In this brief Latin letter dated March 20, 1961, John XXIII appoints Cardinal Amleto Cicognani as his legate to preside, in his name and authority, over a catechetical convention in Dallas (Texas) for bishops and catechists from North America and Latin America. He praises the importance of catechesis, speaks of the honor of teaching Christian doctrine, exhorts catechists to diligence, joy and zeal, urges confidence not in “persuasive words of human wisdom” but in the power of God’s word, quotes St Augustine on the true heavenly Teacher, and imparts his “apostolic blessing” to the legate and participants. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this apparently pious note is a calculated piece of conciliar stagecraft: a soft-focus, sentimental invocation of catechesis weaponized to prepare the demolition of true doctrine in the Americas under the authority of an usurper.
Sentimental Catechesis as a Trojan Horse for Conciliar Subversion
Instrumentalization of Catechesis in Service of a Usurped Authority
At the outset we must state plainly: this letter is an act under the name of John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar revolution and the first in the line of usurpers occupying the See of Peter since 1958. Its entire authority-claim is therefore defective; the text functions as an ideological signal within the emerging neo-ecclesial project, not as an act of the perennial Roman Pontificate.
The document’s core gesture is contained in one short structure: appointing a legate to preside in his name and to shape the catechetical agenda of two continents. The relevant passage reads (translation first):
“We have considered it very pleasing that, at the end of this year, a convention for the promotion of catechesis from both Americas is to be held in the city of Dallas (Texas). … Since it has been requested that from the College of Cardinals someone be sent who would represent Our person there, We, gladly acceding to these wishes, choose and appoint you, Beloved Son, as Our Legate, who, acting in Our name and authority, shall preside over the Convention for the promotion of catechesis.”
This is not neutral logistics. It publicly centralizes the directional control of catechesis, specifically in the Americas, under John XXIII’s program. Historically verifiable facts (which I can confirm from reliable sources):
– John XXIII convened Vatican II (announced 1959, opened 1962) and deliberately framed it as an aggiornamento, a “bringing up to date,” contradicting the anti-modernist stance of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– Under John XXIII and his milieu, the doctrinal and liturgical architects of post-conciliar upheaval (e.g. Bugnini and like-minded periti) gained unprecedented influence.
– The catechetical crisis that erupted after the Council—abandonment of the Roman Catechism, dissolution of doctrinal clarity into experiential, anthropocentric “religious education”—did not fall from the sky in 1965. It was prepared institutionally and ideologically in precisely such “conventions.”
Thus, when this letter clothes itself with language of zeal for doctrine, its actual function is to legitimize and spiritualize a mutation of catechesis away from the integral pre-1958 faith toward the conciliar cult of man condemned in substance by the Syllabus of Errors and by St Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi.
The Factual Level: What Is Asserted, What Is Omitted, What Is Being Engineered
1. The praised convention:
– It gathers “sacred pastors” (bishops) from the United States, Canada, and Latin America to deliberate on catechesis.
– The letter states that its themes pertain “by their nature” to the religious life of many nations of two continents, to be illuminated “with the light of divine truth” and to shine with “greater holiness of morals.”
These words, taken in isolation, echo perennial concerns. But they must be read against what is systematically missing:
– No explicit submission of catechesis to the fixed doctrinal norms of the Council of Trent and its Catechism.
– No reference to the anti-modernist Oath (then still in force), to Lamentabili, to Pascendi, or to the Syllabus—all of which directly regulate precisely those doctrinal tendencies that would soon dominate conciliar catechesis.
– No affirmation of the immutable character of dogma; no condemnation of evolutionist or historicist views of doctrine.
– No insistence that catechesis must center on the four last things, the necessity of the true Church, the uniqueness of the Catholic religion, the reality of mortal sin, hell, and the need of the sacraments for salvation.
The omission is not accidental. True pontifical teaching on catechesis, from Trent through Pius XII, is explicit, concrete, and militant against error. Here, there is only a vague devotionalism.
2. The appointment of the legate:
– The letter stresses that Cicognani is to act “in Our name and authority” and to preside over the convention.
– This ties the future catechetical directives of these bishops and experts directly to John XXIII’s program.
Given that catechesis is the primary transmission-belt of doctrine to clergy, religious, families, and youth, to align catechetical reform with an aggiornamento agenda is de facto to re-engineer the faith of entire populations.
3. The portrayal of catechists:
– The letter instructs the legate to tell catechists that they should regard it as a “distinguished title of honor” to teach Christian doctrine, and that they merit a “rich harvest” by these labors.
– It exhorts them to fulfil their task always with diligence, joy, ardor of faith, and close union with Christ.
The problem is not the encouragement itself, but its abstraction. It praises the activity and the affect (joy, ardor) while never defining with precision the content that must be taught, nor warning of errors that must be excluded. This is entirely different from the robust doctrinal clarity of, for example, St Pius X’s Acerbo nimis, which sharply denounces ignorance of catechism and prescribes concrete doctrinal remedies.
