Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes	N° 76 – January 2009

Our Lady of Fatima Camp 2007
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
IN THE MODERN WORLD (5)

GAUDIUM ET SPES
(7 décembre 1965)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES

CHAPTER II: THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE
DE CULTURÆ PROGRESSU RITE PROMOVENDO

For once, I went prospecting; I visited the terrain in order to locate the veins of precious metal, fields of rare gems, or the nuggets that are swept along by a torrent and mixed in the sand. In short, surprised by the small amount of religion in this Pastoral Constitution, in contrast with the enormous place that worldly, mundane, carnal things hold, I wanted to see if this chapter would rectify my depressing impression. It is more than a confirmation… I would call it an extreme unction! Only one or two passages can be found dealing with our holy religion, and one or two scattered words per page. On the other hand, atheistic culture fills dense pages with abundant scientific vocabulary and explanations, which are devoid of interest for us, but for which the Council seems bubbling with enthusiasm. It is astounding.

INTRODUCTION.

53. § 1. « Man comes to a true and full humanity only through culture, that is through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. Wherever human life is involved, therefore, nature and culture are quite intimately connected one with the other. »

From the outset, as we have become accustomed to it, there is an untruth, an insult to God, a veritable blasphemy. It is a challenge to the Church, a war declared on Christianity. What they call « culture », an anthropocentric word, not to say a self-centred one; what we call “civilisation” has a contemplative, speculative, beneficial value for society only by virtue of its revealed sources and Christian roots. Our civilisation, our culture owe all they are to Catholic, supernatural life, way, and truth. That is our standpoint? Admit that it should be that of a Council, or else…?

§ 2. « The word “culture” in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labour, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences (?) and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family. »

You are going to say that I am putting words in their mouth, for are not the extraordinary feats of Catholic mystics counted among these « great spiritual experiences »? Undoubtedly, but what is indubitable here is that culture hones, develops, and brings the universe under subjection. It is culture that humanises; in short it is under its flag that all the acquisitions, treasures and goods of mankind are gathered. The Catholic world indulges in a “cultual” life; the Council turns its back on it in order to flee from the divine mysteries, and relax in the goods and pleasures that nature offers to it: « But Nature is there. It adores and loves you. Plunge yourself into its bosom that it always opens to you. »

§ 3. « Thence it follows that human culture has necessarily a historical and “social” aspect and the word “culture” also often assumes a sociological and ethnological sense. According to this sense we speak of a plurality of cultures. Different styles of life and multiple scales of values arise from the diverse manner of using things, of labouring, of expressing oneself, of practicing religion, of forming customs, of establishing laws and juridic institutions of cultivating the sciences, the arts and beauty (look at their loquacity in these realms and at their obvious enthusiasm!). »

« Thus the customs handed down to it form the patrimony proper to each human community. It is also in this way that there is formed (all this is formed by itself, it was born of original nature and history, it is sacred! The Council gives its devotions to the “good savage” whom the eighteenth century has so much extolled in order better to guillotine all the devotees of our Christianity, and substitute for all this a modern culture that assumes everything in its great concrete museum) the definite, historical milieu which enfolds the man of every nation (ah!) and age and from which he draws the values which permit him to promote civilisation. »

There you have it! Man was born free, yes! but embedded in his original culture, which curiously finds favour with our modern liberals under the name of « patrimony », which ennobles the matter right away.

Having been elbowed aside, religion has fallen by the wayside: cultures take up all the room; the voyage will be a perpetual feast of mankind.

SECTION 1
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CULTURE IN THE WORLD TODAY

NEW LIFESTYLES.

54. « The circumstances of the life of modern man have been so profoundly changed (By whom? By what? Why? How? It makes no difference.) in their social and cultural aspects, that we can speak of a new age of human history. New ways are open, therefore, for the perfection and the further extension of culture. » There it is, in a word! One single word! Culture is rid of our dear, incomparable Christian, European, classic past… « These ways have been prepared by the enormous growth (do you suddenly feel the enthusiasm, the fresh style, the precise terminology, as well as its poetry?) of natural, human and social (social, above all!) sciences, by technical progress, and advances in developing and organising means whereby men can communicate with one another. »

We feel like children who are reading Jules Verne or “Tintin: Explorers on the Moon”…

« Hence the culture of today possesses particular characteristics: sciences which are called “exact” greatly develop critical judgement (this is very important, very interesting for “culture”!); the more recent psychological studies more profoundly explain human activity (?!); historical studies make it much easier to see things in their mutable and evolutionary aspects, customs and usages are becoming more and more uniform (except in Nouméa where tradition is sacred! It is called Kanak “custom”:hands off!); industrialisation, urbanisation, and other causes which promote (?) community living create new forms of culture (mass-culture, thank you!) from which are born new ways of thinking, acting and making use of leisure. »

They have spoken about « creation ». It is true, but you have noticed that it is things, the evolution of things that « create » and not human beings (or God, and fortunately He is not declared responsible for it... not yet! as long as it works and grants leisure!); human beings, on the contrary, are stirred up by these things. The result comes not from what they choose, from what they prefer, but from the momentum of things: it is « new ways of thinking, acting and making use of leisure » – no one may criticise them; he may only admire them. The Council stands gaping in admiration to such an extent that it does not notice that during the handling of this, religion vanished!

« The increase of commerce between the various nations and human groups opens more widely to all (!) the treasures of different civilisations and thus little by little, there develops a more universal form of human culture, which better promotes and expresses the unity of the human race to the degree that it preserves the particular aspects of the different civilisations. »

Re-read it all at a single sitting, with my little incisive parentheses, and you will notice that the Council marvels at all the cultures of the developing nations; it is their patrimony that must be respected! It also marvels at modern, universal, standardised culture and is persuaded that the latter, while crushing all of ancient civilisation, will be able to save all the folklores, including religious folklores. This is obviously because of their value as witnesses of dying religions and civilisations. I bet that the Council will ask for the allocation of a stand in order to display our folklore that is so rich and of such high touristic value.

In a decontamination session, I read Bossuet between two pages of Gaudium et spes. By chance, I came across this passage today:

« I foresee that intelligent, strong-minded men may be discredited, not for any loathing for their feelings but because everything will be regarded as a matter of indifference, except pleasure and business. » (Œuvres, 1846, Vol. 3, p. 81)

It is pleasure that openly rules culture and business that secretly creates it. So, what place is left for religion, for our holy Catholic religion?

MAN, PROMOTER OF CULTURE.

55. « From day to day, in every group or nation, there is an increase in the number of men and women who are conscious that they themselves are the authors and the artisans of the culture of their community (do not forget the title of this chapter: “The proper development of culture”, so manufacturers of cultural objects abound). Throughout the whole world (it has a broad back) there is a mounting increase in the sense of autonomy as well as of responsibility. Undoubtedly (we may quite rightly have serious doubts about this), this is of paramount importance for the spiritual and moral maturity of the human race… »

The orator undoubtedly falls asleep while speaking because the speech turns into meaningless grandiloquence: « This becomes more clear if we consider the unification of the world and the duty which is imposed upon us (who are “us”?), that we build a better world based upon truth and justice. » One period leads to another even more grandiose. « Thus we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to history. »

At the Chamber of Deputies, it would be perfectly funny, as whenever the orator paused to take a breath, Daudet shouted out: « Of course, my little bunny! » But in the conciliar aula, what a cause for sorrow!

DIFFICULTIES AND DUTIES.

Suddenly, he wakes up and draws up a list of questions and answers, which are less woolly:

56. § 1. « In these conditions, it is no cause of wonder that man, who senses his responsibility for the progress of culture, nourishes a high hope but also looks with anxiety upon many antinomies which he must resolve. »

First, how many people are aware of what « antinomies » are? Let us bet one out of hundred in France and one out of ten thousand in the whole world. And now, what « antinomies » must be resolved? You would not have guessed, nor would I; moreover, you and I could not care less. “It’s not our problem”. So, let us see what man is allergic to; what are these anti… – anti…what? – « antinomies » that worry him so?

