Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes	N° 75 – December 2008

Our Lady of Fatima Camp 2007
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
IN THE MODERN WORLD (4)

GAUDIUM ET SPES
(7 décembre 1965)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES

PART II
SOME PROBLEMS OF SPECIAL URGENCY

INTRODUCTION.

With perfect confidence in its sincerity, which is beyond suspicion, with confidence in its ultimate knowledge of truth, object of its accordingly indisputable inspiration in the Holy Spirit, shielded from doubt, debate and even dialogue, the Council, after having laid down the principles and foundations of its pastoral aid, which it offers to the whole world for its salvation and its earthly future – and beyond? – the Council intends to implement them. It thus chose to deal with « some problems of special urgency » that, in fact, fall under the province of individual morality, as we used to say in my days. As we will show, in doing so, they go beyond the sphere of ethics in order to help human society in all spheres in virtue of their quality as « an expert in humanity », as Paul VI referred to himself at the UN on 4 October 1965.

The introduction is well thought out: to begin with, it summarily recalls the theses that were expounded in the first part, and then, it presents the programme of this second part.

46. § 1. « This Council has set forth the dignity of the human person, and the work which men have been destined to undertake throughout the world both as individuals and as members of society. There are a number of particularly urgent needs characterising the present age, needs which go to the roots of the human race. To a consideration of these in the light of the Gospel and of human experience, the Council would now direct the attention of all. »

How can we not be enthralled by this trilogy, this distribution of the subjects, or actors of human history among individual man, the human race and the Council?

a) For St. Ambrose, for example, the former imperial consular in Milan who was chosen bishop by acclamation in this capital, the first subject of history and the guarantor of the dignity and the virtue of the city, was God in Jesus Christ, Christ in the bishop, and the bishop, the personification of the Church. The diocesan community was composed of the clergy, civil authorities, and the population. By recognising their various contributions according to their rights and duties, one was able, according to this saint (the same is true of his disciple St. Augustine), to auger well the tranquillity of order, that is to say peace, as well as the common good, the principle of all security and prosperity and, in all of this, the eternal salvation of the Catholic faithful with good doctrine, practice, and morals.

The Roman and Catholic world has been living for fifteen centuries according to these maxims and principles.

Here, a statue is erected to the individual. It is anyone and everyone who is crowned with a « dignity » independent of any guarantor. The social ladder is turned upside down, which fact is duly noted.

The individual no longer has anything to learn or to suffer from anyone, because everything is at his service. But he has responsibilities to honour towards society, and what a society! – nothing less than « the world »…

This indication is scarcely put into perspective by the information that specifies that this very worthy « human person » will be able to carry out his « work throughout the world », either entirely alone or with other chosen people; one may as well say in associations (certainly abundantly subsidised, but it is not said). In the thinking of St. Ambrose what corresponds to this interlacing, which is infinitely complicated in our days, has received the global name of “services”. But for this doctor of the Church, the authorities, namely the emperor and his government, backed by its administration, is something totally different. There is no need to spell it out. And the choice of our bishops is antagonistic to that of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine: they challenge Roman Order and everything that is inspired by its maxims; to what they call tyranny, despotism, or fascism, they absolutely prefer democracy in which all powers are devolved upon each person by virtue of his supereminent dignity.

Here at last, the role of making the universe progress belongs to the individual-king, the individual-god… but let us allow it to continue its “expansion”, let us leave the spiral nebula and even the moon, our next-door-neighbour, in order to think only about the earth. The Person is filled with the consciousness of his dignity and says it is I, this very morning, I who must take care of the whole world. Somewhat like Nero, in charge of his Empire every morning, or like John Paul II flying off for the New Hebrides, in charge of the New Evangelisation…

Obviously, to deal effectively with the vast world, he will not ask for advice from the clergy, who do not have to be involved in politics, nor from authorities, husbands, fathers, employers, nobles, judges, or generals, but from his trade association, his party, his union, his “team”, which is neither clerical, fascist, nor a superior who has authority over him, but simply fraternal, gathering together friends or colleagues who have “the same ideas”. It is under this guise that the conciliar Church humbly offers her services to give advice to everyone, believers or unbelievers, without broaching the matter of religion at all, but with the simple goal to help the world to save itself from very real, more urgent dangers. This was already Pius XI’s « theo-democracy », to use Maurice Pujo’s expression: the world had to embrace the democratic ideal; and Catholic Action had to be from the people, by the people and for the people, a group of lay associations… to which the Holy Father would pass his watchwords in order to thwart, in accordance with his politics, the fascisms of his time.

b) The Council thus intervened in our affairs. In whose name and by reason of what? In its own name and because of its competence as an expert in all human matters, « in the light of the Gospel and of human experience ». This was, in fact, its ambition. Still, we could discuss this « light » of the Gospel, which is not the divine Truth, but a sort of by-product that requires no religious faith. It retains only a natural, universal reflection that is accessible to everyone. We saw, we are going to see what devaluation and alteration results for the Gospel! As for the « experience » that is invoked, it is not their own that the bishops study, it is that of the modern world, of the human masses whose witnesses they have become. The Council is an “auditor” that has taken upon itself to freely examine the needs and aspirations of the whole world in order to serve it; but what is public opinion worth, how much weight does it carry (especially when it has by the way been fiddled with by the “media of social communication”)? The two sources of the Council’s work both appear as adulterated as one another: a secular, democratic Gospel, a majority, reformist public opinion, for progress and freedom! That is promising!

Thus we are presented with three incapacities in place of the three age-old realities and structures: the individual man who, if isolated, is nothing, can do nothing comes in place of the sacred Hierarchy, whose sovereign is Christ. The entire human race is massively too huge to be a power, a force, even less an order. “Authority”, on the other hand, is systematically defamed and ruined in our time; it was an organised force that carried out a precise and indispensible work in every human society. Finally, “the spirit” – we should say here the Gospel “values” that the Council announces that it wants to instil in the masses – are strengthened by the world-wide public opinion of these masses. They themselves take the place of what St. Ambrose designates under the name of « population », and Maurras « real country ». What is more concrete than the group of communities that form a population? What is more sensible, useful, living than their needs, their works, and their initiatives? They constantly need to have recourse to the protective authorities of the Church and the very Christian Monarchy, in order to endure and prosper.

c) The most serious, quite obvious reproach incurred here is the declared “clericalism” of this intrusion into the “problems” that are declared proper to civil society and that the Church in Council nevertheless decides to study in order to rush to the aid of the whole world. With the Gospel, but without God’s authority, trespassing on human affairs… A movement that is created on such uncertain foundations is vulnerable.

That reminds me of “the Sillon” of Marc Sangnier, and even more of “the Greater Sillon” in which Catholic Action for Christian Democracy opened to all Christians, then to all believers, and finally more or less secretly associated itself with the Freemasonry of that time (1910-1913). The project was grandiose but incoherent in its principles: it intermixed religion and politics, thinking that it was hedging its bets as ingenuously as possible! I explained it in the days of its successor, the mrp (Mouvement républicain populaire), in 1952, by comparing it with the game of hopscotch. The Movement had one foot in religion, and a foot in the square of politics. If the referee showed it that it was not allowed in the religion square, it raised that foot saying: I am a political movement and Pius X’s theological reproaches can therefore not affect me. I read them on my knees, I swore obedience to them, but really they do not concern me. Then, the next day when a very empirical critique of its utopian concept of democracy appeared in Action française, it claimed that it did not involve itself in realistic, empirical, agnostic, and ultimately anti-Christian politics because its system was pure evangelicalism that went beyond the narrow scope in which Maurras wanted to enclose it.

The question here is: are our bishops in the Council giving us a religious teaching that is consonant with Catholic doctrine? Or are they taking holidays in order to meet as citizens of various countries who are concerned about the fate of their fellow citizens, and who propose wise, totally human measures not under the cover of their Catholic Magisterium but under that of their citizenship?

A final clarification. So you who criticise everything, tell us what your system is! Here it is:

1° The Church is necessary to the world. She can – she must! – contribute much to the nations where she has been established and is flourishing. How? By living her religion to the full, of course, but as for all that concerns natural activities, she can and must define what is true and condemn what is contrary to the Faith, infallibly, if necessary. It affects religion! She does not discuss or dialogue, she does not propose, she does not send her propagandists into a fight: she speaks in the Name of God.

2° The Church is involved with all sorts of associations and authorities that act, propose laws, create works, and make decisions in all spheres that have a very evident moral or immoral character. She owes to the society to which she politically belongs the help of her blessing for their wholesome and profitable enterprises; she must warn, forbid, condemn, and finally fight against all that is immoral, inhuman. It is this intervention that is called « ratione peccati », in view of the sin that a secular power authorises or foments.

3° Is there now a third possible intervention of the Church in exclusively social, economical, cultural, political, national, or international affairs over which her adversaries might shout, “clericalism”? She must have the courage to reply, but with formal and specific facts: Yes.

Even if these matters do not concern our bishops as defenders of the faith, they have the right, the duty of charity, as honourable, enlightened citizens who are independent of money and the masses – the two tyrants of every democracy, and of other powers! – to prevent the catastrophes that an insane decision might trigger. Even if, at the time, they were to be absolutely blamed for having such fears and for daring to get involved in politics in order to express them, they would have to confront the adversary and forge ahead.

§ 2. « Of the many subjects arousing universal concern (here, the word has nothing to do with its common meaning, such as “a law of universal concern” that affects the easier of « common goods », the one that suits everyone; it is a concern of curiosity or of a search for a response to urgent “problems”) today, it may be helpful to concentrate on these: marriage and the family, human progress, life in its economic, social and political dimensions, the bonds between the family of nations, and peace. »

It is the whole programme of “individual morality”, in application of “general morality”; this programme is grand in scale. But since the Council began with a complex study of the rights and the defence of Persons, compared with the needs of society, it was not general morality, and this is what is going to be terribly lacking.

« On each of these may there shine the radiant ideals proclaimed by Christ », which would be, if it were strictly implemented, what the Church calls her “ratione peccati” interventions. But I doubt that the « ideals of the Gospel » are so categorically implemented when I read what follows:

« By these ideals may Christians be led, and all mankind enlightened, as they search for answers to questions of such complexity. »

These last words, along with what was explained to us previously, make us think that the object of this searching is not to convince peoples to respect moral law, but to give them ideas « so that things may change »; remember this word, which has Karol Wojtyla written all over it.

My explanation will be clear and brief, and it will have numerous applications in the study before us. It is entirely contained in a petty boarding school story. I was at the head of a table of tough guys in the dining hall, and there was fighting over a bit of jam or a piece of cheese. One day, I gave them a lecture (that my mother had given me in the past), explaining to them that it was ridiculous to fight over an ounce more or less! They all admitted so. We decided to mend our ways. But a rogue broke the rule because his neighbour, he said, had not kept it. They all said to me: « We are willing, but it must be everyone or no one! » It was no one.

