Bishop Schneider talks about his early life growing up in the underground Church in the former Soviet Union, then in Germany, Brazil and finally in Kazakhstan. His early life ensured that he would always do his utmost to oppose Modernism and Liberalism in the Church. The interview then covers a variety of vitally important topics including the deChristianization of Europe, the limits of papal power and the Second Vatican Council.
There is a well meaning tendency, he says, towards a "total infalliblilization of everything the Second Vatican Council said, or that the current Pontiff says and does." I entirely agree. I think of the Holy Father saying that he felt "bitterness" when introduced to Catholic converts in Africa. He was worried that they may have been coerced, even though he was hardly likely to have had evidence of this. Are his interviews acts of the magisterium? Certainly not. When there are interviews about open borders and not having more than two children, they should not be regarded as magisterial statements. And the Holy Father does not possess the charism of infallibility when he talks on matters of science and economics. Listening to Bishop Schneider talking about the limits of the papacy certainly makes so much sense.
Bishop Schneider believes that after Modernism was condemned by Pope St Pius X, it went underground. Pope Benedict XV promoted theologians and prelates with liberal tendencies. Pius XII was forced to confront such tendencies especially by means of his great encyclical Humani Generis. After the Second Vatican Council, there was an eruption of Modernism. What was once hidden came out and many bishops sought to either actively promote Modernism or simply ignore it. Bishop Schneider argues that "since Paul VI, ecclesiastics with a liberal Modernist spirit and with a worldly and careerist mentality began to dominate in the positions of power in the Church. Many of them were and still are united among themselves in true clerical old-boy networks." One thinks here of the St Gallen group of prelates who campaigned against then Cardinal Ratzinger. There is the stench of worldliness within the Church. When read in context, it is quite clear that this applies to a relatively small number of prelates.
Bishop Schneider agrees with Cardinal Muller's opinion that those who reject Humanae Vitae can ultimately have no argument against homosexuality. The encyclical, he says, was important in saving the dignity of human sexuality and the dignity of spouses. Unfortunately some bishops told their flock to follow their conscience or engage in a discernment process without reminding them that the conscience is the voice of God that confronts human desires and whims.
I believe this to be a work of great importance.