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!

A CONFERENCE BY BROTHER BRUNO OF JESUS
at Maison Saint-Joseph –  Sunday, 28 September 2008

BENEDICT XVI: THREE AND A HALF YEARS
 LATER… 2005 – 2008

When we informed our Father on 10 April 2005 of the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope, the two hundred sixty-fifth successor of St. Peter, he replied to me: « It will be difficult »…

The abbé de Nantes was well acquainted with Cardinal Ratzinger because he had followed his action since his appointment as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, and above all since his denunciation of the crisis of the Church in his Discussion with the journalist Messori, which was published in Italy in autumn 1984. He had sent an “Open Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger” on that occasion (CCR n^o 176, February 1985), which was republished under the title “The Bells of the Resurrection” in He is Risen, n^o 33, May 2005, pp. 2-16).

Re-reading it after the election of Benedict XVI, we remark our Father’s lucidity.

He in fact stressed all that was positive in this reaction going so far as to declare to the young adults at the “Permanence” in January 1985: « If he is the man of great theological faith that we suppose him to be, Cardinal Ratzinger could be the next Pope, the saviour of the Church, and for us this would therefore be a sign of hope. » But at the same time, our Father was under no illusion and he cast light on the ambiguity of the remarks of the cardinal who absolutely refused to attack the Council. According to Ratzinger, it was not the Council that was responsible for the terrible crisis in the Church. The fault lay with the « Konzils-Ungeist », the post-Council in the sense of a “harmful anti-conciliar spirit” that arose after the Council to spoil its fruits.

I would like to read to you one of the paragraphs of the conclusion in which our Father poses a question that we are finally going to be able to answer after three and a half years of Benedict XVI’s pontificate:

« In brief: the active minority of this Council, which was held, I admit, in the Catholic Faith, had on its hidden agenda to introduce the principles of modern liberalism into the age-old doctrine, against the Magisterium of the last two centuries. It is under the guise of this papal and conciliar liberalism that the beast of the Apocalypse invaded Rome and had his armies camp there.

« The question is whether in the Holy Office you are the servile porter who holds the door open for them – the door that is closed for us – or whether you are Yourself a high-ranking officer. »

If you reread the collection of the Catholic Counter-Reformation between 1985 and 2005, you will see that our Father often attacked Cardinal Ratzinger, but sometimes also, in the last years of John Paul II’s pontificate, this same Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to take the head of the reactionary party.

CHANGEABLE AND VARIED, BUT CONCILIAR

Let us begin with a few examples of Cardinal Ratzinger, devoted assistant of John Paul II.

First, he kept silent at the extraordinary synod, which John Paul II convoked in 1985 on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Council in order to put a stop to the reactions that the Cardinal’s confidences to Messori had provoked. The Abbé de Nantes titled his article: “Cardinal Ratzinger, Accomplice and Co-Operator in the Evil he Denounces”. In july-August 1985, our Father commented on the French edition of the Discussion on the Faith with Messori. I remember « the modernist axiom of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the basis of his thinking and of his career, the proof, for him, of his orthodoxy and the test of others' orthodoxy […]. Here then is this fundamental Ratzingerian dogma: “I have always wished to remain faithful to Vatican II, this present-day of the Church, without nostalgia for a yesterday that is past beyond the point of return, without impatience for a tomorrow that does not belong to us.” »

That same year 1985, Cardinal Ratzinger who had initially protested against the new French catechism, Pierres vivantes, finally gave way when confronted with the indignant protests of the French episcopate. The other day at Lourdes, he told the French bishops that they have at their disposal two catechistic instruments: the ccc and the “Catechism of the Bishops of France”, as though there were no longer any problem. But there is no one today who can say what the “The Catechism of the Bishops of France” is. For example, the Bishop of Nice tells the priests that he employs in his diocese: « You will no longer teach “catechism”; the catechism no longer exists. You must use Pierres Vivantes. »

In 1986, it was Cardinal Ratzinger, who as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, carried on the negotiations with Mgr Lefebvre. They dragged on so long that Mgr Lefebvre became exasperated and ended up committing an irrefutably schismatic act by consecrating bishops. That same year, the cardinal published a text on “Liberty and Liberation” in which he praised decolonisation.

