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 (1)

(GAUDIUM ET SPES
7 DECEMBER 1965)

BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES 

CHAPTER III
MAN’S ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

De humana navitate in universo mundo.

What Latinist chose this assuredly rare word, which is unknown to the Vulgate? What translator found this pearl to season the banality of man’s « activity »: navitas! It is a perfidious anagram of the frequently used biblical word, « vanitas » … Is this a touch of irony on the part of a Roman humanist against his colleagues who bombastically celebrate modern activism?

In universo mundo !

On the other hand, the title in the vernacular [in the French text on which our Father’s commentary is based, the title was translated to read “Man’s Activity in the Universe] was chosen to underscore the assuredly remarkable fact of the extraterrestrial “navigations” of our space heroes and adventurers, who are now set out to conquer the Universe, that is, the thousand of millions of galaxies of the expanding cosmos. The Latinists contented themselves merely with the whole world and cut the wings off of our astronauts with their sublunary expression; the Latin expression should be translated simply as « the whole world », not as « the universe ».

Since I wish to preserve the dreamlike zest of a precious word, I would have given this chapter its Latin title in honour of the conquerors of space:

Human Navigation in the Universe.

POSING THE PROBLEM.

I am dumbfounded (sidéré: in French from the Latin siderari: to be under the baneful influence of the stars) – this is indeed the suitable word! – to see once again in this chapter the materialist, then Socialist method that the Council uses to pose its « problems ». These « problems » are quite far from and at the opposite extreme of our religion and civilisation. The obvious result is guaranteed, undoubtedly foreseen and desired: to reduce spiritual things and those of divine Revelation to being nothing more than phenomena that are entirely produced by sciences and techniques, whether physico-chemical or biological and social… Socialist.

Starting from the human phenomenon, and having accompanied it from its pulverulent individualism to its highest form of society, of « community » cemented by the « solidarity » of all, as in a body, and why not? as in the « Mystical Body of Christ », not yet realised, but for tomorrow or the day after, a question must be asked: what will be humanity’s « navigation », from the earth to the moon, from the moon to the stars, and finally in God? For the bishops, it is a “problem”, which comes in its time and place after so many others that the Council has already answered.

Here is how they ask it, as perfect atheist materialists and optimistic Socialists for whom, God or no God, it would all be the same. By making « a clean sweep of the past » in order to bank on the modern development of our world, they can have confidence: it is off to a good start, and it will succeed. It is good. Now, if it is good, God is with us. Hurrah!

33. § 1. « Through his labours and his native endowments man (his pride is his truth!) has ceaselessly striven to better his life (it is not clearer in Latin: amplius evolvere vitam suam. What ever does that mean?). Today, however (ah! ah!), especially with the help of science and technology, he has extended his mastery over nearly the whole of nature (this « nearly » is profoundly ridiculous) and continues to do so (there remained cancer, there is also AIDS, apart from that, man dominates!). Thanks to increased opportunities for many kinds of social contact among nations, a human family is gradually recognising (?) that it comprises a single world community and is making itself so. »

Here, the materialist explanation has taken over, and the devil take the daydreaming of the previous pages on « the Spirit » of the « Word made flesh » who was said to be its operator!

« Hence many benefits once looked for (I would be interested in being enlightened about these sibylline words, which I fear to be very anticlerical!), especially from heavenly powers, man has now enterprisingly procured for himself (and no longer from divine « grace »). »

Let us accept this vision of humanity’s sovereignty (but tomorrow!) with all these thingamajigs of production, of transmission, etc., concerning its destiny. All the civilised peoples have come to the same conception of their present and future. Being their pastors, the bishops have decided to follow them. We will, too, to see where this ends up!