Application. Throughout the first part of this conciliar morality, which I would term speculative, we raised man up in his supreme dignity, and we showed him the grandeur of his « mission », or « vocation », which was to participate today in the general reform of the whole world. Obviously, to do this in accordance with the Masonic project, all the laws and customs of the past, all the privileges and exceptions must be frozen in order for everyone to get down to it. This is the initial phase of the operation, which can only be carried through to completion on condition of uniting everyone in the whole world in order to plunge it into the glorious fight « for man », in one movement: solve et coagula.

Launching this enterprise, they inflame individuals for world reform, without speaking to them any longer about their little faults. That would be insulting instead of exhilarating, and it would be petty compared to the great operative work of everyone together bound by a common interest, for good and all, and forever.

I have just read in Luc Ferry’s quite awful book (“ L’homme-Dieu ou le sens de la vie”, Grasset, 1996), a long, well-documented, very new, and intelligent chapter in which what I am trying to say is abundantly confirmed by the great trend of solidarity that is stirring up peoples today. A new planetary « charity », he says, is in the process of being created in man, as an effect of the worship that humanity gives itself… and he shows the other side of this gold coin… Here is the explanation:

A vast propaganda announces that the Council lies within the current of charity and justice that has been launched worldwide. He sets out what should be done to obtain a satisfactory result. In short, everyone reflects, thinks, imagines and dreams about what could establish justice and equality between Renault’s steelworkers and the poor Coromandel coast pearl divers. But my maid is an undeclared worker, so I do not give her insurance and only declare half of her hours, which suits her well. Then, someone comes and tells me: so that is your justice? Yeah! Well! When I see everyone marching in this “crusade”, then I will see. For the moment, I have given a thousand dollars to an organisation that has just been created; I think that I have done my duty.

Ten times, we will see the Council raise immense problems, and denounce the evils in human society, without ever naming the wicked persons and associations. Then, after applauding the alleged good will of everyone and the commitments of certain people in new associations and institutes for effective worldwide action, it exhorts, orders, and flatters peoples so that they march, and it gives advice for the joint success. Thus no one thinks for an instant about changing his own ways, of laying the blame on himself and deciding to convert from evil to good or from good to better. If the Church ordered her confessors to require for the absolution of certain faults that vices be amended, if they spoke to their penitents about Heaven and Hell, it is certain that a small improvement would begin. It would be blessed by God and would be contagious.

I also add this, which is of a different order, but that comes at a good moment: if the Council had not deified the human Person and incensed all the secular, Socialist associations that are concerned with the progress of humanity, it could have demanded public authorities to crack down on the sharks, bandits, and perverts who work in vice, in large voracious, cruel, criminal bands. Instead of that, everyone is beautiful, everyone is nice; the culprits are “structures”, tensions, too rapid expansion, and it thus accuses things and contraptions. The good are sent to tilt at windmills while their neighbours reduce them to slavery.

All of this will now find its application…

CHAPTER I
FOSTERING THE NOBILITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

The Latin title adds « fovenda », which means: to warm, to encourage, to praise. It is the « dignity » of both institutions that must be honoured, and it is a question of knowing how. Here is another remark where I expect that I will be neither understood nor followed. It may be considered that marriage is first with respect to the family, which is a goal and a work. We are thus in a perspective and an ethic according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Young people marry as they wish, and their contract is an association; all the rest will follow this initial founding act, which itself follows the inclination of youth to a form of love that is not too mixed with other considerations. Modern public opinion favours this individualist option. The Council, which wants to enter into its views, will call it the personalist and evangelical option without changing anything in it.

But one might first consider what the family is from a historical or sociological viewpoint. Historically, I will surprise you: « In the beginning » is God the Father, who created for His Glory and through His Word; there is Adam, from whom He drew Eve, his spouse, to be mother of all the living. This is the family of God on earth, similar to the community of the three Divine Persons. We see paternal authority exercised for the good of His son, for « Adam is a son of God » (Lk 3.38), and obedience was exercised in Adam before and after the rebellion, and love responded to it to the exact extent that Adam is for Eve the figure of the divine Word, of the Messiah who is to come. The marriage of a son is first a prerogative of the Father. Our title would have been: On the family, Marriage, and Procreation…

I say that this « Maurrassian » choice is sociologically truer, more civilised, and more favourable to the salvation of souls and, thus, to the absolute good of persons and of their natural communities, which favour the reason of elders more than the passions of young people. But the Council is against us. So, let us study it. There will be time at the end to acknowledge serenely the contradiction in the two moral standards, one of which is polarised by the « supereminent dignity of the human person », and the other, at the opposite extreme, by the kingship of the Son of God, which His Father has consecrated to the salvation of the human race. I said: salvation. Straightaway, there is a difference…

MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY IN THE MODERN WORLD

Faithful to its naturalist, democratic method, the Council begins by hearing world public opinion speak according to life experience, which social communication media are making known sufficiently. According to this present-day « experience », the bishops will see to « shining the radiant ideals proclaimed by Christ » in order to help « the search for answers to questions… » (46, 2). Here it is :

47. § 1. « The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society (a common denominator is being sought!) is intimately linked with the healthy condition (fausta condicio: with the happy condition) of that community produced by marriage and family. »

« The well-being »? The word is surprising; in the Latin text we can read: « salus » « the salvation of the person », etc. Is it the on-service Latinist who raised the level of the discussion; is it the French-speaking team that wanted to secularise a text that was thought too religious? The one devaluates, the other enhances the Council’s concern… but it can be easily seen that the Gnostic order is to keep a foot in both camps: allude to “worship”, dive into the “cultural”, a breath of fresh air of Gospel inspiration, dive back into the hygienic. What game is the Council playing? I draw from it that the « salvation » of man and the world is in their « well-being », which is required for their prosperity.

Hereupon, as always, they shower euphoric congratulations on everyone, whether Christian or not:

« Hence Christians and all men who hold this community in high esteem sincerely (!) rejoice in the various (as much as woolly) ways by which men today (!) find help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are assisted in their lofty calling (“lofty”… is rather a big word). Those (Christians) who rejoice in such aids look for additional benefits from them and labour to bring them about. »

With this speech and these final words, the bishops settle comfortably into a place on the possible tribunal of a global congress as interested, official experts… Will I dare write it? They are many words for nothing.

§ 2. « Yet the dignity of this institution… » The word « dignity » is a keyword of the conciliar Gnosis: heads, it refers to anticlerical humanism according to which man is self-sufficient, and tails, it arouses in Catholic public opinion a vague aspiration to virtue, to the life of grace, to holiness… So: « yet the dignity of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance (!), since polygamy, the plague (sic) of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. »

This is a rapid enumeration of the curses that are not « plagues », that are not structural, cyclic, or pathological, but moral. They are a mass of individual crimes that make millions of persons fall into fault, dishonour, culpability, and « indignity », that throw them into the detestable condition of criminals… it is no small matter! The Council spoke about them; it passes on (therefore) to the evocation of social evils, thus substituted for moral evil, which makes the indictment slide from human beings to things, structures, economic (climatological!) conditions. Thus the « problems » evoked will remain without solution or accusation against anyone…

« Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions (blame modern conditions), by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society. » Off they go! They pass from the odious moral evil of our shameful and criminal Malthusianism to a social evil that is remediable and secondary. It is tantamount to nullifying all serious reflection on one of the most sacred aspects of marriage: fruitfulness.

« Finally, in certain parts of the world problems resulting from population growth are generating concern. All these situations have produced anxiety of consciences. » But this happens in quite varying degrees that to add up all these situations that produce anxiety, is tantamount to running counter to the intellectual analysis of phenomena. Such analysis aims at determining the causes for these phenomena and at following these causes to the human agents responsible for them; the goal is to begin a struggle against the organisers of these crimes and against the deplorable deficiencies of the authorities who are also to blame. Thus our bishops skate over anxiety and, to remedy it, they put forward a totally baseless, contrary optimism, the effect of which is demobilising:

« Yet, the power and strength of the institution of marriage and family can also be seen in the fact (you are going to see what kind of « fact » this is for our conciliar sociologists) that time and again (!), despite the difficulties produced (divorces, abortions, and other crimes have passed to the rank of « difficultiesproduced by changes »), the profound changes in modern society reveal the true character of this institution in one way or another. » Have you seen the fact? The fact is that the Council has deliberately evaded the issue!

From here on, it can speak, advise; everything will be of absolutely no use. The appalling evils that result from the inadequacies of first religious and then civil authorities as well as from the egoism and licentious living of individuals, will give rise to fine exhortations, but to no recalling of God’s law, positive laws, and the sanctions that necessarily accompany them. Yet this is indispensable for the salvation of nations as well as for the salvation of these « masses of men who march into Hell » (St. Ignatius).

Here is the classical example of these vain and earthly speeches, which are intended to serve God without vexing the Devil:

§ 3. « Therefore, by presenting certain key points of Church doctrine (!) in a clearer light (!), this sacred Synod wishes to offer guidance and support to those Christians and other men who are trying (in vain, of course!) to preserve the holiness and to foster (ah! here are these grand words that are meant to provoke applause at the end of each article) the natural dignity of the married state and its superlative value. »

It is pointless to comment on this foul brew other than by the Apocalypse: « Because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of My mouth » (cf. 3:16)

HOLINESS OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

Faced with unprecedented licentiousness and depravations of our corrupt and corrupting present day, the Council thus announces that it wants to erect the sacred model of Christian marriage:

48. § 1. « The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. »

Who would not applaud such a just and courageous definition? Is everyone in agreement? Because everyone is crazy, I mean, idolatrous of himself and a denigrator of God. If marriage is « established » on the consent of the husband and wife, then it is based on the theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and it has no firmness. I imagine that the matrimonial bond becoming lax to the point of no longer existing in a world in which an ecumenical Council teaches such a doctrine. What do I propose? Why, the truth! Marriage is « established » on the authority of God, and this is why it is termed « sacred » or much better, according to the one true religion, it is a « sacrament ». Of course, the Council hastens to invoke God as the guarantor of natural marriage, but it makes Him play the role of witness, friend and benefactor, even the role of a spare wheel:

« Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises (Jean-Jacques Rousseau: relationships arise from human contracts) which by divine will and in the eyes of society (in the eyes of society! Then it turns its eyes to divorce likewise) too is a lasting one. »

The failure of marriage is very exactly described. It is signed by all the bishops of the greatest Council of all time. Furthermore, it makes its case even worse by seeking the reasons that come to assist this human commitment, so fragile, inconsistent, carnal, and short-lived more often than moral and spiritual. But the Council, which announced the « holiness » of marriage, gets bogged down in pragmatism and utilitarianism, in which bitter contention is brewing…

« For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond (sic: in the modern world, the term « sacred » refers to all that involves man in his exalted dignity and tends to lose all religious connotation) no longer depends on human decisions (it is the Council that pleads!) alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony… »

I interrupt. This seems to be Catholic, as it would be to say with the Freemasons that God, the Great Architect, created the world… and then entrusted it to man without worrying about it further. God is at all time the Lord and Master of all things and all people… and even human persons. There is no « contract » that does not have God for foundation, nor any true marriage without oaths being taken in His Presence and with His blessing.