In 1993, our Father undertook his third attempt after those of 1973 and 1983, to submit to Rome on 13 May his Book of Accusation against the Author of the Supposed Catechism of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger did not show himself. Finally our Father was only received by a functionary of the Congregation; then we heard nothing more about the matter. Note that when the Abbé de Nantes was present… Cardinal Ratzinger did not show himself.

In August 1994, our Father published a dossier that the sedevacantist review, Sodalitium, had put together. It analysed Cardinal Ratzinger’s conception of ecumenism. For him, the Council’s ecumenism is a basic necessity; the ultimate end of ecumenism is « the unity of the Churches in the Church », and it will come about in some yet unknown form. In the meantime unity must be practiced in diversity by a continual return to what is essential. What he meant by this remains to be defined.

1996 was the year of our pilgrimage to Fatima. Cardinal Ratzinger came at the last minute to preside over the ceremonies… Note that since the Abbé de Nantes had been exiled… the Cardinal presided. His declarations and homily manifested his ignorance of the Message. He went to great lengths to conceal everything concerning the Secret, yet he told Messori that he had read it.

In 1997, our Father brought an appeal before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the dispute that opposed him to Mgr Daucourt. He would receive a reply, beyond the canonical time limit, and without any examination of the substance of the case. Considering that this was a dereliction of duty, our Father submitted this reply to the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, but the Congregation then claimed that it was a private letter sent to the Bishop of Troyes and not a reply to our appeal. In short, we are witness to a complete dereliction of duty. Apparently Cardinal Ratzinger was refusing to get involved because no document was signed in his own hand.

In 2000, when Pope John Paul II had decided to publish the Third Secret, he charged him with explaining its text. To say the least, after having read the commentary that our Brother François made on it, this study that the Cardinal presented is not to his honour!

When one reviews the main chapter headings, it must be concluded that Cardinal Ratzinger was John Paul II’s henchman.

Yet, he took several reactionary measures, especially during the last years of John Paul II’s pontificate, in order to maintain the other aspect of his character. Here are the two important ones:

a) In 1998, there was the motu proprio “Ad tuendam fidem”, « to protect the Faith », “A Motu Proprio to Rescue All” was the title of the commentary on it in the CCR. This text, in fact, promulgated an oath that every cleric who was taking possession of an ecclesiastical charge had to take. Now, between the revealed truths to which we are obviously obliged to adhere, and the « non-definitive » teachings of the Church, in which the degree of adhesion required is lesser because they are not infallible, John Paul II introduced a new category: the « definitive teachings » for which the MotuProprio required a total adhesion. The Explanatory Note issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith lists these « definitive teachings » to which we are henceforth obliged to adhere: none of the Council’s novelties appear in the list. Thus, we still have the right to oppose them.

It is honest. We could have feared the worst when our appeal was being examined in Rome.

b) In September 2000, the cardinal published the document Dominus jesus, which was approved by John Paul II, but signed by him. It re-affirms that the revelation made by Jesus Christ exists in a complete and definitive form in the Catholic Church, and rejects religious pluralism erected into a principle as contrary to the « definitive and complete nature of the revelation of Jesus Christ ».

Also: on the Good Friday that preceded John Paul II’s death, Cardinal Ratzinger presided over the Way of the Cross at the Coliseum. He exclaimed: « Often, Lord, Your Church seems to us to be a bark on the verge of sinking, a bark that is leaking on all sides. »

After John Paul II’s death, as dean of the Sacred College, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who presided over the preparatory meetings of the cardinals for the Conclave. The journalists immediately observed how brilliantly he carried out this function to the general satisfaction. In his homily for the Conclave’s opening Mass, he did not conceal the catastrophic state of the Church.

So, Cardinal Ratzinger had converted, while remaining submitted to John Paul II out of religious obedience? Or, even if he is concerned for the future of the Church and for the Faith, is he still in complete support of the Council’s errors? This is the question that one could ask at that time.

THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF PULLED THIS WAY AND THAT

When he was elected on 19 April 2005 and took the name of Benedict XVI, he was undoubtedly the legitimate Pope, 265^th successor of St. Peter. This is why we followed the example that our Father gave at the time of Paul VI’s election, then at the time of John Paul II’s: we resolved to give him our faith. « Forgetting Ratzinger, in order to receive Benedict XVI », according to Ratzinger’s own advice!

We were not confounded. Pope John Paul II, whose main schemes consisted in spreading throughout the Church and the world his appropriately named gnosis, Masdu, which is based on a heresy according to which « by His incarnation the Word had united Himself in some fashion with every man » was succeeded by a Pope whose first concern seemed to be to re-establish greater theological rigour in the Church.

Immediately there were gestures in the direction of the Orthodox, to the detriment of the Protestants who showed themselves to be very discontented with this election, which augured well.

On 13 May 2005, he admittedly announced the opening of the process of beatification of his predecessor, but ordered the strict respect of the ordinary procedure. On that same 13 May, he exhorted the faithful to confide in Our Lady of Fatima.

In several of his homilies, he repeated that his main duty was to proclaim the Faith. We admired the clarity of his talks that contrasted with the abstruse style of John Paul II.

The Orthodox, in particular the Russians, showed themselves to be very satisfied with the return of the Roman Catholic Church to greater rigour. They were not the only ones; on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress that was held in Italy, Finnish Lutherans made known their intention of joining the Church: « We Finnish Lutherans wish to belong to the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ. » This was out of the desire for communion to the Eucharist, but also out of concern for the truth (He is Risen, n^o 35, July 2005, p. 4).

The reading of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memoirs, his own “Mémoires et récits”, informed us in particular about his conversion after the Council with regards to the place that the Blessed Virgin must hold in the Church:

« When I was a young theologian, before (and even during) the sessions of the Council, as it happened and as it would still happen today to many, I had reservations about certain ancient formulas such as, for example, the famous formula de Maria numquam satis, of Mary one can never say enough. It seemed exaggerated to me. I must have also misunderstood the true meaning of another famous expression […], namely the expression that asserts that the Virgin is “Victorious over all heresies”. Only today – in this period of confusion in which all sorts of heretical deviations seem to come knock at the door of the authentic Faith –, today I understand that it was not an exaggeration by deeply religious people, but truths that are more valid than ever. » (quoted in He is Risen, n^o 35, p. 8)

Then, on 28 June 2005, there was the publication of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It must be remembered that when our Father brought his Book of Accusation Against the Author of the Supposed Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which he denounced twelve heresies that he expounded and synthesised under the form of anathemas, our Father understood well the difficulty there would be for the Holy See to recognise such errors. He thus proposed to overcome the obstacle by letting some time go by, then publishing « a new edition of the Catechism to be revised and corrected of all its errors ».

We were happily surprised to see that the publication of the Compendium responded at least for the most part to our Father’s desires. I say for the most part because the rectification of the doctrinal errors that concern the relations of the Church with society, in particular the social right to religious freedom, was not entirely satisfactory. But it was already a happy reaction.

Then took place the World Youth Days at Cologne, which were prepared under John Paul II; we remarked a return to more piety there.

In November 2005, Benedict XVI beatified Father de Foucauld, then on 15 November he gave a speech at the Academy of Sciences on « the beauty, the goodness, and the truth of the Face of Christ », the perfect Man, the true measure of a new humanism, which is far from the « cult of man » that Paul VI advocated.

In December, his speech to the Austrian bishops who had come to make their ad limina visit was clearly reactionary; he exhorted them not to truncate Catholic teaching (He is Risen, n^o 40, Dec. 2005). Likewise, the speech of 8 December did not fail to bring to mind the clear and precise style of Pius X (He is Risen, n^o 41, January 2006).

Nevertheless, these positive points do not efface all the grey areas, and if you re-read our successive issues of He is Risen, you will remark to what extent I insisted each time for our friends to pray for the Holy Father. He was manifestly torn.

