucial to note how this process is manifestly and violently expressed in communism's “scientific worldview.” Yet, it is also important to recognize that, though in a more latent form, it is growing and strengthening no less seriously within Western liberalism.
This is the supreme folly of the so-called "modern" man: irrationalism triumphs under the guise of rationalism itself, proudly celebrating its nefarious glories. Tragically, many theologians follow this path: having lost the ontological foundation, they attempt to construct their systems upon the ever-shifting sands of substitute sciences (such as sociology, psychology, etc.).
That so-called “new theology,” as it is often called, does not truly deserve the sublime title of “theology” due to its irrationality and its turning away from God towards worldly concerns, even though it arrogantly continues to usurp this name. Furthermore, there can be no authentic progress in this so-called “theology,” since, to be truly theological, it would have had to produce new and true insights, not merely new things born from an unchecked desire for novelty.
The writer, Your Eminence, is engaged in the teaching of moral theology. In this discipline, perhaps more than in others, a solid and realistic metaphysics is required, one that can, on the one hand, anchor knowledge to the real object and, on the other, restore its proper role to the universal and immutable essence. I refer to that essence, which, endowed with operative purposes, is called “nature” and forms the foundation of natural law—undoubtedly the eminent and principal source of any objective and perennial norm.
In this context it seems to me that it is most necessary to investigate the relationship of essence with being, and the notion of participation and analogy. Often, however, regarding this topic, one finds a certain negligence among colleagues, or rather a derision, as if it were a question of things that are now obsolete and in any case “too abstract” (however, the modern predilection for “concrete things” seems surprising to me; the intellectual act consists in abstraction and intelligere is the same as abstracting). However, neither antiquity nor universality can ever in any way diminish the truth of some theory, but on the contrary, they manifest it more abundantly.
Finally, I would like to say something about the sacred liturgy, especially to thank Your Excellency for the work done in promoting the indult that allows the celebration of the divine sacrifice according to the rite of Saint Pius V of happy memory. (Addition by the Translator: Though written in 1985, it is relevant to note that in later years, Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007), which permitted the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, was followed by Pope Francis’s Traditionis Custodes (2021), which placed certain restrictions on its use. Pope Benedict, while supportive of Pope Francis’s pastoral decisions, expressed gratitude for being protected from potential exploitation of his liturgical initiatives by pro-Lefebvrian factions, as pointed out by Father Cavalcoli, in the context of an answer to this letter. This highlights the ongoing liturgical tension and the desire for unity in the Church, a concern both pontiffs shared.) I have already sent, through the Reverend Father Prior to His Eminence Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna, a report on the Masses still celebrated in the Bolognese Basilica of San Domenico and so, after having informed my immediate Superior, Most Reverend Father in Christ, I dare to express my joy to you too."
How holy and sublime is the joy with which the hearts of both the celebrating priest and the faithful are filled when that rite, venerable for its antiquity, is performed— a rite that turns entirely and solely to God, to Whom, as to a most merciful Father, the crucified Son, in the oblation of His divine sacrifice, renders supreme glory and praise. It is a rite so sublime in all the words and gestures it employs and, finally, so beautiful and elegant, so acceptable to the people who participate with lively faith (nor is another way of true participation known to Christians).[2]
I have never been able to understand, and even now I cannot comprehend, why such beauty should have been expelled from the Church. It is often objected that it constitutes a certain delight accessible to few; but— and this is noteworthy— it is not the simple and devout people who usually raise such “objections,” but rather a certain so-called aristocracy (perverse, however, and more deserving of the name "cacocracy"[3]), a pseudo-intellectual, turbulent in its presumption, devoted to nihilism[4], which supports and produces the ugly instead of the beautiful.
