Part two, Chapter IV :
THE LIFE OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

POLITICAL LIFE TODAY.

73. § 1. « In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organising the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority. »

It is a question of democracy even if this word is not mentioned, and it is accepted as the result of an irreversible « evolution ». In this “pastoral Constitution”, you will search in vain for the slightest criticism of « institutions » that are presented as the ineluctable consequence of a « cultural, economic and social evolution », in accordance with Marxist dialectic.

The truth is that, far from being the result of an « evolution », these « structures » and « institutions » were imposed by the revolution of 1789 and interrupted an age-old Christian society in its « attainment of the common good ». As regards the « exercise of civil freedom », “reason”, which is deified by Masonic societies of thought, has replaced religion. Man-who-makes-himself-God has dethroned Jesus Christ, God made Man, who came to establish His kingship over men. The republican trilogy “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” has been substituted for the three Christian virtues of “Faith, Hope, and Charity” with « regard to the relations of citizens among themselves ».

This conciliar text is the perfect expression of the betrayal that the liberals have perpetrated in the very bosom of the Church of Jesus Christ. They opened the doors of the holy City to the “Enlightenment”, under the pretext of “opening to the world”, “dialogue”, and the “search” for the truth in common with men of all beliefs, and universal reconciliation.

Gaudium et spes puts the Church in the service of global Revolution and transforms it into the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy. It is under Democracy that justice, peace and progress will assure the material and cultural well-being of the whole man and of all men.

§ 2. « The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately. »

Up to and excluding the Second Vatican Council, the Church had rejected this « politico-juridical order » as an insult to God and a danger to the salvation of souls: « The Church acknowledges, in the name of God’s justice and forbearance, the interior freedom or the fundamental right of every human being to follow his conscience – even when this happens to be in error – for it is the individual conscience which is the immediate judge of every personal decision. That is what was awkwardly referred to as “freedom of conscience” or, more correctly, as “the freedom of the individual conscience”. But this inward and inviolable freedom does not carry with it any outward objective, social right to act in accordance with an erroneous conscience. In like manner, the Church may agree to social and political tolerance of error, but in itself error has no moral or public right. The Church may do this out of consideration for the good of civic harmony and peace as long as it does not detract from the greater rights that belong to Christian Truth and the Church, and does not interfere with the salvation of souls. » (Georges de Nantes, CCR n° 28, June 1972, p. 5)

« The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state. »

Democracy obliges! This paragraph marks the triumph of this secular humanism dear to the “philosophes” and Freemasons of the eighteenth century. In his letter of 25 August 1910 to the French bishops, “Our Apostolic Mandate”, Pope St. Pius X condemned in the Sillon a falsification of « fundamental social questions » that had its basis in « a false idea of human dignity ». It is these same notions that insolently triumphed in this conciliar text. (n° 25, cf. infra)

The Church used to combat these notions as « big words by which human pride is exalted » (ibid.), but at the Second Vatican Council she recognised her defeat and wholeheartedly subscribed to them. « There has been no impact or anathema », everyone has been reconciled in « the cult of man ». By the words of Paul VI, the Church indeed proclaimed her « new humanism », one that recognises the « son of the earth » as the object of her worship: the cult of Man-who-makes-himself-god (Closing Address for the Council on 7 December 1965)!

« In many parts of the world » : the geographical imprecision veils the selective character of this recognition of « the rights of the person ». Even today, what rights are there in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba? The truth is that « the peoples so deprived of Christian law, go from one extreme to another, from an excess of capricious individualism to an excess of despotic collectivism, unless they rot slowly midway between the two in a capitalo-socialism where everyone takes his generous portion of pleasures whilst taking care not to jeopardize a system so advantageous to all. » (Georges de Nantes, On the Rights of Man, CCR n° 111, June 1979, p. 12)

As for religious freedom, « the result is that truth is no longer objectively distinguished from error, that no one can claim the privilege of being in the right, and that no social authority has the power to impose respect for what is true and good nor to prevent what is wrong and bad. » (Point n° 14, § 3)

