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!

OUR LADY OF FATIMA CAMP 2007

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
IN THE MODERN WORLD (2)

(GAUDIUM ET SPES
7 DECEMBER 1965)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES 

CHAPTER II
THE COMMUNITY OF MANKIND

THE GOAL PURSUED BY THE COUNCIL.

23. § 1. « One of the salient features of the modern world is the growing interdependence of men one on the other, a development promoted chiefly by modern technical advances. » This is a common assertion that we could dispute. « Nevertheless brotherly dialogue among men (anyone?) does not reach its perfection on the level of technical progress, but on the deeper level of interpersonal relationships (we are right in the middle of Christian Democratic mythology). These demand a mutual respect for the full spiritual dignity of the person. »

Such is already the « demanded » conciliation – but by whom and by what right? – between the individual who has just been exalted as a god, and the other men who are supposed to respect him, pamper him, and respond to all his desires. We will all have to be angels!

« Christian revelation »… Admire the substitution of one vague word for another that is more precise: they no longer care about drawing their inspiration from divine Revelation, which constitutes a sacred, inviolable, unchanging deposit that the Church must guard, and carries the prohibition to remodel it to her liking; so, they use a vaguer word that includes the old word, which came from God Himself, with the new one, which comes from the last Congress on uninteresting pastoral matters!

So, « Christian revelation contributes greatly to the promotion of this communion between persons... »

They say so; let us believe them, but let us make two remarks: it is a question not of preaching the Faith, morality, the practice of our holy religion. That preaching is courageous, assisted by Our Lord, and thus profitable. On the other hand, for us Christians to preach fine theories to all men without withdrawing them from their errors and without summoning them first to convert is to practice ourselves a liberalism, a naturalism, that is contrary to our faith. Jesus said: « Without Me you can do nothing. » So, if these people who are listening to you do not come to the true Faith, they will not reach fraternal charity, even if you adorn them in a « communion between persons »! And if you, in preaching to them this ever so beautiful communion in such shimmering clothes, you will do nothing, and you will be punished on the last day for having been ashamed of Him before men.

« ... At the same time (Christian revelation) leads us (or should lead us for we are going to debate the question, nothing is less sure!) to a deeper understanding of the laws of social life which the Creator has written into man’s moral and spiritual nature. »

I admire the secularism of this Council! It confirms what I demonstrated in the preceding chapter: the effacement of Jesus Christ in the higher echelons of the Church. See: their « Christian revelation » does not lead « men » further than the laws of natural social life, which is inscribed in them by the Creator…, but there is not a word on the divine Revelation that is concerned first and foremost Christian charity, and the quite basic truths, such as this axiom: « Without Me you can do nothing. » This Council parades its secularism, which resembles that of the Grand Lodge of France in its dreams, desires, projects, and requirements for a new society.

§ 2. Apparently « recent documents of the Church’s teaching (« documents » is an academic, scientific, and secular word; from the « teaching » come “Acta”) authority have dealt at considerable length with Christian doctrine about human society (there are references in a note to three encyclicals that contain all the leftist poisons and nonsense of the sixties, the loony Sixties: John XXIII, Mater et Magistra ; Pacem in terris; Paul VI, Ecclesiam suam...: by way of “documents” it is not serious). »

Consequently, « this council is merely going to call to mind some of the more basic truths, treating their foundations under the light of revelation ».

The communitarian character of the human vocation in God’s design

Like dinamiteros eager to finish their work, straightaway the bishops serve us bits of Holy Scripture and explode them. Each one blows up a section of a wall of the old building. It is astounding; it is deafening. And on it, they build their fairground stall.

24. § 1. « God, who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. » A quotation (Ac 17.26) would prove it... In fact, this is how He created them, but it did not last longer than the space of a morning. They come out again with this charming dream of the good God, as though we were still in Paradise; Cain and Abel had scarcely left it and they « treated one another in a spirit of brotherhood »: the one killed the other. It got off to a bad start, and things have not changed (see Catholic Rwanda).

« … All men are called to one and the same goal, namely God Himself. »

The Church teaches it, because she got this truth from God. What certainty can be drawn from it, other than the necessary, obligatory evangelisation by missionaries? We will see later on where the Council stands on this issue, not too hot! But to derive a duty of unconditioned global brotherhood from this sublime vocation, a duty to which only their Catholic flock will be very keen to devote themselves. It is sheer madness that costs nothing to the smooth talkers, but it costs rivers of blood for those who have heeded them too well.

