the prophet and the pontiff of the cult of Man

ON October 16, 1978, John Paul II appeared for the first time on the loggia of Saint-Peter’s. His great ease, his youthfulness, his smile immediately charmed the crowd that acclaimed him. Disregarding protocol, he addressed a few words tinged with humour to them before giving the apostolic blessing. Thus began one of the longest pontificates in history in the course of which the doctrinal errors of Vatican II were disseminated throughout the Church, spreading confusion, provoking the dechristianisation of the West and elsewhere, a slowing down of missionary activity. Henceforth it had difficulty keeping up with population growth, and suffered the effects of the rivalry of Islam and sects.

John-Paul II


From his first curacy in a rural parish until his episcopate in Cracow, Karol Wojtyla always acted in such a way as to maintain a subtle ambiguity. He respected the duties of his office in an exemplary but original manner : he exercised authority as little as possible, gave everyone the impression that he is important, that he is right, pleased everyone. This style of governance supposes a great self-mastery, a capacity for playing one’s role while abstracting oneself in order to preserve one’s own doctrine, the objective that one has set, in order to modify little by little the general climate, to direct differently the ways of acting and thinking.

Once installed on the pontifical throne John Paul II conducted himself in the same way. Faced with the disastrous legacy of Paul VI’s reign, he gave the impression of taking the helm of St. Peter’s barque with authority and piety, although he only did some slight superficial retouching. His real intention was to maintain the Church in line with Vatican II, of which he was, as we have seen, one of the principle theorists. In our contemporary world, the Church was experiencing a Good Friday ; he would lead her to the paschal resurrection by devoting her to the dignity of Man.

To achieve this, after fifteen years of storms, defections and scandals, a firm hand was required to reassure the flock without calling the Council into question.

John Paul II therefore endeavoured first to charm, with the purpose of making even the slightest questioning of his words and deeds unthinkable.

Yet, from the first weeks, one fact speaks volumes about his motives : having succeeded the very popular John Paul I, he adopted his name, claimed to be his follower, but was very careful not to confirm the changes that John Paul I had decided the day before his death. Neither did he order an inquiry into the mysterious circumstances of his death. All those whom John Paul II’s holy predecessor wanted removed from office –the Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot ; the Prefect of the Congregation of the Bishops, Cardinal Baggio ; Archbishop Marcinkus, the person responsible for the ‘ Vatican Bank ’ and several others, all retained their position. Yet who outside of the Roman Curia knew about all this ?

John-Paul IIIn the eyes of the faithful, John Paul II was regarded as a fervent devotee of the Virgin Mary. At the beginning, he always appeared with his Rosary beads in his hand and demanded that the pontifical trips that he was going to resume following those of Paul VI, be the occasion for pilgrimages to the great Marian sanctuaries. He also applied himself to putting some order and dignity into liturgical celebrations.

His homily of enthronement gave a shock to a Church “ sick from the Council ” after fifteen years of constant self-criticism. All of a sudden, at the Pope’s voice, the Faith was vigorously proclaimed :

“ Do not be afraid ! Open, open wide the doors to Christ ! To His saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilisation and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows ‘ what is in man ! ’ He alone knows it ! ”

Finally, a few firm reminders of Catholic morality in particular against abortion, succeeded in giving the mass of the faithful the impression of a salutary reassertion of control ; in fact, the traditional religion was not far in the past : in 1978, all the priests had known the ancient liturgy, the traditional devotions and the catechism of the Council of Trent.

Only the reform-minded minority could have been apprehensive had it not discerned the originality of the new Pope’s speeches. From the beginning, in fact, respect for the rights of man and his dignity was repeated as a leitmotif.

The international situation of the time was, of course, very tense. Not only was Communism very virulent in South America, Asia and Africa, but the cold war was at its height in Europe, against a background of a perilous arms race. In this context, the energetic speeches of the Holy Father were something new, but they also bore the stamp of ambiguity. On the one hand, the Polish Pope seemed anticommunist, opposed to Soviet domination. His compatriots of the Solidarnosc labour union indubitably benefitted from his blessing and his support that was not simply moral. His continual reminders about unconditional respect for the rights of man were also a powerful curb on the anticommunist fight everywhere else.