§ 3. « Along with cultural, economic and social development, there is a growing desire among many people to play a greater part in organising the life of the political community. In the conscience of many arises an increasing concern that the rights of minorities be recognised, without any neglect for their duties toward the political community. In addition, there is a steadily growing respect for men of other opinions or other religions (Where? Indonesia? Algeria? China? Where?). At the same time, there is wider cooperation to guarantee the actual exercise of personal rights to all citizens, and not only to a few privileged individuals. »

To become a Christian is a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and Yemen. This does not prevent the preamble of Mauritania’s Constitution from affirming its adhesion to « the principles of democracy such as they have been enounced by the universal Declaration of the Rights of Man » with this precision: « The prescriptions of the Islamic faith constitute the unique source of legislation. » Article 5, according to which « Islam is the religion of the people and of the State » does not go unheeded. Paragraph 6 of article 306 of the penal Code declares an « apostate » whoever « does not recognise the obligation to pray ». Consequently: « He will be punished with death for his apostasy and his goods will be confiscated for the Treasury Department. » He will be deprived of the funeral service provided for by Muslim ritual.

In Sudan, the « apostate » is scourged and crucified, as happened to the four catechists of the diocese of Rumbek on 5 December 1994. The torturers are not “terrorists”; they are government police agents who enforce the law...

In Saudi Arabia on 21 April 2005, the police arrested forty Pakistanis who were attending a Christian ceremony in Riyadh. « The security operation was successful », people could read in Saudi Arabian newspapers, as though it were a question of dangerous criminals. In fact, the “case” had been communicated to the press at the same time as were arrests of persons responsible for running prostitution rings, trafficking drugs or alcohol, and falsifying residence permits.

§ 4. « However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved (by whom? By Pope Paul VI?) which hamper civic or religious freedom (John Paul II in Haiti: « Things must change here... », and from then on everything is in a state of chaos...), victimise large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves. »

The description of « avarice and political crimes » committed by a State that justify rebellion is vague and stated in such a manner as to amalgamate persecuting Communist States and public security dictatorships that try to preserve the national interest. Take, for example, Salazar’s Portugal or Franco’s Spain at the time of the Council. Later on, it would be Chile…

By rejecting the existing « political systems », the Fathers handed over a myriad of emancipated and autonomous individuals to the peril of seeing the law of the jungle substituted for ancient sacred laws, i.e., the divine laws of religion and the city. Such is the spectacle that the African continent offers to us today after its decolonisation, which was the result of the principle enounced in this paragraph.

John Paul II’s initiatives have spread the consequences of these principles throughout the whole world and weakened the position of the Church everywhere. First in Poland with the insurrection of Solidarnosc, which was perpetrated contrary to the agreement made in 1950 between the Cardinal-Primate Wyszinski and the political authorities. « Cardinal Wyszynski promised to the latter the loyal submission of the whole people in the public sphere, enduring its secularism and militant atheism, in exchange for full freedom for the practice of religion and apostolic works within the framework of the ecclesiastical institution. This implied imposing absolute discipline on the clergy, which its leftist members dreamt of infringing in the name of the Gospel! » (CCR n° 259, June-July 1993, p. 27)

In August 1980, the Polish revolution responded to John Paul II’s continual appeals to respect freedom of expression and association: « From having exalted a traditional, classic, Catholic Poland, united, disciplined, hierarchical and rural too, contained within the bounds of legality, the world, both Right and Left, came to exalt another Poland. This other Poland is that of the democrat intellectuals and clerics, that of the workers, Catholic or not, that of the trade unions, more or less tolerated, recognized or banned by the official Church and by the Communist State. It is the Poland of the young generation, the freedom lovers, whose idol was the Pope and whose incarnation was Walesa in August 1980. » (CCR n° 178, April 1985, p. 1)

§ 5. « There is no better way to establish political life on a truly human basis than by fostering an inward sense of justice and kindliness, and of service to the common good, and by strengthening basic convictions as to the true nature of the political community and the aim, right exercise, and sphere of action of public authority. »

The Council wants to make all things new and found them on « basic convictions » that it refrains from formulating, while resorting to Christian virtues, as though they were... human and natural! It is precisely this naturalism that, one hundred years ago, St. Pius X condemned in prophetic terms. He answered in advance to « the insane utopia of rebels and miscreants » with his motto: « Omnia instaurare in Christo » (op. cit., n° 11 is must reading! He is risen n° 79, April 2009). The Second Vatican Council, for its part, wants « to restore all things » on Man!

