He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
AN INFERNAL WAR MACHINE

BY THE ABBÉ GEORGES DE NANTES

On 22 December 2006 Pope Benedict XVI offered his Christmas wishes to the Curia, which were marked by a certain lucidity on the present state of the world. Nevertheless, the proposed cure seems worse than the disease, because the Pope appeals « to the true conquests of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the rights of man ». We therefore owe our readers a clear and precise explanation of our attitude, our absolute refusal, which we declare exactly because of our Catholic Christian Faith and our devotion to the peace and happiness of nations. It will suffice for us to re-read the reasons that the Abbé de Nantes tirelessly exposed time and again in numerous manners (cf. CRC n^o 141, March 1979). These reasons will be followed by an analysis of the Pope’s speech; we shall contrast the alarming consequences of this philosophy of Man and of this morality based on his fundamental rights with daily current events.

THE USEFULNESS OF CIVIL LAW

In order to establish, protect, and increase the common good of the society for which he has the responsibility and the care, every political legislator enacts a set of laws that determines each person’s rights in accord with the needs, disputes and questions of organisation that pose themselves to citizens or that oppose them to each other. This is Civil Law. These rights of persons – individual or moral persons – regard them as members of society who are considered in their proper qualifications or functions, according to their state in life. They are subjective, correlative rights and not general, universal rights; the rights of parents, the rights of children, the rights of employers, of workers, of drivers, and of pedestrians, etc. To each of these rights correspond duties, it stands to reason. The rights of parents are accompanied by duties towards their children as well as reciprocally entailing the duties of the children towards their parents. From this results a certain tranquillity of order – peace.

Because all this legislation cannot be purely conventional or arbitrary, rather, because it should let itself be guided and inspired by the nature of things and beings, by their spontaneous exchanges and relationships, it is indisputable that, insofar as it is perfected, civil law progressively espouses the natural order that is called natural law in virtue of this contiguity. It also draws its inspiration from the experience of civilised peoples and from their ancient rights, which thus form the totality of positive law that men have codified in order to live well in society.

Apparently, civil law suffices for the happiness of peoples. How many distinguished and sensible jurists rebel against utopia think it so; in consequence they do not want to recognise any other Law. Of course, at the highest and lowest fringes of society there exist categories of persons whom civil law attends to poorly. These, however, are borderline cases. Above, the monarchic, oligarchic or popular Sovereign seems as sovereign to have nothing but rights, rights that no one is able to limit. So much so is this the case that the Prince – or the sovereign people! – is not subject to his own laws. Below, the slave, the members of the urban underclass, the insane, the criminal, are treated almost like animals and are stripped of all rights. They constitute a useless, elusive and dangerous fringe over which society soon assumes the supreme right of life and death.

To these marginalised people, modern, Christian France adds children in the womb of their mothers. Her Constitution authorises that a living child be suffocated, cut to pieces, or incinerated; these are acts that our generation engages in without effective protests from anyone. So then, what is the point of civil law?

Contrary to this legal pragmatism, we must admit that men, are neither animals nor individuals who are completely defined by their relations and social functions, for example their capacity for production and consumption of goods. Everyone has his proper, personal end to attain during his earthly life, an end that matters to him but one over which the civil legislator must recognise that he has no right and that he must respect and assist.

This means that with respect to the most profound aspect of his being, his life, his destiny, every man is outside the jurisdiction of society, the civil legislator, his Prince, the State. Especially in our totalitarian world, especially for a Pope who was raised under the Nazi regime, this inviolable character of the dignity, the freedom, the responsibility of each person appears as a transcendent Right that the civil legislator does not define and that is infinitely beyond him. Failing which, civil society becomes stifling and inhumane, and the State collectivist and totalitarian. This is true.

THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRISTIAN LAW

But from the right of each person to fulfil his transcendent destiny, to attain his ultimate end, what series of inalienable and imprescriptable rights must we conclude? And who, what authority, what legislator will promulgate, defend, and sanction them above, and if necessary against the civil authorities?

Proceeding empirically, we give here the age-old response of our Christian civilisation, of our Catholic Church; Christian law acknowledges that man has an ultimate end, eternal life, and thus he has all the inviolable rights and liberties necessary for gaining this eternal life, for the work of his salvation. Everyone has the duty to believe it, to will it and to devote himself to it with the help of others and society, if possible, without constraint, but, if need be, without the assistance of others and against all opposing, persecuting powers. This is Christian Law, Christian Liberty.

