The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World

By Rev. Denis Fahey,

C.S.Sp., D.D., D.Ph., B.A.

With a Prefatory Letter from

the Most Rev. J. Kinane, D.D., D.C.L.

Bishop of Waterford and Lismore

LORETO PUBLICATIONS

FITZWILLIAM NEW HAMPSHIRE

AD 2018

Cum permissu Superiorum Religiosorum

Nihil Obstat: Gulielmus Coffey, S.T.L., Censor

Imprimi potest: † Jeremias, Episcopus Waterfordiensis et Lismorensis

Waterfordiae, die 11a Julii, 1939.

First Printed, March 1935

New and Enlarged Edition May 1938

Reprinted, January 1939

Third Edition, June 1939

2018 Edition - All rights reserved

ISBN 978-1-62292-122-5

Loreto Publications newly typeset edition 2018

P. O. Box 603

Fitzwilliam, NH 03447

603-239-6671

www.LoretoPubs.org

Layout and cover design by Michael Hamilton

Cover Image: Christ of the Cornfield by Thomas Francis Dicksee

Printed and Bound in the United States of America

Dedication

To the Immaculate Mother of God, who stood by the Cross of her dying Son, to St. Joseph, head of the Holy Family of Nazareth, Protector of the Universal Church, and to St. Patrick, through whose efforts the Irish Nation was incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ, this work is humbly and lovingly dedicated by the author.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” (Jn. 12:32)

“Two loves have formed two cities: the love of self, reaching even to contempt of God, an earthly city; the love of God, reaching to contempt of self, a heavenly one. The earthly city seeks its glory in itself, the heavenly city seeks its glory in God.” (St. Augustine The City of God, Book xiv. Chap. 28)

Prefatory Letter

The principal purpose of The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World is to deal, from the theological, philosophical, and historical standpoint, with the modern revolt against the Divine Plan for the organization of human society.

To guide and direct men here below and to lead them ultimately to that eternal happiness with God for which they are destined, there are two great societies—the Church and the State. The Church derives its origin from the positive intervention of God. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, during His life on earth, established it and gave it its constitution and power. He still remains the Church’s supreme, though invisible, head, and the Church is His Mystical Body. The Church has for its end the spiritual welfare of men; and hence it has direct power only over things that, by reason of their intrinsic nature, or through some extrinsic relationship, have a spiritual and sacred character. It, however, indirectly acquires jurisdiction over purely temporal affairs whenever spiritual interests become involved, and whenever, therefore, its intervention becomes necessary, or at least useful, for the attainment of its spiritual end.

The other great society, the State, derives its juridical origin, its fundamental constitution and power, not from any positive act of God, but from His natural law. The temporal welfare of man is its end, and temporal affairs constitute the object of its jurisdiction. In regulating temporal affairs, however, not merely must it not impede, but it must positively help to promote, the spiritual interests of its subjects.

The two societies are independent and self-sufficient, each in its own sphere, so that no direct subordination exists between them. There is, however, indirect subordination. Since both societies exercise jurisdiction over the same subject, man, it sometimes happens that spiritual and temporal interests conflict; and when this happens, spiritual interests and the society which governs them, being the higher, the nobler, and the more important, must prevail.

Such in brief is the Divine Plan for the organization of human society. Since the great purpose of man’s creation is that he should know and serve God here below and afterwards see and enjoy Him forever in heaven, it follows that the Church is the principal element in this plan; moreover she is its official exponent and defender; and hence the attacks made upon it will be mainly directed against her; so that Dr. Fahey justly entitles his work The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, although its scope embraces modern errors regarding the State also, and the efforts that have been, and are being, made to give these errors practical effect.

The modern revolt against this divine plan, as Dr. Fahey points out, dates from the so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Protestant theory of church organization and its doctrine of private judgment are not merely opposed to the plan, they are also the germs from which have sprung most of the modern errors regarding it and most of the modern attacks made upon it. The Church, as constituted by her divine founder, is an external, visible, organized society, under the visible headship of the successor of St. Peter, Christ’s Vicar upon earth. In the Protestant theory, however, “the true Church of Christ…is nothing else than the assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of Christ imparted to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And this Church, known to God alone, is the unique Church of the promises of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised His assistance to the consummation of the world. Since, however, true believers, instructed by the Holy Ghost, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate their impressions and feelings to others, and may employ the symbols of the sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible Church, which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. The membership of this Church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different forms according to circumstances. The true invisible Church of Christ is always hidden, unseen in the multitude.”

A direct consequence of this theory is that indefinite multiplication of non-Catholic Christian sects with which we are so familiar today, and which is so repugnant to the essential unity of Christ’s Mystical Body.

The principle of private judgment has led to even more disastrous results. If every man has the right to decide for himself what religious truths he will accept, if faith is to be merely an autonomous conviction, the way is opened for an ultimate deification of man himself and for a complete rejection of the supernatural and of the Divine Plan for the organization of human society. Rationalism, naturalism, the revolutionary deification of humanity, Masonry, Socialism, Communism, may all be traced to the undue glorification of human reason which characterized the theories of the so-called reformers.

In The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, Dr. Fahey shows us in detail the consequences which followed from the Lutheran revolt, and he deals at length with the various errors and the various forces which at present menace the divinely-constituted social order. His work is a most important one. Perhaps never before, since the establishment of Christianity, has there been such an organized effort to overthrow it, to dethrone Christ, to destroy His Church, to set aside God and the order which He has established. In some countries, notably Russia, Mexico, and Spain, the veil of secrecy has been withdrawn; in many others the same Masonic and Communistic influences are at work, but their activities are to a large extent underground. To deceive the unwary, something philanthropic or national is usually made the immediate, ostensible object, but the underlying, primary purpose is always the same. We know, indeed, that the divine order will survive these attacks, that the Church is indefectible and will emerge triumphant from this struggle as she has done from former ones. We have, however, no guarantee that she will not be wounded in the fight, and whether her wounds are to be serious or light will depend, under God, almost entirely on the number, zeal, and preparedness of her defenders. Now, an essential prerequisite for a proper preparation is a knowledge of the nature and extent of the menace, of the organization of the forces behind it, and of the diabolical hatred of Christianity and of everything supernatural with which these forces are imbued. This knowledge is to be found in Dr. Fahey’s work; in fact, nowhere else, as far as we know, is there such a logical, co-ordinated treatment of the subject. A notable feature of the work is its excellent documentation. Dr. Fahey does not ask us to accept his mere ipse dixit; in his study of his subject he has gone to the original sources, and he gives his readers the full benefit of his researches. His discussion of the I.R.B., the I.R.A., and other Irish organizations and the documents which he adduces in this connection have a special interest and importance for Irish Catholics.

This book is somewhat difficult, but not too much so, and certainly not more difficult than the nature of the treatment demanded. A little effort will be required to grasp fully all Dr. Fahey’s points, but we can assure the reader that he will be amply rewarded for the labor which he expends. We hope that the book will be as widely read as it deserves. If it is, it will undoubtedly exercise a far reaching influence for good in warning faithful children of the Church of the menace directed against her and against the whole Divine Plan for the organization of human society, and in stimulating them to take effective measures to meet this menace.

† J. Kinane,

Bishop of Waterford and Lismore,

Waterford, All Souls’ Day, 1934

Loreto Publication’s

Introduction to

Father Denis Fahey

When Jesus Christ, our King and Master, taught us how to pray to His Father and Our Father, he used the phrase “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” In heaven God’s will is perfectly accomplished, but here on earth, fallen mankind cannot fulfill God’s will without the constant assistance of sanctifying grace communicated to the world through the sacraments of His church.

After the fall of Adam, a world perfectly ordered to God’s divine will was corrupted and dis-order became the ‘natural’ state of mankind and the created universe. It was the role of the Messias to re-order this fallen world—to bring a new state of order to the world His Father had created. The means for establishing that order by which a fallen world may return to God is the Catholic church and the life of sanctifying grace. As Christians newly born into the life of grace—a ‘supernatural’ state of being—we are all called to bring as much order to this world as is possible, all the while never forgetting that this world is in a fallen and corrupted state and that a ‘utopia’ is not possible here on earth. The Church of Christ is constantly opposed in this mission by all of the forces of ‘naturalism’ or dis-order, that is those forces opposed to the supernatural life of divine grace. It is the duty of all Christians of the Church Militant to battle against these forces.

This calling of Christians to the battle for order was the motto of the pontificate of Pope Saint X. That motto was Instaurare Omnia in Christo, “to restore all things in Christ”, taken from Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 1:10. The modern popes have frequently warned us of the dangers of ‘naturalism’, which denies the supernatural life of grace and militates against it, and they have called us to fight in our private and public lives against this pernicious error. No priest has heeded that call and risen to defend the supernatural life of grace as clearly and as vigorously as Father Denis Fahey. He truly understood, and explained why, there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, either for individual persons or for the life of society and of nations.

A clear image of just what the life of a Christian in a society imbued from top to bottom with the social principles of Christ the King would be like, is not a widely shared understanding in much of the Christian world today, especially in America. We must remember that Christianity is a religion of world conquest! We are called to conquer the world for Christ and to do all that we can to subdue persons and nations to His will. A Catholic undertakes this battle first within himself and then within his family. Soon the influence of many families begins to pervade the community and then the nation or state. If Christian people do not have the full picture in their mind of exactly what God’s Plan for Order in this world would look like in its accomplishment, then they can have no long-term strategy for victory and little hope of achieving it. We have all of the tools required and all of the powers of heaven backing us. Let us take into our hearts and our minds the full plan and its potential for the realization of peace in the world and Christ the King of heaven and earth will bless our efforts. This was the permanent admonition of Fr. Fahey.

Father Fahey was a seminarian and was ordained in Rome during the pontificate of Pius X. The young priest was deeply influenced and inspired by that pope. When he penned a short Apologia for his work, Father Fahey expressed his vocation in this fashion:

“When in Rome I began to realize more fully the real significance of the history of the world, as the account of the acceptance and rejection of Our Lord’s Program for Order. I used to ask permission to remain at the Confession of St. Peter, while the other scholastics went round the basilica.

“I spent the time there going over the history of the world, and I repeatedly promised Saint Peter that if I ever got the chance, I would teach the truth about his Master in the way he and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, wanted it done. That is what I have striven to do and am doing.”

Father Fahey not only clarified, explained, taught, and defended ‘Our Lord’s Program for Order’ in the world, he also actively fought and exposed the persons who were the enemies of that order. Because he did so, he has often been called ‘negative’ or ‘anti-Semitic’, or ‘much too concerned with Masonic conspiracies’. These are the pathetic terms of opprobrium hurled with such energy by those enemies of Christ whose plans he has effectively opposed. But in this he was in good company with St. Louis Marie de Montfort and Our Lady, who appears ‘terrible as an army set in battle array’ to the enemies of her divine son.

Listen to the words of St. Louis Marie as he stresses the two functions of our Blessed Mother, the positive one of making Our Lord known, and the negative one of making war upon His enemies.

“Mary must be manifested more than ever by her mercy, her power and her grace in these latter times; by her mercy, bringing back and lovingly welcoming the poor strayed sinners who will be converted and will return to the Catholic Church; by her power, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and men hardened in impiety, who will rise in terrible revolt to seduce all those who oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats; she must also be made manifest by her grace animating and sustaining the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall battle for His interests.

“And lastly, Mary must be terrible to the devil and his ministers, as an army in battle array, principally in these latter times, because the devil, knowing that he has but little time, and now less than ever, to damn souls, will every day redouble his efforts and his combats. He will before long raise up cruel persecutions and will lay terrible snares for the faithful servants and true children of Mary whom he finds more difficult to conquer than the others.”

Loreto Publications is committed to re-issuing all of the previously published works of Fr. Fahey and making them available to a much wider audience. The works of Fr. Fahey are critically important for Catholics to read, understand, and disseminate in our day when the forces of ‘organized naturalism’ or ‘anti-supernaturalism’ seem to be rampaging triumphantly through the Church and the world today. Arm yourselves for the battle!

Loreto Publications offers the

following works of Fr. Denis Fahey:

Mental Prayer According to the Teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1927)

The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1931)

The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the King (1932) Adapted from the French of Rev. A. Phillippe C.SS.R. by Fr. Denis Fahey C.S.Sr.

The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (1935)

The Rulers of Russia (1938)

The Workingmen’s Guilds of the Middle Ages (1943)

A translation of the work by Dr. Godefroid Kurth C.S.G.)

The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism (1943)

Money Manipulation and the Social Order (1944)

The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society (1945)

The Tragedy of James Connolly (1947)

The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers (1948)

The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953)

The Church and Farming (1953)

The Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion (1954)

(A translation of the work by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani)

Editor’s notes

Loreto’s editions of the works of Father Fahey have been newly typeset and updated with some changes to the original text. The alterations are as follows:

1. We have changed the spelling of many words to match modern American spelling rules. Some examples are: neighbor for neighbour, show for shew, labor for labour, realize for realise, mold for mould, program for programme, etc.

2. We have made use of current punctuation and capitalization rubrics.

3. We have made a few minor corrections of typographical errors in the original texts but have NOT altered the words of Fr. Fahey nor made any deletions.

4. We have made uniform the notations of scripture references in the currently accepted fashion. For example, we use Mt. 24: 6–9 instead of Matt. xxiv 6, 7, 8, 9.

Table of Contents

Prefatory Letter

Loreto’s Introduction

Forward

Forward to the Second Edition

Forward to the Third Edition

Chapter 1

The Theology of History

Chapter 2

The Organization of Society

Chapter 3

The Lutheran Revolt

Chapter 4

The Revolutionary Deification of Man

Chapter 5

The Declaration of the Rights of Man

Chapter 6

The Agents of Revolution

Chapter 7

Pius IX and the Pantheistic Deification of Man

Chapter 8

The Modern Struggle Around the Kingship of Christ

Chapter 9

Catholic and Communist Ideals

Chapter 10

State Organization and the Kingship of Christ

Chapter 11

The Struggle of the Jewish Nation Against the True Messias

Appendices

1. Jewish Power

2. The Forces that Govern

3. Germany

4. Spain

5. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”

6. Freemasonry

7. FranceeBook

Foreword

In a remarkable sermon preached at Pentecost, 1861, in the London Oratory, Father Faber spoke as follows: “We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh. …Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”[1] At all periods in the world’s history, good men have been maneuvered into wrong camps, but the machinery for deceiving people, or at least for preventing them from getting an accurate view of the real struggle going on in the world, has never, it would seem, reached the perfection of the present day.

Nowadays, the vast majority of human beings in all countries are at the mercy of the newspapers for information about the world. And the newspapers mislead them atrociously. “Journalism,” writes G. K. Chesterton, “is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen and the unreal world is seen. …We live under secret government, conducted by a secret process called Publicity.”[2] For the newspapers are more and more at the beck and call of the financial forces which control the machinery of publicity. Can anyone read the following extract from that pathetic work, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, by an American Agnostic,[3] without being filled with horror at the state of affairs depicted therein?

“A considerable portion of the press is now an ominous danger to public morals, since it has shown itself to be both vile and venal, and willing to deceive and brutalize mankind.

“The depth to which its employees are frequently reduced is seen in the judgment passed upon the calling of the American journalist, by a New York editor, John Swinton, during an annual dinner of the New York Press Association. It certainly is a frank confession: ‘There is no such thing as an independent press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid 150 dollars a week so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the paper for which I write. You, too, are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation, like Othello’s, would be gone in less than twenty-four hours. The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search for another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings, and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men; we are intellectual prostitutes.”

“Philip Francis, for years an editorial writer of great influence in America, and who had had for forty years an intimate connection with journalism, writes: ‘With a few honorable exceptions, the big papers and magazines of the United States are the most ignorant and gullible, as well as the most cowardly and controlled press, printed in any country in the world. The majority of the owners are mere financiers, who look upon their magazines and newspapers simply as money-making mills, and who, whenever it is a question between more coin and good, honest, patriotic, public service, will take the coin every time’ (The Poison in America’s Cup, p. 31).

“What adds to the peril of this capitalized press—which is, of course, not confined to any country—is the deplorable fact that millions of the people of all lands find in their newspapers their only mental food, and form their opinions on practically all subjects by reading insincerely written editorials. Some even have time only for the headlines!”

But, then, do not newspapers controlled by Catholics react against all this and give their readers the full truth about the world? Alas! Some small ones here and there in different countries do so, but very many do not. The reasons for this are numerous. One, however, is manifest. Most Catholics have been influenced by history, as it has been written and taught for the last three hundred years, and experience great difficulty in getting a clear grasp of the real struggle in the world around the Mystical Body of Christ. The Lutheran separation between the Christian and the citizen has got such a grip of their minds that they find it hard to realize that our Lord meant what He said, when He uttered the words: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all things to Myself” (Jn. 12:32). If we take a Socialist or Communist paper, we are astonished at the contrast between it and a journal controlled by Catholics, professedly convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church. From the first line to the last, the Communist paper aims at forming a convinced partisan and it is written with vigor and seemingly profound conviction. Every incident is utilized by it for the propagation of its doctrine of falsehood and misery.

The paper controlled by Catholics, on the other hand, “only too often shares in that cold and indifferent outlook on religious matters, with which the pupils of Catholic schools are reproached. They (the pupils of Catholic schools) have been brought up in a Catholic atmosphere, they have breathed it naturally, but they do not feel the healthy, life-giving purity of it. They are ‘fed up’ with religion as they are with Latin and Greek. The joy of possessing a treasure and the ambition to increase it seem to be dead within them. …All these young Catholics seem to be unaware of the fact that they hold in their hands the torch which is meant to illumine the world. They carry it along lifelessly and without interest, just as they would a candle in a procession. Our (Catholic) paper does the same. Its attitude towards religion is the stereotyped one of discharging a duty that has to be performed.”[4]

Another reason why newspapers, edited and directed by Catholics, do not react against the insincerity of the press is that they, too, are more or less at the mercy of financial forces. How, for example, can a manager refuse well-paid advertisements, even though no attention is paid therein to the instructions of the Sovereign Pontiff on feminine modesty in dress? If he does so, the receipts suffer and the paper’s existence is endangered. Again, how can editors point out the directions of Masonic movements when they are not prepared to face the hostility of the sect? For these and such like reasons, readers are left unenlightened and bewildered.[5]

In this work an attempt has been made to give a synthetic view of the real conflict going on in the world for and against the Mystical Body of Christ. I have tried to get a clear view of the conflict and keep all the various factors thereof in their proper perspective, by striving to represent to myself how things will appear, when He shall come to judge the world. Then the full horror of opposition to the supernatural life of grace and the folly of all those who have gone over to the camp of Satan, the first naturalist and rationalist, will stand clearly revealed. The same forces that resisted and persecuted our Lord Jesus Christ during His life on earth resist and persecute Him down the ages in His Mystical Body.

According to the opinion of St. John Damascene, St. Augustine, and other Fathers of the Church, Lucifer, the highest of the angels who sinned, was set over the order of the world. St. Thomas (Ia Pars, Q. 63, a. 7) does not deny the probability of this view. We may therefore speak of Satan as prince of this world by a special title.[6] If he had not sinned, he would have governed this world in the joy and harmony of supernatural love. But, seduced by the plenitude of his natural gifts, he became the first of those who have preferred the finite to the Infinite. He refused the supernatural life of love of God as He is in Himself above all. Predestined friend of man, he became instead the tempter and betrayer of the human race, and now uses all the resources of that world he knows so well to get men to follow the illusions of naturalism and self-centeredness, instead of the realities of submission to the divine order. He induced the Jews to reject the supernatural Messias and keeps them, as a nation, looking forward to the mirage of a natural Messias triumphant in the world’s way in opposition to order. He inveigles men into secret societies by the hope of a science that will gratify their pride and by the promise of the kingdoms of this world and their glory.[7] And they listen to the voice of the tempter turning away from Him Whose Kingdom is not of this world. But the Precious Blood everywhere overthrows Satan’s attempt to rule. In the footsteps of all those who allow our Lord to relive His life in them, the world is reborn and Christ reigns. The Eastertides of the history of the Mystical Body have filled Satan with ever-increasing despair.

I have tried then, however feebly and imperfectly, to say some of the things I shall be glad to have said, when He shall come to sift the grain from the chaff. The world’s standard of values will in that hour have undergone a radical revision. “Then shall the just stand with great constancy against those that have afflicted them, and taken away their labors. These seeing it, shall be troubled with terrible fear, and shall be amazed at the suddenness of their unexpected salvation. Saying within themselves, repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit: These are they, whom we had some time in derision, and for a parable of reproach. We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honor. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints. Therefore, we have erred from the way of truth, and the light of justice hath not shined upon us, and the sun of understanding hath not risen upon us. We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity and destruction, and have walked through hard ways, but the way of the Lord we have not known. What hath pride profited us? or what advantage hath the boasting of riches brought us? All those things are passed away like a shadow” (Wisd. 5:1–9). I have, however, tried to animate what I have written with His Spirit of Charity. The full truth must be fearlessly proclaimed. Souls are perishing for lack of it, and they will reproach us Catholics, in His presence, with our cowardice and luke-warmness. But we must not forget that it is not for us to judge and condemn those who do not accept the truth. He Himself prayed for those who crucified Him, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34).[8]

His Spirit of Charity is especially necessary when speaking of the continued opposition of the members of His own nation to Him. We must never forget that their opposition inflicts special suffering on His Sacred Heart and that He is ever seeking to draw the Jewish nation away from the superficial things of this world to reality and truth. Sharing those feelings, we shall keep our minds free from opposition to the Jews as a race and make our own the sentiments expressed in the following touching prayer:

“Divine Heart of Jesus, we offer Thee all our poor actions to obtain that all hearts, in particular those of the children of Israel, may recognize Thy Sacred Royalty, and that thus, the reign of Thy peace may be established throughout the entire world O Christ Jesus, turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people. Of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.”[9]

No use has been made in this work of the famous Protocols of the Sages of Zion, first published by Sergius Nilus in Russia in 1901–1902. These Protocols are said to be the rough notes of a series of conferences  delivered to a select body of Jewish leaders assembled in secret conclave about the end of the nineteenth century. They purport to give an outline of Jewish plans for the preparation of the kingdom of the Messias to come. On the one hand, the authenticity of this document cannot be proved; on the other, the efforts made by some writers, principally Jewish, to show it to be a forgery do not carry conviction to many serious minds.[10] The Introduction to the latest French edition of the Protocols (R.I.S.S., Paris, 1934) gives a detailed account of the state of the question of the authorship of this document, and shows that, while its origin is at present an enigma, the ablest attempt to disprove its authenticity, viz., that of The Times of August 16th, 17th, 18th, 1921, is open to serious objections. The authorship of the Protocols is mysterious, but it is an accidental consideration. What must be kept clearly in mind and emphasized, throughout any discussion concerning the Protocols, is the very grave fact that the program outlined in them is being fulfilled.

I have not utilized the Protocols while studying the growth of opposition to our Lord Jesus Christ in the modern world. From the Encyclicals of the Popes and the teaching of St. Thomas, I have endeavored to show that men must take sides for or against the supernatural Messias and that, if they do not accept Him fully, they are drawn into the army that is working, consciously or unconsciously, to prepare the advent of the natural Messias. They thus inevitably come under the leadership of the Jews, who wield such enormous power in the modern world through the subjection of man to production and of production to finance. Now anyone who reads the Protocols carefully will be obliged to confess that a more skillful plan could hardly be devised for the destruction of belief in our Lord and the preparation of the advent of the new Messias. In addition, if the reader is acquainted with the world, he will see that the plan is being carried out, and that, as a result, Jewish power is increasing. A few passages will be quoted in Appendix V to illustrate these points and show how well the Protocols fit the actual world.

But this book is not meant merely to open the eyes of Catholics to the realities of life. It is intended also to stir them to take their part in the struggle by a full-hearted acceptance of Christ crucified. To work for the salvation of the world with Christ, one must begin with oneself. The first step to be taken is to install the reign of the crucified Man-God fully and completely in one’s own heart. Love and true charity rapidly disappear from the world in which man rejects Christ and declares himself God. If we wish to bring the love of God into the world, we must unite ourselves with the Blessed Trinity present in us by grace and seek to love the three divine persons with our whole soul. Then we shall love our neighbor as he should be loved, namely, as a fellow member of our Lord’s Mystical Body. Thus and thus only shall we be fully in touch with reality and contribute efficaciously to the return of order by the rebirth of the spirit of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is high time that this Catholic reaction should come. Revolutions have brought about disorder and misery. Even those who have been the agents of revolution are beginning to be filled with dismay. “Every revolution,” said Brother Fonteray at the Assembly of the French Grand Orient in 1920, “had for its object to bring about universal happiness. When our ancestors proclaimed the principle of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, they aimed at realizing this state of happiness. After one hundred and thirty years, we see the results of their efforts, and they are not famous.

Of Liberty, there is not a shred left; of Equality, there is scarcely a trace; of Fraternity, there has never been a sign.”[11] Civilization decays because masses of men become impregnated with false ideas and wrong philosophies. To stem the current of decadence supposes devotion and self-sacrifice for correct ideas. Ideas guide the world, but always through the efforts of the men who incarnate them. The eternal battle for and against order here below is not waged between conflicting views, but between those who hold them. “We, Catholics,” wrote Louis Veuillot, “lose ground perhaps more on account of the truths that good men have not the courage to proclaim than because of the errors that the wicked have been cunning enough to multiply.” May this work help some to turn to the Unfailing Source of Divine Energy, our Lord Jesus Christ, Fount of Supernatural Life!

Some of the chapters of this book formed the subject matter of a series of lectures in the Central Catholic Library, Dublin. The kind reception, accorded to them by the audience, has greatly encouraged the author in the difficult work of publication.

In conclusion, I beg to thank the editors of G.K.’s Weekly, The Patriot, The Catholic Gazette, The Boston Pilot and the R.I.S.S. (Revue Internationale des Societès Secretes) for permission to utilize the extracts quoted in the Appendices. I have used the work, Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, published by Benziger Brothers, New York, for the translation of all the Letters, contained in that collection, which I have had occasion to quote.[12]

Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

Feast of the Epiphany, 1935

Foreword to Second Edition

If it had been possible, I should have liked to rearrange some portions of the book, with a view to making it less difficult for the general reader. Unfortunately, I could not find time to do so. I have, however, added two chapters, namely, Chapters X and XI, to answer some of the difficulties that have been put to me since the publication of the first edition. With a few slight changes, they are published in the form in which they appeared recently in The Irish Catholic.

Spain

In the Appendix on Spain, I have decided to omit the extracts quoted from the writings of the Spanish nun, Mother Maria Rafols of Bruna, because there is serious reason to doubt their authenticity.

Since the publication of the first edition, the account therein given of the origin and development of the Spanish Revolution from 1931 till a year before General Franco rose to save his country, has been confirmed and completed by Viscount Leon de Poncins. In three articles in the May, June, and July, 1937, issues of the splendid review, Contre-Revolution, he treats of the Secret History of the Spanish Revolution in masterly fashion. He therein shows that two years before a single German or Italian volunteer appeared in the ranks of Franco’s army, a foreign power, “Moscow,” intervened in Spain, gave arms, tanks and machine-guns, drew up a plan, the text of which is known, sent agents whose letters have been captured, in a word, fomented trouble everywhere, directed a civil war in the north of Spain and prepared for a general onslaught.

He then gives the list of some of the principal Freemasons in the early stages of the Republican government as follows:

...as well as Rafael Salazar Alonso, Pedro Rico, Francisco Macia, General Lopez Ochoa, Jaime Agerade, Carlos Espla Rizo, Luis Jimenez Asua, Demofilo De Buen, occupying other important positions.[13]

Viscount de Poncins goes on to show that the preparations of the Communists were allowed and connived at by the Masons. Detailed instructions were given by Moscow for the final outbreak. The Judaeo-Communist agents, Bela Kun, Losowski, Janson, Riedal, Primahoff, Berzine, Neumann and Rosenberg arrived in March, 1936, to give the finishing touch to the scheme. Then came the assassination of the Catholic Deputy and Monarchist Leader, Calvo Sotelo, for which the order was brought from Geneva by a Freemason whose name figures in the above list, Augusto Barcia. Nationalist Spain saw that the time had come to make a desperate stand against “Moscow.” General Franco raised the standard of liberation from Judaeo-Masonic tyranny, in Morocco. “It has been stated,” write the Spanish Bishops in their Collective Letter of July 1st, 1937, “that if the rising had not occurred, the public peace would not have been altered. … The truth is just the contrary; because it is a fact proved by actual documents, that in the scrupulously arranged scheme of the Marxist Revolution which was being prepared and which would have broken out in the whole country, if in a great part it had not been hindered by the civic-military movement, the extermination of the clergy was ordered, along with that of those known as members of the Right, with Sovietization of industries and the introduction of Communism.

“… Let it remain, therefore, established as the first assertion of this document, that five years of continuous insults to Spanish subjects in the religious and social order, put the very existence of the commonweal in the gravest danger and produced enormous tension in the spirit of the Spanish people; that the national conscience felt that, once the lawful legal means were exhausted, there was no other recourse left but that of violence for maintaining order and peace; that powers other than the authority considered as legitimate determined to subvert the constituted order by the violent introduction of Communism; and finally, that through the fatal logic of the events, Spain had no other alternative than either to perish in the definite assault of destructive Communism, already prepared and decreed, as has occurred in those parts where the national movement has not triumphed, or to attempt a titanic effort of resistance, in order to escape from the terrible enemy and to save the fundamental principles of her social life and of her national characteristics. …There is yet more: the movement did not take place without those who initiated it previously urging the public authorities to oppose by legal means the imminent Marxist Revolution. The attempt was unsuccessful.”

Rival Financial Groups

On pages 170–172, something is said of the rival Jewish financial groups competing for supremacy. From articles in the R.I.S.S. (Paris) of October 1st, 1934, and April 1st, 1937, we learn that an understanding was arrived at between the Second and Third Internationals on the basis of “Anti-Fascism.” The result has been seen in the creation of Popular Fronts in different countries. One of the main objects of the understanding seems to be, to ensure that the growing national reactions against Communism in France, the United States, and England will not pass from under the control of Masonry. Thus, these countries will continue to be moved in the direction of naturalism and there will be no return to the Christian tradition. Thus, too, Communist propaganda can continue to prepare the Messianic age. The “alliance of the three great democracies of England, France, and America” is really therefore the result of an understanding between Jewish financiers. The democracy spoken of in the press of these countries is Rousseauist-Masonic democracy, not true democratic government. Any true national reaction is “Fascism.”

The statements on pages 170–172 would need to be supplemented by information about the armament firms and oil trusts, such as is to be found in part in The Secret War for Oil, by F. C. Hanighen and A. Zischka; The World-Struggle for Oil, by P. L’Espagnol de la Tramerye; Sir Basil Zaharoff, Le Roi des Armes, by Robert Neumann, etc. etc. For example, the R.I.S.S. of October 1st, 1934, says that the Jewish financial groups in U.S.A. and France which favor Communism, favor also the boycotting of Hitler, while Hitler is upheld by the Deterding Group against “Moscow.” The Deterding Group is the Royal Dutch-Shell, etc.

It is clear that there must be a struggle in the different countries to place the creation of money and the issue of currency under the control of the public authority, but care must also be taken to avoid being enslaved through the Bank of International Settlements (B.I.S.). This Bank “has been internationalized in peace and war, pays no taxes, and is above and beyond all law.”[14] Surely Catholics all over the world can demand that it should not be above the moral law. The Vicar of Christ was excluded from the Masonic League of Nations.[15] Can we not demand that the morality of the financial program of the Bank of International Settlements be examined and supervised by a Commission presided over by the Pope? If we want to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, diffuse ownership and ensure a family-wage, we must do it.

The Clan-na-Gael Ritual

On pages 104, 105, allusion is made to the ritual and form of initiation of the Clan-na-Gael. I used the terms I.R.B. and Clan-na-Gael indifferently in the first edition, because of the statement in the ritual of the Clan-na-Gael to the effect that “We are bound by the closest ties of friendship and community of purpose with a similar organization in Ireland. The two work in complete harmony and are practically one organization.” I have discriminated between them in the second edition. The Clan-na-Gael had a special ritual and a special form of initiation. Accordingly, what is said on those pages about the significance of the ritual and form of initiation applies only to the ritual and form of initiation of the Clan-na-Gael.

It is not easy for English and Irish Catholics who have learned history in the ordinary textbooks to grasp the truth that the real struggle in modern Europe is that of naturalism under the invisible leadership of Satan against the supernatural life which comes from Our Lord. It will seem strange to them to go over some of what they have learned as history in the light of what we now know about the agencies working for naturalism. Some readers seem to have been under the impression that I was ready to sacrifice the legitimate aspirations of my own country, since I insisted upon envisaging the struggle for independence on the part of Ireland from the point of view of the wider and more fundamental struggle for and against the Mystical Body of Christ. In a booklet which I am preparing on the question of Ireland’s fidelity to Christ the King, I intend to deal at length with some of the attempts to turn movements ostensibly national against the rule of Our Lord. James Connolly’s Labor in Irish History, pp. 202, 203, can be readily used in this connection. This will be all the more appropriate, as James Connolly himself did not understand the final aims of those who guided the Marxian movement in which he was engaged.

The Protocols of the Sages of Zion

In spite of the clear statements on pages xix and xx, that I had made no use of the famous work, The Protocols of the Sages of Zion, a Catholic writer asserted that I had based my outline of the opposition to the Mystical Body of Christ on the Protocols. That is unjust. The Protocols of the Sages of Zion, whatever may be their origin, exist since the beginning of this century, as everybody is aware. The plan outlined in them is being steadily realized. Accordingly, I quoted a few passages from the book, to show that somebody or some group of men at the beginning of the century was aware of what was coming. In doing this I was simply asking Catholics to open their eyes to the realities of the world, as Pope Leo XIII had asked them to do. For Pope Leo XIII had warned Catholics at the beginning of this century that the upheavals taking place in the world were proceeding according to a plan. Here are the great Pontiff’s own words: “For the simultaneousness of the assaults in the persecutions which have so suddenly burst upon us in these later times, like a storm from a clear sky, that is to say, without any cause proportionate to the effect; the uniformity of means employed to inaugurate this persecution, namely, the press, public assemblies, theatrical productions; the employment in every country of the same arms, to wit, calumny and public uprisings, all this betrays clearly the identity of purpose and a program drawn up by one and the same central direction. All this is only a simple episode of a prearranged plan carried out on a constantly widening field to multiply the ruins of which we speak.” (Apostolic Letter, March 19th, 1902, giving a review of His Pontificate) I hoped that the reading of those extracts from the pen of the author or authors of The Protocols would aid Catholics to grasp what Pope Leo XIII had warned them about. I intend to deal with this aspect of the question of The Protocols at some length elsewhere.

There is another aspect also which must receive lengthier treatment elsewhere. Because it was discovered that many passages of The Protocols were to be found in the work of Maurice Joly, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, published in 1864, Catholics immediately accepted that the Protocols were a mere forgery and forthwith ceased to take into consideration the program of The Protocols which is being steadily realized. They never thought of asking whether Joly was in touch with revolutionary secret societies and so could have had access to documents containing the outline of the plan of which Pope Leo XIII speaks. Yet the fact is quite certain. Maurice Joly was connected with revolutionary secret societies especially through his friend, the revolutionary Jew, Adolphe Isaac Cremieux. The author or authors of The Protocols must have had access to a more up-to-date version, because several of the more amazing prophecies of The Protocols, which time has realized, are not to be found in Joly’s work. It is a pity that Catholics are so easily stampeded by interested propaganda.

Finally, as I remark at the end of page xx, the Berne trial leaves the question of the authenticity of The Protocols where it was. It was and is still an enigma. The Berne Court of Appeal decided that the question of the authenticity of The Protocols did not concern the case, but the President drew attention to the fact that the expert, Loosli, selected as a non-partisan witness by the Lower Court, was in reality a pronounced partisan against The Protocols as he had published a pamphlet on the subject in 1927, which had a decided bias.

Monetary Reform

Mr. Arthur Kitson, who died last autumn, was the pioneer of the modern movement for monetary reform, in the English language. He said that, when he had begun his campaign, he was offered £10,000 a year for life if he would keep silent on the money question. He refused. The story of the persecution to which he was subjected and of the many attempts made to ruin him is an extraordinary one. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Kitson and others, some of whose names are to be found in the note on p. 172, we can understand better the meaning of the words of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891). “Public institutions and the very laws have set aside the ancient religion. Hence by degrees it has come to pass that workingmen have been surrendered, all isolated and helpless, to the hard-heartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury which, though more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with the like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men.”

Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas,

7th March, 1938

Foreword to Third Edition

In his well-known book, Geneve contre la Paix, pp. 83–92, Count de St. Aulaire, former Ambassador of France at Madrid and London, gives an interesting account of a “lecture” on the Mission of Israel amongst the nations, by a Jewish banker of New York. The “lecture” was “delivered” at an international dinner at Budapest in 1919, only a few days after the collapse of the Judaeo-Bolshevist domination of Bela Kuhn over Catholic Hungary. The Count explains, by way of introduction, that a number of Jewish revolutionaries, who had been expelled from Hungary, had returned there in American uniforms after the armistice, and their reports guided President Wilson in his attitude towards all that concerned the interests of Israel. This explains in particular, adds the Count, the President’s scandalous partiality towards the Bolsheviks. In reply to the question how it was possible for high finance to favor Bolshevism, which is hostile to property, movable and immovable, the Jewish banker began by explaining that those who are astonished at the alliance between Israel and the Soviets forget that the Jewish nation is the most intensely national of all peoples, and that Marxism is simply one of the weapons of Jewish nationalism. Capitalism, he added, is equally sacred to Israel, which makes use of both Bolshevism and Capitalism to remold the world for its ends. The process of renovation of the world is thus carried on from above by Jewish control of the riches of the world and from below by Jewish guidance of revolution. Israel has a divine mission; in fact, Israel become its own Messiah, is God. Israel is purifying the idea of God and at the same time preparing the way for the definite triumph of the Chosen Race. Thus, the banker concluded, Jewish power of organization is manifested at one and the same time by Bolshevism with its delirium of destruction, and by the League of Nations in the sphere of reconstruction.

The “lecture” given by this Jewish banker came back to my mind when I learned that the information given in the document quoted by me on pages 89, 90, had been called in question in New York. It occurred to me that he might be asked to repeat the “lecture” in public and thus enlighten my critics far more effectively than I could hope to do. Accordingly, I asked the well-known authority on Judaeo-Masonic subversive activities, M. L. de Poncins, to find out from the Count de St. Aulaire if he had taken note of the name of the banker. The Count courteously replied that he had not done so, but he added that “the ‘lecture,’ being the expression of the mentality not of an individual but of a group, every Jewish banker of New York would have said exactly the same in a moment of sincerity.”

Proximate Preparations of the Russian Revolution

I intend to examine the whole question at length in a book upon which I am engaged on The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society. For the moment I will content myself with quoting a few documents that are not as well known as they ought to be. One is the secret report received by the Imperial Russian General headquarters from one of its agents in New York. This report, dated February 15, 1916, was made known to the world by the Russian writer, Boris Brasol, in his book, The World at the Cross Roads. It runs in part as follows: “The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has evidently resumed its activities. As a consequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meeting which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East side of New York City. It was attended by sixty-two delegates, fifty of whom were ‘veterans’ of the Revolution of 1905—the rest being newly admitted members. Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists. …The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and means to start a great revolution in Russia as the ‘most favorable moment for it is close at hand.’ It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favorable, when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed. The only serious problem was the financial question, but whenever this was raised, the assembly was immediately assured by some of the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample funds, if necessary, would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.”

Mr. Boris Brasol adds, on pages 70 and 71 of the same work: “The full history of the interlocking participation of the Imperial German government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written. … It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member.”

Robert Wilton’s List of the Rulers of Soviet Russia

An eye-witness of exceptional value of all the events of the Russian Revolution is Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times for seventeen years. Born in England but educated in Russia, he knew Russia like a Russian. During the war, this correspondent of The Times, on one occasion in 1916, took command of a section of the Russian Army, of which the officers had been wounded, and behaved with such gallantry that he was decorated with the Cross of St. George. It was the first time that this exclusively military distinction had been conferred upon a civilian. In the Foreword to his French work, Les Derniers Jours des Romanof, from which I am about to quote, Robert Wilton says that in order to ensure the accuracy of the work, he himself translated from Russian into French the official reports and original documents confirming his narrative. “I have done all in my power,” he adds, “to act as an impartial chronicler.” The list of names of the rulers of Russia in 1918, which I am about to quote, is taken from pages 136–137 of this painstaking French study of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. It is a noteworthy fact that this list is not to be found in the English, edition of the same work, The Last Days of the Romanovs, published in September, 1920, by Thornton Butterworth.

According to the English review, The Patriot, of 20th February, 1930, after Robert Wilton had written in 1920: “The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians…they are all mere screens or dummies behind which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovdepia continue their work of destruction,” his chances in English journalism were gone. It is a well-known fact that he died in straitened circumstances in January, 1925.

On page 29 of Les Derniers Jours des Romanof, we read: “In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving (on pages 136–137), the list of the members of the Central Committee of the Extraordinary Commission and the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial Family. The 62 members of the Committee were composed of 5 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 6 Letts, 2 Germans, 1 Czech, 2 Armenians, 3 Georgians, 1 Karáim (Jewish sect), 41 Jews.[16] The Extraordinary Commission of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including 1 German, 1 Pole, 1 Armenian, 2 Russians, 8 Letts, 23 Jews. The Council of the People’s Commissars numbered 2 Armenians, 3 Russians, 17 Jews. According to the data furnished by the Soviet Press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, including the above-mentioned, there were in 1918–1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Czech, 1 Karáim, 457 Jews.

“If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial Family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration.”

On pages 136–138, then, of the same work, the author writes: “It is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party that the governmental power resides. It was composed as follows in 1918: Bronstein (Trotski), Apfelbaum (Zino-vief), Lourie (Larine), Ouritski, Volodarski, Rosenfeldt (Kamenef), Smidovitch, Sverdlof (Yankel), Nakhamkes (Steklof)...Jews 9

Oulianof (Lenine), Krylenko, Lounatcharski...Russians 3

“The other Russian Socialist Parties are similar in composition. Their Central Committees are made up as follows: S. D. Mensheviks, 11 members, all Jews; Communists of the People, 6 members, of whom 5 are Jews and one is a Russian; S. R. (Right wing), 15 members, of whom 13 are Jews and 2 are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of Jewish origin—and Tchaikovski); S. R. (Left Wing), 12 members of whom 10 are Jews and 2 are Russians; Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow, 5 members, of whom 4 are Jews and one is a Russian; Polish Communist Party, 12 members, all Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagorski) and Schwartz (Goltz).

“These parties, in appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks’ game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are 6 Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish.

“The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

Ministry or Commissariat   Name      Nationality

President      Oulianof (Lenine)   Russian

Foreign Affairs      Tchitcherine    Russian

Nationalities      Djougachvili    Georgian

Agriculture      Protian      Armenian

Economic Council    Lourie (Larine)    Jew

Food-Controller    Schlichter    Jew

Army and Navy    Bronstein (Trotski)   Jew

State-Control      Lander      Jew

State Lands      Kauffmann    Jew

Works        V. Schmidt    Jew

Social Relief       E. Lilina (Knigissen)  Jewess

Public Instruction    Lounatcharsky    Russian

Religions      Spitzberg    Jew

Interior        Apfelbaum (Zinovief)  Jew

Hygiene      Anvelt      Jew

Finance      Isidore Coukovski  Jew

Press        Voladarski     Jew

Elections      Ouritski    Jew

Justice         I. Steinberg    Jew

Refugees      Fenigstein     Jew

Refugees (Assistant)     Savitch      Jew

Refugees      Zaslovski     Jew

Out of 22 members—3 Russians, 1 Georgian, 1 Armenian, 17 Jews.