§ 2. « What is to be done to prevent the increased exchanges between cultures, which should lead to a true and fruitful dialogue between groups and nations, from disturbing the life of communities, from destroying the wisdom received from ancestors, or from placing in danger the character proper to each people? »

A child would answer: “I know Sir! A division…”, and an old Gentleman would mutter into his beard: “Since we have to settle the problem, let us do a subtraction! That would fix the problem!”

§ 3. « How is the dynamism and expansion of a new culture (maize, chicory, or soya?) to be fostered without losing a living fidelity to the heritage of tradition. This question is (for no one asks this question?) of particular urgency when a culture which arises from the enormous progress of science and technology must be harmonised with a culture nourished by classical studies according to various traditions. »

Anyway, the men of the Church who offer to enlighten the whole world about these « antinomies », and thus to quell the « anxieties » of man by their liberating answers, are not asked to meddle in other people’s affairs, since by definition culture is intended for the pleasures of the consumer and the enrichment of distributors! So, we are not on peaceful, honest home ground.

Nevertheless, I will make another remark before automatically and needlessly reeling off the following questions: how can the Council refer to all these manufacturers, sellers, consumers of cultural means as though they were a world of normal people, people who attend to the development of commerce and of professional or leisure activities, people very motivated by a lofty ideal!! Do the Fathers of the Council really realise just what businessmen and crooks they hand their hundreds of millions of Catholics over to by this improper praise for « the expansion of a new culture » and their call for all these innocents to get involved in it as much as possible! What we should care about, be fed on, elated with is what relates to the “cultual” with a view to our eternal salvation, and not with this “culture”, which is the most important ministry in the governing of the world by Satan, who is its Prince. From reading what you wrote, it does not look like that.

§ 4. « How can we quickly and progressively harmonise the proliferation of particular branches of study with the necessity of forming a synthesis of them, and of preserving among men the faculties of contemplation and observation which lead to wisdom? »

It is of utmost interest for the greatest professors and moralists. What is the use of involving an ecumenical Council and its hundreds of millions of faithful in it? If the question interests the Pope, he can propose it to his Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is looking for work. Anyway, for thirty years, all this string of questions has apparently moved no one.

§ 5. « What can be done to make all men partakers of cultural values in the world, when the human culture of those who are more competent is constantly becoming more refined and more complex? »

The answer is simple, divided in two parts, neither of which would suit the Council: the first answer is that it would first be necessary to prevent the horrible damage caused by a culture that the Church herself proclaims autonomous, in order to prevent it from corrupting both the masses and this elite, of which the Council has an idealised picture. Now, this first reaction can and must come only from « the Church and the State in happy concert », through the force of laws and the fear of spiritual sanctions.

The second answer is that so many openly Catholic associations should be restored in Church and society. Then, one should induce them to create new means of diffusing Catholic culture as well as Christian civilisation, in order to mark all activities, even leisure activities, with all the virtues and perfections of divinely assisted things.

§ 6. « Finally how is the autonomy which culture claims (as though culture is able to claim something! autonomy!) for itself to be recognised as legitimate without generating a notion of humanism which is purely (impurely) terrestrial, and even contrary to religion itself! »

Well, my Fathers, do you give up? It is very simple! By refusing this autonomy to the manufacturers, sellers and depraved people, who demand it, they indeed assume the label “the world of culture”. As soon as they are left to “their pleasure and their business”, as Bossuet used to notice, they soon are nothing other than the world of lust, money, and blasphemy. To think that this must be repeated to a Council!

§ 7. « In the midst of these conflicting requirements (in the melting pot of these abstractions), human culture must (no duty, no necessity leads it!) evolve today (it kills souls and rots flesh, what fine progress!) in such a way that it can both develop the whole human person (by speaking to him in this way, the Council repeats the kind words of the Serpent to Eve, our cruel mother) and aid man (so much for Adam’s sons) in those duties to whose fulfillment all are called, especially Christians (they are especially pampered by the Tempter in order to foil their Saviour) fraternally united (“men” and “Christians”) in one human family ». The Council is thus very eager to see them go to Hell together. You would think that the Council has somewhat left this « family of God’s children » behind at the cinema, at cultural places. It dreamt out loud that it would bring every man into this family. Would it finally be the same, inseparable family, to go to Heaven as well as to Hell? By means of the cultual and the cultural? No. The roads are poles apart. One has to choose…

SECTION 2
SOME PRINCIPLES FOR THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE

FAITH AND CULTURE.

As usual, the Council has exhausted the subject in a totally natural, secular, human way and, in the end, without ever encountering a religious obstacle or help that reminds us that God exists, that Jesus Christ said He is « the Way, the Truth, the Life ». Nor are we reminded that there are not two separate spheres, “the world”, which we study in itself, for itself and seen by itself – with what self-satisfaction –, and then “Christians”, who make us wonder what they are doing there amidst a world that is not theirs.

Then, are you surprised that the Church has nothing « to contribute » to this self-sufficient world? Are you surprised that “Christians” feel so ill at ease there? When they follow the advice they are given, when they venture into the world, some come back disgusted by it, and others are lost and will never return from it! Let us see just how the Council felt about this « problem »:

Ah! Here is another excellent example of « yes, but … » reasoning.

57. § 1. « Christians, on pilgrimage toward the heavenly city (it is so unusual for the Council to make the slightest allusion to it, that we are happy, but let us be wary), should seek and think of these things which are above (cf. Col 3:1-2)and yet, this duty in no way decreases, rather it increases, the importance of their obligation (sic) to work with all men in the building of a “more human” world. »

It used to be God’s commandments and the Church’s commandments; they seem very, very attenuated, eclipsed by others that are more important: the commandments of the Council. Yes one must be on pilgrimage toward the heavenly city, « and yet », « rather », must the « importance of their obligation » be underscored? It is an invention of the Council that shows its unreality in what follows: « to work with all men in the building » of we know not what, while men make war and destroy the world; then, how can one work at building with all these destroyers… In short, the case is closed. Jesus said: « Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. », and to this end, stay at home! Instead of which the Council makes us build – who knows where? – a « world » of justice that has yet to be born among people who sit around idly. It is unrealistic. The Council, however, insists that Christians do their share:

« Indeed, the mystery of the Christian Faith (this is a grand and beautiful word written on a magnificent jewel-case that passes before our eyes without being opened) furnishes them with an excellent stimulant and aid (they are in the closed box) to fulfill this duty more courageously (see how this style full of great and lively words is young and enthusiastic) and especially (!) to uncover the full meaning of this activity, one which gives to human culture its eminent (obviously) place in the integral (obviously) vocation of man. »

Relationships between faith and culture are stated in brilliant but incomprehensible terms. Is it allowed to talk gibberish when one has nothing to hide? Let us see the detailed analysis:

§ 2. « When man develops the earth by the work of his hands (honestly, spades have existed for thousands of years!) or with the aid of technology (vel ope technicarum artium. Why not speak of machines!), in order that it might bear fruit and become a dwelling worthy of the whole human family (Anatole, you must plan things on a grand scale! You have many people to accommodate!) and when he consciously (!) takes part in the life of social groups, he (just imagine my Anatole in order to understand the ridiculous side of it) carries out the design of God manifested at the beginning of time, that he should subdue the earth (Anatole?), perfect creation (Anatole!) and develop himself (with his hands, poor, poor Anatole!)… »

Honestly, it is criminal because it is false. I have already said it in the previous chapter, and I will repeat it: « the design of God » has changed for around 40,000 - 50,000 years and the Council was unaware of it? The design that so much rouses the Council’s enthusiasm was good for Adam and Eve, who were God’s son and daughter, who were crowned king and queen of the earth, and to whom all felicity, all glory were promised. But after having abhorred their sin, God pardoned them and conceived another design in which Adam and Eve, more modestly, would be God’s very obedient servants and, like all of us, live as prodigal children. They would guard the pigs, gradually mend their ways, and improve, in expectation of salvation in Christ, the lone true King of earth and in His Virgin Mother, our Queen, until at last they would go and savour happiness in Paradise regained. This will not happen on this earth but in the heavenly city that our text has just mentioned, not with the intention of drawing us to it but, on the contrary, to bring us back to the earthly city of tomorrow.