If in our Christian nations there is some question of another law than civil law, apart from and above it, if there is a law that treats the supreme rights and duties of persons, which thus form the irreducible core of the dignity, liberty and responsibility of men or of the person in contradistinction to the State, society and the family, it is the right to work out one’s salvation, it is Christian morality, Catholic freedom and no other.

This superior personal right consists in meriting and obtaining eternal life by the freely consented practice of the true religion, that is to say obedience to the divine law or Decalogue, to Christ’s evangelical law and to the Church’s precepts. It is in accordance with this right that each man falls outside the constraints of human powers whatever they be that oppose this superior right, for « obedience to God comes before obedience to men » (Ac 5.29). Let us immediately note the greater perfection of Christian law over civil law; it governs the life of all, from the prince himself, or the oligarchy, or the sovereign people, as it does the other extremity of the social ladder, that of slaves, the insane, criminals, everyone. Its purpose is both to free them, raise them, but also to subject them to God through Jesus Christ, to exalt the humble, the lowly, from their civil abjection, to rout the pride of the great and impose on them at least God’s governing hand.

The corpus of these divine laws that have been promulgated by God Himself, by Christ, by the Church under the influence of the Holy Spirit, this divine law, issues from the same legislator as the natural law of the first creation, the Creator, our Saviour, the Word of God, in the perfect unity of His substantial wisdom. Because of this it is a recognised fact that apart from very rare and signal exceptions, like the sacrifice of Isaac, Christian religious law is in perfect agreement with civil law in the same respect; it develops and explains the natural law in such a manner that in Christendom the simplest presentation of these different laws that govern human live is as follows:

Natural law, which is by creation a divine law is composed of two large divisions, relationships of men with God, religious law, and relationships of men amongst themselves, civil law. Religious law draws its initial content and development from divine revelation and ecclesiastical legislation, it is Christian law. Civil law took form little by little with the creation of States and the development of their civilisation. Both laws normally agree to recognise and respect the natural order, which is the object of their constant reference. Christian law, however, exceeds all civil law by its positive divine origin, its absolute authority and its infallible truth.

In controversial matters, the civil legislator will therefore profitably base himself on the Church’s Magisterium, on Christian law, for example to ban and curb divorce, abortion, etc. On the other hand, in his respect for the Church’s liberty and authority, the civil authority will ultimately find its legitimacy and the guarantee of its humanism, its limit and its principles, equidistant from liberal anarchy and collectivist totalitarianism.

CHRISTIAN CIVIL TOLERANCE

It is due to an unconscious madness, a slow and continual shift towards indifference in religious matters, that Catholic nations have ended up transferring the transcendent authority, the excellence and divine perfection of their religion and its natural and supernatural divine law, to all religions as though they were all equal in their origin and comparable in their content! As though false religions and ideologies could be recognised by States and should receive the same recognition as Christ’s Church! As though they could assume the role and fulfil the task assigned to religion in the natural order, to promulgate the duties of men towards God in all wisdom and truth, and to maintain its legitimate defence against tyrannical human authorities, like the fundamental rights of persons in pursuit of their eternal salvation!

False religions cannot claim to be representatives of God’s authority before Christian authorities. Nor can they claim that they themselves respect natural order and the civil law that codifies it in our advanced societies. An empiric, scientific study of false religions forces us to conclude two things; first, they cannot claim to be representatives of divine authority and therefore to have claims over civil authorities; and second, they have no constant connection with the natural order and so cannot profoundly and universally collaborate in maintaining civilisation in conjunction with social authorities.

Thus, false religions impose neither the authority of their hierarchies or respect for their legislation. They have absolutely no social right in Christian lands; they have only a relative, historic right in the countries that are traditionally theirs. Tolerance of them can be explained, however, even in Christian countries, to the extent that they do not trouble public order but, to the contrary, bring a certain contribution to the common good, to the tranquillity of citizens. States may thus grant them a de facto recognition and a certain measure of freedom, as one would give to groups that are assets to the process of civilisation and whose conduct in society entitle them to a voice in society without further examination. 