His speech on 22 December 2005, given on the occasion of the presentation of Christmas wishes to the Roman curia, was going to allow us to understand the driving principle of Benedict XVI’s action, according to which the Council can only be understood « in a hermeneutic of continuity and not in discontinuity and rupture ».

He took religious freedom as an example. Nevertheless, in order to succeed in proving that there was no « rupture » between the Council’s teaching and tradition, he was obliged to blunt the mortal tip of the novelty of the Council, by bringing « religious freedom » back to the pure and simple traditional tolerance.

It is not very honest, intellectually speaking… only, it allows the reaffirmation of the Catholic Faith without making an open profession of Counter-Reformation, without condemning the Council.

Thus, we can end the year in joy, all the more because at Midnight Mass, he gave a homily that was worthy of the Fathers of the Church.

We had a Pope who was correcting little by little the aberrations of the preceding pontificate. He affirmed the Catholic Faith and if he claimed to maintain his action as in « continuity » with the Council, that could be explained by a will to act with prudence in order to avoid a more serious break in the Church.

I do not have enough time available to pass in review all that was good in these first months of the new pontificate. You can re-read our commentaries, month after month, in He is Risen. The first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is not perfect, but it is different from John Paul II’s documents!

There are very beautiful passages, even if we find at number 30 what I called « a Wojtylian inset », which praises the un and all the ngos.

A few weeks later, the tone would change, and we were going to be led to note Benedict XVI’s undoubted attachment to the Council’s errors. In Poland, he paid an extravagant tribute to his predecessor; but above all an ecumenical meeting in Warsaw gave him the occasion for reaffirming his attachment to ecumenism in complete fidelity to what the Abbé de Nantes called the “conciliar pact” (He is Risen, n^o 47, July 2006, p. 6).

If he defends the Catholic truth according to which the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Revelation, we realise that in his mind that does not imply – and this is one of the Council’s errors that our Father has brought to light in his Auto-da-fe – that the other Christian communities are not also communities of salvation!

The second event, which was more than disquieting, of this trip to Poland, was the visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp, « this place of horror unprecedented in history » from « the mass crimes that were committed against God and man », he said (He is Risen, n^o 47, p. 7).

Benedict XVI then wondered about God’s silence in view of this horror, totally unaware of the key to contemporary history that Fatima gives us. This German Pope is profoundly marked by propaganda concerning “the holocaust”. For him this event opened a new era for humanity: the refusal of totalitarianism, of fanaticism under all its forms. “Religion”, whether it be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian… can only lead to peace.

After a quiet summer, which was marked by a very cordial meeting with the priests of the diocese of Aosta, he went to Bavaria. On 26 September 2006, he gave a speech at the University of Regensburg in which he quoted Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who in 1391 said: « Show me what novelty Mohammed introduced. You will only find bad and inhuman things, like the right to defend with the sword the faith that he preached »

The Pope pointed out that he did not absolutely make this affirmation his own, but he used it in his demonstration against terrorism by appealing to reason. Nevertheless, the Muslim world flared up. In the following months, Vatican diplomacy would endeavour to extinguish the fire, but Benedict XVI would change his line.

First, he re-established the Secretariat for Dialogue with non-Christian Religions. He did away with it with one stroke of the pen at the end of the first year of his pontificate by sending the very progressivist Mgr Fitzgerald as nuncio to Cairo. He re-established the Secretariat and gave responsibility for it to Cardinal Tauran, John Paul II’s former Foreign Affairs minister.

With hindsight, we can better understand the reorientation of Benedict XVI’s pontificate, which came about at the time of the stir caused by the speech at Regensburg.

His predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II were impassioned by Masdu; the main part of their action consisted in preaching this new religion and convincing the Church and the world of it.

For his part, Benedict XVI is impassioned… over the Fathers of the Church and the liturgy, but he is a committed adherent of Masdu. It seems absolutely obvious to him that the world has changed, that democracy is a progress for society, that the rights of man are a theory inspired by the Gospel. He is liberal and Christian democrat.