« At the same time he obeys the commandment of Christ that he places himself at the service of his brethren. »

Stuff and nonsense: culture, creation, building a fairer world is something mythical, Gnostic, and abstract. It throws Anatole into a panic, and I can understand him. It is a heresy that looks to me as if it were a serpent’s temptation to the proud man. One ought not write « at the same time » but « on the other hand » – the man who accomplishes his simple duty of state and supports the trials of his condition that match his capabilities, will correctly fulfil a minor role. By practicing simple charity towards his close relations, he will more surely go to Heaven than by giving speeches that are the product of degenerated reveries.

§ 3. « Furthermore, when man gives himself to the various disciplines of philosophy, history and of mathematical and natural science (you see this enthusiastic fervour!), and when he cultivates the arts, he can do very much (this flattering word is for reawakening pride) to elevate the human family to a more sublime understanding (don’t spare the horses, to glory!) of truth, goodness, and beauty, and to the formation of considered opinions which have universal value… »

All the saints have adopted a reverse view: Vanitas, this is all but vanity! præter amare Jesum Christum et illi soli servire! And here, it completely vanishes into the proposed project of cultural life! But in order to vouch for his monstrous error, the cunning author quotes the passages from Holy Scripture that celebrate the riches of intelligence and of all virtues that Wisdom, which is here compared to modern culture, brings to its faithful friend:

« Thus mankind may be more clearly enlightened by that marvellous Wisdom which was with God from all eternity, composing all things with him, rejoicing in the earth, delighting in the sons of men (cf. Pr 8:30-31). »

Obviously, this biblical reminiscence is a brainwave! It, however, suffices to read more extensively these well-known chapters 1 to 8 of Proverbs, and further on, the Book of Wisdom and the sapiential books as a whole, and to re-read what we have just commented on from this chapter of Gaudium et Spes concerning « the proper development of culture » for the difference, or rather the contradiction between these two worlds to become evident: the world of « culture », such as the Council exalts it to elevate Man, its idol (re-read the first part of its paragraph 3!) and that of biblical « Wisdom », which condemns the pride of fools and extols divine Wisdom as surpassing all natural science. The wise man and his disciple receive Wisdom from Above, as a grace rewarding for their humility.

Read this one verse and the Jerusalem Bible’s note that will exonerate me of every accusation: « The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise (Pr 1:7). » Here is the Jerusalem Bible’s commentary: « “Fear of Yahweh” in the Bible is approximately what we refer to as religion or piety towards God. The wisdom that comes from it is fundamentally religious. » There are an abundance of references, among which we read this one: « The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Yahweh, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. » (Pr 9:10: here “Holy One” designates God Himself).

So, two avenues of reflection open to us. The first concerns the development of the sciences, principally in our Christian West, which progressed concurrently with the development of theology, morality and Christian life, all good coming from God. The sciences took great leaps forward in the discovery (and not the « invention », even less the « creation ») of the marvels of Nature that existed tens of thousands of years prior, and as many light years away. Thus, as far as the sciences go, God does not need anyone’s advice, not even from the heteroclite group of Nobel Prize winners.

But the second avenue, police or inquisitorial, one might say, would be to try to discover by what mystery (of darkness), sciences, techniques and arts have fallen into the hands of enemies of God, Christ, and His Church. They have taken advantage of them – as though it was their merit! – in order to set « the science that comes from man » against « that which comes from God », almost two thousand years after St. Paul. He had already contrasted these two sciences, but contrary to the godless, one as « foolishness in the eyes of God », the very one that intoxicates the Council and that it wants to impose on us to adore, and the other that is« foolishness in the eyes of men », but « wisdom of God » (1 Co 1:17 – 2:16).

Once again, the Council is in contradiction with our Catholic Tradition and finds itself in the opposite camp. In order to escape criticism, it does not fear abusing Holy Scriptures by means of a huge falsification. Suddenly, I think of the Epistle of St. James, in chapters that the Council totally ignores. As he contrasts the two wisdoms, « the Wisdom from above » and the other « that does not come down from above but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic » (Jm 3:15), he exclaims: « Adulterers! Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a lover of the world makes himself an enemy of God ». I do not quote the rest of the sentence lest I should arouse the incomprehension and fury of those who commit « adulteries » (Jm 4:4-5, read the note of the Jerusalem Bible).

The conciliar speech has been launched and continues on its path… into interstellar space… « They are waterless clouds blown about by winds, fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead and uprooted. They are like wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameless deeds, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever. » (Jude 12-13) This text, which was aimed at the Gnostics who were invading the Christian community of Jerusalem as early as the 60-70’s, is unfamiliar to the Council.

§ 4. « In this way (of“the proper development of culture”), the human spirit, being less subjected to material things (supposing that our machines, computers, and gadgets are more than material things…, that they are angels!), can be more easily drawn to the worship and contemplation of the Creator (what cheek!). Moreover, by the impulse of grace (which the Council accustoms us to conceiving as a dew uniformly spread on all creatures), he is disposed to acknowledge the Word of God, who before He became flesh in order to save all and to sum up all in Himself (it is another bout of brainwashing to announce unrestricted salvation, salvation already achieved and granted to everyone and everything in the final apotheosis of human culture) was already “in the world” as “the true light which enlightens every man” (Jn 1:9-10). »

The lie is enormous, enormous! the text has been furtively pruned down, for it is written: « The Word, the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through Him, but the world did not know Him. He came to what was His own, but His own people did not accept Him. » (1:9-11)

§ 5. « Indeed today’s progress in science and technology can foster a certain exclusive emphasis on observable data, and an agnosticism (see how their holy humility makes them recognise that they have simplified this ever so complex matter, by stressing, it is true, its “contemplative” aspect. They, however, are aware of what is negative and go so far as to explain its causes!) about everything else. For the methods of investigation which these sciences use can be wrongly considered (see how firm the Council is!) as the supreme rule of seeking the whole truth. By virtue of their methods (a strange “virtue”) these sciences cannot penetrate to the intimate notion of things… (it is a woolly way out that bogs us down). »

This is a firm denunciation of scientism, positivism and pseudo-scientific rationalism. So, what is my complaint? It is that the manoeuvre is cleverly conducted, and that the Council is even going to imagine the worst, which does probably not exist but would be serious, in order to soothe us totally:

« Indeed (the Council goes further than our critiques) the danger (that could appear one day!) is present that man, confiding too much in the discoveries of today, may think that he is sufficient unto himself and no longer seek the higher things. » (Applause from all the benches from the extreme left to the right, excluding anyone with a doctrine like Mgr Freppel.)

Now, re-read it; they are lying about the affinity of modern culture with religion. The glaring fact is that modern culture systematically and passionately abhors the Catholic religion because modern culture is under the control of money, politics and lust. This solid fact has been changed in the course of this serpentine retraction into an intellectual disorder that is not very widespread and owing to observable data and agnosticism; both theories have their part of truth and their autonomy… As for the frenzied anticlericalism and anti-Christianity of the great masters of this whole empire called “culture”, the Council denies their reality. To be entitled to deny them, it condemns this state of mind as a risk, a temptation, a possibility that does not exist, any more than the sun at high noon.

You will tell me: « Your proof leave us in a lurch: granted, the “yes, indeed...” is well expressed. But we have not seen the counter-offensive to regain the lost positions… » While saying the same thing to myself, I thought that it would perhaps be the object of the next paragraph. What a confirmation it would be of my criticism if it were capable of foretelling to such an extent. Well!...

§ 6. « Those unfortunate results, however (ah! ah! so you are going back?), do not necessarily follow from the culture of today, » Ah! I told you so! They never retract their statements because they are bound by their sect to applaud and support on all fronts Satan’s henchmen, his pomps, and his works… for whom “culture” is a goddess.