His first trip, to Mexico, met with considerable success. His Marian piety, his extraordinary popularity and his attitude before the episcopate of the subcontinent assembled at Puebla reassured all who were apprehensive. There he struck a blow against liberation theology, guilty of supporting the violent Communist revolution.

In an article of March 1979, Fr. de Nantes bore witness to what had stood out in people’s minds at that time of this first trip : “ So, John Paul II spoke of God, of the Son of God and of the Blessed Virgin ; he spoke of faith, of the unity of the Church and of the interior life of priests and religious and of that wonderful popular religion. He exalted the truth and loyalty of those who serve and preach it and he strengthened the obedience of priests and the docility of the faithful. If he spoke much of human rights and of justice, he nevertheless maintained sovereign authority in his entire person thereby removed the revolutionary venom and hateful subversive character from the words he was using. He went about doing good. ” These are, moreover, the same reasons for which Pope Francis venerates John Paul II.


The ink of these lines had barely dried when, on March 15 1979, our Father read John Paul II’s first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, a masterpiece of duplicity. Let us quote the main passage of Fr. de Nantes’ demonstration, for once we have understood the error of the reasoning that is developed in Redemptor Hominis, we will understand John Paul II himself. This is more than enough to prevent his canonisation !

“ The encyclical Redemptor Hominis juxtaposes two themes that can no more blend with each other than oil and water in a glass. More than in any of the speeches of Paul VI, whom he proclaims here as his great predecessor and true father, but as he had already done in ‘ The Sign of Contradiction ’ [the Lenten retreat preached at the Vatican In 1976,  ] John Paul II associates the two themes of Christian Redemption and Human rights, yet without really succeeding in uniting them. In the one encyclical, these two themes are, as it were, intertwined but separate discourses. ”

“ Basing himself on the famous text of Gaudium et Spes 22, 2, which we now know that he wrote at the Council, the Pope makes Redemption a revelation of God’s love, not so much the love of God for sinful men but the need for love and for the loving experience which is at the bottom of man’s heart as a divine value :

“ Man cannot live without love… His life is senseless if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it (!) and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. [ in his commentary, Fr. de Nantes posed only one question : any love whatsoever ?  ] That is why Christ the Redeemer ‘ fully reveals man to himself. ’ In this human dimension of the mystery of the Redemption, man finds again the greatness, dignity and the very value of his humanity. In the mystery of the Redemption man becomes newly ‘ confirmed ’ and, in a way, is newly created… If he lets this profound process of assimilation to Christ take place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deep wonder at himself. How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, ‘ if he gained so great a Redeemer. ’ ”

Here is the commentary that our Father made : “ This is the greatest inversion of the faith ever professed ! It turns everything upside down. Christ, by His Incarnation and Redemption, is supposedly the revealer for Man of his own grandeur, of his own worth and of his own merit, and supposedly convinces him of his own excellence ! Never had Jesus Christ and His mysteries of grace thus been made the pedestal and ornament for human pride ! ” The Pope continued : “ This deep admiration for man’s worth and dignity is expressed in the term Gospel, which means Good News. ” Our Father commented : “ Never ! The Gospel is the happy proclamation of God’s mercy given through pure grace to us sinful, wretched, unworthy and culpable men. ”

This text provides us with the key to understanding the thought and work of John Paul II : the cult of Man revealed by God !

It is also an example of the ambiguity of his writings and his speeches. When an uninitiated member of the faithful having confidence in the Pope and hearing him speak about Man, understood man as created by God, in his original state, before the sin of Adam and Eve, or such as he will be after his redemption. Yet under the generic name of man, John Paul II was speaking about every concrete man existing today ! Spellbound, Catholics, without understanding the speech in its entirety, absorbed, all the same, little by little the venom that was constantly being poured forth.

