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 

An unexpected and scandalous chapter,
a plea for atheism.

An entire concrete block, paragraphs 19 to 22, is a snub to the old Church, the Church of Polish Cardinal Sapieha. It was delivered by a small, closely united group of cardinals, bishops and theologians whose main “debater” was the young Archbishop of Cracow, Cardinal Sapieha’s successor. This is more serious than a generation gap; this opposition revolved around the possibility of a philosophical agreement between those who believe and those who do not, between the “pious” and the “impious”. They had to find points in common; it was necessary that the Church rehabilitate atheist materialists so that the latter might give in and accept dialogue with a view at least to having love for one another and working together for the construction of the future world, which at that time was Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist.

The Council’s bold attempt succeeded. Atheism no longer has enemies: it only has admirers.

Here is why…

FORMS AND ORIGINS OF ATHEISM.

I am forced to warn you that the form of the mind of the writer or Author of this short treatise on atheism is formidable: he says irrefutable truths by introducing them in an astounding perspective, which could be considered Hegelian. Thus, I must replace everything in its correct sense. Let us try…

19. § 1. « The root reason for human dignity (oh! oh! that is quite the start we are off to) lies in man’s call to communion with God. » Already man is in a lofty position, and God is subordinate. « From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. » Invitation, offer to converse, these are really castle to castle relationships, from sovereign to sovereign. « For man would not exist were he not created by God’s love… » Here is a steadfast truth from which our Author does not draw the two decisive consequences: then God exists! and He is the Master and Lord of man! « by God’s love and constantly preserved by it ».

There are two ways. The Author states first the one, which he will reject: « And he (man) cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator. » The mystics and the saints of the Church have done so. But the enemy sowed his tares, a poison, a razor blade in the salad: the words « devotes himself », which are going to wreck havoc upon certain souls. It is not I who invent it; it is Karol Wojtyla:

« Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognised this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems (the author uses this word, seemingly as a conservative for someone who understands “the most horrible”; in reality the rest of the sentence shows clearly that the author meant “the most considerable”) : ... of this age, and is deserving (not of criticism or severe reprobation) of closer examination. »

There will only be talk of this! We are already defeated. Just think, for eighteen paragraphs, the Council celebrates from all points of view the dignity of man. Now, to this dignity two ways are offered: that of “abandoning” oneself for the love of God who offers him this adventure, and that of self-love that dares to lay down its conditions, to reflect, to chose, to keep waiting, in order to humiliate God and for himself to grow all the more in dignity. This text, 19, 1, is exactly the modern formula of the Serpent’s temptation of our first parents. Read it, re-read it, and come to a conclusion.

The lawyer of the Collective “Atheists, why not?” then freely pleads on behalf of his interested clients; in this court, he has the freedom to say everything:

§ 2. « The word atheism is applied to phenomena (sic) which are quite distinct from one another. » It is a ruse: the « phenomena » are masks; they protect the individuals, associations, occult powers, and one cannot, without making himself look ridiculous, attribute bias, hatred, homicides, and concentration camps to masks… Thus, there is a procession of the various atheisms; as in a fashion show, the models walk past.

« For (do we have to let ourselves be had? If you are bored, you can go directly to the next chapter) while God is expressly denied by some atheists (how can someone dare to say such a thing! in Saint Peter’s! without the bell ringing and without that man, who dares to evoke absolute godlessness as a theme for study, being ejected!)...

« … others believe (!) that man can assert absolutely nothing about Him. » The men who think thus insult all the men of pious peoples and at the same time insult the living and true God. No bell rang out; atheism disguised in agnosticism has taken another step forward.

« Still others (what a throng of people, what richness of thoughts!) use such a method to scrutinise the question of God as to make it seem devoid of meaning. » What do they mean? Nothing! It is a pure and simple blasphemy, punishable by death if we want to stop the infectiousness, because to display such indifference to God Almighty constitutes a provocation whose punishment can only be eternal damnation. Yet, nothing budged at the Council; everyone listened to the advocate from Cracow with respect and admiration,

« Many (still crowds!), unduly transgressing (ah! oh! thank you, the last pious men of the Council murmur; who subsequently, fall asleep again) the limits of the positive sciences, contend that everything can be explained by this kind of scientific reasoning alone, or by contrast, they altogether disallow that there is any absolute truth. »

The advocate is wily. Here he is playing a difficult game. So he yields a little something, then he takes it back. The crime of atheism is a crime against society that dooms to the most just condemnations the men and associations that conceal themselves under the masks of scholars and philosophers. What gave them the right to let their advocate declaim in the Council in this way? In the House of God, to plead on the behalf of blasphemers! Has Rome, then, lost the Faith?