Our bishops do not want to declare war on the human race, which has become pagan again. So, they say that God created marriage, as was their duty, but it was in order to immediately take up again their defence of this institution or of its multiple benefits and advantages. They plead for the offenders instead of judging and condemning them in the name of their divine authority. It is thus a lost cause!

« For, God Himself is the author of matrimony (that is clever), endowed as it is with various benefits (sic!) and purposes (ah! well, we are going to see what they are worth). All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race (it no longer matters to anyone), on the personal development (ah! tell me in what way?) and eternal destiny (I do not believe it!) of the individual members of a family, and (the speech precipitates its delivery in a jumble) on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. »

Question: How much weight would this plea against divorce have carried in the ears of Henry VIII of England? Only one reason tormented him, that of his Chancellor and friend Thomas More: God forbids it as a violation of a covenant sealed before Him, the guarantor and Heavenly Father. Whoever betrays it condemns himself to eternal Hell. Whoever remains heroically faithful will go to Eternal Life.

Only, for a Council to say so would require of it, a Council of bishops, that it exert pressure on all social authorities for marriage to be held as a religious institution, publicly recognised by public powers and protected, defended by them without concession. « Hares » (Rev. Fr. Le Floch) would have to become lions! They prefer to return to cheerful, reassuring remarks, but that are very happily secular:

« By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown… »

Yes ! Dear friend… let Nature take its course. “Sequere naturam!” All the present evils are contrary to nature? They will pass. Let us not compromise any of our prestige in the eyes of unbelievers by throwing ourselves into ridiculous campaigns against one disorder or another. We will lose our audience thereby, and people will become hardened in their faults. Let it be! The upcoming generation are favourable to what is worthy of them!

« Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mt 19:6)… » I object that St. Paul says the same about the Christian and a prostitute… to make him ashamed of his crime of adultery! The Council should verify its references (1 Co 6:16)…

« … render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions (an idealised image). Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness (or of their profound discord) and attain to it with growing perfection day by day (they attain to discord and even to rupture more commonly than to the victorious union of two egoists!). »

« As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose (!) total fidelity on the spouses and argue for (!) an unbreakable oneness between them. » It is incredible to see a « union » impose, and argue for anything at all! These are words, intimate states of which the human will is the master! The only One who commands, « imposes », « argues for » is God and, under His authority and in His Name, the Church…

But a Council that believes in man does not believe in God… and no longer defends marriage against its detractors.

Now, in complete discrepancy with the idyllic but entirely naturalistic and romantic description of human marriage, viewed exclusively as the quest of bodily union for mutual love – even though experience proves it to be futile and fragile! – here is a spate of lofty mysticism that is proposed as a model for all men on earth to whom these profound mysteries are, by definition, closed, incomprehensible, and irrational.

What is the Council’s aim? I have no idea. I would like, however, for the Church to begin by defining marriage as an enterprise decided on by two parties who have their own origins in the antecedent families from which the two parties come. It must be entered into under God’s blessing with the recognition of the national community in order for this “enterprise” to be viable, assisted by parents, supported by Church authorities, and maintained in respect and supported in the fulfilment of its contract by public authorities. This ancient order of religion and civilisation must be rebuilt. Knowing this, my readers will understand my quandary when they read the following paragraph:

§ 2. « Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love (if, however, – which is not said – this love is the object of the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony), welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love (the same reservation must be made: not every « love » is « charity ») and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. »

Here I wonder what the human masses that the Council hails can understand about this union of Christ-man with the Church-society. The explanation that follows is completely classic and admirable. Furthermore, it forces its author to specify that it is a question of the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony. It is said in passing, but the barrier had to be stepped over and nothing indicated it. It is thus a superior catechism lesson. I do not see its chief usefulness here, while I anticipate the risk that even as the Council saves marriage from all forms of danger by means of a great mystical gust, it will no longer have to list the conditions for defending marriage and procreation against so many poisonous or ferocious beasts, veritable monsters of the Apocalypse that will not shrink from any behaviour to destroy it; those conditions are familial wisdom, the rigour of civil laws, and the Church’s no less firm role as judge… But let us take delight by following St. Paul:

« For as God of old made Himself present to His people (Israel) through a Covenant of love and fidelity, so now the Saviour of men and the Spouse of the Church comes into the lives of married Christians through the Sacrament of Matrimony (We are most pleased to hear about this « sacrament » when everything already done prior to this was concerned with free, spontaneous, natural marriage). He (Christ) abides with them (it was at least true as regards your grand-parents, for whom it was an honour to receive from their parents a crucifix – Jesus nailed to His Cross –, which was blessed and adorned with a boxwood branch and to hang it up in their bedroom above the marriage bed, yes, really!) thereafter so that just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf, the spouses may love each other with perpetual fidelity through mutual self-bestowal (cf. Ep 5:25). »

That is very good.

« Authentic (?) married love is caught up into divine love (that is quite a lot to say and promise without being sure of understanding what the Council includes in this notion of “authentic love”, for previously, it seemed to teach that every love is in itself “authentic” and proceeds from “charity”) and is governed and enriched by Christ’s redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, so that this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a father or a mother. »

It is magnificent!

« For this reason Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state. » It is getting better and better, and it is still not sufficient because the Council continues: « By virtue of this sacrament (cujus virtute), as spouses fulfil their conjugal and family mission (in Latin: munus, « function », which is a wiser, humbler and more realistic term; « mission » seems inexact and too flattering), they are penetrated with the spirit of Christ, which suffuses their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly (it is exaggerated) advance (it is flattering to use the present indicative) the perfection of their own personalities (?), as well as their mutual sanctification, and hence contribute jointly to the glory of God. »

Bound to my “mission”, let us say more modestly to my task of literary and theological critic, I do not stop to complement the Council on the excellence of this short treatise on the Sacrament of Matrimony, I limit myself to recalling two concerns that remain unresolved.

One of them is fundamental. It comes “before” what is firmly taught in the present paragraph; the other is consecutive, “after”, and we can hope for the resolution afterwards.

a) Before, it is too late. You have dealt with natural marriage without any specific difference, and you admired and praised it greatly in its proper essence, as the love of two young people in their « supereminent dignity » and their « absolute freedom », giving themselves one to the other, in body, in heart, and, without stressing it too much, in will and mind.

For centuries, theologians have a principle that is abstractly right and concretely specious: “ Gratia non tollit naturam sed perficit ”, grace does not suppress nature but perfects it. It is quite exact when philosophers and scholars truly define nature as it is. But in our so-called « personalist » century, man is defined as a sacred, autonomous being that has a great love of freedom and responsibilities. He is armed with his rights and is sovereign judge of his duties and their limits. Thus it is that you form your idealised image of today’s youth. And, forever kind, you promise them all possible prosperities, joys, and honours in their love. Above them, we could not yet see either cross or heaven of glory. Nothing. Adam and Eve had their very loving heavenly Father to cosset them. Our little emancipated married couples leave God in His transcendence, even if it means thanking Him from time to time for the total dignity and freedom that He granted to them by relinquishing it Himself.

Here is what is lacking “before”: it is paternal authority. The word is absent from your text. However beautiful this second paragraph may be, it does not compensate for the gap, the void in the foundations. If your young people have no relationship with God their Creator and Father, if, as a result of this want in them of feeling their filiation, they do not recognise as superior to them, and as providential, all the created authorities that have themselves been established by God, the mystical graces all the marvels of which you have just presented, yes, even in the Sacrament, will have no foothold in the little individual-kings, who will feel no need for these treasures through which they would become « God’s sons » in addition.

And when you will reach the point – but you will scarcely dare to do so! – of speaking to them about renunciations, trials, sacrifices, and crosses, I greatly fear that they will cry out against this “return to moral order” and that they will lay down their beautiful crowns and the gold or platinum wedding rings in order to recover their freedom. They will also lay down their « eminent dignity », which is nothing but a sham unless it is reserved only to the children of the Church, as St. Leo the Great preaches to us Christmas night: « Agnosce, christiane, dignitatem tuam. »

b) After, my concern comes directly from the before: if the water of the river is poisoned at the source, it will be so throughout its entire course… unless a purification plant is installed upstream. I have just pointed out that you, conciliar Fathers, had first praised and guaranteed marriage « in the light of the Gospel and of human experience »! marriage, any marriage as long as they love each other, that they are free, and that they give themselves to one another… Then you repeated the ancient and infallible discourse of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament that the one, true, holy Church considers in its Christian perfection, and in this recitation of the Roman catechism, it is to the Sacrament that you have attributed the strength that is indispensible to fulfilling the natural, Mosaic, Christian law, because the grace, without which every law is vain, is only given to the members of the holy Church.

When do you lie, my Fathers? Is it when you guarantee love, delight, and organ music to natural marriage, to these little gods and goddesses like dream Adams and Eves, without God or the tempting Serpent, that our pagan contemporaries have become? Or do you lie when you declare that there is only salvation here below and for eternity in the Catholic Church, and in and through the Sacrament of Matrimony… leaving, of course, the infinite freedom to God Himself to make, but not us, all the exceptions that His infinite clemency will decide in favour of the myriads of beings that did not have the treasures of graces from which we have benefited but which we do not value and have ourselves squandered.

So, must we return to the source and convene a Third Vatican Council, our hope, or must we only convince Christians afterwards to live intensely the full law, full sacramentality, full mysticism of their Catholic marriage for themselves first and for all of their own? Is not the goal of this active preaching of the holiness of marriage to attract and convert the small, modern married couples who desire to know, adore, and love God to the point of serving Him and of being sanctified thereby in their conjugal life and in their children for this life and for eternity?

Nevertheless, it does not prevent us from remaining in the happy atmosphere of the preceding paragraph, as it rarely happens to us, from coming from a Nuptial Mass totally captivated by the priest’s sermon that commented on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians. At the same time it does not prevent us from looking with emotion, happiness, and pride at the two young people, true son and daughter of our heavenly Father, eager to receive His blessing in their whole being in order to place their common and redoubtable enterprise entirely « in God », through the virtue to be received from His Holy Spirit.

Let us hope that we will be pleased with what we are given to read in the following pages.

§ 3. « As a result, with their parents leading the way by example and family prayer, children and indeed everyone gathered around the family hearth will find (you notice: children will find a readier path; so are they also little gods and goddesses right from the baby bottle?) a readier path (than what? than among non-baptised? than by being cudgelled and deprived of dessert?) to human maturity (ouch! ouch! ouch! we are lapsing into Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the idealised image, and untroubled charismatism), salvation and holiness. Graced with the dignity and office of fatherhood and motherhood (here is a « dignity » that means something and boosts the courage of weak and wretched persons: their dignity as father! as mother! It cheers them up!), parents will energetically acquit themselves of a duty which devolves primarily on them, namely education and especially religious education. »

Once again this is good Catholic doctrine but… before, after, nothing of this fine programme is guaranteed. It is like a Parisian omelette. Do you know about it? The server pours it into a dish, and to stop it from running, he cuts its two “ears”, and it is perfect. Your mysticism envisages a beautiful future for Christian marriage. But will the society in which these young Catholics get married keep them in its atheistic, materialistic, anarchistic bondage, and in the end its slavery to love, money, drugs, lust, and death? And will the Church, which married them so well, help them afterwards even in the sphere of school, leisure activities, politics, association of all kinds, to remain faithful themselves and keep their children under their control, or will it be the conciliar “anything goes”?