There resulted, at the very least, an attenuation of the sense of sin, an exaltation of self-fulfilment, of human liberty, etc. After twenty-five years of encyclicals, Wednesday audiences and homilies, the content of Catholic preaching had changed. The mentality of the ‘ ordinary Catholics, ’ whether clerics or laymen, had evolved.

The first years of the pontificate did not consist of a succession of acts of governance to restore order, but of trips during which the Pope stirred the crowds : Poland, where he raised the standard of the fight for liberty, Ireland, the United States, where he was the first Pope to go to the White House, and Turkey. In 1980, he went to Africa, France and Brazil.

Making the most of his prestige, he chose as the subject of the Wednesday General Audiences topics that he presented as a catechesis on the human destiny, on sexuality, on the theology of the body. In fact, it was the teaching of “ his own philosophy. ” His very abstruse style prevented the common of mortals from paying attention to it ; but those who did understand it either adopted it or kept silent about it. Who could dare to attack such a popular Pope ?

Nevertheless, starting in 1981, oppositions arose. They characterise the second period of the pontificate, from 1981 to 1985.


The first opponent, Who was going to break the momentum of the superman, was the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of Fatima. On May 13, 1981, John Paul II was the victim of an assassination attempt on St. Peter’s Square. Beyond the circumstances and culpability, which have not yet been clearly elucidated, it was an opportunity for Our Lady to impose Herself upon him.

In fact, in 1981, this alleged great devotee of the Blessed Virgin had not yet shown any interest in the apparitions of Fatima, not any more than in the words of Our Lady or even in the Secret. Worse yet, he did not want to take notice because Heaven’s demands were opposed to Paul VI’s policy of openness to the East, which he had made his own after John Paul I’s brief pontificate.

He himself spontaneously acknowledged it in a conversation with Cardinal Wyszyński. The latter had told him that the most important act he would have to do during his pontificate would be the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in union with all the bishops. The Pope replied that “ the Russians would regard such a consecration as an interference in their internal affairs, and that this would have political consequences. ” Therefore he was unable to perform such an act. Furthermore, he objected that “ the Pope’s jurisdiction only encompasses the Catholic Church, and that the Pope was not Pope of all men.” Cardinal Wyszyński replied that “ Christ being the King of the whole world, his vicar had jurisdiction over all men. ” This did not shake the Polish Pope.

Nevertheless, having been saved from death on a May 13, he could no longer elude this rendezvous with the Blessed Virgin after thirty-one months of his pontificate. On July 18, 1981, the original text of the Secret and its Italian translation were given to him. The following August 11, he sent them back to the Archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

After having read the Secret, the Pope decided not to speak about it publicly ; however, from then on he presented himself as having been miraculously protected by the Virgin of Fatima.

For the first anniversary of the assassination attempt, he wanted to go to Fatima. Two months before the event, Sr. Lucy reminded the nuncio of Lisbon of the conditions required by Heaven concerning the consecration of Russia. On May 13, she met John Paul II at Fatima during a private conversation, which lasted a good twenty minutes. The Pope tried to convince her that it was “ not necessary or prudent to reveal the content of the Third Secret, since the world would not understand it. ” He evaded the question of the consecration of Russia by saying that he would speak about it to the bishops at the synod of 1983.

At Fatima, however, all that he preached was the exact opposite of what Heaven willed. Visibly, he disapproved of the reparatory devotion, since when he quoted one of the prayers taught by Our Lady, he did indeed say “ in reparation for sins, ” but he omitted what follows : “ committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. ” The consecration to Mary became an act of offering to God through Mary. In his homily of May 13, he let it be falsely understood that his predecessors had already responded to the demands of “ the Lady of the message. ”

John-Paul II and sister Lucy
John-Paul II and Sister Lucy at Fatima

Fr. de Nantes entitled his account of the Pope’s trip to Fatima : ‘ The Supreme Deception. ’ “ The worst of it is that he wanted to make the good think that he was doing all that was necessary, all that was humanly possible, and all that supernatural prudence inspired him to do, whilst he showed the bad that he was not taken in by the Fatimist legends, stories and hysteria, that he required no one to believe in them and asked no effort from anyone. ”