§ 2. « In the face of these immense (these planetary!) efforts which already preoccupy the whole human race, men agitate numerous questions among themselves (that is true). What is the meaning and value of this feverish activity (operositatis)? How should all these things be used? To the achievement of what goal are the strivings of individuals and societies heading? »

We wonder why these questions come too late to be able to modify or justify the « navigation ». It is true: they worked; they did not take the time to search for where it might lead. Fortunately, they know:

« The Church guards the heritage of God’s word and draws from it moral and religious principles without always having at hand (although she studies « God’s word ») the solution to particular problems (here, humility covers a great pretention that exudes from every pore). As such she desires to add the light of revealed truth to mankind’s store of experience, so that the path which humanity has taken in recent times will not be a dark one. »

This last sentence clearly expresses the modern method of theologians, preachers, bishops, and catechists, which has become for them a form of thought, as in the years 1910 to 1930. The modern method engendered Modernist theology. Thus, I take the time to dissect it and then to discover its results.

a) The method. They begin by relating to one another their experiences, seeking the general opinion, the common faith. It is rather lowbrow, but it allows one, as we have just seen, to “pose the problems”. Then they question themselves… The questions are posed in this disagreeable interpolated clause; in so doing the bishops make a show of modesty. But the goal is to demand that they be listened to, and not those who merely content themselves with following their own personal opinion, or those – the worst – Protestant “fundamentalists”, “pseudo-Catholic” integrists, who recite to you the Bible or their Catechism of the Council… of Trent, without taking into account the discrepancy.

b) The theory. I predict for you that the series of essential, vital, pressing questions that we have just read in this paragraph 2 of article 33 is first going to give way to the exposition of our experiences, of our day-to-day life, of what the world already teaches us, and I warn you that we “will navigate” in a false, unreal world, with tampered explanations, that fly in the face of all common sense and reality. Then, the Council will assess all of it, in accordance with its general order of openness to the world, by cynically declaring the bad good, and remarking at every moment that, since it is good, God blesses it in accord with hackneyed, constantly manipulated words from the Bible. Finally, quotations from the Bible will come to assure us that all this Socialist materialism corresponds exactly to God’s plan, and don’t spare the horses! Then we will be in the ship of the mad sailing on raging waters a thousand leagues from divine truth.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Here is the reply to the first question posed above on the sense and the value of this « navitas », or « operositas », of this frenzy of activity, this eagerness and this zealousness.

34. § 1. « Throughout the course of the centuries, men have laboured (come off it!) to better the circumstances of their lives (do you take Europe for the whole world, and for you, does history begin in 1800?) through a monumental (come off it!) amount of individual and collective effort. To believers (there are all kinds of believers, some are for, and others are against: already it is not very serious), this point is settled (I do not let them say it before having reminded you that the Council crushes its audience from the outset with a categorical assertion. Although it is given as an obvious fact that everyone admits, it is an untruth; here it is): considered in itself, this human activity accords with God’s will. »

I deny this straight out! as far as the pomposity of the sentence goes, underscoring the titanic nature of certain enterprises that do not summarise a thousandth of man’s work… and as far as God’s view is concerned, for want of a definition of what « God’s will » is, the Council adapts it to fit any case.

Thus, this first long sentence is worthless.

Here is a spate of biblical quotations that evoke the Garden of Eden (Gn 1:26-27...), in order to direct our thoughts towards the intended sense: « For man, created to God’s image, received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all it contains, and to govern the world (!) with justice and holiness (before original sin through which the divine contract was broken!); a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to Him who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth. »

This paragraph is intended to convince humanity that the enormous taking possession of all forms of material energies that the great modern industrial powers pursue corresponds to God’s will, since it is naturally good – which would have to be demonstrated – and since it results in a material, moral, and finally spiritual betterment that is entirely to the praise of the Creator.

It is wrong, dead wrong to present this optimism as though it were shared by all men.