THE NATURE AND END OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY.

74. § 1. « Men, families and the various groups which make up the civil community are aware that they cannot achieve a truly human life by their own unaided efforts. They see the need for a wider community, within which each one makes his specific contribution every day toward an ever broader realisation of the common good (the disenchanted human person « cannot » remain in his “transcendent dignity” and resigns himself to « the need » to live with his family in order to survive... as though individual egoism were foremost and the interest of families a stopgap!). For this purpose they set up a political community according to various forms. The political community exists, consequently, for the sake of the common good, in which it finds its full justification and significance, and the source of its inherent legitimacy. »

When he commented on § 26 under the title “The first pathos, globalist!”, our Father drew our attention to « the dearth, the invalidity, the absence of any definition of the common good. Roughly speaking, if I re-read this text in detail, the common good is, in some fashion, the well-being for each and for all. » (He is Risen n° 71, August 2008) It is exactly what is explained in the following lines of paragraph 1 of this section § 74:

« Indeed, the common good embraces the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection. »

We are far, very far from « the exquisite delight of the humble servant », as Maurras used that phrase, far from the devotion of the prince to his people, far from the soldier’s intense thirst to give his life for his country! These examples demonstrate that « far from fulfilling himself through his own solipsistic act and finding his felicity therein, man finally finds his fulfilment and the beginning of his bliss through his human brothers, with them and, what is even more marvellous, in his brothers, his close relations, his family, his nation, and for them all. » (Politique totale. 1. La nation, réalité politique fondamentale, CRC n° 195, December 1983, p. 8)

§ 2. « Yet men who come together in the political community are many and diverse, and they have every right to prefer divergent solutions. If the political community is not to be torn apart while everyone follows his own opinion, there must be an authority (it is not God who imposes it; it is the pre-existing « political community » that gives itself a leader) to direct the energies of all citizens toward the common good, not in a mechanical or despotic fashion, but by acting above all as a moral force which appeals to each one’s freedom and sense of responsibility. »

It is Marc Sangnier’s brand of democracy and his claim, which was condemned by St. Pius X, to replace obedience with « government by consent » (op. cit., n° 22, infra). There is no society without order, and order is maintained by laws. How can this be achieved? If every human person is an absolute, St. Pius X used also to say, « what becomes of authority? A shadow, a myth; there is no more law properly so-called, no more obedience. » (ibid). How can we manage to make these free and autonomous “angels” live together? Here is the answer:

§ 3. « It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God (an unexpected return to reality! It is typical of a modus, an “amendment” that the traditionalists, the disciples of St. Pius X, contributed in order to pass a text that, by dint of « appealing to each one’s freedom », went so far as to overlook obedience), even though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free will of citizens (this is a return to democracy, which is omnipresent in this chapter). »

The contradiction, however, remains in the realm of real politics and elicited new modi in the following paragraph that would restore obedience:

§ 4. « It follows also that political authority, both in the community as such and in the representative bodies of the state, must always be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good (with a dynamic concept of that good) according to the juridical order legitimately established or due to be established. When authority is so exercised, citizens are bound in conscience to obey. »

The parenthesis concerning the common good, which is conceived as « a dynamic concept » is particularly opportune. It even offers a surprising literary contact with the Abbé de Nantes’ “total politics”. It is as though two “reactionary” minds had agreed on the same concern: first, the concern for statecraft, for the order and right proper to the State, which is the first common good, the science of the “statics” of the political being. The concern to build a science out of its “dynamics”, namely a science of governing the nation with a view to its preservation and peace from day to day, is the second public good. The Abbé de Nantes explains:

« In fact, the good and perfection of a country lie not only in the apparatus of its Law, which retains its formal order. This natural order can in fact be easily discerned and translated into public law, i.e., constitutional and administrative law; civil and criminal law; international law; and the rights of people. When all of that is clearly defined and firmly imposed, order can reign and peace result, on condition, however, that the country is not surrounded by enemies and its peace, not threatened in the least, is nothing other than the tranquillity of order, in accordance with its classic definition. But in our modern times things are different. If it is essential to live honestly in accordance with justice and law, it is of paramount importance to live! This is not a small matter in our appalling times. » (Politique totale. 2. Du bien commun national, CRC n° 196, January 1984, pp. 13-14)

The same applies to political science as to medical science. The latter « cannot confine itself to anatomy and physiology in order to speculate on the ideal norms for human health and hygiene. Medical science also consists in guiding and enlightening the examination and care of particular human beings who are grappling with diseases, none of whom are identical. Each of them must immediately be discerned through just diagnostics and be fought with effective prescriptions. Likewise, political science is still nothing as long as it does not deal with the absolutely vital art of the governance of nations. » (ibid.)

« Accordingly, the responsibility, dignity and importance of leaders are indeed clear. »

« For a man, to govern other men is the height of exorbitance or the loftiest manifestation of divine power that is communicated to him. One must either be God, Christ, or a tyrant to govern peoples. This is even more manifest when it comes to legislating, given that there is a major risk of an error from which catastrophic consequences may result. While the legislator almost visibly partakes in divine infallibility, the governor or “dictator” always seems to risk and compromise it in the imbroglio of shady human affairs. Yet, to be governed and to govern constitute one of the most pressing needs of human existence. » (ibid.)

§ 5. « But where citizens are oppressed by a public authority overstepping its competence (for example the French Republic that drove out the Brothers of Christian Schools and the Congregations of hospitalers. We know what disastrous results this measure had on national education and public health...), they should not protest against those things which are objectively required for the common good (the crux of the matter is to determine what is « objectively required » and what authority is entitled to require it. This should be our bishops’ role, but they are hand in glove with the Republic, under a system of “pacified secularism”... So what recourse is there? The Council is very careful not to enter the arena... and talks for the sake of talking, unless the precisions that we introduce between parentheses are added, while awaiting Vatican III); but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights (of Catholics) and the rights of their fellow citizens (“Catholiques et Français toujours”, as the hymn goes) against the abuse of this authority, while keeping within those limits drawn by the natural law and the Gospels. »

So, there are « limits » to the resistance that must be offered to this baneful Republic? Yes, St. Paul writes it to the Romans :

« Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed. » (Rm 13, 1.2)

§ 6. « According to the character of different peoples (in France, sweet France, this character is the Monarchy; this regime formed France and without it, France falls apart) and their historic development (or « divine orthodromy »), the political community can, however, adopt a variety of concrete solutions in its structures and the organisation of public authority. For the benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must always contribute to the formation of a type of man (a single one?) who will be cultivated, peace-loving and well-disposed towards all his fellow men. »

Whatever its political system may be, society is presented here as an aggregate of individuals, who were born foundlings, vagabonds, without any land or home other than the « human family », in which and for the benefit of which « man » comes to practices all the Christian virtues... without Christ’s grace! The Council forgets that « there is no true civilisation without a moral civilisation, and no true moral civilisation without the true religion: this is a proven truth, a historical fact. » (St. Pius X op. cit., n° 36)

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ALL TO PUBLIC LIFE.

75. § 1. « It is in full conformity with human nature that there should be juridico-political structures providing all citizens in an ever better fashion and without any discrimination (between the good and the wicked, for everyone is kind...) the practical possibility of freely and actively taking part in the establishment of the juridical foundations of the political community and in the direction of public affairs, in fixing the terms of reference of the various public bodies and in the election of political leaders. »

Thus, following the example of Marc Sangnier’s Sillon, the Council makes the Church subservient to democracy, although it avoids writing the word, undoubtedly in order to evade St. Pius X’s condemnation.