In the first part of his pontificate, he let his heart speak; he was concerned with returning to greater doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy. This was his first objective. It was a cause of exasperation for the entire progressivist clan that wants the rupture of the conciliar – postconciliar Church with this Tradition. The reactions of the French episcopate in November 2006 revealed well this spirit of revolt when the Pope recognised the Institute of the Good Shepherd in the hopes of rallying a certain number of Lefebvrists, while leaving on the shelf the « serious and constructive criticism » of the Council that theoretically remained on the agenda (He is Risen, n^o 50, November 2006, p. 2).

This is how Benedict XVI, by acting as a university professor at Regensburg in order to reflect on the relationships between faith and reason, roused the religious fanaticism that he abhors.

In the face of this unprecedented reaction of the Arab world and the chancelleries of the whole world to his speech in Regensburg, he found himself at the crossroads: he either had to denounce the true causes of this renascent religious fanaticism, namely the Council’s proclamation of “religious freedom” as a social right that is inherent in the dignity of the human person, and to turn towards Fatima as the only remedy; or to persist in the utopia of Masdu in order to bring about universal peace through democracy. It was this second choice that prevailed, and which became the priority in his pontifical action, with the assistance of Cardinal Bertone, whom he chose for Secretary of State at that moment.

But by returning to Masdu, Benedict XVI, far from freeing himself from the “conciliar pact”, subscribed to it once again in its totality, that is, he was going to find himself obliged to uphold the theological errors and doctrinal ambiguities of the Council that support this gnosis. For example, in the speech that he gave to the University of the Lateran on the occasion of the beginning of the new academic year on 21 October 2006, he re-established what he had suppressed from the Compendium of the Catechism, the famous sentence from Gaudium et Spes 22, 2:

« The Second Vatican Council acutely recalled this: “For, by His Incarnation, the Son of God has in some fashion united Himself to every man.” » (He is Risen, n^o 51, December 2006, p. 2)

The following month, in Turkey, the Pope confirmed the « European vocation » of this Muslim country, and above all, on 30 November, at the Blue Mosque, all the television viewers throughout the world saw him move his lips, facing towards Mecca.

« I addressed the one Lord of Heaven and earth, Benedict XVI said, the Merciful Father of all humanity. May all believers recognise that they are His creatures and witness to true brotherhood. »

Jesus Christ and the Church are eliminated. Benedict XVI re-explained the vision of the Council, according to which humanity is no longer divided into two camps, the Church and the anti-Church, but it is disposed in concentric circles around Christ: « In the innermost circle, the Successor of Peter strengthens Catholics in the Faith; in the intermediate circle he meets other Christians; and in the outer one he addresses non-Christians and the whole of humanity. »

We should not be surprised then to see Benedict XVI adhere to Gaudium et Spes’ unanimism that our Father so vigorously denounced in the Auto-da-fe. There would no longer be any condemnation, but a general invitation to “dialogue”, to the “quest for truth”, in the greatest brotherhood and respect of others. This explains the pontifical speech of 22 December 2006 for the Christmas wishes to the Curia. We need to remember that one year earlier the speech was reactionary. It condemned all rupture with the Church’s tradition and claimed that this rupture did not exist in the texts of the Council. This time, after a lucid depiction of the state of the world, the Pope appeals « to the true conquests of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the rights of man ». (He is Risen, n^o 53, February 2007).

During the summer of 2007, he went to Latin America and repeated all the themes of the Church’s “social doctrine” from Paul VI and Populorum Progressio. The Pope supports globalisation.

Then, above all, his Letter to the Chinese bishops prescribed for the “underground” Church a true rallying to the Communist power with the aim of obtaining religious freedom.

How can such an attitude be justified? It is understandable if there is no Hell or, at least, if Hell is empty! This would be our painful observation upon reading the second encyclical that was dedicated to Hope… Benedict XVI does not know how to speak about eternal happiness because that is beyond our intelligence and, according to him, there is no one in Hell (He is Risen, n^o 64, pp. 4-5)!

Already in October 2006, in a Wednesday general audience, he had spoken about Judas saying that it could not be affirmed that he is in Hell.