Sr. Lucy did not give up the fight ; Bishop Beltritti, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, recalled during the synod of 1983 that the requests of Heaven had not yet been satisfied. Then John Paul II decided to inform the bishops of the entire world of his intention to renew, on March 25, 1984, his consecration of 1982 so that they could make it with him. On March 22, 1984, however, Sr. Lucy declared that “ this consecration cannot have a decisive character ” since “ Russia does not appear clearly as the only object of the Consecration. ”

Faced with the seer’s obstinacy in bearing witness to Heaven’s discontent, in 1988 the Secretary of State ordered her as well as the authorities of Fatima and several ecclesiastics, “ not to importune ” the Holy Father any longer with the consecration of Russia. Yet since she continued affirming that the consecration of 1984 had not fulfilled Our Lady’s requests, she was forced to maintain the contrary by an order of John Paul II that was transmitted to the seer by the intermediary of Cardinal Casaroli. She was made to sign typed letters which, fortunately, contained gross errors and propositions that falsified the revelations of Our Lady. It was thus established that they are apocryphal.

Is it worthy of a saint – and moreover of a saint who prides himself on his great Marian devotion – to resort to such behaviour with the intention of acting against the will of Heaven ?


Sr. Lucy and, through her, the Blessed Virgin were not the only victims of John Paul II’s lies.

From March 1979 on, Fr. de Nantes published each month his doctrinal criticism of John Paul II. The Pope was not unaware of them. Here is one proof among others. We mentioned above the Wednesday audiences during which the Pope expounded “ his ” philosophy and his “ theology of the body ”. At the audience of January 13, 1982, John Paul II explained that conjugal sexuality would blossom in eternal life. Let us quote him : “ Speaking of the body glorified through the resurrection for the future life, we think of man ‘ male-female ’ (sic !) in the full truth of his humanity : man who, whilst he is experiencing the eschatological experience of the Living God (the ‘ face to face ’ vision,) experiences precisely this signification in his own body. It will be a totally new experience and, at the same time, it will in no way be separated from what has been man’s lot ‘ from the beginning, ’ nor from what constitutes within him the historical dimension of his existence, the source of the tension between Spirit and body [the sexual instinct, therefore, carnal desire] concerning in general the procreative signification of the body and of sex [...]. This eternal signification of the human body on which the existence of every man, burdened by the heritage of concupiscence, has necessarily imposed a series of limitations, will then be revealed anew and, at the same time, with such simplicity and splendour that whoever shares in ‘ the other world ’ will rediscover in his own glorified body the source (!) of the freedom of the gift. The perfect ‘freedom of the sons of God’ (cf. Rm 8:14) will also nourish from this gift each of the communions which will constitute the great community of the communion of saints. ”

Filled with indignation, Fr. de Nantes entitled his editorial of February 1982 : ‘ Total Disagreement, The Erotic Obsession. ’ Afterwards, John Paul II never came back to this subject ; at the Wednesday audiences, he dealt with other topics...

Thus, every month a chapter of the Pope’s thinking, one of his speeches or one of his encyclicals were implacably analysed by the theologian of the Counter-Reformation. He was not carrying out the work of an integrist, but a work intended for a Catholic renaissance. Since in this same year 1982, Fr. de Nantes had understood the metaphysical error on which Karol Wojtyla had constructed his philosophy of the person, he expounded for the first time his own metaphysics defining the person by his relations. He demonstrated its extraordinary fruitfulness in providing answers to contemporary problems in a way that was in perfect harmony with Scriptural Revelation.

In light of this, our Father foresaw disaster for the Church. It is impossible to exalt the transcendence of the human person and his liberty without provoking an outbreak of uncontrollable immorality, just as it is impossible to exalt human rights without the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world, without the last Catholic States collapsing, without the Masonic power taking control of the media and finally stifling the liberty of the Church. Furthermore, to take continually the liberty of mutilating quotations from Holy Scripture with the purpose of justifying one’s own theses amounts to giving licence to all the Modernist absurdities leading to the triumph of atheism. Finally, Our Lady of Fatima cannot be mocked without provoking the ruins mentioned in the Secret.