The following is a list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

Name          Nationality

Sverdlof (President)       Jew

Avanessof (Secretary)      Armenian

Bruno          Lett

Breslau          Lett

Babtchinski        Jew

Boukharine        Russian

Weinberg        Jew

Gailiss          Jew

Ganzburg        Jew

Danichevski        Jew

Starck          Geran

Sachs          Jew

Scheinmann         Jew

Erdling          Jew

Landauer        Jew

Linder          Jew

Wolach          Czech

Dimanstein        Jew

Encukidze        Georgian

Ermann        Jew

JofiEe          Jew

Karkhline        Jew

Knigissen        Jew

Rosenfeldt (Kamenef)      Jew

Apfelbaum (Zinovief)      Jew

Krylenko        Russian

Krassikof        Jew

Kaprik          Jew

Kaoul          Lett

Oulianof (Lenine)      Russian

Latsis          Jew

Lander          Jew

Lounatcharski        Russian

Peterson        Lett

Peters           Lett

Roudzoutas        Jew

Rosine          Jew

Smidovitch        Jew

Stoutchka        Lett

Nakhamkes (Steklof)      Jew

Sosnovski        Jew

Skrytnik        Jew

Bronstein (Trotski)      Jew

Teodorovitch         Jew

Terian          Armenian

Ouritski        Jew

Telechkine        Russian

Feldmann        Jew

Froumkine        Jew

Souriupa        Ukrainian

Tchavtchevadze      Georgian

Scheikmann        Jew

Rosental         Jew

Achkinazi        Imeretian

Karakhane        Karaim

Rose          Jew

Sobelson (Radek)      Jew

Schlichter        Jew

Schikolini        Jew

Chklianski        Jew

Levine (Pravdine)      Jew

Accordingly, out of 61 members, 5 are Russians, 6 are Letts, 1 is a German, 2 are Armenians, 1 is a Czech, 1 is an Imeretian, 2 are Georgians, 1 is a Karaim, 1 is a Ukrainian, and 41 are Jews.

The following is a list of the members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

Name          Nationality

Dzerjinski (President)      Pole

Peters (Vice-President)      Lett

Chklovski         Jew

Kheifiss         Jew

Zeistine        Jew

Razmirovitch         Jew

Kronberg        Jew

Khaikina        Jewess

Karlson        Lett

Schaumann        Lett

Leontovitch        Jew

Jacob Goldine        Jew

Galperstein        Jew

Kniggisen        Jew

Latzis          Lett

Schillenkuss        Jew

Janson          Lett

Rivkine        Jew

Antonof        Russian

Delafabre         Jew

Tsitkine        Jew

Roskirovitch        Jew

G. Sverdlof        Jew [17]

Biesenski        Jew

Blioumkine        Jew [18]

Alexandrovitch        Russian[19]

I. Model        Jew

Routenberg        Jew

Pines          Jew

Sachs           Jew

Daybol          Lett

Saissoune        Armenian

Deylkenen        Lett

Liebert          Jew

Vogel          German

Zakiss          Lett

In all 36 members, of whom 1 is a Pole, 1 a German, 1 an Armenian, 2 are Russians, 8 are Letts and 23 are Jews.

“Accordingly there is no reason for being surprised at the preponderating role of the Jews in the assassination of the Imperial Family. It is rather the opposite which would have been surprising.”

According to the erudite Russian writer, Petrovski, in La Russie sous les Juifs, p. 79, “Nicholas II, the Imperial Family and the faithful members of his suite, were shot by the Jew Yourowsky, assisted by the Jews Golostchokine and Voikoff, in obedience to the order sent from Moscow by the Jew, Sverdloff, and with the approval of the Council of the People’s Commissars.” We have seen the composition of the Council.

Pope Pius XI and the Preparation

of the Russian Revolution

This book has been written to enable Catholics to grasp the full meaning of the warning conveyed by Pope Pius XI in the following striking passage of the Encyclical Divini Redemptoris: “For them (the peoples of the Soviet Union) We cherish the warmest paternal affection. We are well aware that not a few of them groan beneath the yoke imposed on them by men who in very large part are strangers to the real interests of the country. We recognize that many others were deceived by fallacious hopes. We blame only the system with its authors and abettors, who considered Russia the best field for experimenting with a plan elaborated years ago, and who from there continue to spread it from one end of the world to the other.”

Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,

16th June, 1939

Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

[1]Devotion to the Church, p. 27 (Richardson & Son, 1861). I am indebted to Father R. F. Kerr, of the London Oratory, for the accurate text of this quotation.

[2]G. K.’s Weekly, December 3rd, 1932.

[3]3rd Edition, p. 28.

[4]This quotation is from the second of two excellent articles in La Vie Intellectuelle, April 25th and May 10th, 1933. These articles were entitled “Journal Catholique?” and dealt with the whole question of the want of Catholic principles and Catholic spirit in Catholic papers.

[5]Cf. extract from article by Dr. Eberle in Appendix III.

[6]Cf. Le Prince de ce Monde, by Raïssa Maritain.

[7]In my book The Kingship of Christ, Chap. VIII, I have applied St. Thomas’s study of the agents of Christ’s passion and death to the forces arrayed against Him in His Mystical Body (cf. IIIa P. Q. 41, a. 1; Q. 42, a. 2; Q. 47, a. 4, 5, 6).

[8]Cf. St. Peter’s words to the Jews: “But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead. …And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers’’ (Acts 3:15, 17).

And St. Paul writing to the Corinthians (1Cor. 2:7, 8) says: “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery…which none of the princes of this world knew: for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.”

[9]This is portion of the prayer recited by the group of Jewish converts who form La Section Israel of the Archconfraternity of Prayer and Penance of the Basilica of Montmartre (Paris). The latter part of it is taken from the prayer approved of by Pope Pius XI for the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Cf La Vie Spirituelle, Janvier-Mars, 1932 (pp. 95–100).

[10]Cf. Waters Flowing Eastward, by L. Fry, Chap. iii.; Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, by Nesta Webster, Appendix II, pp. 408–414. The arguments adduced at Berne (Switzerland), in the action brought by some Jewish organizations against the Swiss Nazis, do not shed any fresh light on the question. The judge, Meyer, decided against the authenticity of The Protocols, etc., on May 14th, 1935. According to the Swiss newspapers, an appeal has been lodged.

[11]Quoted by J. Marquès-Rivière in La Trahison Spirituelle de la F. M.,

[12]The documents cited concerning Spain refer to the situation existing in that country from the fall of the monarchy to the summer of 1935.

[13]For a longer list with the name of Azana, President of the Council Cf. Comment la Franc-Maçconnerie fait une Révolution, pp. 116, 117, by J. Marquis-Rivière.

[14]All These Things, by A. N. Field, p. 5.

[15]Cf. Société des Nations, Super-Etat Maçconnique, by Léon de Poncins.

[16]There are some slight differences between this list and the one on pages xxxvi and xxxvii.

[17]Brother of President of Central Executive Committee

[18]Count Mirbach’s assassin

[19]Blioumkine’s accomplice

Chapter I

The Theology of History

History is concerned with individual and contingent facts. In order to discern the supreme causes and laws of the events which historians narrate, we must stand out from, and place ourselves above these events. To do this with certainty one should, of course, be enlightened by Him Who holds all things in the hollow of His hand. Unaided human reason cannot even attempt to give an account of the supreme interests at stake in the world, for in the world, as it is historically, these interests are supernatural. Human reason strengthened by faith, that is, by the acceptance of the information God has given us about the world through His Son and through the society founded by Him, can attempt to give this account, though with a lively consciousness of its limitations. It is only when we shall be in possession of the Beatific Vision that the full beauty of the Divine Plan which is being worked out in the world will be visible to us. Until then we can only make an imperfect attempt at what must be, not the philosophy, but the theology of history.[1] The theologian who has the Catholic Faith is in touch with the full reality of the world, and can therefore undertake to show, however feebly and imperfectly, the interplay of the supreme realities of life.

The philosopher, as such, knows nothing about the reality of the divine life of grace, which we lost by the fall of our first parents, and nothing of the Mystical Body of Christ through which we receive back that life. The philosophy of history, if it is to be true philosophy, that is, knowledge by supreme causes, must therefore be rather the theology of history. Yet how few, even among those who have the Catholic Faith, think of turning to the instructions and warnings issued by the representatives of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, when they wish to ascertain the root causes of the present chaotic condition of the world![2]

The supreme law, illustrated in the actual historical world, is that it is well or ill with it, simply and absolutely (simpliciter), in proportion as it accepts or rejects God’s plan for the restoration of our real life, the life of grace, lost by original sin. The events of our age, as of every age, are, in the last analysis, the results of man’s acceptance or rejection of the Divine Plan for ordered human life. They are, therefore, the consequences of the application to action of the ideas of what is order and what is disorder, which have been held by different minds. Accordingly, the appreciation of these events and of their consequences for the future must be based on what we Catholics know by faith about the order of the world, and we must turn, first of all, to the documents in which the Vicars of Christ have outlined for us what is in accordance with the Divine Plan and what is opposed to it. The theology of history must therefore never lose sight of Papal pronouncements on the tendencies of an age or its spirit. Now, one such outstanding pronouncement with regard to the political order of our day is the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, and it is my intention to lay particular stress on it. The study is rendered more attractive by the fact that the enemies of the Catholic Church attack this Papal document continually. For example, the French Masonic review, L’Acacia (November 1930), published the Syllabus with an introduction, of which a portion runs as follows:

“We have considered it well to publish again the text of the famous Syllabus, which has become almost impossible to find. As the Church does not wish the Syllabus to be subjected to the judgments and criticisms of the Catholics of the present day, she has systematically bought up and burned the copies in the vernacular which were being offered for sale.”[3] These statements are, needless to say, foul calumnies of the Catholic Church in the usual Masonic style. The Church is only too anxious that the Syllabus should be well known to Catholics. Pope Leo XIII, the successor of Pope Pius IX, alludes to it in the following terms:

“…Pius IX branded publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form, in order that, in this sea of error, Catholics might have a light that they might safely follow.” (Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, 1885)[4]

Again, the Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, never stoops to actions such as those of which the Masonic review speaks. Such calumnies should have the effect of making Catholics esteem the Syllabus and other Papal documents more highly and increase their anxiety to become better acquainted with their teaching. Papal documents, treating of the Mystical Body in relation to politics and economics, as well as those which deal with the influence of the saints, the truly great men of the world, on their times, are of paramount importance for the study of the theology of history. The Syllabus and the various condemnations of Liberalism promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiffs aimed at fixing certain truths firmly in the minds of Catholics. The return to sane thinking about social organization demanded as a prerequisite the purification of thought and the elimination of error.[5]

[1]Philosophy is the highest of merely human sciences, that is to say, of those sciences which know things by the natural light of reason. Theology is a still higher science, for it is the science by which men share in God’s own science and knowledge of Himself. By theology we mean here not natural theology, which is the science of God acquired by the natural strength of our reason through the contemplation of the perfections of creatures. That is a philosophical science, the highest part of metaphysics. The theology which is here in question is supernatural theology. This is the science of God which we cannot acquire by the sole light of reason, but which supposes that God has revealed His inner life to us. Thus our reason, illuminated by faith in that revelation, can draw from it the conclusions implied therein and then weld them all into a harmonious whole. The theologian, then, in contemplating the world, enjoys the assistance not merely of natural reason, but of reason illumined by faith.

[2]The Popes, in an especial manner, are charged with the guardianship of revealed truth: “But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Lk. 22:32)

[3]Quoted in the R.I.S.S., 4th January, 1931, p. 3.

[4]Readers will readily see how false is the statement made about French translations of the Syllabus of Pius IX, when they learn that the present writer has four such translations amongst his books.

It is interesting to read the following in The Menace of Freemasonry to the Christian Faith by Rev. C. Penney Hunt, p. 77: “The Craft is troubled. All that can be done by terrifying booksellers, editors and journalists is being done. Grand Lodge actually issued a warning to deter men even from printing the book. They endeavor to control all the avenues of publicity and the press.” The Rev. C. Penney Hunt is a Protestant clergyman, and he is alluding to his own above-mentioned work.

[5]Cf. Du régime temporel et de la liberté, by Jacques Maritain, pp. 117, 118,

Chapter II

The Organization of Society

A. The Divine Plan for Ordered Social Life

The Divine Plan for the organization of human society may be represented diagrammatically as follows:

We can thus easily see that the entrance of Christianity into the world has meant two things. Primarily and principally, it has meant the constitution of a supernatural society, the Mystical Body of Christ, absolutely transcending every natural development of culture and civilization. Secondly, it has had for result that this supernatural society, the Catholic Church, began to exercise a profound influence upon culture and civilization and modified in far-reaching fashion the existing temporal or natural social order.[1] The indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs, whenever the interests of the divine life of souls are involved, presupposes, of course, a clear distinction of nature between the ecclesiastical authority, charged with the care of divine things, and the civil authority, whose mission is concerned with purely temporal matters. In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual Kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of States came to be sought in a manner calculated to favor the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more fully under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in three divine persons.

Accordingly, Catholic social order, viewed as a whole, is not primarily the political and economic organization of society. It is primarily the supernatural social organism of the Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. If instead of Catholic Social order we use the wider but more convenient expression of Kingdom of God, we may say that the Kingdom of God on earth in its essence is the Church, but, in its integrity, comprises the Church and the temporal social order which the influence of the Church upon the world is ever striving to bring into existence.[2] Needless to say, while the general principles of order remain always the same, social structures will present great differences at different epochs. No particular temporal social order will ever realize all that the Church is capable of giving to the world.[3] The theology of history must include then, primarily, the study of the foundation and development of the Church, and, secondarily, the examination of the ebb and flow of the world’s acceptance of the Church’s supernatural mission.

B. Right View of Politics and Economics

Politics is the science which has for object the organization of the State in view of the complete common good of the citizens in the natural order, and the means that conduce to it. As the final end of man is, however, not merely natural, the State, charged with the temporal social order, must ever act so as not only not to hinder but also to favor the attaining of man’s supreme end, the vision of God in three divine persons. Political thought and political action, therefore, in an ordered State, will respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, the divinely-instituted guardian of the moral order, remembering that what is morally wrong cannot be politically good. Thus the natural or temporal common good of the State will be always aimed at, in the way best calculated to favor the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ. The civil power will then have a purer and higher notion of its proper end, acquired in the full light of Catholic truth, and political action, both in rulers and ruled, will come fully under the influence of supernatural life.

Economics is the science which studies primarily the personal relations which constitute the family, the relations of husband and wife, parents and children, masters and servants, and then, secondarily, the relations of these persons to external goods (the right of property and the use and acquisition of wealth). Etymologically, economy is the government of the home and of the family.[4] Economics studies families in the constituent relations of their members and then in their conditions of existence. Of course, the organization of family life in view of providing its members with sufficient material resources, is, though secondary, a very important element in economics.

The ancients distinguished two ways of acquiring riches. The first way made of wealth an end in itself and instead of regarding such an art as an element of civilization, they thought it detestable. They pointed out that this perverted art had its origin in the malice of men who wanted to live, not according to virtue, but according to their caprices and in the foolish pursuit of pleasure. They remarked also that this art had given rise to the so-called principle of the fecundity of money and brought about the introduction of stock-exchange operations. Needless to say, the fact did not escape their notice, that, as artificial wealth can increase indefinitely and the art of acquiring it cannot keep pace with it, the best things in the world had been perverted in order to transform them into instruments of gain. Thus justice was administered, medicine practiced, wars carried on, intelligence and thought concentrated on the acquisition of money, ever more money.

“Natural wealth is that by which natural wants are supplied, for example, food, drink, clothing, vehicles, dwellings and such-like. Artificial wealth is that which is not a direct help to nature, as, for instance, money. This was invented by the art of man, for the convenience of exchange and as a measure of things saleable. …The desire for natural riches is not without limit, because nature is satisfied with a certain amount of them. The desire for artificial wealth is, however, unlimited, for it is the servant of disordered concupiscence.” (Ia, IIae, Q. 2, a. 1, c. et ad 3)

This art of money-making, which the ancients excluded from political and economic science, is the one which, in modern times, has been decorated with the title of political economy. There is, however, a second way of seeking to increase artificial riches, namely, when they are sought as a means of procuring what is necessary for life. The rule and measure of such acquisition will be the service of a truly worthy life. Such an art, it is clear, will be closely dependent on genuine economic and political science. Not, of course, that it forms an integral part thereof, but it plays the role of an auxiliary art, for it furnishes to economics and to politics the instrument they need to attain their end.[5] Alas! Aristotle saw that even in his time, many men acted in politics and economics just like money-changers.

Political action and legislation, especially in economic matters, must ever seek to strengthen family life, and accordingly, must not only not admit divorce, but must always aim at benefiting the citizens through their families as far as possible. It will be difficult at the present epoch, when so many efforts are made to loosen family ties and when riches are worshipped, to restore to the word economy its original meaning. Catholics, however, should not forget that when, following Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI, they are demanding a family wage or aiming at setting up guilds or corporations as auxiliaries of family life, their efforts are directed to the task of restoring the family to its true place in the center of the economic order.[6] It is worthy of note that the English Poor Laws, which began with Protestantism, introduced the separation of husband and wife in the poorhouses established under them. The Catholic organization of the preceding centuries had respected family life. The importance of the family as the nucleus of the State should be remembered in connection with such questions as that of state-provided meals for school children.

In a well-known passage of St. Thomas’s De Regimine Principum (lib. i. c. 15), the Angelic Doctor sums up the aims of a good ruler of a State as follows:

“Because the happiness and moral rectitude of the present life have as end the happiness of heaven, it belongs to the ruler to procure the common good of the people in such wise as to enable them to obtain celestial happiness. Accordingly, he ought to command what leads thereto and, as far as possible, forbid what is opposed to it. The road that leads to true happiness and the obstacles to be encountered thereon are made known to us by the divine law, and it is the office of the priests to teach that law.[7] The ruler, therefore, instructed in the divine law, should make it his chief aim to see that the people subject to him should be able to live a good life. …Now that a man may lead a good life two things are required. The chief requisite is virtuous action. …The other requisite, which is secondary and quasi-instrumental in character, is a sufficiency of material goods, the use of which is necessary for virtuous action.”

In the Summa Theologica[8] St. Thomas points out that private ownership is morally necessary in order that the sufficiency of goods above spoken of may be forthcoming. The Fall has made the division of property necessary. Before the Fall, the Angelic Doctor had previously pointed out, such division would not have been necessary.[9] Social organization, however, the imperium politicium of man over man, is not due to the Fall. The Fall made necessary repressive measures, on the part of the social rulers, charged with preserving the common good from being violated by the wicked. Before the Fall, men’s wills were in perfect order, thanks to supernatural life and to the preternatural gift of integrity.

[1]The author has treated the questions of the Priesthood and Kingship of Christ, and of the relation of Church and State in chapter 2 of his book, The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism.

[2]Cf. article by Monsieur 1’Abbé Journet in Nova et Vetera, Dec., 1931.

[3]Catholic Action is not concerned with politics and economics as such, but aims at re-impregnating political and economic relations with the spirit of the Mystical Body. Thus will the world be induced to accept the yoke of Christ and all the benefits that flow from submission to Him. The author begs to refer to the chapter on Action in his book on The Social Rights of our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the King.

[4]Cf. Leçons de Philosophie Sociale (vol. 1. p. 148), by Pere Schwalm, O.P. “Economy, as its name expresses (oἰкоѕ ѵόμoѕ), studies the order of the human household, arranging, according to their respective values, persons and things” (Philosophie Economique, by J. Vialatoux, p. 78).

[5]“Money and all forms of wealth are instruments of economics.” (St. Thomas in I Polit. 1. 1, lect. 6)

Economics must be political because man, being rational, is a political (or social) animal. Politics must be moral, because man, being rational, must be moral.

[6]Cf. articles by l’Abbé Ch. Journet, in La Vie Intellectuelle, Dec., 1928, and Jan., 1929.

[7]In the previous chapter St. Thomas had pointed out that this ministry belongs especially to the High-Priest, successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, whose spiritual kingship, with indirect power in temporal affairs, should be acknowledged by all rulers.

[8]Ila, IIae, Q. 66, a. 2.

[9]la, Q. 98, a. 1, ad 3. Cf. The Church and Economics, pp. 77–86, by Rev. Patrick McDowell, and De Principiis Functionis Socialis Proprietatis privatae apud Div. Thomum Aquin., by P. J. Perez Garcia, O.P.

Chapter III

The Lutheran Revolt

The organization of the Europe of the thirteenth century furnishes us with one concrete realization of the Divine Plan. It is hardly necessary to add that there were then to be seen defects in the working of the Divine Plan, due to the character of fallen man, as well as to an imperfect mastery of physical nature. Yet, withal, the formal principle of ordered social organization in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body, was grasped and, in the main, accepted. The Lutheran revolt, prepared by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance, and by the favor enjoyed by the Nominalist philosophical theories, led to the rupture of that order.[1]

The great cardinal principle of Protestantism is that every man attains salvation by entering into an immediate relation with Christ, with the aid of that interior faith by which he believes that, though his sins persist, they are no longer imputed to him, thanks to the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. All men are thus priests for themselves and carry out the work of their justification by treating directly and individually with God. The life of grace, being nothing else than the external favor of God, remains outside of us and we continue, in fact, in spite of Lutheran faith in Christ, corrupt and sinful. Each human being enters into an isolated relation with our Lord, and there is no transforming life in which all are called to share.

Luther never understood the meaning of faith informed by sanctifying grace and charity. Accordingly, the one visible Church of the Mystical Body is done away with, as well as the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mystical Body, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The only purpose of preaching and such ceremonies as were retained by Protestants was to stir up the individual’s faith.

Hence the true Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, is nothing else than the assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of Christ imputed to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And this Church, known to God alone, is the unique Church of the promises of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised His assistance to the consummation of the world. Since, however; true believers, instructed by the Holy Ghost, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate their impressions and feelings to others and may employ the symbols of the sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible church which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. Membership of this Church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different forms according to circumstances. The true invisible Church of Christ is always hidden, unseen in the multitude.[2]

Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality in man,[3] a merely isolated relation with our divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual against order on the supernatural level, this uprise of individualism, with its inevitable chaotic self-seeking, had dire consequences both in regard to ecclesiastical organization and in the realms of politics and economics. Let us take these in turn.

Protestant Church Organization

The tide of revolt which broke away from the Catholic Church had the immediate effect of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries. The Anabaptists and the peasants in Germany protested in the name of “evangelical liberty,” but they were crushed. We behold the uprise of national churches, each of which organizes its particular form of religion, mixture of supernatural and natural elements, as a department of State. The orthodox Church in Russia was also a department of State and as such exposed to the same evils. National life was thus withdrawn from ordered subjection to the Divine Plan and the distinction laid down by our divine Lord Himself, between the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, utterly abolished. Given the principle of private judgment or of individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion should cause the pendulum to swing from a Caesarism supreme in Church and State to other concrete expressions of “evangelical liberty.” One current leads in the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man’s social nature, small groups tend to coalesce. The second current tends to the creation of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies of national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this. As decay in belief in the divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency will be to model church organization according to the political theories in favor at the moment. The democratic form of society will be extolled and a “Reunion of Christendom,” for example, will be aimed at, along the lines followed by the League of Nations. An increasing number of poor bewildered units will, of course, cease to bother about any ecclesiastical organization at all.[4]

One consequence of the doctrine of private judgment must here be stressed, as it is of special importance for the explanation of the spread of Masonry. This theory attuned men’s minds to the deification of man, which is the doctrine underlying Masonic symbolism. The Protestant writer, Herman, states the point, to which it is here desired to draw attention, in a few pithy words: “It matters little,” he says, “that we are in agreement with Catholics about certain points of Christian doctrine. What is distasteful to us in the Catholic Church is not what Catholics believe, but, above all, the way in which they believe. The great difference between Rome and ourselves is that we cannot brook a faith which is not an autonomous conviction.”[5]

The autonomous man, who decides on his own authority what he will accept of the Gospel God Himself came to deliver to us, is already well on the way to self-deification.

Political Consequences of Protestant Revolt

The first result was an enormous increase in the power of the temporal rulers, in fact a rebirth of the pagan regime of Imperial Rome.[6] The spiritual Kingship of Christ, participated in by the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church, being no longer acknowledged, authority over spiritual affairs passed to the temporal rulers. They were thus, in Protestant countries, supposed to share not only in the temporal Kingship of Christ the King, but also in His spiritual Kingship. As there was no infallible guardian of order above the temporal rulers, the way was paved for the abuses of State absolutism. The Protestant oligarchy who ruled England with undisputed sway, from Charles the Second’s time on, and who treated Ireland to the Penal Laws, may be cited, along with that cynical scoundrel, Frederick of Prussia, as typical examples of such rulers. Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV of France and Joseph II of Austria, by their absolutist tendencies and pretensions to govern the Catholic Church, show the influence of the neighboring Protestant countries. Gallicanism and Josephism are merely a revival of Roman paganism.

A few words about the erroneous doctrine of the divine Right of Kings, so strongly held by the two Protestant Stuart Kings of England, James I and Charles I, and which the legists had taught long before the seventeenth century, may not be here out of place. This idea is, as has been said, an error and not Catholic doctrine. Political power, as an imperfect and created participation, in the temporal ruler, of the infinite power, by which God directs all things towards their supreme destinies, is in this sense divine. This is the meaning of St. Paul’s teaching: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:1,2). Of course, the mode of accession to power may be legitimate or the reverse; in the former case, it is in accordance with the divine law, in the latter, opposed to it. Again, the use of power may be in conformity with the divine law or opposed to it. Political power, then, comes from God, but it is false that any particular form of power is necessary and willed of God to the exclusion of the others. This error, which has been held by the French Sillon in recent times on behalf of democracy, as by the Stuart Kings above alluded to on behalf of monarchy, aims at confiscating the prerogatives, conferred by God on political power in general, to the profit of one form of government in particular. At the bottom of it, is the tendency to put political power, the particular form of which has been abandoned to men, on the same level as the religious power of the Catholic Church, of which the monarchical form has been determined by our Lord Jesus Christ.[7]

The first political consequence of the Protestant rebellion against order was, accordingly, the extreme error of State absolutism. The principle of private judgment prepared the way for the opposite extreme error of “holy rebellion” and the “right” of the people to overthrow authority whenever it displeases them. The doctrine, that all men are equal in the Mystical Body and are their own priests, sowed the seeds of that spirit, which was given a body in the naturalistic Masonic society, when the advance of time had brought about the decay of belief in the supernatural life.

Economic Consequences of Protestant Revolt

When men lived the life of the Mystical Body, looking upon themselves as Christ’s members, they evolved economic organizations in accordance with their inner convictions. The guilds of the Middle Ages were the economic expression of accepted solidarity in Christ. They are not to be looked upon as primarily economic organizations to which religious practices were superadded. No, by them men gave expression, in their arrangements for the production and distribution of what the body needs, to their full acceptance of the Divine Plan for ordered life. The rending of the Mystical Body by the so-called Reformation movement has resulted in the pendulum swinging from the extreme error of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism to the opposite extreme error of the Judaeo-Masonic Communism of Karl Marx.

The uprise of individualism rapidly led to unbridled self-seeking. Lawmakers who were arbiters of morality, as heads of the new Churches, did not hesitate to favor their own enterprising spirit. The nobles and rich merchants in England, for example, who got possession of the monastery lands, which had maintained the poor, voted the Poor Laws in order to make the poor a charge on the nation at large. The enclosure of common lands in England and the development of the industrial system are a proof of what private judgment can do when transplanted into the realm of production and distribution.[8] The Lutheran separation of the Christian from the ruler or the citizen shows the decay in the true idea of membership of our Lord’s Mystical Body.

“Assuredly,” said Luther, “a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion.”[9] This teaching had its economic repercussion in the current that led to the doctrine laid down in Daniel Defoe’s The Complete Tradesman, according to which a man must keep his religious and his business life apart and not allow one to interfere with the other.

“There is some difference,” wrote Defoe, “between an honest man and an honest tradesman. …There are some latitudes, like poetical licenses in other cases, which a tradesman must be and is allowed, and which by the custom and usage of a trade he may give himself a liberty in, which cannot be allowed in other cases to any men, no, nor to the tradesman himself out of his business.”[10]

It was, however, the Calvinistic doctrine on predestination and the signs by which a man’s divine election could be recognized, which specially favored the advent of the unlimited competition, unscrupulous underselling and feverish advertising of the present day. In his able work, from which a passage has already been quoted, Professor O’Brien shows that it was in the peculiarly British variety of Calvinism, known as Puritanism, that all the Calvinist doctrines of success in life as a sign of man’s predestination, of the respect and veneration due to wealth, had their fullest development.[11]

“When all is said and done, Calvinism remains the real nursing-father of the civic industrial capitalism of the middle classes. …Since the aggressively active ethic inspired by the doctrine of predestination urges the elect to the full development of his God-given powers, and offers him this as a sign by which he may assure himself of his election, work becomes rational and systematic. In breaking down the motive of ease and enjoyment, asceticism lays the foundation of the tyranny of work over men…production for production’s sake is declared to be a commandment of religion.”[12]

The learned writer, Werner Sombart, in his great work, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (The Jews in Economic life ), attributes the great, if not the deciding, role in the formation of the modern economic outlook or mentality to the Jewish race, for to them he attributes the introduction of the ideas of “free commerce” and “unchecked competition” into a society with quite different ideas.[13] He points out the contrast between the Jewish mentality and the ordered outlook of the Middle Ages in phrases that are worthy of citation:

“When we examine matters more closely…we shall immediately see that the struggle between Jewish and Christian merchants is a struggle between two views of the world, or, at least, between two economic mentalities imbued with principles that are different or even opposed. In order to understand this statement, we must represent to ourselves the spirit which inspired that economic life into which, since the sixteenth century, Jewish elements have forced their way in ever increasing volume. To this spirit they openly showed themselves so rudely opposed that they were everywhere felt to be interfering with the livelihood and subsistence of the people. During the whole time which I have designated as the period of incipient capitalism…the same fundamental outlook on economic relations prevailed as had been accepted during the Middle Ages. …The unrestrained, unbridled striving after gain was considered by most people during this whole period as unlawful, as unchristian, because the spirit of the old Thomistic economic philosophy as yet swayed men’s minds, at least officially.”[14]

The Jewish mentality was opposed to the outlook on life impressed on society by the Catholic Church, for “the Jew stands out as the business man pure and simple, as the man who, in business, takes account only of business and who, in conformity with the spirit of true capitalist economy, proclaims, in presence of all natural ends, the supremacy of gain and profit.”[15]

The Jew it was, according to Sombart, who broke down the mentality of the Middle Ages and commercialized all the relations of men.

Professor O’Brien dissents from Werner Sombart’s thesis that the growth of the capitalistic spirit, the spirit of subordination of all other considerations to that of profit, was due to the Jews. He admits, however, that Sombart’s contention would be quite correct, if for “Jews” we substituted “Judaism,” and he points out the importance of Calvin’s justification of usury in preparing the way for modern developments. The Puritans adopted Old Testament ideas: the Old Testament idea of the reward of virtue in this world fitted in with the Puritan teaching about the fulfilment of one’s vocation.[16]

It is unnecessary for the purpose of this work to apportion responsibility for the triumph of what we may call the ‘does it pay?’ mentality in the world, between Jews and Puritans. At any rate, if the Puritans subordinated men to production, the Jews completed the process, by subordinating production itself to money. The right order, of money as a means for production and production subservient to man, is now, as we know, reversed. Sombart puts the responsibility for this reversal of order on the Jewish people:

“From continually dealing in money,” he writes, “the Jews have more and more grown accustomed to consider and evaluate the world, not from the natural qualitative point of view but purely from the abstract, quantitative aspect. They have, as a result, laid bare all the mysteries that were hidden in money, they have found out all its wonderful capacities. They have become the masters of money, and, thanks to this mastery of money, they are the rulers of the world, as I have exhaustively shown in the early chapters of this work.”[17]

In one of the earlier chapters to which Professor Sombart alludes, speaking of some of the wonderful capacities of money, thanks to the discovery of which the Jews have become the real rulers of the world, he writes:

“If we want to make manifest in one sentence the direction in which modern political economy is moving, we can say: the stock-exchange agents of the banks are becoming in an ever increasing measure the dictators (or rulers) of economic life. All economic happenings are more and more subordinate to the decisions of finance. The question whether a new industrial undertaking is to spring up or an existing one to be developed; whether the owner of a shop or store is to get the means to extend his business still further, all these questions are decided in the offices of Banks and Bankers. In just the same way the sale of products is becoming, to an ever greater extent, a problem of finance. Our greatest industries are indeed already just as much financial associations as industrial undertakings. The other industries as well are, in ever growing measure, dependent on financial or stock-exchange operations in order to capture their markets. The prices of most of the world’s products and raw materials and of most ready-made goods are influenced by the Stock Exchange, and the man who wants to win in the present competitive struggle must be master of the Stock Exchange.”[18] Needless to say, the final result of all this maneuvring is that a few men control the destinies of millions everywhere, and the livelihood of the ordinary man is at the mercy of stock-exchange coups. Liberalism and laissez-faire, sprung from Protestant individualism, opposed all State interference.[19] For them man was exclusively a person, but when the process has run its course, all, except a few, are mere individuals at the mercy of the manipulators of money. On the other hand, the harassing insecurity of their lot is causing the sufferers from this system to listen to the well-paid advocates of Communism. Both Liberalism and Socialism (Communism) confuse person and individual and consider society simply as a material juxtaposition of autonomous individuals. The individual for them is autonomous, that is, his liberty knows no limits, reason itself being at its service. In the name of liberty, the strong personalities wiped out the weak in the capitalist State. Now in the name of equality the weak banded together will aim at wiping out the strong. Men are specifically equal, that is, all human beings are persons and, as such, are free and equal, but personality is realized unequally in the different individuals of the human species. Human beings are individually unequal.

The erroneous doctrine of the equality of individuals, like the erroneous doctrine of unrestricted liberty, has been a fruitful source of confusion. The Protestant doctrine of the equality of men in the Mystical Body, that is, the erroneous doctrine of the non-existence of a hierarchical order therein, was taken advantage of by the nobles to loot the property of the Church and aim at bringing down the Kings. Of course, they crushed those who, like the German peasants, wished to apply the doctrine of equality to themselves. The uprise of Masonry and its triumph at the French Revolution led to the proclamation of equality on the natural level. The middle class (bourgeois) profited by this to attack the nobles. Of course, those who, like Babeuf, wished to be completely logical in applying Masonic ideals, and do away with private property were not then listened to. Now the disillusioned property-less wage earners, unemployed under the Judaeo-Puritan capitalist system, are being urged against the bourgeois and in the direction of the opposite extreme of Judaeo-Masonic Communism, in which land and all the means of production shall be owned by the State and administered by State officials. We know what that means. The ordinary man will be a mere individual at the mercy of the political wirepullers and of the Jewish financial forces which, in the last resort, maneuvre them. Under the capitalist system of mass production, scarcely anybody could impress his personality on any article to the production of which he contributed. Workmen ceased to be really human artisans, in proportion as human production lost its artistic character and became infra-human.[20] The tendency, then, is to react against this abuse of private property by doing away with it altogether and thus reduce all production to the infra-human level.

The Catholic ideal of economic relations, outlined in the Encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, of Pope Leo XIII, and Quadragesimo Anno, of Pope Pius XI, of widely diffused private ownership with highly developed family life, based upon the solidarity of men in the Mystical Body of Christ, holds out an ideal of economic organization above the two opposed errors of individualism and communism. The doctrine, held by both Luther and Calvin, of the essential corruption of human nature by Original Sin, had as consequence that redeemed man is never admitted to live the divine life vitally as his own. He is never intrinsically purified by the infusion of sanctifying grace, participation of the inner life of God in three divine persons. Contemplation and love of the Blessed Trinity present in us by grace—beginning of Eternal life—ceased therefore to be man’s highest activity here below, to which all other activities should be directed. Human activity was sundered from grace and accordingly came to be an end in itself. Self-seeking inevitably gave birth to the present sad situation. Now to cure the evil radically, the ideal of life as grasped by the men of the Middle Ages must return. By grace we share in God’s life. God’s life is knowledge and love of Himself, and it is from that knowledge and love that His action springs. So, too, must it be with us. Our action must spring from the divine life in us and must aim at strengthening it. That ideal must prevail amongst us, not only individually but socially, and men must come to recognize once more that the contemplative religious orders discharge the most vital social function. St. Thomas’s principles must be brought back into the minds and hearts of men:

“If the ultimate happiness of man,” says the Angelic Doctor, “does not consist in external things, termed goods of fortune, nor in bodily advantages, nor in the pleasures of sense; if it does not consist either in the exercise of the moral virtues, or in that of prudence or in the arts, it must be sought in the contemplation of truth. Such in point of fact is the activity proper to man, activity completely disinterested, for it is sought exclusively for itself. By contemplation, man shares in the life which is in the angels and in God, and by it he is united to the angels and to God. For contemplation, man is least dependent and most self-sufficing, inasmuch as for it, he stands little in need of external things. To it as to their last end all other human activities appear to be directed. It is for the perfection of contemplation that the body is kept up, and for this purpose makes use of the objects prepared by the arts. It is for it that the passions are subdued and harmony established by the moral virtues and by prudence, and it is the business of the civil government to favor it by bringing about freedom from external disturbances. Hence, if we look at things in the right light, the whole functioning of human life is meant to be at the service of those who are engaged in the contemplation of truth.”[21]

Protestantism rejected all intrinsic participation in the divine life of grace, and thus divorced human activity from its rightful subordination to the development of that life in man. It is not surprising, then, that a social organization so misdirected should fall under the influence of the Jewish race. The Jews rejected the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and turned against our Lord, the source of grace, obstinately refusing to be heralds of His life to the nations. Again, with the decay in belief in the divinity of our Lord amongst Protestants, naturalism is, of course, gaining ground amongst them. Accordingly, we find them drawn into the current of preparation for the natural Messias, looked forward to by the Jewish nation. There is only one world, the world in which the full acceptance of Him leads to order and the rejection of Him and of His plan of redemption to disorder. “He that is not with Me, is against Me” (Mt. 12:30).

Catholics must not be deceived by Communist propaganda for the abolition of capitalism. Communists mean to do away not only with the abuses of private ownership, to which what is called the capitalist regime gave birth, but to the very institution of private property in land and in the other means of production. That means a return to slavery, but to a slavery worse than the pagan one from which the Redeemer raised us. This will be evident from a brief glance at the types of society which the world has seen.[22] Property means control of wealth. The three factors required for the production of wealth are labor (which is not wealth), Land (which is not wealth) and capital (which is wealth). According to the way in which control has been and is exercised over these three factors, three forms of society have successively appeared in history. Ancient Greece and Rome were servile states, in which the material means of production were the property of men who also owned the human agents of production. Under the influence of the Catholic Church, the servile state was replaced by the distributive state, in which the material means of production were owned by the free human agents of production: property had passed from the hands of the few to the many. The rending of the Mystical Body in the sixteenth century gave birth to the capitalist state, in which the material means of production are again the property of a few, while numerous human agents of production are politically free, but without property. We have seen that even those who control the material means of production in the capitalist state are themselves largely at the mercy of those who manipulate finance. Now the reaction against the capitalist state will be guided by the Catholic Church, and then we shall see a rebirth of the distributive state, incorporating the elements of material progress achieved in modern times into harmonious subordination to the Mystical Body of Christ. The formal principle of ordered life grasped in the Middle Ages will thus be applied to new matter. Or the reaction will be guided by the financial forces, which rule the world, in the direction of Communism, in which all the means of production will be owned nominally by the State, in practice by those who control the Communist party. The result will be worse than the pagan servile state, for it will mean the definite rejection of our Lord, true God and true Man, and subjection to the natural Messias looked forward to by the descendants of those who crucified Him. To reject our Lord is worse than never to have known Him. Human beings who have cut themselves adrift from the humanity of Jesus Christ are on the way to become more dehumanized than those to whom He has not been made known.

“The case of governments,” writes Pope Leo XIII, “is much the same as that of the individual; they also must run into fatal issues, if they depart from the way. …Let Jesus be excluded, and human reason is left without its greatest protection and illumination; the very notion is easily lost of the end for which God created human society, to wit: that by help of their civil union the citizens should attain the natural good, but, nevertheless, in a way not to conflict with that highest and most perfect and enduring good which is above nature. Their minds, busy with a hundred confused projects, rulers and subjects alike travel a devious road: bereft, as they are, of safe guidance and fixed principle.”[23]

[1]For Nominalists, the essence or nature is only a collection of individuals. Accordingly, the concept of the Church as one Mystical Body, animated by the same life of grace, lost consistency for such minds. Thus the way was prepared for the Lutheran idea of isolated individuals, each holding up the merits of Christ between him and God’s justice. “God,” said the Ockamists, “could accept each of us even without sanctifying grace, which is not what makes us pleasing in His sight.” “Luther goes much further. He does not say that God could but that God does. His moral life urged him on to the last consequences of Ockamism. We are declared friends of God or just by an extrinsic denomination, by an extrinsic disposition. …The justice of Jesus Christ is imputed to us and replaces grace.” (Luther et Luthéranisme, Denifle-Paquier, vol. iii. pp. 219, 220) Cf. the whole section of the same volume treating of Luther and Ockam, pp. 191–232.

[2]Cf. Billot, De Ecclesia, vol. i. p. 68.

[3]A brief explanation of the Thomistic concepts of personality and individuality, which are so frequently confused by writers of English, will be found in Chapter IX of the present work. A more detailed explanation is given in the essay on Luther in Three Reformers, by Jacques Maritain. The subtitle of that essay is “The Advent of the Ego.” M. Maritain shows that Luther’s career is the triumph of individuality as opposed to personality.

[4]Cf. L’Esprit du Protestantisme en Suisse, by 1’Abbé Ch. Journet, pp. 154–163,

[5]In Romische und Evangelische Sittlichkeit, quoted by Pére Cathala, O.P., in the Revue Thomiste (1913), p. 3.

[6]From the eleventh century onwards, the first law school of Europe, that of Bologna, propagated the cult of Roman Law. The legists, imbued with the idea of the will of the Roman Emperor as law, were a potent influence in urging rulers to revolt against the Mystical Body. Cf. The Church at the Turning Points of History, by G. Kurth, pp. 86–122. Of course the Renaissance movement helped to strengthen that spirit.

[7]Cf. article by l’Abbé Ch. Journet in La Vie Intellectuelle, Oct., 1929, pp. 114, 115.

[8]Cf. Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State, and Commandant H. Shove, The Fairy Ring of Commerce. The Poor Laws were voted, when it had been found impossible to find a Protestant substitute for Catholic charity.

[9]Cf. Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works, xxxii. pp. 391, 439, 440, etc.

[10]The Complete Tradesman, 1819 edition, pp. 17, 55 (quoted by Prof. G. O’Brien in The Economic Effects of the Reformation, p. 93).

[11]“Material prosperity in England bred a worship of wealth which has never been equaled, except possibly in old Judaea.” (Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, vol. ii. p. 402) “Poverty is infamous in England,” said Sydney Smith, English Traits. Both are quoted by Prof. O’Brien, op. cit. pp. 127, 128.

[12]Troeltsch, Protestantism and Progress, pp. 135–138, quoted by Prof. O’Brien, pp. 129, 130. The Americans have established a Thanksgiving Day to celebrate the fact that the Pilgrim Fathers reached America. The English might very well establish another Thanksgiving Day to celebrate the happy fact that the Pilgrim Fathers left England.”—Sidelights, by G. K. Chesterton.

[13]Op. cit., p. 180.

[14]Op. cit. pp. 141, 142.

[15]Op. cit., p. 155.

[16]Sombart quotes the Jewish writer, H. Heine, as follows: “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews? Are not their names everywhere Biblical? Is there not a Jerusalem-Pharisaic ring about their cant and is not their religion Judaism with permission to eat pork?” (Op. cit. p. 293) “He (the Puritan) created the Scottish Sabbath, compared with which the Jewish Sabbath is jolly.” (Sidelights, by G. K. Chesterton, p. 137)

[17]W. Sombart, op. cit. pp. 426, 427.

[18]Werner Sombart, op. cit. p. 130. Cf. The Breakdown of Money, by C. Hollis.

[19]Pope Pius XI has drawn attention to those evils in Quadragesimo Anno: “Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon class-warfare, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to free competition alone.

. . . This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideals.” He has also shown that the final result of unchecked competition is the domination of those who control money and credit: “Free competition permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience.” The consequence is the disappearance of competition:” Free competition is dead; economic dictatorship has taken its place.”

The truth is that Liberalism does not consist merely in withdrawing economics from subordination to politics, but in the further step of withdrawing politics from subjection to morality (ethics). Perhaps we may describe it in more general terms by saying that it consists in making some particular aspect of human activity, economic or political, into a closed area, a separate domain, having its own autonomous end, completely independent of the final spiritual end of man. Everything that is not that final end should be ordained to it. Thus and thus alone does man enjoy true liberty.” (J. Vialatoux, Philosophie Economique, p. 67) On the same page of the same work we also read: “Marx had seen clearly and proclaimed that his historical materialism was only the continuation of the classic Liberalistic Economy, and that the Materialistic Socialization (of productive property) was the natural effect of capitalist concentration (of property in a few hands), which was itself the natural effect of liberal materialism.” The same work contains an excellent sketch of the process of decay in economic theory which followed on the revolt against the Catholic faith, in two essays, entitled, L’ Illusion Matérialiste aud La Philosophic libirale de Locke.