§ 2. « This mandate concerns the whole of everyday activity as well. For while providing the substance of life for themselves and their families (ah! at last a glimmer of good sense, which is quickly made to disappear under popular empty phrases), men and women are performing their activities in a way which appropriately benefits society (society uses them without asking their opinion). They can justly consider that by their labour they are unfolding the Creator’s work, consulting the advantages of their brother men, and are contributing by their personal industry to the realisation history of the divine plan. »

It is claptrap so as not to say: a chastisement for original sin, and an occasion to gain merits and to exercise Christian virtues with a view to the reward of eternal happiness. The Council knows no bounds in its utopia, in which these truths are lacking. The Council’s attention is focused on man’s work for his own power, his arrogant exaltation and his homage to God, from Lord to lord, Creator to creator (with a reference to John XXIII, in the inescapable Pacem in terris!)

§ 3. « Thus, far from thinking that works produced by man’s own talent and energy are in opposition to God’s power, and that the rational creature exists as a kind of rival to the Creator, Christians (ah! Do they still exist? Do they have their say?) are convinced that the triumphs (jolly good, well done!) of the human race are a sign of God’s grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design. »

The Council is so satisfied with its trompe-l’œil reasoning, that it gives the game away. Let us read this, and then we will explain the whole of it:

« For (a triple reasoning in « yes, but… therefore ») the greater man’s power becomes, the farther his individual and community responsibility extends (and in consequence, the exhilaration of his glory and the paranoia of his omnipotence). Hence it is clear that men are not deterred by the Christian message from building up the world, or impelled to neglect the welfare of their fellows, but that they are rather more stringently bound to do these very things. »

In order to guarantee the value of this useless reasoning, the Council refers us to the grotesque and scandalous “Message to all Men” that the Fathers of the Council issued to the whole world on the occasion of the beginning of their works. You are aware of what we think about it (Letter to My Friends no 125, 8 December 1962, p. 2).

What is the point of this craftiness? This: the Council’s only real object of adoration here is man: his conquests, his genius, his courage, his victories; hence, he has responsibilities in constructing the world for the happiness of everyone. The Council needs to convince humanity that for us Christians, as for everyone else, this is the supreme « meaning » and « value » of the feverish activity that humanity is displaying today. They are paid for that, you say? Not even that! But they adore the present-day world.

It is so enormous that they must be wary of the inevitable reaction of all rational men, of all civilised, cultured beings, and of all Catholics who recognise the Tower of Babel in this effort. Even if multitudes of excellent people are engaged in it, like the Hebrews who worked on the grandiose constructions of the idolatrous pharaohs, this uncontrollable racing of the financial, industrial, and commercial system is nonetheless programmed against God and His Christ, against the divine laws of worship and morality in which everything is subject to the absolute primacy of eternal salvation. The further the system progresses, the greater the pride, egoism, ferocity, hatred, and corruption of those who are its masters.

The Council takes the initiative – and quickly! –, for the condemnation of this new Babylon as a Satanic temptation can be the only consequence of these considerations. Here is the manoeuvre: say whatever you like, but Christians take things quite differently in light of the « Revelation of the Church », such as we, the bishops, have derived it from the Holy Scriptures. Thus, becoming all together apostles of the divine religion and enthusiastic participants in the great global works, they hope to lead the great men of this world to offer their prodigious realisations in homage to Almighty God.

Thus, this flood of outrageous words completely drowns out the fact that man’s pride threw itself into this immense enterprise with the diabolical plan of changing nature according to his will in order to end up substituting himself for his Creator and Saviour. Rather than fully encouraging « Christians » under the pretext of finally offering God the work of demons, it is high time to denounce « the meaning » and « the value » of this feverish activity, before the great apostasy and the catastrophes that will be the punishment for it.

Norms of human activity.

