Kennedy Hall: Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I am very delighted today to have the opportunity to speak with His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. It was in June 2022 when you had another book released about the liturgy, and you were able to grace my channel with your presence. I was very grateful for that. I am excited to speak with His Excellency again today.
We are talking about his book Credo, which is a compendium of the Catholic faith. Within this book, there are a host of topics that are spoken of, such as social media use, personal technology, science, and evolution, which is something I really want to speak with you about today. Your Excellency, that is a big concern of mine. There is this push for theistic evolution in the Church along with gender ideology, modesty vaccines, health mandates, things we cannot talk about on YouTube in detail, world religions, and so forth, and religious liberty, and freedom of speech. These are all traditional Catholic issues which Your Excellency has cleared up for us.
So all that being said, Your Excellency, thank you for coming on today. Would you please lead us in an Ave to start?
Bishop Schneider: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus.
Sancta Maria Mater Dei ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Kennedy Hall: Amen, excellent, thank you, Your Excellency.
This book Compendium will be released in late October, when we are airing this episode. First andforemosts,t the idea of a compendium is a very traditional type of book, ok but many readers today may not be aware of what a compendium of Catholic doctrine is. Could you please explain what that is?
Bishop Schneider: A compendium of the Catholic faith is also a kind of catechism. The catechism is known in the traditional form of question and answer with shorter and more precise responses. A compendium can also offer a more extensive explanation or function as a kind of manual of dogmatic theology.
I chose the name Compendium while also combining it with the traditional form of question and answer. This traditional catechism form is easier for people to read and helps them receive precise answers that ordinary people can understand and use in their lives. It also helps them explain and defend their faith.
Kennedy Hall: Would it be fair to say that if we compare the traditional style of catechisms, such as the Catechism of Saint Pius X Butler’s Catechism which I really like the Irish one and of course the Baltimore Catechism would it be fair to say that the new Catechism the one from John Paul II is compiled more like a compendium than a traditional catechism.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, there is a compendium with that title, which is a very short summary of the great catechism of John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Indeed,d the official Catechism of the Catholic Church can be difficult for people to read and understand because it sometimes uses a very high level of theological language and very long explanations. This can be tiring to read.
In my opinion, it is more effective to provide shorter answers in order to transmit the basic knowledge of the faith to people. It is also necessary to warn people about the dangers of heresies errors, and ambiguities, which we must do especially in our time.
Kennedy Hall: That makes a lot of sense. We use the Saint Joseph Catechisms when preparing our children for First Communion, and I know thatit is based on the Baltimore Catechism.
If we could go through some of the more salient points of the work, one of the first I would like to discuss is social media use and personal technology. I will say a few things, and then perhaps you can expand on them.
I have been reading a lot lately from John Senior, Wolfgang Smit,h and other realist Catholic philosophers, theologians, and writers. I believe one of the greatest issues we are facing is a loss of realism. We live in a virtual reality and in a semi-reality and in many ways an unreality. I believe these devices, video games, iPhones, and so on, even if they have a place, separate us from real reality and ultimately separate us from God. What would you say about the dangers of these things?
Bishop Schneider: What you observed is true. The loss of the sense of reality is very advanced in modern society. Even before the use of modern communication technologies, modern philosophy, beginning with Kant and then Hegel, led to a loss of the sense of reality. People began building their own realities in the intellect and in reason. This is a kind of gnosticism.
This movement has developed further in modern times, and now it is intensified by sophisticated communication and information technologies. People become lost in the virtual world and even addicted. This is a real addiction to these tools and devices.
Therefore, we must educate the new generation of children and youth to use these technologies in a sober, moderate, and critical way. Of course, they can be used for good purposes, as we are doing now through this interview. Many good Catholic channels and platforms transmit the faith to many people. In our time, many people have come to know the Catholic faith through these technologies, and even some vocations to the priesthood and to the traditional Latin Mass have arisen through the internet and websites.