[20]Cf. Maritain, Art et Scholastique, p. 240.

To be human, work must be, as far as possible, artistic, that is work by which an intellectual form is actualized in a matter adapted to its reception. The form is a grasp of order by an intelligence. In so far as work ceases to fulfil these conditions, it tends to become animal work or machine work.

[21]Summa contra Gent., lib. iii, c. 37.

[22]Cf. Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen, pp. 100–140; The Servile State, pp. 71–77.

[23]Encyclical Letter, Tametsi, “On Christ our Redeemer,” November 1, 1900.

Chapter IV

The Revolutionary Deification of Man

The Significance of Masonry

The rejection by Luther of the visible Catholic Church opened the door, not only to the abuses of absolute rulers, supreme in Church and State, but soon led to an indifference to all ecclesiastical organizations. One could belong to the invisible Church of Christ equally well in any one of them or even in none. As faith in the supernatural life of grace and the supernatural order grew dim and waned, the way was made smooth for the acceptance of Freemasonry. The widespread loss of faith in the existence of supernatural life and the growing ignorance of the meaning of the Redemption permitted the apostles of Illuminism and Masonry to propagate the idea that the true religion of Jesus Christ had either never been understood or been corrupted by His disciples, especially by the Church of Rome, the fact being that only a few sages in secret societies down the centuries had kept alive the true teaching of Jesus Christ. According to this “authentic” teaching our Savior had not established a new religion, but had simply restored the religion of the state of nature, the religion of the goodness of human nature when left to itself, freed from the bonds and shackles of society. Jesus Christ died a martyr for liberty, put to death by the rulers and priests. Masons and revolutionary secret societies alone are working for the true salvation of the world. By them shall original sin be done away with and the Garden of Eden restored. But the present organization of society must disappear, by the elimination of the tyranny of priests, the despotism of princes and the slavery resulting from national distinctions, from family life and from private property.

Masonry is, therefore, a naturalistic society, that is to say, a society which claims to make men good and true, independently of the supernatural life which comes to us from the divinity of Christ through His sacred humanity. In reality it is only through that life that we can be really virtuous men and live fully ordered lives. Masonry thus, in fact and in deed, puts itself in the place of the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. The attitude of indifference and superiority to national differences and distinctions affected by Masonry is a mere aping of the true supra-nationalism of the Catholic Church, so eminently respectful of all national traits and true glories. The pretended supra-nationalism of Masonry can only lead to the corruption of the true concept of nationalism and to the destruction of all that is enshrined for us in the words “native land.” It has its logical issue in national enslavement under a world-republic.

Masonry’s claim to make men good, while inculcating indifference to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, is already implicitly the divinization of man, for it makes man’s natural resources superior to the life which comes from Him to us. The inner esoteric signification of its symbolism, by which the minds of its adepts are molded, is the unabashed proclamation of man’s divinity, tending inevitably towards the deification of the generative powers of the human race; this is the hidden meaning of the two interlaced triangles which figure so prominently on Masonic buildings as the crowning insult offered by Satan to the Blessed Trinity.[1]

By the grace of headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct beings from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The divine nature is the principle of the divine vision and love, and by grace we are “made partakers of the divine nature” (2Pet. 1:4).

This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the supernatural life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the life that comes from the sacred humanity of Jesus, was socially favored. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favorable moment had arrived, the Masonic divinization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity—humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of the obstacle to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: “For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude.

Is the Declaration of the Rights of Man, then, the work of Freemasonry? The Masons themselves have taken care not to leave us in doubt about it. The 16th July, 1889, a Masonic Congress, destined to commemorate and celebrate the principles of 1789, met at Paris. The speeches there pronounced by the Masons, Amiable and Colfavru, were published by the French Grand Orient in pamphlet form.[2] From the speech of Colfavru we take the following:

“The Revolution, by embodying in a new social and political organization the broadminded liberal doctrines of Freemasonry, by giving to the new world the immortal Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and to France the loyal democratic constitution of 1791, substituted its more energetic and more practical action for the speculative propaganda which had characterized the work of Freemasonry down to 1789. From the programs and resolutions expressed in the Cahiers, after they had been prepared in the Lodges, the National Assembly passed to acts. …In 1789, at the opening of the States-General, the great French Masonic family was in full development. It counted amongst its adepts the greatest minds of the day. It had received Voltaire into the famous Lodge of the Nine Sisters, under the respectful and fraternal patronage of Benjamin Franklin. Condorcet, Mirabeau, Danton, Robespierre, Camille Desmoulins were all Masons; the Grand Master was the Duke of Orleans. …My Brothers, therefore, let us remember those great examples and let us work for the triumph of light, of justice and of liberty.”

From the speech delivered on that same occasion by the Mason, Louis Amiable, we shall quote only one passage:

“It is not an exaggeration to affirm that the Masonic reorganization of 1773 was the forerunner of the great revolution of 1789. …The regime inaugurated by the French Grand Orient gave force and vigor to the truth which was to be formulated, sixteen years later, by the Declaration of the Rights of Man: ‘The law is the expression of the general will.’ …The French Freemasons of the eighteenth century made the Revolution. …They had elaborated its doctrines in advance so that these were not improvisations. …It was from masonry that the nation took over the three words which form the motto of the French Republic: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’”[3]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It will be well to say something about the influence exercised on the French Revolution by the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Louis Blanc informs us that Rousseau’s writings were on the table of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution. Two of the works of this sophist, The Social Contract, and the Essay on the Inequality of Social Conditions (Discours sur L’Inegalité des Conditions), are especially popular in Masonic circles. Masonic writers and orators are never weary of quoting from them and commenting thereon.

Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.

The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. The state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this so-called exigency that the “Father of modern thought” invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.[4]

The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common ego begotten in the pact, so that, obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes, in order that, by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, which each one wills before all else may be manifested.[5] The general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the “deity” immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have got accustomed to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this “deity” does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.

To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for us what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin non-existent,[6] not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, not only is there no concupiscence to incline us to evil, but the state of suffering in which we find ourselves is essentially opposed to nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can get back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society and of private property constitute the real Fall.[7] The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural nature of the life of grace has become obscured, but where men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing governments and the existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rousseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of “Progress” and of the “onward march of democracy.”[8] All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1788, the triumph in one country after another of Rousseauist-Masonic democracy.[9]

Rousseau expressed in his works the spirit with which Freemasonry was filling minds and hearts during his lifetime, in preparation for the Revolution. In his singularly able work, La Revolution et la Libre-Pensée (p. 76), M. Augustin Cochin points out that it is not necessary to look for the model of Rousseau’s Republic to ancient Rome or Sparta, or to the Geneva of Rousseau’s day.[10] When reading The Social Contract, he adds, one would think oneself in presence of a lodge or a society of thought (societé de pensée), such as existed in the Paris of that day.

This was the regime that was applied to France during the Reign of Terror. The liberty of Rousseau consists essentially in the refusal of human nature to receive anything from another or to depend on any external, transcendent principle.[11] It is the principle of the absolute sovereignty of man. Fichte, the German Mason and Philosopher, perfectly expresses the ideas of Rousseau and of Masonry when he says:

“Man is free by nature and nobody has the right to lay down a law for him except himself; no man can be obliged except by himself. A law cannot be imposed on any man except by himself. If a man allows a law to be imposed on him by any extraneous will, he renounces his manhood.”[12]

Descartes prepared the way for Kant, whose system leads on logically to the pantheism of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, in which man loses his individuality and becomes a mere phenomenon in the realization of universal reason or in the evolution of the absolute. According to Rousseau’s conception, as society is constituted by an arbitrary contract of individuals, free and equal, the State is the sum total of these individuals, the sovereign people, in which is concentrated all power. The two currents of thought give rise to the Divinity State, leading on to the World-State or Humanity-God. The State becomes the highest power, the supreme authority, the end to the perfection of which all human progress tends. As there is no higher power, from it all law and right are derived and on it all authority depends.

Rousseauist “Democratism” and Democracy

It is in this rationalistic or naturalistic deification of human nature that we must look for the ultimate ground of distinction between a Masonic or revolutionary republic and a Catholic republican State. According to the Rousseauist-Masonic idea, a republic is only another expression for sovereignty of the People. This expression means not only that the body of the people always continues to be the governing authority in the State, but that this authority of the people is absolutely unlimited, independent of everybody, and that this absolute independence or sovereignty resides in the people as in the sum of the sovereignties of the individual citizens. Hence, amongst other consequences, it follows that the republican form of government is the only legitimate form. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, on the contrary, the body of the people in a republic shares in the governing authority in the manner indicated in the constitution of the State, but this authority is not absolutely unlimited. It is determined by the end of the State, namely, the seeking of the common good of the people in such a way as not only not to hinder but to favor the supernatural life and the supernatural end of citizens. It must consequently acknowledge the indirect power of the divinely appointed guides of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Bishops. The ultimate foundation then of the people’s authority in a republic (as of authority in the other legitimate forms of government) is not “the sovereign will of the people,” nor the “sovereign will of the individual citizen” but the authority of God.

Catholics must keep well before their minds these two meanings of republic and democratic government. The whole force of Judaeo-Masonic propaganda is aiming at popularizing the false Rousseauist idea of democracy. The world-republic for which both Masonry and Communism are working is a republic constructed on Rousseauist lines. In The Things that are Not Caesar’s, M. Maritain sums up the contrast between the two concepts as follows:

“Political democracy, as conceived by Aristotle and St. Thomas, is exemplified in the old Swiss democracy and is considered by the Church and philosophy as a legally possible form of government (indicated or counter-indicated, in fact, according to historic conditions and circumstances). Democratism, or democracy as conceived by Rousseau, that is to say, the religious myth of democracy, is an entirely different thing from the legitimate democratic regime. …Democracy in this sense becomes confused with the dogma of the sovereign people (that is to say, of the people as perpetual possessor and sole lawful possessor of sovereignty), which combined with the dogma of the general will and law as expression of number, constitutes, in the extreme, the error of political pantheism, the multitude-God. It must ever be borne in mind that what makes the condition of nations in modern times so tragic is that in point of fact, in concrete reality, the Rousseauist religious myth of democracy has everywhere invaded and contaminated political democracy and even every actual form of government.”

On account of the importance of the question, we must here compare at some length the Catholic doctrine to authority “coming from above” and the Rousseauist idea of authority “coming from below.”[13]

Thanks to his intelligence, man grasps goodness itself (ratio boni). Accordingly, his will can be determined only by the good without limit; no particular finite good can force itself upon his choice. He can maintain an attitude of indifference in presence of all created things, choosing them because of their goodness or rejecting them because of their defectiveness. We are free with regard to created things, and this is a sign of our greatness, because our wills, ordained to goodness itself, can dominate their attractions. We are free with regard to God Himself, and this is a sign of our weakness and misery, because the Infinite Good so dominates us that our intelligence can attain to It only indirectly as reflected in created things. Our acts of choice can accordingly realize concretely the true order of human ends and overthrow that order. For, like all creatures, man is obliged to tend to his own end, that is to say, to that participation of the Divine Perfection which is accessible and assigned to his nature.[14] Of course, as we have just said, he tends thereto freely. He can refuse God’s call and substitute for his veritable end the determination of his own caprice. It is precisely from this linking together of the notions of necessity with regard to an end and of liberty with regard to the manner of tending thereto that the notion of moral obligation arises. The whole force of obligation takes its origin in the knowledge that man has of his end.

Now, if several men tend to the same end, as is the case in a society, it is indispensable that their efforts should be directed and co-ordinated by an intelligence lofty enough to discern and keep clearly in view, beyond and above the particular goods to which the individuals tend, the true nature of the common good of the society. This intelligence should besides have the power to take the steps necessary for the acquisition and preservation of this common good. Such is the significance of the authority in society. The notion of authority is essentially relative to the notion of end. If the end is not imposed and does not oblige, the authority cannot impose an obligation nor command.[15] If the end is obligatory in virtue of a divine necessity, that is to say, as an end assigned to our nature by the creative will of God, then the authority will command in virtue of a power of the same order. It will be divine and will come from above, just as the end which it serves is divine and comes from above.

This is the key to the explanation of those texts of the New Testament about the divine origin of civil authority. Our Lord replies to Pilate who threatens to crucify Him: “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” (Jn. 19:11) Again, in the text of St. Paul to the Romans (13:1–7), portion of which has been already quoted, we read: “Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. …Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For therefore also you pay tribute.” Every just law, that is, as St. Thomas explains, every law directed to the common good, not exceeding the power of the ruler who promulgates it…obliges in conscience.[16]

We can then see in what sense it will be true to say that authority should suit itself to its subjects. It ought to adapt itself, in the first place, to the end which it is its mission to procure and which, in the case of civil society, does not depend on it but on the creative will of God. In the second place, but only in the measure in which the exigencies of the end permit it, it ought to adapt itself to the subjects whom it has to direct to the end. Any concessions made by the authority can be made only with a view to the better attainment of the end. With regard to the end itself, the authority cannot compromise, without destroying itself, betraying the interests of its subjects and involving the social structure in ruin, along with itself. The authority is a means between the terminus ad quem, that is to say, the common good, and the terminus a quo, that is to say, the imperfection of its subjects. It is totally and radically overthrown when it agrees to sacrifice the order of ends to the will of the multitude, what is right to the fait accompli, what is obligatory to mere caprice, the perfect to the imperfect, act to potency.

These same principles which give us light on the significance of authority in civil society, may be used also to bring home to us the meaning of authority in the Catholic Church. We must simply take account of the supernatural quality of the end which is promised us, namely, the likeness, the resemblance to our Lord Jesus Christ in the vision of the Blessed Trinity. Our Lord, who has revealed this end to us, is alone capable of guiding us thereto, for the hierarchy of agents corresponds to the hierarchy of ends. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of our whole supernatural life. Now Jesus, for a time visible, invisible since His Ascension, grouped around Him the members of the Apostolic College, on whom He conferred the powers of jurisdiction and of the administration of the Sacraments. Through them He communicates Himself to the body of the faithful. If, with St. Thomas, we distinguish the two essential roles of the head in the physical body and apply the analogy to the head of the Mystical Body, we shall see that it belongs to Christ as priest to communicate the divine life to His members and to Christ as King to direct the movements of His members with a view to favoring the inpouring of that life.[17] The power of jurisdiction in the Church is a participation in the Royalty of Christ and the power of sanctification through the Sacraments, a participation in the priesthood of Christ. Authority in the Church comes, then, from Christ the King and has for end to raise us to perfect likeness to our Lord Jesus Christ, first-born among many brethren. Authority in the Church is therefore doubly supernatural, by its end, which is resemblance with Christ, and by its origin, which is our Lord’s free determination.

The Church will then always adapt herself, in the first place, to the supernatural ends which have been revealed to her. Never will she consent to sacrifice even the least of the treasures confided to her care. She adapts herself, in the second place, to the weakness and ignorance of her children, in the measure in which the exigencies of her end and her supernatural origin allow her to do so. She adapts herself, not by lowering her dignity, but by condescending to raise us in her embrace. She knows that she can and ought to command and oblige supernaturally in conscience and that she must sometimes punish “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Cor. 5:5).

Opposed to this Catholic doctrine of authority is the Rousseauist doctrine that authority comes from below.[18] Accordingly, authority has not to adapt itself in the first place to the objective end. It must adapt itself primarily to the structure and configuration, in a word, to the mentality of its subjects. Its first care must be, not to lay down obligations in view of an end to be attained but to consult the multitude, not to impose respect of what is right but to accept a fact, not to subject the multitude to an end but the end to the multitude.

Now it is absolutely contradictory to assert that authority comes from below. We either maintain the authority and then we must say that it comes from above or we admit that it comes from below, and then we necessarily subvert authority. Authority is undermined when it is asked to abandon the obligation, arising from the end to be attained, in order to ratify the caprices of its subjects, that is to say, when we ask it to shut its eyes to what is right and just, in order to accept a whim of the multitude. If, on the one hand, authority renounces the pursuit of what is right and just, it subverts its mission by abdicating its rights; if, on the other hand, it accepts the caprice of the majority, it subverts its position by oppression. In both cases the result is the same.

Authority may subvert its mission by abdicating its rights. It does this when it begins to doubt of its right to command. This form of suicide on the part of authority is more frequently to be met with in the domain of teaching. According to the correct doctrine, the first duty of the teacher is to keep the end of all education well in view. This end is to strengthen a fallen being, restored to supernatural life by our Lord, to direct all his energies to the development of that life, in and through the Mystical Body, in preparation for the fullness of that life in union with the three divine persons. The second duty of the teacher is to look for every means to help the child in this task. In opposition to this correct outlook, Rousseau, in Emile, lays down that the first duty of the teaching authority is to adapt itself to the individuality of the child. “The master is on a visit to the child: it would not be becoming for him to speak before the pupil invites him to do so.” Such are the expressions used at the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, founded at Geneva to carry out the principles of Emile. If these principles are followed out logically, pedagogy will become the art of following those whom one should guide.

“I foresee,” states Emile’s teacher, “how many masters will be surprised to see me educating my pupil during his youthful years without speaking to him of religion. At fifteen he did not know if he had a soul and it is perhaps too soon for him to learn this at eighteen.”

Pope Pius XI, in his wonderful Encyclical on The Christian Education of Youth, has condemned these theories of education in terms so admirable that the whole passage must be quoted:

“In fact it must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man, whole and entire, soul united to body in unity of nature, with all his faculties, natural and supernatural, such as right reason and revelation show him to be; man, therefore, fallen from his original state, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted son of God, though without the preternatural privileges of bodily immortality or perfect control of appetite. There remain, therefore, in human nature the effects of original sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and disorderly inclinations.

“‘Folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod of correction shall drive it away’ (Prov. 22:15). Disorderly inclinations, then, must be corrected, good tendencies encouraged and regulated from tender childhood, and, above all, the mind must be enlightened and the will strengthened by supernatural truth and by the means of grace, without which it is impossible to attain to the full and complete perfection of education intended by the Church, which Christ has endowed so richly with divine doctrine and with the Sacraments, the efficacious means of grace.

“Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names which appeal to a pretended self-government and unrestrained freedom or the part of the child, and which diminish or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative, and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.

“If any of these terms are used less properly, to denote the necessity of a gradually more active cooperation on the part of the pupil in his own education; if the intention is to banish from education despotism and violence, which, by the way, just punishment is not, this would be correct, but in no way new. It would mean only what has been taught and reduced to practice by the Church in traditional Christian education, in imitation of the method employed by God Himself towards His creatures, of whom He demands active co-operation according to the nature of each; for His wisdom ‘reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly’ (Wis. 8:1). But, alas! it is clear from the obvious meaning of the words and from experience, that what is intended by not a few is the withdrawal of education from every sort of dependence on the divine law.”

Authority may also subvert itself by oppression. This will be more especially the case with political authority. Whenever the authority pretends to hold something as sacred, because it has the multitude behind it, whenever, for example, it seeks to impose a decision on the legitimacy of divorce, because it has been voted by the greater number,[19] oppression and violence have usurped the place of authority.

The hierarchical order of ends alone can impose an obligation, not the caprice of the mob. Rousseau, as we have already seen, exposes the opposite doctrine in Le Contrat Social. For Aristotle the common good is the end in view of which everything should be organized; for Rousseau the common good is the general will. The general will is always right and always tends to what is politically useful; all that emanates from it is holy and irreproachable.

“‘Whosoever refuses to obey the general will,” proclaims Rousseau, “shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. …Whosoever dares to assert that outside the Church there is no salvation, should be driven out of the State.”

These maxims of violence and oppression with other consequences of man’s divinity have been condemned in the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. Proposition 59 denounces the following errors: “Right consists in the material fact; all the duties of man are a word devoid of meaning and all human happenings have the force of right.” Proposition 60 condemns the assertion that “authority is nothing else than the sum total of numbers and of material forces,” while Proposition 61 anathematizes the doctrine that “an infringement of justice crowned with success is in no way detrimental to the sanctity of right.”

There are, accordingly, two forms of democracy. The legitimate form is that one in which those who are to govern are, firstly, chosen from among the whole people and, secondly, designated by the votes of the whole people. The Rousseauist form or democratism, as it has been termed at the beginning of this section, is a myth, which includes two dogmas: in the first place, the dogma of the Sovereign People, of the people always retaining power and considering their rulers as delegates who owe them obedience; in the second place, the dogma that universal suffrage makes or creates right and justice, thus exalting man to the place of God. The intellectual atmosphere we are compelled to breathe is, so to say, impregnated with these errors. Catholics are more deeply influenced by them than they seem to realize. Many of them proclaim that “the people can do no wrong” or that “all men are equal” without seeming to be in the least aware of the Rousseauist tinge of their thoughts. Again, when we read the pronouncements of some victorious politicians, it would seem that a majority at an election puts them above the moral law. The Rousseauist-Masonic republicans in Spain gave evidence of this conviction in action.

Rousseauist-Masonic democratism has been frequently condemned by the Church. An extract from the Letter of Pope Pius X of 25th August, 1910, condemning the Sillon, in which he quotes his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, gives an excellent summary of the Church’s teaching:

“The Sillon,” writes Pius X, “attributes authority primordially to the people, from whom it is communicated to the rulers, in such a way, however, that it continues to reside in the people. Now Leo XIII has formally condemned that doctrine in his Encyclical, Diuturnum illud, “On Political Power,” in which he says: ‘Moderns, in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who in the last century styled themselves philosophers, maintain that all power comes from the people, that therefore those who exercise power in the State, do not exercise that authority as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and on condition that it may be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite the contrary is the opinion of Catholics who hold that the right to command comes from God, as from its natural and necessary source.’

“No doubt the Sillon holds that the authority which it attributes to the people descends from God, but in such a way that ‘it remounts from below upwards, whereas in the organization of the Church power descends from above downwards.’[20] But besides the fact that it is abnormal for a delegation to ascend, since its nature is to descend, Leo XIII has refuted, by anticipation, this attempt to reconcile Catholic doctrine with philosophic error. For he goes on to say: ‘It is important to remark here, those who preside over the government of the commonwealth may, indeed, in certain cases, be chosen by the will and judgment of the multitude, without opposing or violating Catholic doctrine. But that choice marks out the person who shall govern, it does not confer on him authority to govern, it does not delegate power to him, it designates the person who shall be invested with power.’[21]

“Moreover, if the people continue to hold power, what becomes of authority? It becomes a shadow, a myth: there is no longer a law properly so called, there is no longer obedience.”[22]

Rationalism, Naturalism, Revolution

This revolutionary deification of human nature, in the name of which man’s whims are substituted for God’s will and for the order which the second person of the Blessed Trinity established, when He came down to earth and took our human nature, has been called rationalism or naturalism. According to the Vatican Council, absolute rationalism is the doctrine which professes that “human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it by God.”[23] Hence, rationalism is the system which rejects the existence and the possibility of revelation under pretense of respecting the rights and dictates of reason. Thus the formal constitutive element of rationalism is the principle of the absolute autonomy of reason.[24]

The proximate foundation of rationalism is naturalism; the remote foundation thereof is pantheism and atheism. For rationalism presupposes that there is not any knowable truth beyond the reach of the natural powers of our reason. This involves the negation either of the existence of the supernatural order of truth and life or at least of the possibility of getting to know that order, even by revelation. It is in this negation that naturalism consists.

Naturalism is often used to signify the same thing as rationalism, yet, in a stricter sense, it rather designates the foundation of rationalism. Naturalism is, properly speaking, the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural order, and rationalism is the application of that doctrine to human reason, as liberalism is the application thereof to liberty. Hence rationalism has its proximate foundation in naturalism just as, on the other hand, the virtue of charity has its foundation in grace as a property in an essence.

But if naturalism denies not only the possibility of the knowledge of truths of the supernatural order, but the very existence of that order, then it has its foundation in pantheism. For, if there is no truth beyond the reach of our rational nature, our nature must be identical with the divine nature. Accordingly, there will be nothing beyond the efficient powers of nature, and miracles will be impossible. As nature is identical with God, all phenomena proceed from the divine nature without any free decree. This pantheistic deification of man and of nature, the identification of the finite and the infinite in the same subject, is so absurd that it cannot even be properly conceived.[25]

The perversity of the rationalistic and naturalistic spirit is not always clear at first sight, because the perversity may not be so much in the object aimed at as in the manner of aiming thereat. Rationalism or naturalism may propose to itself a good object, but without the help of God and without obedience to God. St. Thomas calls attention to this, when speaking of the sin of the rebellious angels: “In this way the angel sinned, seeking by the action of his free will his own good, irrespective of the order laid down by the divine will.”[26] In a well-known passage Pope Leo XIII aequiparates rationalism and naturalism and then points out the results in morality and politics:

“What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy,” he writes, “the supporters of liberalism carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due and proclaim that every man is a law unto himself; from which arises the ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God and substitutes therefor a boundless license. The end of all this is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society on the one hand, and God the Creator and, consequently, the supreme law-giver on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things.” (Encyclical Letter, Libertas, “On Human Liberty.”)

The word Revolution may be taken in two senses. The primary signification is that of a radical transformation of society undertaken with the aim of destroying the ancient order of things based on the supernatural life of the Mystical Body of Christ. The second signification is derived from the former, and according to it the word is applied to the doctrines or principles in the name of which the social transformation is accomplished and to the new institutions set up in the place of those overthrown. In the second sense, the quintessence of the principles of the revolution is to be found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man which we shall study presently in a special chapter. The aim of revolution, then, is the enthronement of man’s reason as supreme, the inauguration of the reign of rationalism or naturalism.

One of the saddest spectacles in our times is the contrast between the accurate grasp which the enemies of the Mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ have of the significance of the modern struggle, and the incomprehension or indifference of so many Catholics. For this incomprehension on the part of Catholics, the reading of non-Catholic and anti-Catholic books and papers is, of course, largely responsible. But the teaching of Christian doctrine and history in non-communicating compartments, as if there were a real history of the actual existing world apart from the history of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Mystical Body by the world, must bear a still heavier burden of responsibility. Catholic teachers of history would do well to meditate upon the following extract from the work of the French anti-Catholic romantic historian, Michelet (1798–1874), entitled Nos Fils[27]:

“We must examine and penetrate the full meaning of the faith, for which we are combating. …There is no such thing as original sin. Every child is born innocent and is not marked beforehand by the sin of Adam. That impious, barbarous myth is disappearing. In its place, justice and humanity stand forth. Accordingly, two principles are now face to face; the Christian principle and the principle of 1789. There is no possibility of reconciliation between them. Odd and even numbers will never agree, neither will justice and injustice, so in the same way 1789 and the heritage of original sin will be ever opposed to each other. …Education then will be completely different according as it takes as its starting point the old or the new principle.”

A fitting conclusion to this section will be the following quotation from the French Masonic review, L’Acacia (October, 1931). It is worthy of consideration by all Catholics:

“At the present day,” the Masonic review states, “in the coming year 1932 and henceforward, there are only two doctrines, two principles, for which men are combating: Integral Humanism, no matter what may be the particular form of social reconstruction favored by its protagonists, Individualism, Radicalism, Laicism, Socialism, Communism, and Anarchy; and Clerico-Theism, which is always one and the same, no matter how it may seek to hide its appearance.”[28]

Let us hope that the integral truth will come home to all Catholics that the world is divided into two camps, the camp of those who stand for Christ the King and His rule in all its integrity, and the camp of Satan with its motto, Non serviam!—“I will not serve!” (Jer. 2:20).

One Sad Result of the Revolutionary

Deification of Humanity

It may be well to touch here on a point which very clearly indicates in practice the inroads made on the Catholic outlook on life by the revolutionary doctrine of the immanent divinity of man, with its corollary, the denial of the Fall. Our first parents, by their rebellion against order, forfeited supernatural life and along with it the preternatural gifts of exemption from death and of integrity. The loss of the gift of integrity, entailing as it did the revolt of the passions against reason, led to the necessity of clothing, in order that human beings might respect the order of life in themselves and in others. The divinization of man with the revolt of reason against the divine life could not be without sad repercussions on the rebellion of the passions against reason. The increasing cult of nakedness in dress, the spread of mixed bathing and so on, show clearly that the doctrine of the immanent divinity of man and woman and consequent divine dignity of all actions and movements is gaining ground. We no longer accept the full significance of the doctrine of original sin or we would insist in our public life on respect for the divine life of others. We forget, in practice, the difficulty with which the supremacy of the divine life which comes to us from our Lord Crucified is maintained, “We should always bear about in our body the mortification of Jesus; that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies” (2 Cor. 4:10). In a striking article on Spain,[29] to which we shall refer again later on, the writer relates a fact of the truth of which he was assured. The day of the proclamation of the Spanish Masonic Republic all the women appeared absolutely naked, at a certain Casino in Valencia, to celebrate the triumph of revolutionary morality over the traditional Catholic morality. The writer then goes on to speak of the propaganda in favor of incontinence before marriage, etc., and concludes that these things give the impression of diabolical action, aiming at the wholesale corruption of the people.[30]

In this connection it is well to recall the weighty words of the present Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in his wonderful Encyclical Letter, Divini illius Magistri, “On the Christian Education of Youth”:

“Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who, with dangerous assurances and under an ugly term, propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youth against the danger of sensuality by means purely natural, such as foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all, indiscriminately, even in public; and worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasion, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were, to harden them against such dangers. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting the law of the mind (Romans 7:23), and also ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace. …False, also, and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of co-education. This, too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and with varying degrees of contact in the family and in society. Besides, there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be, or ought to be, promiscuity and much less, equality in training the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with regard to place and time, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly to the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

“Recalling the terrible words of the divine Master:

‘Woe unto the world because of scandals’ (Mt. 18:7), We most earnestly appeal to your solicitude and your watchfulness, Venerable Brethren, against these pernicious errors, which, to the immense harm of youth, are spreading far and wide among Christian peoples.”[31]

Addressing the Lenten Preachers of Rome, on February 11th, 1929, Pope Pius XI spoke of the shamelessness in dress of so many women and girls “who proclaim themselves Catholics and want to be called so,” as making our Savior blush, and then continued:

“Do you also, beloved ones, try with paternal kindness, patience and insistence, to persuade these poor creatures, who are slaves of a fashion unworthy of civilized countries, not to speak of Catholic countries. Many of these poor slaves feel their servitude and are ashamed of it, but they have not the strength to rebel against a tyranny which exploits their shame as the slave trader exploits the blood of his slaves in this new form of white slave traffic. But, on the other hand, brand with the fire of your apostolic eloquence, those many shameless women who not only do not feel the unbecomingness of their manner of acting, but as it were glory in it and parade it before the world.”[32]

Members of the female sex who feel themselves “out of it” unless they wear sleeveless frocks, for example, would do well to ponder over their duty to Christ the King.

[1]“The conceptions represented by Masonic symbols cannot be taught dogmatically. The concrete forms of language cannot express them…they are, as has been very accurately stated, mysteries hidden from profane curiosity, that is to say, truths which the mind cannot grasp, until it has been judiciously prepared therefor.” (Quoted from the Masonic Rituel Interpretatif pour le Grade d’ Apprenti, by C. Nicoullaud, L’Initiation Maçonnique, p. 189. Cf. Appendix VI)

[2]The title is La Franc-Maçonnerie en France depuis 1725.

[3]Quoted in L’Ordre Social Chretien (articles by R. P. Philippe, C.SS.R.), pp. 26-30, 57, 58. The following text may be useful to those who have not the opportunity of consulting the originals:

On the 23rd July, 1789, Corvin of Pontbriant spoke as follows at the lodge La Parfaite Union of Rennes in Brittany: “My dearly beloved Brothers, the triumph of liberty and patriotism is the triumph in all its completeness of the true Mason. From your temples and from those raised to true philosophy leaped forth the first sparks of that sacred fire which, spreading rapidly from East to West and from North to South, set on fire the hearts of all the citizens of France. The Magical Revolution which has been carried out in such a short time under our very eyes, should be celebrated by the faithful disciples of the true master with a holy enthusiasm which outsiders cannot taste or share. The Hymns which the true children of the Veuve (Widow) now sing on the sacred mountain, in the shade of the acacia, echo in our hearts. …How pleasant is the day, my dearly beloved Brothers, when a Citizen-King proclaims that he wishes to govern a free people and form of his splendid empire a vast lodge in which all good Frenchmen are about to become truly brothers.” (A. Cochin, Les Societés de Penseé et la Democratic, p. 231)

[4]Cf. M. J. Maritain’s essay on Rousseau in Three Reformers (Sheed and Ward).

[5]Of course Rousseau warns us that “there is often a considerable difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter is concerned with the common good; the former looks to private interests and is only a sum of particular wills.” But he adds immediately: “Take from these wills the elements which cancel one another, the sum of the difference is the general will.” Is it possible to define more mechanically the force on which depends the future of a people? Cf. l’Abbé Joumet, L’ Esprit du Protestantisme en Suisse, p. 184.

[6]Rousseau calls the great revealed truth of the Fall a “blasphemy.” Lettre d M. de Beaumont III, 67. (Ed. Hachette)

[7]“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying: ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how much misery and horror, would have been spared the human race if someone had pulled up the palisade and cried out to his fellow-men:

“Do not listen to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth is nobody’s.’” (Rousseau, Discours sur I’Origine, etc., IIe Partie)

[8]A people is said to be in a state of progress when they have become indifferent to all religion, but especially to the Catholic religion, and accept the light of reason alone, while striving with every nerve to advance materially in art, in industry, in commerce, so as to arrive at the greatest possible sum of natural pleasure. (Cf. Les Erreurs Modernes, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. p. 534)

[9]Cf. article by M. Jacques Maritain: “Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la Pensee Moderne,” in the Annates de Philosophic of Louvain (1924) as well as Réflexions sur l’Intelligence, by the same, pp. 296-298. M. Maritain points out very accurately that Protestantism and Jansenism prepared the way for Rousseau’s naturalism after a twofold fashion. First of all, by asserting that human nature is essentially bad and corrupt since Adam, they prepared the reaction of calumniated nature. Secondly, by teaching that the loss of the supernatural order meant the essential corruption of human nature, they made those gifts due to human nature. They thus, in spite of themselves, helped to inculcate the idea of a royal and quasi-angelic human nature to which all prerogatives are due. The absurd claims of Christian Science, of some psycho-analytic theories, etc., find here, at least, a partial explanation.

“Several writers have claimed for Rousseau the honor of having been the inventor of the system he exposes. That is not correct. Most modern theories, in particular that of Rousseau about society, are drawn from the traditions of secret societies, and, in spite of their boast of novelty, are only Gnostic and Manichean traditions, slightly modified in order to adapt them to the present-day mentality. The German pantheists, notably Hegel, have tried to give a scientific explanation of the doctrine of the Social Contract, by deducing it from their own pantheistic elaborations, with which it is in perfect harmony. Their systems do not differ from that of Rousseau except by the boldness of some expressions.” (La Franc-Maçonnerie, by Dom Benoit, vol. i. p. 102)

[10]M. Maritain seems to favor a different view. Cf. Trois Reformateurs, French ed., p. 279.

[11]In his works A. Cochin has made manifest, by an irrefutable documentation, the work of the lodges and the societés de pensée, as he calls them, in diffusing the revolutionary mentality, in drawing up the Cahiers presented to the King of France and in organizing the control of France by the Jacobins at Paris. He shows that the false Rousseauist-Masonic notion of liberty is the kernel of the revolutionary propaganda. This pseudo-idea acted on unformed minds and continues to act as did the words of Satan: “You shall be as gods” on the mind of Eve.

For an excellent summary of what has been accomplished by Augustin Cochin and l’Abbé Barruel in furnishing the proofs of the responsibility of Freemasonry for the horrible revolution of 1789, cf. two articles by P. Dudon in the review Études, October 5th and 20th, 1926.

[12]Quoted in Monarchie oder Republik, p. 34, by Dr. Aem. Schoepfer.

[13]Cf. L’Esprit du Protestantisme en Suisse, by M. l’Abbé Journet, pp. 172–184 passim.

[14]The distinction between supernatural and natural end will be made further on.

[15]“In commercial and industrial associations the end is prescribed as a simple determination of natural law. In civil society, on the contrary, the end obliges as a conclusion of natural law. (Cf. Ia, IIae, Q. 95, a. 2) In the former case, the free agreement of wills or the contract gives birth to these associations and becomes the source of rights and duties which are binding on their members. The contract presupposes nevertheless more fundamental rights which the contracting parties must respect when forming the society. Civil society has its origin in human nature. Men can give it the form which suits them, but they have not the right to abolish it, any more than they have the right to change human nature and the order established by God.” (M. l’Abbé Journet, in L’Esprit du Protestantisme en Suisse, in part quoting R. P. Montagne, O.P.)

[16]With regard to unjust laws, those that are contrary to the common good are violations of order which may be endued for the moment to avert a greater disaster. Those that are directly contrary to a divine good, as for example, a law enforcing idolatry, should never be obeyed. (Ia. IIae. Q. 96, a. 4)

[17]III. P. Q. 8, a. 6.

[18]M. l’Abbe Journet points out that Rousseau in Le Contrat Social and Emile sets forth the two opposed transformations of the Protestant doctrine on authority. He quotes numerous Swiss Protestant writers to show their acceptance of the doctrine that authority comes from below. For example, the Pastor A. Chavan holds that “in all domains the authority comes from below and resides in the people, while the Catholic Church, on her side, maintains that authority comes from above, that is to say, from God” (Le Protestantisme et son Histoire, p. 28),

[19]Augustin Cochin in his books, Les Sociétes de Pensée et la Democratic and La Revolution et la Libre-Pensée, lays bare the mechanism by which a few wire-pullers of the lodges can secure a vote of the majority.

[20]Marc Sangnier (leader of the Sillon), Discours de Rouen, 1907.

[21]Pope Leo XIII, Encyl. Diuturnum illud.

[22]C.T.S. pamphlet, by Rev. P. Boyle, CM.

[23]Cf. Denz., 1810.

[24]Thus the human mind is the unique source of truth to the exclusion of Revelation and Faith. “Human reason, leaving God out of account completely, is exclusive judge of truth and falsehood, of good and evil, is a law unto itself and is able by its own natural strength to provide for the good of individuals and of peoples.” (Prop. 3 of Syllabus of Pius IX, Denz., 1703)

[25]De Revelatione, vol. i. pp. 219-222, by Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. has been chiefly utilized for these remarks on rationalism and naturalism.

[26]Ia, Q. 63, A. 1, ad 4.

[27]Romantic history is largely a product of the subjectivism and individualism of Rousseau and the French Revolution. The historian, instead of endeavoring to show, by the aid of documents, the relation of the life story of a man to the whole order of the world, invests with attractive coloring every revolt against order which appeals to his taste. Sir Walter Scott’s novels served as models for many of these historians.

[28]Quoted in R.I.S.S., 1st March, 1932. Some few words, which would need a lengthy paraphrase in order to be properly expressed, have been omitted from the list of forms of social renovation favored by the enemies of Christ.

[29]Enqûete en Espagne, by Ch. H. Oppikofer, in Nova et Vetera, July and September, 1932.

[30]The present writer has touched on the Kabbalistico-Masonic origin of the modern propaganda in favor of nakedness in his book on The Kingship of Christ, pp. 151, 152.

[31]Translation. English C.T.S.

[32]Translated from the text published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Chapter V

The Declaration of the Rights of Man

In his Encyclical Letter, Tametsi, “On Christ our Redeemer,” November 1st, 1900, Pope Leo XIII said: “About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the Rights of God.” The true rights of man are founded upon man’s duty of tending to God in the way He has laid down. Thus the rights of man are based on the Rights of God. In other words, mankind must again learn to look at all that concerns the world from God’s side downwards not from man’s side upwards. This latter manner of looking at things, which has become so prevalent amongst Catholics since the sixteenth century, and which is so opposed to the Thomistic attitude, involves the danger of losing sight of the full meaning of life. Our range of vision is so restricted that from below we can see only a section at a time. In addition, the anti-Catholic deification of man has made a deeper impression on Catholics than many amongst them seem to realize. The simple, plain truth that God came down on earth to draw all mankind to Him, according to His divinely thought-out Plan, and that, therefore, it cannot be well with the world if it revolts against Him, seems to be something abstruse and profound, even to Catholics. Yet what can be more evident? But, then, has the attitude towards our Lord, embodied in the constitutions and laws of countries, so completely changed since the sixteenth century? Yes. Listen again to the voice of Pope Leo XIII:

“Sad it is to call to mind how the harmful and lamentable rage for innovation which rose to a climax in the sixteenth century, threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled licence which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundations of that new jurisprudence which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance in many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.” (Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, “On the Christian Constitution of States,” November 1st, 1885)

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole Mediator of redeemed humanity. It is only by submission to His rule that all men and all nations can receive back the divine life of grace by which human life can be lived in order.

“Never to have known Jesus Christ in any way is the greatest of misfortunes, but it involves no perversity or ingratitude. But after having known, to reject or forget Him, is such a horrible and mad crime as to be scarcely credible. For He is the origin and source of all good and just as mankind could not be freed from slavery but by the sacrifice of Christ, so neither can it be preserved but by His power.” (Encyclical Letter, Tametsi)

When a people who have grasped the truth of the Divine Plan turns against our Lord, by leaving Him out of account and by passing over in silence the rights of the head of the Mystical Body, it commits apostasy and gives birth to the most frightful disorder. Having rejected the dependence of mankind on the sacred humanity of Jesus, man must necessarily put himself and his own natural life in the place of God. Now it is precisely in this that rationalism consists and this is exactly what we find in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. We behold on the one hand social apostasy and the rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other the substitution of man for God or the worship of humanity.[1]

In 1791, when writing to the Archbishop of Avignon (France), about the deliberations of the Assembly of that district, Pius VI alluded to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, as follows: “It is enough to recall those seventeen articles, wherein the Rights of Man were taken exactly in the same sense in which they had been set forth and proclaimed in the decrees of the National Assembly of France, I mean, those Rights so opposed, to religion and to the good of society, and they were thus taken that they might form the ground-work and foundation of a new Constitution.” (Bullarium Romanum, Letter of Pius VI to the Archbishop of Avignon, April, 1791. Italics mine)

The Declaration of the Rights of Man

The preamble of this infamous document runs as follows:

“The representatives of the French people met together in a national assembly, considering that the ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and corruptions of governments, have decided to set forth in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, so that this Declaration, being ever before the eyes of all the members of society, may unceasingly remind them of their rights and duties. …Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the supreme being, the following rights of the man and the citizen:

“Art. 1. Men are born free and equal in rights and continue so. Social distinctions can be founded only on public utility. …

“Art. 3. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No society, no individual can exercise an authority which does not emanate from it expressly.

“Art. 4. Liberty is the power of doing what we will, so long as it does not injure another: the only limits of each man’s natural rights are such as secure the same rights to others: these limits are determinable only by law. …

“Art. 6. The law is the expression of the general will. …

“Art. 10. No man can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.

“Art. 11. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; therefore every citizen is allowed freedom of speech, of writing and of printing, but will have to answer for any abuse of that liberty in cases determined by law.”

Only a few of the articles of the Declaration of Rights are quoted; they will, however, be quite sufficient to illustrate the Rousseauist-Masonic doctrine of the immanent divinity of man and of human liberty as intangible, which underlies the whole document. Of course, there is a certain vagueness about some of the formulae. This is a well-known Masonic trick to deceive the unwary. For example, the uninitiated interpret the first article as follows: men are free, that is, they can do what the law does not forbid; they may even profess the religion which pleases them; men are equal in rights, that is, all are equal before the law, all are eligible for public offices, all are subject to public duties, to taxes, etc. But the real meaning, the one behind which is the whole driving force of Masonry and of secret societies generally, is that each man in the state of nature, to which we must return to be happy, is free and independent like God. All are equally God. Man is born free, that is, unrestrained license is an absolute exigency of human nature: any kind of submission to any man is contrary to nature. As all are equally God, nature demands that the strictest equality should be realized amongst men, and that therefore everyone should have a vote. Accordingly, in a State correctly formed, an absolute social equality should counterbalance natural inequalities. Needless to say, the logical consequence is Communism. For if all men are equal, why are some rich and others poor? The right of private property is the greatest cause of social inequality, so it must be abolished. Other distinctions must disappear as well. If all men are equal, the classification of superiors and inferiors, parents and children, husband and wife, must be eliminated.