This article is perhaps intended to pass from material to spiritual progress by replying to the two following questions: for what must all these riches be used, and what is the aim of these individual and collective efforts? Well! The Council confirms all our fears:

35. § 1. « Human activity, to be sure, takes its significance from its relationship to man. Just as it proceeds from man, so it is ordered toward man. For when a man works he not only alters things and society (already, alas!), he develops himself as well (have you ever seen anything like that! in a Council! I underscore). He goes outside of himself and beyond himself (Christians add: and he gives thanks to God for it, so you see the advantage for God!). Rightly understood this kind of growth is of greater value than any external riches which can be garnered. A man is more precious for what he is than for what he has. »

One will admire this concluding plea on the elevation of men that results from the betterment of their material and economic conditions. Thus, the Council openly sinks into its profane, secular naturalism… It would be coarse if the formula that was taken from Gabriel Marcel and passed through Jean Guitton to the future Paul VI, had not become renowned with this quotation of the Council. It in fact allows the combination of the immense industrial and commercial progress, which, when all is said and done, is trivial, with what they want to propose to us as such a grandiose form of development in progress but in the order of « being » rather than that of « having ». From this follow the new theories of social and political power that the Council now admires and recommends for the elevation of man and of all men to an unprecedented value, dignity, and happiness.

« Similarly, all that men do to obtain greater justice, wider brotherhood, a more humane disposition of social relationships has greater worth than technical advances. For these advances can supply the material for human progress, but of themselves alone they can never actually bring it about. »

Here is recalled every effort that was made in favour of democracy, which was previously elaborated. It is a temporary assessment of this study on the meaning and value of the all-consuming human navigation throughout the cosmos:

§ 2. « Hence, the norm of human activity ( humanæ navitatis norma) is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will (of which we are totally ignorant, except that it is in favour of everything that is good, according to Genesis, which is indefinitely trotted out), it harmonise with the genuine good of the human race (but we do not yet know what that good is!), and that it allow men as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it (and here, it is pointless to seek what is behind all that: I give up, I give up!). »

Interlude

I admit that we no longer really know where we are headed in a very unpleasant fog, a pathos of abstract words that our headlights make blinding but without penetrating. Here and there, there are a few gaps in the fog; suddenly transparent language lets the intentions and ideas that they want to force us to accept in the name of religion show through. But they are always profane and totally secular ideas.

The following article, number 36, is proof of this, since it excludes any influence by or interference from religion in the scientific field.

JUST autonomy of earthly affairs

If I am not mistaken, we shall have to conclude that we are dealing with a materialist, scientist and antireligious Council. Here, in fact, is its new concern:

36. § 1. « Now (this is linked to the conclusion of the previous article in which a perfect agreement, an ideal symbiosis seemed to be established between human activity and God’s plan) many of our contemporaries seem to fear that a closer bond between human activity (humanæ navitatis) and religion will work against the independence of men, of societies, or of the sciences. »

This contradicts the categorical optimism of the preceding article; on the contrary it justifies my thoughts on the anti-religious mentality that is becoming more firmly entrenched as the « navigation » of the modern world « soars » towards the stars! Yet how does a Council take care to defend the Church against so many vicious attacks without ever denouncing the domination of powerful secret societies over the scientific milieu and over the institutions that depend on it, societies that force everyone to betray scientific truth every time it provides some confirmation of the natural foundations or historical impact of our faith? Yet our faith leaves every scientific question open, as it is not in the least bothered by the various answers that an exhaustive study might contribute. On the other hand, atheists are not free to find any truth that is favourable to our holy and true religion!

Then an enormous, dense paragraph deals with the classical question of antagonisms between scientific discoveries and our faith. I apply myself to recopying it and criticising it as I copy it out. It is amusing because it is an often surprising, sometimes foreseen, expected discovery of the author’s thinking. Is it good or bad here? I assure you that I have no idea.

Let us go off together to explore it.

§ 2. « If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things (a creature is not « autonomous »; this is contradictory!) and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must be gradually deciphered, put to use, and regulated by men, then it is entirely right to demand (oh! oh! to demand against God?) that autonomy. Such is not merely required by modern man (and before such requirement, the Council can only give in), but harmonises also with the will of the Creator. » Now, I understand! It is the victory of rationalism over the Faith, in the Council!