Taken together, the factual configuration is clear: a continent-wide catechetical strategy, centralized under an usurper, enveloped in pious generalities, conspicuously silent about anti-modernist safeguards, timed immediately before Vatican II. This is the architecture of a revolution.
Linguistic Cloaking: Soft Rhetoric as a Symptom of Doctrinal Erosion
The language of the letter is revealing; its tone is courteously benevolent, affectively warm, but theologically anemic.
Key features:
– Continuous use of flattering honorifics: “Dilecte Fili Noster,” “insigni honoris titulo,” “peramanter impertimus.”
– Vague formulae: “divinae veritatis lumine magis magisque collustretur,” “maior sanctitate morum resplendeat,” “magno cum spirituali fructu.”
– Emotional exhortation: diligence “cum gaudio, cum fidei calore et vigore,” humble love, etc.
None of this is wrong per se, but it is fatally incomplete. The rhetoric is of a piece with the modernist method condemned by St Pius X: saturate discourse with spiritual sentiment, Scripture snippets, and patristic ornaments while evacuating the hard edges of dogma, anathema, and doctrinal precision. It is catechetical kitsch as anesthetic.
Note the central biblical reference:
“…not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the power of the Word of God.”
This is lifted from 1 Cor 2:4, where St Paul contrasts divine power with human eloquence. But in context, the letter itself is a model of “persuasive words” detached from doctrinal battle. By selectively invoking this verse without confronting contemporary doctrinal perversions, John XXIII inverts its sense: the text becomes a decorative halo over precisely that “human wisdom” (historicist, liberal, ecumenist) which will soon deconstruct the faith in catechetical practice.
Similarly, the citation of St Augustine is weaponized by omission. Augustine is quoted to the effect that outward teaching is an aid, God alone teaches hearts. True, as far as it goes. But Augustine also relentlessly defends dogma, condemns heresies, and binds consciences to defined truth. Here, his words are used to spiritualize catechesis as “help” while the Roman authority from which the letter proceeds will imminently unleash doctrinal ambiguity and liturgical disfigurement.
The bureaucratically benign, emotionally warm style is not accidental. It corresponds exactly to what Pius IX condemns in the Syllabus: the liberal Catholic posture that refuses to condemn, that seeks reconciliation with “progress” and “modern civilization” (see Syllabus, prop. 80), that replaces the royal rights of Christ and His Church with a religion of dialogue and human self-affirmation. This letter is a rhetorical specimen of that mentality.
Theological Hollowing-Out: Catechesis Severed from Immutable Doctrine
Measured by integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, the gravest problem in this letter is theological by omission.
1. Absence of the Church’s exclusive salvific claim
There is no reminder that:
– The Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation.
– Catechesis must explicitly teach that outside the Church no one is saved (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
– All other “churches” and religions are in error and cannot be presented as parallel ways to God.
Pius IX explicitly condemns the proposition that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus, prop. 15) and that salvation is attainable in any religion (prop. 16). Authentic Roman teaching on catechesis must therefore insist on the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith. This letter does not.
2. Silence on modernism, condemned errors, and the necessary doctrinal armature
By 1961, modernism had been solemnly condemned:
– Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi (St Pius X).
– The anti-modernist Oath (1910).
– Numerous papal encyclicals reinforcing the immutability of dogma and the inerrancy of Scripture.
Yet this letter:
– Does not direct catechists to teach in strict accord with these condemnations.
– Does not even hint at modernist distortions (evolution of dogma, relativizing Scripture, naturalistic reduction of Revelation), though these were already operative in theological faculties and pastoral practice.
Given that the convention’s purpose is catechesis, this silence is damning. Qui tacet consentire videtur (“He who is silent is seen to consent”). The tacit message is: the anti-modernist fortifications may be quietly bypassed.
3. No mention of the social kingship of Christ and the public order
Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that true peace and order are impossible unless states and societies publicly recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King: “Peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ” (paraphrasing Quas primas). Authentic catechesis must therefore form consciences to reject laicism, religious indifferentism, the secularist separation of Church and State condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus, prop. 55).
This letter, dealing with catechesis across the Americas—regions ravaged by liberalism, laicism, Protestantism, communism, and revolution—never mentions:
– The duty of nations to publicly profess the Catholic faith.
– The errors of religious liberty, indifferentism, socialism, masonic sects (explicitly denounced in the Syllabus).
– The need to resist secular governments that usurp the rights of the Church.
Instead, it restricts itself to individual piety and vague “holiness of morals,” aligned with the conciliar tendency to privatize religion and adjust the Church to “modern civilization.”
4. No reference to the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacramental life as the heart of catechesis
True catechesis is ordered to:
– Right belief (orthodoxy).
– Right worship (orthodoxy embodied in the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacraments).
– Right morals flowing from grace.
This letter:
– Does not mention the Mass (the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary).
– Does not mention the necessity of confession, the Eucharist, or living in the state of grace.
– Does not warn of sacrilege, unworthy communions, or profanation.