Let us read what follows: it is a fascinating combat between the true and false mysticism of this time. False mysticism is so tranquil in its cloud that it abandons to the power of Hell this « valley of tears », which our world is, in which everyone is the sole master of his behaviour… On the other hand, true mysticism is so attached to the Way, the Truth, and the Life that it does not fear to enter into any human battles. Sacred politics! On the grounds of the evil that must be fought and souls saved:

§ 4. « As living (sic!) members of the family, children contribute in their own way to making their parents holy. » I like “reciprocal duties” but I hardly like those that systematically reverse the normal course of benevolence and charity, such as those young people from the seventeenth district of Paris who are members of the organisation “Youth without Borders”; they go to teach the Kalmucks how to read and write. Upon their return they explain that it was they who have received indescribable riches from those whom they taught to read! So, these dear children contribute to making their parents holy, why yes! Mamine (the Abbé de Nantes’ mother) is no longer with us, her novitiate ended in her hundredth year. I am proud to have actively contributed to making her holy but very glad that she is unable to edify the conciliar Fathers on this exemplary way for a son to sanctify her mother! Here is what the Council reports about its experience:

« For they will most certainly (the adverb is very poorly chosen! for what is less certain in the future of the Council, a future that has become our horrible present?) respond to the kindness of their parents with sentiments of gratitude, with love and trust. They will stand by them as children should when hardships overtake their parents and old age brings its loneliness. » Yes, it could have been, but has not been so.

The Council dreams of a return to a Golden Age. Let us listen to this “melody of happiness” [title given in French to the American musical “The Sound of Music”] that massively contrasts with this World, of which Satan is the Prince.

« Widowhood, accepted bravely as a continuation of the marriage vocation (this beautiful stylistic device is very comforting), should be esteemed by all (and, of course, everywhere!). Families too will share their spiritual riches generously (by all means!) with other families. Thus the Christian family (we may hope that it is still Catholic), which springs from marriage (or, in Anglicanism, from a re-marriage, but is it a religious one ?) as a reflection of the loving covenant uniting Christ with the Church, and as a participation in that covenant, will manifest to all men Christ’s living presence in the world, and the genuine nature of the Church. This the family will do by the mutual love of the spouses, by their generous (obviously!) fruitfulness, their solidarity and faithfulness, and by the loving way in which all members of the family assist one another. »

So, everything has thus been expounded regarding marriage and the family by quite simply bringing to complete success, through God’s grace, what nature had already inspired us to be by reasonably obeying it. I explained it, it is the scholastic axiom according to which « grace neither destroys nor contradicts nature, but brings it to its highest degree of perfection ». It is somewhat like that product that is sprayed on freshly picked flowers; it makes them seem vivid and unwithering… for a certain time.

Thus, the Council no longer has to worry about the crimes and horrors of the world in the midst of which their flock have to live and sanctify themselves. Above all, they have nothing to do to change the bath water, because true Christians find in their own hearts the grace of the sacrament and all the required strength to go together, as a family, to the summits of perfection. But, it is fake. It is not true that they are resplendent like vivid flowers or that they do not wither, these poor people who are abandoned by their pastors, without assistance, without even waging war against so many « living demons come out of Hell » (Pius IX)… Little wilted flowers!

Perhaps what is to follow will enter further, on the one hand, into the promised evangelical mystery that has scarcely been touched, the mystery of suffering and sacrifice. On the other hand, perhaps it will enter into the absolutely neglected reality of combat of so many Catholics who undergo something akin to a veritable martyrdom and are, as it were, thrown to the beasts before the complacent eyes of ecclesiastical and civil authorities. They are attacked in a hundred ways and harassed by masses of maniacs who eagerly seek their fall and lapses into sin, for the Devil’s satisfaction.

Ah! If all these young virgins, all these innocent children, all these hunted women, all these men so strong yet giddy from the fear of falling under the frenzied assaults of their immediate entourage, could share their fear with their priests (and bishops) and form Eucharistic and Marian crusades; that could go so far as to militate against societies of debauchery and in favour of moralising public life! The Council said nothing about it, but perhaps now?

CONJUGAL LOVE.

We thought the subject had been exhausted. But, let us see…

49. § 1. « The biblical word of God several times urges the betrothed and the married to nourish and develop their wedlock by pure conjugal love and undivided affection. »

The Council’s style is certainly not that of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, but the divine law, here and there, is identical. Here, a commandment, which is accompanied by blessings for those who submit to it, by curses or lamentations on those who flout it. There, invitations without threats of punishments for the offenders, nor enticing divine blessings as a reward for virginity or chastity that are observed in a martyrdom that is known to God alone and to the Immaculate Conception, Mother of us all, forever!

« Many men of our own age also highly regard true love between husband and wife as it manifests itself in a variety of ways depending on the worthy customs of various peoples and times. » I indicate in passing a scandalous “racial discrimination”: while the peoples “from developing countries” find Whites of all political colours to defend, save, and promote their rites, their folkloric, “savage” customs, why are our peoples of a two-thousand-year-old, high civilisation forced – by what occult powers? – to sacrifice the treasures of their traditions to the profit of negritude or Hinduism?

« This love is an eminently human one (Our Excellencies see here, there, and everywhere accessible “eminences”, even in the most ordinary behaviours, just read what follows…) since it is directed from one person to another through an affection of the will (like the mailman who gently passes my mail through the window); it involves the good of the whole person (we want to believe it!), and therefore can enrich the expressions of body and mind (?) with a unique (eminent even, Eminences!) dignity (ah! not again!), ennobling these expressions as special ingredients and signs of the friendship distinctive of marriage (it is dreadful how I am yawning!). This love (it is not at all funny) God has judged worthy of special gifts, healing (of what? What necessity? Naturally it is so eminently perfect!), perfecting and exalting gifts of grace and of charity... »

Is that of any interest to you? Not to me…but, faithful to keeping my decision to quote the whole text in order not to lay myself open to accusations of deleting what is not in line with my interpretation, I continue to quote the greatest of the Councils, which describes in a thrilling way things that are relevant to honest love.

« Such love, merging the human with the divine (?), leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift providing itself by gentle affection and by deed, such love pervades the whole of their lives; indeed by its busy generosity it grows better and grows greater. Therefore it far excels mere erotic inclination, which, selfishly pursued, soon enough fades wretchedly away. »

Here, suddenly, to the overlong passages that I have just recopied – heaven only knows to what benefit? – follows a misleading brevity. No! When I was a very young confessor, I must admit that I fell into this error. This is what I thought: marriage has such completeness to it and offers such a chance for opening in love that when I heard accusations with regards to loathsome vices, and saw my penitents themselves disgusted, shameful, tearfully repentant, I thought as the Council does, that it would soon vanish and that the passion would be defeated by its own ugliness and disappointing routine. Experience… and St. Ignatius have taught me the contrary (Spiritual Exercises n° 314). The Devil does not let go of his prey; he works on their imagination, makes them dream of more degenerate things, from which they expect even more spicy pleasures, and, always disappointed, they go even further down the fiery paths of Hell.

Therefore, instead of freeing themselves from this wound of their peoples, the bishops in Council should have lanced it and decided to take vigorous action against political and social authorities, accompanied with threats of excommunication in order to overcome this stunning – and lucrative! – development of global eroticism. Instead of this, there are two fallacious words, and they congratulate themselves for having spoken so well. I do not give any examples. It is all too well known. The problem is that the Church has made friends with the World, this World that makes money from all these vices. In short, between ourselves, it seems to me that it would have been better for this eminent assembly if this Council had never been born!

§ 2. « This love (not eroticism from which we have just emerged but conjugal love, which is the title of the previous paragraph) is uniquely expressed (we are coming back to it!) and perfected through the appropriate enterprise of matrimony (were our elders, then, unsavoury when they spoke of « carnal knowledge » in their catechisms?). The actions within marriage by which the couple are united intimately and chastely are noble and worthy ones (we know it! we know it!). Expressed in a manner which is truly human (we have understood!), these actions promote that mutual self-giving by which spouses enrich each other with a joyful and a ready will (when the guide unduly explains in detail the beauties of a painting at the Louvre, he ends up nauseating you; here, likewise). »

« Sealed by mutual faithfulness… »

For true moralists and true Catholic spouses, it is quite the opposite: it is the sacramental commitment at the Church, and the Holy Communion that followed it that the embrace of love comes to ratify in its nudity and total abandonment, as a sacrifice of one to the other, to the Glory of the Father, of the Son, who is a model of the Bridegroom, and of the Holy Spirit, a fire of charity that consumes the victim of this sacrament…

« … and be allowed above all by Christ’s sacrament… »

Far from invalidating my critique that we have just read, this addition makes it worse. There is love, that is the main thing, and there is mutual faithfulness, and at last…, do you mean, on top of all that there is the sacrament? It is exactly the contrary; I call to witness those who have experienced it so that they attest their sovereign, immense love, which has led them to marriage… and to divorce in no time at all! A hundred others will testify that still hesitating, anxious, lost in the feeling of their inability to assume such a destiny, it is the Sacrament that engraved in their hearts the oath that was uttered, and love descended into their hearts, like a flame from the Pentecost at the moment when they together, and equally moved, ate the Body of Christ and drank the Precious Blood of their Saviour during this communion, which was for them union to Christ, to Jesus, and indissolubly between them, in Him, in God.

« … this love remains steadfastly true in body and in mind, in bright days or dark. It will never be profaned by adultery or divorce. »

A simple question: what have our bishops undertaken in our Catholic countries for the state to guarantee the commitments of Catholic marriage, which were signed on the parish registers, in the same way that it guarantees, under threat of the most serious punishments, a sales contract for a house or a herd of pigs that has been signed before a notary? For more than a century the state has been the avowed and active accomplice of citizens who violate their matrimonial commitment!

Another question: what have our bishops done so that the majority of French citizens, who are Catholic, very legally and democratically get rid of the republican, secular, and anticlerical sect that, under the mask of a democratic regime, is the principal strength of this corruption, this decomposition of families?

So, it is not sufficient to write to the whole world from Rome, far from the crowds, the parties, and the governments, that it is very nasty to divorce or commit adultery. The Pastor gives his life for his flock. Go on, Eminences, stand up to your friends of the left and form, as they themselves do, a lobby to obtain the banning of adultery and divorce while there is still time!

