CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE

SOME FEATURES OF ECONOMIC LIFE.

63. § 1. « In the socioeconomic realm (sic!), too, it is necessary to respect (… God! Ah, you have not got it at all! We have before us the greatest Council of all time!) and to promote the dignity and complete vocation of the human person and the welfare of society as a whole… »

All the philosophers of our civilised, Christian West were able to demonstrate that the “common good” (it is the only expression that designates and defines the reality; « the welfare of society as a whole » is ambiguous) has priority and also comes first in political and social sciences. It is Maritain’s “personalism” that has muddled these ever so clear notions. Here, the Council wants everything but prioritises the individual over the common good. Why? It repeats the first article of its law:

« For man is the source, the centre, and the purpose of all economic and social life. »

Here are grandiose declarations that will not sort things out and weaken all relations between people because they set the realism and empiricism of life, which are condemned, against the (allegedly) angelic or evangelical idealism, according to the future Cardinal Cardijn’s insignificant saying: « A young worker is worth more than all the money in the world. » It is true as regards Heaven, Jesus said so, and better: « Were he to give all his gold and all his silver to save his soul, it would be insufficient » (Mk 8:38). But in social life and in the hurly-burly of economic competition, gold or money save the one who possesses them, while the young unemployed worker is a burden…; it is sad but that is just the way it is. The Council likes to think that it is above these very base considerations and enjoins us to follow it…

Now, here is a positivist, scientific, and apparently neutral explanation of the very vast object of our study:

§ 2. « Like other areas of social life, the economy of today is marked by man’s increasing domination over nature, by closer and more intense relationships between citizens, groups, and peoples (the Council does not take nations into consideration) and their mutual dependence, and by the increased intervention of the state (its study is deferred to the next chapter). At the same time progress in the methods of production and in the exchange of goods and services has made the economy an instrument capable of better meeting the intensified needs of the human family. »

Another principle of the Council’s work is to extend problems to endless horizons. At one go, here is this concept of « human family », with its double view of each man. He is informed of the material state of the whole world; this apparently leaves us in the framework of our “family”, our village, our homeland, even if it means sacrificing all this in order to devote ourselves to the whole world thus conceived as our largest « family ». It is a mythical conception.

Still by means of the same process, we are initiated in the difficulties, which will have to be resolved, or else it is not worthwhile. So, let us speak about them:

§ 3. « Reasons for anxiety, however, are not lacking. Many people, especially in economically advanced areas, seem, as it were, to be ruled by economics, so that almost their entire personal and social life is permeated with a certain “economic way of thinking”. Such is true both of nations that favour a collective economy and of others. At the very time when the development of economic life could mitigate social inequalities (here is the first opposition of a moral element and it is noteworthy that it comes from leftist propaganda and not, as it is commonly and wrongly thought, from the Gospel) (provided that it be guided and coordinated in a reasonable and human way), it is often made to embitter them; or, in some places, it even results in a decline of the social status of the underprivileged and in contempt for the poor. »

Here again, they give the moneyed class a lashing, – even more questionable by the way –, for their inhuman egoism; we are no longer in politics but in a popular meeting! and it is no longer a question of a Council that is anxious to preach justice and charity to each and every man, but of just any socialist Congress. The speech inflates its eloquence and borders on, even if it has not already fallen into, sheer demagogy.

Listen to this passage worthy of an anthology on class struggle:

« While an immense number of people still lack the absolute necessities of life, some, even in less advanced areas, live in luxury or squander wealth (it is true!). Extravagance and wretchedness exist side by side (the shock formula has been found). While a few enjoy very great power of choice, the majority are deprived (the word is already partisan: this impersonal structure conceals some unknown person who has “deprived” many people of their personal right, and this affirmation is an indication of this “option for the poor” in which the Christian Democrat movement has revelled) of almost all possibility of acting on their own initiative and responsibility (it is a fact; is it a scandal? So many issues raised here would be better off were they not embittered by this sentimental moralism!), and often subsist in living and working conditions unworthy of the human person. »

Having read this, here we are like Atlas who bears the vault of Heaven on his shoulders; but unlike him, we are crushed by such a burden. That is what the Council wanted: I, individual or responsible Person, am before a world of billions of individuals who are never considered as Persons, and who point accusing fingers and cast envious eyes. Paul VI told us that they were already full of hatred and, if nothing were done, they would be full of homicide tomorrow. It seems to me that this conciliar sociology, which is riddled with Marxism, overlooks two realities. The first is that before very distressing situations, the causes of which are not well-known or well-mastered, the concern of the Church should be to preach confidence in God and resignation instead of fanning the flames of envy. The second is that, in the presence of inhuman injustices – I do not say “inequalities –, it has always been incumbent on the Church to exhort the rich to charity; and her exhortations were heeded and put into practice with better spiritual and moral results than with strikes and threats…

The Council, however, carries on with its sentences of sociology tinged with populism and demagogy:

§ 4. « A similar lack of economic and social balance is to be noticed between agriculture, industry, and the services, and also between different parts of one and the same country. The contrast between the economically more advanced countries and other countries (do not say: “underdeveloped”. That would wound the dignity of the poor! With the rich, on the contrary, do not stand on ceremony!) is becoming more serious day by day, and the very peace of the world can be jeopardised thereby. »

I call populism the mania of turning everything into a pathetic vision of the wretchedness of the poor that shockingly contrasts with the wealth of the rich. The poor Council was very distressed by it! In reality, problems are totally different. Today, we realise that this populism worked very poorly for its brothers, its neighbour, which was foreseeable. We helped so much the underdeveloped countries of yesterday that some of them have now become our competitors or even those who will starve us! For, let us point out furthermore that some poor people were able to overcome their inertia, others were not. It is not all that simple…

So, it was planned right from paragraph 1: the Church raised the alarm like hounds on the chase. No, nothing is fatal, the matter must be studied, programmes must be worked out, we have to pull through! The Church herself is going to give the world some advice…

§ 5. « Our contemporaries are coming to feel these inequalities (at such a degree of world generalisation, it is grotesque) with an ever sharper (the usual cliché) awareness, since they are thoroughly convinced (especially when it is the social communication media that make them talk) that the ampler technical and economic possibilities which the world of today enjoys can and should correct this unhappy state of affairs. »

Granted! Men believed in the myth of perpetual and accelerated progress during theses years 1961-1971, when the Council was listening to them… The situation has completely changed; the myth of progress has given way to a despair that is just as unjustified… In order to show that the Council is confined in its utopia that is entirely built on its old passions, I request it to consider that people who were poor yesterday are even poorer today because they did not want to get out of their democratic regime, while others are governed and thus efficient. Our bishops make their – “new and eternal” (ouch!) – religion of democracy, and therefore, hold fast to the old programme: to reduce inequalities by cracking down on wealth and distributing it to the poor. Read on:

« Hence, many reforms in the socioeconomic realm (not a word refers to political reform!) and a change of mentality and attitude are required of all (always all together, or no one moves; I have already explained it to you). » What do they expect? You are going to learn about it with me. I presume that they are going to use a language that is full of unction, appeals to grand feelings, and duties of some toward others. But nothing effective:

« For this reason (the « change of mentality and attitude »… what an odd formula, where we would expect the conversions of souls and their sincere return to religious practice!) the Church down through the centuries and in the light of the Gospel has worked out the principles of justice and equity demanded by right reason both for individual and social life and for international life (the Council uses too many needless stereotypes; here, they amount to one line of padding!), and she has proclaimed them especially in recent times. This sacred Council intends to strengthen these principles according to the circumstances of this age (padding!) and to set forth certain guidelines, especially with regard to the requirements of economic development (ah! well, it is still a line of… but what am I saying? I was expecting information on how to bring about the conversion of our « mentality and attitude ». These seven lines announce that they are going to speak about this. Thank you!). »

SECTION I
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Do I grow impatient? No, not in the least. I notice that in the whole of this introduction, there is not a single word that testifies to the Catholic Faith. In the end, announcing « the light of the Gospel » is as little as nothing. I notice, ditto, that any economist, manufacturer, or financier, in a word, any man who is in the field, would stop reading and throw it out; ditto, that the poor faithful who out of obedience carry on reading without understanding, would modestly consider that it is beyond them. But, ditto and at last, priests, religious, militants, journalists would see in it what others do not see, and make – have already made – baneful use of it. It is the poison of revolution that we consequently must highlight fully, in the light of the Gospel! in order to denounce the evil and save minds from it.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SERVICE TO MAN.

64. « Today more than ever before attention is rightly given to the increase of the production of agricultural and industrial goods and of the rendering of services, for the purpose of making provision for the growth of population and of satisfying the increasing desires of the human race (!). Therefore, technical progress, an inventive spirit, an eagerness to create and to expand enterprises, the application of methods of production, and the strenuous efforts of all who engage in production – in a word, all the elements making for such development – must be promoted. »

This speech is voluble and needless; all this is naturally intended to make profits.

« The fundamental finality of this production is not the mere increase of products nor profit or control but rather the service of man, and indeed of the whole man with regard for the full range (sic) of his material needs and the demands of his intellectual, moral, spiritual (ah! well!), and religious (it is a rare wonder, but the speech is less voluble; the allusion to religion did not exactly inspire the authors) life; this applies to every man whatsoever and to every group of men, of every race and of every part of the world. Consequently, economic activity is to be carried on according to its own methods and laws (economic activity has no other methods and laws, at least in a democracy, than those that sharks are willing to give it!) within the limits of the moral order (ah, well! we are coming to that… but no, those are almost the last words), so that God’s plan for mankind may be realised. » It may not be said that the Council does not preach morality nor announce God’s plan. All the same, it is being a bit hasty.

At this point ends the manuscript that the Abbé Georges de Nantes brought back from his exile in Hauterive, in 1996.

That year, our Father had received from Mgr Daucourt, the Bishop of Troyes, the order to disappear for the good of the Church and never to return to his community. And he obeyed! He really left for good, as an outlaw going into exile, knowing nothing except the way to the monastery of Hauterive that had agreed to welcome him out of friendship for Mgr Daucourt, though incognito, under the name of “Brother Georges”, cut off from the world for evermore.