Fr. de Nantes’ faith in the Church and in pontifical infallibility motivated him to appeal once again from the Pope to the Pope. On May 13, 1983, he went to Rome in order to lodge a complaint in the form of a Book of Accusation.

If John Paul II had been innocent, he would have accepted the Book to have it examined by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It would have been child’s play for Roman theologians to establish the French priest’s possible errors, his misinterpretation of pontifical speeches, or even falsifications of quotations. If confounded, and had he not repented, Fr. de Nantes would have been condemned in accordance with Canon Law for the greater good of the Church wisely governed by an indubitably orthodox Pope.

John Paul II, however, knew full well that his teaching was in contradiction with the teaching of the Church and that he would not emerge victorious from a trial. More cunning than Paul VI, he did not ask the Italian police to prevent Fr. de Nantes from presenting his Book of Accusation ; he authorised the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to receive him, yet with the order not to accept the Book and to claim that Fr. de Nantes had acknowledged his errors during a previous trial. In other words, he was a relapser ! A press communiqué spread the lie urbi and orbi.

Who could suspect the Pope of being a liar ? The Devil’s advocate in a process of canonisation… but it so happened that John Paul II modified the procedure and abolished the office ! He had thought of everything.


John-Paul IIThe Blessed Virgin and Sr. Lucy, Fr. de Nantes… there were other victims of John Paul II’s lies : the bishops. In fact, twenty years after the Council, not only were we still waiting for the springtime of the Church, but every bishop in his diocese was worried. At the 1983 Synod, their freedom of expression during the forums gave an ever so much more alarming picture of the Church than the one given by the official line.

We have been unable to establish whether Cardinal Ratzinger had acted on his own or whether he was following orders, whatever the case, the publication of his book with the journalist Messori, Conversations on Faith, which reflected the exact state of the Church, created a considerable stir. John Paul II then convened an extraordinary synod for the twentieth anniversary of the Council at which Cardinal Ratzinger remained silent, imposing on the entire episcopate the ‘ party line, ’ i.e., an absolute prohibition on calling the Council into question.

By imposing officialese, by leaving bishops and priests to face a crisis that they did not understand, for how many cases of discouragement and even despair must John Paul II bear the blame ? We would have to wait until March 2013 for Pope Francis to say aloud something that until then was still considered an act of rebellion : the Church is in a state of crisis, she is deserted by her faithful, small children no longer even know how to make the sign of the cross !

In 2002, the bishop of Trois-Rivières, following the orders or at least with the consent of the apostolic nuncio in Ottawa, refused to allow the celebration of a funeral Mass for our Brother Hugues for no other motive than the fact that he was a disciple of Fr. de Nantes, the person who openly criticised, but according to Canon Law, the Council and John Paul II. Many priests and even bishops criticised dogmas, demanded the ordination of women, etc., without incurring such opprobrium, but to criticise John Paul II was unforgivable.

This was the climate in the Church during the pontificate of Saint John Paul II. Is arbitrariness a heroic virtue ? To support it without leaving the Church is heroic indeed ! But to exercise it ?


After the Blessed Virgin had been reduced to silence, Fr. de Nantes slandered and the bishops brought to heel, there then took place the unforgivable schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, which had been cunningly provoked. It would discredit all criticism of the Council. John Paul II had his hands free to impose what the theologian of the Counter-Reformation called his gnosis.

From 1986 to 1996, he committed acts, each one more scandalous than the previous, without provoking the slightest reaction.

For example, the interfaith meeting of Assisi to pray together, each one addressing his own God in order to obtain peace. Thus Jesus Christ was ranked among the false gods and the Blessed Virgin was persona non grata in Assisi on that day. Some people were appalled, but no one dared to voice his opposition.