§ 2. « For this reason (these tall stories), love for God and neighbour is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbour: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.... Love therefore is the fulfilment of the Law” (Rm 13.9-10; cf. 1 Jn 4.20). »

Here the dinamitero did a magnificent job from his viewpoint, monstrous from ours: selecting small portions of texts, choosing uncommon expressions with the aim of twisting them to the point of falsehood. Nothing is lacking to make fraternal charity Masonic, to make it a rule no longer between those of the same race (cf. Lk 10.27), but between children of God, born of God.

I am furious because Christian (Catholic) preaching has always insisted on “proximity” that creates the conditions for real and supernatural charity naturally, concretely, and practically: the sight of destitution, natural pity, the evaluation of the possible forms of care and assistance. When faced with grounds for misunderstanding and hatred, it has always insisted on the evangelical requirement to forgive, to ask for forgiveness, and to be reconciled… We have preached on this hundreds of times and contrasted it, of course, with charity confined to one’s family, close friends, race, party, or religion, but also with that charity that is dreadfully scornful of one’s daughter-in-law or mother-in-law, one’s neighbour or the harki from the end of the street, but gets intoxicated with compassion for the poor of the Philippines, the Blacks of Harlem, and all the prostituted children of the world… as at the Council and in the Pope’s  encyclicals or global trips.

Every man is my brother, yes, fine. Until the day when  some guy comes and builds his house just opposite, with his swarm of kids…

For Old Testament Jews, the « neighbour » was any other Jew, and that was normal when this People was God’s chosen People (Lv 19.18). But since the Church is the new Chosen People, and since she is without borders, the Christian must help his Catholic brother, and even all men who are called to become so for their salvation. Yet, being unable to embrace them all at the same time in my charity, I must devote myself to it according to various common sense laws, the first of which is “proximity”.

Let us test to see! A challenge to “humanitarians”: it is not true that the children of France must send rice to the little starving Somalians, not out of justice or charity. I am going to be stoned to death…

The bishops will not be stoned. They continue, and we will see them utter tirelessly their shameless sophism: my neighbour is far away because every man is my brother. Read it:

« To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth (!) proves to be of paramount importance (!). » You have noticed: on our planet, our bishops are only acquainted with « men... in a world becoming more unified every day ». But between this and that, never is it a question, or as little as possible! of partitions, property walls, of towns, parishes, states or nations (horror! horror!), of religions and ideological groups. So charity in view of dialogue must open our hearts, our little purse, our apartment – and what else? – to three or five billion men, our dear neighbours!

§ 3. « Let us go even further (for pity’s sake, my God, immigrants from Saturn or the moon?): the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, “that all may be one... as we are one” (Jn 17.21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons (without inverted commas) in truth and charity. »

They conclude from this that « this likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself » (cf. Lk 17.33?!).

Here again, the quotation from St. John is pruned to the point of censoring the truth… When Jesus said: « that all may be one », He was speaking about His Apostles who surrounded him in His Last Supper, and about « those who will believe in Me (Jesus) through their word »! Having concealed this detail, they say that it is question here of « God’s sons in truth and charity ». As it is understood that God is the Father of all men, all men are « God’s sons », without inverted commas, « in truth and charity », without specifying which truth and love… The conclusion is obvious: the good Christians who are faithful to the Council must enter into close, total, complete communion with every man whoever he is and to the point of making a « sincere gift of himself ». Here the « civilisation of love » that Paul VI celebrated has been built on the ruins of out-dated Catholic charity.

I had neglected the end of the previous paragraph: « Then it (the Council) will dwell more at length on certain of their implications having special significance for our day. » (23 § 2) For a certainty, they will be exhortations made to good Catholics to devote themselves entirely to the needs of the present time for realising this new society, the same that Marc Sangnier announced and for which Pius X foresaw the worst consequences: « The Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. » Vatican II only managed to go back to the chimera and to doom Pius X to perpetual reclusion, stifling, and scorn.

mutual dependencies between the person and society.

There is a God who is Creator, thus (?) He is Father of everyone; there are men who because they have the same Father are thus all brethren and whom He calls to be « one », divinely, in and through the truth (unmentioned) and love of God, and of neighbour, who is every man and all men. Here a preternatural gnosis bursts into a “personalist” – in fact individualist and self-worshiping – context in which the dream is proclaimed reality, as though it suffices to write or say something for it to be.

A formulated problem… that is quickly solved.