The contemporary Church finds two serious advantages in this tolerance for false religions, a tolerance, however, that is asserted to be harmless, but remains to be proven. The first is to reduce the totalitarian States’ meddling in religious affairs; these States’ democratic Constitutions inspire no confidence in their respect for Christian Law, and for good reason! The second is to prove to all men by means of this tolerance the free, unconstrained character of adherence to the true religion. If these two advantages of civil tolerance of false religions or ideologies seem to offset against the serious drawbacks of such an apparent pluralism, it would be all the more necessary to emphasise in theory and practice the privileged condition of the Christian religion, which alone possesses a divine law and is a source of social rights.

DIGNITY, FREEDOMS, RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN MAN

Let us return to Christian Law. This law proclaims the dignity, the freedom of every man, his capacity and his inalienable responsibility in working out his salvation. This law, which is also a duty towards God, has established itself in the customs and the Constitutions or the unwritten laws of our civilisation. For centuries, apart from the abnormal times of persecution, civil law recognised the Christian liberties that affected the Faith and the practice of Christ’s law in all their details. These liberties can be concretely identified with the authority and liberty that Christian States or at least the States of Christian countries recognise for the Church. But in their very principle, these individual liberties imply a certain recognition that everyone possesses the dignity of sons of God, of brethren of Christ, of members of the Church, that all should receive the respect that is due to them, the protection and assistance that the social authorities must provide them in the fulfillment of their transcendent destiny, their eternal salvation.

This is where begins a certain danger that man, the person, the individual (these words designate the same reality, the same being, the same moral subject) undergo hypertrophy. It is thus necessary, in order to remain grounded in the unquestionably divine law, Christian law, to institute emphatically that this right of every man to work out his salvation is, on the one hand, absolute, imprescriptible, and inalienable insofar as it imposes itself on man himself, on those in his immediate circle and on the public authority. On the other hand, however, let us say that this right to carry out one’s salvation stands in relation to God, or, rather, to the sovereign legislative will of God. This relation is not to some divine essence or mute and inert idea of God, bereft of reality or power to intervene in society, but to the living God, a sovereign, personal, thinking and free Being, who accords to each the rights and duties that please Him and that prevail over all laws or decisions of human authorities to the contrary.

We have to insist. The social right of every man to work out his salvation according to Christian law, the Church’s law, a right that all civil law, whether public or private, must recognise and respect, does not have its basis, its principle, its legislator in man but in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Church. Thus, it is not the right of a man, of any man as such, that would be in competition with civil law, with the authority of the State. It is the right for every man to do the will of his God, Creator and Saviour; it is, therefore, fundamentally God’s law for every man for leading him to eternal life, a sovereign law that prevails over all personal or collective human wills. I prefer, moreover, not to speak of God’s right as though his intention was to dominate and demand for Himself the goods of man. Let us rather speak of God’s will to save all men, which creates for them all a very sweet duty to respond to this vocation – a personal, universal, sovereign duty – which will take the form of an imprescriptible right before all totalitarian and persecuting human authorities.

This is indeed the traditional definition of Christian religious freedom: no one should be constrained or prevented by abusive temporal powers from doing what he must freely accomplish, his salvation in the Church, in accord with God’s design, which Jesus Christ revealed.

Human authorities, legitimate, civilised civil powers have, however, nothing to fear from this liberty that is recognised for each man, from this dignity that glorifies him, from these rights that are free from all subjection, because they originate, not from nature or from the anarchic will of individuals – or of « persons » – but in the wisdom and will of the living and true God of Jesus Christ!

Yes, man must freely work out his salvation, and this right has claims over States as well as over all other human authority. But it is by virtue of an act of divine will that at the same time that it grants man this vocation, his dignity, his liberty, it imposes on him its laws, orientation and outline. The exaltation of the dignity and rights of man does not endanger the tranquility of social order or the legitimacy of human authorities, on the one and very necessary condition that it be a matter of Christian dignity and Christians’ rights to fulfill all good works in view of their eternal salvation.

We know through divine revelation and by the teaching of the Church that charity towards God and love of neighbour go hand in hand and, by extension, that no profound contradiction can exist between the devotion of the Christian to the temporal common good and the working out of his salvation. Thus, the exaltation of the Christian’s dignity, of his right, of his liberty – the centuries provide the proof – has never been a support to anarchy; quite to the contrary, it has consecrated obedience to human authorities and carrying out their just laws.