The State may, of course, allow the family and private property to exist, so long as it judges them necessary for the common good of society, but as soon as it finds that the public welfare demands such modifications, the State can “emancipate woman” and bring together all private fortunes into one common capital.[2] It is strange that professing Catholics do not see the absurdity of proclaiming, in their oratorical efforts, that all men are equal. They ought to realize whither they are being led. It may be said, in opposition to what is here advanced, that Article 17 of the Declaration safeguards private property, of which “no one can be deprived except public necessity evidently demands it, and then only on condition of just indemnity being given to the owner.” This is only another example of the vague and contradictory character of these formulae. The Communists, who push the doctrine of the immanent divinity of man to its logical conclusions, interpret Article 17 in either of two ways. Some say that this article is opposed to Article 1 and demand the suppression of private property in the name of equality. Others admit this Article, but say that, of course, public necessity demands the immediate suppression of private property. The proprietors will be compensated, they affirm, by a share in the common revenue. In both cases the result is the same.[3] The following extract from the writings of Babeuf, one of the most infamous of the French revolutionaries, will show how logically Communism follows from the “freedom and equality” of 1789. It is a portion of his address to the French people, found amongst his papers and printed by the French Directory.

“People of France, for fifteen centuries you were in slavery and therefore unhappy. For the last six years you breathe a little in the expectation of independence, happiness and equality. …We are all equal. This principle cannot be disputed. …We are determined henceforth to live and die as we are born. We want real equality or death. …The French Revolution is only the forerunner of a greater revolution, a far more important one, and which shall be the last. …Here are our aims, dictated by nature itself and based on justice. The agrarian law for the division of landed property was the demand of some soldiers. … We are aiming at something more sublime and more in accordance with justice. The common good or the community of goods! No private property in land; the earth is nobody’s property. We are determined to have the enjoyment of the goods of the earth in common; the products of the land are everybody’s. …Let all those horrible distinctions of rich and poor, masters and servants, authorities and subjects, disappear forever!”[4]

Men are born free and equal, but they make themselves citizens. By nature they are untrammelled by any social bond, but by an arbitrary contract they create a society.

Human liberty, before the social pact, was absolutely mistress and completely autonomous in each man; now, under the name of State, it has, of course, the same independence and autonomy, only more enlightened. The general will is the expression of the will of the immanent God. The rule of the majority is the rule of the pantheistic multitude-God. The State is God. The will of the State is not limited by natural or supernatural law. The people can do no wrong.[5]

On the one hand, then, the State is sovereign. Accordingly, whatever the State decrees or does is holy and sacred. The way is thus prepared for the most awful despotism. As, according to Article 3 of the Declaration: “No society, no individual, can exercise an authority which does not emanate from the State,” the authority of the Pope and the Bishops is illegitimate and, if not suppressed, must be put in its place. This idea of the unlimited sovereignty of the State is the source of the phraseology, so frequently heard on the lips of revolutionaries, which “guarantees religious liberty to every citizen.” The State is above the Mystical Body of Christ and puts it alongside of, and on the same level with, man-made religions. On the other hand, the People is the sovereign, even with regard to the State. The People, therefore, can overthrow the government when they will. Of course, what happens is that, when the moral sense of the people and their respect for authority have been weakened by the decay of religion and by every form of subversive propaganda, an organized minority, prepared by the agents of revolution, will seize power and impose an iron yoke upon the people, in the name of the People.

The small organized minority always claims to speak in the name of the whole people. Augustin Cochin’s patient research work into the secret preparations of the French Revolution has shown how ludicrous are the statements we read in histories of the French Revolution.

“The People rose and stormed the Bastille. The King wanted to go to Saint-Cloud the 18th April, 1791; the People prevented him from doing so. All the historians speak of the People…but always of the actions, the heroes and the victims of the People. They all make room for this enormous anonymous person. …In the July sunshine, under the chestnut trees of the Tuileries, are to be seen the bilious face of Desmoulins—and the People. Again, on the 6th October, at the bar of the Assembly, are visible the dirty coat collar, the evil look and naked sabre of Maillard—and the People. On the 4th September, 1792, we behold at the wicket of the Abbaye the puce-coloured suit of Billaud, the dandy, who steps over the pools of blood so as not to dirty his stockings, as well as the enormous frame of Danton—and the People. We know all about Danton, Desmoulins, Maillard, Billaud—and these details are lacking in interest, for they are very ordinary men—but of the other person, the People, we know nothing. And yet it is the People who did everything, captured the Bastille, carried off the King and massacred the prisoners. …The People is always there without any explanation or examination.”[6]

Here it is well to remark that those who think that cinema and newspaper propaganda directed against the religion and morality of a people just “happens by chance” and is not controlled by a central body or bodies, would do well to meditate upon the following passage from Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, “On Freemasonry”:

“Moreover, since human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue, for a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in these things which we have learned by divine Revelation, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather our natural virtue and excellence and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence of the passions and reduce them to order. Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage plays are noted for licentiousness; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called realism; that the contrivances for a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what we have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For since no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose souls are weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that artfully and of set purpose the multitude should be satiated with a boundless licence of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.”

The divinity in the man of 1789 cannot but attack the divine life that comes from our Lord Jesus Christ. This it will strive to do, in a Rousseauist-Masonic Republic by legal methods, in a Communist Republic by violence. The result aimed at in both cases is the same, for the immanent deity cannot brook any other gods in his presence. This is the ultimate reason of all the attacks on the religious orders of the Catholic Church, in the different countries of the world since 1789. Satan directs his dupes against them, because they make profession of living perfectly that divine life which he rejected, and because of their importance as an integral part of the Mystical Body. For the significance of religious life consists in the subordination of natural life and the cutting down of its demands, so that the inner divine supernatural life, restored to us by our crucified Lord, may be lived in its fullness. Is it any wonder, then, when man claims to be God by his own mere natural life, that he should respond to what he looks upon as the challenge of the true God, by brutal violence?

This is the secret of the virulence of the attacks of French Masons, in the early years of the twentieth century, on religious vows, as lowering human personality, degrading human dignity and so on.

“We are here,” cried Viviani, in the debate on the law against the religious orders, 15th January, 1901, “to preserve the heritage of the Revolution. We come here, bearing in our hands the traditions of those centuries of struggle and combat, during which, little by little, the lay spirit freed itself from the fetters of religion and of the religious organizations of society. …We are enemies not merely of the religious orders and congregations but of the Catholic Church. …The truth is that the combat lies between…the society founded on the will of man and the society founded on the will of God.”[7]

In the name of the divinity immanent in man, Communists everywhere logically attack the religious orders, whose members we may call Communists for Christ. In the name of and for the sake of the divine life of Jesus Christ, a religious abandons his normal right to private property. He thus fulfills a function demanded by the life of the Mystical Body, for he reacts against excessive attachment to this world’s goods. The new Spanish Republic, in its foundation and Constitution, gives us an up-to-date application of the Masonic principles of 1789. At its foundation, the unmolested Communist attacks on defenseless religious and on Catholic churches point to unity of direction or collusion between Masons and Communists behind the scenes, at least up to a certain point. The collusion is only up to a certain point, for Masons do not realize that Communism or Bolshevism is the logical conclusion from the principles of 1789, and they try to check the deductions that go against themselves. They forget that Jewish financial forces have both sets of dupes in their grasp, but of that more anon. Article I of the Constitution of the Spanish Republic of the 9th December, 1931, states that all the powers of the Republic emanate from the people. Article II affirms that all Spaniards are equal before the law, while Article III carries on the work of turning mankind against the order by proclaiming that “The Spanish State has no official Religion.” Having thus refused to acknowledge the Mystical Body of Christ and accept its ordered relation thereto, as Spain had done for centuries, it proceeds in Article XXVI to attack that Mystical Body by declaring that “the religious orders, which by their statutes impose, besides the three canonical vows, another special vow of obedience to an authority distinct from the legitimate authority of the State, shall be dissolved. Their property shall be taken over by the nation and devoted to works of charity and education. The other religious orders shall be subject to a special law voted by the Cortes and drawn up according to the following principles: (1) Those religious orders which, by their activity, constitute a danger for the security of the State shall be dissolved. (2) Those that are allowed to remain shall be entered on a special register to be kept by the Ministry of Justice. … (4) They shall be forbidden to carry on industry or commerce or to engage in teaching. …(6) Their property may also be taken over by the Nation.”[8]

Is it not clear from all this that the immanent natural divinity of 1789 has got control in Spain? What a farce it is to declare all Spaniards equal before the law, and then proceed to penalize those who give themselves up to the pursuit of the perfection of the life of Jesus! But surely at least a remnant of humor should have prevented them from adding on, in Article XXVII, that “liberty of conscience and the right to profess and profess freely any and every religion are guaranteed on Spanish territory.” The sense of humor was, of course, not lacking, but the desire to insult the one divinely-instituted society, by putting all religions on the same level with it, is always too great for that quality amongst Rousseau’s disciples.

From an important article in Nova et Vetera, July-September, 1932, by Ch. H. Oppikofer, we learn a number of interesting details about the Spanish Revolution. Many of the clergy and the Catholic laity voted for the Republic, because the anti-Catholicism of the Republican leaders was carefully concealed until after the elections. The Republic is the result of the collaboration of a Catholic majority with leaders, most of whom were Masons. The supreme Masonic Council had announced already in 1927 that Masons had attained to the positions which made the Revolution possible. The President of the Republic, Alcala Zamora, of Jewish descent on both his father’s and his mother’s side, is admirably eloquent where it is a question of granting privileges to the Jews, but singularly vague when the rights of the Catholic Church are at stake. A great number of authors, generally well informed, affirm that he is a Mason. What is certain is that by all that he does and especially by all that he allows to be done, he acts as an enemy of the Catholic Church. All the Catholic cemeteries, for example, have been secularized, but the Jews have been accorded the privilege of having cemeteries exclusively Jewish.

In Ireland, where attempts are being made to veil the Communism of certain republicans, who profess to be Catholics, careful note should be made of the way Spanish Catholics were deceived. One point to be borne in mind is the way those Communists loudly protest that they will guarantee freedom of conscience and of religious worship in the Irish Republic while speaking of the Catholic Church as a sect. Pope Leo XIII speaks of that attitude as follows:

“To hold therefore that there is no difference between forms of religion that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.” (Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei)

When we come to treat of the historical and philosophical origin of Judaeo-Masonic Communism, we shall see that it supposes that everything in the universe, all reality, has sprung from matter. Logically, it must deny the existence of such a thing as supernatural life and exalt the superiority of manual labor and such arts as engineering over philosophical and literary work. Accordingly, as there is no such thing as supernatural life, all forms of supernatural activity such as offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, mental prayer and adoration of our divine Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament, hearing of confessions, must be suppressed. “Religion is the opium of the people,” declared Lenin. In this respect the Soviet Union is more logical than the Spanish “Democratic Republic of the workers of every kind” (Art. 1 of Spanish Republican Constitution), for, though the religious orders in Spain are forbidden to teach and “teaching must be laical” (that is, purely natural and anti-supernatural), yet “the Churches have the right, subject to inspection and control by the State, of teaching their respective doctrines, in their own establishments.”[9] The Spanish State is, as yet, a sort of compromise between Masonic capitalism and Communism. It has not yet drawn out all the conclusions latent in the principles of 1789. Freemasonry and Rousseau proclaim the freedom and equality of men. By this they mean that man in revolt against God has, in virtue of his nature, a right to the privileges he forfeited by that revolt in the Garden of Eden. In the state of nature lauded by Masonry and Rousseau, man is not only good as he was before the Fall, but he is God. But in the state of nature, the Communists (and Rousseau) subsume, all things were in common, so the return to the state of nature by revolution will not be complete unless private property be done away with.

The errors of both Masonry and Communism have been frequently refuted by the Sovereign Pontiffs. In the Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus, “On Freemasonry,” Pope Leo XIII speaks of the application of the Masonic doctrine of freedom and equality of men to politics:

“Then comes their doctrine of politics,” writes the great Pontiff, “in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same rights, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed; and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority, when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines.”

The refutation of these errors is found a little further on in this same document:

“As men are by the will of God born for civil society and union, and as the power to rule is so necessary a bond of society, that, if it be taken away, society must at once be broken up, it follows that from Him Who is the author of society has come also the authority to rule; so that whosoever rules he is the minister of God. Wherefore, as the end and nature of human society so requires, it is right to obey the just commands of lawful authority, as it is right to obey God Who ruleth all things; and it is most untrue that people have it in their power to cast aside their obedience whensoever they please. In like manner, no one doubts that all men are equal, one to another, so far as regards their common origin and nature, or the last end which each one has to attain, or the rights and duties which are thence derived. But as the abilities of all are not equal, as one differs from another in the powers of mind or body, and as there are very many dissimilarities of manner, disposition, and character, it is most repugnant to reason to endeavor to confine all within the same measure, and to extend complete equality to the institutions of civil life. Just as a perfect condition of the body results from the conjunction and composition of its various members, which, though differing in form and purpose, make, by their union and the allotment of each one to its proper place, a combination beautiful to behold, firm in strength, and necessary for use; so, in the commonwealth, there is an almost infinite dissimilarity of men, as parts of the whole. If they are to be all equal, and each is to follow his own will, the State will appear most deformed; but if, with a distinction of degrees of dignity, or pursuits and employments, all aptly conspire for the common good, they will present a natural image of a well-constituted State.”

The Communist doctrines which follow from the Declaration of the Rights of Man are refuted by the same Pontiff in his luminous Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum, “On the Condition of the Working Classes.” A few passages, which are not as familiar to Catholics as they should be, will be quoted:

“With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. …That right of property which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity as head of a family; nay, such a person must possess this right so much the more clearly in proportion as his position multiplies his duties. …That ideal equality about which they (the Socialists) entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. …Let it, then, be taken for granted, in the first place, that the condition of things human must be endured, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. … As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly unoccupied; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life. (Gen. 36:17) In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity, let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently—who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose and constant enjoyment—they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as we have said, for the solace to its troubles. The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to accept the idea that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the workingmen are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict.

So irrational and so false is this view, that the direct contrary is the truth. …Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man; and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. ‘It is lawful,’ says St. Thomas of Aquin, ‘for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.’ (IIa, IIae, Q. 66, art. 2) But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy doctor: ‘Man should not consider his outward possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle saith, commend the rich of this world … to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’ (IIa, IIae, Q. 66, art. 2) True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required to keep up becomingly his condition in life; ‘for no one ought to live other than becomingly.’ (IIa, IIae, Q. 32, art. 6) But when what necessity demands has been supplied and one’s standing fairly taken thought of, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over, Of that which remaineth, give alms (Lk. 11:41) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity—a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ, the true God, Who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving: It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35); and Who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself—as long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me (Mt. 25:40).”

In regard to the language to be met with in Communist papers to the effect that a poorer man employed by a wealthier man is necessarily exploited by the latter, it must always be borne in mind that Communists deny that there is a moral right to private property. Anyone who claims to own a farm is necessarily an exploiter. A man working for the State is not exploited, for he is working for himself, to use Rousseau’s language, and all are equally God. Of course, we know that in reality he would be working for and exploited by the wire-pullers of the Communist Party. Private property thus stands in the way of man’s attaining the Communist Garden of Eden here below.

In opposition to Communist attacks on the “iniquitous wage-system,” the two principles laid down by Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, must be recalled:

“The immense number of propertyless wage-earners, on the one hand, and the superabundant riches of the fortunate few on the other, is an unanswerable argument that the earthly goods so abundantly produced in this age of industrialism are far from rightly distributed and equitably shared among the various classes of men. …Those who hold that the wage-contract is essentially unjust…are certainly in error.”[10]

Finally, it may be well to say a word about the Communist use of the words of St. Paul: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat.” (2 Thess. 3:10) After having in the Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, spoken of the unjust claims of capital and the unjust claims of labor, Pope Pius XI goes on to say:

“To prevent erroneous doctrines of this kind from blocking the path of justice and peace, the advocates of these opinions should have hearkened to the wise words of Our Predecessor: ‘The Earth, even though apportioned amongst private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all.’ (Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum) This teaching We ourselves have reaffirmed above, when We wrote that the division of goods which is effected by private ownership, is ordained by nature itself, and has for its purpose that created things may minister to man’s needs in an orderly and stable fashion. These principles must be constantly borne in mind, if we would not wander from the path of truth. …By these principles of social justice, one class is forbidden to exclude the other from a share in the profits. This sacred law is violated by an irresponsible wealthy class, who in the excess of their good fortune deem it a just state of things that they should receive everything and the laborer nothing; it is violated also by a propertyless wage-earning class who demand for themselves all the fruits of production, as being the work of their hands. Such men, vehemently incensed against the violation of justice by capitalists, go too far in vindicating the one right of which they are conscious; they attack and seek to abolish all forms of ownership and all profits not obtained by labor, whatever be their nature or significance in human society, for the sole reason that they are not acquired by toil. In this connection, it must be noted that the appeal made by some to the words of the Apostle: ‘If any man will not work, neither let him eat’ (2Thes. 3:10), is as inept as it is unfounded. The Apostle is here passing judgment on those who refuse to work though they could and ought to do so; he admonishes us to use diligently our time and our powers of body and mind, and not to become burdensome to others as long as we are able to provide for ourselves. In no sense does he teach that labor is the sole title which gives a right to a living or to profits (2Thess. 3: 8–10).[11]

[1]The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791 and of 1793 made explicit certain points implicitly contained in that of 1789.

[2]Cf. Encyclical Letter, Graves de Communi, of Pope Leo XIII.

[3]Cf. Les Erreurs Modernes, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. p. 491.

[4]In 1918 the lodge, Les Amia de la Patrie, of Montevideo in South America, points out that Communism is the logical result of the Republican ideal. (La Trahison Spirituelle de la Franc-Maçonnerie, by J. Marquess Riviére, p. 102. Cf. pp. 98–102 in the same work for other documents of a like nature)

[5]“Thus one sees that there is not, nor can there be any kind of fundamental law binding on the body of the people, not even the Social Contract.” (Rousseau, Le Contrat Social, liv. i. ch. vii. p. 45)

[6]Sociétés de Pensée et Démocratie, by A. Cochin, p. 49. I have italicized “People” and written it with a capital letter to bring out the force of the original.

[7]Quoted by Robert Vallery Radot in L’Ordre Social Chrétien, Juin Juillet, 1932, p. 52.

Cf. Art. 3 of the Declaration of 1789: “The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No society, no individual, can exercise an authority which does not emanate from it expressly.”

Leo XIII points out the Masonic origin of this doctrine in the following extract from his Encyclical Humanum Genus, on Freemasonry: “The source of all civic rights and duties is either in the people or in the public authority constituted according to the new principles.”

[8]Some Catholic writer should devote time to a thesis on how much of the property of the Church and of the religious orders confiscated in the name of the people, in England in the sixteenth century, in France at the Revolution, and so on, really reached the people. We know that the Church property in land of England went to the Cecils and the Cromwells, etc. (cf. H. Belloc, The Servile State, Cranmer, etc), thus preparing the way for Protestant capitalism. I have seen an allusion to the fact that some of the rich ornaments used for divine worship in the cathedrals and abbeys of England were bought cheaply by Dutch merchants, but I strongly suspect that those merchants were not Dutch. The property of the religious congregations of France at the beginning of this century, enriched a few schemers; the people got little or nothing and the religious had to begin their work of charity all over again. Cf. Appendix IV, Spain.

[9]Notice the expression “the Churches.” They are all on the same level. The State-God tolerates for the moment the worship of the true God, but puts it on the same level as other forms.

[10]The Catholic ideal, in opposition to the Communist ideal, will be set forth at some length in Chapter IX.

[11]The devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes. The Communists who quote the text: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat,” never allude to the text: “The Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.” (1Cor. 9:14)

According to Catholic doctrine, be it noted also, the obligation of work is not a consequence of original sin. It existed before the Fall. “And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.” (Gen. 2:15). What is true is that suffering and death would not have existed without the Fall. Cf. text of Pope Leo XIII on p. 65.

Chapter VI

The Agents of Revolution

The pantheistic divinization of human nature, which is, as we have seen, the soul of the Revolution, and which found expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, has been steadily propagated since 1789 by the same agencies that gave it birth, Freemasonry and its vassal societies.

“There are several organized bodies,” writes Pope Leo XIII, “which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are, nevertheless, so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to form in fact one thing with the sect of the Masons, which is a kind of center whence they all issue and whither they all return.”[1]

The object towards which all these societies are being moved is the complete overthrow of the order of the world founded upon the supernatural life of the Mystical Body of our Lord, Redeemer of our fallen race. That order comprises:

1.  The Catholic Church, supernatural and supranational, but yet perfectly respectful of national characteristics and capable of harmoniously developing them, on condition that the nations acknowledge their indirect subordination thereto;

2.  The different States and nations, embodiments of the concept of native land, acknowledging the indirect power of the Catholic Church;

3.  The family founded upon the unity and indissolubility of the marriage contract, which was raised to the dignity of a sacrament by our Lord Jesus Christ;[2]

4.  The personality of every human being, to be developed by Catholic education in imitation of our Lord Crucified, with the right to the acquisition of private property.

In working for the overthrow of this order, Freemasonry and other secret societies are the instruments of forces visible and invisible. Let us say a few words about them in turn.

Satan—In order to have a view of the world struggle as a whole, we must not forget that behind all the visible forces, ranged against the Mystical Body of our Lord, are to be found Satan and his satellites. Satan knows well that the result of his efforts will be an earthly replica of the state of the demons and the damned souls in hell. Each demon and each lost soul declares itself independent of all, even of God. Each one is his own end, his own god, his all. If the damned drew up a constitution, the first article would be: “All the damned are free and independent and refuse all subjection to the divine order of the world.” Satan, therefore, is behind the whole modern movement of secret societies and revolutionary societies, ever spurring men on to revolt, with the whispered temptation: “You shall be like gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5) St. Thomas strikingly portrays the significance of the suggestion.

“Accordingly,” the Angelic Doctor writes, “while both (namely, the devil and the first man) coveted God’s likeness inordinately, neither of them sinned by coveting a likeness or similitude in nature; but the first man sinned chiefly by coveting resemblance with God, as regards knowledge of good and evil, according to the serpent’s instigation, namely, that, by his own natural power, he might decide what was good and what was evil for him to do; or again, that he should of himself foreknow what good and what evil would befall him. Secondarily, he sinned by coveting God’s likeness as regards his own power of operation, namely, that by his own natural power he might so act as to obtain happiness. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad Lit. xi. 30), that the woman’s mind was filled with love of her own power. On the other hand, the devil sinned by coveting God’s likeness, as regards power. Wherefore Augustine says (De Vera Religione 13), that he wished to enjoy his own power rather than God’s. Nevertheless, both desired in some way to be equal to God, in so far as each wished to rely on himself in contempt of the order of the divine rule.” (IIa, IIae, Q. 163, a. 2)

Instead of consenting to have his activities of intellect and will divinized along the lines laid down by God, man hearkened to Satan’s plea for false liberty and aimed at being the equal of God in his own way. The result was, of course, frightful disorder in his own being and, at the same time, subjection to the headship of Satan. St. Thomas contrasts the headship of Satan over evil men with our Lord’s headship of the Mystical Body, in III P. Q. 8, a. 7. To give a fuller idea of the real struggle that is being waged in the universe, primarily between invisible forces and, secondarily, in the visible world, a few extracts from this article will be quoted:

“The head not only acts interiorly on the members of the body, but also guides them exteriorly, directing their acts to an end. Accordingly, a person can be said to be the head of a body of men, either in both these ways, and thus Christ is head of the Church, as has been said in the preceding article, or only with regard to exterior guidance and, in this manner, any prelate or prince is head of the group subject to him. It is in this latter fashion that the devil is head of all evil men.

…Now to the ruler it belongs to lead those he governs to his own end. The end at which the devil aims is the revolt of the rational creature from God. Hence, from the beginning, he tried to get man to break away from obedience to the divine precept. This revolt from God is conceived as an end inasmuch as it is desired under pretext of liberty. …Inasmuch, therefore, as men are drawn to this end by sinning, they come under the government and direction of the evil one and he is accordingly styled their head.”

The Jews—The organization of the Jewish people down to the coming of our Lord comprised ordinances and regulations established by God for the twofold purpose of securing becoming worship for Himself from the world He had created, while at the same time prefiguring the coming of Him Who was to restore the supernatural life of men and establish the one acceptable sacrifice. Besides these ceremonial regulations, there was the social organization of the Jewish people as a people or state, under judges, kings, etc. God intervened at various times, by His prophets, to recall the people to true worship, to outline more distinctly the figure of Jesus, and to set up or change the ruler of the State. The ordinances given to the Jews were not obligatory on other peoples for whom the old dispensation concerning sacrifices continued. The Jewish nation was not a society into which it was obligatory for all nations to enter. They were a nation set apart to maintain acceptable worship of God and to be the fount of the individuality of the Messias to come.

“We must distinguish carefully between the personality of our divine Lord and His individuality. Individuality, by which a man is marked off from other men, from other beings of the human species, comes from the body, from matter, which demands a certain portion of space distinct from that occupied by others. By our individuality we are essentially dependent on a certain environment, a certain climate, a certain descent. Our Lord, true Man as well as true God, was a Jew of the House of David, born of the Virgin Mary, the Lily of Israel. Personality, on the other hand, springs from the soul, and is, in the last resort, the subsistence of the soul. The personality of our Lord, true God as well as true man, is not merely that of a created soul: it is the personality of the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. In Him there is only one ‘Ego,’ the divine ‘Ego.’ Hence the majestic proclamation: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”[3]

We might represent the organization of the Jewish people down to Calvary as follows:

The personality of our divine Lord was, therefore, from above. He was true God as well as true Man, being the supernatural life in person. He called upon the Jews to become the heralds of that divine life to the world and, as an organized people, they refused. From the condemnation of Jesus and His definite rejection, the Jews ceased to be the chosen people; from Calvary onwards they must be spoken of as the Jewish nation.[4] Of course they remain His own race, from whom His individuality sprang and who wound His Sacred Heart in a special manner by their obstinate refusal to accept supernatural life.

The tendency of the Jewish nation and its attitude towards the others since Calvary may be depicted in this wise:

The Jews refused the role that was offered to them of being the harbingers of supernatural life and peace to the world. They refused as a nation to aid in building up the Mystical Body of Christ into which all nations were invited to enter. St. Paul frequently speaks of this oneness and brotherhood of all nations in the Mystical Body of Christ, while in no way denying the persistence of natural distinctions and the need of hierarchical order.[5] The growth of indifference in religion and the weakness of the reasoning faculty, thanks to the diffusion of sensist and subjectivist philosophies since the time of Descartes, hinder men from seeing the full consequences of Jewish opposition to the Divine Plan for the social order of the world through the Mystical Body of Christ. As there is only one world and one Divine Plan for that world, the Messias to whom the Jews look forward must be purely natural. The unity and peace of the coming Messianic era, must, accordingly, be brought about by the subjection of all nations to the Jewish nation. Thus they dream of establishing, on the purely natural level, the union which God is striving to bring about on the supernatural level of the Mystical Body, respectful of national characteristics and of the diversity of national vocations in Christ. The Jews are, therefore, opposed to the whole order of the world, built on the divinity of Jesus, and their influence in every sphere, in Freemasonry and in Communist movements, in finance, in the press and in the film-world, will favor the naturalistic aims of Masonry and of revolutionary societies, while at the same time impelling them in the direction of a world-state in which the Jewish race will be supreme. Accordingly, when we read, in the sermon broadcast by Chief Rabbi Julian Weill (Radio-Paris, March 27th, 1931): “The Jewish Passover … is turned to the future and affirms with a definite and joyous conviction the liberation to come and the Messianic Passover of the peoples of the world,” we know what that means for those who believe in our Lord’s divinity. We know, too, that this Jewish view of the world may be expressed in another fashion, for it presents another aspect to the Gentile peoples who are being “liberated.” The Pilori, a newspaper published at Geneva, puts that other point of view as follows:

“Of course, all cannot grasp that it is international high finance, dominated by the Jews and supported by Freemasonry, that started the world war, brought about the revolutions in Russia and Spain, and now throws the economic life of peoples into confusion, lengthy reflection is required in order to see that a hundred Jewish bankers…are engaged in liquidating the remaining stocks of the ancient Christian civilization of Europe.”[6]

All that has just been said is meant to emphasize the objective order of the world. It is only through supernatural life which the Jewish nation persistently rejects that human life, social and personal, can be lived in order. Accordingly, Jewish efforts to eradicate belief in the divinity of Jesus and in supernatural life, thus preparing the way for the purely natural happiness of their Messianic era, are only succeeding in dragging the world down to a state inferior to that in which Jesus found it. The whole struggle in the world ultimately centers round the acceptance or rejection of His divinity. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” (Jn. 12:32)

In the opposition to Jesus of both Pharisees and Sadducees, we see natural life preferred to the supernatural life offered by our Lord. They both placed what is purely natural above the supernatural. There is, however, a distinction to be made in the attitude of the two sects. The Pharisees were naturalists in whom the intellectual element dominated. “And He said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God that you may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:9) The Sadducees, on the other hand, were naturalists in whom sense-life played the preponderating part. They were materialists denying the resurrection and the existence of spiritual beings. “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.” (Acts 23:8); Both were afraid of losing their positions of influence if they acknowledged our Lord.

If we now consider the opposition of the Jewish nation to the Mystical Body of Christ since Calvary, we shall find it codified and crystallized, so to say, in the Talmud and the Kabbala. The Talmud contains, chiefly but not exclusively, the deviations from the order of the world in regard to the organization of society. The terrible pride of the Jewish race, due to their having lowered and corrupted the idea of the mission to which God had called them, is very visible therein.[7] While the Talmud represents the codification of Jewish opposition to the Kingship of Christ, the Kabbala reflects rather the opposition to the priesthood of Christ. In the latter we see, chiefly but not exclusively, the divagations from order which have arisen amongst the Jews, with regard to mystical union with God and spiritual life, owing to their persistent want of submission to God and to Jesus Christ Whom He has sent.[8] The Zohar, the chief portion of the Kabbala, inculcates pantheism.[9] The refusal to accept the divine life offered by our Lord has resulted in the deification of the natural powers of man. The Kabbala furnishes the key to the pantheism of Freemasonry, Theosophy, and the other occult societies which promise to reveal the secrets of a higher life to their adepts. The Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, states frankly that rationalism and pantheism are the two sides of the Jewish mind, though he, of course, does not see the force of his admission for the question of the whole order of the world, of which this work treats. We have seen that rationalism, the refusal of man’s mind to bow down before God’s, is the primary source of disorder and that man’s refusal to observe order leads to the deification of his own powers. Lazare’s statement is, therefore, singularly interesting as a confirmation of our thesis. He writes:

“It is certain that there were Jews at the cradle of Freemasonry—Kabbalistic Jews, as is proved by some of the rites that have been preserved. During the years which preceded the French Revolution, they very probably entered in greater numbers still into the councils of this society and founded secret societies themselves. There were Jews around Weishaupt, and Martinez de Pasqualis, a Jew of Portuguese origin, organized numerous groups of Illuminati in France, recruiting many adepts to whom he taught the dogma of reintegration. The lodges founded by Martinez were mystical, whilst the other orders of Freemasonry were rather rationalist. This permits one to say that the secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind: practical rationalism and pantheism. This pantheism is the metaphysical reflection of the belief in the one God and sometimes winds up in Kabbalistic theurgy (or magic).”[10]

The results of Jewish opposition to the Divine Plan are certainly becoming increasingly visible amongst the Jews themselves. The persistence in the rejection of the one Mediator, Christ Jesus, in spite of abundant light and grace, is having its inevitable results. As Jewish power in the material order grows, they are ceasing to believe in the God of Israel and are falling a prey to Marxian pantheism. The official head of the Anti-God Association of the U.S.S.R. is the Jew, Yaroslawsky, whose real name is Goublemann.[11] Another quotation from Lazare’s work is very illuminating with regard to the Jewish sympathies of revolutionary Jews:

“It will be objected,” he writes, “that, when he becomes a revolutionary, the Jew almost invariably becomes an atheist and thus ceases to be a Jew. …In general the Jews, even the revolutionaries, have kept the Jewish spirit, and if they have given up religion and faith, they have nevertheless been formed, thanks to their ancestry and their education, by the influence of Jewish nationalism. This is true in a very special fashion of the Jewish revolutionaries who lived in the first half of this century. Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx are two typical examples. Heine is held to be a German in France. In Germany he is accused of being French. He was above all a Jew. …The same holds true for Marx.”[12]

Subordinate Agencies of Revolution—We can now classify the subordinate agencies working against the Mystical Body of Christ as follows:

A. Revolutionary Societies, which are strictly Masonic and secret. These have the twofold hierarchy of Degrees and of government: Illuminati, Carbonari, Freemasons, etc.

B. Revolutionary Societies, which have only the hierarchy of government and which are directed towards a special object. The amount of secrecy to be met with in these societies may vary. Examples of such societies are: The Internationale of the Jews, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, commonly known as the I.R.B.

C. Non-secret Societies, which are imbued with the Masonic naturalistic spirit. An example is the Rotary International.

Let us now take each of these subordinate agencies in turn.

Masonic Societies Strictly So-Called

With regard to Masonic societies strictly so-called, the end they have in view, namely, the setting up of man in the place of God, is unknown to many of their members. But the pantheistic deification of man is present in the symbolism of the lodges and in the rituals and discourses, so that a mentality which we may call Masonic is gradually created amongst the habitués. That mentality will always be found hostile, in a greater or less degree, according to the progress of the initiation, to the four points in which we summed up the order of the world. One has only to take as test the question of divorce and of the stability of family life, or the question of full Christian education, to see how Masons are affected by their formation.[13] The formation is objectively always the same. An example from the tragic life-story of the Emperor Charles I of Austria, dethroned at the end of the Great War, may here be of interest. A representative of the Grand Orient called on the Monarch in Switzerland and promised him that the crown of Hungary would be restored to him and later that of Austria, if he would insert two points in the Constitution, the neutral or non-religious school and civil-marriage.[14] The Emperor, of course, refused and suffered as a true Catholic for his fidelity to the Divine Plan. As we have said, however, many Masons do not understand the full significance of the society to which they belong, but that does not excuse them from responsibility.

Masonry is ever seeking to arrive at power in States, so that it may then, by the way of legality, transform society in accordance with its principles, that is, set up man in the place of God.

“The Church, then Rulers of States, and finally Capital,” says Findel, one of the oracles of German Masonry,[15] “have reigned in turn since the Middle Ages. All three were considered, during a certain time, to be of divine Right and consequently as necessary and unassailable. The abuse of power awoke doubts about their legitimacy. The Church was the first to succumb under the blows of the Reform movement and then of rationalism. According as the power of the Papacy grew less, that of secular rulers increased and the age of absolute Monarchs arrived. But the French Revolution overthrew the proud structures of the Monarchy, and, at the same time, the ancient feudal society. Then in the State arose a new despot, Capital. But, as the legitimacy of the Church and of Monarchy were formerly condemned in their origins and in their development, the same phenomenon is now taking place with regard to Capital, which is destined soon to disappear.”

Therefore, no more priests, no more kings, no more holders of private property. Masonry is tending towards the same consummation as the Communist Internationale.

This was pointed out long ago by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus (1884), “On Freemasonry”:

“It is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. …It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place. That these doctrines are equally acceptable to the Freemasons, and that they would wish to constitute States according to this example and model, is too well known to require proof. For some time past they have openly endeavored to bring this about with all their strength and resources; and in this they prepare the way for not a few bolder men who are hurrying on to even worse things, in their endeavor to obtain equality and community of goods by the destruction of every distinction of rank and property. …Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of Communists and Socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs and holds in common with them their chief opinions, and if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. Would that all men would judge of the tree by its fruits, and would acknowledge the seed and origin of the evils which press upon us and of the dangers that are impending. We have to deal with a deceitful and crafty enemy who, gratifying the ears of people and princes, has ensnared them by smooth speeches and by adulation, ingratiating themselves with rulers under a pretense of friendship, the Freemasons have endeavored to make them their allies and powerful helpers for the destruction of the Christian name; and that they might more strongly urge them on, they have, with determined calumny, accused the Church of invidiously contending with rulers in matters that affect their authority and sovereign power…in like manner they have by flattery deluded the people. Proclaiming, with a loud voice, liberty and public prosperity and saying that it was owing to the Church and to sovereigns that the multitude were not drawn out of their unjust servitude and poverty, they have imposed upon the people; and exciting them by a thirst for novelty, they have urged them on to assail both the Church and the civil power. Nevertheless, the expectation of the benefits which were hoped for was greater than the reality; indeed, the common people, more oppressed than they were before, are deprived in their misery of that solace which, if things had been arranged in a Christian manner, they would have had with ease and in abundance.”

It is undoubtedly true that many members of strictly Masonic revolutionary societies are ignorant of the full meaning of Masonry. The point must, however, be stressed that these societies tend of themselves in the direction of the pantheistic deification of man, no matter how slight an acquaintance an individual member may have with the fact.[16]

Revolutionary Societies

If we now pass on to the second class of revolutionary societies, we find that the bulk of their members are not dupes, at least to the same degree. They commonly ignore, however, the place which their particular organization occupies in the overthrow of the whole order of the world. They usually think that they are working for a certain end and for that alone. As soon as that end is attained, they expect to enter into the secure enjoyment of the Garden of Eden on earth. In the case of the Internationale, many of the members do not see all that is involved. Only the leaders, who are in touch with the general plan of disruption, through their membership of the strictly Masonic societies, have a fairly accurate idea of the place occupied by their organization in the general scheme.

Two points must here be touched on. First of all, is the Communist Internationale a secret society? Secondly, is the I.R.B. connected with other higher societies, so that the object avowed to members, namely, the overthrow of the English hold on Ireland, is really co-ordinated with the world scheme for the pantheistic deification of man?

The Communist Internationale

With regard to the first point, Mrs. Webster, after having set forth the history of the society, gives the answer in succinct fashion in World Revolution (p. 181):

“The Internationale, though itself an open and avowed association, thus became, through the absorption of these existing secret societies, a huge semi-secret society—that is to say, it formed the outer shell that covered a ramification of conspiracies…of which the secrets were known only to its middle-class directors. The anti-religious policy adopted by the Internationale was the work of these secret influences.”

For a full answer, however, it would be necessary to study the careers of the Jewish founders of this society, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A few words must suffice here, but they will be enough to show that many of the Gentile instruments, who figure as leaders, are really the dupes of Jewish capitalism. Let us first examine Marx’s formation and his outlook on life.

Karl Marx was the grandson of a Jewish rabbin of Cologne.[17] As a young man, he entered the society, founded by Ganz, Zunz, and Moses Moser, and known as the Jewish Union for Civilization and Science. The directing idea of this union was that the Jewish nation, and not a member of that nation, was to be the Messias who should conquer the world and subject all nations to itself. Here is how one of Karl Marx’s neo-Messianic correspondents formulated this thesis:

“The Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messias. Their rule over the universe shall be obtained by welding together the other races, thanks to the suppression of frontiers and monarchies, which form the bulwark of national particularities. Thus shall be established a Universal Republic. …In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel, now scattered over the whole surface of the globe, all belonging to the same race and molded by the same traditional formation, without however forming a separate nationality, shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition. This will be particularly easy, if they succeed in imposing on the masses of the working-classes the guidance of some of their number. The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands, thanks to the victory of the proletariat. Private property can then be suppressed by the Jewish rulers who will be everywhere in charge of public affairs. Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be realized that when the Messianic epoch will have arrived the Jews shall have control of the wealth of the nations.”[18]

Karl Marx combined these theories with the pantheistic philosophy of Hegel. For Hegel, there is no objective personal God, as we Catholics and all sane thinkers know and believe. God is only human thought evolving or becoming. Thought is absolute sovereign of the world, in the threefold state: passive (when it is interior); active where it finds a point of contact in the external world); free (when it triumphs in social organization, law, philosophy, art and religion). All morality flows from the progressive and irresistible evolution of thought. God evolves or becomes, thus indefinitely progressing with the universe and with humanity. This awful pantheism swept away any traces of Jewish Deism which Marx still retained and left him only his pride in his race and the certitude that the sovereign thought, which was destined to rule the world and enable it to progress indefinitely, was, indeed, that of his race. Marx, in contradiction with Hegel, but in accord with the Materialism of Feuerbach, held that spirit and thought have evolved out of matter, which is, needless to say, one of the many glaring absurdities in his system. The degree of mastery by thought over the forces of nature, that is, the stage of development of the production of wealth, determines the perfection of a civilization. The proletariat class, which produces the material goods on which human society lives, is a Messianic class destined by its rule to bring about a new era for the world. This Messianic vocation of the proletariat, according to Marx, found an answering echo in the Messianic expectations of the Russian people.[19] But both the proletariat in general and the Russian people in particular are only means for the realization of the Messianic dreams of Marx’s own people. Masters of production through finance, they will shape the destinies of the world-God or collectivity-God.

Marxism, then, is derived from Feuerbach, from the point of view of its materialism and its criticism of idealism or subjectivism, particularly of the subjectivism of Hegel, but from the point of view of its method, it is derived from Hegelian dialectics. It may thus be rightly called Dialectic-Materialism.[20] Thought is an attribute of material being, of the human body and the human head; accordingly, the whole question turns round the matter of which the human head is composed. All causal action in society is to be reduced to material causality, the action of the economic conditions on man’s brain development.

All this Marx and Engels borrow from Feuerbach. Thus the Ego which evolves is not the idea of Hegelian dialectics, which becomes conscious, but the body, my body, of which thought is an attribute. The Hegelian logical process of the creative idea becomes the evolution of matter, of which thought is a consequence and a property. Thus the distinction of spirit and matter is denied. Evolving matter, not evolving gradually, but by leaps and bounds, alone exists and is accordingly identified with God.[21] This is the final result of the revolt against the objective order of the world, ushered in by Luther, on the supernatural level, by his rejection of God’s plan for incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, continued by Descartes, with the intellect’s refusal to be measured by things, and consummated by Kant, according to whom our ideas are the measure of things, like the divine Ideas.

After having studied at the University of Berlin, Karl Marx became editor of a paper at Cologne. The revolutionary tendencies of the paper brought about its suppression, and Marx passed on to Paris, where he collaborated with Arnold Rüge, the leader of Young Germany, a section of the revolutionary society, Young Europe, founded by Mazzini. Little by little, Marx, with his Jewish friends, Friedrich Engels and Ferdinand Lassalle,[22] ousted Rüge from the direction of his paper, Les Annales Franco-allemandes, and thus got control of Rüge’s organization, giving it a completely Communist turn. Thus the sovereign thought of Hegelian philosophy passed from the passive to the active state, by the aid of a fulcrum in the outer world. Marx could not, however, immediately proceed to action by the poor duped masses of workmen under his influence, for the police were watching. He took refuge in England, but came back to the continent to take part in the Revolution of Bavaria in 1846 and then in that of Paris in 1848. After 1848 Marx set to work to pass from secret action to open action, by the foundation of the First Communist Internationale. Thanks to this organization, great bodies of workmen could be moved to action by leaders whose secret connections were carefully hidden. When the First Internationale was launched by Marx at St. Martin’s Hall, in London, in 1864, it was the result, not of a spontaneous movement of enthusiasm, as the official histories tell us, but of years of preparation. In the preparation and propagation of the Socialist movement, we find the following Jews engaged: Lassalle, then Singer, leader of German socialism; Neumayer, Victor Adler and Aaron Libermann, directors of Austrian socialism; Fribourg, Leon Frankel and Haltmayer, acting as chiefs in France; Kahn and Leon, in the United States, and so on.[23]

It would be too long to recount the whole story of the growth of the Communist movement in Europe. The plan of the revolution is always substantially the same. The reins of government of some great nation must be captured and then that nation must be made a sort of battering-ram, in order to impose the revolutionary ideal on the neighboring peoples. The France of 1789 and its people were used as revolutionary ammunition, to be hurled at Europe. If Marx had succeeded through his agents in the Paris Commune of 1871, France would have had the fate which was reserved to the Russia of 1917. In Russia the vast sums invested in Communism by Jewish capitalists bore fruit and the sovereign thought of the Hegelian philosopher of Berlin has passed from the passive state to the free state, with the results we know.

The ideas of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the native land, the family, and the personality of the child, are all being swept away in the name of “progress,” while the financiers laugh at their poor dupes. The Russian revolutionary, Bakunin, who knew Marx well and who used to describe him and his following as the “German-Jew Company,” complained in his day of the contempt of Marx and Engels for the poor. Marx spoke of the poor and destitute workers as the “ragged proletariat” (Lumpenproletariat).