Thus, here it is (exculpated): « nor should they (« those results ») lead us into the temptation (!) of not acknowledging its positive values... »

All the lost positions have been regained and even improved. After so many negative criticisms, it is fair to heap praise on the outraged goddess! The Council’s lyricism reappears after this red alert!

« … Among these values are included: scientific study (of course, my little bunny!) and fidelity toward truth in scientific inquiries, the necessity of working together with others in technical groups (of course, my little bunny!), a sense of international solidarity (yeah!), a clearer awareness of the responsibility of experts to aid and even to protect men (yeah!), the desire to make the conditions of life more favourable for all, especially for those who are poor in culture (the great tragedy!) or who are deprived of the opportunity to exercise responsibility (an even greater tragedy). »

So, you see, when hundreds of thousands of scientists, thinkers, artists, who form an elite and already constitute a closely-knit team, put all their energies, their scientific research at the service of man in so many realms, it is not the time for parish priests and nuns to quibble with them because they do not go to Mass! « We, the Council, can understand them; we support them, and dare say to them: “You are God’s sons, Christ’s faithful, and the saints of the modern world. Come now, have no fear, the Spirit is guiding you in this cultural construction; leave the people who are behind the times to their cultual edification that no longer harms anyone.” » But read for yourself what follows, which I am going to discover with you:

« All of these provide some preparation for the acceptance of the message of the Gospel a preparation which can be animated by divine charity through Him who has come to save the world (of course, my little bunny!). »

MANY TIES BETWEEN THE GOOD NEWS OF CHRIST AND CULTURE.

Religion proposes Christ’s Good News to culture, but, given that « culture » is by definition an autonomous value, an enrichment of man by man and intended for man, the Good News is therefore transposed from the religious sphere to the humanist and personalistic sphere of the cult of self. Consequently, it is the offer of a Christianity bereft of religion, dogmas, morality, worship. Whatever can it be? Nothing! Here is proof:

58. § 1. « There are many ties between the message of salvation and human culture. For God (here is the solemn tone), revealing Himself to His people to the extent of a full manifestation of Himself in His Incarnate Son, has spoken according to the culture proper to each epoch. »

Off you go! There is no longer talk of God or of His Incarnate Son, but of contemporary cultures proper to (sacred) events. As is the case everywhere, cathedral guides give visitors architecture courses but say not one word as regards the beings who constructed the monuments, their spiritual life, nothing! Such is the “archiculture” offered by the Church. Once the principle is laid down, what follows will undoubtedly consist of mere variations on this “new secularism” that characterises the Church put in service of universal human culture.

§ 2. « Likewise the Church, living in various circumstances in the course of time, has used the discoveries of different cultures so that in her preaching she might spread and explain the message of Christ to all nations, that she might examine it and more deeply understand it, that she might give it better expression in liturgical celebration and in the varied life of the community of the faithful. »

This repeats what has been said previously: we do not even know what this gift that we have received contains, but its wrapping paper catches our full attention… There would be much to say about the way Christian “researchers” have asked Jews, on the one hand, and Arabs, on the other, concerning the cultural conditions affecting the development of our various religions. There would be much, too, to say about how they have lost their ways in all the snares of the ones and the others, who, for their part, were busy investing their beliefs with value but without any concern for folklore…

§ 3. « But at the same time, the Church, sent to all peoples of every time and place, is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, any particular way of life or any customary way of life recent or ancient. »

Do you feel this febrile impatience, not to convert peoples, nations, continents to Christ, but to experience the exhilaration of exotic novelty when she will still be able to espouse totally different customs like those of the Chinese or the Singhalese. It is the thrill of delocalisation. Then, she assures the others, namely the desirable distant lands (!) that she is not at all tied up by her former loves… the Prophet Jeremiah, who is the most topical of all, comes back to mind: « A frenzied she-camel, coursing near and far, breaking away toward the desert, snuffing the wind in her ardour – who can restrain her lust? » (Jr 2: 23-24, 25!)

One does not become a missionary to light and smoke the peace pipe on the reservations of the Far West or at Assisi, nor to wear a kimono at Yokohama…

« Faithful to her own tradition (I have doubts about that!) and at the same time conscious of her universal mission, she can enter into communion… » What an obsession! The less they talk about sacramental Communion and the Communion of the Saints, which are supernatural realities, the more the Council adapts this word to fit any case so that it may be used in every exotic way imaginable…

So, the Church, yes! « … can enter into communion with the various civilisations, to their enrichment (don’t make me laugh!) and the enrichment of the Church herself (!) and for the various cultures » It is crazy. But as always, she drifts towards adultery such as it is described by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, St. Paul and… the anti-Freud.

It is all so crazy that a powerful antidote had to be demanded by the heroic opponents from the strong traditionalist minority, who were threatening to reject the text in the presence of the Pope when it would be submitted to the final vote. Thus, here we recall items of evidence that relate to the happy effects of our holy religion on morality, civilisation and, if you like, on “culture”… Then, here are just as well, alas, the so-called wonderful effects that the laicisation and secularisation of our post-conciliar missions will produce – without theological debates or uncalled-for zeal to convert peoples – on cultural exchanges that are interesting for both missionaries and natives who are called out in this way:

§ 4. « The Gospel of Christ constantly renews the life and culture of fallen man (provided, I suppose, that fallen man does not eat the White missionary), it combats and removes the errors and evils resulting from the permanent allurement of sin (provided that this Good News is not that of the Council and of post-conciliar Popes who are eager to see the Church getting on, hitting it off with the world, and espousing it). It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples (it just is not true; she has given up that work for another, the very name of which respectable women are unaware). By riches coming from above (it would behove a Council to use more specific words: about what are you talking? about the Eucharist, for example, or about Zen?), it makes fruitful, as it were from within, the spiritual qualities and traditions of every people and of every age (why do you not dare to unveil your thought? Go on, say it: and of every religion!). It strengthens, perfects and restores them in Christ (the reference to Ep 1.10 does not reassure me at all; my yes-or-no question will be: does “in Christ” mean “in the Catholic Church”, or “in the cosmic Christ” who sends His Spirit everywhere He wants irrespective of sex, frontiers, race… and religion?). »

« Thus the Church, in the very fulfillment of her own function (let us hope so! for if she neglects it, whatever she may do elsewhere will only be detestable), already at the same time stimulates and advances human and civic culture(ah, well! I understand! If the Church fulfils her duties, you do not need to add either « already », « at the same time », or any other forms of assessment left to individual whims); by her action, also by her liturgy, she leads them toward interior liberty. »

I am flabbergasted! We had learnt in catechism that the purpose of religion was: to know, to love, to serve God as a Father and thus to achieve happiness in Heaven. We thought that that was all and that the rest would be given in addition, such as devotion to one’s homeland; from time to time, Mass was celebrated for France… Then, you ultimately learn that Religion must continue, that the Church must still « fulfil her own function » for the proper development of culture of the various peoples and Mass continue to be celebrated in order « to lead man toward interior liberty ».

TO HARMONISETHE VARIOUS VALUES AMONG CULTURES.

Imagine your reaction if I told you that this title is a literal quotation of Jesus’ Discourse to His Apostles at the Last Supper? « And He said to them: “Go and preach this Gospel to all peoples, and attend to harmonising the various values among cultures…” » I hope that you would at least ask me: « Where did you dig up that quotation? » I am sure, however, that knowing that I am a tease, you would understand straight away that it is a (bad) joke, intended to wake you up and give you the occasion to measure the madness that has taken possession of the Council and of all the thinking elites at the same time. This endemic, from a human viewpoint, does not seem any more curable than “mad cow disease”. What a job for a Council?! Let us see to our instruction…

59. § 1. « For the above reasons (!), the Church recalls to the mind of all that culture is to be subordinated to the integral perfection of the human person, to the good of the community (without wanting to refer to nations!) and of the whole society (it is of no relevance to the Church)… »

Here is another paragraph that gets off to a bad start. It is the beginning of a Masonic speech. Having said this, what follows?