ON THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN
SUBSTITUTED FOR CHRISTIAN LAW

The first disadvantage of Christian law is easy to divine; it is Christian. It establishes the whole of human life based on faith in Christ, on welcoming His revelation and on submission to His Church. Omnia instaurare in Christo, as St. Paul said and as St. Pius X adopted for his motto. Even if full temporal sovereignty is recognised to the political authority, to the prince, to the State, this authority is itself under the control of God’s authority, set within the framework of, surrounded on all sides by, supported but controlled by God’s authority. But this is not the authority of an abstract, conventional, powerless God, the God of the Deist philosophers, but the authority of the God Jesus Christ, who dictates His law through sovereign authorities that are superior to all others, those of the Church. This was and still is the meaning of the tiara, and this is precisely the reason why Paul VI did not want to don it. It must necessarily be brought back, and the sooner the better.

This disadvantage was sorely felt by kings in times past who sought several times to free themselves from it by assassinating holy pontiffs who were opposed to their tyranny, such as the two Thomases of the glorious Church in England, or by schism, which provoked the establishment of national or autocephalous churches subject to the state authority. But in modern times this disadvantage of depending on Christ started to be felt by everyone, since each person insisted on being his own master, on being completely autonomous, on having no other law than his personal development solely by means of his own good pleasure.

At the crossroads of the two revolts, of the two emancipations, that of the State and of the individual, a new humanism, which was resolutely secular, proposed that man be considered in himself as a source of rights, the basis of his own dignity, the born possessor of his absolute liberty. It was simply the transfer of Jesus Christ’s sovereign royalty to Man, to each man, to every man who would take God’s place as the basis of a new Law.

Another disadvantage of Christian law is that it thwarted the other religions whose authority it would not recognise. Was it not annoying and risky to codify natural law, a law common to all men, by referring to one religion among others, a religion that claims to be revealed and that adds its contingent determinations, its particular rites and laws to a natural order that one would like to be open to all, defined in a way that is common to all civilisations and all religions? It became urgent to remove the Christian label from the universal human religion.

Finally and above all, just like the sciences, philosophy tended gradually towards its emancipation from theology at the same time that civil law was moving towards a total secularisation. Reason should suffice for defining universal human nature and for establishing its great moral and legal properties. There would no longer be any need of God to establish human law, of Christ to bring liberty to every man, or of the Church to guarantee the independence of persons before social authorities…

THE PHILOSOPHERS’ TRIUMPH FOR « CRUSHING THE INFAMOUS ONE ¹ »

It was so much so that one day, without it being noticed, Christian thought ended up abandoning the divine source of human law and established Man as the primary source and his general nature as the legislator of his liberties before the universe and before God, that is to say, social, civil and Church authorities. All the particular rights that issue from one of these must in the future be structured in subordination to this law of fundamental nature: the Rights of Man.

It happened that at that time, in the eighteenth century, philosophy only wanted to know man in his essence isolated from all ontological, biological or social subordination. It was an old tradition that goes back to Boethius and Aristotle and that privileges the individual over the group, substance over relationships. Modern idealism makes this tendency more pronounced: as an individual substance of rational nature, the philosophical concept of Man implies neither dependency on a God or subjection to social authorities or even interpersonal relationships. In glorious isolation, Man was autonomous, independent and absolute.

It was also a time that was enamoured of reason, entirely in revolt against inexplicable traditions, unjustifiable inequalities, privileges, the infinite convolutions of customs and laws, and the complexity of the social fabric. All of that formed an « Ancien Régime » that was opposed to the ideal of a society of free, equal and fraternal men governed by Reason. It was necessary to proclaim the dignity of every man and his right to the full development of his being, and to provide him with the legal means for this. The Declaration of the Rights of Man came as a response to this expectation. Drawn from the pure affirmation of his primary and axiomatic dignity, that is to say, a dignity that was unproven yet absolute and unconditional, the Declaration formulated the list of his sovereign requirements in social life for the complete fulfillment of himself, with total disregard for the religious, and, of course, also the civil and social constraints and duties proper to him. The Declaration proclaimed that Man is without God or master and considered the entire human community and the world at his service.