He continues, « Some laud man so extravagantly (ah! that is a sensitive issue, be careful of the guile!) that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anaemia... » Justly so, but be careful. It is a snare set for the innocent: « though they seem more inclined (more guile) to affirm man than to deny God. » The man is very, very clever…

The counter-attack of the Catholic Faith and of Greco-Latin wisdom is immediate and lightning: those who set great store by man are revolutionaries. Let them be silenced. It is radical! Yet the modern « Christian Democrat’s » answer will be soft: he will praise these people for working towards the grandeur of man. Thus, he will excuse them for forgetting rather often a God whom he will blame for obsessing minds: it is not because they reject God or deny His existence; they only find Him too intrusive! Careful, you must not slacken now! because the philosopher from Lublin will not tell you the names of his friends, who are all Communists. When throwing off the mask, we will necessarily find a famous name under it.

« Again some (but they are the same!) form for themselves such a fallacious idea of God that when they repudiate this figment they are by no means rejecting the God of the Gospel. » Response: Well! Let them struggle with their nightmares, but be banned from speaking if you permit yourself such cunning tricks for which the holiness of God must pay!

From now on, all the masks fit together in order to lead to full recognition of atheism by the Church, the Church of God! as a legitimate form of the cult of Man… Here it is:

« Some never get to the point of raising questions about God, since they seem to experience no religious stirrings nor do they see why they should trouble themselves about religion. » The Devil’s advocate, if it is not the Devil himself, is sitting pretty. Remember: « 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) Here is the practical application! The Council felt the need, for entering into dialogue and friendship with the modern world, to do without God, in order to apply themselves exclusively to man, to his earthly destiny, to the improvements that remained to be made for the recognition and the exaltation of his dignity, his freedom, and his development…

Will Man soon finish his plea? On the contrary, he raises his voice and attacks, in the name of all his masked, inaccessible clients:

« Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly (in Latin: indebite) invested, and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. » In order better to defend this new band of crooks, his clients! I admire that the Advocate admits, against them, that they are wrong to take their ideas, their women, their cat, their dog, or their serpent for the true God. Nevertheless, the Polish philosopher continues step by step the demonstration of his anthroposophy according to which Man is at the centre and crown of his sphere, of his “own universe”, and however far he goes, he is correct and has the right to rebel against every violation of his sphere that is committed in the name of a God whom he has thrown out of his life and his freedom.

Finally, because he is out of breath, he pulls out all the stops by this magic argument: « Modern civilisation itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason (of course it is for essential reasons! but the other One does not want to risk anything by using too violent a provocation!) but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs (but those are the very essential reasons!). »

The Council turns a deaf ear, and this is where its condemnation begins, because the other One, without the three customary warnings, attacks, and in a spiteful way.

IT IS THE FAULT OF CHRISTIANS!

The advocate of atheism pleaded innocent so as to bring in his favour an appreciation of half-hearted morality. It is not an acquittal but a condemnation for form’s sake:

§ 3. « Undeniably, those who wilfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions (sic) are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame. » What blame, in the singular? The little that is said about it in these lines allows it to be thought that the main, the unique one, for the advocate, is a fault against oneself, a lack of submission to the « requirements » of his own dignity. But a fault against God of which, according to St. Paul to the Romans, no Christian can be unaware?

Obviously, the atheist’s advocate could not quote anything without condemning himself. Gaudium et Spes does not quote in full this monument of doctrine anywhere. Hardly a few scraps of it appear. Now, this text is a condemnation without attenuating circumstances of atheists and agnostics as inexcusable, « ungodly persons. »

« … The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from Heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools... » The text continues, as we know, by the twofold consequence of their impiety: the most abject idolatrous cults, and the return to the abominable corruption of the Sodomites… « For they dishonour their own bodies, they who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. » (Rm 1.18-25)

Because the Council silenced this verdict against atheism, and turned away from St. Paul and his preaching of the unavoidable punishment of sodomy, today this appalling canker and the punishment attached to its cursed works poisons the world.

But we are only at the relaunching of the plea. If the atheists are innocent, those who are responsible for this scourge of atheism must be found. It is a pandemic that is worse than all the others because it is spiritual and atrophies man’s loftiest faculty. I observe that until now all that the Council has noted as bad, false, vicious, or unbearable has been attributed to abstract causes such as change, to those whose identities are concealed by impersonal grammatical structures and whose anonymity no one has sought to penetrate, or finally to opinions, tendencies, or forces, the payers, inspirers and dictators of which the Council has refused to designate. Here for the first time, the Council dares to declare: « Taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development. » It is, of course, a statement of the obvious. This naivety indicates a desire to denounce the men and associations that are engaged in atheism and that work for its extension, its universal victory against God, against Christ, and against the Church… At least, reading too quickly, my heart leapt with happiness to see at last servants, and in their midst, the Servant of the servants of God, leading up to the very necessary Crusade against atheism. Alas! A strange sentence that precedes immediately showed me my error:

« … yet believers themselves frequently (sic) bear some responsibility for this situation. » The advocate had just half-heartedly admitted that his clients, all the atheists and atheist associations « are not free of blame »… Then he continues by looking at and pointing to « believers », and you can be sure that we are in his sights and are going to be to such an extent, to the point of finding in believers – and this is the sentence that had contented me – « the spontaneous development »; you indeed mean: the origin of this scourge. It is, Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, lousy, do you hear me? Since most of you are dead, I leave it to your last surviving confreres and to your successors to react to the insult. I will never retract it.