« Firmly established by the Lord, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual (one should be drunk or crazy) and total love (come on, stop dreaming! You are fabricating an unreal love of gods and goddesses, but it is in order to avoid the difficulties that you do not want to see because you do not want to face your divine democratic, secular left-wing…). »

Here again you are lying; it is confused but visible. Re-read what you have written: first, the law that you are enacting that relates to « equal dignity » has no reference to Catholic sources or reasons. It is a complex problem to know if they are equal or unequal, these « dignities » of man and woman that you are unable to define in their nature, their properties, and their rights and duties. You affirm it! Once you have said it, you know that you are deceiving the whole world as regards civil, legal, social, and ecological rights, that is to say, family, and religious rights. They appear dragged along by this chimerical and absurd eminent « dignity » in each and everyone, always and everywhere. O shame! O scandal! You subordinate the unity of these two ardent beings in their mad love, granted, to the well-declared principle that the woman has been recognised by her husband as his equal, under the threat of ? Horror for those who know that the most precious unions are different, complementary beings without the possible concept of any « equality », who do each other services. Your equality is the death of man and the transgression of God’s law. Now, your final injustice is to make the Lord Himself shoulder the responsibility for this mass of Masonic errors; He would come to confirm modern feminism! It chokes me.

Fortunately we have arrived at the last sentence so we will be able to throw Holy Water on this cursed paragraph as on a dead man:

« The constant fulfillment of the duties of this Christian vocation demands notable virtue… » I interrupt; you have noticed this vocabulary – practically never used –, which takes us back to our religion of the past, which is totally neglected in Gaudium et spes except in some passages such as this one. Is it from someone else’s pen or is it calculated to force the Council’s right-wing out of its opposition? Re-read it: « constant fulfilment… duties (oh! oh!)… demands notable virtue ».

Now, here is the conclusion that nullifies all optimism and secret hedonism concealed under all these purple passages:

« For this reason, strengthened by grace (of the sacrament, isn’t it?) for holiness of life, the couple will painstakingly cultivate and (what is most specifically Catholic) pray for steadiness of love (ah! well!), large heartedness (it is even better) and the spirit of sacrifice (at last! It is the Christian word par excellence, the keystone of the Gospel Revelation and the source of all holiness). » This sentence makes up in my mind for so many errors and horrors that we have heard, alas! I was hoping, undoubtedly in the One Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary Immaculate, to read such a thing, yet I did not in the least expect it any longer.

Alas! After being comforted by this beautiful conclusion, I wanted to read the following paragraph, quite ready to credit the Council with new proof of its orthodoxy and courage. I have read it and am disappointed. We fall back into modern ecclesiastical waffle. So I recopy, always on the look-out, and if nothing good or useful appears, I close up my desk, but not without recommending this poor and humble Catholic Church, occupied by non-believers, to the infinitely merciful and clement Sacred Heart of her Bridegroom Jesus Christ and of their Holy and Immaculate Mother, the Virgin Mary:

§ 3. « Authentic conjugal love will be more highly prized (by the social communication media?), and wholesome public opinion created about it if Christian couples (a dreadful duty is being offloaded onto them) give outstanding (sic) witness to faithfulness and harmony in their love, and to their concern for educating their children also, if they do their part in bringing about the needed cultural, psychological and social (and moral, perhaps? Have they at least thought of it?) renewal (!!) on behalf of marriage and the family. Especially in the heart of their own families, young people should be aptly and seasonably instructed in the dignity, duty (sic) and work (re-sic) of married love. Trained thus in the cultivation of chastity (how simple it is!), they will be able at a suitable age to enter a marriage of their own after a courtship (take good note of the last words of a Council, which are the most appropriate for exalting their virtues to the point of heroism)… lived out with dignity. »

FRUITFULNESS OF MARRIAGE.

50. § 1. « Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gn 2:18) and “who made man from the beginning male and female” (Mt 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gn 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts (and perhaps also with joy and enthusiasm?) to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Saviour, who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day (we know that this divine Will will cease one day; but, precisely, it will be when the number that His Providence has determined is reached and it will be the end of the world, since its end, its aim will be accomplished). »

This introduction would be dull if it were not for the final mention of the service of God that is desired, willed more than the rest by Catholic spouses, and with what fervour! It is true that aside from that, this paragraph is of an astoundingly petit-bourgeois, secular mediocrity. The decrease in births, even in Catholic countries, can be explained by such petty justifications, always focused on the earthly happiness of individuals – pardon me! – of the Person!

Never, during the fifty some years that I have been in the service of the Church (but there must be some exceptions that I forget), have I heard a sermon in a time of social or economic crisis that recommended saying often the Pater in order to obtain the little family’s daily bread. Likewise, never have I heard a preacher raving about the most marvellous work of life, which is the birth of a child, nor exalting the admirable possibilities that each new life proposes to the spouses’ magnanimity: still another child for our crown in Heaven, and if he is disabled, he will be our most beautiful fleuron! Still another one for our purification, our responsibility and perhaps, undoubtedly, our daily cross, thus for our merit and our sanctification! Still another for our most dear heavenly Father – and there will never be enough – as priest, monk, sister of charity, missionary! Still another one for France, etc.

But a glance at the following paragraph makes me think that I am too hasty to accuse… Here is what I read:

§ 2. « Parents should regard as their proper mission (my Fathers, just go and tell this to the secular and democrat tyrants who fiercely oppose it!) the task (and the honour and the joy?) of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realise that they are thereby co-operators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love (thus, they have to be defended against the oppression of “State education” that perverts their children and, if necessary, called to open rebellion, for it is the love of God who is Creator and Saviour that is at stake!).

« Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility (with « Christian » you do not need to say more; and « human », which is distinguished here, leaves one to believe that the human element can be sufficient for want of religion), and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort… » What is all this nonsense? All this dull introduction is for something that I fear to guess? Yeah!

« … Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare (in the first place!) and that of their children, those already born (it must not bother these poor little children!) and those which the future may bring (if it is for their happiness, failing which it is better to spare them the experience!). For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group (it is going round in circles and at a low-level!), of temporal society (at the very end?), and of the Church herself. »

On these « particularly urgent needs…,has been shone the radiant ideals proclaimed by Christ, the light of the Gospel and of experience »! It is very exactly the contradiction of the Gospel and of the experience of my mother who was a good Christian…

a) In 1936, Mamine used to say to me: « They say that they are waiting to find an apartment before having children. But let them have children, and they will find the apartment. » Is it crazy?

b) Let us consult the “Book of the Master”:

« He said to His disciples: Do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing… » (Lk 12:22-23 ) You are familiar with this admirable discourse, not characterised by lack of foresight (Isabelle Rivière), but by its confidence, its purity, which is equal to its totally divine elevation… « Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil. » (Mt 6:33-34)

I knew spouses who read these divine words in a St. Ignatius retreat, and a certain number of children, are… children of St. Ignatius! The parents have been paid back a hundredfold. For my part, I think that none of these children will die in final impenitence: those who are born of a perfect act of love of God, the infinite love of God will receive them at their death in His long memory and His just gratitude. But I am straying from the Council. Let us reluctantly – unless there is a good surprise – return to it.

« The parents themselves (brrr!) and no one else should ultimately make this judgement (it chills my blood to think that an unborn child is thus awaiting a judgement) in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive (sic!) toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel (we have just had an odd proof of it!). »

It is a speech of tired old men, members of degenerate peoples, for whom the only reasons for encouraging « others » to have children are to avoid a massive immigration of low-paid workers and to guarantee the future of our pensions and other social securities. But here is another language, more noble although ponderous. Is it someone else’s writing?

« That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment (again! What prevents the Church from speaking of the lone, “supernatural”, complete fulfilment?). Thus, trusting (in Latin: confidentes, « confident », it is plainer!) in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice (of having children, so, “it is a drag”?), married Christians glorify the Creator (so, it is a martyrdom?) and strive (!) toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human (again!) and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. »

I do not know a single person who, upon reading this enthusiastic page, has decided to make his family bigger. As for large families, which are scorned, hated, and persecuted today, they receive a “consolation prize”:

« Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way (sic! there is no question here of using the lofty language of « mission », « vocation » as was the case for the trade union or cultural activity; no, it is because the « task » is probably weighty and unexalted), those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation (imagine for what back-breaking work!), undertake to bring up suitably even (even!) a relatively large family. »

A single commentary: French Canada broke all the records of large families, eleven, fifteen twenty-five children, and a great future was being prepared in this “revenge of the cradles”. Today, it is below the minimum level of demographic renewal of the population, and it is economically and socially going downhill under the threat of Anglo-Saxon and Protestant hegemony.

So, it is finished with this unpopular theme. The Council thinks that it has got out of it with diplomacy, and it passes on to more cheerful aspects of human… and Christian marriage:

§ 3. « Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen… »

I interrupt! I would laugh; if I were an anticlerical, if it were a question of a pamphlet where we owe it to the reader to have a sharp eye and to be scathing in our comments. At this point I would burst out laughing at all this petit-bourgeois concern, let us say the word: at all these precautions not to insult in any way the unshakeable egoism of our generation. I would also announce that it is indeed a question of the new morality of a new Church whose distant, forgotten Founder had declared in the past:

« Whoever wishes to come after Me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for My sake will save it. » (Here a Hebraism could be transformed into completely conciliar language. Here it is: « Whoever would like to save his human, will lose it; and whoever would sacrifice his human or be stripped of it for sake of the Gospel, will save it ».)

« What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Or what can one give in exchange for his soul (or: « in order to recuperate his lost soul »; Mk 8:34-37)? » And, in St. John, it is summarised: « Whoever loves himself loses himself, and whoever hates his human in this world will preserve it for eternal life. » (Jn 12:25) The Gospel speaks to the heart. But it is not the language of the Council.

Finally a word of comfort for people who would be demoralised by the trial of sterility:

« Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking (sic). »

Here again I am appalled. A Council that replaces – yes, replaces! – love of God by love of man, and forces us to lovingly embrace the whole world as though it were our neighbour, finds nothing but that to say to these spouses who are so distressed for not having any children, their most vehement desire. Should not the word of the Church breathe the energy of the charity of Christ into them? There are nephews, neighbours, persons in the parish and, despite generalised abortion, the multitude of foundlings to adopt. These sterile spouses find in their consecration as “charitons” [members of a confraternity whose office of charity was to make funeral arrangements and assist the bereaved family] the beginning of a great and magnificent adventure, knowing that they will be welcomed in Heaven by all the poor to whom they will have given charity, as though by their own children of their hearts, their souls, of their entire being. For withdrawal into oneself is Hell!

CONJUGAL LOVE AND RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE.

This title denotes well the hedonism, and even the eroticism of our Western society, which we consider « the entire earth », and since the Council wants to address it with friendship, it adopts its language and decadent principles. The countries of famine and overpopulation have a different scale of values, perhaps imprudent but closer to the Gospel. Without exaggerating their praise of the latter and the reprobation of the morality of our rich, de-Christianised countries, the Council could have announced a more… human and thus Christian title. It should have been: mutual respect of spouses and love of life to transmit.