Russian Communism is, then, the triumph of the Marxian deification of man. But is Jewish thought the directing and controlling sovereign thought, which is striving to mold the destinies of Russia, and, through Russia, of the world? We must here quote a certain number of documents to show how the Marxian neo-Messianic program was inaugurated in Russia and continues to be applied therein. The first document to be quoted is an extract from the Patriot of December 5th, 1929, and deals with the publication of certain facts and their suppression later on by the British Foreign Office.[24] The document is as follows:

“It may be well, at the cost of repetition, to recall the first beginnings of the Bolshevik Power and the full information as to its nature and objects which was placed at the disposal of Mr. Lloyd George’s Coalition government. M. Oudendyke was the very able representative of the Netherlands government at St. Petersburg, when the Bolsheviks began their reign of terror. He spoke Russian well and knew the principal agents in this so-called revolution, which he had watched in course of preparation. Equipped with knowledge probably superior to that of any other neutral observer, he felt it to be his duty to convey this information to the Christian Powers, whose existence he believed to be threatened. On September 6th, 1918, therefore, he sent a Report—one of the most weighty reports ever drafted—with an important communication from the wretched British subjects imprisoned in the Fortress of Peter and Paul, to Sir M. Finlay, our Minister at Christiania. The latter forwarded this report to Mr. Balfour, who received it on 18th September and published it as a White Paper in April, 1919, after six months delay. This revealing paper was entitled: ‘Russia, No. 1 (1919), A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia.’ The entire Report is illuminating as to Bolshevik proceedings and aims, but the kernel of the whole matter is contained in the following extract: ‘The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact. …I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger can be averted would be collective action on the part of all the Powers. I would beg that this Report be telegraphed as soon as possible in cipher in full to the British Foreign Office in view of its importance.’

“Never has anyone shown more prophetic insight than M. Oudendyke. His forecast has been absolutely fulfilled in every respect, and today the Bolsheviks—now about to be received in London—constitute the greatest danger to the peace and stability of the world, even threatening civilization. Whether his vitally important Report reached other Chancelleries we do not know, but our Foreign Office at least was forewarned, and it did not—at first—withhold the warning from the public. The sequel is, however, extraordinary. The original White Paper quickly became unprocurable, and another, an ‘abridged edition’ with the same title, promptly appeared at 6d. instead of 9d., from which all that we have quoted, and more of almost equal importance, had been carefully eliminated. It would be particularly interesting, but evidently impossible, to ascertain how this suppression of pregnant facts was arranged at the Foreign Office.”

The chief document, treating of the financing of the Russian Revolution, is the one drawn up by the American Secret Service and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his government. It was published by the Documentation Catholique of Paris on 6th March, 1920, and preceded by the following remarks: “The authenticity of this document is guaranteed to us. With regard to the exactness of the information which it contains, the American Secret Service takes responsibility.”

This document was quoted in 1920 in a supplement to the paper, La Vieille France, which added: “All the governments of the Entente were aware of this memorandum, drawn up from the data of the American Secret Service and sent at the time to the French High Commissioner and his colleagues.” The memorandum is also to be found in Mgr. Jouin’s work, Le Peril Judéo-Maçonnique, Part III, pp. 249–251, with the added remark that the Jews have placed obstacles in the way of its publication, so that the great majority of people are unaware of its existence.[25] The document is divided into eight sections. Sections I to IV as well as VI to VIII will be here reproduced for the benefit of readers.

“Section I—In February, 1916, it was first discovered that a revolution was being fomented in Russia. It was found out that the following persons as well as the banking-house mentioned were engaged in this work of destruction:

“Jacob Schiff (Jew); Guggenheim (Jew); Max Breitung (Jew); Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Jewish Banking-house), of which the following are the directors: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, S. H. Hanauer (all Jews).

“There can be no doubt that the Russian revolution, which broke out a year after the information given above had been received, was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influences.

“As a matter of fact, in April, 1917, Jacob Schiff made a public declaration that it was thanks to his financial help that the Russian revolution had succeeded.

“Section II—In the spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff began to supply funds to Trotsky (Jew) to bring about the social revolution in Russia. The New York daily, Forward, which is a Judaeo-Bolshevik organ, gave a subscription for the same purpose.

“Through Stockholm, the Jew, Max Warburg, was likewise furnishing funds to Trotsky and Co. They were also in receipt of funds from the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, which is an important Jewish enterprise, as well as from another Jew, Olaf Aschberg, of the ‘Nya Banken’ of Stockholm, and from Givotovsky, a Jew, whose daughter is married to Trotsky. Thus the communications were set up between the Jewish multimillionaires and the Jewish proletarians.

“Section III—In October, 1917, the social revolution took place in Russia, thanks to which certain Soviet organizations took over the direction of the Russian people. In these Soviets the following individuals made themselves remarkable:

Assumed Name  Real Name      Nationality

Lenin      Oulianow (Ulianof)    Russian[26]

Trotsky (Trotzky)   Bronstein      Jewish

Steckloff    Nakhames      Jewish

Martoff    Zederbaum      Jewish

Zinovieff    Apfelbaum      Jewish

Kameneff    Rosenfeld      Jewish

Dan      Gourevitch (Yurewitsch)  Jewish

Ganetzky    Furstenberg      Jewish

Parvus      Helpfand      Jewish

Uritzky      Padomilsky      Jewish

Larin      Lurge        Jewish

Bohrin      Nathansohn      Jewish

Martinoff    Zibar        Jewish

Bogdanoff    Zilberstein      Jewish

Garin      Garfeld        Jewish

Suchanoff    Gimel        Jewish

Kamnelff    Goldmann      Jewish

Sagersky    Krochmann      Jewish

Riazanoff    Goldenbach      Jewish

Solutzeff    Bleichman      Jewish

Piatnitzky    Ziwin        Jewish

Axelrod    Orthodox      Jewish

Glasunoff    Schultze      Jewish

Zuriesain    Weinstein      Jewish

Lapinsky    Loewensohn      Jewish

“Section IV—At the same time the Jew, Paul Warburg, who had been in relation with[27] the Federal Reserve Board, was remarked to be in active contact with certain Bolshevik notabilities in the United States. This circumstance, together with other points about which information had been obtained, was the cause of his not being re-elected to the above-mentioned Committee.

“Section VI—On the other hand, Judas Magnes, subsidized by Jacob Schiff, is in close contact with the world-wide Zionist organization, Poale Zion, of which he is in fact the director. The final end of this organization is to establish the international supremacy of the Jewish Labor Movement. Here again we see the connection between the Jewish multi-millionaires and the Jewish proletarians.

“Section VII—Scarcely had the social revolution broken out in Germany when the Jewess, Rosa Luxembourg, automatically assumed the political direction of it. One of the chief leaders of the International Bolshevik Movement was the Jew, Haase. At that time the social revolution in Germany developed along the same lines as the social revolution in Russia.

“Section VIII—If we bear in mind the fact that the Jewish Banking-House of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is in touch with the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, German-Jewish House, and with the Brothers Lazare, Jewish House in Paris, and also with the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris; if, in addition, we remark that all the above-mentioned Jewish Houses are in close correspondence with the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of London, New York and Frankfort-on-the-Main, as well as with the ‘Nya Banken,’ Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm, it will be manifest that the Bolshevik movement is in a certain measure the expression of a general Jewish movement and that certain Jewish Banking-Houses are interested in the organization of this movement.”

A few additional remarks about some of the personages above-mentioned may be of interest. According to the Echo de Paris of 28th April, 1920, Max Warburg is the head of the Bank, Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg. He is the chief shareholder in the Hamburg-America line and the Deutscher Lloyd. His two brothers, Paul and Felix, one of whom is married to the sister-in-law, the other to the daughter of Jacob Schiff (born at Frankfort) are with Schiff at the head of the Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. From The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy (p. 27), issued by the Committee of Public Information, Washington D.C., October, 1918, we learn that Max Warburg was advancing money to the Bolsheviks. The following telegram appears therein:

Stockholm, 21st Sept., 1917

“Mr. Raphael Scholak, Haparand.

“Dear Comrade. In conformity with a telegram from the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, Max Warburg & Co.’s Bank informs you that an account is open for Comrade Trotzky’s enterprise.

“J. Furstenberg.”[28]

From information furnished by French sources, Mr. Jacob Schiff appears to have given 12,000,000 dollars for the Russian revolution of 1917.

If we now turn to Mrs. Webster’s The Surrender of an Empire (pp. 74–79), we get some additional information about the rise of Bolshevism. It seems that the real name of the individual mentioned above in Section III, under the designation of Parvus, is Israel Lazarevitch Helphand and that he is a Jew of the province of Minsk, in White Russia. In the second half of the eighties he took part in revolutionary work in Odessa. In 1886 he went abroad and finally, after many wanderings, went to Copenhagen, where he amassed a large fortune as the chief agent for the supply of German coal to Denmark, working through the Danish Social Democratic Party. Dr. Ziv, in his Life of Trotsky, relates that when he was in America in 1916 he said to Trotsky: “How is Parvus?” to which Trotsky replied laconically: “Completing his twelfth million.” It is this Jewish multi-millionaire who, after Karl Marx, was the great inspirer of Lenin. It was through the intervention of Parvus that Lenin was sent back to Russia by the Germans. Lenin was dispatched from Switzerland to Russia in a locked train and was provided with no less than £2,500,000 by the German Imperial Bank. It was not, therefore, as a needy revolutionary, setting forth on a precarious mission, his soul lit with pure zeal for the cause of the workers, that Lenin journeyed into Russia, but as a well-tried agent, versed in all the tricks of intrigue and the art of propaganda and backed by the powerful organization of international finance. The people accompanying him were predominantly aliens: out of a list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, 3 Georgian, 5 or 6 Armenian, 1 German and 128 Jewish.[29]

The English accuse the Germans of having sent Lenin to Russia. We have seen the influences at the back of that action. On the other hand, the Germans accuse the English of having sent Trotsky back, for Trotsky was set free from arrest by order of the British government (he had been arrested at Halifax), when he was needed by Jacob Schiff and the others, as we saw above. The truth is that Jewish financial influences were working behind the governments of both peoples for their own ends. “Russia” is not a triumph for the workers; but seems to be a gigantic investment of Jewish capitalists for their own ends. Amid the welter of details about “Russia,” the great fact must not be lost sight of, that the men who seized power and retain it, as the taskmasters of the rationed and ticketed people of Russia, were put there by a certain number of Jewish capitalists. The Russian middle-class and the nobles, the natural leaders of the people, were exterminated, while the manual workers, who were too uneducated to see through the plans of the investors, were extolled to the skies.

The last testimony we shall cite in this connection is that of a distinguished scholar who carefully studied Communism in action and then was not afraid to tell the truth. It is taken from the Impressions of Soviet Russia, by Charles Sarolea (pp. 159, 160):

“That the Jews have played a leading part in the Bolshevist government is a proposition which no one will deny who has taken the trouble to study Russian affairs at first hand. I am quite ready to admit that the Jewish leaders are only a proportionately infinitesimal fraction, even as the British rulers in India are an infinitesimal fraction. But it is none the less true, that those few Jewish leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the fifteen hundred Anglo-Indian Civil Servants are the masters of India. For any traveler in Russia to deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of his own senses. When you find that out of a large number of important Foreign Office officials whom you have met all but two are Jews, you are entitled to say that the Jews are running the Russian Foreign Office. …When you find that in the Congress of the Third International all the debates from beginning to end are directed by Zinoviev and Radek, you are entitled to say that those two Jewish Bolshevists are running the Third International. When you find that the same Zinoviev is also the omnipotent Dictator of Petrograd, that he was also the chairman of the Congress of Baku…when you further find that the above-mentioned Radek is the ubiquitous agitator and the chief of the Bolshevist Propaganda department, when you discover at the same time that the leaders in every other Bolshevist revolution in Budapest, in Bavaria, are invariably Jews, you are driven to the conclusion that the Jews have been the protagonists of the Russian drama.”

Earlier in the same work we read: “Most of the places (at the universities) are reserved for boys and girls of approved atheist and Bolshevist principles. It is thus that in Moscow University eighty per cent, of the medical students are Communist Jews.”[30]

The tree planted by the Jewish Union for Civilization and Science has borne fruit.

How does the Communist Internationale seek to subject other countries? In Spain, the republican elements, Masonic and Bolshevist, together with a certain number of honest, decent Catholics, who did not grasp the full meaning of the struggle in the world against the Mystical Body of which they are members, combined to overthrow the Monarchy. Masonry, as we have seen, is aiming at subjecting all countries to the World-Republic just as Communism is. The same forces practically control both sections of the revolutionary army, Masons and Communists. The Communists in the cities then profited by the arrival of the Masons to power to begin the attack on the supernatural life of the country, by burning churches and convents. The following is the program traced out by Moscow for their agents and dupes in that country. It is taken from La Liberty of Fribourg (Switzerland) of 20th June, 1931, which quotes from the official organ of the Russian Kommintern: “The flames ascending from the burning churches and monasteries of Spain have shown the true character of the Spanish revolution. Its prospects are excellent, but that it may develop and win through, the movement must be directed by a thorough-going Communist Party. This party is actually being formed.”

Some of the points to be aimed at by the agents of Moscow in Spain are then given as follows:

“(1)…disbanding of the secret police. Arrest of the functionaries of that force…(2)…arming of the workers and working-farmers (peasants)…

(7) Confiscation of the lands belonging to the Church and the landed proprietors. …These lands to be handed over to the agricultural workers and working-farmers.”

The document further insists upon: “the importance of the agrarian revolution, for which it is indispensable to set up working-farmers’ committees for the requisition of the property of the landed proprietors, of the banks and of the Church, and for the handing over of these lands to working-farmers’ and agricultural workers’ committees; to refuse to pay debts; to refuse to pay State contributions until the lands are divided up. …For the realization of all these revolutionary projects, the formation of committees (Soviets) of workers, working farmers and soldiers is necessary. That must be our chief aim.”[31]

Now the language and expressions used in this document, emanating from the Russian Komintern, are largely those with which the revolutionary papers have made their readers familiar here in Ireland. In the leading article of its issue of 23rd April, 1932, under the caption “On with the Old Cause,” An Phoblacht (The Republic), one of those revolutionary papers, states that it is working for “A Republic for the thirty-two counties of Ireland, free from any dependence on or connection with the British Empire. A Republic in which there shall be civil and religious liberty, and equal rights and opportunities for all citizens. A Republic based on the public ownership of the land, and instruments of production, distribution, and exchange.”[32]

What these declarations forebode for the farmers of the future Irish Republic may be learned from an article on “Motives of Production” in An Phoblacht of 21st May, 1932. In the course of this article which the paper informs us is one of a series setting forth its editorial policy, we read: “The sin and crime growing out of the private monopoly of land…must never be tolerated in a free Ireland. …Thus in land, those who now occupy holdings in trust for the nation shall be confirmed in their occupation and but one condition sought of them—the use of such holdings to the maximum productivity point, and the making available for the nation of the surplus beyond the needs of the occupiers families.”

The Communist movement in Ireland is advanced another stage by the declaration contained in the Manifesto to the Irish People issued by the General Convention of the I.R.A. on January 8th, 1933. That document states unequivocally that: “We believe the reorganization of Irish life demands the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange in a state based on the needs of the mass of the people.”

As the convention was “composed of elected delegates of all the volunteer units in the whole of Ireland,” it represents the official policy of the I.R.A. (Irish Republican Army).[33]

Under cover of propaganda for the severance of Ireland from the British Empire, a Communist Republic, from which private property in land and in the means of production would be excluded, is thus being prepared. Anyone who would claim to own a mill or a portion of land would have to be suppressed as a British Imperialist. The Communist Manifesto, of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, enlightens us with regard to the sincerity of the national aims of every Communist movement. We read therein:

“The struggle of the proletariat against the middle-class is not in reality, but will be in appearance, a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must first overcome its own middle-class. …Communists have been accused of wanting to do away with the native land and nationality. Workers have no country. What they have not cannot be taken from them. Of course, the proletariat must first of all attain political power, become the ruling class in the nation and constitute itself into the nation. In that sense, it is still attached to nationality. But it is not attached to nationality as the middle-class is attached to it. …The supremacy of the proletariat will efface them (all national distinctions).”[34]

Thus, if ever a Communist Republic is set up in Ireland we shall be trampled under foot in another world-empire ruled from Moscow or—Jerusalem.[35]

It should be carefully borne in mind that Muscovite propaganda, while ever seeking to disturb and overthrow the existing social order, so as to draw dupes under the sway of the new empire with its center in Moscow, will try to profit by the existence of a national struggle in any country. Many thousands of Irish Catholics are being pulled blindly along the road to the Communist empire by propaganda about the British Empire. And, needless to say, every movement emanating from or controlled by Russia is steeped in hatred of the Catholic Church. Amongst the resolutions at the Congress of the Red International of Labor Unions (the Communist trade union organization with headquarters in Moscow) in 1928 was one to the effect that “all attempts in Ireland to form Catholic or other religious unions of workers were to be fought against.” Fas est et ab hoste doceri. If the enemies of our Lord display such zeal in excluding the influence of the Mystical Body from economic affairs, every nerve should be strained by us to introduce that influence, by and through Catholic Action.

Of course, Muscovite propaganda, when attacking God and the hierarchical order of human society, will not inform the people who are urged on to the class-war and revolution that a new and savage feudalism or rather slavery will be the result. The members of the Bolshevik party are the new supreme class, and against the party and its members no rights exist, for there is no such thing as a right in the correct sense.

“Behind all the façades which portray identification of the Bolshevik State with the working masses hitherto enslaved by former governments, behind the Soviets and the federal organization, is hidden but one reality, which can be described in a sentence: the workers’ State is the unlimited rule of the Bolshevik party. State and party so far coincide that all the political institutions are but machinery of which the party makes use to direct society and determine its development. …Any development, therefore, which might weaken the efficiency of the machine which for the Bolsheviks constitutes the State, or restrict its operations, is made impossible from the outset. …The State knows only one right, the right of the Bolshevik party, which controls its machinery, to maintain its power. …’

Any limits actually observed in the application of force against non-Bolsheviks are a matter of pure expediency; and what expediency demands is decided by the Bolshevik party. …The might of the ruling party is unlimited, is, under the Bolshevik system, identical with right. The absence in the Bolshevik State of freedom of opinion and public meeting is no temporary restriction necessitated by a temporary crisis. …Moreover, there can be no doubt that the Bolshevik party is above the State … in principle there can be no rights against the party.”[36]

But, then, the poor deluded masses in countries outside Russia are informed that, when the bourgeois governments have been everywhere overthrown, there will be a reign of peace and concord, a Garden of Eden, in fact, here below, but an Eden in which there will be no shadow cast by the irascible God of the bourgeois, intent on punishment. Satan can certainly get his dupes to swallow a considerable amount. One question, however, always returns: “What about the Jewish international financiers who financed Lenin and Trotsky in 1917? ”[37] That their control over the figure-heads of the Communist party, like Stalin, exists is certain. In her book, Trois ans chez les Tsars rouges (p. 96), Madame Elise Despreaux speaks of the appearance of anti-Semitism in the Communist party and continues:

“It is its preponderance amongst the Communists which has brought about the success of Stalin, in 1926 and 1927. Nevertheless, if the Georgian dictator maintains his position, it is at the price of a manifest capitulation in face of the higher power of international finance. The part played by this power in the destinies of the U.S.S.R. is undeniable. Of course, the exact nature of the part is difficult to prove, on account of its secret character. The influence of this power has, however, been exercised recently in favor of the Jews, without whom the Russians would find it difficult to manage commercially and economically.”[38] It is well to link with this what the writer stated on p. 75 of the same work, about the Hotel Lux as the headquarters of the World-Revolution:

“The government of the U.S.S.R. is only a subordinate department of the Executive Committee of the Third Internationale. The Communist International utilizes the results of the Russian revolution for aims which have nothing to do with the interests of the Russian people. Each country is represented at Moscow by permanent delegations and all these are at the service of the Muscovite General Staff. It is significant that these staffs are paid, in spite of the material misery in which Communism has plunged the Russian people generally outside the Communist aristocracy.”

It is to the influence of international finance that the relative stability of the Russian revolution is due. Just as greater skill in carrying out successful revolutions has been acquired by experience since 1789, so also progress has been made in the art of maintaining the figure-heads in power, in spite of the discontent of the majority of the people and the unceasing struggle against the laws of nature.[39]

Is such a thing as a Christian Workers Republic possible?[40] In order to answer, we must first turn to those who alone upon this earth have the right to speak for Christ the King, namely, the Pope and the Bishops. Now, they have told us that one cannot be a Catholic and a Communist. Anyone who contradicts them does not speak in the name of Christ, but in that of Satan, though he may protest that he goes regularly to Mass. Secondly, applying the principles which, we have seen, lie at the base of the Communist movement, we can readily see that the name of Christian Workers’ Republic attempts to link together two ideas that are contradictory. The Communism of Karl Marx is based on the pantheistic evolution of all natural powers under the supreme guidance of man’s thoughts. Above man, for Marx, there is nothing. True Christianity means the sharing by man of God’s own inner life of knowledge and love communicated to man through the sacred humanity of Jesus, true God and true Man. Above man, we, Catholics, believe there is God, and between God and man there is the one Mediator, Christ Jesus. Again, Marxian Communism is a neo-Messianic movement, based on Jewish rejection of the Messias Who has come, and the workers are merely the tools by which Israel hopes to exercise world domination. Accordingly, a true Christian cannot be at home in that camp. Besides, Christianity is a religion of love, mercy and compassion, while “the Marxian type of atheism is not moved at all by pity; on the contrary, it is pitiless. In order to procure power and riches for the social collectivity it proclaims ruthless cruelty towards men. There is no humanitarian element left in it. It comes from Feuerbach, but it goes one further than him, and rejects his religion of humanity. It was not in the name of man that Marx raised the standard of revolt, but in the name of the mightiness of a new deity, the social Collectivity.”[41] The complete triumph of the so-called Christian Workers’ Republic can have no other result than the extermination of all those who believe in the divinity of Christ the King. “No man can serve two masters” (Mt. 6:24). Of course anyone, bishop, priest, or layman, who stands up for the integral rights of Christ the King will be got rid of, ostensibly as an enemy of the republic and a counter-revolutionary. And be it noted that ideas work themselves out in act, or rather men are spurred on to draw the final conclusions from the ideas they hold. Marxian republicans cannot stop halfway and compromise with Catholicism. They must seek to exterminate its adherents and educate a newer generation which will worship only matter, machinery and—Satan.

A few extracts from Waldemar Gurian’s able work from which we have already quoted will confirm these statements:

“The tyranny to which the Bolshevik doctrine of salvation leads is not simply a political and economic oppression. It is far more comprehensive and therefore more intolerable than a tyranny of the normal sort, because it is based on a fundamental philosophy, a particular conception of human nature and the objects of society. It desires to impose on men particular doctrines, and is not content with their obedience to governmental and economic regulations. The entire man must be embraced and occupied by Bolshevism. In future, there must be no contrast between the individual and society, for the life of the individual must belong completely to society, which is regarded as the goal of history. That alone which promotes this development has any longer the right to exist. This produces an oppression of unparalleled magnitude. All intellectual life that does not serve Bolshevik aims must be annihilated; intellectual freedom and independence must yield to the dogmas of the Bolshevik creed; religion must disappear, and scientific research be exclusively directed to results which are in harmony with the doctrines of dialectical materialism and above all serve the Bolshevik rule. …In the bourgeois society[42] the Church can still carry on her work, although in practice increasingly losing her influence over public life and, at best, recognized as a moral force within the community. Nevertheless, she can be active and preach her doctrines. This is true even of a State with such extremely anti-clerical laws as France. In the bourgeois society and its State the Church can make her voice heard. Even the anti-clerical State does not venture to promote atheism by the use of violence and the annexation of publicity in the hope of thus killing religion. However anti-clerical its professions it dare not carry them out consistently. …This tolerance and regard for tradition are alien to Bolshevism. It possesses a very definite philosophy of history, to whose fulfillment its State and economic experiments must minister. This philosophy finds the goal of humanity in the self-sufficient society. Bolshevism is thus essentially and whole-heartedly intolerant of Christianity and the Church. It cannot, therefore, allow the Church to work freely within its society and State; in this respect its attitude is far more logical than that of the bourgeois State.”[43]

It was possible to give only a few details about the secret origins of Socialism and Communism. What has been said, however, will be sufficient to show at least portion of what was in Pope Leo XIII’s mind, when in the Encyclical, Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 23th, 1878), “On Socialism, Communism and Nihilism,” he wrote as follows:

“You understand, as a matter of course, Venerable Brothers, that We are alluding to that sect of men who, under the motley and all but barbarous terms and titles of Socialists, Communists and Nihilists, are spread abroad throughout the world and, bound intimately together in baneful alliance, no longer look for strong support in secret meetings held in darksome places, but standing forth openly and boldly in the light of day, strive to carry out the purpose long resolved upon of uprooting the foundations of civilized society at large.”

Pope Leo XIII regretted more than once that rulers did not heed the warnings of the Holy See about what was being prepared for the world, in secret societies. Pope Pius XI, now that the struggle between Christ the King and Satanic Communism is universal, urges the alleviation of conditions where possible and the removal of social evils, but he reiterates the entreaties to those who have the power to use it for Christ:

“We cannot contemplate without sorrow the heedlessness of those who seem to make light of these imminent dangers, and with stolid indifference allow the propagation far and wide of those doctrines which seek by violence and bloodshed the destruction of all society. Even more severely must be condemned the foolhardiness of those who neglect to remove or modify such conditions as exasperate the minds of the people and so prepare the way for the overthrow and ruin of the social order.” (Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, “On the Social Order.”)

Is the Irish Republican Brotherhood

Part of the World-Scheme?

Needless to say, documentary information about such a matter is very difficult to obtain. Let us, however, take in turn the origin of the Fenian organization out of which the I.R.B. and the Clan-na-Gael evolved, the ritual and form of initiation of the Clan-na-Gael, and lastly, the most important point, the attitude of the I.R.B. towards the Mystical Body of Christ.

With regard to the origin of the Fenian Society, A. M. Sullivan writes in New Ireland (pp. 198–202),

“Two of the refugees (of the ‘48 movement), Mr. John O’Mahony and Mr. James Stephens, had settled for some time in Paris after their escape from Ireland in 1848.[44] They there fell into the society of men, who, during that year of revolutions in various parts of Europe, from Vienna to Rome, had played a part much like their own; and soon, in what may be called the central training-school of European revolutionism, they learned that the way to begin was by a secret society. After a residence of a few years in the French capital, O’Mahony proceeded to America. Stephens quietly returned to Ireland. …Before parting, they had both arrived at the conclusion that, if ever their principles were to have another opportunity of promulgation in Ireland, it should be in accordance with the skillful tactics they had learned in Paris. … I was, in the same sense as the national leaders had ever been, as ‘seditious’ as any of them in my hostility to the imperial scheme of destroying our national autonomy, but I had not studied in vain the history of secret oath-bound associations. I regarded them with horror.”

A curious testimony to the similarity between the form of initiation of the Clan-na-Gael and that of Masonry is given by Henri Le Caron, or Thomas Beach, who entered the Clan-na-Gael as a professional spy or secret service agent in the pay of the English government. As such I have found it necessary to control carefully his statements with regard to Irishmen and Irish affairs. But having examined the process of initiation of the Clan-na-Gael, I am not astonished that the blindfolding, rapping, etc., made such an impression on Beach.[45] Here is what he says:

“The ritual and forms of initiation were framed entirely on Masonic precedent; and, to the vast majority of the members (of the Clan-na-Gael), the statement will come no doubt as a great surprise that the much vaunted secret forms of the Masonic order need be secret to them no longer, inasmuch as that, when being admitted to a Clan-na-Gael club, they were going through the same forms and ceremonies as attached themselves to that great source of mystery and wonderment in the eyes of the non-elect, the Masonic-Brotherhood. I have often laughed to myself at the surprise shown by some Masons on the occasion of their initiation to Clan-na-Gael—for there are Masons in the Clan—at being brought once more into contact with the familiar procedure.”

Beach is, however, very careful to distinguish between the Masonic society to which many of his patrons belonged and the Clan-na-Gael, for he goes on to tell the old story that Masonry is a benevolent society:

“In the case of the Mason, nothing very strange happens or is committed to his secrecy, for the simple reason that brotherly love and charity requires no unusual strain either on his powers of wonder or reserve; while in the other the poor confiding Irishman is simply intended to play the part of a dupe.”

Little comment is needed on all this, for we have seen above that the naturalistic deification of man is the background of Masonic ritual and we know that the brotherly love and benevolence of Masonry is only a blind.

Finally, we come to the attitude of the I.R.B. towards religion and here we find unequivocal evidence of the fact that the I.R.B. is a naturalistic society working against the real order of the world. In the sub-section of the Constitution of the I.R.B., dealing with Religion and Social Standing, we read:

“There shall be no State religion in the Irish Republic. Each citizen shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. There shall be no privileged persons or classes in the Irish Republic. All citizens shall enjoy equal rights therein.”[46]

The Irish State, aimed at by this secret society, shall, accordingly, never be able to acknowledge the Kingship of Christ, in other words, can never accept the divine order of the world. The significance of the other portions has been sufficiently explained when treating of the “Rights of Man.” Before passing on, it must be remarked that we are dealing with the place of the I.R.B. as a whole in the movement against the divine life of the world since 1789, but not with the aspirations of many of those who entered the society.[47]

It was a sad day for Ireland that this secret society was introduced into Irish life, for its introduction meant the opposition of part of the movement for Irish independence to the rule of Christ the King. That movement was meant to be and really is the struggle of our country for the power to organize its national life in the way best calculated to favor the diffusion of the divine life of Christ, our High Priest. For it cannot be too often repeated that there can be no real happiness for countries or for individuals except in ordered subordination to Christ. As the representatives of Christ the King, the Pope and the Bishops have been ever obliged to oppose the methods and aims of this naturalistic revolutionary society, the enemies of the real life of our country have profited thereby to accuse the Mystical Body of Christ of being opposed to Irish independence. That accusation is, of course, false. On the other hand, Irish youths have read so many books in which members of this secret organization are given the monopoly of Irish patriotism that there is danger of a revolt of Irish nationality against Christ the King. May He in His mercy avert such folly and madness and enable us to remain ever faithful to Him, with the traditional loyalty of our ancestors!

We have seen the place occupied by those who control Russia in the attack on the divine order of the world. We know that, according to Marxian principles, the divinity of our Lord and the supernatural life are absurdities. We have some idea also of Russia’s designs for the building up of a vast empire, nominally of workers’ republics, but in reality composed of countries enslaved by international finance. In view of these facts, we stand aghast on reading about the attempts of some members of the I.R.B. to get into touch with Russia in order to obtain recognition for the Irish Republic. To run the risk of being incorporated into the Soviet Empire in order to circumvent the British Empire is more than folly.

In the light of what we know about Russia, the following extracts from a draft of Proposed Treaty between the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic and the Republic of Ireland, make sad reading:

“Desirous of promoting peaceful and friendly relations between all nations of the world and especially between the people of Russia and the people of Ireland, and striving to co-operate in the interest of the advancement of the human race and for the liberation of all peoples from imperialistic exploitation and oppression, the governments of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic and of the Republic of Ireland, by the authority conferred upon them by their respective Constitutions and in the name of the people of Russia and the people of Ireland agree as follows:

“. . . (5) The government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic accords to all religious denominations represented in the Republic of Ireland every right accorded to religious sects by the Russian Constitution, and entrusts to the accredited representative of the Republic of Ireland in Russia the interests of the Roman Catholic Church within the territory of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic.” (McCartan, With de Valera in America, p. 272)

It is with pleasure that one reads in the official Report of Dáil Eireann, October–November, 1931 (p. 301), the following pronouncement from Mr. de Valera himself:

“I will say this now about secret societies, that since the Volunteers were founded, they were never necessary, that if it was required to get examples to prove that the Catholic doctrine with respect to them is right—I could give examples, because every evil that was said to flow from these societies has, to my knowledge, flown from them.” (Cf. the same Report, p. 57)

Non-Secret Societies Imbued with the

Masonic Naturalistic Spirit

The Rotary International

Non-secret societies influenced by Freemasonry are of two kinds. Some are founded by Masonry to diffuse its ideas. Others are founded by non-Masons with excellent intentions, but then become imbued with the Masonic spirit and serve Masonic purposes, especially by the diffusion of a spirit of naturalism and indifference to the one true Faith. Without seeking to solve the question whether Rotary was founded by Masonry as a sort of offshoot, we may take it as a typical example of a society imbued with the Masonic naturalistic spirit.[48] Masonry, as we have seen, is a naturalistic society, that is, a society which claims to make men good and moral independently of the supernatural life which comes to us from our Lord Jesus Christ, thanks to membership of the Mystical Body. Masonry thus, in deed and in fact, puts itself in the place of the One true visible Church. A purely natural association claims to make men good, and with a gesture of sublime indifference to the supernatural life of Jesus, puts His Mystical Body on the same level as all man-made religions. It even claims superiority over them all. Now we find this very same attitude in Rotary. It is not so blatantly prominent, but it is there all the time. For example, in the Manual of Procedure for Rotarians, we read:

“The Rotary code of ethics…sets forth the principles and practices that should exist, not only between Rotarians, but all business and professional men everywhere. To read this code of ethics, which the Rotarians have adopted as their ideal, is to realize one of the reasons why this exclusively new movement has gone forward by leaps and bounds during the past five years. Men had been waiting for this very thing.”[49]

Here we are in presence of a society, completely natural, with the foundation of which, of course, the Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, had nothing to do. Yet this society asserts that the world had been waiting for it to formulate a code of morality for all business men everywhere.

Let us now take some examples of Rotary teaching in action, at the Annual Convention of the Society. At Edinburgh, in 1921, Gabriel Gorce, President of the Rotary Club of France, delivered an address in which, amongst other things, he said:

“It was in France, more than a century ago, that were proclaimed the Rights of Man and of humanity. These ideas incorporated in your Rotarian creed, these ideas which exalt altruism, probity, the dignity and solidarity of man, will be welcomed in our country as well-loved children who, having traveled around the world, return from their long journey to their mother country.”[50]

From the volume of the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Convention of Rotary International at Cleveland (U.S.A.), 1925 (p. 24), the following picture of creation is taken. It formed part of the Pageant there presented to the assembled Rotarians:

“In the darkness a star appeared followed by another…and then the moon. …With the gradual lighting of the stage a dense jungle was seen in which appeared in succession an ape man, a man of the Stone Age and a savage or barbarian. As the scene became lighter through the dawn of day, mankind appeared in the modern sense in the person of Adam. The character showed its astonishment at the scene that greeted its eyes. Imagination—thought—raised man from beast and gave him power to subdue beast.”

Finally, a passage of an address may be quoted in which the naturalism of Rotary shows itself anti-Catholic and anti-supernatural in true Masonic style, as is inevitable. It is from a lecture on Fellowship, delivered by a Mr. Charles Moynihan at the Fourteenth Annual Convention of Rotary held at St. Louis (U.S.A.) in 1923.[51] Amongst other things, Mr. Moynihan said:

“I do not condemn the full use of the human intellect in its effort to fathom every depth of the vast ocean of knowledge, because I realize that scientific, political, and religious thought was for centuries firmly held in the dead hand of intolerant and barbarous superstition; that for more than twelve centuries thought was largely without form, and void and darkness was upon the minds of men; that two thousand years compassed the bondage of the human mind to the metaphysics of Aristotle; that Galileo was imprisoned for proclaiming the true theory of the solar system and sentenced to repeat the seven penitential psalms for differing from Moses and the theologians. …Great genii have from time to time visited with tornado effect original doctrines on the warped and stunted minds of their contemporaries and on those static institutions that harbored a mistaken political or religious program. A vast destruction of things that were occurred. Christ, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Confucius mean more to the average individual than the periods of history during which they lived, and their memories represent immortal shrines, past which a procession of posterity humbly walks with bowed and reverent head.”

To put the filthy sneering Mason, Voltaire, on the same level with our divine Lord Jesus Christ, Whose Mystical Body on earth Voltaire spent his life in attacking and calumniating, is surely not only naturalism but blasphemous naturalism. Of course, the whole discourse is a long tissue of absurdities and half-truths. There is no doubt that Rotary is doing its part in detaching men from the Mystical Body of Jesus. No wonder Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus, “On Freemasonry,” warned the Bishops of the world to watch over the education of the young:

“To your fidelity and watchfulness We commend in a special manner the young, who are the hope of human society. Devote the greatest part of your care to their instruction and do not think that any precaution can be great enough in keeping them from masters and schools where the pestilent breath of the sects is to be feared. Under your guidance, let parents, religious instructors, and priests having the charge of souls, use every opportunity in their Christian teaching of warning their children and pupils of the infamous nature of these societies, so that they may learn in good time to beware of the various and fraudulent artifices by which their promoters are accustomed to ensnare people. And those who instruct the young in religious knowledge will act wisely, if they induce all of them to resolve and to undertake never to bind themselves to any society without the knowledge of their parents, or the advice of their parish priest or director.”

Again, in his Letter to the Italian people of December 8th, 1892, Pope Leo XIII wrote as follows:

“Societies not subject to the influence of religion and, as such, easily exposed to be more or less directed and dominated by Masons, must in general be looked on with suspicion and avoided. Those also must be avoided which not only lend their aid to Masonry but constitute a nursery therefor and a factory for the training of apprentices. All should avoid any liaison, any familiarity, with persons suspected of being Freemasons or of belonging to affiliated societies…familiar intercourse should be cut off, not only with the openly wicked but with those who hide their real character under the mask of universal toleration, of respect for all religions, of the mania of reconciling the maxims of the Gospel with those of the Revolution, Christ with Belial, the Church of God with the State without God. …Besides, as it is question of a sect which has invaded all domains, it is not enough to remain on the defensive, Catholics must descend courageously into the arena and combat it face to face. This you shall do, dear Sons, by opposing publications to publications, schools to schools, associations to associations, congresses to congresses, action to action. …Above all, Catholic parents should not confide the education of their children to schools that are not safe.

. . .With your persons and your money help the Catholic press.”[52]

After these general warnings of Pope Leo XIII about dangerous associations, let us see what attitude the Catholic Church has adopted towards Rotary in particular. When asked about the advisability of priests becoming members of Rotary and assisting at Rotarian reunions, the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory replied that it was not advisable. Non expedit are the words contained in the official text of the reply, dated 4th February, 1929.[53] The Spanish Hierarchy, on January 23rd, 1929, warned the faithful to be on their guard against this association

“The Rotary Club,” wrote Cardinal Segura, Archbishop of Toledo, in his pastoral letter, “professes absolute laicity and universal religious indifference. … It is in appearance commercial, philanthropic, international, neutral, but always laical. Thus it hides its real mentality, which denies true morality and true religion and puts in their place a morality and a religion which are not those of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the faithful should not join associations of this kind.’

His Eminence Cardinal Andrieu, Archbishop of Bordeaux, expressed his entire agreement with the Spanish Hierarchy, on June 15th, 1929. In their turn, the Catholic Hierarchy of Holland, on July 12th, 1930, declared that: “Rotary is a neutral association of an economic and social character, aiming at the amelioration of society and desirous of making its members worthy and honorable men. The pursuit of this end is certainly worthy of praise, but Rotary counts on attaining it by the application of moral principles divorced from all religion. Hence Rotary is one of the associations which Catholics must avoid.”

Certainly, Rotary is not looked upon with favor by the Catholic Church. When we learn of a Masonic lodge being opened in London exclusively for Rotarians,[54] and when we recall the means employed by Masonry to secure and maintain control of neutral and naturalistic societies, into which non-Masons are admitted, that attitude is not likely to change. The action of the assembled Rotarians of Mexico in sending a telegram of congratulation to Calles, the persecutor of the Catholic Church in that country, to assure him of their resolution to co-operate with his government as far as lay in their power, will confirm it.[55]

[1]Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus, of Pope Leo XIII.

[2]Occupational societies, guilds, etc., are auxiliaries of family life.

[3]The Kingship of Christ, pp. 122, 123, by the present writer.

[4]“Turn thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once thy chosen people.” (Prayer approved of by His Holiness Pope Pius XI for the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus)

[5]“For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek; for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all who call upon Him.” (Rom. 10:12)” There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3…28)

[6]Issue of September 25th, 1931.

[7]“When people talk about the Jewish religion, they think only of the Bible, of the religion of Moses. This is an illusion. …According to the Univers Israélité ‘For two thousand years…the Talmud has been the religious code of Israel’. . . A work of hatred and impiety, the Talmud definitely confirmed the apostasy of modern Jewry. … It is a systematic deformation of the Bible. …The pride of race with the idea of universal domination is therein exalted to the height of folly. …For the Talmudist, the Jewish race alone constitutes humanity. The non-Jews are not men. They are of a purely animal nature.” (L’ Histoire et les Histoires dans la Bible, by Mgr. Landrieux, Bishop of Dijon, pp. 101, 102, 99) For texts of Talmud, cf. Les Sources de L”Impérialisme Juif, pp. 21–40, by Mgr. Jouin.

[8]Mrs. Webster even says that “it is in the Cabala, still more than in the Talmud, that the Judaic dream of world domination recurs with the greatest persistence.” (Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 370)

[9]Cf. article “Cabale” in the Dictionnaire de Théologie.

“The deification of humanity by the Freemasons of the Grand Orient finds its counterpart in the deification of Israel by the modern Jew.” (Mrs. Webster in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 374)

[10]L’ Antistmitisme, pp. 339, 340. Later on in the same work (p. 346) he says, in speaking of the Jewish writer, H. Heine, “the only philosophy which had any real attraction for him was pantheism, the doctrine which is natural to the metaphysical Jew who speculates on the unity of God and transforms it into unity of substance.”

[11]R.I.S.S., January 1st, 1933, p. 18. Cf. Appendix I, “Jewish Power.”

[12]L’ Antistmitisme, pp. 345.

[13]For the question of the Masonic attack on the Catholic idea of native land, consult L’Idée de Patrie et l’Humanitarisme, by G. Goyau. He shows clearly that Masonry is working for the World-Republic or United States of the World.

[14]Cf. Charles Ier Empéreur d’ Autriche, Roi de Hongrie, by Jérome Troud, p. 195 (1931),

[15]The Principles of Freemasonry in the Life of Peoples. Quoted in La Franc-Maçonnerie, by Dom P. Benoit, vol. i. pp. 135, 136.

[16]For a full treatment of Freemasonry, the able work on the subject, Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, by Rev. E. Cahill, S.J., is heartily recommended.

The following statements by Dom P. Benoit, with regard to the secrecy of Masonic and revolutionary societies form an excellent summary of the question. They are taken from La Franc-Maçconnerie, vol. i. pp. 188, 189. “These societies are secret. They are secret, in the first place, so far as those outside or the profane are concerned. The members carefully hide the projects they are preparing; the leaders remain unknown. Awful oaths prevent the members from making revelations. Some of their proceedings openly accomplished leave people under the impression that it is question of a benevolent society. That is enough to lull people to sleep. …There are places where a secret society has arranged elections for twenty or thirty years and yet even its existence is unknown.

“Secondly, those Masonic associations are often unknown to each other. There are Masonic societies which are known to all others; but there are societies more completely hidden, the existence of which is unknown to most of the other Masonic societies. Sometimes one directs another without the latter being aware of the fact. Again, Masonic associations have secrets of which most of those who compose them are unaware. The real leaders are mostly unknown. The official heads of most lodges have only apparent power. The real power is in the hands of a member or members unknown, who form the connecting link between the lodge or lodges and the higher lodges. They receive the directions to be passed on, and transmit the reports required about the mentality of the members. …The members of a lodge, therefore, very often do not know their immediate superiors. They are still more ignorant of the identity of the higher superiors.

“Finally, most of them are ignorant of the complete final end of the whole body of societies. …Masonry will show to each only that portion of its designs which will appeal to the particular form of revolt that is in him.’’

[17]Marx’s real name was Mordechai (cf. World Revolution, by Mrs. Webster, p. 167).

[18]For documents, etc., cf. Les Origines Secrites du Bolchevisme, pp. 33, 34, by Salluste. This is the most complete work on the question. For a student of all these matters in their connection with the real history of the world, that is, with the history of man’s acceptance or rejection of the supernatural life of the Mystical Body, it is particularly interesting to note that, while these descendants of Jewish rabbis were preparing the Communistic enslavement of the world, the son of a rabbi of Saverne was being drawn from Judaism to the Catholic priesthood. Having become a priest, he initiated the modern movement for the diffusion of the divine life in Africa. Father Libermann was born in 1804, was baptized in 1826 and ordained priest in 1841. In that same year he founded the Society of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was united to the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, with Father Libermann as Superior-General, in 1848.

[19]Cf. The Russian Revolution, by N. Berdyaev, pp. 74, 75.

[20]Cf. Les Questions Fondamentales du Marxisme, by G. V. Plékhanov Bibliothique Marxist, No. 2), and also article by Pére B. Lavaud, O. P., dans la Revue Thomiste, July-September, 1932, on “La Philosophie du Bolshevisme.”