In order to confer on it in practice a semblance of realism it is the habit to append to this great anthropocentric axiom two reassuring corollaries that tone down the double mark of absolute pride and egoism. It is said that every right is accompanied by duties and vice versa, in such a manner that this aggressive demand for the rights of the individual might appear to pour Equality and Fraternity out on everyone. It is also said that the liberty of each person stops where the liberty of his neighbour begins, so that the cry of Liberty might be understood in a plural sense, without danger of the weak being subservient to the strong. But these corollaries would make the Declaration of the Rights of Man fall under the eminently relative and particular domain of civil law by making the exercising of these individual rights subject to the decision of political authorities.

No, no. A homicidal hand must not be so easily laid on the monument that Man has raised to his own glory. The Rights of Man are as much prior to civil legislation as they are alien to religious laws. They are sacred, inviolable, imprescriptible and therefore impose themselves on any power of whatever origin they emanate and whatever authority recommends them. Against them everything is useless; nothing resists them. Man is pre-eminent; Man is sovereign. The gods and masters who have for too long made him serve them in their advantageous union of throne and altar, of Army and Church have now forfeited their sovereignty. The kingdom of Man, the cult of Man has begun, without God in Heaven or master on earth.

The common will of the eighteenth-century philosophes and Freemasons did this to « crush the infamous One », to dethrone Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords. The Rights of Man have completely taken the place of Christian Law. The apocalyptic era of the great Apostasy has begun. It is the reign of the Beast and the message of his prophet, who has the attributes of the slain Lamb and uses them to place the world in the service of triumphant Impiety. Chapter 13 of the Apocalypse of John.

ON THE INCONSISTANT AND ANTISOCIAL CHARACTER
OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN

In violent contrast to the Gospel of salvation that Jesus Christ revealed and the Church has lived out, the Gospel that has guided each man to his eternal destiny by the paths of social justice and charity, that does not contest human order, but, to the contrary, hallows it like a sacrament, the Declaration of the Rights of Man challenges any subjection and hierarchy. It radically questions the human community by exalting the individual, who is stripped of his relationships, qualifications, responsibilities and particular constraints. – The Man of the Declaration is asocial, areligious and inhuman.

AN UNBEARABLE SYSTEM

Experience shows it; reason demonstrates it. Such a system paralyses public authority, outclasses and nullifies civil law. Man, as concrete as you could wish, singular, existential, and it is all the same if you call him individual or person, this man, this person, who is proclaimed the subject of so many inalienable and sacred rights will immediately become a rebel to any authority that determines his subjective rights in society and his duties for the service of others in accordance with the requirements of the common good. Man thus exalted scorns Civil Law.

This is why, with all the appearances of reason and right, modern despotic States overtly contest these abstract, unproven, unbearable and anarchic Rights of man. Or else they accept their principle with enormous hypocrisy, as at the Helsinki Accords, in order to impose their application scrupulously on their enemies and excuse themselves for reasons of State for not honouring them themselves. To organise world-wide campaigns against these totalitarian States in the name of the Rights of Man may undoubtedly cause them some temporary difficulties with international organisations or the world conscience (if indeed it exists!); it may even snatch some victims from Moloch. This is how people justified for twenty-seven years a Pope from Poland making appeals to the Rights of Man and the UN, their self-appointed guardian.

Nevertheless, invoking such a Right against totalitarianism is a blatantly antinomical adulteration because of its anarchism, which John Paul II spread to the four corners of the world. Rightly, then, anyone who wishes and in the degree that he likes, will refute this doctrine and have its preachers thrown into prison as social agitators and traitors to the nation. In fact, it happens that the worst tyrannies resort to the noble and legitimate requirements of the common good to refuse all freedom; they take advantage of this moral victory to increase their despotism, while more human, more civilised and above all Christian heads of State, do not succeed in having their reasons accepted, do not manage to have taken into consideration by the « world conscience », international public opinion or even the Church, their plea for the common national good, human order and the elementary security of their peoples. No one excuses them, no one pardons them their slightest breaches of respect for the human dignity of the terrorist and the inviolable rights of assassins!

Faithful to the spirit and intention of those who invented it, it is normal and even unavoidable that the Declaration of the Rights of Man thus plays into the hands of the strong to intensify their tyranny, becomes a ploy serving anarchy among nations that doubt their faith, their law. This is especially true in formerly Christian, democratic countries.