51. § 1. « This council realises that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously (here is a word unknown to the Gospel; it proves that the search is going in a wrong direction), and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. »

Here, I shall pose a question: are these difficulties insurmountable for Catholic spouses who are true disciples of Christ or are they so for those who want to « arrange their married lives harmoniously »? Harmonious life is not in itself an evil, but it does not prepare people for certain renunciations or sacrifices that happen to every human being and that they have to bear: it is the cross that destroys harmony but leads to Paradise. Thus, the “harmony of the spouses” is not an acceptable point of reference for a Council. There remain difficulties, trials, sufferings and crosses about which the Church must enlighten our consciences, ratione peccati, that is to say in order to determine the limit between permitted and forbidden, and to inflame our hearts sub specie beatitudinis vel vitæ perfectæ, by presenting the more perfect ways that Jesus shows us because the course is more direct, rapid, easy to go to Paradise.

Our bishops, with their attention focused on the experience of “harmonious” life in “well-to-do” milieus, must not speak as experts or sociologists about the difficulties of virtue to the point of forgetting its advantages, merits, and eternal reward. They must not put “cushions under the elbows” of our faithful out of badly directed sympathy and compassion! I read with embarrassment the principle put forward by the Council:

« But where the intimacy of married life is broken off (I object to the identification or confusion of conjugal intimacy with « carnal knowledge » and its brutal pleasure), its faithfulness can sometimes be imperilled (but as well as through obsession and the abuse of these carnal pleasures!) and its quality of fruitfulness ruined (here, they are speaking in favour of vice as necessary to the sacrosanct « harmony »), for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered. »

The plea is too biased to win us over. Parents who are too sensually amorous no longer have the patience to support one another and no longer have a reserve of tenderness for their children. These are experimental facts. As for « the light of the Gospel », here totally absent from the spirit of the Council, it suffices to give the key to the mystery in these words of the Son of God, according to St. John: « The flesh is of no avail; it is the spirit that gives life » and, one might say, that gives life to the flesh, finding in this spiritual sanctification all its strength of love, chaste generosity, heroism in sacrifice, unlimited fruitfulness. I am dismayed to see that this marvellous divine revelation, of infinite, unfathomable richness is not once mentioned in this chapter in which it is particularly vital: « It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe. » (Jn 6:63)

The Council obviously undertook its research at a far too low level of morality. Do you know how it is going to exculpate itself? It will cast well-deserved discredit, but without anathema or excommunications, on those who, even baser, go so far as to justify crime in order to save the « harmonious » life of their men and women clients, penitents:

§ 2. « To these problems (the word « problem », which is used everywhere, is appropriate for sciences that are mathematically expressed, but it is absolutely simplistic and therefore reprehensible in all moral sciences: do not speak of problems but of difficulties, hardship, and crosses!) there are those who presume to offer dishonourable (!) solutions (sic) indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love (that is to say « harmonious »?). »

The question that was raised is not resolved by this enigmatic formula. Between natural laws and divine laws, there can be no contradiction. Yes. Neither can there be between divine love and happiness of the creature, because obedience to divine law is the means to attain the happiness of Heaven. Yeah! At a beginner’s level of catechism you would say: God wants your happiness; thus, all that makes you happy is allowed; all that saddens you is forbidden. It is alas, just about what this hazy formula would allow you to understand. It prepares for the paragraph that we are going to read, which deals with contraception, it would seem:

§ 3. « For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life (without, all the same, totally relinquishing it) in a manner which is worthy. » Of whom? Worthy of God? Excellent! Worthy of man? It would be tantamount to having too much confidence in him all the same. He would be both judge and judged? The Latin text to which we refer is without equivocation: « modo humano digno adimplendum », « in a manner which is worthy of man ». This means that God « left man to his own counsel »; we have already discovered this trick in a previous issue. Once is enough (cf. Si 15:24; GS 17).

Thus, two options presented themselves in those years (1964-1965) to the Council Fathers: either study the « divine laws » concerning the transmission of life and draw imperturbably the consequences affecting the practices of conjugal love, or study throughout the whole world the practices of love favoured among the peoples of the entire earth, their demands, their aspirations, and consider them as in moral conformity with divine laws. I do not know which of the two options the Council adopts. Faithful to my decision, I only read the text when I recopy it, and without any preconceived idea, one line after another. Here it is:

« Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes (well done). The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honoured with great reverence. »

I said “well done” when the Council, endowed with the loftiest authority that exists, since it constitutes but one plenary Magisterium along with the Pope, says no to abortion, to infanticide. The earth is silent. God has spoken. In the next sentence, the biological, physiological comparison of human love with animal mating makes us fall from a sacred Magisterium to a tribunal, or congress of alleged experts in gynaecology and professors of personalist ethics. Grandiloquent words resurface, and here the criterion of morality is no longer pure and simple divine law, but « dignity » and « reverence », from which one will confer a label of quality on the sexual behaviour that is in vogue today: reverence and dignity, or forbidden on account of disrespect and baseness. We are lost! We just have to read, fearing irreparable relinquishments.

« Hence when there is question of harmonising conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an (individual) evaluation of motives… »

That is obvious! But because it has shown firmness on this question of sincerity, intention, and evaluation of motives, the Council will be tempted to be more understanding and lenient on another crucial point: the objective good or evil of certain practices that are intensely desired, demanded, already practiced, and even already taught by theologians and accepted by episcopates. Let us continue then, as anxious as ever:

« … but must be determined (the moral aspects of any procedure, sexual procedure of course) by objective standards (very well). These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts (things are becoming unclear), preserve (here you have the respect!) the full sense (and here we begin to get nowhere, and there is no hope of getting out; I have not read it, but I see it coming…) of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love (we have no doubt about it). Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. »

Do you understand? I do not. It is a question of « carnal knowledge », which is normally accompanied by pleasure and joy, resulting in a possible conception. It is simple and has always been accepted, praised, recommended by moralists and theologians. But always, and for different reasons or pretexts, men (and women) have culpably sought to cheat, to trick nature, in order to accomplish this act in such a way as to have the pleasure, if possible with dignity, respect, and sincerity in love… Their purpose in so doing is to justify themselves for having cheated, but all the while seeking with joyful heart a sign of their uprightness of conscience that belies the specifically contraceptive, always appalling, procedure. Therefore, the conciliar text is insufficient, thus inacceptable.

The major question that was passionately debated in the world, that was fuelled by the enormous campaigns of the pharmaceutical laboratories, themselves motivated by self-interest, was that of the “birth control pill”. Here are the brief, delaying terms that the Council used to defer the decision to a later time and « superior authority »: « Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. »

An explanatory note specifies that, « certain questions that need further and more careful investigation have been handed over, at the command of the Supreme Pontiff, to a commission for the study of population, family, and births, in order that, after it fulfils its function, the Supreme Pontiff may pass judgement. With the doctrine of the Magisterium in this state, this holy Synod does not intend to propose immediately concrete solutions. »

The tumult did nothing but increase for two and a half years, and in June 1968 the encyclical Humanæ vitæ settled the question, as it decided against the use of any artificial means of birth control.

It was not « more careful investigation » and reports from International Commissions that were needed, but resuming the moral study of the family institution in accordance with divine law, by speaking with the authority of the Magisterium, by basing its text on exact definitions of the objects dealt with, and on principles that are not demagogic but divine. Even today, having descended lower and lower, the conciliar Church knows that she is incapable of doing it. But we will come back to this in the conclusion to this chapter.

It is incredible but true! Here is a « furthermore » that introduces another idea, undoubtedly secondary but likely to be of interest to at least a few readers. « Furthermore »! It is as one might say: « Incidentally, I point out »… I tell you; it is incredible. Read it:

§ 4. « Furthermore, everyone should be persuaded that human life and the task (in Latin: munus, the gift) of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone (well! well!). Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it (actually, the Council had methodically hidden it from us in order not to make the world of unbelievers or non-Christians feel disgusted with it or not to disconcert it, so much so that the Council itself did not seem to believe any longer in it), but always have (« human life » and the « task » of procreation) a bearing (this hardly arouses pictures or enthusiastic thoughts!) on… » On what? We have reached the stage where the bouquet is prepared for the winners. On? « the eternal destiny of men. ».

There it is; the whole religion of this chapter.

As Jesus used to say: « But there are some of you who do not believe », and it is obvious! He was speaking about Judas, who would betray Him, and about « many others of His disciples, who withdrew and no longer accompanied Him. » (Jn 6).

EVERYONE MUST PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY.

… thus no one!

I do not like the sound of “promote” in this title. The noun « promotion » that is derived from this verb is displayed in supermarkets in enormous red characters on banners… in tantalising advertisements. It is marketing, and of the worst sort, the kind that commissions each buyer to become the propagandist of the thing everywhere… Anyway, let us set our impressions aside to study the grand project of defending the family, an immense area of application of justice and Christian charity!

52. § 1. « The family is a kind (sic!) of school of deeper humanity (if they continue to talk for the sake of talking…). But (!) if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs (an abstraction does not need anything) the kindly communion of minds and the joint deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking cooperation of parents in the education of their children (it is mere “preachifying”, which hurts no one). The active (!) presence of the father is highly beneficial to their formation (it is very true). The children, especially the younger among them, need (are you sure?) the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved (here is a major point of agreement between us!), though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account (and here is a major point of serious disagreement between us, it is like the tares sowed by the Devil in the field of the elect!).

« Children should be (it is here a requirement that is addressed to everyone, thus to no one, and that is supposed to create the ideal thus imposed) so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation, including a religious one (the bishops of that generation, who saw that priestly and religious vocations were in a slump, were incapable of acknowledging that they were primarily responsible for it and laid the blame on families and family holidays! They should have been grateful to traditional families for still providing the Church with vocations!), with a mature (obviously) sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life (O admirable naivety, in the days when one could choose his state of life, his « vocation »!); if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favourable moral, social and economic conditions. »

I interrupt this flow of pious hope and vain words… The Socialists in 1936 promised proletarians from all countries: Bread, Peace, Freedom. When they were elected they led their electors to famine, war, the Service du travail obligatoire (S.T.O.) [compulsory labour instituted in France by the Nazis during World War II], deportation, and the gulag! Our bishops « imposed », that is to say, provoked a general call-up for realising « favourable moral, social and economic conditions » for the good families for which they hope and pray.

The only thing is that no one budged because, for their part, our bishops were unable, did not know how, did not want to, or did not have the courage themselves to come, followed by their local and national authorities, and by their peoples constituted into Catholic phalanges, into conflict with those who corrupt society, destroy social order, and plunder riches as well as the national state. And now, our young couples who are assailed by the corrupt, who are laid-off or paid wretchedly in their suburbs where no police officer dares to show himself… I see them; they read these fine words from the Council, and as they are of modest means, conditions, and virtue, they weep. She weeps with her head in her apron, accusing herself: « You see all that they say. That is what we must do, but how can we? » and another flow of tears.