Your Excellency will be able to easily persuade you that I am not exaggerating in accusing them of fulfilling the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of those who shamelessly confuse sweet with bitter and bitter with sweet if you consider the profane praise given to them for that cinematographic work with the French title Je vous salue Marie, unworthy and blasphemous – and this even by people who attribute to themselves the name Christian, among whom, according to the warning of the Apostle, such things should not even be spoken of. With what joy, on the other hand, I have again greeted the triumphal entry of beauty and elegance into the sacred space of the holy Church of God, listening to the sublime performance of the Holy Mass by the musician W. A. Mozart in the Vatican Basilica for the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul – that music, so sacred, so delicate, has revealed itself to be a most welcome gift graciously bestowed on the Christian people by the august Pontiff F.r. (happily reigning, Translator's Note).
However, it is not just a matter of taste, but of the very sense of faith. I would like to point out that I do not follow in the footsteps of the so-called "integrism" at all, except in the sense that integrity constitutes the essential property of any Catholic Christian, according to the words of St. Pius X of happy memory. But there is no doubt that the rite addressed more to God than to the people expresses more faithfully the truth of our holy faith in something as vital as the divine Eucharist.
Forgive me, Your Eminence, my sincerity: the so-called “Swiss” canons (or rather: the anaphoras) introduced in the latest edition of the Italian Missal use a language that is not very sacred and rather “horizontal,” too concerned with the “choice of the poor,” who, however, if they are such in the sense of the Holy Gospel, prefer to praise God and only God in secret and with modesty.
Finally, allow me, Your Eminence, I beg you, a consideration that I make with personal bitterness: in my homeland, it takes a great deal of courage to profess oneself a Christian, but also in the “free” West, one must be equipped with no less courage if one wishes to openly show one’s fidelity to the Catholic tradition, because of the hostile disposition of some ecclesiastics, who, nevertheless, tolerating themselves with great clamor[6], declare themselves democratic and “pluralistic.”
The famous Plato already convincingly demonstrates how “total” democracy opens the way to a terrible tyranny, nor can there be a worse slavery than that which is imposed in the name of “absolute” freedom. After all, it does not take a very sharp mind to easily realize how the totalitarianisms of our time derive from the “liberal” principles of the Enlightenment.
I am becoming more and more convinced that the Syllabus of Pius IX of happy memory has established a doctrine that is not only true but also extremely current. I also fully understand the aversion of the Catholic Church towards Freemasonry: it is not a question of diabolical rites, gnosis, and secret machinations, but rather the poisoned principles of tolerance and the alleged equality of men[7].
Often, the enemies of the Church believe in original sin more than the ecclesiastics themselves and are firmly convinced that error and truth have equal rights, so that error triumphs, given that the human mind is deprived of the certainty of supernatural revelation[8]. It is not freedom that defends truth, but, by the constant doctrine of the Church and the very words of our divine Redeemer Jesus Christ, it is rather truth, and it alone, that prepares the ways of freedom worthy of this name.
It seems to me that this doctrine must be firmly repeated to the whole world by the Church, which, far from having to conform to this world, has rather the task of sanctifying it and consecrating it to God by converting it to Him.
Moved by the love of this Church, dearest Father in Christ, I have dared to send you this entirely personal letter, hoping, for the same reason, to encounter pardon from the paternal charity of Your Eminence.
Imploring your episcopal blessing and kissing the sacred purple, with the same respect I profess myself in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary of Your Eminence, most devotedly,
Fr. Thomas M. Tyn, OP
PS — (In German) I have taken the liberty of writing to Your Eminence in the language of the Holy Mother Church, which I value above all others. I know well that you are occupied with numerous tasks for the good of Catholic Christianity, and that you will hardly have the time and opportunity to answer me.
With my letter, I wanted to express to Your Eminence only my most intimate thanks for the Catholic clarity of your teaching ex abundantia cordis.
In any case, I assure you of my, even unworthy, prayer for you and for the Congregation entrusted to you.
Response of the Cardinal
October 3, 1985
Feast of Saint Gregory the Pope
Most Reverend Father,
Upon my return from my vacation in Germany and Austria, I discovered, beneath a pile of other correspondence, your letter sent on the occasion of the feast of Saint Dominic. Reading it, I was filled with great joy, as I found myself in full agreement with you, recognizing in this shared conviction the unifying strength of the truth, which is granted to us in the Catholic faith.