« Therefore it is necessary to develop the human faculties in such a way that there results a growth of the faculty of admiration, of intuition, of contemplation, of making personal judgement, of developing a religious, moral and social sense. »

All this is pleasant chattering, and deliberate on the part of the Council in order to make reference once in a while to « religion », « morality », « contemplation » (of who knows what) – it is necessary, mind you; when religion is too neglected, customers demand it!

§ 2. « Culture, because it flows immediately from the spiritual and social character of man, has constant need of a just liberty (are there unjust liberties?) in order to develop; it needs also the legitimate possibility of exercising its autonomy (because there are illegitimate possibilities?) according to its own principles (to what does it refer? I do not know and could care less). It therefore rightly demands respect and enjoys a certain inviolability within the limits of the common good, as long, of course, as it preserves the rights of the individual and the community, whether particular or universal. »

Ouch! Here I admit that I had a distraction. I saw the examiner at the éna (École Nationale d’Administration: a competitive-entrance college training top civil servants) handing an examination back to a young lady, saying to her – because in my dream, it is this text that I saw over her shoulder: « Miss, for the first time in my career, I have given a mark of zero. I have never seen such a confusion of vocabulary, and overlapping ideas, such an absence of thought; it massacres the dignity of the great ideals of our Republic. One would think that it were an attack from a fascist candidate who had slipped into our ranks. I am making a report to the minister to obtain that you be definitively barred from candidature in any administrative office. That will be all, thank you! » In my dream, I applauded: « It serves you right, lady! » Then mumbling between my teeth: « Our fine Republic is destroying itself with its extravagances. »

When I think, however, that it is a conciliar text, which was promulgated « in the Holy Spirit », I tremble with shame. There is not an ounce of religion, of morality in this text, whose utter indifferentism is monstrous, do you not think so?

Is what will follow going to be better? The first words announce something more serious, but I suspect…

§ 3. « This Sacred Synod, therefore, recalling the teaching of the first Vatican Council, declares that there are “two orders of knowledge” which are distinct, namely faith and reason; and that the Church does not forbid that “the human arts and disciplines use their own principles and their proper method, each in its own domain”; therefore “acknowledging this just liberty”, this Sacred Synod affirms the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences (there are impressive references to Vatican I; it is serious). »

Skimming through the text, I had spotted two parallels between the dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council on reason and faith (chapter IV), and Vatican II, with a view, I thought, to having the second benefit from the authority of the first. The other parallel related to the two words: sciences and culture. I read exactly what I had suspected, namely that Vatican I has recognised the objective consistence of human reasoning, especially when it applies to the realm of the exact sciences. Faith cannot run counter to reason. It does not have the right to do so …

What if there is contradiction in such or such a case? There will be no need to despair of finally finding who is mistaken in his own reasoning – whether scientific or dogmatic – by speculating about the mysteries. Fine!

Incidentally, “ratione peccati”, the moralist, thus the Church, will have her say in certain scientific issues to avoid that the faithful be scandalised or led astray. Imagine a theory affirming that women have no soul! Quod inconveniens.

Vatican II said to itself: « Let us put science and culture together, and culture will share the same privilege that Vatican I recognised for sciences! » There is here an enormous sophism: science comes under the realm of culture. So, if science has had its autonomy of navigation recognised, culture shares in it also. I explained to budding philosophers: cabbages are vegetables, carrots as well; therefore carrots are cabbages since they are the same thing? Here, the aberration is enormous, as enormous as a Council!

It stands to reason that Faith, the true Catholic Faith, and the sciences, are objective knowledge that are subject to error, but rectifiable, since they are exclusively submitted to the Truth. The same does not apply to this muddle called “culture”, a conquest of the individual human being; governed by convictions, tastes, habits, it has fluctuating relationships with truth, good, values, desires, and subjective pleasures. It would be sheer anarchy to establish any community at all under this appealing principle of liberty of culture. On the other hand, it is the ideal of « associations » which, being formed from an artificial desire and not natural needs, can live off a society, as a parasite, until it disbands to the benefit of new utopias.

Add to this that cultural associations fanatically refuse that their moral conduct be controlled by ecclesiastical or civil authorities. The equation between the freedom of scientific research and of cultural creation is blatantly false. To say that « the Sacred Synod affirms the legitimate (legitimate!) autonomy of human culture » is an imposture, and to add: « and especially of the sciences » is an attempt to make up for what has been said so as not to see its idea come to nothing. This is to persist in one’s principal fault and return to the starting point, which was already right and which has been twisted by a sophism. The manoeuvre is unspeakable, unacceptable on the part of an ecumenical Council.

§ 4. « All this supposes that, within the limits of morality and the common utility (but how can it be so after such a declaration of autonomy, which has been made without reservation and references to any authorities, laws, sanctions that can give direction to the autonomists?), man can freely search for the truth, express his opinion and publish it; that he can practice any art he chooses (are we all going to be pensioners or multimillionaires?): that finally, he (man) can avail himself of true (sic) information concerning events of a public nature. »

§ 5. « As for public authority… » Notice that they are only mentioned in the last place, they who in our time intervene in all domains either directly, immediately through their own ministries or indirectly under the guise of “nationalised” enterprises, or invisibly through arbitrary grants of subsidies. They are all powerful, under whatever system of government, and in the name of whatever programme they used to conquer the government of the country. Moreover, whether totalitarian or democratic, they work hand in glove with the powers that be; on the latter depend the cultural activities that invade the life of all the citizens in such an exclusive way that nothing can limit their influence.

But, we have already pointed out that the Church’s new doctrine is personalist and globalist, which leads it to set the citizens and the elites against stable, organised, political communities, powerful for good more than evil. This they do in the name of freedom, of autonomy of persons and of their spontaneous associations and, beyond that, to the profit of the great international and already global organisations.

We have to admit the aberrant consequences of such an ecclesiastical policy. Because the Church’s distrust of all state power creates a malaise between these two powers which were associated in the past. The Church does not want to demand anything from the state, not even the indispensable protection for honourable activities, in particular Catholic works.

Furthermore, the absence of solidarity, of cooperation with temporal powers deprives the Church of the boldness required to intervene with the authority that comes from Our Lord Jesus Christ, against the errors and crimes of those in power. Consequently, any hint of superiority and oversight, of any sovereign intervention to condemn or support the action of the state and of the powers that are dependent on it, is missing. So much is it the case that the Church no longer has a hold on anything; she merely contents herself with written or spoken words that are swept away by the wind.

With a view to this, after the unreserved, unrestrained apology for “culture” by a Church that is its perpetual victim, greatly slandered, and, in any case, excluded, here the problem is dealt with in seven lines. I have not read it; I begin it with you:

« As for public authority, it is not its function to determine the character of the civilisation (hey! in Latin it is always a question of « cultus humani »), but rather to establish the conditions and to use the means which are capable of fostering the life of culture among an even within the minorities of a nation (the reference to John XXIII is once again taken from his ineffable Pacem in terris). »

You perhaps think that this attention given to minorities is like a discrete manner of pleading for the survival of Catholic “cultural” works? Never, ever! The Council would consider that it was failing in its impartiality if it were to mix the particular interest of the Church with its human and universal considerations. So, perhaps it refers to disadvantaged ethnic minorities or rather, as I imagine, immigrants on whom revolutionary political parties are counting to assure their continued presence in the machinery of state through all the election traps.

« It is necessary to do everything possible (whenever I come across this expression, and it is often – the Latin is strong: præprimis, above everything, even things of paramount importance –, I wonder: do they use this expression in order to defend religion or would they sell their souls to safeguard what they thus declare “not negotiable”?) to prevent culture from being turned away from its proper end and made to serve as an instrument of political or economic power. »

So, go hang, dear bishops, because this is exactly the enormous abuse of our republics and our dictatorships or empires for the last two centuries! But you say that it is necessary to do everything possible to prevent culture from being « turned away from its proper end ». Nowhere in your text have I read that the specific end of culture was to wisely and happily dispose the means of spiritual, intellectual, moral, affective and corporal enrichment, in a profound agreement with religion, to a good Christian life entirely directed towards Eternal Life. Where would I have read it?