John Paul II was the first Pope to visit a synagogue, the one in Rome, in April 1986. He declared there that the Jews are “ our very dear brethren and, in a certain way [...] our elder brethren. ” Here again is this ambiguity, which is in fact a lie, since he acted as though Talmudic Judaism were faithful to the Old Testament.

We would have to quote his encyclicals that all bear the stamp of his philosophical errors, in particular Redemptor Missio in 1990, on the missions, Veritatis Splendor in 1993, on morality, Fides et Ratio in 1998, on the relationship between faith and reason.

On numerous occasions, John Paul II had no other choice than to truncate quotations of Holy Scripture in order to make them coincide with his theses. The most common example is the quotation of St. John’s Gospel, chapter 2, verse 25 : “ Jesus needed no one to bear witness of man ; for He Himself knew what was in man. ” This is the part of the verse that is always quoted by John Paul II to show that God admires man. Yet if we read the verse without truncating it, we see that St. John says the exact opposite : “ Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man ; for He Himself knew what was in man. ”

The record for truncated verses is found in the apostolic letter on women’s position in society, Mulieris Dignitatem. There are so many that Fr. de Nantes was able to give an hour-long conference by placing the falsified or erroneous quotations of Holy Scripture one after another !

At the same moment, John Paul II had reached the pinnacle of his glory with the fall of the Berlin Wall that his constant assistance to the Polish dissent had prepared, with his meeting with Gorbachev, with his stand against abortion and in favour of strict sexual morality. It was not noticed that these matters were based more on the dignity of Man rather than on respect for divine law. He can also be given credit for his firm opposition to liberation theology, although he had been unable to give the Church of South America the impetus required to oppose sects. The creation of WYD is also often mentioned in his favour. It would become the periodic gathering of young people with a Pope who, although aged, was still able to dominate crowds.

A true process of beatification would not have failed to examine his fascination for the third millennium that was supposed to open a new age. He decreed a jubilee for the year 2000, the preparation for which would extend over three years, the first dedicated to the Father, the second to the Son and the third to the Holy Spirit. The Pope announced renewed activity for the latter during the third millennium. He launched a “ new evangelisation, ” yet another ambiguity. Did he mean new vigour for evangelising or the proclamation of a new Gospel ?

John-Paul II
John-Paul II at the Wailing Wall, in Jerusalem

During his trips he put emphasis on interfaith dialogue more than ever. He made inconceivable gestures, as in 1999 when he kissed the Koran as a mark of respect ! On March 26, 2000, he went to the Wailing Wall, in Jerusalem, where he placed a monotheistic prayer in which the calculated omission of any reference to Jesus Christ, the son of God, was obvious.

On Sunday May 6, 2001, after having removed his shoes, he entered the mosque of Umayyad at Damascus where he listened with religious respect to the reading of verses from the Koran and the litany of Allah’s names. The grand mufti then declared : we all adore the same God. The Pope did not react... This was a denial of the Holy Trinity.

His book written with the journalist Messori, even more than his encyclicals, which were always difficult to read, ought to be added to the file of a true heresy trial. Under the title ‘Enter into Hope,’ the Pope announced good news : “ Whoever you are, realise that you are loved ! Remember that the Gospel is an invitation to joy ! Do not forget that you have a Father and that each life, even the most insignificant in the eyes of men, has a value that is eternal and infinite in His eyes... ” Yet, far from calling souls to conversion, John Paul II preached the triumph of Love. As regards Hell, for example, after having stated that the final apocatastasis had been rejected by the first Councils, the Pope continued :

“ The question, however, continues to be posed. Can God, Who so loved man, accept to be rejected by him and for this reason be condemned to unending torments ? Yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew, He speaks clearly of those who will experience eternal punishment. Who will these be ? The Church has never wanted to take a position. There is an impenetrable mystery between the holiness of God and the human conscience. The silence of the Church is thus the only appropriate attitude. Even if Christ said of Judas who had just betrayed Him : ‘ It would be better for that man if he had never been born ! ’ this sentence must not be understood as eternal damnation. ”

In other words, Karol Wojtyla continued, as Pope, to preach Hell, without really believing in it... not yet daring to deny it bluntly.