It is a great consolation to me to learn that you are teaching moral theology, a discipline truly fundamental for the proper formation of the Christian life, yet one that is often distorted by many who, instead of offering the faithful the nourishment of truth, present them with stones instead of bread. In this light, a renewed and profound reflection on the true foundations of Christian life is most necessary.[9]
With these words, I conclude, once again thanking you for the sentiments expressed in your letter, and in Our Lord, I remain,
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Notes:
[1] Here Father Tomas's position towards the Council appears very clear: "joy" for its "healthy" doctrine, sadness for the false interpretations and applications. Together with other great theologians such as Fabro, Siri, Ottaviani, Parente, Maritain, de Lubac, Daniélou, Von Balthasar, Lakebrink, von Hildebrand, and Paul VI himself, Father Tomas, although so young, immediately sensed the dirty neomodernist maneuver aimed at exploiting the Council for his subversive and falsely innovative plans. This denunciation, unfortunately without appreciable results so far, has been carried forward by the Popes from then until the happily reigning Pontiff, whose reign has hopefully marked the right moment for decisive action.
[2] Here Father Tyn refers to the substantial essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice: in this sense, there is no other way of worshipping God.
[3] Here Father Tomas uses a Greek term that means “bad government”.
[4] In the sense of a destructive spirit that destroys the beauty and dignity of the liturgy.
[5] From all of Father Tomas’s discourse in favor of the Rite of St. Pius V, two key observations emerge. The first is the undeniable religious sense that leads him to appreciate the ancient rite; the second is the considerable difficulty he has in understanding the Mass of Vatican II.
In reality, as is becoming increasingly evident today (as seen in the current Pope’s esteem for the Rite of St. Pius V), the two rites do not exclude each other; rather, they are mutually complementary. The Rite of St. Pius V emphasizes the cultic-sacrificial-mystagogical aspect of the Eucharistic celebration, influenced by the Eastern tradition, while the reformed rite, more suited to the Western mentality, places greater emphasis on the convivial-communal-pastoral aspect. These are simply different emphases of essential aspects that must always be present in their entirety in every Mass, both ancient and modern.
It is clear that Father Tomas, rightly, opposes the modernist, pro-Protestant, and socialist interpretations of the Mass. As is well known, he regularly celebrated the Mass of Paul VI (by whom he was ordained!) and thus had no affiliation with the Lefebvrian understanding of the Mass. This prudent admiration of the Servant of God for the Mass of St. Pius V takes on particular significance today, considering the recent Motu Proprio of the Supreme Pontiff that facilitates its celebration. One can imagine that Father Tomas would have been pleased with this development.
[6] Father Tomas is probably referring to an overly indulgent attitude towards oneself: lax conduct.
[7] It should be noted that here Father Tomas is not attacking the principles of tolerance and human equality as such, of which on various occasions he shows respect and reasoned knowledge, but the conception of them that the Enlightenment-Masonic culture has: that is, a conception for which human nature (and therefore every man) is not an objective, sacred and immutable value founded on God the Creator as the supreme and absolute rule of human conduct, but is a value exclusively left to the changeable human will and founded only on the free will and decision of man (as an individual: liberalism, or as a collective: socialism). Let us think for example of the “Social Contract” by J.J. Rousseau.
[8] With the reference to original sin, which has darkened the mind of man, Father Tomas intends to refute those who allow themselves to be so taken by skepticism, that they end up putting the true and the false on the same level.
[9] This statement by the Cardinal has certainly encouraged Father Tomas to continue in his great work of a renewed metaphysical foundation of morality, the necessity of which he speaks of in his letter, and which will be completed with the “Metaphysics of Substance”, which therefore does not only have a speculative character but, as Father Tomas warns on various occasions, also serves to found morality and provides Catholic dogma with the necessary metaphysical conceptual articulations. It is worth noting the topicality of this correspondence between the Servant of God and His Eminence Cardinal: they agree in an analysis of the ecclesial situation and its remedies, which corresponds to what the Pope repeats today, given that the problems are fundamentally still the same as those of those years, if not worsened.