Having said this, we must read, for the “lousy insult” is not disinterested. It aims at having an error accepted as a truth, and to save a desperate cause. I announce it in order to facilitate the discovery of the poison that has been skilfully concealed in the overdone pathos: it is a question of placing the responsibility for this scourge of all forms of modern atheism not on the souls of all « believers », the conciliar ones included, the bishops themselves and the one who is speaking, the Polish philosopher! but on the souls of the believers in the religion against which the Council had been established. This is what justifies this incomprehensible insertion of a study on atheism, in the middle of a text that in no way called for it. The circumstance was invented with an aim to malign the Catholic Church, to curse her outflanked defenders, to rehabilitate, then, and flatter her fanatical adversaries, the atheists, and in this way to end up offering daringly on the cadaver of the Catholics, a new agreement of dialogue and global Socialism between sincere atheists and enlightened Christians.

All that remains to do is to read. It is fascinating, as it is to observe a serpent (at the cinema!) that slithers under the leaves and of which we will not lose sight until it has swallowed the poor sheep:

« … For, taken as a whole, atheism is not (sic) a spontaneous development (just go and look in the direction of Hell!) but stems (its conciliar advocate continues. He consequently deserves to be nicknamed “the Devil’s advocate”) from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs (I underline), and in some places against the Christian religion (I might have known!) in particular (this aims to dissuade them all from protesting). Hence (he acts as though he had demonstrated what he has only denounced without proof) believers can have more than a little to do (in any case, the “ lousy insult ” is thick, black, and foul-smelling!) with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion. »

By setting out in advance my interpretation of their text, I feared that afterwards, when you had reached these last lines, you would turn against me, since you would not find them such as I had announced. But, when recopying them with my pen, I must say that more offending, more sullying words come to mind, which I have difficulty holding back. It is despicable!

It is despicable that Pope Paul VI and his Second Vatican Council attribute the responsibility (partial, yes, yes! locally, yeah! limited, nonsense) for global atheism to the admirable catechisms of the past, and the no less admirable lady catechists and parish priests working away happily at this task, and to the « deficiencies », obvious considered to be scandalous of « believers » in general.

Throughout the Council it should have been recalled to these triumphalist orators who ritually crushed with their contempt the Church of the past, her saints, her doctors, her families that populate her intensely Catholic villages and  nations, the parable of the speck and the beam. Because after all, if the « growing numbers of people abandoning religion in practice » (your own admission GS 7 § 3!), must be attributed to a Church, is it the one of past centuries, or to that of your confounded ante-, para- and postconciliar reform?

« They are deficient in their religious, moral or social life »? You must be joking! Go take a look at the statistics of your defrocked priests compared to ours; even falsified, these statistics still speak! You only have to compare the religious life of Cracow under the crosier of the holy Patriarch, Cardinal Sapieha, to what it became after the charismatic “fever” of his successor. As for « social » scandal, if you are aiming at the reactionary political convictions of our Fathers, compared to your Christian Democracy that St. Pius X condemned, and to « your collusion and complicity » (dixit Cardinal Garonne) with Socialism and Communism, it would be time to retract the very vicious and false accusations poured out by the criminals themselves, seeking to have their innocent victims shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.

The religion of the past produced atheism; our conciliar religion will be different and will do better. We have enough to judge on, the results, forty years later! But already, a priori, we could demonstrate the contrary to you, quite the opposite and even more. You incriminate the teaching of the faith of our grandfathers, but this formula conceals your Modernist, reformist project of substituting for it an immanentist catechism in which each person’s “experience” will constitute “my own little religion”. And thus you imagine your grand-nephews enthusiastic to the extent of “constituting a problem” for atheists.

Your final words bear witness to your loss of faith in Christ, which is replaced by a doubtful, rash faith in man. If you claim to reveal to atheists the authentic and fascinating face of Christ, « face of God » by your great looks and your human success, and thus convert them and make them penetrate the Christian mysteries by opening to them the splendours of your intimacy, it is a dream. In the Church, the “witness” can weaken, detach himself, be lost; it is the “testimony” that counts: they are the irrefutable proofs of the existence of God that impose themselves upon all men for their salvation. It is the testimony given by the Apostles concerning Jesus’ Resurrection, and the contribution of the providential, scientific document that the Holy Shroud is, for converting people to Jesus Christ. Now, the Church has never failed to preach thus through witnesses who went to the extreme of bearing witness, martyrdom.

Since the « threee R’s » Protestant Reform, Romanticism and Revolution, this incomparable, irreplaceable preaching has receded and then disappeared, leaving the disoriented masses penned in like animals in atheist organisations.