Personal conversion was not required but the Church’s conversion ! Speaking to the cardinals to whom he had just announced the jubilee, John Paul II evoked Galileo’s rehabilitation and then declared : “ A close look at the history of the second millennium will doubtless cast light on other errors or even faults of the same order concerning respect for the just autonomy of the sciences (...). How can we remain silent over the many forms of violence exerted in the name of faith ? Wars of religion, the tribunals of the Inquisition, and other forms of violation of people’s rights (...). The Church must also take the initiative, in the light of the Second Vatican Council, to review the shady aspects of her history, examining them in the light of the Gospel. ”


While the Pope passed himself off as an implacable judge of the previous centuries, Providence arranged opportunities that ought to have led him to examine his conscience concerning his own pontificate. He, however, rejected them.

The first of these opportunities was Fr. de Nantes’ publication of a third Book of Accusation, this time aimed at the Author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in October 1992. John Paul II solemnly presented it as “ a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. ” Then, he recognised it as “ a sure norm for teaching the Faith. ” For his part, Fr. de Nantes found twelve heresies in it, which he supported by ample quotations. The last heresy summarises Karol Wojtyla’s whole gnosis, “ this error, which is close to the Truth that it plagiarises. ” Let us quote the main sentence of this denunciation : “ What your Catechism grants to man, to every man, to every woman as well, without distinction, and to each of us, poor sinners, the Father wished to give to Jesus and Mary alone. ”

The demonstration was implacable. As on the previous occasions, however, the case was not examined, nor would it be at the time of the process of beatification.

A second opportunity for the Pope to examine his own conscience was provided by the opposition of the ‘ Fatimists ’. Despite the fact that John Paul II had feigned to respond to Our Lady’s requests in 1984 and had forbidden Sr. Lucy to communicate with anyone, even with cardinals, Our Lady’s devotees were still demanding the publication of the ‘ Third Secret ’ and the glorification of Jacinta and Francisco. He could not reasonably object any longer. Their beatification on May 13, 2000 did in fact bring about the revelation of the third part of the Secret, but it was staged in such a way as to misrepresent its signification and practically cancel the effect it would have.

On that day in Fatima, in the presence of John Paul II and Sr. Lucy, Cardinal Sodano, the Secretary of State, anticipated its disclosure in order to proclaim its official interpretation that reduced the Secret to the announcement of the attack against John Paul II : was the Pope not “ as though dead, ” at the time of the assassination attempt of May 13, 1981 !

The falsification of the text of the Secret only became obvious the following month, on June 26 when the authentic document was published : the three little shepherds had not seen the Pope fall “ as though dead, ” but well and truly “ killed ! ” The explanatory dossier emanating from Cardinal Ratzinger, was imbued with the Modernist theories of Fr. Dhanis, although these had been brilliantly refuted on several occasions. In his theological commentary, the Cardinal presented the Secret as being the product of the “ projections of the inner world of children, brought up in a climate of profound piety but shaken at the same time by the tempests that threatened their own time. ” He thus concluded : “ The situation referred to in the third part of the Secret of Fatima would now seem to belong to the past. Insofar as particular events are represented, they now belong to the past. ”

In other words, the Pope was turning his back on Fatima once and for all and he turned the Church away from it. Fatima was all over. As for the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in his homily of the Mass for the beatification of the children, John Paul II avoided speaking about it, going so far as to censor the words of the seers and of Our Lady Herself. On his lips, “ My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God, ” became “ the Most Holy Virgin was ready to lead them safely to God. ”

Is such behaviour worthy of a holy Pope ? Is it not such behaviour that Pope Francis condemns saying : “ When a Christian becomes the disciple of an ideology, he has lost the faith : he is no longer a disciple of Jesus. He has become the disciple of this way of thinking. Knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and even moralistic knowledge that closes the door with all its prescriptions (...). Ideology repels people ; it detaches people from the Church and the Church from people. ”

The third opportunity to repent was provided by the scandals that arose more and more frequently. Already, in the mid-1980s, the scandal of the Bank of the Vatican Involved in laundering money with the P2 Lodge and the Mafia had tarnished the Church. Far from wanting to purify her, John Paul II had protected the principal suspect, Archbishop Marcinkus. He was appointed Governor of Vatican City and held a Vatican passport. He benefitted from immunity from prosecution under Italian law and was able to enjoy a peaceful existence at the Vatican until 1990, then in the United States until his death in 2006.