I got my insight from our research on the Holy Shroud of Turin, a « created thing », entirely available to God by means of what St. Thomas calls His « obediential power ». If God causes a change of state by miracle – He is free! – no one can stop Him. But we are witness to… and victims of it. Good Catholics were free to admit the verdict of science, because their faith, strengthened by the miracle, would not be affected by the discovery of a “medieval forgery”. On the other hand, rationalists were not free: a (possible!) miracle recognised by science would force them to revise all their convictions; while the “medieval forgery” would fill them with joy.

What about “bad Catholics”? For them, the Holy Shroud was a « sign of contradiction ». Already the Council had ensnared them in the bonds of rationalism. They proved themselves, and still today, to be in totally bad faith, by denying a miracle and even its theoretical possibility and scientific demonstration.

It is clear; freedom is here again on the side of the pure Catholic Faith, q.e.d.

The Council, which is not reading over my shoulder, continues senselessly: « For by the very circumstance of their having been created, all things are endowed with (what now?) their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order. »

What pedants! They continue because they are sure to have knocked out every contradictor by that blow:

« Man must respect these as he isolates them by the appropriate methods of the individual sciences or arts. » That resembles the Pharisees confronting the man who was blind from birth: « What I know is that I was blind and now I see! », he said to them. The Council replies: « God is forbidden admittance into our laboratories! »

They continue:

« Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. »

The dodge is blatant, but what does it mean as it avoids being very clear? We saw it concerning the Holy Shroud: assuming an a priori according to which miracles do not exist in nature, and, thus, less yet in science, the only thing that was feared was the dishonesty of Catholics who, in order to save their relic and their faith, would carry out fraudulent experiments. And the others, on the other side? Left without any surveillance! It is the world turned upside down!

« Indeed whoever labours to penetrate the secrets of reality (we enter into the mysteries of the Gnosis) with a humble and steady mind, even though he is unaware of the fact (and here is the subconscious that is called to the rescue), is nevertheless being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity. »

What does « is nevertheless being led » mean? That he is not really being led! So who is “leading by the hand”?

Either this passage is intended to introduce esotericism into an act of the Catholic Magisterium, or it does not make any sense.

« Consequently, we cannot but deplore (this is not the language of the Magisterium but rather of experts who ask permission to settle an old score with their adversaries, and it is only too true!) certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science. »

They say « Christians » and speak without spite because those whom they are aiming at are more often Protestant fundamentalists than Roman Catholics who were kept on the right path by Church authority, at least until the Council exclusively.

« From the arguments and controversies they spark, they lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed. » In a note, there is a reference to a book on Galileo that came at the right moment in 1964; as everyone knows, he was a victim of the Inquisition. Freemasonry made him its hero of science and pure reason against Roman obscurantism. It was Paul VI who wanted this book, and who wanted him to be celebrated in order to inform us that the Council is the « Council of Enlightenment » after the darkness. It was all due to a height of ignorance and stupidity, but this is not the place to deal with it.

I merely content myself with pointing out the ambiguity, or rather the malice of the last sentence: the errors, narrow-mindedness or mistrust of the conservatives would be the main cause of the « arguments and controversies », when it is obviously always the daring novelties of scientists that cause controversy. Rightly or wrongly, this is where responsibility will be assigned. But this mistrust of science, the Council severely concludes, « has lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed ». It is the final way of getting the contrary principle into heads, as though it were perfectly obvious: « science and faith are not mutually opposed ». This is an even more serious error than the one against which the Council unilaterally rose, for two reasons.

First, because in a rationalist and atheist world, scientists are often dishonest in their works, in an anti-religious, anti-Christian sense; thus the opposition is always impassioned in the scientific milieu, especially when state controlled.