SYSTEMATIC ATHEISM.

We still have not finished with atheism, under the pressure of a small minority that not only wanted to prevent atheistic Communism from being condemned, but even still aimed to explain philosophical Hegelian atheism and pragmatic Marxist atheism sympathetically. Consequently, the absolutely scandalous, erratic block is embedded there.

20. § 1. « Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God. »

I point out that this was already said (no 19, 2 ; the 5th category). But here, Communism demands, through its accomplices, to be treated apart from the others. What is said about it only brings the cult of man to an absolute point of paranoia. Since the Church in Council has declared that everyone accepts the principle set forth above with regard to eminent human dignity (12, 1), Communism is up-to-date, in symphony with the Church, and the author of this paragraph knows it. He continues:

« Those who profess atheism of this sort maintain that it gives man freedom to be an end unto himself, the sole (I emphasise!) artisan and creator of his own history. »

The Church in a state of Council is in « line » with this Communism.

« They claim (be careful! Karol Wojtyla – because it is he – distinguishes himself from his Communist friends on this lone point) that this freedom cannot be reconciled with the affirmation of a Lord who is author and purpose of all things, or at least that this freedom makes such an affirmation altogether superfluous (here, Karol Wojtyla creates an alternative that will allow him to rejoin the Communist clan provided that his personal thesis is accepted). Favouring this doctrine can be the sense of power which modern technical progress generates in man. »

It is a question of knowing whether the unlimited desire for freedom, which the Marxists and their like, can only clash with the sovereignty of the revealed God, which, in marked opposition, fixes limits to man’s empire. It is obvious for Marxists as it was for the Catholics in the time of Pius XII.

Except for one of them who accepted the “challenge”, the “test” of a Catholic - Communist reconciliation on the lone basis of a deeper understanding of the thing that he – Karol Wojtyla – has. His thesis is that man can extend to infinity the sphere of his autonomy and domination without ever clashing with God, whose infiniteness will never be violated or threatened by man. Who understood? We will see in the following paragraph. Nevertheless, on that day a superior mind was chosen by the Spirit to become Pope in order to explain his system and have it adopted by the Church. At least, this is what he always thought. Let us continue the “study” – I was about to say “the praise” – of Communism:

§ 2. « Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. »

Thereupon, imagine lovers meeting each other, at a simple glance! The conciliar Church was in line with orthodox Communism which there was talk of, but under a mask, so as not to provoke a panic.

« This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation (the accomplice, Karol Wojtyla, is distanced in the same way as above; an alternative is thus announced) by arousing man’s hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him (it is not inevitable; there is another possibility to be examined) from the constructing of the earthly city. »

It is dialectically very compelling. I always told Karol Wojtyla that, on a purely intellectual level, I was as gifted as he, and thus I could follow him as though he were a smuggler in all his advances, hideouts, zigzags, and backtracking. And I see that he is going to win in the face of a mass of decent, flabbergasted bishops. So, he continues his stratagem, denouncing the Communist persecution, but in order to better rally his group round to a pure Leninist Communism that would carry out its liberation of Man better than all but without persecution: according to Karol Wojtyla’s own system, which today has succeeded, thanks to him!

« Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental power they vigorously fight against religion (come now! what a tactical error!), and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal. »

There it is! At this point, Karol Wojtyla lets the conciliar Fathers « dialogue ». His snares are so perfectly set that all the hares are going to fall into them.

THE CHURCH’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ATHEISM.

21. § 1. « In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church ». Stop! Give me a minute to collect my wits! What a formula! No, before Vatican II, one would never have dared to affirm this bigamy with such pride, simplicity, and generosity. I, however, am following this shooting party and see all our hares running to the snares and falling into them. Here is the first one:

The Church « has already repudiated (here, there is a reference without quotation! to Pius XI, divini redemptoris, 19 Marsh 1937, the only anti-Communist encyclical that could be quoted in order to save the honour of the Roman See; the conciliar right-wing compelled both the Pope and his entourage, which did not want it, to mention this text all the same. Then, they referred to other texts of subsequent Popes; these texts had no reactionary impact and were already conniving) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions (what vague and spineless words!) which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence. ( in Latin: innata ejus excellentia, his innate excellence!). »

Already, what cowardice! Communism goes against reason and experience; it is dreadful. Then, against the excellence of man! Ah! It is unpardonable… and also against God, against Christ the King and His Church… this is hushed out of hand. All panic must be avoided among the already frightened hares.

§ 2. « Still, she strives (there she goes, already mothering these dear Communists) to detect in the atheistic mind (!) the hidden causes (namely the respectable, honourable, even moving causes) for the denial of God (go back and see the previous paragraph, there is a basketful of them); conscious of how weighty (sic!) are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men (this motivation will have far-reaching consequences for her…), she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly. »

After responding in this way to those who wanted the simple reiteration of the condemnation of « intrinsically perverse » Communism… the Church’s maternal tears moved all the hares that with their ears raised to the wind hear Rome’s silence until today.