This is a real opportunity for evangelization and for spreading the Catholic faith. At the same time, we must be vigilant. Parents, priests, seminaries, and religious communities must foster discipline. In earlier times, priests and religious were educated in a sober and ascetic life. We must educate priests and religious again in this spirit, including in the use of modern technologies.
We should also promote personal meetings where children, young people, and adults spend more time together in direct living communication. During these meetings, it would be healthy to exclude the use of electronic devices so that true human communication can take place without being dominated by technology.
Kennedy Hall: To add to this, I am a member of the Third Order of the SSPX. It is interesting that you use the word sobriety, because when the Archbishop established the statutes for the Third Order in the early 1980s, the rule was simply no television in the home. At that time, it was very simple. All you really had was cable television, which meant propaganda. So you remove the television, and you remove a major problem.
Now, thirty-five or forty years later, the statutes have had to adapt because this is no longer the reality. For example, in my home, we do not have a television, but I work on a computer, and I have a smartphone for professional use, and so on. People simply communicate this way. The statutes have gone from cutting out visual technology entirely to recognizing that, since this technology is a reality we cannot escape in most professional spheres, we must act with sobriety.
That word sobriety is so important. A man who cannot drink at all because he will inevitably get drunk does not truly have sobriety. Likewise, a man who only drinks to get drunk lacks sobriety. The man who can have a glass of wine or a couple, depending on his body weight and how much he has eaten, and remain sober and drive home safely is the man who has sobriety. He can partake in something that is good without overindulging.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, we have to promote a lifestyle of sobriety and modesty as the Apostles taught us and as true Christians. I do not hear you.
Kennedy Hall: Sorry, I was muting it while you were responding, so my background noise would not be there. I apologize.
The next topic I would like to discuss is science and evolution. Many people do not know this about me, but my first foray into writing and speaking publicly came through my friend Tim Flanders, whom you know very well from the Meaning of Catholic channel. He invited me on after we interacted on Twitter, which is another good use of technology that led to a good friendship. We spoke about evolution.
I am very opposed to evolutionary theory, which has infected all levels of academia. I see in it not only scientific problems of which there are many, but more importantly, metaphysical problems. It stands against the wisdom of the Ancients. Philosophers such as Democritus and Lucretius, who were essentially atomists or proto-evolutionists, were ridiculed for thousands of years because of how absurd their ideas were. Thinkers with sound philosophy, such as Thomists, Aristotelians, and Augustinians, recognized inherent flaws in the cosmology, metaphysics, and every aspect of evolutionary thinking. It was rightly rejected and later rehabilitated.
Today in the Church, it has become fashionable even among conservative Catholic apologists to promote theistic evolution. I believe this is very dangerous. Perhaps you could expand on that.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, as we know, Darwinism was propagated by Darwin, who was an atheist and a materialist. The philosophical background of evolutionism excludes the intervention of God the Creator. Therefore, we must reestablish the truth about God as Creator, and the truth of creatio ex nihilo as scholastic theology teaches creation from nothing. This demonstrates the almighty power of God the Creator and our own nothingness.
We also depend continuously on the Creator. Theology speaks of creatio continua in the sense that God sustains our existence at every moment by his almighty power. If for one instant God did not will that we exist, we would fall back into nothingness. This truth must be emphasized.
There are also scientific questions surrounding evolution. As a priest and bishop, I am not competent to judge strictly scientific matters. This belongs to scholars and scientists who must research and demonstrate these claims. As long as Darwinist evolutionary theory contains many gaps and defects, even from a scientific point of view, it cannot be propagated as something certain or definitively proven. Here again, we must be sober and critical.
Above all, in the discussion of evolution and evolutionism, we must stress the Catholic truth of creation and of God the Creator.
Kennedy Hall: Yes, and we might say tongue in cheek, Your Excellency, that Darwinian theory has some missing links. There seem to be things missing from it. There is also a bait and switch that is often done today, where proponents of theistic evolution mine quotes from ancient documents or papal texts to claim there is permission to teach evolutionary theory as Catholic.