AN IMPIOUS SYSTEM

These Rights of man, which are unbearable in any society at all, present moreover another serious anomaly; they are proclaimed inviolable and sacred without there being any existing objective basis to this affirmation. The rights of the Christian to work out his salvation himself, personally, without opposition or constraint, in accordance with all the laws and prescriptions of Christ and the Church, « in the name of God », represent a solid, precise, indisputable and sovereign requirement in the eyes of Christians and are not easy to contest by any man. – For these rights, the freedom that they entitle him, are divine; they must both be honoured as sacred duties by their beneficiaries and respected by all human authorities…

As well founded as these Christian rights are, the rights of man, alternatively are based on a purely philosophical concept of rational and free « human nature ». The latter enjoy no objective entitlement, no transcendent value that must compel respect and that involves duties for individuals and for the body of society. Such a Declaration is ultimately the expression of an ideology and the ranting of a social group that sets itself up without any right as a universal legislator. There exist other philosophical definitions of man, other systems, and other social groups that adhere to them in order to draw from them different ethical values and legal principles. Just as arbitrarily, some people define man as an element of the world, or an atom of the great body of society, and attribute to him as a right and duty, as his destiny and dignity, to sacrifice himself for the good of the collectivity!

The cult of man, the rights of man, the sovereign and sacred dignity of man elaborated by the eighteenth-century Freemason philosophes and proclaimed by the Revolution in 1789, can therefore be refuted and thrown into the void like debatable opinions and disguised systems of social alienation, to the benefit of any other ideology, of any other law.

Here as well, the spirit of the Great Ancestors remains attached to this secular cult of man and continues mysteriously to possess its henchmen, because it is entirely applicable, without any possibility of discussion, against any attempt to return to Christian law. Yet it would be so simple, in the impasse where the Declaration of the Rights of Man has cornered all civilised society, and amidst the revolutionary protests to which it gives rise, to come back to the recognition of the Divine law, of Christian law. Such a return is reputed to be unthinkable, odious or impossible by « the world conscience », international public opinion, the United Nations and finally by the post-conciliar Church herself, who no longer wants to hear anyone speak of it. « Nolumus Christum regnare super nos! »

On the other hand, Ayatollah Khomeini only has to call for a Holy War against the secular State and demand the creation of an Islamic Republic founded on Koranic Law, and no sooner does he execute all his enemies in the name of Allah and the Prophet, and even in La Croix, under the pen of Étienne Borne, everyone admires this return to a theocratic system and denies the impious and inconsistent secularism of modern western society! We must conclude that it is always a question of « crush the infamous One », of replacing Jesus Christ the King and sovereign Legislator with an idol, any idol at all, provided that He no longer appears as a conqueror! The best idol for damning the world amidst the impiety of the great Apostasy is still, in the eyes of man (and woman), their own fantastic image, Man and Woman become « like gods » (Gn 3.5)

WHAT IS THE CHURCH DOING IN THIS INFERNAL TEMPLE?

We must recognise that the secular humanism dear to the eighteenth-century philosophes and Freemasons  has today triumphed universally. Through the French Revolution and the cascade of spontaneous revolutions that followed it, Christian Law retreated and the Rights of man gained ground to the point of becoming the master ideology of the modern world. According to their programme, the Satanists have « crushed the infamous One ». And finally, during the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, that the largest of all the councils of history, the Church recognised her defeat. She fully subscribed to it by the words of Pope Paul VI in his closing speech: « There was no impact, no battle, no anathema »; we were reconciled in « the cult of man ». The Church proclaimed her « new humanism », which recognised the « sons of the earth » as her God, sovereign and master of all things. If the Son of God became man, man may just as well become God! If his God is man, man is God.

We must nevertheless recognise the failure of this very humanism – a bitter failure, a total failure because of its inability to replace the true religion of Christ-God, of Christ the King, a total failure as well to establish a just and peaceful human order, social peace, and civil law. Everywhere this secular humanism triumphs, it guillotines kings and massacres priests, first. Thereafter, with a clean sweep having been made for individual liberty and the Rights of Man proclaimed, pressure groups, such as the four confederated states ² of our successive Republics, seize power and confiscate to their sole advantage Liberty, Law, Justice and the whole panoply of high-sounding, grandiloquent words that have served as a lure for the revolutionary masses. By means of institutionalised violence, the plutocracy dominates the plebs, who are chock-full of theoretical rights but deprived of any real ones.