Owing to the need to earn a living, the other reason is the practical impossibility for scientists to recognise the best established miracles and prophecies, when these would be excellent proofs that true faith and true science cannot, must not be in conflict… and are all the better for it. The Holy Shroud, the miracles of Lourdes, the miracle of the sun at Fatima are tests. Explain to me with these precise examples the obstinate silence of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which Paul VI founded and which still has the favour of John Paul II. It rehabilitated Galileo and refused to study the Holy Shroud and Fatima… So, where do the « arguments and controversies » originate? From their side, not ours!

In fact, the question has been settled. I recopy this paragraph in order not to appear to evade some embarrassing light. It is gibberish:

§ 3. « But if the expression, the independence of temporal affairs, is taken to mean that created things do not depend on God, and that man can use them without any reference to their Creator, anyone who acknowledges God will see how false such a meaning is. » Ah! What a fast and perfect about-turn! Yet the correction made in extremis to this impious article, probably as bargaining chips in order to obtain the votes of the conservatives at the final ballot, is immediately neglected, swamped by the following considerations, which are so many evasions:

« For without the Creator the creature would disappear. » That is going too far; it is even ridiculous.

« For their part, however, all believers (the Council gets them on its side by talking nonsense) of whatever religion always (sic) hear His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures. When God is forgotten, however, the creature itself grows unintelligible (it does not need that to grow unintelligible!). »

This article was a digression. Let us return to our questions, which the Council considers as « problems » that it has already well clarified. There remain two of them:

Once and for all, what is the raison d’être for humanity’s prodigious cosmic « navigation » from the beginning to our days and beyond…?

What an end, what a culmination can one conceive following what contemporary men think, what Holy Scripture says about them, and, of course, what the conciliar Fathers have piously retained from them while impudently neglecting them at the same time. This will be the subject of the last three articles, which will undoubtedly be of greater interest than everything that we have studied up until now…

What a profound disappointment!

human activity deteriorated by sin.

The word « deteriorated », which is said about something that has been damaged to the point of being no longer usable surprises us here. Did they want to tone down what the Latin says: « corrupta »? Be that as it may, after having vaunted everything about man’s prodigious navigation in the universe, after having announced his triumphal fulfilment, suddenly, in one go, the Council is going to evoke all the « corruption » that sin causes, but also, as though to close this sad parenthesis, it also evokes the remedy to the evil, so that no one keeps the slightest trace of it at the end of the navigation.

37. § 1. « Sacred Scripture teaches the human family what the experience of the ages confirms… » I point out again this casual manner of relating Divine Revelation to the experience of men and here « of the ages »! The Word of God suffices; it alone is absolutely true, notwithstanding even the world’s opinion. Let us pass on...

« ... Sacred Scripture teaches the human family (sic!) that while human progress is a great advantage to man (man before sin? after that its language changes!), it brings with it a strong temptation. » It is a little late to say so after having let the opposite be believed, if only in the preceding article on almighty, unsullied, honest science… unlike so many Christian conservatives! That lets it be supposed that « sin » plays its role separately. We shall see…

« For when the order of values is jumbled (what does that mean? and by whom is it jumbled?) and bad is mixed with the good (same question), individuals and groups pay heed solely to their own interests, and not to those of others. » Then everyone goes astray, but who is responsible for it? Where and when does it happen? Why does this bad lead « individuals and groups » this way? It is catastrophic! No, the Council reassures us: « Thus it happens that the world is not yet (after « more than four thousand years ») a place of true brotherhood. In our own day, the magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself. »

Yet you had concealed it from us until now, and spoke about the growth of science and technology as the main axis of human progress? What deceit!