At the very moment that I write, the Latin words « cultus humani » that you wrote or translated as « civilisation », comes back to mind; it was differently translated from « cultura », culture. If the Council has used it, it also has to appear in translations, and the Latinists felt the whole weight of such a choice: cultus humani is the human cult, the « cult of man ». You do not want it to become the cult of the State, of the Dictator or of the Party, of Money and I do not object. It is, however, incredible for a Council to do everything possible! – « præprimis », above all! – to safeguard the « cult of man », to have as its motive that every culture must be directed towards its apogee.

Tonight is Christmas; I am going to worship « præprimis » the Child Jesus! What about you?

SECTION 3:
SOME MORE URGENT DUTIES OF CHRISTIANS IN REGARD TO CULTURE

Catholics knew, and before them the Hebrews had learned from Moses and even Abraham, the Father of believers, that they had duties towards God. They had many obligations on the one hand towards the authorities whose “paternity” drew its name from the divinity, itself sovereignly paternal; on the other hand, they had duties towards their neighbour as we know. But to have duties, and moreover, « more urgent » (than ever) towards « culture », really, what a discovery, especially after all that has been shown to us previously. Truly it is enough to make us loathe “culture” as a rival of our Christianity, of our “civilisation” and of our Holy Church. Let us see how…

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EVERYONE’S RIGHT
TO CULTURE AND ITS PRACTICAL FULFILMENT.

60. § 1. « It (whom does this impersonal structure conceal?) is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance (what childishness!). Therefore the duty most consonant with our times, especially for Christians (who are always doomed to fatigue duty to serve everyone, gratis pro Deo, doomed to be the targets of ingratitude and persecutions by the secret powers that govern the world), is that of working diligently (it is wonderful, this determination that is required of Christians by their bishops among whom we hardly notice either determination or concern for it!) for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs (they have not yet breathed a word to us about this, see above 59. 5), both on the national (does it still exist?) and international (and the sublunar and interstellar) level… »

I interrupt here in order to remind you of what I told you at the beginning of this second part of Gaudium et spes: the Council calls out and admonishes all men, one by one, especially Christians, with a view to mobilising everyone to work with determination. For what? For world culture. Whatever can they dream up doing, and how will they set about it? According to our traditional Catholic morality, we could ask them to dedicate themselves, as much as possible and on top of their duties of state, to helping their neighbours, their close relations, their fellow citizens to get out of the « misery » (?) of illiteracy. I would also agree that they seek to have Members of Parliament elected who are interested in salvaging our civilisation that is so threatened with a return to barbarism. Thus, everyone could make his small contribution …

But no, a general mobilisation of all the « citizens of the world » is decreed: 3, 5, or 7 billion persons, for the purpose of doing what?! You have read it: for « fundamental decisions to be taken… ». What odd « work »; what strange determination! Decisions « taken » by whom? By no one, taken on their own, spontaneously. It is amazingly unrealistic… Let us keep going:

« … level which will everywhere (from Lapland to Tierra del Fuego) recognise and satisfy the right of all (3, 5, or 7 thousand million human beings) to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person (this god is always invoked and worshiped, but he is nowhere to be found) without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition… »

It is an article of the Masonic Tables of the Law, but here it is signed by the Catholic hierarchy. This can be seen by the way one of the elements, « religion », must be inserted into an inferior position; thus, they scramble the natural order by also situating the word « sex » in another place than its own… These calculations are odd!...

« … satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture ». We are not told who must « recognise »… and who must « satisfy » this minor and easy work! Then we continue to navigate in interstellar sphere:

« Therefore (!) it is necessary (!) to provide (who will do this?) all with a sufficient quantity of cultural benefits (how can one fix the quantity of such a subtle quality?), especially of those which constitute the so-called “fundamental” culture (imagine how many 30-ton semi trailer trucks it would take to transport at least 3.5 kilos of basic culture for around five thousand million culturally deficient persons?) lest very many be prevented from cooperating in the promotion of the common good in a truly human manner because of illiteracy and a lack of responsible activity. »

These two concrete words that slipped the author’s attention show the aim sought in the name of man and culture. We must fight against « illiteracy » in order for every individual to be emancipated from the tutelage of the authority of the Church, his family, etc., and we must fight against « lack of responsible activity » in order for social life finally to be fully democratic. This is the Council’s ideal: each man must have the pride of knowing everything and of rethinking everything by himself; likewise he must have the enjoyment of directing worldly matters according to his desires in full freedom.

If the Church does not throw on the fire such documents that are the products of her passing madness…

All bishops have the reputation of being « men of experience », according to the journal La Croix, l’événement. They prove it in this paragraph, which is realistically conceived in order to implement this interesting programme:

§ 2. « We must strive to provide for those men who are gifted the possibility of pursuing higher studies; and in such a way that, as far as possible (yes! They are realistic: they only ask for what is possible, not the moon!), they may occupy in society those duties (the dearly beloved power structure), offices and services which are in harmony with their natural aptitude and the competence they have acquired (of course, my little bunny!)… » Obviously, in order to guarantee this attractive programme marked with socialist elitism, they refer to… Pacem in Terris!

« Thus each man (ah! that’s the best one yet: the three, five, seven thousand million men will be able to sit the exams of éna – École Nationale d’Administration – and become those international civil servants capable of governing the planet!) and the social groups (as well as the hundreds of thousands of subsidised associations, excluding the Church) of every people will be able to attain the full (cultual) development (oh! I beg the pardon of the god secularism! I meant…) « of their culture » (of course!) in conformity with their qualities and traditions. »

I have run out of gentle and respectful words to describe such a programme. Just one question: who is going to pay for and organise this, and on behalf of what world authority will the authors and promoters of the plan of world cultural development have power to subjugate their fellow men to such an extent? But in this matter, our duties, above all the duties that are imposed on us, Christians, are not over yet…

§ 3. « Everything must be done (same remark: you are asked to do everything with a view to an obvious “idle life”. I have not read what follows; I enjoy myself as I foresee the stupidity that they are going to come up with! I know that Christians must work with « determination »… to what end? To obtain from others, who are never designated, that they do on a large scale what we are not even able to do by ourselves on a small scale… So, watch out!) to make everyone conscious (ah! it is even more beautiful than what I had imagined!) of the right (!) to culture and the duty (!) he has of developing himself culturally (we do not even need to be hired: it is the uneducated man from Lapland who, on our paternalist exhortations, must begin to learn, to educate himself on his ice field. But here is the best part) and of helping others (our work must consist in persuading uneducated people to push culture? As though that were the work of bishops!). »

« Sometimes (ineffable!) there exist conditions of life and of work which impede the cultural striving of men and destroy in them the eagerness (that is serious!) for culture. This is especially true of farmers (thank you!) and workers (thank you!). It is necessary (another new duty for… no one) to provide for them those working conditions which will not impede their human culture (and what about the competition from Singapore, in the meantime?) but rather favour it (of course, my little bunny!). Women now work in almost all spheres (the Council puts forward neither reservations nor criticism concerning this monstrous aberration of our society…). It is, however (that is to say without changing this state of affairs), fitting that they are able to assume their proper role (deputies, ministers, “vigipirates” [police officers who protect the public against possible terrorist strikes], pilots, etc.) in accordance with their own nature. It will belong to all (of course, my dear fellow!) to acknowledge and favour the proper and necessary (!) participation of women in the cultural life. »

I do not insist. It is a permanent dishonour to the Church and an offence to God, to His wisdom and to His law, to harbour such wild imaginings alongside her dogmatic and moral teachings that remain the indubitable marks of her infallibility.

A FULL CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.

In all this, you clearly notice the absence of any spark of religion. This would be quite understandable for ministers and secular civil servants of our fundamentally atheistic and, moreover, anticlerical Republic; it is surprising on the part of an ecumenical Council that has gathered « in the Holy Spirit ». But, as we are informed, let us be on the look-out for the return of the sacred… that is unforeseeable and not to be missed.