Here is something, though, to fill the silence: the masterly response to Karol Wojtyla’s question concerning his offers of pacifying and reconciling alternatives. Brace yourselves. It is necessary to think about Communist doctrine in full, about the Council’s personalist theory, about Karol Wojtyla’s offer of reconciliation that is concealed under the Council’s authority, and finally think about our criticism that goes from one to the other like a round or oval ball: the centre half must mark the two or three huge hounds from the other team. It is exhausting!

§ 3. « The Church holds that (style!) the recognition of God (sic! in Latin: agnitio) is in no way hostile to man’s dignity (it is Karol Wojtyla’s thesis for preserving commie-catho “connivance”), since this dignity is rooted and perfected in God (one turns a blind eye so as not to see!). For man was made an intelligent and free member of society by God who created him (does the Council hope to convert the USSR?), but even more important, he is called as a son to commune with God and share in His happiness. »

This reminds me how a child can catch small birds. Do you know how? Well, by putting salt on its tail! Thus the Council will catch Communists, even the most hostile, by revealing to them that they are « sons », sons of whom? « sons of God »! and the great evening of the Communist revolution is for tomorrow, the grand procession of the sons of God !

« The Church further teaches that a hope related to the end of time does not diminish the importance of intervening duties (the duties in which Communism succeeded so well in the years 1962-1965!) but rather undergirds the acquittal of them with fresh incentives » These came precisely to the assistance of atheistic Communism, which found itself short of convincing motivations for the Gulag and the Red Army deployment:

« By contrast, when a divine instruction and the hope of life eternal are wanting, man’s dignity is most grievously lacerated (ah! that is serious! Kill God if you want! But do not hurt Man in his dignity!), as current events often attest; riddles of life and death, of guilt and of grief go unsolved with the frequent result that men succumb to despair. »

If it were a question of millions of prisoners from the Gulag and their families, ah! how I would adhere to this maternal assistance that the Church united in Council is very enticed to offer unconditionally to the poor atheists! But the pity of our conciliar Fathers is for the guards of the Gulag. We must help the atheists, show them that they are understood, and that we are very close to them, in the defence of human dignity, in the effort of constructing the prodigious City of tomorrow… That, no!

§ 4. « Meanwhile, the Council continues indefatigably, but we do not really see where its apostolate to atheists lies, every man remains to himself an unsolved puzzle, however obscurely he may perceive it. » The gibberish returns with its uncountable ambiguities. Who is « Every man »? If he were the Pope, what was just said would not be suitable at all! and gradually millions of men could no longer be classified in this abstract category where the Council is stuffing us all. So, I recopy this uninteresting twaddle so as not to be accused of depriving you of the best:

« For on certain occasions no one can entirely escape the kind of self-questioning mentioned earlier, especially when life’s major events take place. To this questioning only God fully and most certainly provides an answer as He summons man to higher knowledge and humbler probing. »

This exudes falsehood. It is not true that « only God can fully provide an answer », and first because He does not speak, and does not let Himself be questioned by « man », when He has already said everything by His beloved Son… All of this seems senseless to me. What follows, undoubtedly from still another pen, does not lack sense; good or bad, it is up to you to decide…

THE REMEDY TO COMMUNISM?
A CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM.

§ 5. « The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of the Church’s teaching (proper to what? to divine Truth or to the expectation of the Marxist world?) as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members (of some members, all right! but of the Church herself? It is impious to say and even to think so). For it is the function of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit (illuminism such as Luther’s always underlies the dark designs of the reformers of the Church) who renews (ah, I understand! this horrible attack against the Church herself about whom it is said in our Credo that she has always been and ever will be holy, only aims to strike her!) and purifies her (my remark is the same but is still more outraged by the offense made to our Mother) ceaselessly (in a footnote there is a reference to the Constitution on the Church, § 8, that’s promising!), to make God the Father and His Incarnate Son present and in a sense visible. »

To reform the Church, yes; but also the people! « This result is achieved chiefly by the witness (ah! here is the panacea) of a living (!) and mature (!!) faith, namely, one trained (by whom other than by the conciliar propaganda!) to see difficulties clearly (what pride!) and to master them (we are blindly led along unnamed paths without landmarks; for, after all, what is he talking about?). Many martyrs (unnamed) have given luminous witness to this faith (obviously, it is a progressivist faith that they do not explain but that they praise to the skies) and continue to do so. »

It is a misleading text! I am waiting to be refuted. It is for these « many » saints of a new sort that it is a question of writing a new martyrology: the names of the witnesses to the Catholic Faith will be effaced, and in their stead will be substituted – because it will be an “ecumenical martyrology” – the names of committed militants alongside believers and non-believers in all the struggles of our time in the name of the dignity of man and of the cult rendered to him from now on. Moreover, what follows gives an exact picture of these martyrs of the left, whether Christians or atheists who are unknowingly Christian:

« This (new) faith needs to prove its fruitfulness by penetrating the believer’s entire life, including its worldly dimensions (We understood, you didn’t need to spell it out to us!), and by activating him toward justice and love, especially regarding (sic) the needy. »

« What does the most reveal God’s presence (reveal! God’s! presence!), however, is the brotherly charity (the translator of the English version of Gaudium et Spes correctly rendered the Latin word caritas by the English word charity that designates the theological virtue, which will last forever. Here, our Father criticises the French version for the use of the word “amour” [love]. He wonders: what is it if not the solidarity of the “companions of Liberation” from everywhere in the world) of the faithful who are united in spirit as they work together for the faith of the Gospel (cf. Ph 1.27) and who prove themselves a sign of unity. »

Truly our hard work, mine to write and yours to read is absolutely necessary. This reference made concerning « the faith of the Gospel », to words of St. Paul to the Philippians, leads us back to the reality of the faith and the cultus of our immortal Catholic Church. If we return from there to Gaudium et Spes, all the words that the author uses and abuses have turned out to have a double meaning in Gnostic language: that of the past is effaced while that of the Lutheran Revolution supplants it and leads to atheism. I leave to your zeal the task of verifying what I indicate here hastily.

The remedy for atheist Marxism is thus the (new) Gospel, that of Mar(x) Sangnier: Christian Democracy or, by inverting the terms, the Democratic Gospel. We have just seen the admission. It thus concerns the ecclesiastical reformers, eager to metamorphose the Church into a “movement of spiritual animation”… of what? This is what remains to be learned in the following paragraph, which is astoundingly cynical in the admission of such sombre intentions. Read it for yourself:

§ 6. « While rejecting atheism, root and branch, (let us pay attention to this! It is the customary: yes, but) the Church (it is their own, as always, the Church of their futurist gnosis) sincerely (only liars make such professions of honesty) professes (!) that all men, believers and unbelievers alike (this amalgamation reeks of the renegade!), ought (in name of whom and of what?) to work for the rightful (this redundant word is meant to appease the concerns of the « righteous », or otherwise it would be necessary to mention straightway the wrongful betterment in order to be cleared of it)... betterment of this world in which all alike live (they live together in a world that is still to be bettered?); such an ideal cannot be realised, however (this tactic of the yes, but... is dangerous; the Council is aware of it, but it has to be used all the same), apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. »

Of course! Like the dialogue that the curé d’Ars had with his wisp of straw: I throw you into the hearth, but beware of burning! You are not familiar with it? The Council does not read the lives of saints. What a shame! It is a living parable, a lesson that was given to a parishioner who was sending her daughter to a dance: You will behave well, my daughter… It is the same here because the bishops make it a duty for all men to behave well in all circumstances, very well! But only their faithful, only good Catholics will go to the danger – sent by them! – in order to be corrupted there by the other « men » who do not care a fig about the bishops’ exhortations!

« Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. »

The bishops do as St. Pius X used to say about Marc Sangnier’s people. They « bring Socialism their eyes fixed on a chimera ». Now that they have made it a duty for Catholics, some of whom were already only too eager to obey, to enter into the construction of a Communist world, they demand in return in this atheist and collectivist city of the future, full freedom of conscience, opinion, action for every human person and society, in view of the common and eminent dignity of man, a principle that is recognised by everyone, by every modern democracy… Alas! It is an infantile naivety, unless it is a show of fierceness by old men eager to reach their ends… against Christendom, against Franco, Salazar and their intolerable State Catholicism!

« The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind. »

§ 7. « Above all the Church knows that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart (these are cardboard constructions; they found a religious faith on vague feelings, desires, worries, dreams and fears, instead of the fundamental truths and the complementary call to God’s grace) when she champions the dignity of the human vocation (it is one abstraction after the other that makes you either yawn or scoff rather than making the human heart be enticed), restoring hope to those who have already despaired of anything higher than their present lot. » All of this enters well into the cult of man, and it is why the Council seeks in it and believes that it has found its final triumph in it. But for the run-of-the-mill « man », it would make us believe in this humanist balderdash instead of proving God, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church, which obtain eternal salvation for those who believe! Is the Church losing her head or the Faith?

They insist: « Far from diminishing man, her (wretched) message brings to his development (!) light, life and freedom. Apart from this message nothing will avail to fill up the heart of man. »

St. Augustine is quoted in support: “You have made us for Yourself,” O Lord, “and our hearts are restless till they rest in You.” (Confessions, Book I, Chap. 1) But it is an abuse to invoke him to give publicity to a new religion, to a cult of man that he had sampled and from which he had withdrawn in horror in order to convert to the one and only holy Roman Catholic Church whom, you insult, deny, and want to demolish!

CHRIST, THE NEW MAN.