25. § 1. « Man’s social nature makes it evident that the progress (notice how the word is well chosen) of the human person and the advance (same remark) of society itself hinge on one another. » We inhale the climate of the sixties: the Council, the Quiet Revolution in Canada, which was de-catholicising, the bloody decolonisation, and May 1968, the “Revolution for dignity”. Everything goes hand in hand: industrial expansion within a consumer society whose economic growth indices are constantly on the rise. For this, there is no thanksgiving to God for this fortunate prosperity that benefits universal liberalism, but an astonishing remark: « For the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be (pay attention!) the human person which for its part and by its very nature stands completely in need of social life (definitely!) »

It is paradoxical! In principle, someone who has an absolute need for someone else is obviously his slave! It was good for 1968 that students, whom the State subsidised, pampered (poorly, that is quite understood), occupy themselves with overthrowing the State – this was only playacting. Yet, the Council and Fr. Cardonnel in its wake intended to make it a duty for « institutions » – we will never know which ones or who governs them – to be entirely in the service of the people who live off them. This nonsense originated with Rousseau, and passed on to Kant and Lamennais, and is nothing other than an empty Socialist slogan, which became in the course of time one of the main driving forces of Christian Democratic claims. Without batting an eyelid, they think that they have solved the squaring of the circle, namely, how the autistic personalism that was proclaimed at the beginning of Gaudium et spes could establish itself in compatibility with revolutionary Socialism. In Mexico they add “institutionalised”! the I.R.P.., Institutionalised Revolutionary Party. It wins all elections in complete legality, La Croix assures us, and lines its pockets; it is true that they are all Freemasons, and the poor people are all Catholics.

« Since (pay attention!) this social life is not something added on to man » That is true: he needs everything to work, subway, restaurant, financial obligations, social security. All is for him, yes! « through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue (!) he develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny. » Remove this pseudo-religious pathos, « fraternal », « destiny », « dealings » and « dialogue »,... what is true is that at certain ages of the human history, we have seen the reign of money galore, giving the impression that everyone worked for everyone in charming and supernatural « reciprocal duties ». The explanation appears later on, and here it is: revolutionary periods are the ones in which a generation greedily consumes the preceding generation’s savings. Thus, the conciliar principle is untrue. More Catholic than the Council, Maurras, in his preface of Chemin de Paradis (on the Index), considered this « immense reciprocity of services » as proper to Christendom, which was destroyed by the “three R’s”: Protestant Reformation, Romanticism, and Revolution.

For the moment, the Council is living in its dream, from which it is going to draw praise for « socialisation » not to say for « Socialism », behind, alas! pseudo John XXIII, I mean Mgr Pavan, the real author of Pacem in terris.

Families and the State are meant for paying. Associations are meant for « having a ball ». There it is; I began by telling you the truth to spare you from getting bogged down in this electoral pathos.

§ 2. « Among those social ties which man needs for his development some, like the family and political community, relate with greater immediacy to his innermost nature... » I stop to explain because the Council does not say a word about it: « Family, I hate you! » Léon Blum, a Socialist prime minister elected by the Front populaire in 1936, used to say in a heartfelt cry. « States, nations, I hate you! » our Christian Democrat bishops would say, if they dared. For these institutions are natural, prior to the Person, to whom they owe nothing, while he owes everything to them. So, for Socialists, it is settled: it is necessary to become emancipated from these types of « communities » and, insofar as this is impossible, these oppressive masters must be forced to become our slaves: this is a banal application of the Hegelo-Marxist dialectic of the master and the slave… and in a Christian Democrat context, the implementation of the Magnificat, « a revolutionary manifesto » (dixit Marc Sangnier).

« … others (other social bonds, which are declared necessary here) originate rather from his free decision. » The Bishops follow the revolutionary development of Law under the influence of the “Philosophers of the Enlightenment”; contractual “societies” are to be systematically preferred to natural « communities » (it is tantamount to Montesquieu supplanting Bossuet). So, here, what eloquence, what fervour!