The sex scandals that benefitted from an extraordinary leniency on the part of the hierarchic authorities ought to have prompted a serious examination of conscience. It would have been necessary to identify the cause proportionate to both the invasion of vice and the culpable indulgence of the authorities of seminaries and dioceses. To ask the question would have led to the condemnation of openness to the worldly spirit and of the praise heaped on the fulfilment of man and his liberty. That was obviously out of question.

Hence a blind eye had to be turned to them. The most scandalous case is indeed that of the founder of the Legion of Christ, whose friendship with John Paul II ensured him that the file on all the denunciations against him would be closed.

Would a saint have tolerated the invasion of vice into the Church and even among his friends without reacting ?


John Paul II, however, had still another opportunity to do some soul-searching ; the Parkinson’s disease that struck him in the mid-1990s was the trial the most capable of making him understand the error and the vanity of “ his own philosophy. ” For the first time Karol Wojtyla was reduced to the ordinary human condition. What remains of the fulfilment of the person and his transcendence when he becomes totally dependent, when his intellectual faculties are reduced, and his ability to communicate considerably diminished ?

John-Paul II

It was thought that John Paul II was no longer in a state to govern the Church really during the last five years of his pontificate. Nevertheless, he ruled out the possibility of a resignation and he made every effort to exercise his public functions until the end. He summoned up all his energy for contact with the crowd as we were able to see during the WYD of Toronto in 2002. The acclamations and the applause galvanised him.

Yet for what result ? If we have not yet already accumulated enough facts that contradict his holiness, the fruits of this pontificate would suffice to cast doubt on it.

John Paul II, the Pope of peace ? The destroyer of Communism ? Of course, the Berlin Wall did fall, but the errors of Russia spread everywhere, its totalitarianism is now that of Freemasonry and financial powers. It cannot even be upheld that peace made progress during his reign. Moreover, he himself bitterly acknowledged it on March 24, 2004, for the twentieth anniversary of his consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary : “ Twenty years have gone by since that day… At that time humanity was living through difficult moments of great anxiety and uncertainty. Twenty years later, the world still remains dreadfully marked by hatred, violence, terrorism and war. ”

The increase in the number of baptisms in Africa and Asia must not be attributed to him either. They remain inferior to the population increase. As for the impressive number of vocations in mission lands, it must be relativised by their mediocre quality and by the sex scandals that afflict many young Churches.

In our old countries of Christianity, the spectacle of the throngs that crowded to see the Pope or on the occasion of the WYD no longer managed to conceal the sclerosis of the Church. We had an example of this here in Canada.

Our Father foretold : “ It will be like what is sometimes seen when a ship is leaking like a sieve. At a certain moment, it seems, you see it stand up vertically, its prow raised towards the sky like beseeching hands. The prow rises ; it is a veritable marvel. Then all at once the ship sinks and disappears forever beneath the waves. This is indeed what happened.

John Paul II died on April 2, 2005, without having retracted even one of his errors.

Why do some people absolutely want to canonise John Paul II in defiance of the Church’s very wise age-old practice ? Only one explanation could have convinced the cardinals to support such an enterprise : the Second Vatican Council had to be saved. It was in fact Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II who forced the Church to adopt the errors that the Council teaches. Once these popes are forgotten, and the papolatry challenged by a sound and holy (counter-) reformation of the Church, nothing will remain of the Council. The last card of the Evil One who gave his malefic spirit to it is to place on the altars those who were his instruments.

“ In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph ! ”

Brother Peter of the Transfiguration.
He is risen! n° 135, January 2014