They often point to Saint Augustine having a different view of the six days of creation than Saint Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers. But this is a misrepresentation of Augustine. His view was by no means a billion-year cosmology. He spoke of an instantaneous creation where the six days represent something like a revelation of those truths, possibly in the angelic realm. But this is not evolution, and it is not even close.
The Church Fathers were almost unanimously what we would today call creationists. There were some discrepancies here and there, but they were definitely not evolutionists. So this teaching is simply not present.
When people point to Catholic theology, as you said, the experts in science and theology must discuss this. That is what Pius XII said when he gave very limited freedom to discuss the material aspect involved in the creation of Adam, as we read that God created Adam from the dust. But this is not the same thing as claiming Adam came from an ape-like creature. These are very different claims.
I appreciate your work on this because I think it is a big blind spot for many people.
Part of this evolutionary mindset is connected to what we might call the scientism of our day. It is the idea that science as a tool is the whole law and explains everything. This leads to misconceptions about vaccinations and health mandates.
I think we are now at a point where we can speak about covid vaccines on YouTube. It seems that restrictions have eased. Why did you decide to address vaccines and health mandates in this Catholic compendium?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, because we had the experience of the COVID lockdowns and what I would call the COVID tyranny, where almost all countries forced these vaccinations on people. This is, first of all, against bodily freedom. The government has no authority over your body. When the state forces you by law to take a substance into your body, you are no longer the owner of your body, and the state becomes its owner. This is a form of slavery, and it is very dangerous.
But my deepest concern was that almost all covid vaccines had a link, some directly and others indirectly, to the abortion industry and the fetal industry. This is the most grievous aspect. The world powers wanted to link the entire Catholic Church and all people in some way to this horrific abortion and fetal industry.
The abortion industry leads directly to the fetal industry, which involves the use in various ways of the body parts or cells of cruelly murdered unborn children. This is essentially a culture of cannibalism when parts of human bodies are used to maintain the well-being of others.
Unfortunately, many Catholics accepted these abortion tainted vaccines using the justification of so-called remote material cooperation with evil. This justification is not convincing. Even people without theological training instinctively rejected it. I encountered many who said they could not accept the explanation of remote material cooperation. Common sense itself recognizes the problem.
These abortion tainted vaccines bring us closer, not remotely but directly, to the ongoing and flourishing fetal industry. We cannot accept their products in any case, even when they are only tested using these means. This belongs entirely to the realm of abortion and the fetal industry.
By accepting these products, we commit a grave omission by failing to protest convincingly against this horror. To even think of producing medicines from the body parts of murdered children is already a horror. The entire Church must protest and say that we do not receive these medicines in any sense.
Bodily life is not above the salvation of the soul. Bodily health is secondary because our life on earth is short and temporal. We must focus on eternity and make a bold protest by refusing any cooperation with such horrific industries.
Kennedy Hall: Well said. I am in Canada, and you probably know that Canada was quite tyrannical, to say the least, during that time. It was very difficult to live here during that period. I actually changed careers. I was a teacher in the Catholic school system, which is now actively supporting the rainbow agenda. I am very happy I left. I was fighting it while I was there, but it was exhausting. It was a very difficult time in my life, but I am glad I made the change. Being a Catholic school teacher here became extremely difficult.
When the whole COVID situation started, I was very vocal. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in some ways, but I was very clear that I did not care what the arguments were. There were strong scientific arguments showing that the narrative being presented was not true, and I think most reasonable people now admit that. We saw the constant changes regarding masks and other policies.
But the most important issue was not scientific. It was metaphysical, moral, and philosophical. What was being demanded was wrong regardless of any biological argument that could be made. This was something many people could not understand. This reflects something that has been lost in Catholic intellectual circles because of an absorption of materialism. It is very difficult to explain this to people.
Regarding your point about the Church needing to protest my district superior, he said that the real crime of the vaccine mandates, especially in Canada, was that the Catholic bishops could have acted together. There are more than twenty bishops, and they could have said as a conference that they reject this. The Church often emphasizes collegiality, and this would have been an opportunity to use it for good. They could have demanded ethical alternatives.