« We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world. » (op. cit., n° 31, infra)

« All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good. The Church praises and esteems the work of those who for the good of men devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office. »

To vote becomes a commandment of the Church, while abstaining to do so is a sin!

§ 2. « If the citizens’ responsible cooperation is to produce the good results which may be expected in the normal course of political life, there must be a statute of positive law providing for a suitable division of the functions and bodies of authority and an efficient and independent system for the protection of rights. »

For example, in India, which is recognised as « the world’s largest democracy », criminals exercise a broad, « independent » political influence, in particular over poor districts. The whole of India, with its 714 million voters, is preparing to go to the polls from 16 April to 13 May 2009, in order to vote for 543 members of the House of the People; they are elected for six-year terms and represent the twenty-eight States and seven territories of the Indian Union. At the same time, 222 politicians who are or were involved in criminal activities, are standing for election and represent 16 % of the candidates. « The prize goes to the rural State of Bihar, with 26 % of candidates concerned. » All the major parties provide their contingents of crooks, « especially the two main formations: the Nehru-Gandhi Congress and the Hindu Nationalist Party, the bjp. » (La Croix, 16 April 2009)

Now, here is the solution that the Second Vatican Council proposes:

« The rights of all persons (crooks as well as non-crooks), families and groups, and their practical application, must be recognised, respected and furthered, together with the duties binding on all citizens (including crooks). Among the latter, it will be well to recall the duty of rendering the political community such material and personal service as are required by the common good (Jesus expressed it in an immortal formula: « Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. » One always forgets the second part...). Rulers must be careful not to hamper the development of family, social or cultural groups, nor that of intermediate bodies or organisations, and not to deprive them of opportunities for legitimate and constructive activity; they should willingly seek rather to promote the orderly pursuit of such activity. »

Who has paid heed to this recommendation? No one, and it could not be otherwise without condemning the Revolution that « killed the living parishes, manors and communes of the past and replaced them with a centralised system. Under the 3rd Republic, and afterwards too, instead of strengthening local freedoms, democracy corrupted the life of the community through the politicisation of municipal elections and the introduction of the war of religion. The schoolmaster became the preacher of the secular and republican religion, and very often the parish priest began to play the part of the revolutionary agitator! Thus the peaceful parish of the Ancient Regime took on a parish-pump mentality, with its absurd quarrels falling under the thumb of the prefectural administration of the parties. » (Point n° 136) Thus, no one worries about rendering unto God the things that are God’s...

« Citizens, for their part, either individually or collectively, must be careful not to attribute excessive power to public authority, not to make exaggerated and untimely demands upon it in their own interests, lessening in this way the responsible role of persons, families and social groups. »

This recommendation is immediately nullified by the following paragraph:

§ 3. « The increasingly complex circumstances of our day make it necessary for public authority to intervene more often in social, economic and cultural matters in order to bring about favourable conditions which will give more effective help to citizens and groups in their free pursuit of man’s total well-being. »

« The increasingly complex circumstances » have precise causes that explain the contradiction with the previous paragraph: « Municipal government is in many cases a means of domination and exploitation for one man and his party, a springboard for a political career. To which must be added the fact that any freedom granted to communities in the present administrative setting too often ends in transforming the community into an administrative and bureaucratic rung on the electoral ladder and in debasing municipal government even further, entailing debt for communities, as the candidates outbid one another to get elected, and thus subjecting them still further to the state-controlled organisations of credit. » (Point n° 136)

Such is precisely the reason for the present « escalation » in local taxes that aggravates the “crisis”. When taxpayers receive their bill, after they have already paid their income taxes and faced the costs of the start of the new school year... « in freedom », they will discover the price for the « pursuit of man’s total well-being »!