22. § 1. « The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. »

I do not object, but for 26 pages you have been writing on man without any mention of religion. Now, you announce, after having greatly praised the hesitant investigations of the atheists, that the Mystery of the incarnate Word is going to enlighten « the mystery of man ». Forgetting that you are addressing yourselves to the whole world, and pouring out on the unbelieving masses a theology that is incomprehensible to them – and what is worse! in the climate that you yourselves had inflamed – unacceptable. Why? I think that I have understood: it is not the evangelisation of the masses that arouses our author. It is the crushing of the historical « Jesus » (named twice) and His Catholic Gospel to the benefit of your gnosis, in which our holy religion is relegated to the museum and replaced by a demonstration of the work that your « Christ » (named nine times) accomplished, nothing less than the salvation of « man » (named eleven times) who only has to receive the income from it, in a life that is more than secular. It is like Luther, only more so:

« For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him (Christ) all the aforementioned truths (go and see which ones; in this jumble of mistakes, I have found nothing worthwhile) find their root and attain their crown. »

What a sudden avalanche of theology on the heads of atheists or humanists cooped up in the visible, the sensual, the profane! There is nothing to understand in it except that the new religion exalts in the man Son of God called Christ, the mystery of every man and « sublimity of his vocation ». There is no need to understand in what or why. What is essential is that the Council is very committed on behalf of man, his dignity, and his eminent grandeur.

§ 2. « He who is “the image of the invisible God” (Co 1.15), is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. » I interrupt to point out to the specialist that this is good Catholic theology… Just when it would be prudent to be wary. For here is what follows:

« Because in Christ human nature was assumed, not absorbed »… I interrupt because the cheaters are easy to spot. Here, for example, where the author apparently reminds (specialists) about a dogmatic detail that has been lying dormant for fifteen centuries in theology books. A very extensive note, in Latin, exposes texts from old Councils, and even Greek – Greek, my dear! at Vatican II! It is all the more awkward because this Decree of 140 complex pages has, so to speak, no footnotes, no references other than to Scripture – which lets itself be tortured – but none to the Church of the past. Here there is plethora. Why? Because they are going to invent a sham theory that will be guaranteed by Councils that no one will go to check. The scoundrels!

I push aside the snare to allow you to pass by without being caught. The note quite simply assures what the Council’s text rightly sets out in the words that I have just quoted to you and whose content is Catholic. But the Devil’s snare begins just afterwards, and without any reference, for the good reason that it is a pure and simple invention of the author who believes that he is brilliant and is only heretical. I repeat the words guaranteed by the Catholic Faith, and then, beware of the enormity about which they give no warning and which I underscore:

« Because in Christ human nature was assumed, not absorbed, by that very fact this nature has also been elevated in us to a matchless dignity. »

It is enormous! and there is no reference. It is he, the Council’s genius who says so. Everyone has accepted it until today. In fact, it is sheer madness to say that because God became man, every man has taken from Him something of the divine, « by that very fact »! People did not understand, but what pleased them was the happy conclusion of this impudent falsehood: « the matchless dignity » of every man, of me, of you, it is really true?! Then, long live the Council!

The author repeats, believing that he strengthens his remark in this way: « For by His Incarnation the Son of God (I underscore) has united Himself in some fashion with every man. » It is prodigious! Here we are all united, physically united to the Son of God, God Himself. There are no longer any problems!

What follows is nothing, but it still seems to prove what has just been said: « He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice (there are reference marks again; it is not difficult, since the author has come into the domain of the true Faith) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin. » Even if you thread your false pearl amidst a river of diamonds, you are still a forger, and you will go to prison with your false pearl as a pendant as an eternal reminder of your universal deception.

For good Catholics, I warn them about the advantage that the author and his ever so confident colleagues found in this “dialectical” trickery, of cheap Neo-Platonism: all men were by the very fact of the Incarnation of the Son of God united « in some fashion » in their humanity with His, and thus physically raised to sharing His dignity of Son of God and His destiny. The problem of salvation is settled. There is no longer Hell, Purgatory, morality, nothing. There is even no longer any need of Redemption by the Cross of Jesus, or of reparation by our penance and poor merits. In the past, our entire mystical life was based on our moral union with Christ-God: moral union means the union of wills… From now on we belong to Christ like Siamese twins, undetachable from Him, whatever our morality may be.

What are we going to learn after this fantastic « revelation ». Let us go off to explore again…

I read, I inform you: it is very Catholic, a return to calm that our author has arranged for heart patients. I re-read it when I copy it out; perhaps I am going to notice some other snare…

§ 3. « As an innocent Lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own Blood. In Him (one again this is true, but let us pay attention!) God reconciled us to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the Devil and sin He delivered us, »

Two quotations from St. Paul follow, fortunately, to save us from error. In both the first (2 Co 5.18-19) and the second (Col 1.20-22), it is obvious that the personal pronoun « us » refers with absolute certainty to us, the converted, the baptised, Christ’s faithful. Of course, it does not refer to « us, men, the whole world, believers and non-believers. » In Colossians, St. Paul sets « us », Jews become Christians, in opposition to « you, who once were alienated and hostile » and who are no longer so, on one condition: « that you persevere in the faith, etc. » It is all too clear, and it is the Catholic doctrine that has been held by everyone always.