« In our era, for various reasons, (these reasons are not very nice! but for all the tea in China the Council will not say their names for they would rhyme too closely with Lucifer and Hell...) reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies increase day by day and give rise to a variety of associations and organisations (and even damaged!), both public and private. »

The Intelligence Service counts, or rather gives up trying to count, and reckons them to be about a hundred thousand. Thus, many of them escape all supervision from family, ecclesiastical, professional and national « organisations ». But this does not deprive them of the right to receive State subsidies! The explanation that our bishops do not know is that in Mexico as in France, and everywhere else! these associations are the ones that determine the elections. For want of these countless propagandists, the Republic, secularism, anarchy, mire, would be thrown out in a couple of ticks. This is why the bishops should denounce this skulduggery. On the contrary, listen to them:

« This fact, (a word that makes the thing unsinkable and indestructible, as this good Mgr Ancel used to say concerning the class struggle: « Is it a good; is it an evil? It is a fact! » And with that, he could be for Communism!)… therefore, « this fact which is called socialisation, (it is the triumph of Pavan, a Jesuit from the Gregorian, to have exchanged the word that frightens for that one, which is more « scientific »!) while certainly not without its dangers, (let us minimise, danger is yet too strong!) brings with it many advantages (it is like alcohol, which is the number one danger: alcohol kills! Yes, indeed... However, it kills slowly, so! it is not the worst...) with respect to consolidating and increasing the qualities (or the vices) of the human person, and safeguarding his rights (or his intolerable claims, which are insulting to the point of sacrilege and blasphemy; reference to Mater et Magistra). »

So, what about « mutual dependencies between the person and society »? For me, it is clear: a group of persons A is by nature, necessity, birth, personal taste or routine in a communitarian situation of dependence S. These communities find themselves put under pressure by a complete system of free associations that dominates them through institutions and powers that were imposed by, let us say, by the “Liberation” of 1944. These associations gather 5 % of the population, which draws immunity, honours, money, etc. from them. Add it all up: in the communities, which are refuges for all that is good, true, beautiful and… Catholic, are the slaves of the new powers, slaves for which the conciliar Church has neither eyes nor ears. In the associations meet Socialists, democrats, liberals, all passionate defenders of the « socialisation » off which they live and the Rights of the human person that serves them as a cover. So, rather than « mutual dependencies », it would suffice to say “dependency” that has been institutionalised in accordance with a depraved system that the Church accepts and canonises.

§ 3. « But if by this social life (the chosen word is so general that in its comprehension it contains all good and all evil and what comes between, beneath a seeming equality) the human person is greatly aided in responding to his (same!) destiny, even in its (same!) religious dimensions, it cannot be denied (the Bishops agree to moderate their indecent praise of « socialisation », let us pay attention! how are they going to get out of this? through another « yes, but »...?) that men are often (!) diverted from doing good and spurred toward evil and by the social circumstances (but which ones?) in which they live and are immersed from their birth. » For the moment, the responsibility falls to the well-evaded « circumstances », well done! and here is what follows: « To be sure (it announces another trick: yes...) the disturbances which so frequently occur in the social order result in part from the natural tensions of economic, political and social forms. »

They do not go as far as denouncing social « disturbance ». No, order reigns, blessed by the Church. Indeed, yes! there are « tensions » in the « forms », these are precious guilty parties! and just try to take them in for questioning and throw them in prison! Of course, the bishops are courageous to recognise this evil and to designate the irresponsible, anonymous, and elusive causes. Yes, but! there is a but, that is to say, a remedy, a solution, let us say for the « excesses » of socialisation, or even, while we are at it, for the crimes of the « Socialists », yes! Well, here is what the Church offers and has at our disposal:

« But », society suffers from so many evils; « at a deeper level they flow from man’s pride and selfishness (from everyone’s? anonymously, equally and jointly of course!), which contaminate even the social sphere (I adore this stroke of inspiration: the « sphere » is contaminated!). » Let us continue the conciliar diagnostic of this bad « sphere » and of its consequences.

« When the structure of affairs is flawed by the consequences of sin (original sin? or everyone’s sin?), man, already born with a bent toward evil (let us pass over the inappropriateness of the word for it is not through his birth but through his heredity), finds there new inducements to sin, which cannot be overcome without strenuous efforts (sic) and the assistance of grace (ah! it is really the last resort without any indication of treatment). »

From the first to the last pages of the Bible, two camps are discerned and oppose one another more and more clearly, two cities, two groups of men: the just and the impious, the wicked. The Council vowed to treat all the problems of the modern world without ever using such a dichotomy, such discrimination, except against all justice and charity: at every moment they were blind to the perverse desires of the wicked and to their criminal organisations, and they abstained from giving the slightest praise to (Catholic) families and nations or (Catholic) States. On the contrary, in order to explain the horrible flaws of our modern democratic, secular societies, they charge as much as possible the « forms », the « tensions » and in desperation, the social « sphere ».