« The relations, however, between socialisation and the autonomy and development of the person can be understood in different ways according to various regions and the evolution of peoples (depending on which side of the Iron Curtain or the Bamboo Curtain the aforesaid « person » is on). But when the exercise of rights is restricted temporarily for the common good, freedom should be restored immediately upon the change of circumstances (what an interesting game! What excitement! What a nearly unbroken succession of coups de théâtre the life of a democratic society offers!). Moreover, it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on dictatorial systems or totalitarian methods which violate the rights of the person or social groups. »

It is perhaps « inhuman », but it is inevitable because the democratic State always descends from Demos to Caesar. It is a rule that knows no exception, and the Council’s directives have not changed anything about it for want of denouncing the mainspring of this mechanism: idolatry of money. The Abbé de Nantes’ analysis is implacable; taking over from Charles Maurras, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and Counter-Revolution has unceasingly explained for sixty years how « false dictatorships call themselves democratic but are secretly plutocratic. » They must be distinguished from « revolutionary dictatorships » that « call themselves democratic, and, in order to be truly so, they are totalitarian. »

1. false dictatorships.

« When the republican regime is too far compromised, there is the likelihood of a great popular, military or religious movement sweeping the place clean and restoring a nationalist regime. More often than not the great bank will take the initiative and choose its own “providential man”, whose party it will finance and whose coup d’état it will aid. And in exchange for supporting the dictatorship it will obtain the consideration of positions gained and fortunes made. Such dictatorships normally cost the nation very dearly, from Bonaparte to Charles de Gaulle, or else they degrade and weaken her, from Napoleon III to Thiers and to Giscard. It is a proven fact that they contribute handsomely to the banking and industrial oligarchies as well as to the republican personnel who are strangely spared. »

« Tied by their plebiscitary origin, which for them is “a crown of stones”, these false dictatorships are exposed to the whims of the opinions that Money subsidises. Their fall is as troublesome as their rise. »

2. revolutionary dictatorships.

« There is no revolutionary uprising that the plutocracy does not control and, if the worst comes to the worst, it is directed against the clergy, the army, the nobility or bourgeois districts, so that they may finally be dominated. So it was with the Republic of 1848, the Commune of 1871 and the “Liberation” of 1944. Unless, that is, a foreign power intervenes in this all too well regulated game of our decadent societies open to every wind, choosing an insurrectionary party and ideology, communist or pagano-racist, and providing it with the weapons of terror and the money for the conquest of power. No democratic republic can stand up to a revolution armed from abroad, just as no bank can withstand the submachine guns it has not paid for. »

« Such has been the communist seizure of power in twenty countries of the world. » (Point n° 78)

The Second Vatican Council’s major crime, a crime of high treason, was to sign a non-aggression pact with Communism; by virtue of this pact, the text of Gaudium et spes never names it. Therefore, the warning that ends this paragraph is totally ineffective.

§ 4. « Citizens must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded (this restriction is aimed at « exaggerated nationalism », i.e., « integral nationalism » and its appeal to the « divine surprise » of a public security dictatorship like those of Pétain, Franco, or Salazar). This means that they will always direct their attention to the good of the whole human family, united by the different ties which bind together races, people and nations. »

The Council, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings globalism in its train, to the detriment, precisely, of nationalism. In fact, the « spirit of patriotism » – the homeland is a historical community –, is nothing if it is not accompanied by the defence of the nation. Defence of the nation means this same community being raised to the rank of a sovereign State in order to guarantee the maximum of political order and peace to its members.

As for globalism, « the only international that stands fast » is that of Christendom, the very idea of which the Council did not even evoke. The word is absent from the index! But outside Christendom there is no « human family, which binds together races, people and nations », which are disunited by all sorts of discords...

§ 5. « All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community (obviously, the Council does not want to give to this « community » its name of « nation »!). It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good (of the nation...?). In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity.

« They must recognise the legitimacy (ah! The « legitimacy »? From where does this legitimacy that is granted a priori come?) of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions (so, the person who has written this is thinking of « heavenly solutions »?), and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods (note that as regards religious freedom, Dignitatis humanæ applies the same tolerance to « heavenly things »...). 

« Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good (even if their “judgement” is aberrant? Yes! Democracy obliges... “but”…); but it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good. »

In his Letter on the Sillon, St. Pius X did not content himself with merely addressing pious speeches to the French bishops: he exhorted them to take « an active part in the organisation of society » with the aim of thwarting the « wicked » (op. cit., n° 44).