Does this mean that the page of the first part of the pontificate – Benedict XVI - 1 – is turned once and for all? Does it mean that we have a new, less flamboyant John Paul II? No. Some speeches are still signed “Benedict XVI - 1”. For example, to the Swiss bishops in November 2007, the Pope showed himself to be distressed with regard to the loss of the dogma of the Faith.

To the Bishops of Germany, he recalls that every Muslim has the right to receive « our humble and firm testimony in favour of Jesus Christ […] This dialogue, however, presupposes in the first place a sound knowledge of their own Catholic Faith. » (He is Risen, n^o 57, p. 3).

His apostolic exhortation “Sacramentum caritatis” from spring 2007, shows his desire to restore the liturgy. On the other hand, his decision in favour of the rite of Pius V leaves the fundamental doctrinal question entirely unresolved. It is necessary to condemn the authors who deny that the Mass is a Sacrifice (Xavier Léon-Dufour). Benedict XVI is prevented from doing so not only because of his adherence to the “conciliar pact” that excludes all condemnation, but by his own “ecumenical” – that is Lutheran – theology of the Eucharist. It was very striking in the meditation during the Eucharistic procession at Lourdes. The « celebration of Holy Mass » brings us back to « the historic truth of the evening in the Upper Room »: it is « Jesus, past ». « The Eucharist is also Jesus Christ, future, Jesus Christ to come. » What about the Cross? What about the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ today?

Far from restoring the dignity of worship and unity in the Church, this liberalisation of rites makes everyone stand his ground, and the gap widens between the traditionalists and the conciliarists. This is precisely what a Pope, even and above all a “Counter-Reformation” Pope ought to avoid, the Abbé de Nantes warned.

But above all let there be no controversy! Benedict XVI is allergic to controversy, to condemnations. Moreover, this is actually why he never wanted to reply to our Father: « It is a question of principle. »

When the Pope wanted to express, I do not say his faith but his « experience », he wrote a book “Jesus of Nazareth”, but he did not make it an act of the Magisterium, and everyone can discuss it. This allows us, moreover, to note and say to what extent he himself is Modernist, while at the same time defending the “historicity” of the Gospels…

This explains very well the enthusiasm that he manifested towards the United States during his trip to this country. A democratic society in which religion is separated from the state, in which everyone is free and where the Catholic Church can live in complete peace, has all his favour.

« This great Country that was built on the foundations of a felicitous combination of religious, ethical, and political principles. It constitutes a valid example of healthy secularism where the religious dimension, with the diversity of its expressions, is not only tolerated but appreciated as the Nation’s soul and a fundamental guarantee of human rights and duties. »

The Pope was also very pleased that « in this context the Church can carry out her mission of evangelisation and human promotion with freedom and commitment and also as a critical conscience. »

On his return from the United Sates, the Pope declared: « I give thanks to God for having generously blessed this unique missionary experience and for having allowed me to become an instrument of the hope of Christ for this Church and this country. I give thanks to Him at the same time, for I myself was confirmed in hope by the American Catholics. »

It is the world topsy-turvy! It is not Peter who confirms his brethren in the Faith. It is the brethren who confirm Peter in the cult of man!

He rejoiced also for having the occasion to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man at un headquarters: « My visit to the Headquarters of the United Nations gave me the opportunity to confirm the value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to refer to its universal foundation, that is, the dignity of the human person, created by God in His image and likeness so that he might cooperate in the world with God’s great plan of life and peace. »

This time it is Peter who « confirms his brethren », but in « the value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights » and not in the Catholic Faith.

If the Pope thinks that American society is so remarkable, it is not surprising that he only finds individual responsibilities to denounce in order to explain the evils from which the Catholic Church in the United States suffers. In his eyes, neither the errors of the Council nor the deleterious action of a democratic society that is dominated by high finance and Freemasonry are responsible for so many apostasies and immoral scandals!

Finally, the main teachings that Benedict XVI dispensed this summer at the wyd in Sydney are in the line of Masdu. It was the head of the Church, as « expert in humanity », who gave experienced advice. He spoke less about the rights of Man because John Paul II had said all there was to say, but he opens two other chapters: ecology and globalisation. He explained that the disorders that threaten our planet are, as is the case with the moral disorders that affect youth, attributable to the marginalisation of religion and to relativism.