As it is lightweight, very lightweight, they are going to seek in every human being a substructure of bad nature which, unless there are « strenuous » fights against self or exception made for divine « grace », no one will be able to overcome. Thus they make a show of the varieties of corruption and impiety that overflow uniformly on the good, who are nevertheless supported by their holy religion and its institutions, and on the impious who are thus excused by evoking the defect of original sin and the vices that have accumulated in the social body.

With this, you do not fear the enemy to the left. But I am going to tell you something that you apparently do not know: for a very long time now, cash is to the left, and the great upstarts in the intellectual world, in the world of the press and other social communication media, in the industrial and financial world, finally in the parliamentary and politician world, their dumping ground are to the left. The same worlds are fiercely secular, I would say: “potboilers” so as not to stray from finance. They are also revolutionary, and against order, authority in what concerns morality, politics, school, family, etc. You should have treated your subject in two versions, the one studying the man of the left-wing faced with the social problem, and the other, the man of the right-wing. You would have understood that “man in himself” has no reality. The former embodies evil and glories in it; you raise him up wrongly. The latter, the victim of the former, embodies religion, patriotism, order, the family, good and you “disqualify” him by putting him on the level of his persecutor or, even in the most cowardly way, you annihilate him. What is this called on the part of Princes of the Church? Dereliction of duty, betrayal; about charity, love of neighbour – that beats everything! How was the “ralliement” that Leo XIII announced from the housetops in 1892 able to drive the ecclesiastical left-wing to such betrayal?

PROMOTING THE COMMON GOOD.

The first pathos, globalist!

26. § 1. « Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world (this so-called statement of fact is really stupid). As a result (pay attention!) the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. »

Such a summing up is mad! The human race is too large for man’s small head; so, it is crazy to lay down rights and duties for the whole world. What follows is nothing less than crazy as well: « Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate (who will decide on this legitimacy? the bishops?) aspirations of other groups, and even (fasten your seat belts, we are climbing) of the general welfare of the entire human family. »

It is crazy! It is already very dramatic; in order to save France from a war lost in advance, or lost de facto, we are to continue the fight to obtain better clauses for the armistice. What a trial it is for the mothers and widows of these last soldiers who have “been killed in action” to consent out of patriotism! But re-read the last silly remark of this silly article: I see our bishops tomorrow making it a duty for us to sacrifice French agriculture for the global development of Asian agriculture, which is necessary for equally sharing the earth’s riches among the various members of the « human family »!

Here is another example: relocation. Very powerful private interests have suddenly relocated industries, such as the shoe industry. Social Christian Democrats applauded this charitable openness to global common good. Today, Singapore lives, and our workers from Romans no longer know what to do to earn their living… There are a thousand examples of France’s bankruptcy brought about by the absurdity of our political regime, but encouraged, pushed into so many absurd ways by our « evangelical » dreamers.

I quoted the text of the Council in one go. I think that you noticed 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. We only have to open our borders, think European, or think “global” in order to find ways to stretch this dear comfort, this well-being to great numbers of truly unfortunate peoples. And, the most virtuous of the bunch will add, these peoples will be all the more unfortunate as we are the ones who cause their misfortune by claiming to bring to them our religion and our principles!

I say that the author and cosignatories of this text do not know what this precise, specific, important, non-speculative but vital, tragic and sacred political reality is: the « common good ». Let us take an example: one evening an employer from Romans, the city with a world-renowned shoe industry, Romans-sur-Isère, in Drôme, brings all his employees together. He displays his dossier to bring them up to date: crushing overheads, competition, the relocation of larger enterprises have created a crisis for their own. Either they abandon all pay raises and struggle here among the French, despite the cgt (the Communist labour union) – it will be hard but worth a try, because the Koreans are beginning to increase their claims… – or I close up the shops, relocate, and make myself a lot of cash for a few years.

§ 2. « At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. »

Imagine yourself in this factory in Romans, with the forty-seven female workers and twelve male workers, and the employer who has just spoken. Sacrifice, sacrifice to attempt to survive. The bishop intervenes: Yes, but…

« Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious. »

Imagine the reaction: this poor bishop believes he is on the moon! It is not the moment to be dreaming; perhaps for him there is no unemployment in his profession, no kids. Fine. But what of us! On that score I do not dare say that it is the Christian militant (not from the cftc, but the cfdt!), but certainly it is the Communist cgt who is in agreement with the bishop. We have to make demands, abandon none of our claims. Let employers first do their duty; let us declare a work stoppage as long as there is no question of settling out of respect for man, as our Father the bishop has said very well. If that is what Vatican II is, I am in favour.