In the meantime, the Bishops of the Council continue :

« Parents or guardians should by prudent advice provide guidance to their young with respect to founding a family (it is very true, very important; but « guardians » i.e. the teachers have passed over heads of parents with Fr. Cardonnel in the lead, to persuade young people to emancipate themselves and stay free; getting married is square!), and the young ought to listen gladly (this is typical of the so-called “practical” pastoral method whereby the bishop indulges in wishful thinking and takes it as reality when he reads it printed in black and white in his diocesan monthly!). At the same time (it is the « yes, but » technique for an affirmation that is scarcely expressed in order to be immediately refuted) no pressure (it is in the style of Fernand Reynaud: « child-batterers! » [here our Father evokes one of Reynaud’s well-known comic sketches]), direct or indirect, should be put on the young to make them enter marriage or choose a specific partner. »

There would be so much to say… but the text continues, and I am ashamed to prolong the session.

§ 2. « Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another… » You know, it is the story of the children who discuss whether or not they must enlighten this poor grandma who believes that children are brought by the stork!

« …grow wiser and harmonise (the Council returns to its permanent obsession) personal rights with the other requirements of social life, (the family that has been directed in that sense) is the foundation of society (it is pointless to discuss such fictions). »

I feel that we are beginning another decade of wishful thinking, in the form of a (secular!) rosary:

« All those, therefore, who exercise influence over communities and social groups should (!) work efficiently (?) for the welfare of marriage and the family (by all means and straight away!). Public authority (Hey! It still exists? We had forgotten it, and we shall forget it in the next sentence) should regard it as a sacred duty (in the sense that we have indicated, that of crowning Man and the sacred character of his rights, to which civil authorities are devoted by the country’s constitution itself) to recognise, protect and promote their authentic nature (of marriage and of the family), to shield public morality and to favour the prosperity of home life. »

Thus, it is undoubtedly in virtue of this “common programme” that bishops and high-ranking civil servants have been working hand in hand for fifty years…

« The right of parents to beget and educate their children in the bosom of the family (in our century when people come and go as they please at any hour of the day and live in bedroom communities!) must be safeguarded. Children too who unhappily lack the blessing of a family should be protected by prudent legislation and various undertakings (this whole programme could not be more specific!) and assisted by the help they need (“ad hoc”). »

Ten more to go. They repeat the same generalities but in various languages. Here, the style is ecclesiastical. It is dignified, unctuous, and firm. For what purpose? It is up to you to assess:

§ 3. « Christians, redeeming the present time and distinguishing eternal realities from their changing expressions (what is changing is the legacy of our ancient religion that is being chucked out; what is eternal is… the new secularism, and the new Church is Democracy, the human Person, integrated globalisation, and peace), should actively promote the values (sic) of marriage and the family; they will do so (but of course, Dad, straightaway!) both by the examples of their own lives (that is easy) and by cooperation with other men of good will (that is easy too, but it is a question for the social communication media: to alert and bring them together poses a problem). Thus when difficulties arise, Christians will provide, on behalf of family life (of all families, thus of none), those necessities and helps which are suitably modern (and eternal).

« To this end (listen well for here are the ways that the Council indicates. They are proportional to the immensity of the task), the Christian instincts of the faithful (the clergy should do well to keep out of it), the upright moral consciences of men (without religion, I suppose), and the wisdom and experience of persons (religious persons or advanced “intellectuals”) versed in the sacred sciences will have much to contribute. » Thank you! Thank you! We are saved !

Here is another secular rosary, but also tactfully and discretely ecclesiastical:

§ 4. Secular: « Those too who are skilled in other sciences, notably the medical, biological, social and psychological, can considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family along with peace of conscience… »

Hem! “Science without conscience produces nothing but the loss of one’s soul!” (Rabelais) – Of course not, granddad! It might have been true in your time, but now my “shrink” is my confessor!... An “if” is, however, used in order to tone down the assertion:

« … if by pooling their efforts they labour to explain more thoroughly the various conditions favouring a proper regulation of births. »

Before reaching the last words, I intended to be impertinent: thus, the qualified representatives of these various sciences in commissions had to be called together, and they had in mind to bring back for discussion the question that had been set aside, by order of the Pope, relative to the birth control pill. Well! This is exactly what the Pope did: he convoked an extraordinary Commission that discussed it for two years, predominantly in favour of the pill… and thus well informed, the Pope tended towards the liberating « yes! ». For his part Hans Küng also convened commission after commission, all in favour. He announced that the Pope had decided through his Commission to authorise the pill! Presumptuous as one can be, the “lead juvenile”, surrounded by his blonde and his brunette, declared that Paul VI would thus overthrow the dogma of infallibility. And as the blonde or the brunette objected that it would put the Church in the wrong, he replied that that would cure her of her pride. As a result, Paul VI reflected and condemned the pill. (cf. CRC no 30, March 1970, p. 8)

So much for the help of scientific experts. And theologians of Küng’s sort?

§ 5. Ecclesiastical: « It devolves on priests duly trained about family matters (too well-trained! poorly trained!) to nurture the vocation of spouses by a variety of pastoral means (words flow past like beads of a rosary, but what does that mean other than that?), by preaching God’s word, by liturgical worship, and by other spiritual aids to conjugal and family life; to sustain them sympathetically and patiently in difficulties, and to make them courageous through love, so that families which are truly radiant can be formed. »

You know, a memory just entered my mind. I dropped in at the house of some good Catholic friends. I found them harrowed. The wife was expecting a child; she had been affected by an epidemic, and the doctor left the house, insisting that she be driven very rapidly to Switzerland where abortion is legal. There was another silence. I gently pleaded for respect of divine law; I spoke… and came to the tragic question: “What are you going to do? What answer did you give him?” Then, both of them, staggered by my question answered me with one voice: “Oh! We have never thought of doing away with him; we are Christians. It will be as the good God wills!” It is not because of this answer that I remember the scene as though it was yesterday, but for what was said afterwards: “We immediately and wholeheartedly accepted the trial that God sent to us.

“But you see us overwhelmed, lacking spirit, because we believed that our doctor was a good, honest man. And we discovered an assassin who would induce even sturdy people to succumb to the temptation of crime.

“I am a police officer, the husband added. My mission, for I believe that such a job is a vocation, is to penalise every breach of French law. And I see a man so much more qualified than myself driving people to crime with totally guaranteed impunity…”

Well! These people thanked the priest greatly for his good words and prayers, but « radiant », no, really they were not. Nor were they « radiant » in the police residence, where there was no shortage of sarcasm to add to the trial, neither was the priest who while travelling down the road said his Rosary for these heroes, these hidden martyrs of obedience and unlimited confidence in God their heavenly Father and their Saviour.

The priest was not « radiant » either. “The life of our true Catholics, he thought, is often a road to Calvary… let us at least be a Simon of Cyrene for them.”

§ 6. « Various organisations (they are countless, wonderfully pious, charitable, judiciously administrated and a surprising efficacy compensates for their poverty), especially family associations, should try (it would already be admirable if they did as in the past) by their programmes of instruction and action to strengthen young people and spouses themselves, particularly those recently wed, and to train them for family, social and apostolic life. »

In reading this paragraph, I thought rather about so many congregations of men and women who, through their ministry of charity, care, or education, entered and still enter today into contact with families, who are well-placed to listen to confidences and well-prepared to answer them with words but also with steps to resolve conflicts, relieve hidden miseries… such as the legendary Sisters of Charity, whose cornets straightaway drew respect, gratitude, and even a certain spiritual elation, as images of the Holy Spirit hovering above all miseries to change them into prayers.

§ 7. « Finally, let the spouses themselves, made to the image of the living God and enjoying the authentic (!) dignity of persons, be joined to one another in equal affection, harmony of mind and the work of mutual sanctification (mutual sanctification?). Thus, following Christ who is the principle of life, by the sacrifices (ah! well…) and joys of their vocation and through their faithful love, married people can become witnesses of the mystery of love which the Lord revealed to the world by His dying and His rising up to life again. »

As in the theatre, at the end of the first act, all the roles are found or come back together on the stage. So, in this last paragraph, the words return arranged in a certain way that highlights them and puts them in relation to one another. The purpose is to convince us that the teaching that we have received in this long chapter on this ever so important reality of the « human and Christian » family, has worth as Catholic truth and life for all to find advantage in it.

Urged on as much in my heart of hearts as by the almost unanimous satisfaction of the conciliar Fathers, I want to associate myself to the applause. I want to, but I cannot! The role that perhaps was given to me – imposed on me! – or that I invented for myself, forces me to make a literal critique, and it brings me back down to earth. But also, denouncing harmful, sometimes criminal, omissions and alterations of texts that are quoted, all sorts of manipulations to deceive readers in the end, is depressing. So, in the final analysis, we would like to re-write the paper – we are familiar enough with it from having relentlessly worked on it – and to propose to the reader an insight, rather than a model, into what should have been done. This is what I am going to attempt to do and ask the indulgence of my readers…

Critique of chapter I
AN ANTI-FREUD CATECHISM

A. A general and total critique of this first study of individual morality.

1° It is simple. The Council, faced with the study of the family, based all its exposition on the first principle of its “basic morality”, a new, revolutionary principle, which inverses the entire ancient order of our speculative and effective morality: man must be considered as the centre and crown of the universe. It is absurd. Its first logical consequence was to put the idea and reality of “the family” to the service and the glory of Man, of the Person.

Thus, instead of making everyone a member of a family, it is the family that is established to relieve Adam’s boredom and reveal to him the Love that is his supreme happiness. There is nothing more Gnostic, and so more false and pernicious.

2° The Council and contemporary Popes follow this line of reforming, romantic, and revolutionary thought, by quoting a hundred times the first two chapters of Genesis, or at least three or four verses from the first chapter and one from the second, from which they draw all their construction. Man and woman become the ideal couple, their love is their whole life and, for the rest, they have the universe at their disposal. They are kings of the earth. Thus, all the young people of our time know each other, fall in love with one another, and it is the beginning of happiness, which will be made complete by procreating children in the pleasure of the bodies and joy of the souls, and the mastering of the forces of nature for their promotion and legitimate pride.

3° Rashly, this first stage of human history is isolated from the rest and presented to « the entire earth » as the admirable plan of God’s infinite Love, still and forever brought into play according to our nature in the whole of humanity. Everything remains submitted to man for his domination and his physical and spiritual enrichment, his complete happiness and his blossoming without any other end than himself.

To the love of man and woman who have become one flesh is imprudently added: one heart and one spirit. This love avoids the question of knowing who is the centre, who is the crown of the universe, he or she? The answer: love has made them one.

4° In Vatican II, the Church committed another act of imprudence: in reconstructing the Garden of Eden today, the Council teaches that God’s law was instituted for the happiness of His creatures. Because this law is inscribed in their conscience, it is easy and extremely favourable for them to listen interiorly to the song of happiness, and the most exquisite happiness, the song of love, in order to be sure that they thus obey God, even though their conscience gives them some concern on their way of following God’s law. Even if their instinct were to press them towards a certain happiness that God’s law contradicts, everyone would be left to opt for his happiness.