« There is also something sinister that stems from the fact that freedom and tolerance are so often separated from truth », he reckoned. « When God is eclipsed, our ability to recognise the natural order, purpose, and the “good” begins to wane. »

The second chapter that the Pope often tackles now is that of globalisation. He favours this evolution, seeing in it a means for establishing peace and prosperity on a world-wide scale, but reminds us that it must not create situations that strike a blow at the dignity of the human person. Thus, it must not increase social inequalities…

In France, the Pope began by swearing an allegiance to secularism in Paris… to Sarkozy’s « positive secularism », in accordance with the American model, that is « open » to « religion ». Which religion? Any one at all: to the « religious fact ».

So, there is no place for a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Lourdes owing to this “positive” desacralisation that was performed in Paris. Like Gaudium et Spes, « joy and hope » relegating Angor et Luctus into the darkness at the Council, Benedict XVI’s homily at Lourdes focused on the Blessed Virgin’s « smile », with an insistence that was really out of place on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows!

It is true that She smiled at Bernadette, and that this smile was reflected on the face of the seer and sent into transports of hopeful delight the onlookers of 1858, who were present as pilgrims or simply out of curiosity. But an unspeakable sadness also appeared on Her face at the thought of the poor sinners for whom She insistently demanded that we pray. There is no mention of this in the pontifical homily, nor of the reason for this sadness: the loss of souls, nor the urgency that there is to save them from Hell. This, in a country that the Holy Father says that he admires and loves, without remarking that France gives our Mother more reasons to weep than to smile. Furthermore, sixty years after Lourdes, at Fatima, she no longer ever smiles. The seers were distraught to see Her so sad, and they communicated to the whole crowd who had come and, from one person to the next, to all the Portuguese people, the desire of consoling Her by prayers and sacrifices.

Of course, Benedict XVI did allow the opening of the process of beatification of Sister Lucy without waiting for the initial delay of five years, but he refused to go to Fatima on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the apparitions. We were able to note his bad faith, if I may say so, when he answered a priest from the diocese of Rome on 7 February 2008, who begged him to renew the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and asked him why he no longer speaks about Hell when the Blessed Virgin had shown it to the children. Not only did the Pope elude the question, but he took advantage of it to reaffirm that the Church should work for the earth (He is Risen, n^o 67, p. 3).

We see very well that Fatima is not his religion.

Let us make a conclusion in two points:

These three and a half years of pontificate demonstrate the necessity for the Catholic Counter-Reformation: in order to put the Church back into order to put an end to the crisis of the Faith. We cannot do so without a true and total Counter-Reformation. Benedict XVI’s pontificate proves so. The errors that have been propagated throughout the Church thanks to the Council are a poison that must be eradicated because it makes everything it contaminates sterile.

« It is not we who will save the Church, our Father used to say, it is she who will save us by saving herself! » But today it must be said: « It is the Church who will be saved by the Blessed Virgin, by the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and us in the same stroke! »

In fact, humanly speaking, we do not see what could lead Benedict XVI to challenge the « Council’s achievements », as he says. He is too attached to them, for they are his own ideas since the early days of his priesthood.

Only a miracle of the Immaculate Heart of Mary can open his eyes. A very beautiful formula from his meditation for the Eucharistic procession leads us to hope for this miracle; it beckons it, as it were.

« Everything came from Christ, even Mary; everything came through Mary, even Christ. »

This is why we must pray, pray much for the Holy Father in whom faith shows us, despite the obscure character of his teaching, the legitimate successor of Peter. He therefore remains the person who will become, at God’s hour, the « Holy Father » after the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us unite our prayers « for the Holy Father » as Blessed Jacinta unceasingly requested. One day the vision that she had of the Holy Father praying on his knees in a church before the Immaculate Heart of Mary, surrounded by a great throng will be fulfilled.

Amen!

Brother Bruno of Jesus.