[21]The Catholic Church, guardian of revealed truths and protectress of the sanity of the human mind, has condemned these aberrations in the Vatican Council. The second canon of these opposed to the errors about God as Creator of all things runs as follows: If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that nothing exists except matter, let him be anathema. (Denz., 1802). The last part of the fourth canon of the same section condemns the idealistic evolution of Hegel: If anyone shall affirm that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the whole universe of existing things, forming distinct genera, species and individuals, let him be anathema.

We are thus practically back to the position of David of Dinant, about whom St. Thomas wrote in the thirteenth century: “David of Dinant affirmed like a downright fool (stultissime) that God was primary matter.” (Ia, P. Q. 3, a. 8). David of Dinant’s thought seems, however, to have been on a higher level than Marx’s.

[22]The Jewish descent of Engels is strongly denied. Cf. Salluste, op. cit. pg. 56.

[23]B. Lazare in L’ Antisemitisme, pp. 343, 344, speaks also of James Cohen, Secretary for Denmark, Loeb, Lazare and A. Levi as members of the Fédération Parisienne de I’ Internationale, Gompers in U.S.A., etc. For Marx’s secret and open activities in preparation for 1864, cf. the work by Salluste already referred to, Les Origines Secrètes du Bolchevisme, pp. 65–100.

[24]The document is reproduced with the kind permission of the Editor of the Patriot. A longer account of the same curious incident will be found in Appendix I.

The only place in Ireland, so far as the present writer is aware, where the original unabridged edition of the British White Paper may be consulted, is the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.

[25]Though the Jewish origin of Kerensky, who brought about the first Russian revolution of 1917, has been contested, it seems pretty certain he was the son of the Jew Aronne (Aaron) Kerbis and the Jewess Adler. After the death of Kerbis, his widow married a certain Kerensky in Russian Turkestan. This man adopted young Kerbis, who took the name of his stepfather.

[26]The present writer wishes to add that some authors are convinced that Lenin’s mother was a Jewess.

[27]We have here translated literally from the French. Perhaps the original English may have been “acting on” instead of “in relation with.”

[28]The present writer has translated from a French version of the above telegram, so there may be some difference between the wording and that to be found in the American publication above-quoted.

[29]An illuminating sketch of Lenin’s career is to be found in an article by Salluste in La Revue de Paris (December 15, 1927). Lenin, according to this able writer, was, at the same time, a paid agent of the Russian secret police and of the Jewish financiers engaged in furthering the Marxist conspiracy. He profited by his position as police agent to prepare the triumph of the schemes of the financiers.

[30]The competence of this author is beyond question. In the Preface he says that he submitted the manuscript of the work to some of the highest European authorities on things Russian and Slavonic. The Jews who figure in the facade of the Bolshevist structure vary from time to time. They may even appear to diminish in number because of fear of Anti-Semitism,’’ The control never changes.

[31]Mrs. Webster, in The Socialist Network (p. 47), points out that the same individuals control both the Russian government and the Kommintern or Communist Internationale. The financiers, of course, control all.

[32]Italics mine.

[33]The Irish Hierarchy warned their flocks about these Communist preparations in their Letter of October 18th, 1931. For documents relating to Communist movement in Ireland, cf. Could Ireland become Communist by James Hogan.

[34]I have translated from the French edition of The Communist Manifesto, pp. 39 and 50.

[35]In The Socialist Network (p. 72), Mrs. Webster refers to the relations between the I.R.B. and “the still more secret Irish Communist Brotherhood, founded in 1920 and controlled by a Supreme Council of Six.” The existence of this latter body was made known by the revelations of Communist. It made its presence felt during the disastrous Civil War Ireland in 1922.

[36]Bolshevism, Theory and Practice, by W. Gurian, pp. 89-91 (London: Sheed and Ward).

[37]In this connection Catholics would do well to read the pamphlet of the English C.T.S. on The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property, by H. Belloc. On pg. 20 of that pamphlet, the writer asks how many of those who discussed the Peace Conference ever heard of Kuhn, Loeb & Co? This text is quoted in a later chapter.

[38]Madame Despreaux was for several years in charge of the French school, opened at Moscow by the French government.

[39]Freemasonry has been suppressed in Russia. Cf. quotation from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Appendix V.

[40]The expression “Workers’ Republic” is used in the sense of Marx and Lenin.

[41]Nicholas Berdyaev, The Russian Revolution, p. 31.

[42]By bourgeois society, Gurian means chiefly what I prefer to call Judaeo-Puritan capitalist society, the sort of society depicted in Belloc’s The Servile State. Such a society has abused the rights of private property. Between the two opposed errors of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism and Judaeo-Masonic Communism and above them stands the Catholic Idea.

[43]Cf. op. cit., pp. 245, 250. Dr. Gurian’s speaking of the Churches (cf. p. 256) and his putting all forms of Christianity on the same level, as if all were equally pleasing to God, are to be deprecated.

[44]We saw above that Arnold Rüge, once a friend and collaborator of Karl Marx, was the leader of Young Germany, a section of Young Europe, founded by the revolutionary Mazzini. What was the connection of Young Ireland with that part of the world-scheme for the naturalistic deification of man? A historian unsympathetic to Ireland like Rutherford (Secret History of the Fenian Conspiracy) is at one with A. M. Sullivan with regard to the connection of Stephens and O’Mahony with continental conspirators. He says: “All that could be done has been done to throw obscurity over the careers of James Stephens and John O’Mahony…from 1848 to 1858” (p. 49); “Stephens and O’Mahony, immediately on arriving in France in 1848, identified themselves with ultra-revolution and became members of a secret society” (p. 50); “he (Stephens) threw himself heart and soul into foreign conspiracy, and the secret societies of the Continent had no more active or trusty agent than himself. In their service he visited Spain occasionally, Germany now and then, Italy often, and London still more frequently” (p. 52). Further on, the same writer states “that Russian agents, in view of the impending Crimean War, got hold of Stephens. …Thus…Fenianism began under French and Russian auspices.” Have we not a right to demand the objects of these foreign conspirators? They had a philosophy of life, an attitude towards the Mystical Body of Christ and, of course, endeavored to maneuverer the Irish people in the sense of their views, by means of the Irishmen with whom they were in touch. It is time for Irish Catholics to study the real history of the world since 1789 and realize that the ultimate aim of all modern revolutionary schemes is the attack on Christ the King. It is towards that final apostasy that we are being maneuvered, by the methods that have succeeded in Mexico, Spain and Russia.

[45]‘Cf. Twenty-Five Years in the Secret Service (pp. 111, 112), by Henri Le Caron. Of course, the form of initiation of Clan-na-Gael is less elaborate them that of Freemasonry.

[46]It may be well to add here that the I.R.B. claims the right to inflict the death penalty: “(30). The Supreme Council alone shall have power to inflict a sentence of capital punishment and give it effect; and this only in cases of treason.”

[47]The aspirations of many members of the Fenian Brotherhood are sympathetically dealt with in Canon Sheehan’s novel, The Graves at Kilmorna.

[48]According to R.I.S.S., November 22nd, 1931, p. 1188, etc., Harris; the founder of Rotary, was a Mason, as were also his first associates.

[49]I have quoted from the volume of the Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Convention of Rotary Clubs, Edinburgh, June, 1921, p. 492.

[50]I quote from the same volume, p. 102. Italics mine.

[51]Proceedings, pp. 94, 97.

[52]Translated from original as published by La Bonne Presse, Paris.

[53]Acta Ap. Sedis, 1929, p. 42.

[54]Amongst the Masonic Lodges recently opened in London is a Rotary Lodge, composed exclusively of Rotarians.” (R.I.S.S., Dec., 2nd, 1921).

[55]Cf. article in the Fortnightly Review, January, 1934, quoted in R.I.S.S.

Chapter VII

Pius IX and the Pantheistic Deification of Man

The Pitfall of Pantheism

By divine grace, God bestowed on the human race a share in His inner life in three divine persons. Adam lost that divine life for himself and for his descendants, with the result that the revolt of the passions against reason and of reason against the supernatural order, as well as disease and death, entered the world. Our Lord Jesus Christ restored supernatural life to us, thanks to the loving submission with which He met every revolt, down to and including the supreme revolt against order, by which He was put to death. As His members, we are meant to go on increasing in His life and gaining control over our lower natural life, till death, lovingly accepted in union with Him, brings our earthly sojourn to an end.

Accordingly, God in three divine persons, our Lord Jesus Christ, source of supernatural life, head of His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, in and through which fallen man receives back that divine life by which He is truly deified—such is the order of the world. Opposed to that order, we have seen the false principles which underlie Masonry and Communism and revolution generally. Man, of and by himself, is God, especially when he forms part of a State constructed according to the Rousseauist-Masonic principles of 1789. Jesus Christ is not God, but a mere man, and He is not the source of supernatural life for man, as in man there is only natural life. The Catholic Church, like every form of religion, is a society of merely human formation and, therefore, completely subject to the State-God. As man is God, he recognizes no order of society, supernatural or natural, which he is bound to respect, therefore he can proceed to overthrow all order at will. Liberty, which is the power man has of freely developing his life in order, is confounded with license and absence of law. Such is the picture we are obliged to paint of a world in which human nature is deified, of and by itself. In such a world, of which we see an example in Soviet Russia, the collectivity is God, so man may and must work for the Collectivity-God, but, as all men are equal in divinity, it would be exploitation, if one individual worked for another. Needless to say, in such a world there can be no such thing as supernatural revelation, and all authority coming from the true God, whether spiritual or temporal, is excluded.

We have seen, at least in outline, how powerful and varied are the agencies at work, under Satan, ever seeking to propagate pantheism in theory and practice, in other words, to deify man. We shall soon see pantheism, condemned by Pope Pius IX, as the root error of modern times. But why is the human mind so exposed to the absurdity of confusing the finite and the infinite? Man fell as we have seen, “By desiring in some way to be the equal of God in so far as he wished to rely on himself in contempt of the order of the divine rule.” (IIa, IIae, Q. 163, a. 2) Satan had fallen in the same way and his temptation of Eve was couched in terms inviting to equality with God. “You shall be as Gods.” (Gen. 3:6). He simply employs the same temptation now in another form. Man is weaker now.[1] By original justice the human reason had perfect control over the inferior powers of the soul and was itself endowed by God with the perfection of being fully subject to Him. This original justice was destroyed by the sin of the first man. The results of this privation are called vulneratio naturae, the wounds sustained by fallen nature. Now there are four faculties or powers of the soul which can be subjects of virtues; the reason (intelligence) in which is the virtue of prudence; the will, which is the seat of justice; the irascible sense faculty, in which is the virtue of fortitude; the concupiscible sense-faculty, which is the seat of the virtue of temperance. In so far as the reason is deprived of its order to truth, there is the wound of ignorance. In so far as the will is deprived of its order to moral goodness, there is the wound of malice. Inasmuch as the irascible sense faculty is deprived of its order to the good difficult of accomplishment, there is the wound of weakness, and inasmuch as the concupiscible sense faculty is deprived of its relation to what is agreeable in accordance with reason, there is the wound of concupiscence.

There are, accordingly, four wounds inflicted on the whole line of human nature by the sin of the first man. And as the inclination to the good, object of virtue, is diminished in each one of us by actual sin, these four wounds are also the results of our personal sins, which deepen and envenom them. It is thus that by habitual sin, the intelligence is, as it were, darkened and rendered dull, especially as regards the practical order of the moral conduct of life, the will is firmly rooted in evil, the difficulty of doing good is increased and concupiscence is inflamed more and more.

We thus see that the wound sustained by the will is the source of self-love and of pride and of that sometimes unconscious egoism, by which we make of ourselves the center of life. Ignorance, the wound of the intelligence, is the principle of the different forms of imprudence and of that horrible blindness of the mind with regard to things spiritual and to the mode of procedure involved in the Divine Plan for the restoration of the divine life by the Mystical Body of our crucified Redeemer.[2]

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, divine grace is restored to us and through grace we can love God more than ourselves.[3] In the state of fallen nature the human will tends generally in its concrete acts to seek in self the end of life, unless it is healed by grace. In practice, then, we have to struggle not to place self on the same level as God or on a higher level. We can win in this struggle, by the help of mortification and by subjecting ourselves to the passive purification of the senses and of the spirit, but the process of healing our wounds will never be absolutely complete here below. If, however, we reject our divine Lord, head of His Mystical Body, the Church, and His grace, we put ourselves above God in practice and then we run the risk of accepting the absurdities of pantheism, even speculatively. The will, attached to evil, prevents the intellect from contemplating the full force of the arguments for the truth.[4] A fortiori, this danger is increased when a man enters a naturalistic society which makes profession of indifference to the order established by our Lord, and the symbolism of which is pantheistic.[5] Amidst all the praises of Masonic “Light” we can, by listening attentively, hear the voice of him “who is a liar and the father thereof (Jn 8:44)”, whispering: “You shall be as gods.” The apostasy of modern nations is largely due to the action of pantheistic societies like Masonry, and that very apostasy, with all its attendant evils, helps Masonry in disseminating pantheism. We should weigh well all phrases about the “service of humanity” and the “will of the people.”

Pope Leo XIII touched upon the effects of the rejection of supernatural life in regard to truth, both speculative and practical, in a well known passage in his Encyclical Letter on Freemasonry:

“But the naturalists,” writes the Pope, “go much further, for having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried along to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are—the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul and its immortality. …The sect of Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not at all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with firm conviction. …Those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though like the pantheists they have false notions concerning Him; all of which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd expression of the divine nature. When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths also which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall, namely, that all things were made by the free will of God, the creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life. When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature, and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. …Wherever, by removing Christian education, the sect has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree.”

The Syllabus

Collection of the principal errors of our day which have been condemned in Consistorial Allocutions, in Encyclicals and other Apostolic Letters of our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX.

Pantheism, Naturalism, And Extreme Rationalism

1.  There exists no supreme Being, perfect in His Wisdom and in His Providence and distinct from the universe. God is identical with nature and consequently subject to change. God is evolving in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God. God is thus one and the same thing as the world and consequently spirit is identified with matter, necessity with liberty, truth with falsehood, good with evil, and justice within justice. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

2.  Any action of the part of God upon men and the world must be denied. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

3.  Human reason is the exclusive judge of truth and falsehood, good and evil, God being left completely out of account; it is its own law and by its own natural resources is sufficient to procure the good of men and of peoples. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

4.  All the truths of religion have their origin in the innate vigor of the human reason: hence it follows that reason is the sovereign guide by which man can and ought to attain to the knowledge of all truths of every kind. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Encyclical Letter, Singulari quidem, March 17, 1856; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

5.  Divine Revelation is imperfect and consequently subject to a continual and indefinite progress which corresponds to the progress of human reason. (Encyclical, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

6.  The Faith of Christ is opposed to human reason; and divine Revelation is not only useless but is even injurious to the perfection of man. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

7.  The prophecies and miracles set forth and related in Holy Scripture are poetical fictions and the mysteries of the Christian Faith are the sum total of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testaments are to be found mythical inventions and Jesus Christ Himself is a myth. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

Moderate Rationalism

8.  Since human reason is to be placed on the same level as religion itself, the theological sciences must be treated in the same way as the philosophical sciences. (Allocution, Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854)

9.  All the dogmas of the Christian religion, without distinction, are the object of natural science or philosophy. Human reason with merely its historical development can, by its own natural strength and relying on its own principles, attain to a true knowledge of all dogmas, even those that are most abstruse, provided these dogmas have been proposed to reason itself as its object. (Letter, Gravissimas inter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 11, 1862; Letter, Tuas libenter, to the same, December 21, 1863)

10.  Since the philosopher is one thing and philosophy another, the former has the right and the duty to submit to an authority which he himself has proved to be true, but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any authority. (Letter, Gravissimas inter, December 11, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising; Letter, Tuas libenter, to the same, December 21, 1863)

11.  The Church not only should not proceed with rigor against philosophy, but should even tolerate the errors of philosophy and allow it to correct itself. (Letter, Gravissimas inter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 11, 1862)

12.  The decrees of the Holy See and of the Roman Congregations impede the free progress of science. (Letter, Tuas libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863)

13.  The method and principles, according to which the ancient scholastic Doctors cultivated Theology, are in no way suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences. (Letter, Tuas libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863)

14.  No account must be taken of supernatural revelation in dealing with philosophical questions. (Letter, Tuas libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863)

N.B.—Most of the errors of Antonius Gunther belong to the rationalist system. They were condemned in the Letter, Eximiam tuam, of June 15, 1857, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, and in the Letter, Dolore haud mediocri, to the Bishop of Breslau, April 30, 1860.

Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism

15.  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall have come to consider as true. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplies inter, June 10, 1851; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

16.  Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Ubi primum, December 17, 1847; Encyclical Letter, Singulari quidem, March 17, 1856)

17.  Good hopes at least must be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who in no way belong to the true Church of Christ. (Allocution, Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854; Encyclical Letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863)

18.  Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, and in it one can be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church. (Encyclical Letter, Noscitis et nobiscum, December 8, 1849.

Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies.

These pestiferous organisations have been often condemned in the gravest terms: in the Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; in the Allocution, Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849; in the Encyclical Letter, Noscitis et nobiscum, December 8, 1849; in the Allocution, Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854; in the Encyclical Letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863.

Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights

19.  The Church is not a true, perfect and completely free society. She does not enjoy her own proper and constant rights conferred on her by her Divine Founder, but it is the province of the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church and what are the limits within which she may exercise those rights. (Allocution, Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854; Allocution, Novos et ante, September 28,  1860; Allocution, Multis gravibusque, December 17, 1860; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

20.  The Ecclesiastical Power must not exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. (Allocution, Meminit unusquisque, September 30, 1861)

21.  The Church has not the power to define dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the One True Religion. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplies inter, June 10, 1851)

22.  The obligation strictly incumbent on Catholic teachers and writers is limited to those points which have been defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all. (Letter, Tuas libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863)

23.  The Sovereign Pontiffs and (Ecumenical Councils have gone beyond the limits of their powers. They have usurped the rights of princes and have erred even in definitions concerning faith and morals. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplies inter, June 10, 1851)

24.  The Church has not the power to use force; she has not any temporal power, direct or indirect. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

25.  Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, there is another temporal power granted to it by the civil authority, expressly or tacitly, which may in consequence be revoked at will by the civil authority. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

26.  The Church has not the innate and legitimate right of acquiring and holding property. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December, 15, 1856; Encyclical Letter, Incredibili, September 17, 1863)

27.  The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff must be absolutely excluded from all care of and authority over temporal things. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

28.  Bishops have not the right to promulgate even Apostolic Letters without the permission of the civil government. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

29.  Favors granted by the Roman Pontiff must be held to be null and void, if they have not been asked for through the civil government. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

30.  The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons has had its origin in civil law. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851)

31.  Ecclesiastical tribunals for the temporal causes, civil and criminal, of clerics, must be completely done away with, even without consulting the Holy See and in spite of its protestations. (Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852; Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

32.  The privilege of personal immunity, by which clerics are exempt from the burden of military service, can be abrogated without any violation of natural law and equity. The progress of society demands this abrogation, especially in a society endowed with a more liberal form of constitution. (Letter to the Bishop of Montreal, Singularis Nobisque, September 29, 1864)

33.  It does not belong exclusively to the ecclesiastical authority by a proper and innate right, to direct the teaching of theological doctrine. (Letter, Tuas libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863)

34.  The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince exercising his power throughout the universal Church, is one which prevailed in the Middle Ages. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

35.  There is nothing to prevent the Sovereign Pontificate from being transferred from the Roman Bishop and from the City of Rome to another Bishop and to another See, either by a vote of a general council or by an act of all peoples. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

36.  The definition of a national Council does not admit of any further discussion and the Civil Administration can insist upon this restriction. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851.

37.  National Churches can be set up which shall be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and completely separated from him. (Allocution, Multis gravibusque, December 17, 1860; Allocution, Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861)

38.  The exorbitant pretensions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

Errors Concerning Civil Society, Both in Itself and in its Relations with the Church

39.  As the State is the source and fountain of every right, its own rights are unrestricted. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

40.  The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the good and the advantage of human society. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849)

41.  The Civil Power, even when exercised by a prince who is an infidel, has an indirect negative power over sacred things. It has consequently not only the right that goes by the name of exsequatur but also the right of appeal from abuse of power as it is called (vis appellationis ab abusu). (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

42.  In case of a conflict of laws between the two powers, the civil law prevails. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

43.  The secular (or civil) power has the authority to rescind, to declare and render null and void the solemn agreements (commonly called concordats) concluded with the Holy See about the use of rights concerning ecclesiastical exemption. It can act in this fashion without the consent of the Holy See and even in spite of its protests. (Allocution, In consistoriali, November 1, 1850; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

44.  The civil authority can interfere in matters which concern religion, morality and the government of souls. Hence it follows that it can pass judgment on the Instructions which the heads of the Church publish, in the discharge of their functions, for the guidance of consciences: it may even make laws about the administration of the Sacraments and about the dispositions necessary for their reception. (Allocution, In consistoriali, November 1, 1850; Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

45.  The (whole) complete direction of the public schools in which the youth of a Christian State is being educated, excepting to a certain degree episcopal seminaries, can and ought to be reserved to the civil authority and in such wise that no right of interference in the discipline of schools, in the regulation of the courses of studies, in the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of teachers, be conceded to any other authority whatsoever.—Allocution, In consistoriali, November 1, 1850; Allocution, Quibus luctuosissimis, September 5, 1851)

46.  Nay more, even in clerical seminaries, the method to be adopted in studies is subject to the control of the civil authority. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

47.  The best interests of civil society require that the elementary schools, which are open to all children of every class of the people, as well as all other public institutions destined for the teaching of literature and of higher studies and for the education of youth, should be exempted from all authority, direction and interference on the part of the Church and be placed under the full control of the civil and political power, following the views of those in power and the standard of contemporary opinion. (Letter, Cum non sine, to the Archbishop of Fribourg, July 14, 1864)

48.  Catholics may approve of that method of educating the young which is divorced from Catholic Faith and withdrawn from the control of the Church, and which aims solely, or at least principally, at the knowledge of the merely natural world and the furtherance of the ends of human society here below. (Letter, Cum non sine, to the Archbishop of Fribourg, July 14, 1864)

49.  The civil authority can prevent Bishops and the faithful from communicating freely with the Roman Pontiff, and with each other. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

50.  The secular authority has of itself the right of presenting Bishops (to vacant Sees) and can oblige them to take over the administration of their dioceses before they have received from the Holy See canonical institution and the Apostolic Letters. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

51.  Nay more, the secular government has the right of suspending Bishops from the exercise of their pastoral ministry and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in matters concerning the creation of bishoprics and bishops. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851; Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852)

52.  The government can, of its own right, change the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of men and women and can forbid all religious bodies to admit anyone to solemn vows without its authorization. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

53.  Laws relating to the protection of the status of religious institutes, their rights and functions, should be abrogated. Nay more, the secular government can assist all those who may desire to abandon religious life and break their solemn vows; it can also suppress completely these same religious institutes as well as collegiate churches and simple benefices, even where there is a right of patronage, transferring and subjecting their goods and revenues to the administration and control of the civil authority. (Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852; Allocution, Probe memineritis, January 22, 1855; Allocution, Cum saepe, July 26, 1855)

54.  Not only are kings and princes exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but they are even above the Church, in the matter of determining questions of jurisdiction. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplices inter, June 10. 1851)

55.  The Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church. (Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852)

Errors Concerning the Moral Law,

Christian and Natural

56.  The laws of morality do not require the divine sanction and there is absolutely no need that human laws should be in conformity with natural law or receive from God the power of obliging in conscience. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

57.  Philosophical and moral science and also the civil laws can and ought to be withdrawn from subjection to divine and ecclesiastical authority. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

58.  Only those forces which reside in matter are to be acknowledged; and all moral training and goodness ought to be held to consist in the accumulation and increase of wealth by every means, and in the enjoyment of pleasure. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862; Encyclical Letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863.

59.  Right consists in the material fact: all the duties of men are a word devoid of meaning and all human happenings have the force of right. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

60.  Authority is nothing else than the sum total of numbers and of material forces. (Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862)

61.  An infringement of justice crowned with success is in no way detrimental to the sanctity of right. (Allocution, Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861)

62. The principle known as the principle of nonintervention must be proclaimed openly and followed. (Allocution, Novos et ante, September 28, 1862)

63.  It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers and even to rebel against them. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Allocution, Quisque vestrum, October 4, 1847; Encyclical Letter, Noscitis et nobiscum, December 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter, Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860)

64.  The violation of an oath, however sacred, as well as every criminal and shameful action opposed to the eternal law, is not only not blameworthy but is altogether licit and ought to be extolled with the highest praise, when it is performed for love of country. (Allocution, Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849)

Errors Regarding Christian Marriage

65.  It can in no wise be held that Christ raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

66.  The Sacrament of Matrimony is only an accessory to the marriage contract and can be separated from it, and the sacrament itself consists exclusively in the nuptial blessing. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

67.  In (or by) natural law, the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in various cases a divorce in the strict sense of the term can be sanctioned by the civil authority. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851; Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852)

68.  The Church has not the power of introducing diriment impediments of matrimony; but that power belongs to the civil authority, by whom the existing impediments ought to be done away with. (Apostolic Letter, Multiplies inter, June 10, 1851)

69.  The Church, in the course of centuries, began to introduce diriment impediments, not in virtue of her own right, but by making use of the right which she had been granted by the civil power. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

70.  The Canons of the Council of Trent which declare those to be anathema who dare to deny that the Church has the power of introducing diriment impediments, are either not dogmatic or are to be understood of the above-mentioned power conceded by the civil authority. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851.

71.  The form (of marriage) prescribed by the Council of Trent does not oblige under pain of nullity, wherever the civil law lays down another form to be observed and upholds the validity of any marriage celebrated according to this new form. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

72.  Pope Boniface VIII was the first to assert that the vow of chastity taken at ordination makes a marriage null and void. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

73.  In virtue of a merely civil contract, a true marriage can exist between Christians and it is false, either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament or that this contract is null and void, if the sacrament is excluded. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851; Letter to the King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852; Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852; Allocution, Multis gravibusque, December 17, 1860)

74.  Matrimonial lawsuits and betrothal causes by their nature come under the civil jurisdiction. (Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Apostolic Letter, Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851; Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851.

N.B.—To this section belong also two other errors regarding the abolition of ecclesiastical celibacy and the preference to be given to the marriage state over virginity. These errors are condemned, the former in the Encyclical Letter, Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; the latter in the Apostolic Letter, Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851)

Errors Regarding the Temporal

Sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff

75.  The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are at variance amongst themselves concerning the compatibility of temporal sovereignty with spiritual power. (Apostolic Letter, Ad apostolicae, August 22, 1851)

76.  The abrogation of the civil authority which the Holy See enjoys would be in the highest degree conducive to the liberty and happiness of the Church. (Allocution, Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849; Allocution, Si semper antea, May 20, 1850)

N.B.—Besides these errors explicitly censured, several others are implicitly condemned by the doctrine which has been set forth and defended concerning the temporal sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff, and which all Catholics must firmly hold. This doctrine has been clearly taught in the Allocution, Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849; in the Allocution, Si semper antea, May 20, 1850; in the Apostolic Letter, Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860; in the Allocution, Novos et ante, September 28, 1860; in the Allocution, Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861; in the Allocution, Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862.

77.  At the present day it is no longer advantageous that the Catholic religion should be considered as the only religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. (Allocution, Nemo vestrum, July 26, 1855)

78.  Accordingly, it is a matter for commendation that, in certain Catholic countries, the law has provided that foreigners who come to live there enjoy the public exercise of their particular form of religious worship. (Allocution, Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852)

79.  It is false to hold that the according of liberty to all religious denominations and the complete power granted to all to manifest outwardly and publicly all opinions and views of any kind, more easily bring about the corruption of morals and ideas among peoples and spread the pest of indifferentism. (Allocution, Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856)

80.  The Roman Pontiff can and ought to be reconciled and come to terms with Progress, Liberalism and modern Culture (or Civilization). (Allocution, Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861)

Commentary on the Syllabus

Starting from the condemnation of the pantheistic deification of man in Section I, the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX condemns, in Sections II and III, certain consequences which follow from this deification. A few words will be quite sufficient to bring out the force of each of these in turn.

Section I opens with the condemnation of pantheism, the doctrine which identifies God with the world. According to this system, everything in nature is God. As nature becomes conscious of itself in the human reason, human reason takes the place of God and becomes the exclusive arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. Everything thus comes from human reason, which has elaborated myths, in particular the myth of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Of course, revelation, which pretends to come from a being superior to man, is hurtful to true progress.

Section II condemns a series of errors which appear to be more restrained and less blasphemous, but which in reality spring from the same folly of identifying human reason with or placing it on the same level as God. The lucubrations of man’s reason are accordingly endowed with the same certitude as what is known by faith in God’s revelation and divinely safeguarded by the Church. In spite of the Church’s divinely appointed mission to safeguard truth, she must allow the self-constituted divinity, man, to correct his own mistakes. Her decrees and her attachment to the old-fashioned methods of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics are a hindrance to the conquests of deified man and should therefore be done away with.

Section III proscribes a further series of consequences from the apotheosis of human reason. As all religions are the product of man’s reason, one is as good as another. Protestantism, which is a form of Christianity remodeled and brought up to date by man’s efforts, is just as pleasing in God’s sight as the Catholic Church instituted by Himself.[6]

In Section IV are proscribed those societies, Secret, Socialistic and Communistic, which are nurseries of man’s deification of himself, as well as the Biblical Societies and Liberal Societies which favor the propagation of this aberration, as they put man made religions on the same level as the religion instituted by God.

The Syllabus then passes on to denounce the errors and attacks of deified man on the divine organization of the world. This organization, as we have seen above, comprises:(1) The Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, supernatural and supranational, but yet perfectly respectful of national rights and characteristics and capable of harmoniously developing them, on condition that the nations acknowledge their indirect subordination thereto; (2) the different States (and nations), embodiments of the concept of native land, acknowledging the indirect power of the Catholic Church; (3) the family, founded upon the unity and indissolubility of the marriage contract, raised to the dignity of a sacrament by our Lord Jesus Christ; (4) the personality of every human being to be developed as befits a member of our Lord’s Mystical Body by Catholic education, with the right to acquire private property, so that there may be a sufficiency of material goods for bodily needs.

Section V accordingly proscribes those errors which proclaim that the Church is a merely human organization. As there is no God but man, according to the false principles that are in question, no society can have rights independent of man, especially independent of the State, which is the full expression of self-glorified man.

Section VI condemns the errors which follow from the concept of the State-God, source and origin of all right. It denounces in particular the attack on human personality by the State’s interference with Catholic education.[7] Section VII reproves the interference of the State-God in matters of morality. The State-God alone has the power to command and this authority it has from itself in its fullness, for there is no authority coming from the true God. Besides, authority is only the sum total of numbers, the General Will. As every State is, forsooth, divine, there can, of course, be no interference with its proceedings and whatever is done for love of country is above all law and morality. Whatever succeeds is right.

Section VIII condemns the attacks of the State-God on family life and the dignity of marriage. Section IX reproves the refusal to recognize the right of independence bestowed on the Pope, by our divine Lord, when He made St. Peter His Vicar on earth with the charge of spiritually governing the whole Church. The temporal power of the Pope is the condition by which alone, in normal fashion, obstacles and hindrances to that independence are removed. The temporal sovereignty of the Pope is thus not only not incompatible with the spiritual Kingship of our Lord’s Vicar on earth, but is demanded by it. Finally, Section X denounces the refusal, on the part of the State, socially-organized man, to accept the Divine Plan for the world. It insists too on something that evidently follows from what has been said, namely, that it is impossible for Christ’s Vicar on earth to come to terms with the spirit of naturalistic deification of man and rejection of God’s inner life, which animates modern civilization and hinders true progress.

To people accustomed to the phraseology of the present day newspapers, the condemnation of progress and modern civilization in the last proposition of the Syllabus may come as a shock. Accordingly, it will be well to dwell a little upon the significance of this condemnation. First of all, what is meant by civilization? The word civilization comes from the Latin word civitas, which signifies state or organized society. As man is by his nature destined to live in society, civilization may therefore be defined as the ordered development, in any set of surroundings, of the natural life of man. To put it somewhat more fully, civilization is the term used to designate the collective creation or product of men, superimposed on the equipment of race and situation, with a view to the full natural development of human life. In his excellent work, Religion and Culture,[8] Maritain compares the signification of the word culture with that of civilization in his customary felicitous style. The passage will be of great help in grasping the full meaning of the words:

“Instead of the word culture,” writes the distinguished French philosopher, “which relates to the rational development of the human being, considered in all its generality, I might equally well have used the word civilization, which relates to that same development considered in an eminent case—I mean to say in the production of the State and the civil life of which civilization is, as it were, the prolongation and enlargement. The State and civilization are, at one and the same time, works natural to man and works of reason and virtue. Many German and Russian philosophers draw a distinction between civilization and culture and employ the former, conceived in a pejorative sense, to denote a development of social life which is, above all, material, mechanical, and extrinsic (a decrepit and sclerosed culture). We are free to define the terms we use as we like. In the sense in which I understand it, a civilization is deserving of the name only if it is a culture, a truly human and therefore mainly intellectual, moral and spiritual development (taking the word spiritual in its widest acceptation).”

Accordingly, we call civilization the natural social order. Catholicism is the Church, the supernatural social order. These two orders are absolutely distinct; they are not by any means independent. In the natural social order, all achievements are not of equal value. Certain things, good in themselves, are only so for a country, an epoch, a race. They represent a civilization. Other things are so truly human and spiritual that, though they had their origin in a particular country, at a particular epoch, and were the achievements of a particular race, they are yet capable of entering into the common patrimony of humanity. They represent civilization. Such are, for example, in metaphysics, the explicit notion of the first principles, the four causes, the divisions of being into subject and object, potency and act, substance and accident; in politics and law, the notions of common good, of natural law, of positive law as derived from natural law and obliging in conscience; in art, the spiritual éclat, which is to be found, for example, in the Divina Commedia of Dante, the Cathedral of Cologne, the eyes of Murillo’s Madonnas.

The conquests that form part of a particular civilization may be legitimately loved and defended. Such, for example, are a language and a form of government.[9] But it is a higher task to defend, in a particular civilization, the specifically human and universal values which have had their origin therein. Such a defense turns to the profit of humanity as a whole, of Latins and Germans, of Saxons and Celts, of West and East. In acting thus, we are defending directly civilization itself and indirectly the Church. The interests of the Church are not directly involved, for the Church belongs to the supernatural order. In such a combat, however, we are indirectly defending her, for the purer a civilization is, the better will it favor (in the order of dispositive causality), the acceptance of the supernatural life of faith and love. On the other hand, to defend the Church is to work in the most efficacious manner possible for the preservation of civilization. The action of the Catholic Church ever aims at protecting, restoring and purifying the civilizations with which she comes in contact.

We must, therefore, never lose sight of the hierarchical order of values, or we shall be involved in endless confusion. The supernatural values authentically represented by the Church come first. Then come the natural values. Amongst these, those which are universal, which form the purest treasure of the human intelligence, for example, that man is not merely matter, hold the first place. After them take their place the natural values that are less universal and more concrete, finally material goods.[10] Most of the errors condemned in the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX attack supernatural values. Some, however, such as those reproved in Propositions 58–64, are directly opposed to universal natural values.

On the one hand, then, as, in the present order of the world, it is not possible for a man to develop his natural powers in a fully harmonious manner without supernatural life, the attitude towards the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, charged with the diffusion of the divine life, is the spiritual principle or soul of a civilization and the real touchstone of its value. On the other hand, wherever the action of the Church has been favored, she has conferred untold benefits in the order of civilization. She has striven, everywhere, to keep clearly in view the end of all true culture, the formation of true human personality, that is, resemblance to our Lord Jesus Christ. While so doing, however, she has never failed to inspire and promote ordered natural development. It is this truth of the Church’s action on culture which is stressed by Pope Pius X in his Encyclical Letter, Il Fermo Proposito, addressed to the Bishops of Italy in 1905:

“The Church,” wrote the holy Pontiff, “while preaching Jesus Crucified, Who was a stumbling-block and folly to the world, has been the first inspirer and promoter of civilization. She has spread it wherever her apostles have preached, preserving and perfecting what was good in ancient pagan civilization, rescuing from barbarism and raising to a form of civilized society the new peoples who took refuge in her maternal bosom, and giving to the whole of human society, little by little, no doubt, but with a sure and ever onward march, that characteristic stamp which it still everywhere preserves. The civilization of the world is Christian civilization; the more frankly Christian it is, so much is it the more true, more lasting, and more productive of precious fruit; the more it withdraws from the Christian ideal, so much the feebler is it, to the great detriment of society.

“Thus by the intrinsic force of things, the Church becomes again in fact the guardian and protector of Christian civilization. This truth was recognized and admitted in former times; it even formed the immovable foundation of civil legislation. On it rested the relations of Church and States, the public recognition of the authority of the Church in all matters relating in any way to conscience, the subordination of all State laws to the divine laws of the Gospel, the harmony of the two powers, civil and ecclesiastical, for procuring the temporal well-being of the nations without injury to their eternal welfare.

“It is unnecessary to tell you what prosperity and happiness, what peace and concord, what respectful submission to authority and what excellent government would be established and maintained in the world, if the perfect ideal of Christian civilization could be everywhere realized. But, given the continual warfare of the flesh with the spirit, of darkness with light, of Satan with God, we cannot hope for so great a good, at least in its full measure. Hence, against the peaceful conquests of the Church arose unceasing attacks, the more deplorable and fatal as human society tends more to govern itself by principles opposed to the Christian ideal, and to separate itself wholly from God. This is not the reason for losing courage. The Church knows that the gates of hell will never prevail against her; but she knows also that she will be oppressed in this world, that her apostles are sent like lambs among wolves, that her faithful children will ever be hated and despised, as her divine founder was covered with hatred and contempt. Nevertheless, the Church goes fearlessly on, and while extending the Kingdom of God in places where it has not yet been preached, she strives by every means to repair the losses inflicted on the kingdom already acquired.

“To restore all things in Christ has ever been the Church’s motto, and it is specially ours, in the perilous times in which we live. To restore all things, not in any fashion, but in Christ; that are in heaven, and on earth, in Him, adds the Apostle; to restore in Christ not only what directly depends on the divine mission of the Church to conduct souls to God, but also, as we have explained, that which flows spontaneously from this divine mission, viz., Christian civilization in each and every one of the elements which compose it.”

The other truth of the need our fallen nature has of the supernatural life of grace and of the maternal care of the Church, in order to develop its natural qualities in harmonious and stable fashion, is so admirably expressed by J. Maritain, in the work already cited, that no apology is offered for quoting the passage here:[11]—

“That the religion of Christ should penetrate culture to its very depths is not required merely from the point of view of the salvation of souls and in relation to their last end: in this respect a Christian civilization appears as something truly maternal and sanctified, procuring the terrestrial good and the development of the various natural activities by sedulous attention to the imperishable interests and most profound aspirations of the human heart. It ought, from the point of view also of the specific ends of civilization itself, to be Christian. For human reason, considered without any relation whatever to God, is insufficient by its unaided natural resources to procure the good of men and nations.[12] As a matter of fact, and in the conditions governing life at present, it is not possible for man to expand his nature in a fundamentally and permanently upright manner unless under the sky of grace. Left to himself, he cannot but fail to achieve the difficult harmonies of the virtues, the difficult rational regulations, the pure consonances of justice and friendship without which culture deviates from its most exalted ends. St. Augustine’s words with reference to the State apply equally to civilization: ‘The State does not derive its felicity from another source than man, for the State is merely a multitude of men living in harmony.’[13] And one Name only has been given to men in which they may be saved. However great civilizations may be which ignore that Name, they inevitably decline, in one respect or another, from the complete notion of civilization and culture; order and liberty become equally cruel therein. Even an authentically Christian civilization does not escape many accidental blemishes. Only a Christian civilization can be exempt from essential deviations.”

For St. Thomas, as we have seen in a previous chapter, contemplation is the end of civil government, not that civil government is meant to aim at it as its proportionate end, but because it can prepare for it as for a higher end, superior to political ends and preferable to them. Thus, when a tiller of the soil makes ready the ground for planting, he is preparing for the flowers and fruits that will spring from the cultivated soil. Civilization, as we have already said, has directly in view the development of human nature here below, but mediately it is ordained to the Kingdom of God, that is, to the order of eternal and supernatural life begun here below, and it is from the Kingdom of God that it must receive the supreme rule and measure. Civilization is the development of the truly human life of the State. It belongs of itself to the natural order: metaphysics, art, science, politics, civic virtues. But it cannot attain its full development except under the supernatural sky of the Church. Christian civilization is the overflow of the Kingdom of heaven. It is the impress of the Mystical Body of Christ on man’s natural social organization.[14]

Accordingly, as man’s contemplation of God in the actual world is meant to be not merely natural but supernatural, that civilization is simply and absolutely (simpliciter) the most perfect in which the well-being and moral rectitude of society is sought in a manner calculated to pave the way for supernatural contemplation. Such a civilization may be surpassed by others in a certain department or departments (secundum quid), but these latter will lack the harmony and power of recuperation of the former. For the true progress of a people, the rulers must ever keep these principles in view. True progress will always respect the line of formal development of man. It will give rise to qualitative civilizations such as was the civilization of Greece in the fourth century before the birth of our Lord and, in a higher degree, the civilization of Western Europe in the thirteenth century. If a people’s attention is diverted from things spiritual and turned to material conquests, to the cultivation of the useful, that is of whatever serves as a means of furthering human intercourse and ministers to man’s bodily needs and comforts, the whole direction of life gradually changes. The means become the end. The civilization is quantitative instead of qualitative. As mind tends invincibly to universality, it will then seek it in the realms of matter. The reign of quantity, of mass production and of standardized parts will be inaugurated. In such a civilization, metaphysicians will be of little social account compared with financiers. Arts in which matter is excessively prominent, such as the noble art of self defense and certain games, will occupy a place altogether out of proportion to their importance. The winning of material comfort which appeals to the animality in man (animality is so universal that it belongs also to beings other than man) will become all-absorbing. By all this we do not mean to convey that those technical triumphs are devoid of intelligence and idealism. Far from it. We simply want to emphasize the fact that, in our quantitative civilization, intelligence and idealism are placed at the service of the animality in us and turned downwards to the manipulation of matter rather than upwards to contemplation and supra-sensible reality. With the rejection of the great truth of our membership of the Mystical Body of Christ Crucified, these very material conquests are leading to a state of awful disorder. Man can now overcome the obstacles of time and space with what may be termed, of course with exaggeration, angelic swiftness, but his triumphs are being placed more and more at the service of demoniacal hate. Matter is the principle of division.

We shall conclude this commentary by a few remarks about the force of the Syllabus and the meaning of the propositions. What is the binding force of the Syllabus? The distinguished writer of the article on the Syllabus in The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the results of his investigations as follows:

“Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess the unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli (accompanying it, when it was sent to the Bishops) is a decision given by the Pope, speaking as teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus; exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents: they must also assent to it interiorly.”

In our days, when the Mystical Body of Christ is so vehemently attacked on all sides, Catholics must never forget that “the Pope possesses a twofold teaching authority, viz., supreme or infallible and ordinary. The Pope teaches the Church with his ordinary authority, either directly or through one of the Roman Congregations, that is through one of the committees of learned men who assist him in his work. The Congregation of the Holy Office or Inquisition is concerned with purity of doctrine; the Biblical Commission with questions connected with the Sacred Scriptures. When he employs his ordinary authority, he is not infallible and does not, of course, bind us to an assent of faith.”[15]

But a Catholic who puts himself fully at the point of view of the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body, continuing His mission of loving guidance, will receive every instruction and direction of the Sovereign Pontiff as a divinely-guided safeguard of weak human reason. This is the only attitude that becomes a Catholic, but it means a reaction against the world around us. Catholics should learn to value the Syllabus for what it really is, a God-given guiding line amidst the shifting sands of modern errors.

The true doctrine opposed to the errors enumerated in the Syllabus is expressed by the contradictory propositions of each of the condemned theses. This contradictory proposition can be obtained by prefixing to each of the banned theses the words: “It is not true that.” For example, the true doctrine in regard to the 80th Proposition may be enunciated as follows: “It is not true that the Roman Pontiff can and ought to be reconciled and come to terms with Progress, Liberalism and modern Civilization.” In the case of the 79th Proposition which begins with the words: “It is false,”  the contradictory is obtained by substituting for these words the phrase: “It is true.”

We must, of course, be careful always to take the exact contradictory of the proposition condemned, in order to have a clear idea of the Catholic teaching to be followed. The Syllabus has frequently been misinterpreted owing to the non-observance of this rule of logic.

[1]Of course, grace is more abundant. “I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly” (Jn. 10:10).