“Just try it yourself!”

“RALLYING”… HOW FAR?

It was, would you believe it, a true attempt at “rallying”…

« This abbey immediately struck me as edifying, from outside the cloister where my humiliated condition placed me, and I never ceased thanking our dearest Heavenly Father for a share in this austere and profoundly traditional monastic life. At the same time I discovered their undisguised but moderate, pious and prudent participation in the conciliar reform. It was impossible for me to doubt their sincerity, their fervour, their charity… and the joy of these monks exhibiting themselves to the unknown that I was, with no pretence.

« This peaceful coexistence was so fortunate and so promising that I imagined our brothers and our sisters committed for a long time to come in a similar tranquillity, full of promise for the peace of the Church… » during that time at Maison Saint-Joseph, under the authority of Mgr Daucourt.

« The Most Reverend Father, therefore, lent me the book of the Acts of Vatican II, which I undertook to read. The better to penetrate their meaning, I slowly copied them out and as I proceeded I noted down my reflections, in praise or criticism, with equanimity. From the Opening Address by John XXIII, I found myself captivated by an absorbing interest in this work.

« By Christmas, I was half way through my programme, by far the most difficult half. Although the work was tiresome each time I resumed it, it soon became fascinating, and with the texts thus copied out, analysed and studied, I think I could say that I knew them thoroughly, their form, their declared intentions and even their authors’ most secret ulterior motives… » (CCR n°292, January 1997)

When we went to fetch him in order to bring him back… as it were by force, we interrupted him, but he brought back 456 handwritten pages that represent his most decisive polemical work under the title:

In his preface, he expresses his stupefaction, his scandal, and his trembling.

« Stupefaction:

« Mgr Charles, the chaplain of Montmartre, related at the very time [1962-1965] what happened in the Council: it is the system of the boiler… but who knows today what a boiler is? He summarised it all with a demonstrative wave of his hand: all that has been bubbling on the flames of the stove [of the “Liberation”: 1944-1964] for twenty years, in all our moderno-progressivist clubs, rose through the central conduit of the boiler, the chimney, from where it is sprinkled through its diffuser over the mass of lukewarm and grimy wash, pardon! over the mass of Bishops who received the soap (what a dressing-down!) from it and become soaked with it.

« Now, being forewarned, when I re-read the “Opening address of John XXIII” and his “Message to the world”, and then, in order to get to the heart, Sacrosanctum Concilium and Dignitatis humanæ… I already found in them all the poisons of the closing (1965) and of the post-Council until today (1996). The boiler has not invented anything: all was previously ready in the clubs.

« The fact remains nonetheless that when they expressed their wishes prior to the Council, the immense majority of the Fathers were expecting to see all this scorned, dismissed or condemned… and that they applauded from the very first day on and then to the last day, to the last denial of 7-8 December, and to the last opponent, Mgr Lefebvre. It is astounding!

« Scandal:

« Here is our nightmare… no one, except a few, very few sedevacantists, and Lefebvrists – though by side-effect of their disobedience and schism –, no one other than we, has canonically risen up so openly, repeatedly, and learnedly, and thus implacably, against this monstrous heap of the worst heresies of our times. The Holy Church no longer shows anything but the leprosy in her upper limbs and in her visible periphery, the skin and the extremities. Where are the holiness of the Church and her indefectible profession of the true Catholic Faith? It is scandalous!

« Trembling:

« It is impossible according to reason, since to date no objection has been raised to our demonstration; in all wisdom it is impossible – that error lie with us and that truth lie with the head and the members, since the dereliction of duty is continuous and universal. Would God be willing the great trial of the last times, and thus would He be abandoning His last faithful in virtue of His “will of Good Pleasure”, which is inaccessible and incomprehensible to everyone! This is how it has been seen in several circumstances, among which are Josiah’s death at Megiddo (in 609 B.C.) and the even more miserable death of Gedaliah, who was for Jerusalem, invaded and deported, the Marshal Pétain of that time, in 587 (Jr 40)... without mentioning other catastrophes in the New Testament, in accordance with the divine orthodromy. Perhaps we will all have to be crushed, but never will we be renegades!

Forthcoming, if God wills!

« Nevertheless, we are anxious not about our own life, our eternal salvation nor those of a billion lost Catholics… But “about the Church” who must remain indefectible and rest on the Pope and the faithful episcopate, at all times and until the end. Now, apostasy and dereliction of duty have lasted for thirty-three years [ + 12 = 45 years]…

We do not claim to be useful to God! But not only through our sheer existence and our unchanged Catholic Counter-Reformation Faith, but also through our prophetical certitude we must affirm that divine Truth, divine grace, the virtues of divine holiness still exist and will exist until the end. Through their prayers and their merits, they merit and draw down the apocalyptic – i.e. “unveiled” by apparitions – and eschatological – i.e. of the last times – assistance of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus, who will grant the « apostles of the last times », for whom St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort wished and prayed, to be Holy Church saving herself. »

The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century
www.crc-internet.org