The Second Vatican Council is unaware of the “wicked”:

§ 6. « Great care must be taken (whom does this impersonal structure conceal?) about civic and political formation, which is of the utmost necessity today for the population as a whole, and especially for youth, so that all citizens (who are all kind) can play their part in the life of the political community. Those who are suited or can become suited should prepare themselves for the difficult, but at the same time, the very noble art of politics, and should seek to practice this art without regard for their own interests or for material advantages (except for the case when the sovereign’s own interest coincides with the national interest under a monarchical regime). With integrity and wisdom, they must take action against any form of injustice and tyranny, against arbitrary domination by an individual or a political party and any intolerance (which is given as an absolute evil. But what could be more legitimate if « intolerance » consists in refusing every form of impiety, injustice, disorder, immorality that are such that no conscience can tolerate them and no power can authorise them without jeopardising the Glory of God, the salvation of souls, the common good of societies, the honour, the life, the prosperity of persons?). They should dedicate themselves to the service of all with sincerity and fairness, indeed, with the charity and fortitude demanded by political life. »

THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY AND THE CHURCH.

76. § 1. « It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails (to put it plainly, where the Church takes her place amidst a mosaic of other forms of worship), that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience (their priests and bishops are forbidden to meddle!), and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church. »

§ 2. « The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system (this was the principle by virtue of which already in its time the Sillon refrained from defending the Church when she was attacked). She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. »

Here we have « a program which nowhere and in no degree can be called Catholic. » (St. Pius X, op. cit., n° 32, infra), but it can rather be called Masonic...

§ 3. « The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. »

From reading Gaudium et spes, one would think that the social issue and social science were “born yesterday”... while « the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organisations to this end. » (St. Pius X , op. cit., no 44)

« For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation (What does that mean? Does it mean that he is called to avoid eternal Hell in order to go to Heaven? It would be so simple to say so. But no, what follows shows that that is not the matter at issue). The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavour the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens (in order to make them citizens of Heaven? That is left unsaid. Heaven has disappeared from the horizon). »

§ 4. « The Apostles, their successors and those who cooperate with them, are sent to announce to mankind Christ, the Saviour. Their apostolate is based on the power of God, who very often shows forth the strength of the Gospel on the weakness of its witnesses. All those dedicated to the ministry of God’s Word must use the ways and means proper to the Gospel which in a great many respects differ from the means proper to the earthly city. »

This is what the Abbé de Nantes calls the « evangelical modification » (Point n° 19). The Ancients used to say: « the Imitation of Jesus Christ».

§ 5. « There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man’s condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority (Obviously! She places her trust in the divine grace and the royal « privileges » that her Bridegroom grants her). She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness (in the eyes of whom, of what sovereign judge? In those of the Second Vatican Council and of its “reformers”!) or that new ways of life demand new methods (this text dates from 1965. It prepares and justifies dismantling the last Catholic nations). It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the Faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgement in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person (?) or the salvation of souls (ah! Well...) require it. In this, she should make use of all the means – but only those – which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances. »

Thus, after having asked nothing more than the “common right”, at the expense of abandoning entire sections of Christ’s mystical Body, this “Church-servant” wants to meddle in everything, while she no longer has any influence. In order to have itself accepted, this neo-clericalism will only intervene to defend « the fundamental rights of a person », not even sub ratione peccati. The men of the Church no longer have the right to preach morality to anyone, other than in the strict limits of the cult of man. As the Archbishop of Recife experienced...

§ 6 « While faithfully adhering to the Gospel and fulfilling her mission to the world (what mission? Her mission received from Christ was to baptise the nations, to give them the life of grace, to teach them how to observe the commandments...), the Church, whose duty it is to foster and elevate all that is found to be true, good and beautiful in the human community (what is her duty if there is something false, evil, ugly? This case is unforeseen...), strengthens peace among men for the glory of God. »

Thus, since the Second Vatican Council, the Gospel is no longer a sign of contradiction; rather, it reveals the goodness of man so that there may be « no more war ever again » among men. This issue is the object of the following chapter. (To be continued)

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