[2]Cf. L’ Amour de Dieu et la Croix de Jésus, pp. 305–315, by Pére Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. The distinguished author points out that most Thomists teach that these wounds are not merely the privation of the gratuitous gift of original justice, but that they diminish the natural inclination to justice. The principal reason they allege is that man is now born with a will turned away from God by original sin, whereas in the state of pure nature, the will would not be thus turned away from God. It is certain that, by original sin the will is turned away from God, supernatural final end, and indirectly from God, natural final end, for every sin against the supernatural final end is indirectly a sin against the natural law which orders us to obey God, whatever He commands.

St. Thomas says: “Sciendum est quod in peccato originali est habitualis aversio a bono incommutabili, cum habens peccatum originale non habeat cor Deo conjunctum per caritatem: et sic quantum ad habitualem aversionem est de existente in peccato originali et mortali, licet in peccato mortali super hoc sit habitualis conversio ad indebitum finem.” (De veritate, Q. 24, a. 12, ad. 2) Again: “In his quae ex stirpe Adae oriuntur et superior pars animae caret debito ordine ad Deum, qui erat per justitiam originalem, et inferiores vires non subduntur rationi, sed ad inferiora convertuntur secundum proprium impetum…est pronitas ad inordinate appetendum quae concupiscentia dici potest.” (De malo, Q, 4, a. 2).

[3]“Sed in statu naturae corruptae homo ab hoc (a dilectione naturali Dei supra se) deficit secundum appetitum voluntatis rationalis, quae propter corruptionem naturae sequitur bonum privatum, nisi sanetur per gratiam Dei … ad diligendum Deum naturaliter super omnia … in statu naturae corruptae indiget homo…auxilio gratiae sanantis.” (Ia, IIae, Q. 109, a. 3, c)

The primordial inclination of our nature is to God and that essential inclination remains, but it is weakened by original sin and thus the concrete psychological manifestations of our moral life, even after baptism, are generally selfish, with a disordered love of self. The wounds subsist after baptism, but the healing process has begun. It must be carried on by allowing our Lord Crucified to live in His members.

The following passage from the pen of J. Maritain is an excellent summary of Thomistic teaching on this point:

“The word nature can be taken in the metaphysical sense of essence involving a certain finality. Then what is natural is that which answers the requirements and propensities of the essence, that to which things are ordered, by reason of their specific type and finally by the author of being. …Rousseau’s whole mistake comes from the fact that, when rightly enough, he looks for the basic propensities of man as being good, he wrongly seeks them in sensitive individuality and not in essence: instead of finding the first tendencies of natural morality he hits upon concupiscence itself. …Rightly understood, the truth of the primitive goodness of man means: (1) That the actual state in which man was created was a state of innocence, integrity and happiness—that was a gratuitous and supernatural privilege, the first pledge of the destiny reserved for us; (2) that human nature, considered metaphysically, in its essence and first inclinations, is good and directed towards the good, so that the whole work of the reason and culture should, under penalty of the worst havoc, develop along natural lines—that is, as it were, the first stratum of human life. Rousseau’s attacks on modern society, deeply spoiled by what is artificial and by conditions of life which are contrary to nature, are only too justified from this point of view, and a certain intelligent ‘naturism’ in the fundamental regimen and hygiene of individuals and societies…here appears as a more and more necessary reaction.

“But all that does not prevent the weakness of human nature; nor the wounds left by original sin; it does not prevent the nature of each one, considered concretely and in the individual, being full, in fact, of ferments of disorder and constantly threatened by the ‘seat of concupiscence’ present in it. Far from ‘all our first inclinations being legitimate’ (Rousseau in Emile, book iv), the will of each man left to the powers of nature alone is, in the state of fallen nature, incapable of efficaciously choosing God as his last end. Grace is needed for that” (cf. Summa Theol,, Ia, IIae, a, 3 et 4)—(J. Maritain, Three Reformers, pp. 127, 143, 232)

[4]The interplay of the speculative and practical orders must never be left out of account. Without a full grasp of the speculative order, our “practical” solutions are liable to be short-sighted and impractical. Wrong tendencies in practice, on the other hand, tend to lessen the appeal of the sublimest speculative truths. Transcendence and divine immanence are two corresponding notions. They are purified and corrupted together. Their corruption is a sign of sad decay.

[5]These remarks will help to understand why such intellects as those of Milton and Goethe sank into pantheism. Goethe’s Faust is the dramatization of the struggle between Ormuzd and Ahriman, the good and evil principles. Evil is finally absorbed by good. Goethe was a member of various secret societies. Milton’s rejection of the divinity of Our Lord paved the way for his pantheism. Angels and men, soul and body, are all formed from matter, according to him. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Professor David Masson writes as follows about Milton’s Treatise on Christian Doctrine: “Professing to be a system of divinity derived directly from the Bible, it is really an exposition of Milton’s metaphysics and of his reasoned opinions on all questions of philosophy, ethics and politics…this treatise shows that Milton in his later life was not an orthodox Trinitarian, but an anti-Trinitarian of that high Arian order which denied the coessentiality or coequality of Christ with absolute Deity, but having a derivative divinity.” The same writer goes on to point out that one of Milton’s doctrines is that the Decalogue is no longer the standard of human morality and that Christian liberty is not to be bounded by its prohibitions, and then adds: “While, ontologically, Milton starts from a pure spiritualistic theism, or from the notion of one infinite and eternal spirit as the self-subsisting God and author of all being, cosmologically his system is that of a pantheistic materialism, which conceives all the present universe, all that we call creation, as consisting of diverse modifications, inanimate or animate, of one primal matter, which was originally nothing else than an efflux or emanation from the very substance of God. Angels and men, no less than the brute world and the things we call lifeless, are formations from this one original matter. …Hence no radical distinction between soul and body. The soul of man is actually bound up with the bodily organism. When the body dies, the soul dies also and the whole man ceases to exist. The immortality revealed in Scripture is…a miraculous revival of the whole man, soul and body, at the resurrection, after a sleep.”

Some Catholics should study the influence of the Jewish Kabbala on the pantheistic tendencies of writers of literature, from Milton to a minor poet like Yeats. Yeats, in his Autobiographies, admits acquaintance with the Kabbala, Theosophy, etc. A French writer, Denis Saurat, in his work Milton et le Matérialisme Chrétien en Angleterre, has treated of the influence of the Kabbala on Milton. The book, however, appears in a series of which the Catholic orthodoxy seems very doubtful.

[6]In order to arrive at the precise signification of the doctrine condemned in any proposition of the Syllabus, we must consult the document from which the condemnation is taken. Thus with regard to the 15th Proposition, we must turn to the Apostolic Letter, Multiplies inter, of June 10, 1851, which proscribed the particular form of deification of human reason advocated by Vigil in 1848. Vigil held that man should trust to his own reason only and not to the Divine Reason vouching for the truth of a religion.

[7]In the Encyclical Letter Non abbiamo bisogno, on Catholic Action, Pope Pius XI wrote about the Fascist government of Italy as follows: “We find ourselves confronted by a mass of authentic affirmations and no less authentic facts which reveal beyond the slightest possibility of doubt the resolve…to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exclusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State—that Statolatry, which is no less in contrast with the natural rights of the family than it is in contradiction with the supernatural rights of the Church.

[8]Page 2 (Sheed and Ward).

[9]When a particular form of civilization has been molded by and impregnated with the supernatural, the uprooting of that civilization and, in particular, the forcing of another language on the people cannot be carried out without injury to the supernatural life of the country, even where both the civilizations have been molded by the Catholic Church. The result is more regrettable still, if the language expressive of the new civilization as well as its habits and customs, bear the impress of centuries of Protestantism. From this point of view, the Irish people have suffered severely.

[10]Cf. Nova et Vetera, pp. 296–299, article de M. l’Abbé Journet.

[11]Religion and Culture, pp. 31, 32.

[12]Cf. Prop. 3 of the Syllabus.

[13]Ep. ad Macedon., c. iii.

[14]Cf. Le Docteur Angélique, by M. Jacques Maritain, pp. 77, 78,

[15]Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, by Archbishop Sheehan, vol. i. p. 179.

Chapter VIII

The Modern Struggle Around the Kingship of Christ

The Place of the Syllabus in this Struggle

The well-known French Freemason, Ferdinand Buisson, once declared: “A school cannot remain neutral between the Syllabus and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.”[1] Let us see briefly the significance of this statement.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, that is to say, the Church founded by our Lord, the external, visible, hierarchical society, in which the supreme authority belongs to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope, is united to Christ as the Body with the head. The Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ, because the principle which animates this Body is essentially mysterious, infinitely superior to and more unifying than the human soul or the spirit of a family or a nation. The soul of the Mystical Body is the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier. The Holy Spirit is the source of the divine life of Sanctifying grace by which the Body lives, but He always acts through the sacred humanity of Jesus Christ, the head of the Body. “So we, being many, are one body in Christ and each one members of one another” (Rom. 12:5).

The Church, then, is the Body of Christ, the permanent and continuous Incarnation of God in the world. It is by this visible body that Christ is for all men for all time, the Way, the Truth and the Life.[2] “Wounded by sin and immersed in sense-life, human nature was no longer sufficiently attuned to the invisible government of the Word. Hence the wound had to be healed by the humanity of Christ, by which Christ made satisfaction. It was necessary also that He should assume a visible nature in order that, by a visible government, man should be brought into contact with the invisible.”[3] In our day, by the living and visible Church, by its governing and teaching power and its rites, as long ago in Palestine by the gestures and words of Jesus, human beings are drawn on to God and through the veil of the signs, by which He reveals His inner life and acts upon them, attain by faith and love to His invisible reality.[4]

Enrollment in the Church Militant by Baptism goes along with Mystical incorporation into Christ. The former is the sense-perceptible aspect of the latter and its supernaturally efficacious sign. It is by reconciling the repentant sinner with the visible Church by a judicial absolution that the sacrament of Penance reconciles the sinner with God. If perfect contrition is sufficient for reconciliation with the divine majesty, before the sacrament is effectively received, it is precisely because being perfect it includes, at least implicitly, the desire and profoundly humble acceptance of all the conditions laid down by God for the gift of His friendship. One of these conditions is confession of sins to men who would have from Jesus Christ the mission and the power of hearing and remitting them in His name.

This doctrine helps us to understand the role of the visible hierarchy of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops, in the life of the Mystical Body, and how our attitude towards that visible hierarchy affects our intimate relations with Christ. We see that no one reaches God unless through Christ, and Christ is reached in normal fashion only through His representatives, His human intermediaries. Those instruments are human and terrestrial and, as such, exposed to the failings springing from original sin, but they are the instruments He has chosen in order to mold and fashion us. When we remember that “the invisible Christ living in this visible Body of the Church exercises visibly His functions of head by His Vicar and that the members in obeying him subject themselves, not to a man as such, but to Christ Who said: ‘He who hears you hears Me, he who despises you despises Me.’”[5] then we can understand the meaning of the submission and loyalty of Catholics to the Pope and the Bishops. One must in truth be of the household of the faith to see it, for the “sensual man perceiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God: for it is foolishness to him and he cannot understand.” (1Cor. 2:14). Hesitation in obedience and discussion of the right of intervention of the representatives of Christ are a sign that people are no longer living their faith in Christ, that they are no longer fully conscious of what Christ has willed the Church should be for them.

The Church, then, is Christ continuing His mission on earth of drawing souls into union with the Father, into the family of the Blessed Trinity. We are not, therefore, fully attentive to the life of the Church, if we content ourselves with accepting what is defined by her and accomplishing certain ritual practices at stated intervals. A fortiori we are out of touch with the Church’s life, if we allow the spirit of the French Revolution into our hearts and thus come to imagine that the Church, by which Christ elevates our natural life and heals its wounds, is in any way an enemy of our rightful development and of our true personal self-expression. The Church is the Body of Christ and in it Christ is living again Bethlehem, Nazareth and Calvary. All the members of the Body are meant to live in union of faith and love with Christ, represented by the heads of the Church.

We can thus have a better grasp of the horror of Luther’s attack on the visible Body of Christ and of the significance of the proclamation of the supremacy of naturalism at the French Revolution. As the nineteenth century advanced and the mentality resulting from the revolt against the Divine Plan spread, many errors against the life of the Mystical Body were diffused abroad, so that even Catholics ran the risk of being contaminated. In the Syllabus, Pope Pius IX cataloged these errors, especially, but not exclusively, in regard to the rights of the Mystical Body and to politics, thus giving to Catholics a negative test of their fidelity to Christ the King. If anyone holds any of these propositions, he has to that extent passed from under the rule of the great captain, Christ.

The Syllabus of Pope Pius IX warns us, then, of the rocks and quicksands of error. Since the appearance of that noble document, a positive program whereby the politics and economics of nations may again be brought into harmony with the life of the Mystical Body has been elaborated by the succeeding Popes. The duties of Catholics in view of the return of the political life of States to the rule of Christ have been developed in the Encyclicals, Immortale Dei (on the Christian constitution of States), Exeunte Jam Anno (on the right ordering of Christian life), Libertas (on Human Liberty), Sapientiae Christianae (on Christians as Citizens), and Tametsi (on Christ our Redeemer) of Pope Leo XIII. Pope Pius X treated of true Christian democracy in his admirable Letter on the Sillon. Pope Pius XI has continued the teaching of his predecessors in the Encyclical Letters, Ubi Arcano Dei, and Quas primas, in which he has stressed the sublime truth that Catholics must look upon the endeavor to rechristianize public life as a combat to be waged under the banner of Christ the King. A positive economic program for return to ordered life has been developed by the Encyclical Letters, Rerum Novarum (on the Condition of the Working Classes) and Graves de Communi (on Christian Democracy) of Pope Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Letters, Singulari quadam and Il Fermo Proposito of Pope Pius X to the Bishops of Germany and Italy respectively, and then in the wonderful Quadragesimo Anno of Pope Pius XI.

We have seen the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic ideal of the native land, the Catholic family, and the development of personality of the child attacked in the name of the so-called rights of pantheistically deified man. But we can also see the rights of God proclaimed by Pope Pius XI, in a vast synthesis embracing all the points attacked. Pope Pius XI has treated of the Mystical Body of Christ in the Encyclicals, Miserentissimus Redemptor (on Reparation to the Sacred Heart) and Mortalium Animos (on true Religious Unity), of the Catholic concept of Patria or native land in Ubi Arcano Dei and Quas primas of the Christian family in Casti Connubii (on Christian Marriage) following on Pope Leo XIII’s Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, and of the personality of the child in that sublime document Divini illius Magistri (on the Christian Education of Youth). The crowning appeal of Pope Pius XI for the rights of God, addressed “to all those who still believe in God and adore Him loyally,” has come in the Encyclical Caritate Christi compulsi, in which he cries out:

“We cannot refrain from raising our voice and, with all the energy of our Apostolic heart, taking the defense of the downtrodden rights of God and of the most sacred sentiments of the human heart that has an absolute need of God. And this all the more since these hostile forces, impelled by the spirit of evil, do not content themselves with mere clamor, but unite all their strength, in order to carry out at the first opportunity their nefarious designs. Woe to mankind, if God, thus spurned by His creatures, allows, in His justice, free course to this devastating flood and uses it as a scourge to chastise the world.”

Liberty and the Kingship of Christ

Man, alone of the visible creation, is endowed with the gift of liberty, by which, “he is in the hand of his counsel and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen. The Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, having restored and exalted the original dignity of nature, vouchsafed special assistance to the will of man; and by the gifts of His grace here, and the promise of heavenly bliss hereafter, He raised it to a nobler state. In like manner, this great gift of nature has ever been and always will be, deservingly cherished by the Catholic Church; for to her alone has been committed the charge of handing down to all ages the benefits purchased for us by Jesus Christ. Yet there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free.”[6]

On account of the false notions to which the Pope alludes it will be well to explain the meaning of human liberty at some length.

Personal Liberty

Liberty, in a very wide sense, is the absence of determinateness. Now this immunity from determinateness may be merely the absence of external compulsion, and this we see in any animal in a wild state, or even in a tame or trained animal, when not under the control of its master. An unyoked horse on a road or in a field is not under external control and is so far free, in the sense in which we are now speaking of freedom.[7] But the animal does not enjoy and cannot have the endowment of internal liberty, that is to say, immunity from intrinsic determinateness. Man alone, as we have said, has this highest of natural gifts, in virtue of which his will exercises domination over its acts.[8] Man, therefore, in contrast with the brute beast, can have not only external but internal liberty.

Now the object of the will is presented to it by the intellect, which grasps the order of being, that is, the end of man, endowed as he is with supernatural life, and the relation of means to end.[9] Accordingly:

“The good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given.”[10]

Therefore, as liberty resides in the will which is of its nature a faculty obedient to reason, it has for object like the will “that good only which is in conformity to reason.”

Now, as it is not in accordance with order (or right reason) to turn one’s back on the end to which one is destined, moral freedom, the freedom of man as a rational being, is the faculty of choosing means which lead to the end.

This may be expressed in perhaps more familiar terms, by saying that liberty is man’s power of choosing what is right.[11] It follows, accordingly, that the more perfectly a man’s power of doing what is in order is developed the freer he is. A being which has the power of willing good and evil is specifically superior to one which cannot will either good or evil, for such a being is free. But the being who can will only what is good is superior to one who can will both good and evil. The perfection of a being is measured by the perfection with which it tends to its end or possesses it and the good is the exclusive end of every being.[12]

“This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: ‘Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin’ (Jn. 8:34). ‘Everything,’ he says, ‘is that which belongs to it according to its nature. …When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved, as it were, by another, and is the victim of foreign (or irrational) conceptions. Therefore, whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin. Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; by the term wise man was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.”[13]

The end of the intelligence is truth or the true. The end of the will is goodness or the good. There is no such thing, then, as moral or rational liberty of error and evil, since it would turn these faculties away from their end. Some, in their madness and folly, speak of the despotism of truth. They should rather speak of the despotism of error, for the latter usurps over the intelligence rights which do not belong to it. Evil is a horrible tyranny, and freedom consists in being set free from its yoke. Bolshevism is thus dehumanizing man.

“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law.”[14]

We must, therefore, carefully distinguish between the exercise of liberty considered as a means for the rational attainment of an end and the exercise of liberty considered irrationally as an end in itself or as being its own end. In man’s immaterial soul, there are two faculties relative to being: the faculty of knowing or the intellect which is capable of knowing the true; the faculty of willing and choosing or the will, which has the good for object.[15] We are here concerned with the will.

All men without exception desire the good without limit. This primordial desire sets all their activity in motion, and, under its action, they freely choose the objects in which they look for the concrete realization of the unlimited good, capable of yielding them unalloyed happiness. The result is the adoption by everyone of some good, which is definitely set up as the end of his life. By this all his preoccupations are tacitly or expressly regulated. It is this good in reality or only in appearance which is his last end for each human being. All, however, do not fix upon the same final end. Some place their final end in God. Others place it in riches or pleasures or power or art or science.[16] Each one is, of course, responsible for the good upon which he has fixed as his final end. Now the human will, appetitive faculty of the intellectual order, has two kinds of acts which are often confused in our day. The will is both the faculty of tendency towards the end and the faculty of choosing the means to attain the end. The appetitive faculty wills the end absolutely and without measure; it desires the means relatively and partially in the measure in which they lead to the end.[17]

Accordingly, as the human will is the appetitive faculty of an intellectual being, it must will according to order. It is obliged to tend to the end which is in accordance with its specific rational nature and then choose in accordance with its nature, that is, freely, the means to the end.[18] A rational being must will according to reason, that is to say, in observance of the order of being.

Now the idea of liberty which the French Revolution has helped to spread throughout the world is utterly opposed to the correct idea which we have outlined above. According to this erroneous view, the notion of subordination to the rational end, instead of appearing as the foundation of the authentic idea of liberty with regard to the means, is considered, on the contrary, to be purely and simply tyranny. For the revolutionary mentality, there can be no such thing as an end obligatory for man. Neither can there be incumbent on him the obligation of choosing in accordance with his nature, that is, freely, the means which lead thereto. There is no such thing, proclaims the revolution, as an objective order of being, a Divine Plan. The exercise of liberty is its own rule and its own end. Thus, according to the Rousseauist-Masonic ideal of democracy, the vote of the majority creates right. This is, as we have seen, to place the human will on the same level as the divine will. “The divine will alone,” writes St. Thomas, “is the rule of its own act, because it is not ordained to a higher end: the rectitude of the acts of every created will lies in their conformity to the divine will.”[19] It is a contradiction to speak of a created will as the final rule and measure of its own acts. It is a flagrant absurdity to talk of the right of the people to do wrong, if they please. To accept error and to do wrong knowingly is to subject oneself to tyranny. The prodigious work of demolition of order, achieved by the revolution since 1789, is resulting in human slavery, as was inevitable.

This brings us to the question of how man’s moral freedom, that is, his power of acting in accordance with the dictates of his rational nature, is to be perfected, so that his physical possibility of sin and error may not bring about his downfall.

“Since both these faculties (the human intellect and the human will) are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good and that the will should choose accordingly. For as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto, than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. …Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin.”[20]

How, then, are light and strength communicated to man so that he may not only grasp the order of being but observe it faithfully in relation to himself and others, that is to say, will what is in order on every occasion? Strength and light are communicated by the intrinsic and extrinsic principles of right action. The intrinsic principles are the virtues or virtuous habits (habitus), natural and supernatural. The extrinsic principles are Law, which teaches us what is to be done and what is to be left undone, and divine grace, which not only enlightens but strengthens and applies to right action.[21]

Let us take first the intrinsic principles of right action. How are we to understand the term intrinsic principles of action as applied to virtuous habits? Virtuous habits (habitus) are called by St. Thomas intrinsic principles of human action, because they are, as it were, complements of the faculties. From this point of view, they are subordinate to the soul as to their motive principle, inasmuch as they are habitus of it. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the supernatural virtues are produced in the soul by an extrinsic principle, being infused by God, like sanctifying grace itself. Accordingly, they are to be studied in connection with divine grace. Therefore, the supernatural virtues infused into the soul in baptism must be developed and the natural virtues must be acquired, so that a man may be able to observe the order of return to our real Patria, the Blessed Trinity.[22] To the objection that our natural equipment determines our movements and thus precludes free will in accordance with the principle laid down by Aristotle (Ethics, iii. 5): According as each one is, such does the end seem to him, St. Thomas replies at length: “Quality in man is of two kinds: natural and adventitious. Now the natural quality may be either in the intellectual part or in the body and its powers. From the very fact, therefore, that man is such by virtue of a natural quality which is in the intellectual part, he naturally desires his last end, which is happiness.

This desire, indeed, is a natural desire, and is not subject to free will, as is clear from what we have said above (Q. 82, a. 1, 2). But on the part of the body and its powers man may be such by virtue of a natural quality, inasmuch as he is of such a temperament or disposition due to any impression whatever produced by corporeal causes, which cannot affect the intellectual part, since it is not the act of a corporeal organ. And such as a man is by virtue of a corporeal quality, such also does his end seem to him, because from such a disposition a man is inclined to choose or reject something. But these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason, which the lower appetite obeys, as we have said. (Q. 81, a. 3). Wherefore, this is in no way prejudicial to free will. The adventitious qualities are habits and passions, by virtue of which a man is inclined to one thing rather than to another. And yet even these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason. Such qualities, too, are subject to reason, as it is in our power either to acquire them, whether by causing them or disposing ourselves to them, or to reject them. And so there is nothing in this that is repugnant to free will.”[23]

St. Thomas here points out that it is in man’s power to acquire the natural virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance and extirpate the opposed vices and thus train himself to live in accordance with his nature, that is, be truly free.

This process of correct development of our natural qualities cannot, in our fallen state, be carried out without the aid of the extrinsic principle of divine grace, for in the state of fallen nature, man cannot fulfill all the precepts of natural law without healing grace.[24]

To use the words of Pope Leo XIII:

“The first and most excellent of these aids (for strengthening and ordering the human will) is the power of God’s divine grace, whereby the mind can be enlightened and the will wholesomely invigorated and moved to the constant pursuit of moral good, so that the use of our inborn liberty becomes at once less difficult and less dangerous. Not that the divine assistance hinders in any way the free movement of our will, just the contrary, for grace works inwardly in man and in harmony with his natural inclinations, since it flows from the very creator of his mind and will, by whom all things are moved in conformity with their nature. As the Angelic Doctor points out, it is because divine grace comes from the author of nature, that it is so admirably adapted to be the safeguard of all natures, and to maintain the character, efficiency, and operations of each.”[25]

The other extrinsic principle required to enlighten and order the human will is law, “that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in view of the eventual attainment of man’s last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him towards good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments. Foremost in this office comes the natural law, which is written and engraved in the mind of every man; and this is nothing but our reason, commanding us to do right and forbidding sin…the law of nature is the same thing as the eternal law, implanted in rational creatures, and inclining them to their right action and end; and can be nothing else but the eternal reason of God, the creator and ruler of the whole world.

“What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, that human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature. …But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society; because just as civil society did not create human nature, neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal law. The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of man, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law. And within the sphere of this kind of laws, the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now there are other enactments of the civil authority which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. …It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and enacted by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end; and in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil.

“From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring about the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law, all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law.”[26]

In order, therefore, that a man should be free, that is, capable of willing what is in order, the organization of society, that is, the laws of the society to which he belongs, should favor the development of virtue and hinder vice, thus aiming at promoting material progress in accordance with man’s final end, the life of the Mystical Body in heaven. Where the laws and organization of society are against the order of the world, the average man is in danger of succumbing to the dominating influences and of becoming at best indifferent.

“So long as Christ does not reign over nations, His influence even over individuals remains superficial and exposed to overthrow. If it is true that the work of the apostolate consists in the conversion of individuals and that nations do not go to heaven, but souls, one by one, we must not forget, nevertheless, that the individual member of society lives under the never-ceasing influence of his environment, in which, if we may not say that he is submerged, he is, at least, deeply plunged. If the environment is non-Catholic, it prevents him from embracing the faith, or, if he has the faith, it tends to root out of his heart every vestige of belief. If we suppose Catholic social institutions, with our Lord no longer living in the hearts of the individual members of society, then religion is merely a signboard which will soon disappear. But, on the other hand, try to convert individuals without Catholicizing the social institutions and your work is without stability. The structure you erect in the morning others will tear down in the evening. Is not the strategy of the enemies of God there to teach us a lesson? They want to destroy the faith in the hearts of individuals, it is true, but they direct still more vigorous efforts to the extirpation of religion from social institutions. Even one defeat of God in this domain means the weakening, if not the ruin, of the faith in the souls of many.”[27]

National Liberty

In the Encyclical Letter, Libertas, Pope Leo XIII treats of civil and public liberty as follows:

“Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing or destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God. …If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning (freedom to live according to law and right reason),…they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the enemy of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry: ‘I will not serve’; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license…it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power.[28] Of the various forms of government, the Church does not object to any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only—and this nature itself requires—that they should be constituted without involving wrong to anyone, and especially without violating the rights of the Church. …Neither does the Church condemn those who, if it can be done without violation of justice, wish to make their country independent of any foreign or despotic power. Nor does she blame those who wish to assign to the State the power of self-government, and to its citizens the greatest possible measure of prosperity. The Church has always most faithfully fostered civil liberty.”

Let us now apply those principles to the question of Ireland’s relation to England. Liberty means the power of choosing what is in accordance with order. It implies, therefore, the removal of obstacles to a nation’s realizing God’s plan for order in the world. The struggle of the Irish nation for independence was and is valuable before God in so far as it is an attempt to remove external pressure and thereby more thoroughly accept the Kingship of Christ. The nation has the right to seek liberation from outside pressure, so that it may organize its social relations in such wise as not only not to hinder, but to favor, the life of the Mystical Body. To do this in order, it must acknowledge the rule of Christ the King through the Pope and the Bishops. Thus and thus only will the members of the Irish nation attain to and enjoy true liberty.

The Catholic Church is above the British Empire and the Irish nation, just as the kingdom of which our Lord spoke on the first Good Friday was above Pilate’s Roman Empire and Caiphas’s Jewish nation. Both these men should have put themselves at our Lord’s point of view, and grace was offered to them to do so. Catholics of both the English and Irish nations should have endeavored and should always endeavor to keep clearly in view the supremacy of the supernatural society of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. English rule in Ireland had for bounden duty unselfishly to favor the Kingship of Christ in Ireland. English Catholics should have remembered that any imposition of its natural form, to use a scholastic term, by one nation on another, by the destruction of the national language and of healthy native customs, is opposed to the rule of Christ the King in the subject nation, because it hampers the development of the natural virtues. On the one hand, then, England, even before she became Protestant,[29] and some English Catholics since 1829 have confused the interests of the Catholic Church with their own narrow views of those of England; they have, after a certain fashion, tried to pull down the Mystical Body of Christ and identify it with their national entity. On the other hand, since 1789, many Irishmen, infected with the disordered nationalism of the French Revolution, have failed to see that our national struggle, both as regards end and means, must be respectful of the Kingship of Christ. They turn against the Church and incite others to do the same, because the Pope and the Bishops, who speak for Christ the King, condemn secret societies and insist that what is morally wrong cannot be politically advantageous. They fail to see that the real glory of Ireland in the past has been her fidelity to our Lord, in spite of the pressure of the forces that turned against Him in the sixteenth century and that her true glory in the future will be her response to the call of the Vicar of Christ to join forces with him against the enemies of God in the world and thus stand for the integral truth.

To exalt pre-Christian Ireland, with its legends of Cuchulain, as if our pagan forefathers had a full grasp of the order of the world, to speak as if Wolfe Tone and all revolutionary Irishmen since 1789 alone had a real love of their country and a clear view of the full truth concerning the relation of the Irish nation to the Mystical Body of Christ, betrays a sad confusion of thought and a deplorable ignorance of the real nature of the struggle going on in the world. Hugh O’Neill and Owen Roe O’Neill had an understanding of the meaning of patriotism and nationality incomparably superior to those who have had the misfortune to come under the influence of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Owing to Masonic influences many Frenchmen have been reared in the belief that the history of their country practically began in 1789. Surely we are not going to allow our training in the history of our country to be so divorced from reality?

We have already seen that Masonry and Communism agree in the pantheistic deification of man. How do those two international movements against the divine life of the Mystical Body of Christ threaten danger to the Kingship of Christ in Ireland?

Let us take Masonry first. By English law, in the drawing up of which Masonic influence is so powerful, six counties of the province of Ulster are subject to a parliament at Belfast, while the other twenty-six counties are under a parliament at Dublin. If we may judge by what has taken place elsewhere, Masonry’s program will be to secure complete control in the Six Counties and then work steadily for an increase of influence in what is called Southern Ireland. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that Article 8 of the Free State Constitution places the Catholic religion on the same level as all other forms of worship. This is the well-known provision which gives concrete expression in State-Constitutions to the Masonic attitude towards the Divine Plan. This Masonic attitude has two characteristics: the first is social indifference to any form of religion; the second is the explicit or implied assumption of superiority on the part of the natural organization of the State over the supernatural organization of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. The following are the terms of Article 8:

“Freedom of Conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen, and no law may be made either directly or indirectly to endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference, or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status, or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at the school, or make any discrimination as respects State aid between schools under the management of different religious denominations, or divert from any religious denomination or any educational institution any of its property except for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage works or other works of public utility, and on payment of compensation.”

By this Article, the Free State follows in the wake of so many countries since 1789 and proclaims that, as an entity, it does not acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ established any order for return to God. It is difficult to believe that this attitude of indifference to the Divine Plan has been freely chosen by Irish Catholics.[30] It must never be forgotten either that Masonry strives to get its adherents into the key positions in the State, because the ministers who are nominally responsible for the government of a country are to a large extent at the mercy of the permanent officials. A union of the two portions of Ireland can be brought about at some subsequent time in such a way as seemingly to pander to Irish and Catholic sentiment, while in reality securing free play for Masonic “progress.” It is true that Masonry in England has not been so bitter in its opposition to the supernatural, nor so revolutionary in its methods as on the Continent, but this is simply because it has not found itself in presence of a Catholic State-organization.[31] In Ireland, however, it is in presence of a society still Catholic in outlook, so its naturalism will tend to become more and more anti-Catholic as time goes on. In addition, as the tradition of the English Protestant oligarchy dies out and the direction of English Masonry comes more completely under the control of Jewish international financial forces, it will gradually show itself more violently opposed to the supernatural Messias, in accordance with the traditional attitude of the Jewish nation since Calvary. We need not then be surprised if, at some future date, an understanding be arrived at between Masonry and Communism in Ireland similar to that which, on the proclamation of the Masonic republic, permitted the Communists in Spain to attack churches and monasteries. Catholics, at any rate, should not forget the possibility of such an “understanding.”

Let us now turn to Communism. In accordance with the Muscovite program for world domination, Communist propaganda, using the now familiar language about “workers and working farmers,” will try to stir up discontent amongst both Catholics and Protestants, where it does not exist, and increase it where it already exists. The aim will not be to do away with the abuses to which the Judaeo-Puritan capitalism of England, with its excessive individualism and uncontrolled seeking for profit, has given rise in our country, but to abolish private property. Instead of disciplining profit seeking, an attempt will be made, by nationalization of the means of production, to suppress it. In 1917, Lenin gained the immediate support of the Russian peasants by the cry of “The Land!” The peasants wanted to become owners of the soil; they were ready to divide up the properties of the nobles, but they wanted them to be their own. They were disillusioned, as soon as Communism was firmly seated in power, and then the persecutions and massacres began. The cry of “The Land for the People!” will be taken up by many in Ireland who interpret this to mean that they will have private property in land. A decree of a Communist government, if it were once installed, would open their eyes.

The same propaganda will appeal to the “workers” of the Six Counties on the ground that they are exploited by the Protestant capitalists, as the Catholics of the South are exploited by the rich landowners. Appeals may even be made to Orangemen, accompanied by statements about guarantees of “full freedom of conscience and religious worship.”[32] In all this, nationality is placed above the Mystical Body of Christ, in accordance with the Judaeo-Masonic revolutionary tradition. We Catholics know from the history of every country in Europe and America since 1789, as well as from the traditions of the Orange order, what we have to expect from these guarantees. If groups of Orangemen are induced by Communist propaganda to turn against some of their Masonic trainers, it will be a case of criminals punished by the very organization which they themselves have set up.

What, then, is the role assigned to the Orange society amongst the forces of disorder? The spread of this society was favored, from 1795 onwards, by the English government in Ireland, as an offset to the international revolutionary spirit of the French Revolution. The English minister, Pitt, had come to see that English influence, which had favored the diffusion of Masonry on the continent as a powerful instrument for the weakening of rivals and for English aggrandisement, was not supreme in Masonry, but that its destructive action was turning against its English patrons. Masonry was doing splendid work for England by destroying French national institutions at the Revolution, but the spread of its doctrines amongst Irish Protestants through the society of the United Irishmen, was a boomerang blow, which England countered by organizing the Orange society as a Sub-Masonry.[33]

Masonic control of the Orange society is ensured through the “Purplemen.” Dr. Cleary treats of this point as follows:

“Since the Sixth and Seventh Chapters went through the press, I find that the number of inner rings or wheels within wheels, of the society, is far greater than originally stated by me, or than appears in any printed lodge document or other authorities consulted by me when preparing this book for the press. The reader is already aware that Orangemen and Purplemen meet to transact business in the same lodges, and that the Purplemen have different secrets, signs, passwords, oaths or ‘obligations,’ etc., which they are not permitted to divulge to those of the lower degree. When ‘Purple business’ is about to be transacted—or to use the technical phrase, when the lodge is ‘to be raised to Royal Arch Purple (R.A.P.) degree’—the mere Orangemen are requested to take themselves out of the room, and the lodge is cautiously ‘tyled’ against prying eyes and ears before the proceedings are commenced. Above the Purple order there are various ‘higher degrees.’ Tried Purplemen are eligible for membership of the lodges of the Royal Black Preceptory. …As far as I have been able to learn, each of these degrees has its special colors, emblems, oaths, and secrets, which are to be jealously guarded from the knowledge of the uninitiated. …The Purplemen’s emblems are, if I am rightly informed, a five-pointed star. …Each of these symbols has a special meaning, which must not be divulged to mere Orangemen.”[34]

It is certainly curious how frequently one meets with that five-pointed star. A Jewish writer in the Communist of Kharkoff (Russia) points out that the symbol of Jewry, the red five-pointed star, has been adopted as the symbol of the Russian proletariat, being worn on the caps of Lenin’s guards.[35] As Orangemen are supposed to know something about the Bible, they will be interested to learn that St. Stephen, the first papist to be martyred, is said by some to have alluded to this star, when he cried out to the Jews: “And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god, Rempham, figures which you made to adore them” (Acts 7:43). Needless to say, the Masonic esoteric signification of the five-pointed star as well as that of the seal of Solomon, the interlaced triangles, is pantheistic.[36]

All Catholics should take to heart the words of the present Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical Letter, Caritate Christi compulsi, on the troubles of our time. The Holy Father points out the duty of loving rightly one’s native land:

“Right order of Christian Charity does not disapprove of lawful love of country, and a sentiment of justifiable nationalism; on the contrary, it controls, sanctifies and enlivens them. If, however, egoism, abusing this love of country and exaggerating this sentiment of nationalism, insinuates itself into the relations between people and people, there is no excess that will not seem justified; and that which between individuals would be judged blameworthy by all, is now considered lawful and praiseworthy, if it is done in the name of this exaggerated nationalism. Instead of the great law of love and human brotherhood, which embraces and holds in a single family all nations and peoples with one Father Who is in heaven, there enters hatred, driving all to destruction. In public life, sacred principles, the guide of all social intercourse, are trampled upon; the solid foundations of right and honesty, on which the state should rest, are undermined; polluted and destroyed are the sources of those ancient traditions, which, based on faith in God and fidelity to His law, secured the true progress of nations.”

The Sovereign Pontiff then attacks the nefarious work of those who are striving to break down the whole organization of society, resting on God and on the second person of the Blessed Trinity become man, with a view to installing their own tyranny and that of Satan on the ruins:

“Profiting by so much economic distress and so much moral disorder, the enemies of all social order, be they called Communists or any other name, boldly set about breaking through every restraint. This is the most dreadful evil of our times, for they destroy every bond of law, human or divine; they engage openly and in secret in a relentless struggle against religion and against God Himself; they carry out the diabolical program of wresting from the hearts of all, even of children, all religious sentiment; for well they know that, once belief in God has been taken from the heart of mankind, they will be entirely free to work out their will. Thus we see today what was never before seen in history, the satanical banners of war against God and against religion brazenly unfurled to the winds in the midst of all people and in all parts of the earth. There were never lacking impious men, nor men who denied God; but they were relatively few, isolated and individual, and they did not dare or think it opportune to reveal too openly their impious mind. …Today, on the contrary, atheism has already spread through large masses of the people; well-organized, it works its way even into elementary schools; it appears in theaters; in order to spread, it makes use of its own cinema films, of the gramophone, and the radio; with its own printing presses it produces booklets in every language. This organized and militant atheism works untiringly by means of its agitators, with conferences and projections, with every means of propaganda, secret and open, among all classes, in every street, in every hall. …The leaders of this campaign of atheism, turning to account the present economic crisis, inquire with diabolic reasoning into the cause of this universal misery. The holy cross of our Lord, symbol of humility and poverty, is joined together with the symbols of modern craving for domination, as though religion were allied with those dark powers which produce such evils among men. Thus they strive, and not without effect, to combine war against God with men’s struggle for their daily bread, with their desire to have land of their own, suitable wages and decent dwellings, in fine, a condition of life befitting human beings.”

Finally, Pope Pius XI, following in the footsteps of nearly all his predecessors since 1738, inveighs against the action of secret societies, which are so largely responsible for the disorder of the world in recent centuries:

“Now it is a lamentable fact that millions of men, under the impression that they are struggling for existence, grasp at such theories to the utter subversion of truth and cry out against God and religion. …And the secret societies, always ready to support war against God and the Church, no matter who wages it, do not fail to inflame ever more this insane hatred which can give neither peace nor happiness to any class of society, but will certainly bring all nations to disaster. Thus this new form of atheism, whilst unchaining man’s most violent instincts, with cynical impudence proclaims that there will be neither peace nor welfare on earth until the last remnant of religion has been torn up, and until its last representative has been crushed out of existence.”

In the whole question of national liberty and of the development of human personality through the full acknowledgment by a nation of the Kingship of Christ, the necessity of keeping money and those who manipulate it in their proper place must never be lost sight of. The independence of a nation is only nominal, if those who govern it and its whole organization of production and consumption are at the mercy of international groups, especially when the fact is clearly grasped that these leading financiers, with international and supranational relations, are to such a large extent, members of one very aggressive nation, the Jewish nation. Artificial wealth, such as money, has been “invented by the art of man for the convenience of exchange and as a measure of things saleable.”[37] Money, therefore, is meant to facilitate the acquisition by man of that sufficiency of material goods, or natural wealth, which is required to satisfy the needs of the body, so that the soul may be unimpeded in the cultivation of virtue.[38] The unchecked individualism, characteristic of the Calvinist or Puritan industrial system, which has taken the place of the Catholic guild or corporate system, itself the economic expression of the solidarity of the Mystical Body of Christ, has resulted in industry or production and the producers being more and more at the mercy of financial groups, largely Jewish.[39]

In addition, gold, which is the unit of exchange between producer and consumer, should circulate freely, yet the circulation of gold has almost completely ceased since the great war began in 1914. Gold, as we learn from an able series of articles in the R.I.S.S.,[40] now passes only between the masters of finance, who are divided into two opposing camps. As the German-Jew, Heinrich Heine (1799–1856), wrote in 1840: “the Rabbis of Finance are today fighting no less bitterly than Shammaï and Hillel formerly.”[41] These two camps may be designated as Rothschild’s on the one hand and Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn’s on the other.[42] Each is aiming at being the controlling influence in the Jewish power over the world by finance. Behind the group Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn stand the four Jewish-German banks known as the four big D’s,[43] the H. Schroeder Bank of London, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of New York. From the battle of Waterloo to the Franco-Prussian War, the Rothschilds knew no rivals, but the gold which victorious Germany exacted from France enabled the Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn group to enter the field against them. During the interval between the Franco-Prussian War and that of 1914, the rival groups fought each other on the economic and industrial field, with a few minor armed conflicts in between. The most fertile field of the Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn group, outside of Germany, was in the United States. From the Versailles treaty onwards, the game of the adversaries has been played cautiously, but the Rothschild group was not granted a large quantity of gold as a war indemnity. Many curious events since the war can be more easily explained, if one keeps in view the struggle going on in the world of finance. The United States, for example, as one of the main bases of the Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn group, not only claims payments from France, but seeks at the same time to decrease those due to France from Germany. In so far as the accumulation of gold is an indication of strength, the Rothschilds are not beaten. It is true that, on the other hand, their adversaries have let loose Bolshevism in Spain, one of the Rothschilds’ fiefs, that revolutions have broken out in South American countries, where their interests were paramount, that Australia has been badly upset financially, and so on. To defend themselves, the Rothschilds have withdrawn into their coffers in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Holland all the gold that they had in the countries which have revolted against them, namely England and the United States. Their enemies have made use of these two last-named powers especially, in order to bring about the ruin and fall of the dynasty that has ruled Europe since the battle of Waterloo.[44]

The abandonment of the gold standard would seem to indicate a triumph for the anti-Rothschild group. It must, however, not be forgotten that the two groups are aiming at absolute control of the International Bank, which, thanks to its possession of the world’s gold, its mastery over raw material and its grip upon industry, will be able to decree the inauguration of a system of international currency.[45] And when the victory over the non-Jews is complete, an understanding can be arrived at. As Mr. Belloc pithily expresses it: “It is so with those great financial monopolists who alone hold the real powers in the modern world. They will fight, one against the other. Now one will fall; but, as against the outer world, he remains ‘one of us’ to the others. He is still bidden to think in millions; and ten to one, if he lives, he will be restored.”[46]

The ruthless, unchecked competition of Calvinist or Puritan capitalism has, in highly industrial countries, tended towards the concentration of capital in the hands of the relatively few; the holders of industrial capital are in their turn dependent for their power to work it on those who have the giving or refusing of the financial credit, without which no use can be made of it. The bankers, of course, will advance financial credit where there is the best prospect of the quickest return, through the agency of prices, of the principal advanced plus the interest.[47] Some results of all this on society are worth noting. One is the furious rhythm of all modern life in the pursuit of money. Another is what Mr. H. Belloc in Economics for Helen (p. 122) calls the Capitalist Paradox, which is that capitalism is a way of producing wealth which, in the long run, prevents people from obtaining the wealth produced and prevents the owner of the wealth from finding a market.[48] A third is the paralysis of exchange and commerce, when those who give credit are fighting amongst themselves for supremacy, the stake being the overlordship of the world.