61. § 1. « Today it is more difficult to form a synthesis of the various disciplines of knowledge and the arts than it was formerly. For while the mass and the diversity of cultural factors are increasing, there is a decrease in each man’s faculty of perceiving and unifying these things, so that the image of “universal man” is being lost sight of more and more (what a lot of nonsense!). Nevertheless it remains each man’s duty (what madness awaits us…) to retain an understanding of the whole human person (that is to be retained! Is it an evangelical counsel or a diabolical temptation? I opt for the latter – and it is serious! – and not for the former…) in which the values of intellect, will, conscience and fraternity are preeminent. These values are all rooted in God the Creator and have been wonderfully restored and elevated in Christ. »

Ah! Well, I have lost my bet: religion returns at the end of this paragraph, which is so eloquent on the grandeur of every man and on his elevation that he must pursue to the summits. Well, what secular teacher would put this cult of man in contact with « God the Creator » and with « Christ », the redeemer and deifier of man?

My answer is simple: there is no trace of religion in this text; the text is, moreover, stuffed like barrels with the cult of man, to which Christians have urgent duties. Within the earthly sphere, the Council does not impose anything in what relates to the cultual, and for a very good reason! The cultural fills our lives without any possibility of accommodating the slightest religious diversion. Obviously bishops united in Council were obliged to evoke God’s existence and the role of Christ in man every now and again. But both play their role, which is indeed decisive; then they keep to the background, and that is the end of the matter. God created the world and man, who is its « center and its crown ». His work having been achieved, He says: « Goodbye, everyone »! Then, Christ came to make amends for the sin of the world and heal man; far more, He has set him back on his feet and elevated him even higher than he was originally. Thank you, and goodbye, or… adieu! But this small sentence is polished off, and the Council, I think, will carry on with our indispensible devotion to the the proper development of culture, without once thinking of honouring and thanking God the Father by refraining from work on Sunday, and God the Son by attending His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Perhaps I am mistaken… Let us see what follows.

§ 2. « The family is, as it were, the primary (?) mother and nurse of this education. There, the children, in an atmosphere of love (yes indeed, it is cute!), more easily (the word is priceless!) discover (these cherubs « discover »: it is the beneficial effects of the active methods) the correct order of things (question them with regards to the « hierarchy of values », which will bring you to ask yourself about the value of the Hierarchy), while proper forms of human culture impress themselves in an almost unconscious manner upon the mind of the developing adolescent. »

Everyone is nice, everyone is kind… I give up commenting on it.

There is still no religion on the horizon when suddenly there falls down on us a flood of proud ideas to promote the proper development of culture and, thus, to satisfy all men with the fruits of the earth. All men have the right, the duty and, soon we hope, the power as well to make demands and obtain them. From whom? We do not know.

§ 3. « Opportunities for the same education are to be found also in the societies of today, due especially to the increased circulation of books and to the new means of cultural and social communication which can foster a universal culture. With the more or less generalised (!) reduction of working hours (this text is indeed dated 1962-1965! Unemployment is a radical reduction, from which we may expect a happy development of culture!), the leisure time of most men has increased (I refrain from quibbling over these multiple attempts to take into consideration all parts of the world). May this leisure be used properly to relax (!), to fortify the health of soul and body through spontaneous study and activity, through tourism which refines man’s character and enriches him with understanding of others… »

I interrupt for three lines of ferocious humour: so, it is in order to « enrich » themselves that our French unemployed think about going on a touristic cruise to Portugal or by plane to Korea, to visit the relocated workshops where the natives work employed by their own company, to produce for next to nothing the products that they used to make themselves.

What awful derision, for which you will forgive me and let us resume the conciliar preachifying:

« … through sports activity which helps to preserve equilibrium of spirit even in the community, and to establish fraternal relations among men of all conditions, nations and races. »

I do not bat an eyelid, I carry on with my reading, but indignationand other unkind sentiments are seething deep down…

« Let Christians (let us not forget that pastors of the Church are the ones who speak) cooperate so that the cultural manifestations and collective activity characteristic of our time may be imbued with a human and a Christian spirit. » What a fine fraud to preach the impregnation of the “Fruits of the Earth” with an indefinable “spirit” devoid of any real, concrete, religious bond with Jesus Christ…

One would conclude that this basket of bishops is to be thrown on the fire, since they have no longer an ounce of Christian thought, life, or affectivity. But no! For, the conclusion of this paragraph renews the question in noble terms:

§ 4. « All these leisure activities however are not able to bring (savour in passing this harmonous assembling of grand words, which make us dream) man to a full cultural development (!) unless there is at the same time a profound inquiry (unless we question our bishops!) into the meaning of culture and science for the human person. »

Thus, our expectation is deferred to the next paragraph, the last of this chapter.

HARMONY BETWEEN CULTURE AND CHRISTIAN TEACHING.

At last, we are going to know why they do not speak about it…

62. § 1. « Although the Church has contributed much to the development of culture (the praise must be quickly received for, more than belated and allusive, it is unable to compensate for the total absence of a demonstration, which would be dazzling), experience shows that, for circumstantial reasons (it is really waffle), it is sometimes difficult to harmonise culture with Christian teaching. »

Excuse my saying so, but you can not possibly read a slyer formula than this one!

Let us try to understand what they do not want to explain to us but what they want to make us swallow.

§ 2. « These difficulties do not necessarily harm the life of faith, rather they can stimulate the mind to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the Faith. » What a shady and recondite speech that aims to lead us blindly towards a « deeper and more accurate » faith… than that of the past, before the Council… And, suddenly, it is a torrent:

« The recent studies and findings of science (which ones?), history and philosophy (just which ones?) raise new questions (there it is! it is a modern-day crisis like the “dissipative structures” of Prigogine – the Nobel Prize winner for physics –, from which an unexpected batch of prodigious knowledge must spontaneously come!) which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. »

This hats-off to the theologians who are their accomplices, is a way of warning that along with what the aforementioned Prigogine fallaciously called “dissipative structures” (and that are in reality, in his physics, “dissipations” from which he expects mythical, but never verifiable, new “structures”), spontaneous creations are expected from the disorder produced. So, be careful; such novelties are certainly going to undermine the faith of the simple…

After this insane gibberish, here is the place where the Council stuffs this woolly theory, accessory to all the acts of perfidy that John XXIII had been heard saying for the opening of the Council. It had undoubtedly been elaborated and written by the future Paul VI; according to this theory a fissure, a crack, a crevice, a chasm is formed between the words and the realities that they designate to such an extent that in the end, in order to maintain reality in its truth, it is necessary to change the words that designate it for other words that are different and sometimes even the opposite.

I pity my readers whom I bore stiff with this balderdash that opened wide the Council’s field of thought on the opening day to all the liars of creation. But to state the authors’ intention will allow for less tedious reading that will starkly reveal the projects of the reformist sect: for the future Paul VI, it meant making “Communism” acceptable from then on, and launching the great opening to the USSR that Cardinal Decourtray thoughtlessly denounced as a “connivance” of the Church with Moscow. For the “theologians” concerned, the dishevelled thesis that we are going to read was to authorise them to change the old labels for the new ones, under the pretext of evolving language… For everyone, so that the meaning of this conclusion does not escape you, what was important was to affirm, for want of establishing it on proofs, that at the hour of « the development of culture », if it was obvious that the development of religion did not follow, it was the fault of religion and not culture, of the Church of the past who refused to modify her vocabulary and not cultural associations. So, it is yet another delayed revenge of the Council against its opponents.