People may disagree about the severity of the virus or whether vaccination was necessary. That is not my point. If vaccines exist, there are ethical options available. None of those were accessible in Canada. That was the most frustrating aspect. Not a single ethical vaccine was available until around March of 2022, and I believe that was intentional.
During the COVID period, many people experienced a political awakening. They attended rallies and became more aware of politics. There was an election in Canada in 2021, and the way Justin Trudeau spoke about people was extremely concerning. Many people realized they needed to rethink how they understood politics.
However, there was also a danger. This leads to the next point from your book. There was much talk about freedom. As a Christian, I believe in true Christian freedom. But the philosophical background many people appealed to seemed rooted in Enlightenment thinking, a John Locke-style of freedom, particularly. The argument was that the government has no right to tell me what to do. As a Catholic, I would not frame it that way. I would say what the government was asking was wrong in itself.
Perhaps you could explain, as you do in your book, religious liberty and freedom of speech, and the difference between the secular understanding of these freedoms and the Catholic understanding.
Bishop Schneider: The government must guarantee freedom of speech as long as it is connected to objective truth, objective good, and virtue. There is no unlimited freedom to spread error or immorality. In those cases, the government must set limits. But it must never restrict what is true and good and morally upright.
As Catholics, we have the right to freedom of speech in order to profess the truth and to spread the good.
Kennedy Hall: Yeah, we have our rights and our duties, as Pope Leo XIII would say. If we have a right, it is because it is attached to a duty. I have a right to work because I have a duty to provide for my family. I have a right to go to church because I have a duty to worship God. But a false religion does not have a right because there is no duty to worship a false god or to worship God falsely.
Maybe you could talk about religious liberty and the misconceptions that have arisen since the council. I think there has been confusion between tolerance and liberty. Could you expand on that for us?
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I think this is one of the deepest confusions in the council documents. It has had some very harmful consequences in the life of the Church and even in theology. The teaching of the Council on Religious Freedom has led to relativism regarding theology and practice in the life of the Church.
The basic error in the council document on religious freedom is that it puts the rights of the Catholic Church, the only true religion, on the same level as any other religion. This is impossible. There is even an ambiguous formulation in the council text stating that in matters of religion, no one can be forced.
Yes, this has always been taught in Holy Scripture and throughout the Church’s constant Magisterium. No one can be forced to believe in Jesus Christ. God Himself respects us. Of course, no one can be forced to join a false religion, and that is true.
The confusion arises in how this formulation was interpreted. The council suggests that because no one can be forced in matters of religion, every person has a natural right to cultivate, exercise, and spread the religion of their conscience. But there can be an erroneous conscience, even an invincibly erroneous one, which has no rights. It may have a claim to tolerance but not to rights.
Even an invincibly erroneous conscience can belong to a religion that spreads immorality, such as child sacrifice or so-called sacred prostitution. People can be so deceived in conscience that the government cannot grant them the right to freely spread their religion. The council added the qualification “as long as public order is observed,” but this expression is vague and very broad.
The problem is that the council implies that the right to freely choose, exercise, and spread religion, even collectively, is a natural right based on human nature. This is wrong. Natural rights are always positively willed by God the Creator. To spread idolatry is not willed by God, even in nature. Therefore, there cannot be a natural or civil right to spread idolatry. This is offensive to God.
In the council texts, there is a mixture of truth and traditional affirmation, with this erroneous affirmation that all religions have a natural right. This leads to relativism. Today, the majority of Catholic theological faculties and seminaries teach that all religions are ways to God. The Vatican now promotes interreligious meetings, beginning with Assisi in 1986, where all religions are presented on the same level, even externally. The Catholic Church is portrayed as one religion among many.
As a result, the missionary zeal to convert non-Christians and non-Catholics to the fullness of truth has been diminished and weakened. These consequences stem from this ambiguous and partly erroneous statement about religious freedom. In reality, this right applies only to one religion, the Catholic religion, the one true religion, which has a natural right to be freely chosen, exercised, and spread even collectively.