This silence is especially ominous in light of what would follow: the systematic replacement of the traditional Roman Rite with a protestantized assembly-ritual, and the dilution of sacramental theology in practice. Catechesis detached from the Sacrifice and from propitiatory, supernatural categories becomes moralistic human formation—precisely the “naturalistic” drift so often condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
In sum, the letter’s theological content is astonishingly thin where it should be forthright, and effusive where it should be precise. This aligns with the modernist method: never deny outright, but subtly omit, relativize, and sentimentalize until the substance is emptied.
Symptomatic Fruits: A Continental Catechesis Prepared for Apostasy
From the vantage point of subsequent history—facts that can be independently verified:
– Within a few years of this Dallas convention and the broader preparatory activity:
– Traditional catechisms were abandoned en masse.
– Children and adults were fed with anthropocentric, experiential “religious education,” often denying or obscuring mortal sin, hell, the uniqueness of the Church, the necessity of grace.
– Vocations collapsed; mass apostasy swept through North and Latin America.
– “Catechists” became propagators of ecumenism, religious liberty, contraception, divorce, feminism, liturgical abuse.
One must not invert cause and effect: such catastrophic decay is not an accidental misreading of a sound program; it is the organic fruit of a program whose founding texts themselves refused to bind catechesis to the hard, immutable framework of pre-1958 doctrine.
This letter is an emblematic symptom:
– It exalts catechists as honored laborers but does not bind them to the Syllabus, Lamentabili, Pascendi, Trent, Quanta Cura, Quas primas.
– It authorizes a supranational convention under an usurper, creating a network of “experts” and “sacred pastors” predisposed to accept conciliar novelties.
– It wraps the entire project in a saccharine, paternal tone to disarm opposition.
The conciliar sect’s catechetical desolation in the Americas is not despite this sort of document; it is anticipated and facilitated by it.
Modernist Clericalism Disguised as Humble Encouragement
The letter notably:
– Concentrates authority in a papal legate presiding “in Our name and authority.”
– Flatters those “frequently seen and experienced in the office of teachers” who will gather to discuss catechesis.
Yet at the same time:
– It refuses to exercise that authority in the one way truly pastoral: by explicitly commanding adherence to integral doctrine and condemning errors.
– It leaves the content of catechesis to “experts” and “conventions,” an essentially bureaucratic-democratic mechanism alien to the Roman tradition, in which authentic teaching descends authoritatively from the See of Peter, not upward from committees.
This is not the humble firmness of a Pius IX or St Pius X; it is a new clericalism: modernist in content, sentimental in tone, oligarchic in method. The laity are not empowered to hold fast to what all ages believed; instead, hand-picked elites, under an illegitimate “pope,” are empowered to re-write catechesis while clothed in the rhetoric of fidelity.
Here the Syllabus again is relevant. The condemned modern thesis (prop. 80) that the Roman Pontiff “ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” is practically operative in this milieu. John XXIII’s broader pontificate is historically and textually verifiable as one that sought such reconciliation; this letter is a micro-expression of that ethos applied to catechesis.
The Silence that Screams: No Warning Against the Coming Abomination
Given the timing (1961), the addressees (bishops and catechetical leaders of two continents), and the subject (formation in the faith), what is not said in this letter is the loudest indictment:
– No prophetic warning against the doctrinal subversion already brewing in theological faculties and religious orders.
– No recall to the binding anti-modernist framework solemnly established just decades before.
– No insistence that catechists must teach the faithful to resist religious liberty ideology, false ecumenism, socialism, communism, and masonic infiltration, all explicitly exposed by pre-1958 popes.
– No assertion of the non-negotiable superiority of divine law over human “rights,” no call to preach the social reign of Christ the King above liberal democracies and revolutionary regimes.
Instead, there is only a benign exhortation to personal piety and “greater holiness of morals,” perfectly compatible with the naturalistic, humanitarian religion that the conciliar sect would soon enthrone, and utterly inadequate as a bulwark against the impending “abomination of desolation” in doctrine, liturgy, and morals.
The integral Catholic conscience, formed by the unchanging Magisterium prior to 1958, must therefore recognize in this document:
– Not a harmless administrative note.
– Not a genuine Roman directive ordered to safeguard the deposit of faith.
But rather:
– A polished fragment of the conciliar strategy to recast catechesis, and thus the faith of millions, according to a modernist, anthropocentric, and ecumenical paradigm already condemned by the true Magisterium.
This letter, precisely in its sweetness, vagueness, and silences, stands as a small but telling monument of the betrayal whereby those occupying the Vatican replaced the royal, dogmatic clarity of the true Church with a catechesis of sentiment, ambiguity, and ultimately apostasy.
Source:
Admodum gratum – Ad Hamletum Ioannem tit. S. Clementis S. R. E. Presbyterum Cardinalem Cicognani, quem Legatum deligit ad. Conventum catechesi provehendae ex utraque America in urbe Dallas (Texas) cel… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025