5° Thus is it that after these pages that are immersed in the joy of human love and the somewhat rapturous exhortations to make of it the great liberation, the great exaltation of their vocation as human beings, without their religion finding a door in all that, a fissure through which it can enter into these loving human hearts, a difficulty arises. No divorce; no abortion even. The Church condemns them. Laymen and faithful churchgoers of the ancient and new Christianity come to an agreement: they are “failures” of love, sins, and even abominable crimes, but why? Because they violate divine law, or because they are faults, sins against man? Or is it because they risk breaking for their perpetrators their way to happiness?

We have seen that the Council found itself torn between its paradisiacal theory of happiness in love, and the divine law that condemns the murder by the mother of her own child in her womb. Yet, the opportunity for the clash arose, almost unexpectedly, on the so-called “pill” question. By condemning it, Paul VI would have wanted, after the Council, to save the infallibility of the Church that a challenge to her classical morality would have achieved.

Yet, given the incoherence of the alleged basis for their morality, neither the Council nor its progeny would have been able or will they be able to improve it, to correct it. This is why the ignominies that are spread more and more throughout the world, introduced even in the Church, are justified by this principle of the Person and his acts, as respect owed to the former and the latter without anyone protesting. It is the entire construction that must be demolished. Everything in this chapter is false right from the first thesis put forward. Everything must therefore be annihilated so that the divine Truth may triumph over the temptation of Satan, who is a Liar from the beginning. Everything! Its theology is adulterated or, if you prefer, is idolatrous, anthropolatrous. Its morality is thus lax; its biblical, Gospel, and patristic arguments are falsified. Its sociology is only a compound of arbitrary phenomenology and unrealistic ideology. Its pastoral teaching is fundamentally servile, flattering as much for each human person as for the whole world, the Prince of which is Satan.

Gaudium et Spes quotes the account of the creation of man eight times (Gn 1 and 2), but not a single time that of his fall (Gn 3).

B. Search for the error…

1° The error is to make man the first person, centre and crown of the universe, and it would still be false if we corrected by giving the first place to Jesus Christ. Ah? You are surprised! I persist: the whole error that follows on from this attribution of the first place to Adam, and the second to Eve, second so close to him that one would say that they are twins, almost ex aequo. There the human couple is, master of itself, passionately united, as though a god and his goddess consort, king and queen of the earth and the universe. They are their own truth, destiny, happiness… Why, in the name of whom, of what must the man of Vatican II bow before God who declares Himself his Master? Out of fear of Hell? Hell does not exist! And Heaven? We will live our Heaven on earth and it is already off to a good start. But what of God’s punishments? They do not exist; they never did exist, except in sick minds. God is good; He is Almighty. He made man holy and happy; so, despite the “blunders” of the immense system of the world, nothing can stand in the way of man seeking his happiness and finding it in the various modes of thinking, loving, feeling and then living. After all, why not?

Yes, but provided that you pass over in silence the temptation of the Devil (Gn 3:1-5), and the punishment incurred for having succumbed to it (Gn 3:16-19).

2° The first truth is that God is Creator and Father of the first man, Adam. And the first woman, Eve, as it were, did not spring up out of nothing, but was formed from the body of the first man and from the breath of God the Creator. It follows from this that in Paradise, Adam and Eve were subject to their very beloved Heavenly Father, and unconditionally placed their happiness in this love and this obedience. It is true that in that time they had no idea of happiness, desires, or pleasures other than in accordance with the happy inclinations that their Father had formed in them. It did not last. Thus, no one is excusable for persuading the human race that it is divine, that a lone law determines its conduct, the law of its infinite freedom, and, in consequence, the law of its various loves, which reflect the thousand pretentions of its self-love.

Why did the Council’s theologians and moralists lie by omission, by quoting with such enthusiasm the divine laws handed down in the Garden of Eden? Why did they not speak at all about the new set of laws handed down the day after the fall, outside of Paradise, now lost? That was when man and woman are no longer “one” other than according to the flesh, when they were set one against the other, but in order to serve God’s views of justice and mercy.

Read the third chapter of Genesis. See how, once Paradise was lost, our first parents left to their own devices far from it, were torn between their flesh and their spirit, between one and the other, and abandoned to their ignorance and weakness in a hostile, ungrateful world, they are no longer king and queen of the universe and never will be again. This « valley of tears » must be the field of another trial, that of surviving in it and seeking the friendship of their God in order to merit to be saved, and to “escape”, to go to Heaven.

3° Thus, when the punishment due to original sin is left aside, our so-called Catholic morality leaves us in the euphoria of the Garden of Eden to be regained by our own efforts, under the pretext that Christ came, redeemed us, and amply put the situation right. By His death He rehabilitated us, brought us back to life. As “sons of God”, each and every one of us, we will no longer experience death.

As proof of this extraordinary restoration of the royal dignity of the sons of Adam, the daughters of Eve, our chapter exploits the great lesson of St. Paul to the Ephesians, on marriage viewed in this perspective (cf. 48, 2). Their natural love was first celebrated unrestrainedly (47; 48, 1), and was said to be « welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love », to be « abundantly blessed by Christ the Lord » and, something incredible, « structured on the model of His union with His Church ». We are amazed… Then, having said this, passing without any transition from natural love to the Sacrament of conjugal love, the Council shows the spouses going, in a gracious and rapid flight, to the « perfection of their own personalities » and their « mutual sanctification », like a new Adam and his new Eve in a regained Garden of Eden, having « found a readier path to salvation and holiness » (48, 3).

It is true that two words in passing indicate the manner in which the divine Bridegroom loves His mystical spouse, the Church… « He handed Himself over on her behalf » (Ep 5:25). We regret that the pressing invitation made to women to be submissive to their husbands (5:21-22; and numerous parallel passages…) and to husbands to love their spouses and be devoted to them, are absent from this chapter. Not only would they have served to bring us out of this banality, which exhausts the reader’s patience, but because this exhortation is rich with a central biblical theme that the Apostle expounded in an incisive, even polemical, manner in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11. He enters straightaway into the fray:

« I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ… Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man… Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. » (verses 3-12)

Our female contemporaries have been affected by feminist propaganda, and our male contemporaries are won over by their entreaties and enter into a rage at the unbearable reading of such teachings, which nevertheless are biblical and traditional. The “war of the sexes” must have already been raging in Corinth, because the Apostle ends with the egalitarian conclusion that we have just read: woman comes from man… but man is born of woman! – then he cuts short:

« But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God ». To be specific, women should, as in the past, cover their head with a veil to pray and even to prophesise…

But here is a short digression that will explain the importance that is given to this question: it is in no way a matter of misogyny or of feminism, and I foresee that the one who thought he would take is himself taken.

In 1974, I preached retreats to a group of very, very integrist French Canadians. One fine day, several women rose up against me, accusing me of misogyny; they were feminist and no longer wanted to listen to me. Astounded, I explained that their feminism was a grave heresy, and the recriminations were violent. I gloss over the details of this “war of the sexes”, in order to speak only about the evolution, in twenty years of annual return trips to Canada. It is very convincing. The staunch feminists passed over to the enemy.

The holy women agreed to explain themselves and to listen to me. It is simple: they revealed to me what their fine patriarchal tradition, under various harmful influences covered, namely abuse of authority – some grotesque, others criminal –, the man behaving like a god, a tyrant… and permitting himself every kind of violation of God’s law. The exasperated women, slaves, exhausted, begging mercy, took advantage of a leftist feminism to attempt to loosen their bonds and those of their children.

I applied myself to inculcating or reawakening in them the sacred sense of obedience shown to the point of heroism in sacrifice, hidden to all but blessed by God… It was a hard lesson, but one that these courageous women thanked me for having taken so much time and trouble to explain to them. Many of them told me about the consequences: this preaching alone had turned them away from imminent divorce, and they had changed their mentality so much that they had rediscovered the joy of the obscure sacrifice to which their condition destined them.

In parallel to these conversions of women, the spiritual direction of the men took a turn all the more confident because their spouses manifested better feelings towards them. The admitted to me that, in the Province, it was certain that the father in a family willingly takes himself for a patriarch and tended to have as much authority as the parish priest, who in those days was surrounded with a veneration like Moses on Mount Sinai giving his law. These men began to laugh among themselves about certain abuses that they were used to, since they had seen them practiced by their fathers… and suffered from them before making their wives and children suffer from themselves today.

Now, here is, straight out, my discovery.

A certain year full of unrest I had to find the solution between the “male chauvinism” that Élisabeth Badinter denounced, and the patriarchal traditions of the “belle Province”: as long as the authority of the father was founded on the Catholic Faith, and the head of the family bowed before the parish priest (confessor of the entire family!) out of respect for the man of God, the evil was bearable. It would have been revolutionary to take the occasion to destroy this sacred institution. But, without it being apparent, during the famous secularisation of the country that was nicely called “the Quiet Revolution” of the sixties, atheism, discrediting of religion, immorality held sway and blighted first the men. Young men married and profited from the tradition, fully aware of this unworthy transfer, in order to establish themselves as impious despots… When the limit was reached, spouses and daughters found in feminism the bad revolutionary song; as for boys, even before being of age, they soon gave free rein to their passions.

This is my experience, and here is why I set it against the nice idealised image that the Council paints of conjugal love, figure of the love of Christ and the Church: Adam is the biblical model of man who turns away from God, his Father and Patriarch. Eve, who sinned first, no longer tolerated Adam’s domination, and still less that of God, who was understandably offended… When Christ came into this world, He is of course the New Adam…, but He is humble, submissive to God His Father and carries out all His crucifying will… in order to teach us the new law of sacrifice even unto death here below, in order to experience the glory of the resurrection in the beyond.

To serve such an Adam, a woman, daughter of Eve but also daughter of Mary, will put all her courage, all her devotion, all her obedience, which will convey her fidelity to God, in Christ, through her submission as Christian spouse and mother to her spouse, who is the image of Christ. But between the sin of Adam and the holiness of Jesus, and the crucified Jesus, there are all sorts of degrees, and considered in this way, conjugal love “is not that easy!”

The Council tells us that love between man and woman is bliss, and even when no God is invoked or even looming on the horizon. After a due hearing of both sides, I dare to claim that this duality of principles: masculine, feminine (the “masculinity”, the “femininity” of Wojtylian anthroposophy) is a hell here below, which announces a worse one, the lowest. It is the Trinity alone that authorises hope based on the happiness of the spouses on earth and hope for heavenly beatitude, because the love of the heavenly Father goes to His Son Jesus and, through sacramental grace, to the men who attach themselves to Christ in order to be for Him « another humanity », a disciple, a brother; thus a figure of God’s countenance. How could his spouse not love him, as the Blessed Virgin loved St. Joseph Her spouse, in this Holy Family (which the Council has ignored) and how between them can they not get along with each other under the watch of their heavenly Father and in accordance with His law?

Abbé Georges de Nantes


Summary	Previous Article	Next Article


		Neither schism nor heresy	Ours is the true

Our Lady of Fatima Camp 2007 THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD (4)

GAUDIUM ET SPES (7 décembre 1965)