Sometimes, from the subjected masses a cry of Liberty arises, a revolt is launched in the name of the sacrosanct Rights of Man against the oligarchy that despoils them. If the popular insurrection succeeds, it will bring to power a party, a dictator who will impose their new order, in the name of a socialist, racist, classist, party ideology that will proscribe and trample underfoot, in any event, the middle-class, individualist ideology of the Rights of Man.

Thus peoples deprived of Christian Law go from an excess of capricious individualism to an excess of despotic collectivism, unless they slowly deteriorate half-way between them, in a capitalo-socialism in which everyone accepts his large part of enjoyment while being careful not to call into question a system so profitable for all.

So by espousing this « secular humanism » after it put to death her legitimate bridegroom Jesus Christ, the Church seems to be embracing a cadaver. Does she hope to warm it with her caresses and bring it back to life by giving it her own vitality? In fact it is she who is going rotten and dying from it, and this is only right and proper.

Nevertheless, she persists, through an attempt at doctrinal rapprochement. Thus, our popes multiply instances of superposing vocabularies, of making equivalences with carefully ambiguous terms. As Christian society has imperceptibly slipped from the evangelical declaration of the dignity, the liberty and the rights of Christian man, to those of man without any qualification, one would think it a simple matter to go back up from the Declaration of the Rights of Man to its substratum, to its Christian basis.

Is not the Christian fully man? and even a model of humanity? Then, all that is said about the Christian, son of God, brother of Christ, member of the Church, can be said about man! Thus all men have dignity, are free, equal, fraternal, sons of God and Christians, whether they are aware of it or not. Freemasons, who also have the cult of man, are our masters because we came to this realisation so belatedly and with such reluctance. Ah! What fine Christians they are!

The post-conciliar Church also persists in an effort of practical collaboration. Thus our popes multiply opinion campaigns in favour of Man, recognising his dignity, respect for his inviolable rights, and his aspiration to greater democratic liberty. And of course, if they courageously demand it of totalitarian and persecuting States, they are first duty bound to require it of their own faithful, of Christian heads of State and of Catholic nations. To the acclamations of Freemasons and all atheists, all the wicked of the planet, the Church is working for the overthrow of Christian States and the ruin of Catholic nations for their violations of the Rights of Man. In the men that they scorn, it is Jesus Christ whom they crucify!

Thus we have reached the worst of the worst disorders that Satan has ever imagined. The Rights of Man, carefully enclosed in the false envelope of Christian Law, effects its task by dissociating the human community and completely secularising our civilisation by means of the Church!

When we see the appeal that the cult of Man exerts today over the Church, the appeal of this ideal Man cut off from all the relationships that constitute him: his relationship with God who created and saved him, his relationships with his friends and relatives and to the human community, the appeal of the proclamation of the Rights of Man, unjustified, unjustifiable rights, rights without a whit of fraternity and charity, but burgeoning with unlimited, inhuman egoism, we are entitled to ask ourselves if the Church is not presently experiencing Satan’s ultimate temptation. It is a temptation that Satan presents to her under the guise of this idol fashioned in the likeness of man, the idol of man who makes himself God and says: « I will give You all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, for it has been committed to me and I give it to anyone I choose. Worship me, then, and it shall all be Yours. »

RETURN TO CHRISTENDOM

It is a fact that those who refuse to kneel before Man today are crushed, and in the Church herself; on the other hand those who give way to him receive authority, riches, popularity and universal glory on account of it. He has no friends, but no enemies. And the sign that comes from the Devil is this; from the time that a man signs this worldly pact, he no longer does any harm to God’s Adversary, he does not hinder his expansion or check his power; and thus he no longer has any power to do good and renders no worthwhile service to the Church and Christendom. Qui potest capere, capiat.

For our part, we will never extol Man; never will we adhere to the proclamation of his dignity and his rights. For there is nothing great other than the will of God, and the only honour for men is to be in His service.

Abbé Georges de Nantes

2) In 1899-1900 Maurras published “Les Monod Peints par eux-mêmes” (The Monods, a self portrait), in which he proved that France was in the hands of four confederate states – Jewish, Protestant, Masonic and Metic (Foreign born).