« Furthermore, theologians, within the requirements and methods proper to theology (of course, my little bunny!), are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times (you can see right through it); for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding (why, of course!), is another (cf. John XXIII, Discourse of 11 October 1962). »

Straightaway, they give the trick for taking liberties with language… without seeming to change the sacred realities: « In pastoral care (!), sufficient use must be made (the sanctuary is trampled by pagans!) not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences (what confidence they put in these fine strangers after having been so mistrustful of infallibly established dogmatic language!), especially of psychology (!) and sociology (!!), so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate (is it naivety or cunning?) and mature (to the point of spoiling) life of faith. »

Such is this paragraph 2, more obscure than all the others. At a first reading, we cannot guess its interpretation, which is perfidious. In paragraph 1, it is a question of understanding why the Church and culture are not “on the same wavelength”, as we say today. In other times, however, the latter had made the most of the former. Well! in the beginning of this paragraph 2, you are informed that these difficulties will be for the Church the providential? occasion for an incentive to reawaken, deepen and comprehend her faith in a new light, and this will be repeated in conclusion with full assurance: « so that the faithful may in turn(after theologians and pastors) be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith ». Thus, it is the Church who must change through her contact with culture that remains, as always, above criticism.

Now that we have understood this huge moderno-progressivist a priori, we can resume the detailed analysis of the litigious argument, not merely in a word, but two.

Here is the first one: the Church must change her language… without changing her dogmas! “Eodem tamen sensu eademque tamen sententia”, of course, it is easy to say, and reassuring; but when the Latin words misericordia and caritas are systematically deleted to be replaced with « love »… and when the word redemption, which means nothing to our contemporaries, is replaced with the word “liberation”, which really speaks to them, are we still in line and on the same level? or have they clandestinely carried out a naturalising of the supernatural, with a view to supernaturalising the natural? Thus Christian Redemption is no longer a mystery of « ransoming » of lost men at the price of the Blood of Jesus, but a fight for justice, and, opportunely, liberation wars everywhere in the world are assimilated to the fight of Christ, who is “our Liberator” – written with a capital “L”!

Here is the second: let culture open up to the supernatural Wisdom of the Church; she is the great and inexhaustible purveyor of the loftiest sciences, arts, and philosophies… You have noticed that I am talking nonsense! Quite the opposite, the pastors of the Church are the ones who must open their minds to the « findings of the secular sciences » (sic) and you would not believe which ones! « psychology and sociology »! the ones that are the most distorted by dialectical materialism… and it is from this second alignment of Church on culture that we are expecting a renewal… of the Church but still a better harmony among these two worlds…

The same theme is applied to literature and the arts. The Council speaks in high praise of these profane activities so that it may then dictate to the Church, who is too confined to her cultual realm, her duties towards them. I suppose! Well, let us see:

§ 3. « Literature and the arts are also, in their own way, of great importance to the life of the Church. They strive to make known the proper nature of man, his problems (!) and his experiences in trying to know and perfect both himself and the world. They have much to do with revealing man’s place in history and in the world; with illustrating the miseries and joys, the needs and strengths of man and with foreshadowing a better life for him. Thus they are able to elevate human life, expressed in manifold forms according to various times and regions (what trite remarks!). »

You would think that in the whole world, the arts and literature are practiced by superior beings in their profession, in their disciplines but even on top of that, with an ideal that is not only human but flawlessly moral and spiritual. Since, among Christians, these matters are considered “free subjects” open to discussion, I shall not make a spirited attack on these reassuring affirmations that are full of praise for the Council. Nonetheless, the incontestable and alarming fact is that literature and the arts are pulled downward by money, commercial networks, and everyone is aware of it. The way the Council described it was already untrue in its time. So, how much truer it is today! The falsehood is serious because, here again, on the pretext of art, as was the case above for science, it compels the Church to open to this universal corruption and to send her faithful and their children to flounder in it. Is that not what will follow? Let us see…

§ 4. « Efforts must be made so that those who foster these arts feel that the Church (and why, one time out of two or three, should the Council not ask of those people, who are all so upright, honest, fervent in their art, to make the Church feel their good dispositions?!) recognises their activity (!) and so that, enjoying orderly liberty (see! The Council comes out with an enormity – enormity means “outside the norm”… It is not incumbent on the Church to catch up to artists in their activities; rather, it is the artists who must go to Church just as all faithful do. The Church must unceasingly repeat that writers and artists are free to create beautiful works, but they have no licence to produce works that incite people to commit sins…), they may initiate more friendly relations (sic) with the Christian community. »

Formulated in this spirit, the problem will be solved when her works, her schools, and other organisations are invaded by the most renowned artists of the time. The damage makes one shudder. The deliberate optimism of this Council constitutes a betrayal of the people, who have been entrusted to it in order to be kept on the narrow way that leads to eternal salvation.

It continues… « The Church acknowledges also (there is no need to “acknowledge” anything, and there are doubtless strong contrary imperatives that the Council tramples underfoot) new forms of art which are adapted to our age and are in keeping with the characteristics of various nations and regions. They may be brought into the sanctuary (would this be Satan’s spirit blowing against the sails?) since they raise the mind to God, once the manner of expression is adapted and they are conformed to liturgical requirements (reference to the Constitution on the Liturgy, whose spirit, it seems to me, was firmer and somewhat supernatural; here, sacred things are regarded with the most absolute indifference…). »

§ 5. « Thus the knowledge of God is better manifested (you are joking!) and the preaching of the Gospel becomes (sic!) clearer to human intelligence and shows itself to be relevant to man’s actual conditions of life. » Now that every man is « God’s son », it is no longer surprising that anyone comes straight to Gospel preaching. The question is: why is it deserted by the flock and by pastors themselves?

§ 6. « May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union (no!) with the other men of their time (the great mixture, what a rage it is to level everything down!) and may they strive to understand perfectly (no!) their way of thinking and judging (going so far as to agree with them!), as expressed in their culture (how horrible!). Let them blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine (what diabolical obsession it is to blend the world and the Church in the temples of modern culture!), so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit. »

It was already Satan’s recommendation to the first woman: « Taste this fruit! Then you will be able to judge what is good and what is evil! » Notice that in these last sentences, matters are presented as a general watchword: it is always the world, science, cultures, arts that represent the strong, valorous, unshakable, satisfied element in this « marriage » that the Council desires. It is always the Church who is poor, unfortunate, dissatisfied; it is the Church whom we are invited to take to this powerful world that awaits her, yet without the slightest interest, but will know what to do with her. The Council urges her on by saying to her: « Go on! Go on and see! You will get some idea of it, and thus you will lead your life according to your own experience! » But for the Council, the life of the Church in itself is nothing, nothing, nothing!

§ 7. « Let those who teach theology in seminaries and universities strive to collaborate with men versed in the other (so rich and effective!) sciences through a sharing of their resources and points of view. » Will the meeting take place at the Pasteur Institute or at the seminary? Here is still another bad counsel :

« Theological inquiry should pursue a profound understanding of revealed truth (this generation is quite brilliant; it does not learn, it knows and, if it does work, it is by going even further! It is a generation of inventors, of “researchers”); at the same time it should not neglect close contact with its own time that it may be able to help these men skilled in various disciplines to attain to a better understanding of the Faith. »

It always follows the usual pattern: the Church goes to meet scientists, so she must show that she is also well-versed in sciences. Thus it is that, in order to end this huge chapter, our paragraph stirs all the riches of its vocabulary, by exalting the futurist dream of a perfect harmony and mutual penetration of culture and the Church.

« This common effort will greatly aid the formation of priests, who will be able to present to our contemporaries the doctrine of the Church concerning God, man and the world (for the Council, that is the doctrine of the Church!), in a manner more adapted to them so that they may receive it (it is evangelist marketing!) more willingly. Furthermore (the Council always dreams of something “further”!), it is to be hoped (no!) that many of the laity (in other words, people of the world) will receive a sufficient formation in the sacred sciences and that some will dedicate themselves professionally to these studies, developing and deepening them by their own labours. In order that they may fulfill their function, let it be recognised that all the faithful, whether clerics or laity, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and of expressing their mind with humility (of course, and go easy on it) and fortitude (one has still to know how to impose!) in those matters on which they enjoy competence. »

That is all, the chore is over for this week. I am going to pray in order to have the humble courage to comment on this appalling conciliar text within my competence, and I hope that I will be recognised the « lawful freedom » to do so.

Abbé Georges de Nantes


Summary	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 (5)

GAUDIUM ET SPES (7 décembre 1965)