What is clear everywhere else ceases to be so in the conciliar text. At a reception, if an artist presents his partner with the very sweet name, ten times repeated, of « my beloved » when the others say « my wife », or « my spouse », does one need to be really shrewd to guess that the beloved is certainly not his lawful wife! Here, the Council, which addresses itself to every man, believers and non-believers, employs the word « us » like St. Paul, but without indicating in any way that this pronoun designates only those who have responded to Christ’s grace by moral and sacramental adherence. Is the ambiguity deliberate? If so, here is a second heresy, no less pernicious than the first. Its demonstration is child’s play: even if, by right, all men are saved, since Christ saw His redeeming sacrifice through to the end, it is still necessary that they assert their right by means of an act of adherence to the Church, which is necessarily given concrete expression by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

The remainder of the paragraph confirms all our apprehensions and suspicions:

« … so that each one of us (?) can say with the Apostle: The Son of God “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Ga 2.20) »

Everyone, it is true, can say this, if it is well detached, separated from the rest of the Apostle’s words. I wonder which of us would dare to appropriate them:

« I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given Himself up for me. » Can anyone say this?

Ambiguity, the queen of the Council, controls the rest with some cautious reserve: « By suffering for us (?) He not only provided us with an example for our imitation... »

I interrupt once again, alerted by three references that are indicated in the margin, but not quoted. The three of them (go see them: 1 Pt 2.21; Mt 16.24; Lk 14.27) establish that it is very, very good, not easy, heroic even, and perfect to walk in Jesus Christ’s footsteps, no? It is clear, obvious, and it is what so many others have done before us:

« … He blazed a trail, (in Latin: viam instauravit. Oh! oh! Let us prick up our ears. For, the new way is the Way of the Cross, it is the Cross; I am interested to know the new trail blazed... by the Council?) and if we follow it, life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning. »

Search me! it is not possible that they are standing us up. I will not wait until tomorrow, despite the late hour to devour with you the last three paragraphs, in the quest of this new way, better than the one to which Jesus Himself calls all men.

§ 4. « The Christian man (ah! this time « us » is personalised: it is not a question of Catholics – that would be asking too much – but of « Christians »; thus, the ambiguity is already attenuated), conformed to the likeness of that Son who is the firstborn of many brothers, received “the first-fruits of the Spirit” (Rm 8.23) by which he becomes capable of discharging the new law of love. » The reference to St. Paul is correct, although it is easier said than done. We are thus launched into orbit, in love? If you say so:

« Through this Spirit, who is “the pledge of our inheritance” (Ep 1.14), the whole man is renewed from within, even to the achievement of “the redemption of the body” (Rm 8.23). »

These quotations bard the author like armour against every attack. He continues:

« “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of His Spirit who dwells in you” (Rm 8.11). »

You must admit that we have the impression of reading these marvels for the first time. When it happened that we heard them and meditated on them, a certain shame of ourselves, a certain sense of propriety or reserve also incited us not to take these fine assurances for ourselves. A bad conscience is aroused when listening to the conciliar text: would this not be this “compunction” that the ancient Church stressed so much, and this moralising pietism of devotion, which was called modern… in the sixteenth century, that is the cause of the contemporary depression? The author has discovered, in us! the chink in the armour. And he attacks… Watch out for the “yes, but” tactic…

« Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death (he now recognises to Jesus of Nazareth His part of truth). But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, he [the Christian] will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope. »

Yes, well! the Catholic traditionalist replies, somewhat shaken, but what is the point of these oppositions, and what is so new and so holy that the past must yield before the future marvels? The other seems to flee. In fact, he gathers together his associates in order to call them to witness his victory. The wedge that he is driving in is so hard and the weakness in our defence is so wide that I fear that at the end of the skirmish… I will strike, and even worse! that I will be struck. Read and tremble:

§ 5. « All this holds true not only for Christians (note that the frontiers of the « Catholic » Church have already ceased to exist), but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. »

The author, who triumphs with these astounding words, which are without precedent or support in the whole of Tradition, will be able to strike up his paean:

§ 6. « Such is the mystery of man, and it is a great one, as seen by believers in the light of Christian revelation. Through Christ and in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from His Gospel, they overwhelm us. Christ has risen, destroying death by His death; He has lavished life upon us so that, as sons in the Son, we can cry out in the Spirit; Abba, Father. »

End of the first chapter.

Well! That is enough for today. If these last paragraphs are not a third or fourth heresy, then the Council is justified in its works… May God help me in this task!... of demonstrating the treachery of this gnosis. (To be continued)

Brother Georges of Jesus-Mary.