§ 2. Gaudium et Spes now dares to reveal to us « a monumental struggle ». It would thus really deserve its other name “Luctus et Angor”, griefs and anxieties... « For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness (What is it? No one has ever spoken about it to us!) pervades the whole history of man (that is news to us. It is enough to take our breath away). The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested. »

This time, it is serious! For them to base their statements on the Word of the Lord, the thing must be hard to swallow, and the Council, which has to admit it, prefers to hide behind someone more authoritative than itself! « Caught in this conflict, man is obliged to wrestle constantly (to wrestle? That is new to me!) if he is to cling to what is good, nor can he achieve » ...what? To escape from the powers of darkness and go to Heaven? Ah! Of course not! The Council is beyond that! Fine! So, man (everyone and no one) achieves (I underscore) his own integrity with great efforts » (against whom? against himself? it is incredible!) and « the help of God’s grace » (But where can it be found? How can we obtain enough of it to be victorious?) » All of that was intended to frighten us, and then you end with such a joke: « our own integrity »? You make me laugh!

Vatican II recoiled from its duty; it failed to teach the truth regarding “the final ends” of angels and men. It is too dreadful; let us postpone it again for later and find a way out. So they came up with this lie by omission; but in a note, minutely written, the not so very courageous Council refers you to the Evangelist Matthew who fearlessly reports Jesus’ terrible prophecies in his apocalyptic discourse on the ruin of Jerusalem and that of the world at the end of times.

You really need glasses and a great intellectual conscience to read: Mt 24:13; 13:24-30 and 36-43… and to go see what is concealed under this small series of enigmatic digits: three groups of verses that are carefully cut into small sections that refer to the parable of the darnel, and to Jesus’ eschatological discourse. They would turn your blood to ice water with terror if you had achieved, as the Council says, your « own integrity » in any way other than a « Catholic » one, like the darnel about which Jesus Christ would say to His Apostles, His reapers: « First collect the darnel and tie it in bundles to be burned, then gather the wheat into my barn. » (Mt 13:30).

As for Matthew 24, it cannot be summarised, and it is grave. But this chapter and the following one, 25, are concluded by the last words of this prophesy of the last judgement, happiness for the good, misfortune for the wicked: « And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. » (Mt 25:46)

I repeat that if you consult the index of the Acts of the Council (Centurion 1967) between “enfants (children)” and “enseignement (teaching)”, “enfer (Hell)” does not exist!

Still, a cloud passed by, and the Council does not succeed in concealing its embarrassment for having lied so much up to this point, its feeling of helplessness at the idea of resuming its easy-going and resolutely optimistic discourse… But have no fear, it will soon forget!

§ 3. « That is why Christ’s Church, trusting in the design of the Creator (« that is why » is itself quite a business, for it makes God responsible for the materialistic and socialist optimism of the modern world… that the Council follows), acknowledges (she sticks to her falsehood) that human progress can serve man’s true happiness, yet she cannot help echoing the Apostle’s warning: “Be not conformed to this world” (Rm 12:2). Here by the world is meant that spirit of vanity and malice which transforms into an instrument of sin those human energies intended for the service of God and man (sic!). »

The act of treachery is still there, incorrigible to the last words. This « human activity » that the Council celebrates is criminal in its supreme intentions that were announced at the beginning of this chapter. They are entirely directed towards the glory of man, his dignity, his well-being, and to the construction of his tower, without God or the Lord Jesus Christ being their sovereigns. From the outset, it is antichrist. In the necessary condemnation of the « present world », following the Apostle, the Council manages to exonerate its interstellar navigation; it is neither Christian nor Catholic, but it is just about good enough for the loss of souls.

Thus, the Council is caught between two twin situations and, let us immediately say so bluntly, between two outcomes, two ultimate ends given to human “navigation”. It does not want to choose the Catholic way; it cannot present the modern pagan way straight out. It will thus shoot successive simultaneous discharges in both directions. It supposes that the glory of man lies in this world, in his complete success… It will appear, like Marx’s classless society, to pass into timelessness, since all the historical or dialectical tensions will have been resolved in the pleroma. But it will evoke the evil that remains in human society in order to resolve it by faith in Christ, as though it were a human « salvation » but which will only take effect with God in the beyond: « Heaven »! This second perspective would be Christian if the Council were not forced by its initial commitments to hold obstinately that all men will enjoy eternal bliss and, at the same time, to maintain that it was impossible, without many efforts and divine assistance, to enter into eternal life.