Kennedy Hall: So expand on what you said there. I did publish a book about the Society of St Pius the 10th and Archbishop Lefebvre, and many of your quotations are in there, so thank you for those. One of the biggest bugaboos that Archbishop Lefebvre had with the post-conciliar spirit was the insistence on religious liberty. Many people misunderstand him; his primary concern was the kingship of Christ. The liturgy is extremely important and relates to the kingship of Christ, as a majestic, kingly liturgy is befitting of the King. There are reasons for this, but really, the most important thing for Archbishop Lefebvre was the kingship of Christ.
In a document he submitted called Religious Liberty Questioned, he received a response, although anonymous. It was translated many years later, and it contains a statement that I have in my book. Basically, it says that the non-Catholic must be free from constraint. Even someone who believes government should be no bigger than the man who owns his property would still accept that in some realm of authority, on some piece of property governed by some person, that person has the right to say you cannot speak certain things in my house, town, or village because that is part of the natural hierarchy of authority.
To claim that someone of a false religion, even if it is not as extreme as human sacrifice but just a wrong idea, could be free from constraint is not accepted by any reasonable person. It is not even accepted by leftists, who believe Catholics should not have freedom to say whatever they want because it harms their erroneous notion of the common good. Thank you for clarifying that. Religious liberty in the fullest sense cannot make sense rationally.
This leads us to a more difficult concept: the idea that there could be errors in a conciliar document. Generally, there are two responses in the mainstream. One is the Sedevacantist approach, which asserts that because there is an error, the Church or the pope cannot be true. There are many formulations of this. The other approach involves mental gymnastics to explain why something is not an error, even when common sense shows it is false. How do we reconcile conciliar documents and these errors?
Bishop Schneider: There is a misunderstanding and a lack of theological knowledge about the different levels of the Magisterium. Even in recent centuries, some have exaggerated the authority of the pope and the Magisterium, avoiding the distinction between infallible ex cathedra teaching and ordinary teaching, which has no guarantee of infallibility.
Even previous Ecumenical Councils had sections designated as disciplinary canons, which did not claim infallibility. Only those clearly marked with anathema sit, such as denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist, were infallible.
The Second Vatican Council was novel in this sense. It declared that it had a predominantly pastoral character, meaning a disciplinary character. John XXIII stated that the council had no intention to proclaim new dogmas, and Paul VI repeated that the council was pastoral and did not intend to propose definitive teachings to the faithful.
A logical consequence is that the documents of the council, which were declared pastoral by the Magisterium, are not definitive teachings. They are pastoral teachings that can be improved, modified, or corrected in the future. Therefore, there is no problem with the existence of statements in the Second Vatican Council that are erroneous or ambiguous.
The case of religious freedom is of main doctrinal importance. Other examples are secondary, such as the expression in Lumen Gentium 16, stating that Catholics and Muslims are together adoring the one God, which is highly ambiguous and creates relativism. These statements, however, are not definitive and can be corrected in the future.
Kennedy Hall: It’s interesting. I was thinking about how you mentioned that the church is not infallible when it comes to disciplinary documents. One of the documents in the modern church, let’s say, for example, Quo Primum, I know it’s not infallible, maybe in some senses, but there are definitely parts of it that seem very close, or at least the reasoning seems close to infallible, if not infallible, in certain parts. Many people, much smarter than I have come to that conclusion. But the modern apologist will discard Quo Primum as merely disciplinary. Of course, it’s not infallible, and you could reject it, but then you miss the point. If you’re going to say that about something that uses language like, “woe to those who do X, Y, and Z,” it is very clear that Pius the Fifth was saying that to change the liturgy or to suspend this traditional liturgy would be a crime, an injustice against the Creator in a sense. They can dismiss it as merely disciplinary, but then, when we have something that is clearly disciplinary, or clearly fallible by the admissions of the popes, we have to treat it as if it were the super council to end all councils. This is a very strange contradiction in the perception of these things. I just find that fascinating.