The speech does not improve when it reaches its peroration. I quote it, with a few criticism, so brief because I imagine my reader crushed, distressed, furious, but more than anything else, like me appalled to discover that the greatest Council of all times was able to make such insanity into a law for the world and allegedly « in the Holy Spirit ». Who will explain that to me? For forty years I have been raking my brains over it and there is no one, no one to answer. So, let us continue on this road of pain and sorrow.

§ 3. « Hence, the social order and its development (which is on the decline everywhere in France) must invariably (!) work to the benefit of the human person (of Koreans or of our natives of the Dauphiné?) if the disposition of affairs is to be subordinate to the personal realm and not contrariwise. »

Ah! Good, you only had to say so! Social order and progress are certainly going to obey so urgent a call to do their duty! These are fine words for an election speech. Let us pass on…

« As the Lord indicated (sic!) when He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. (cf. Mc 2.27) » This has nothing to do with it; it is ridiculous. But the intention is to impose on the world a utopian social order whose first step will be general revolution (see Cardonnel, May 1968…). The disciples were hungry; they crushed in their hands a few ears of wheat when crossing through a field. Oh! it was the Sabbath day when all work is forbidden. The Pharisees point this out to Jesus who answers them what you have just read, and which can be understood with no explanation, and without passing from this little rabbinical conflict to the great lesson that the Church wants to bring to the world on the primacy of persons over any material interests. Let us carry on…

Here is a summit of ecclesiastical eloquence, from where we can neither climb higher nor descend again onto earth: « This social order (wherein the order of things must be subordinated to the order of persons) requires constant improvement. It must be founded on truth, built on justice and animated by love. » Pay attention ! It is not enough; now this is still to come... « In freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane balance. » France, de Gaulle used to say; a Council, I will say, Truth, Justice, Love, finally Liberty – it is beautiful, great, generous! It is intoxicating, all the more so because no one made an effort to show what each of these words means.

The only truth that I know, and that no one dares to point out, is that behind old Jean-Jacques Rousseau you will always find a young Robespierre.

« An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have to take place if these objectives are to be gained. » It was still very much in fashion, and in our rich, decadent countries we continued to celebrate quite well the general progress, the global euphoria, that in reality had shrunk away like a difficult piece of leather. We decreed numerous social laws, truly light-weight for those prosperous times; after them came the lean times where we are now, as we await even worse times, undoubtedly.

Nothing stops a prophet of happiness. Here is the announced peroration:

§ 4. « God’s Spirit, who with a marvellous providence directs the unfolding of time and renews the face of the earth, is not absent from this development », which the prophet guarantees as comfortable, definitive, and happy for everyone. To state that God is not absent from it leaves one to suppose that it is in order to help and bless it. We wonder what authority a Council has to prophesy and on which text or event of the « Christian revelation », it could somewhat base its assertion. On nothing! on nothing other than on universal agreement, according to the astonishing formula of Gaudium et spes: « According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown. » (12, 1)

Catholic in every respect, my own conclusion is very similar to the opinion of millions of human beings who suffer: such a conciliation between personal pride and the exaltation of love, communion between all men without a single line to make it understood that such a project presupposes suffering and crosses, against this pride, can only be falsehood.

But it is impossible to deal with the common good today without emptying it of its painful contents, which is self-sacrifice, and without occupying it once again, not with what replies to its definition and needs – namely the cult of the community for which it must guarantee the existence at all costs –, but the cult of man, of every man who is a member but considers himself as its « centre and crown ».

« The ferment of the Gospel (as well as the « Godlike seed » are mysterious words that are diverted from their orthodoxy, and we are going to see which other « Spirit » than God’s it benefits) too has aroused and continues to arouse in man’s heart (what? We are going to see and judge the tree by its fruits, here they are...) the irresistible requirements of his dignity. »

Ah! it is transcendental autism! and an irrepressible  revolutionary ferment or seed! For here the beautiful philanthropic mask according to which each human “ego” fights for the respect of the rights of other, of his neighbour, of the “immigrant”, all of them… forgetting himself, this mask has fallen

Speaking about the « common good » once and not twice, the Council recalls in season and out of season that whatever is said does not prevent everyone’s cry for the safeguard of his « irresistible dignity ». The sentence is situated there in order to link it to the following article, which is going to counterbalance what we had supposedly defended in the name of « the common good ».