Held by the throat, what will the Council reply to all those who will say to it: « And those who will not arrive, where are they? » Just read what follows:

§ 4. « Hence if anyone wants to know how this unhappy situation can be overcome, Christians will tell him that all human activity (here, I regret the word « navitates », because the fun is over; it is prosaically a question of work, necessities, duties of state!), constantly imperilled by man’s pride and deranged self-love... »

I interrupt and protest! I first amused myself then worried about this odd vocabulary: « navitas » to translate « activity », with a nuance of feverishness, exaltation. Then in the preliminary articles 33 and 34, I obviously recognised in the turgidity of style and the choice of long words that it was not a question of human work and its utility, and so not a question of its intentions and ends, but of « these immense efforts » (33 § 2), and « the triumphs of the human race, a sign of God’s grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design. » (34 § 3). These marvels are only a new embodiment of the dream of Prometheus or the builders of the tower of Babel.

In short, we were, and we still are there, faced with a new crisis of global paranoia. So, this delirious navigation is obviously under the orders of the “Prince of this world”, who thus drags off, as though inevitably, all those who volunteered to participate in this fantastic work. Woe betide them! It is impossible to conceal entirely the misfortune with which they are threatened: it is the damnation of souls (cf. 37, 2) Consequently, when the Council wants to involve the mass of good souls, workers, the poor, and all those whom whatever work crushes, by announcing to them that « all human activity » is « constantly imperilled by man’s pride and deranged self-love », I protest.

A minute ago, you wanted your « immense efforts » to be spared such a reproach by claiming that it was « intended for the service of God... and man! » in order to allow yourself to deny that it is an « instrument of sin ». Once again, I was well inspired to be over-critical; you accuse the work of the humble and the poor of what you exempt this Promethean « navigation » throughout the whole universe! This is a refusal to take into consideration the life of nine-tenths of humanity and an insult to their quite simple need to work for a living.

The goal is apparently honest and pious. In fact, it is not. You now want to make your « immense efforts » benefit from all the Christian holiness that goes so well with the submission of the humble to their duty of state… where the demon has no business and nothing to find.

Then comes a torrent of pious literature, but it is already disconnected from the network of the poor people in order to turn to the rehabilitation of the « immense efforts » of the « men » for whom Christianity is only a superstructure or a mask. I re-copy what no longer means anything and becomes ambiguous, more and more ill suited to ordinary people, and more and more general, evasive, inconsistent, in order to be applied to the great system that is open to all religions and irreligions:

« ... must be purified and perfected (a natural or supernatural perfection?) by the power of Christ’s cross and resurrection. For redeemed by Christ and made a new creature in the Holy Spirit, (that reminds me of Melanchthon and Calvin) man is able to love the things themselves created by God, and ought to do so. »

What things? Why, all of them! The dog was not long in returning to his vomit! What follows is worse than ever: « He can receive them from God and respect and reverence them (what? Pretty girls, beautiful cars, jewels, castles, personal jets, in a word everything...) as flowing constantly from the hand of God. Grateful to his divine Benefactor (I swear to you that it is the language of the Yankee Puritans of colonial times, spiced up with Biblical maxims!) for these creatures, using and enjoying them in detachment and liberty of spirit (these words clash when associated!). » The Council goes crazy: « Man (the poor rich!) is led forward into a true possession of them, as having nothing (but...), yet possessing all things. A quotation from St Paul: “All are yours (there is no need to tell it to them twice!), and you are Christ’s (no! They went over to the cult of man), and Christ is God’s” (so if you are lost for Christ, you are also lost for God). »

The Council does not have in mind Christ’s curses against the rich, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees who openly became the flatterers of these ruling classes without ceasing to scorn them in secret.

Brother Georges of Jesus-Mary.