Okay, last thing I’ll ask, because I know we’re going to go just about an hour here. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the link for this book is in the description of this video. Please support the bishop and support Sophia Press for putting out this extremely important work during this time of confusion in the church. It’s very clear, very important, and very helpful. I do want to talk about the last thing you spoke about, although there’s much more in the book: the danger of pornography and sex education. My first book, which I self-published and is now with TAN, is called Terror of Demons, Reclaiming Traditional Catholic Masculinity. In it, I talk about the danger of the enslavement that comes from men engaging in pornographic material. It is a plague, an absolute plague. It destroys souls, fatherhood, vocation, and the home. I call it the devil’s magnum opus. Perhaps you could give us some wisdom on the dangers of this, and also, for men who are struggling, how they might overcome it from your perspective as a confessor.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is basically about the victory of chastity and the sixth commandment. It is not limited to physical acts against chastity. The sixth commandment also includes interior acts against chastity, which can be grievous sins. As our Lord said in the Gospel, if a man looks lustfully at a woman, he has already committed adultery with her. These are divine words. When men, especially, engage in pornography, they are actively maintaining grievous sins against chastity in their mind and soul. We have to educate children and young people that interior sins against chastity must be taken seriously. In homilies and catechesis, we must address this.
Parents must educate their children, especially boys, in a delicate but clear manner. They should warn them and guide them toward a chaste mind, and explain the dangers and poison of pornography. Fathers, in particular, should do this with their boys, and priests should do this in schools and seminaries. For those addicted to pornography or dependent on it, it may be helpful to make a vow or promise before God in the presence of a priest to abstain completely. This is similar to how an alcoholic might make a vow of total abstinence from alcohol. Without such a commitment, the person will be destroyed. Pornography destroys the soul and the mind. Continuous exposure to unchaste images is especially dangerous because we are already exposed to many in public life, and the devil also tempts us with unchaste imagination. This public exposure is not chosen, but freely choosing pornography carries grave responsibility. Making a vow of total abstinence is a serious and necessary step.
Kennedy Hall: Yes, and I’ll add to that before we close here, for any men who struggle with this. You really do have to get medieval on it, as they say. I’ve counseled men after writing this book on masculinity. Men ask me questions and confide in me. In some cases, I’ve told them they need to find a new line of work. If your job requires you to be on a smartphone or a computer at all times, you have to recognize your weakness and make a change. Technology can be the gateway, and for some people, it really is that severe.
You need accountability. There are apps that track internet usage and send a daily email to a trusted friend showing all activity. It’s very humbling. I’ve helped people with this, and when something comes up, I message them and ask why they were on a certain website. They can’t escape it, and that’s good. It keeps them humble and accountable. This is what friendships are for.
You also need physical mortification. You have to mortify the flesh. You need to fast and exercise rigorously at certain times to expel these energies stored within you. These things are extremely important. There is a lot there. So, ladies and gentlemen, after you purchase Bishop Schneider’s book and read it, if you need more advice, you can also check out my book Terror of Demons, which helps men with this in a serious way.
Your Excellency, this has been an absolute pleasure. I really enjoy having you on. It is wonderful to speak with not only a good bishop, but a bishop with a traditional Catholic mindset, which is rare today and such a blessing. If you could, would you please give us your blessing before we finish?
Bishop Schneider: I will say a final word. This Compendium not only points out the dangers of our time and the errors you mentioned, but the majority of its content is positive. It presents the beauty of the Catholic faith. We discover its richness and beauty. I desire that all who use this book will rediscover the everlasting beauty of our Catholic faith. Thank you.
Kennedy Hall: Yes, that is wonderful. Sometimes we forget, as traditionalists, that the faith is a beautiful thing. Beauty will save the world, as they say.
Bishop Schneider: Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo. Benedictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen. Praise be Jesus Christ.
Kennedy Hall: Amen. Thank you, Your Excellency. Have a wonderful evening. I know it is nighttime for you now and morning for me. Have a good rest. Thank you. Goodbye.