All these evils have been pointed out in unforgettable language by Pope Pius XI:

“It is patent that in our days not only is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure. This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping as it were in their hands, the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will. This accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern economic order, is a natural result of limitless free competition, which permits the survival only of those who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience.

“This concentration of power has led to a threefold struggle for domination. First, there is the struggle for dictatorship in the economic sphere itself; then the fierce battle to acquire control of the State, so that its resources and authority may be abused in the economic struggles; finally, the clash between States themselves. This latter arises from two causes; because the nations apply their power and political influence, regardless of circumstances, to promote the economic advantages of their citizens, and because, vice versa, economic forces and economic domination are used to decide political controversies between peoples.

“You assuredly know, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, and you lament the ultimate consequences of this individualistic spirit in economic affairs. Free competition is dead; economic dictatorship has taken its place. Unbridled ambition for domination has succeeded the desire for gain; the whole economic life has become hard, cruel and relentless in a ghastly measure.”[49]

The Holy Father returns to the sad picture of these evils and of their causes in the Encyclical Letter, Caritate Christi compulsi, of 3rd May, 1932:

“If we pass in review the long and sorrowful sequence of woes, that, as a sad heritage of sin, mark the stages of fallen man’s earthly pilgrimage, from the Deluge on, it would be hard to find spiritual and material distress, so deep, so universal, as that which we are now experiencing; even the greatest scourges that left indelible traces in the lives and memories of peoples struck only one nation at a time. Now, on the contrary, the whole of humanity is held bound by the financial and economic crisis, so fast that the more it struggles the harder appears the task of loosening its bonds; there is no people, there is no state, no society or family which, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, to a greater or less extent, does not feel the repercussion. Even those, very few in number, who appear to have in their hands, together with enormous wealth, the destinies of the world, even those very few who with their speculations were and are in great part the cause of so much woe, are themselves quite often the first and most notorious victims, dragging down with themselves into the abyss the fortunes of countless others; thus verifying in a terrible manner before the whole world what the Holy Ghost had already proclaimed for every sinner in particular: ‘By what things a man sinneth, by the same also he is tormented.’ (Wis. 11:17). …But still more deplorable is the root from which springs this condition of affairs; for, if what the Holy Ghost affirms through the mouth of St. Paul is ever true, much more is it true at present: ‘the desire of money is the root of all evils.’ (1Tim. 6:10). Is it not that lust of earthly goods, that the pagan poet called with righteous scorn ‘the accursed hunger for gold’; is it not that sordid egoism which too often regulates the mutual relations of individuals and society; is it not, in fine, greed, whatever be its species and form, that has brought the world to a pass we all see and deplore? From greed arises mutual distrust, that casts a blight on all human dealings; from greed arises hateful envy, which makes a man consider the advantages of another as losses to himself; from greed arises narrow individualism, which orders and subordinates everything to its own advantage, without taking account of others, on the contrary, cruelly trampling under foot all rights of others. Hence also the disorder and inequality which accompany the accumulation of the wealth of nations in the hands of a small group of individuals, who manipulate the market of the world at their own caprice, to the immense harm of the masses, as we showed last year in Our Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno.”

The diffusion and strengthening of private property in land and the decentralization of industries are vital needs of our time. To carry these policies into effect, freedom of credit is needed, but credit is controlled by the few and is kept subservient to their aims:

“It is a commonplace of the present crisis that vast hoards of useless wealth are accumulating more and more in the central heaps, so that the glut of money in the wrong places is as bad as the glut of commodities in the wrong places. It is a commonplace that the banks will not lend.”[50]

National liberty and the legitimate development of a country demand a struggle on the part of every patriot against the power of international finance, which is, as everybody knows, so largely Jewish. This power attacks the independence of a country not only directly in financial transactions, but indirectly through the press and the cinema. This remark has an obvious application to Ireland. International finance, served by the Masonic and Communist movements, aims at the eradication of all love of country and the fusion of all nations into one vast agglomeration, subject to itself. Accordingly, when Communist papers speak of the necessity for an Irish government, for example, of getting control of the banks, in order to combat British Imperialist influences, we may suspect that the object is not so much to free us from British Imperialistic influences as to bring us into the orbit of the New Empire inaugurated in Russia. Ireland could be used by international plotters to attack England, but the Ireland that has remained faithful to our Lord would be mercilessly wiped out by these apostles of so-called liberty.

We get a hint of these plans in an article by Dr. Hermann Gorter, Professor in the Bolshevik University of Moscow, which appeared in the Workers’ Dreadnought, of May, 1920, on “Ireland, the Achilles Heel of England.” This “lover of Irish freedom” writes: “It is the duty of all British Communists to demand the independence of Ireland, and to take all the measures required to bring it about. For the entire Third International this is of the utmost importance. England is the rock on which capitalism is firmly rooted, the bulwark of World-Capitalism, the hope of all counterrevolution and all reaction; but Ireland is the Achilles heel of England. For the revolution on the European continent therefore, for the World-Revolution, it is a vital question that British Capitalism should be hit there.”

The same writer says further: “The gigantic genius of Marx saw all this long ago,” and then proceeds to quote from Marx as follows:

“A subversion of the national economic relations in any country of the European continent or in the whole of the European continent would be no more than a storm in a glass of water without England. …The fall of the English aristocracy in Ireland, however, necessarily means and inevitably leads to their overthrow in England. Through this, the primary condition for the Proletarian Revolution in England will be fulfilled.”[51]

Our country is thus to be made a catspaw for the establishment of a World-Republic in which, needless to say, our people would not only not be independent, but would be crushed under the iron heel of the Jewish victors in the arena of international finance.

In the struggle against the domination of one nation over all the others, through finance, every true patriot in every country must take part. As in politics so in economics, the struggle is for the return of the rule of Christ the King. For, there can be no true and lasting independence for any nation, given the closeness of the relations between nations, unless the authority of Christ the King, in and through the Church, over the morality of financial operations, be again acknowledged. The Church’s teaching with regard to usury must be restored to honor and stock-exchange operations must be subjected to the rules of morality. Nowadays a stock-exchange operation in one country may not only deprive people of their livelihood in other, far-distant ones, but may be used to cripple another country’s power of resistance to attack.[52] The following passage from the Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, must be read in conjunction with the one previously quoted from the same document about nations using economic forces to decide political controversies:

“The condition of the economic world today lays more snares than ever for human frailty. For the uncertainty of economic conditions and the whole economic regime demands the keenest and most unceasing straining of energy on the part of those engaged therein; and, as a result, some have become so hardened against the stings of conscience as to hold all means good which enable them to increase their profits, and to safeguard against sudden changes of fortune the wealth amassed by unremitting toil. Easy returns which an open market offers to anyone, lead many to interest themselves in trade and exchange, their one aim being to make clear profits with the least labor. By their unchecked speculation prices are raised and lowered out of mere greed for gain, making void all the most prudent calculations of manufacturers. …A stern insistence on the moral law, enforced with vigor by civil authority, could have dispelled or perhaps averted these enormous evils.”

Practically all the countries of Europe have been the theaters of revolutions since 1789. In more than one of these countries we see that certain men, after a successful revolution, wished to organize and consolidate the position of the new State, but soon found themselves overborne by others who accused them of having lost the idealism of their youth and of having allowed their blood to become cold. The Protestant historian, Guizot, who had striven to bring about the revolution of 1830, thought that by it France had entered upon a period of peace and stability, such as began for England with the overthrow of James II. He and his friends were undeceived in 1848, and their rude awakening is typical of what befell others elsewhere. A new generation arose and proclaimed that it was necessary to complete the work and once more establish in definite fashion the reign of liberty and progress, by the abolition of poverty and misery and the introduction of all the blessings that were promised to France and to Europe in 1789. Foolish youths continue to repeat the grandiloquent phrases so often heard from 1789 to 1793, phrases that were completely belied in practice, as if they were quite new and previously unheard of. In vain do the Vicars of Him Who gave us back that real life, which we had lost by the first rebellion in the Garden of Eden, repeat their warnings that these revolts against order will not bring happiness but misery. Those who have listened to the voice of the Tempter will not accept that man cannot get back the state of the Garden of Eden here below and will not believe that the revolt of humanity against the God-man and His Mystical Body is rendering impossible that relative happiness which could be ours, on the way to heaven. No, all the principles which indicate the path of ordered life in the one world that is, the world that has been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ, are attacked and derided by practically all revolutionaries since 1789. In presence of this madness of successive generations, who will not listen to the voice of those who speak for Christ the King, it may be of use to quote the words of wisdom which fell from the lips of one who knew, by personal experience, all that could be known about revolutions and their results.

Wilhelm Marr was a German who played an outstanding part in the preparation of the revolution of 1848 and was a member of several secret societies. His hatred of Christianity surpassed in savage ferocity even that of Nietzsche. A few extracts from Marr’s writings will suffice to show what he was before 1848:

“We must show the people,” he writes “how unworthy of men is the position they accept. We must show them that the principles and foundations of their present social life are wrong…you noble German young men, who meditate upon the teachings of your nurses and your priests and who allow your strength and your courage to be sapped by the phantom of a divine providence…consider that you can change this whole social order and that you can destroy this lying scaffolding of our modern society. And you, the poor and the starving, you, the proletarians, steeped in misery, why your eternal hesitations, your eternal complaints, your prayers and your confidence? How is it that you have never yet conceived the idea that, as soon as you will it, you will be the ones in power, you who are the majority, the mass of the People? The epitome of the degradation of man, the very degradation of humanity, is the so-called religion called Christianity,”[53]

In spite of the apparently brilliant successes achieved by Germany under Bismarck: defeat of Austria in 1866, victory over France in 1871, followed by the foundation of the German Empire; in spite of all that, Marr, in his old age, despaired of the future of Germany and of Europe. He had come to see what was being secretly prepared, and, as the plan developed, he became fully aware of the fact that all the efforts of himself and his fellow-revolutionaries, past and future, were only stages in the preparation of the kingdom of the future Messias. Here is how he expressed himself in his work, The Conquest of Germanism by Judaism, of which the second edition appeared in 1879.[54] The date is worth noticing, for the words of the writer will seem all the more remarkable, when it is borne in mind:—

“The advent of Jewish Imperialism I am firmly convinced,” he writes, “is only a question of time …The Empire of the world belongs to the Jews…Vae Victis! Woe to the conquered! …I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I am quite certain that before four generations have passed, there will not be a single function in the State, the highest included, which will not be in the hands of the Jews. …At the present moment, alone amongst European States, Russia still holds out against the official recognition of the invading foreigners. Russia is the last rampart and against her the Jews have constructed their final trench. To judge by the course of events, the capitulation of Russia is only a question of time … In that vast Empire…Judaism will find the fulcrum of Archimedes which will enable it to drag the whole of Western Europe off its hinges once for all. The wily Jewish spirit of intrigue will bring about a revolution in Russia such as the world has never yet seen. …The present situation of Judaism in Russia is such that it has still to fear expulsion. But when it shall have laid Russia prostrate, it will no longer have any attacks to fear. When the Jews shall have got control of the Russian State…they will set about the destruction of the social organization of Western Europe. This last hour of Europe will arrive at latest in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years, seeing that nowadays things move more rapidly than in former times. What Russia has to expect from the Jews is quite clear.”

Dostoïevsky, the well-known Russian writer, whose imperfect grasp of Christ’s mission is calculated to make a deep impression on ill-instructed minds, also foresaw, between 1876 and 1880, the destiny which the Jews were steadily preparing for Russia and for Europe. These passages from his writings are, of course, hardly ever quoted, for the masters of publicity would not view it with favor[55]:

“Yes, Europe is on the eve of a terrible disaster…all those Bismarcks, Beaconsfields, Gambettas and others, all of them are for me only a shadow. …Their master, the lord of all the rest and of the whole of Europe, is the Jew and his bank. …Judaism and the banks now rule over everything, over Europe as well as over Socialism, in fact in a special way over Socialism, for by its help Judaism will tear up Christianity by the roots and destroy Christian culture. And even if nothing but anarchy is the consequence, the Jew will be found in control. For, though he preaches Socialism, nevertheless he remains outside Socialism with his fellow-Jews, so that when all the wealth of Europe shall have been ravaged, the Jewish bank alone will remain. …The Jews will compass the ruin of Russia.”

Of course, the big press of the world should publish the truth about the inner history of revolutions and revolutionaries, with the final results achieved by them. The big press is, however, so securely in the grip of financial interests that it is foolish to expect it to do so. Yet, surely, people should at least ask themselves why the names of the rich non-Jews, Rockefeller and Morgan, are known to everybody, while the names of Warburg and Kahn, of the New York Jewish Bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., are known only to relatively few persons. In his remarkable pamphlet, The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property, already referred to, Mr. Hilaire Belloc asks the question:

“How many of those who have discussed the Peace Conference have heard the name of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. for instance, and of those who have heard it, how many can give even a half a dozen instances of their centers of action in Europe?”

Again, when non-Jewish financiers like Hatry and Kruger are detected in frauds their names are dinned into the ears of the world. Yet, how many of those who have heard of Lenin know that it was through the influence of the Jewish multi-millionaire, Israel L. Helphand, alias Parvus, that Lenin was dispatched in 1917 from Switzerland to Russia in a sealed train?[56]

Human history is dominated by the awful reality of man’s fall from supernatural life. Man is a fallen being, and this is clearly visible in the functioning of his appetitive faculties. St. Thomas points out that nature imposes a certain measure on instinctive desires, which are always for something finite and determined and always aim at maintaining the order required for life. We see this clearly in the case of animals. Reason, however, can introduce infinity everywhere and set up as end what is only a means. “Hence he who longs for riches can desire them not up to a certain limit, but can simply want to be as rich as ever he can.”[57] As the end is desired for its own sake and not merely to a certain degree “he who places the end of life in amassing wealth will have a longing for riches ad infinitum; whereas, a man who desires wealth for the needs of life simply wants enough to satisfy these needs.”[58] The result of the prevalence of this insatiate desire of wealth is that the development of human personality is not the end of society, as it should be, but everything is subordinated to money-making. “Instead of money being considered as a mere feeder, enabling a living organism, which the productive undertaking is, to procure the necessary material, equipment and replenishing, money has come to be considered the living organism, and the undertaking, with its human activities, as the feeder and instrument of money.”

Accordingly, the whole organization of society must move faster and faster, in order to enable a few bankers to make two cross entries in their books where they made but one before.[59] But in considering this furious rhythm, accepted in the name of progress, we must not lose sight of the Divine Plan for ordered human life and the struggle for and against the supernatural Messias.

Human personality is truly developed by union with the Blessed Trinity present in us through living membership of the Mystical Body. Thus alone are we really ourselves and thus, through all the changes of life around us, we can move forward to an eternity of being, in the possession of Him who is. In the modern world that has issued out of the so-called Reformation and the French Revolution, the end of man, instead of being the contemplation of the Blessed Trinity, has become the conquest of the world for himself. The result of this fundamental revision of values is that man yields ever more and more to the dominion of the lower or material element in him. As the appetite of matter is always for other forms, irrespective of their intrinsic power to elevate, we behold the root cause of men’s restless scurrying from place to place, trying in vain to get away from the emptiness of life without God. There is, in the misery of this unceasing restlessness and agitation, something like an earthly replica of the gnawing loneliness of Hell. The present subordination of man to rate of turnover has led to becoming being constituted an end, in the place of being. No wonder, then, that despair fills souls, as it fills the haughty spirit of Satan, wrho rejected being in God’s way to hurl himself into an ever-lengthening labyrinth of misery, wherein he shall forever wander, cut off from the end of life.

“All things saleable can be had for money; not so spiritual things, for these cannot be sold. Hence it is written (Prov. 17:16): ‘What doth it avail a fool to have riches, seeing that he cannot buy wisdom?’”[60]

Luther rejected the order of the Mystical Body laid down by Christ and made of self the center of the world. Protestant theologians take pleasure in the thought that Christ is the center of Luther’s system; nothing is more untrue, and nothing is more in contradiction with the conclusions of a psychological inquiry into the process of Luther’s evolution. Although it speaks often of Christ, the center of Luther’s theology is not Christ but man.[61] By his doctrine that the human intelligence attains immediately only thought, or its own representations, Descartes opened the way for the modern idealistic deification of man of Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. By his attitude towards metaphysical knowledge, the same philosopher led human reason to turn its back on God and eternal things and seek its happiness in the study of phenomena. As a consequence, the term science is nowadays applied exclusively to the knowledge of matter, while theology and metaphysics are considered out-of-date lumber. Modern man, then, since the sixteenth century, has been engaged in a gigantic campaign against order, supernatural and natural, and the net result of his refusal to accept subjection to God is his being enslaved to matter, his being forced to move with nerve-wracking rapidity by the machinery of modern finance.

“Founded upon the two unnatural principles of the fecundity of money and the finality of the useful,” writes Maritain, “multiplying its needs and servitudes without any possibility of there ever being a limit, ruining the leisure of the soul, withdrawing the material factibile from the control which proportioned it to the ends of the human being, imposing on man its puffing machinery and its speeding up of matter, the modern world is shaping human activity in a properly inhuman way, in a properly devilish direction, for the ultimate end of all this frenzy is to prevent man from remembering God.”[62]

The one way out of the disastrous adventure is to return to the full life of the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus will the Blessed Trinity become again the center of life and all the marvellous discoveries of the past century will become man’s willing helpers, when once they have been restored to the due service of the Creator and Final End of all things. “Seek ye therefore first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things will be added unto you.” (Mt. 6:33)

[1]R.I.S.S., April 1st, 1933, p. 210.

[2]Cf. Schema Vaticanum de Ecclesia Christi, cap. viii.: “De Ecclesiae Indefectibilitate”: “Quare Christi Ecclesia nunquam potest excidere suis proprietatibus et dotibus, sacro suo magisterio et regimine ut Christus per corpus suum visibile perpetuo sit omnibus hominibus via, veritas et vita.”

[3]St. Thomas, De Veritate (Q. 29, a. 4, ad 3).

[4]“So that while we acknowledge Him as God seen by men, we may be drawn by Him to the love of things unseen.” (Ut dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc in invisibilium amorem rapiamur. Preface of Nativity of D.N.J.C.).

The ideas here outlined are developed in Le Joug du Christ, by Fathers Bernardot, O.P., Desbuquois and Riquet, S.J. (pp. 60–68).

[5]De Ecelesia, Mgr. Herbigny, quoted in Le Joug du Christ, p. 67.

[6]Encyclical Letter, Libertas, of Pope Leo XIII.

The Encyclical continues:“We have, on other occasions, and especially in Our Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, in treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements, and we have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practised that good; but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties.” The present writer has attempted to set forth the teaching of Pope Leo XIII about modern liberties in his books, The Kingship of Christ, and The Social Rights of our Lord Jesus Christ, the King.

[7]Libertas a coactione.

[8]Libertas arbitrii seu libertas stricte dicta, adiva indifferentia ab intrinseco. (Gredt, O. S. B., Elementa Philosophiae, vol. i. p. 417, Ed. 3a.

[9]The education of a child comprises, therefore, two elements, the developing of his mind in grasping the order of being and the training of his will in observing that order in relation to other beings and himself. The training of an animal consists in the adaptation of its natural determined or instinctive sense-endowments for the end or ends determined by man.

[10]Encyclical Letter, Libertas: “Freedom of choice is a property of the will or rather is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect…the end or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty, is that good only which is in conformity with reason.”

[11]Man, as we have seen, has the physical power to choose what he ought not to choose, to turn aside from the order of reason. In this whole question, we are ever in presence of what a distinguished French writer, Mgr. Chollet, has termed: “The imperialism of the final end.” (Libertas est vis electiva mediorum servato ordine finis, in Thomistic phraseology). It is for this reason that the Bolsheviks, who deny liberty, begin by denying finality in the world.

[12]Cf. Liberté Modernes et Vérité, p. 18, by Pierre Christian.

“The liberty of choice is the very root of the world of liberty. It is a metaphysical datum. We receive it with our rational nature, we have not got to conquer it. It is liberty in the initial stage. But this metaphysical root must develop and bear fruit in the psychological and moral order. We must become in our action what we are already metaphysically, per ons. …There is then another liberty which we must conquer, liberty in the sense of mastery of ourselves,” (Du régime temporel et de la liberté, by J. Maritain, p. 35)

[13]Encyclical Letter, Libertas.

[14]Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei.

[15]Being can be known, and, as such, it is true (habet rationem veri). Being can be desired, and, as such, it is good (habet rationem boni).

[16]Cf. Ia, IIae, Q. L a. 7: “Whether all men have the same last end? I answer that, we can speak of the last end in two ways: first, considering only the aspect of last end; secondly, considering the thing in which the aspect of last end is realized. So, then, as to the aspect of last end, all agree in desiring the last end: …But as to the thing in which this aspect is realized, all men are not agreed as to their last end: since some desire riches, as their consummate good; some pleasure; others something else.”

[17]“Now, as on the part of the intellectual apprehension, we have intellect and reason, so on the part of the intellectual appetite, we have will and free will, which is nothing else than the power of choice. And this is clear from their relations to their respective objects and acts. For the act of understanding implies the simple acceptation of something; whence we say that we understand first principles. …But to reason, properly speaking, is to proceed from one thing to the knowledge of another: wherefore, properly speaking, we reason about conclusions which are known from the principles. In like manner, on the part of the appetite, to will implies the simple longing for something: wherefore the will is said to regard the end, which is desired for itself. But to choose is to desire something for the sake of obtaining something else: wherefore, properly speaking, it regards the means to the end. …But it has been shown above that it belongs to the same power both to understand and to reason, even as it belongs to the same power to be at rest and to be in movement. Wherefore it belongs also to the same power to will and to choose: and on this account the will and the free will are not two powers, but one.” (Ia, P. Q. 83, a. 4)

[18]Because the will desires the good without limit and is only determined by it, it dominates over all the particular concrete finite goods that present themselves to it.

[19]Ia, Q. 63, a. 1. Cf. L’Esprit du Protestantisme en Suisse by M. l’Abbé Ch. Journet, pp. 186-190.

[20]Encyclical Letter, Libertas.

[21]The commentary of John of St. Thomas on the Ia, IIae, has been utilized concerning the principles of right action. Cf. Isagoge. Ordo quaestionum Ia, IIae.

[22]“Peregrinamur, inquam, quia sumus extra patriam nostram, qu Deus est, alias non diceremur peregrinari ab eo. Et hoc non ex natura nostra, sed exeius gratia.” (Comment. Sancti Thomae in 11 ad Cor. cap. v)

[23]Ia, Q. 83, a. I. ad 5um.

[24]‘“In statu naturae corruptae, non potest homo implere omnia mandata divina (quoad substantiam) sine gratia sanante.” (Ia, IIae, Q. 109, a. 4)

[25]Encyclical Letter, Libertas.

[26]Encyclical Letter, Libertas.

[27]Pages choisies du Cardinal Pie, quoted in La Royauté Sociale de N.S. Jésus-Christ, p. 59, by Pére de Saint-Just, O.M.C.

[28]What has been already written about Democracy in the correct sense and Rousseauist-Masonic Democracy should be borne in mind.

[29]England’s selfishness in Ireland, and her savage treatment of the envoy of Christ the King, St. Joan of Arc, in France, were, certainly in part, the reason why she failed to hold to the order of the world in the sixteenth century. As examples of English selfishness in Ireland, prior to the Protestant break with the divine order of the world, some of the provisions of the Statute of Kilkenny, 1367, may be quoted. The use of the Irish language and the adoption of Irish customs were forbidden under severe penalties, not only to the English settlers, but even to the Irish living among the English. Now the native language and the native customs are among the chief means of transmitting and cultivating the natural virtues of a people so that, elevated and purified by supernatural life, it may give of its best for Christ the King. Again, the clause forbidding Irishmen to be received into any English religious house in Ireland is tantamount to a denial of the supranational unity of the Mystical Body of our Lord.

[30]“Justice forbids and reason itself forbids the State to be godless, or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow on them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.” (Leo XIII Encyclical Letter, Libertas praestantissimum). Cf. Appendix VIII.

[31]Cf. The Kingship of Christ, pp, 78, 154, by the present writer, for the development of these ideas.

[32]Allusion is here made to the address of the I.R.A. Council to the Ulster Orangemen, July, 1932,

[33]The standard Catholic work on Orangeism is The Orange Society, by the Rev. H. W. Cleary, afterwards Bishop of Auckland. On p. 65 there is quoted the statement of Arthur O’Connor, a Protestant, before the Committee of the House of Commons, August 16th, 1798, to the effect that he knew ‘that considerable sums of money were expended throughout the nation in endeavoring to extend the Orange system, and that the Orange oath of extermination was administered. When these facts are coupled, not only with the general impunity which has been uniformly extended towards all the acts of this infernal association, but with the marked encouragement its members have received from the government, I find it impossible to exculpate the government from being the patron and protector of these sworn extirpators” (Madden, United Irishmen, Second Series, vol. ii. p. 320). Dr. Cleary refers his readers to Chapter XIII of his work for abundant evidence of the truth of O’Connor’s statements about the alliance between the government and the Orange society. Arthur O’Connor, it may be remarked in passing, hated the Catholic Church and clergy (Lecky, Eighteenth Century, iv. pp. 255, 256).

[34]The Orange Society, by Rev. H. W. Cleary, p. 400.

[35]Cf. The Kingship of Christ, p. 152, by the present writer.

[36]Students who may be interested in these points will find full information about the occult signification of these symbols in the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrétes, Partie occultiste (1928), pp. 245–248. In two places in the same volume, the writer, Henri de Guillebert, a distinguished authority on these questions, alludes to the five pointed star as having become the blazing star of Masonry, after having been the Star of Rempham. Rempham is the Hebrew Kevan, in Assyrian Kaivanu, the name of the planet Saturn. H. de Guillebert depicts the blazing star on page 356 of the volume quoted, but does not, unfortunately, give any reference for the form there represented.

[37]lIa, IIae, Q. 2, a. 1, c.

A remark in passing about the Irish Free State coinage may not be out of place here. On these coins are depicted some of the animals offered for sale in the country. Leaving aside the question of the artistic taste of these designs, we may take it that the coinage implicitly asserts the subordination of money to production. This is good so far as it goes. Yet there is an enormous distance in the order of ideas from the mentality which, to take one example, caused “God protect Belgium” to be stamped on Belgian coins. That inscription and others of a like nature implicitly contained the assertion that the processes of production and exchange were meant to be subservient to the development of personality. Human personality can be harmoniously developed only through God’s grace communicated to us by our Lord Jesus Christ.

[38]Cf. St. Thomas, De Regimine Principium,1. i. c. 15.

[39]Cf. Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben, by W. Sombart, as well as an article in the Clergy Review (March, 1931), by Dr. P. Coffey, on “Capital Ownership and Credit Control.”

[40]Issues of September 21, 1930, November 16, 1930, December 21, 1930, May 15, 1932.

[41]Shammai and Hillel were two Jewish teachers of great renown in Jerusalem about 40 B.C.

[42]Why is it that nobody seems to be interested in the fact that gold sovereigns are worth over £1 11s. 0d. in paper money at the moment of writing (Spring, 1934)? May there not be some connection between the struggle alluded to in the text and this curious phenomenon?

[43]Deutsche Bank, Dresdener Bank, Darmstädter Bank, Diskonto-Gesellschaft.

[44]In connection with this short summary of lengthy articles in R.l.S.S. of Paris, the following extracts, typical of many such from the same pen, should be borne in mind: “Our (English) financial system … is virtually the European branch of the international financial power which at present acts from New York. …Our bankers are the dependents of, the agents for, and are compelled to work in union with, the bankers of New York.” (H. Belloc, in G.K.’s Weekly, September 17, 1932, in an article entitled, The Debt to America, on page 166). Again: “In our (English) plutocracy, the true holders of power are naturally and necessarily those who control the economic machine, to whom may be added, in some degree, those who control information, the power of falsifying or withdrawing news, and therefore the power of personal blackmail. The active influence of the various interests goes in a descending scale. First come the banks, that is, big money dealers who work with, and are dependent upon international finance; then come the controllers of the great capitalist monopolies in transport by sea and land, in distribution, and (to a lesser extent) in production. Then, a long way after these, come the newspaper owners; and a very long way after these last, the professional politicians, who have now and then some say in the game, but who are for the most part and most of the time no more than the servants of the great economic forces which are our masters and theirs. …That is the hierarchy under which we live, and the order of precedence does not change. But though the order of precedence in power does not change, the relative weight of the various members does change. …The bankers are still the most powerful individual group, but they are more divided among themselves than ever … (of course) the bankers being but part of international finance, were bound to consider interests other than those of their country, and especially those of New York.” (H. Belloc in G.K.’s Weekly, November 14, 1931). Cf. The Reign of the House of Rothschild, by Count Corti. Cf. Appendices I, II,

[45]Newspapers have repeatedly drawn public attention to the steady flow of gold from England and the United States to France. But how many among the general public know the hidden cause of this move, and who will believe that the Rothschilds are acting thus in mere self defense against the Judaeo-German-American aggressive group which may at any moment decree the ‘nationalization’ or ‘confiscation’of banks through the medium of a Bolshevist government? It would be an error, however, to imagine that the Rothschilds’ deals take into consideration the welfare of the French people. No, France is nothing more than a base of operations and the one thing of paramount importance is the ultimate and complete victory of the Rothschilds over their rivals. How many people know that the Judaeo-German-American group of Bleichroeder, which conceived the Dawes and Young Plans and started the International Bank, is at the present moment elaborating plans for the abolition of the gold standard and the creation of a kind of super-money which shall be that of the International Bank? Such, however, is the fact. This plan is called Nationalization.” (Article in R.I.S.S. September, 1930, on “The Real Cause of Wars.”) It is worthy of note that the article was published in September, 1930, and that England went off the Gold Standard in 1931.

On the whole question of money and of the significance of the Gold Standard in allowing the private creators of money to make large fortunes without effort, at the expense of the ordinary hard-working citizens and to control governments, cf. Money Creators, by Miss G. M. Coogan; The Role of Money, by Professor Soddy; The Breakdown of Money, by C. Hollis; also Promise to Pay, by R. McNair Wilson, and A Fraudulent Standard, by A. Kitson.

[46]Richelieu, p. 160,

[47]Dr. Coffey, in the article already referred to, on “Capital Ownership and Credit Control” (the Clergy Review, March, 1931) goes on to point out the bearing this has on the starving of agriculture and also upon the ready financing of the luxury industries such as the cinema, broadcasting, etc.

Cf. also a remarkable article in Nova et Vetera, October-December, 1931, “Propos sur le Communisme,” by Marcel Malcor, and that excellent book, The Fairy Ring of Commerce, by Commander Herbert Shove, especially Chapters V and VI, in which that able writer shows that “the greater the speeding up of life, the quicker can profits be made.”

[48]“Consider that it is of the essence of capitalism to keep wages down, that is, to buy labor cheap. …Now this gradual lessening of purchasing power on the part of the working masses under capitalism is the destruction of the home market. Low wages make great masses of English boot-wearers unable to buy all the boots they would. Therefore, the capitalist who owns the boot-making machinery must try to sell his surplus abroad. But the foreign countries, as they grow capitalist, suffer from the same trouble; property being badly distributed and the wage-earners kept as low as possible, their power to buy foreign goods also diminishes. Thus you have the gradual destruction of the foreign market.” (Economics for Helen, p. 122),

[49]Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno. To get an idea of what the Holy Father alludes to, the work by P. L’Espagnol de la Tramerye, The World-Struggle for Oil, can be consulted.

[50]G.K.’s Weekly, September 17, 1932, p. 17.

[51]Quoted by Oldstock Ryder in The Great Conspiracy.

[52]“How many of us here in this country (England), when it was a matter of life and death, had any knowledge of the trust controlling all baser metals and holding them in Central Europe before the war (of 1914). How many know the nature of that convention now?” (H. Belloc in The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property, p. 20, English C.T.S. pamphlet).

[53]Quoted by A. Netchvolodow in L’Empéreur Nicolas II et les Juifs Pg. 382.

[54]Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum, Zweite Auflage, Bern, 1879. Quoted in L’Empéreur Nicolas II et les Juifs, by A. Netchvolodow, pp. 383-386.

[55]They are to be found with others in the book already mentioned, L’Empéreur Nicolas II et les Juifs, by A. Netchvolodow, p. 381.

[56]Cf. The Surrender of an Empire, pp, 74–79, by Mrs. Webster.

[57]IIa. IIae, Q. 30, a. 4, c. 3.

[58]Ibid.

[59]Religion and Culture, p. 62, by Jacques Maritain. Cf. The Fairy Ring of Commerce, p. 53, by Commander H. Shove.

[60]Ia, IIae, Q. 2, a. 1.

[61]Denifle-Paquier, Luther et le Lutheranisme, iii. 249-250.

[62]Art and Scholasticism (Sheed and Ward), p. 67.

Chapter IX

Catholic Ideals

Living the Life of the Mystical Body of Christ

It will, it is hoped, be evident to every Catholic who has perused the previous chapters of this work that the great need of our generation, as of every generation since Calvary, is the living of the life of the Mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ in its fullness. Through Christ our head the abundance of God’s grace is at the disposal of every generation, but, alas! “Jesus has now many lovers of His heavenly kingdom, but few are willing to bear His cross…many follow Jesus to the breaking of bread, but few to the drinking of the chalice of His Passion.”[1] We should unceasingly ask our Lord to give us saints who, by their example, may rouse us from the torpor and mediocrity of our lives. For the need of our day is great. We seem to be fast approaching the culminating point of the open revolt from God’s plan, which began with Luther in the sixteenth century. Luther’s onslaught on order was an onslaught on the Mystical Body. The central point of his attack was directed against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of the Mystical Body, visible expression of our fallen race’s solidarity with Christ and of our dependence on Calvary for the possibility of presenting fully ordered homage to the Blessed Trinity. “May God,” wrote the German heresiarch, “fill the hearts of all pious Christians with such a horror of the Mass, that, when they hear it mentioned, they will make the Sign of the Cross, as they would in presence of a diabolical manifestation.”[2] Luther, however, retained belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus, while refusing to observe the order established by Jesus for our journey to union with the three divine persons. Lenin, at the age of sixteen, had a sudden intuition that God did not exist, and he immediately tore off the crucifix he wore around his neck, spat on it, threw it on the ground and trampled on it. This is the spiritual drama which lies at the beginning of the present phase of that rejection of order which was ushered in by Luther’s revolt. The present phase itself represents the installation of the natural man, on the purely material animal level, as supreme. Lenin’s disciples or, to speak more accurately, those who maneuvered Lenin himself and who control his disciples, propose to bring about the unity of the human race on that level, after having destroyed the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which alone can unite men in a supranational, because supernatural, union.

The driving force of Satan is visible behind this perversion of order. As the attack and denial are much more radical—man is now proclaimed God—so the reaction on our side must be proportionately deeper. Our generation is called upon to live the life of the Mystical Body completely and fully. The questions of our time are not merely political or economic. The struggle is on a far higher plane, between the City of God, seeking to bring about a rebirth of order from above downwards, and the City of Satan ever seeking the ruin of souls. The arch-fiend has varied somewhat the old temptation. It is no longer: “Ye shall be as gods,” but “there is no God,” there is only man, and he is certain, forsooth, that man can get back the Garden of Eden here below in the Leisure-State of the future. He takes care, however, to have men forget that he it was who brought about man’s fall and that he heard God say to our race: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken. (Gen. 3:19)

We Catholics must, accordingly, put ourselves by intellect and will on the real level of the struggle. If we in imagination take our stand behind the gibbet of Calvary and see God the Father holding out his Son Crucified to men, with the real life of the world coming from His sacred wounds to every succeeding generation, we have a faint image of the reality. We are a fallen race. Through membership of our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Church, men in every generation since Calvary have received back supernatural life. In proportion to their acceptance of that life, the natural life of persons, families and nations was restored, in the relatively imperfect fashion in which order can be realized, in this vale of inevitable tears and unavoidable suffering. We must, therefore, work for the uplifting of mankind along the lines laid down by the Church, supranational and supernatural, sacrificing ourselves in and with the Church. Too often, however, Catholics have an imperfect grasp of the reality of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. When we see the sacrifices made by young Russian Communists, with their false and enslaving mysticism of humanity indefinitely progressing by means of machinery and electricity, we ought to be spurred on to realize more fully the solidarity of our union with our Crucified head. Only through such union can the political and economic life of the world be again animated with the spirit of supernatural charity, and social justice be reborn.

Very many Catholics have only what may be termed a negative idea of the Church. They believe, of course, that the Catholic Church is a divine institution, but for them its chief, nay its almost exclusive, function is to forbid certain lines of thought and action. Little wonder that those who have this imperfect idea of the Church are assailed by rebellious thoughts, for it is easy to realize how appealing some prohibited courses of conduct may be. Needless to say, the reading of non-Catholic and Masonically-inspired books which point out all the “original,” independent thought that has been condemned by “Rome” and “the Vatican,” in the course of centuries, tends to increase the strain. Some may even come to imagine that the Catholic ideal is to think the least possible or not at all. At best, such persons feel that their position is somehow inferior to their less hampered non-Catholic neighbors. It is worth while examining this attitude of mind and showing how utterly untrue and unfounded it is.

The Catholic Church on earth is a divinely-instituted society formed of human beings redeemed by their divine head, the second Adam, and, as a society, is animated by the divine life coming from that head. Nevertheless, each and every one of the members of that society is obliged to struggle against the tendencies of the fallen nature received from the first Adam. The Church has for positive mission the diffusion of that life, thanks to which men can live, on their level, the inner supernatural life of God. It is only through that life that even our human natural life can be lived as it should be. The life which the Catholic Church diffuses is spiritual. Accordingly, she demands the acceptance by the human intelligence of the truths God has revealed, and the accomplishment by the human will of the sacrifices required, in order that the life of grace may dominate in our fallen nature. The Catholic Church has for mission, therefore, not only to declare the content of revelation, but to safeguard revealed truth from all contamination of error, speculative and practical. The Church must condemn whatever is opposed to or in any way endangers the real life of the world. On account of man’s proneness to error since the fall, continual vigilance has to be exercised by the representatives of Christ the King. This accounts for the frequent condemnations of errors that are opposed to the true intellectual life and progress of the world.

If now we turn to the consideration of some of the errors which have been condemned, we shall find, under the apparent rigidity and seemingly unyielding spirit of the Church, that wonderful breadth of view and synthetic grasp of all the aspects of truth, which are the joy of the Church’s children. Heresy, as its Greek original proclaims, means selecting and choosing. It involves in its very essence a rupture of the harmonious equilibrium of two truths, both of which are taught in their purity by the Catholic Church. Heresy takes one aspect of the full harmonious synthesis of the Divine Plan and exaggerates it till the resultant affirmation involves the negation of the complementary aspect. It is the partial truth contained in a heresy which obtains acceptance for the error therein involved, because the human mind is meant for truth and cannot embrace error as such. What the Catholic Church condemns is, needless to say, the error or negation, not the affirmation. Let us take some examples from the long list of errors and heresies.

Americanism is not condemned on account of its assertion of the necessity of the active and social virtues, but on account of its negation of the interior virtues of self-denial, humility, obedience. It is not judged worthy of reproof on account of its affirmation of the beauty of the natural virtues, but on account of its negation of the splendor of the supernatural ones:

“Those who affect these novelties,” wrote Pope Leo XIII, “extol beyond measure the natural virtues as more in accordance with the ways and requirements of the present day, and consider it an advantage to be richly endowed with them, because they make a man more ready and more strenuous in action. It is hard to understand how those who are imbued with Christian principles can place the natural ahead of the supernatural virtues, and attribute to them greater power and fecundity. Is nature, then, with grace added to it, weaker than when left to its own strength? And have the eminently holy men, whom the Church reveres and pays homage to, shown themselves weak and incompetent in the natural order, because they have excelled in Christian virtue? Even if we admire the sometimes splendid acts of the natural virtues, how rare is the man who really possesses the habit of those natural virtues? …If we scrutinize more closely the particular acts we have above referred to, we shall discover that oftentimes they have more the appearance than the reality of virtue. But let us grant that these are real. If we do not wish to run in vain, if we do not wish to lose sight of the eternal blessedness to which God in His goodness has destined us, of what use are the natural virtues unless the gift and strength of divine grace be added? …For as the nature of man, because of our common misfortune, fell into vice and dishonor, yet by the assistance of grace is lifted up and borne onward with new honor and strength; so also the virtues, which are exercised not by the unaided powers of nature, but by the help of the same grace, are made productive of a supernatural beatitude and become solid and enduring.

“With this opinion about natural virtues, another is intimately connected, according to which all Christian virtues are divided, as it were, into two classes, passive, as they say, and active; and they add the former were better suited for the past times, but the latter are more in keeping with the present. It is plain what is to be thought of such division of the virtues. There is not and cannot be a virtue which is really passive. ‘Virtue,’ says St. Thomas, ‘denotes a certain perfection of a power; but the object of a power is an act; and an act of virtue is nothing else than the good use of our free will’ (Ia, IIae, a. I), divine grace of course helping if the act of virtue is supernatural. …The master and exemplar of all sanctity is Christ, to whose rule all must conform who wish to attain to the thrones of the blessed. Now, then, Christ does not change with the progress of the ages, but is ‘Yesterday, and today, and the same forever’ (Heb. 13:9). To the men of all ages, the phrase is to be applied: ‘Learn of Me because I am meek, and humble of heart’ (Mt. 11:29), and at all times Christ shows Himself to us becoming ‘obedient unto death’ (Phil. 2:8), and in every age also the word of the Apostle holds: ‘And they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences’ (Gal. 5:24). Would that more would cultivate those virtues in our days, as did the holy men of bygone times! …From this species of contempt of the evangelical virtues, which are wrongly called passive, it naturally follows that the mind is imbued little by little with a feeling of disdain for the religious life. And that this is common to the advocates of these new opinions we gather from certain expressions of theirs about the vows which religious orders pronounce. For, they say, such vows are altogether out of keeping with the spirit of our age, inasmuch as they narrow the limits of human liberty; are better adapted to weak minds than to strong ones; avail little for Christian perfection and the good of human society, and rather obstruct and interfere with it. But how false these assertions are, is evident from the usage and teaching of the Church, which has always given the highest approval to religious life.”[3]

Again, the Church condemns in Protestantism not its affirmations, namely, that every Christian has a personal relation with our Lord, that religion is life, faith and love, that true religion is interior in spirit and in truth, but rather its negations, to wit, that Christ, treating man as a pure or angelic spirit, left out of consideration man’s social nature and did not institute a visible, supernatural society, to draw His members into personal union with Him and guide them in living His life, in which, by sanctifying grace, they really share. True religion is both interior and exterior, social and personal, respectful of freedom and devoted to the authority of the Mystical Body, dogmatic and moral. These affirmations are complementary and all are required.

What does the Church condemn in that pantheism of which we have so frequently spoken in the preceding chapters? Is it the affirmation of the divine immensity or of the universality of the divine presence in all creatures? No, for that is the Church’s own teaching. What she condemns is the limitation, restriction, and imprisonment of the divine immensity and of the divine universality in the narrow limits of the finite and the created. What she condemns is the Humanity-God, the Nature-God, that is to say, the diminutions and negations of the divine transcendency, which are at the same time negations of the true reality of nature and of humanity. To mix up and confuse things is to destroy them. God is immanent to all creatures by His essence, His presence and His power, but He is at the same time infinitely transcendent. The divine immanence and the divine transcendence are two great truths which must be clearly grasped and firmly retained; they are purified and corrupted together. To the objection that God being above all things cannot be in all things, St. Thomas replies that God is above all things by the excellence of His nature, but in all things as the cause of their being, which is that which is most intimate and innermost in them.[4]

Again, pantheism disfigures the great truth that God is all things in an eminent degree.[5] God is the sublimely infinite perfect transfiguration of all our glories and of all our splendors: beauty, strength, light, springtime, gentleness, poetry. He is not identified with us, because we have limits; rather, the little that we are, all that we are, He is, but in an infinitely higher way. Thus is the affirmation of pantheism surpassed and its error refuted at the same time. For the best way to refute an error is to make manifest the profound truth it disfigures and fails to grasp in its fullness.

There is in pantheism another positive idea, that of our divinization. It is true that by divine grace, as St. Peter so strikingly teaches, we are “made partakers of the divine nature” (2Peter 1:4), but this is done in a way infinitely removed from pantheism. This participation of the divine nature is possible for a finite being, even on earth, inasmuch as the creature, elevated in the very depths of his being and in the faculties from which his acts proceed, is now given for object of knowledge and love, even God as He knows and loves Himself. So St. Thomas explains the marvelous text of St. Peter. We never become God; our being is never confused with God’s being. But, remaining ourselves, we acquire in glory, by the intuitive vision of God’s essence, a union with the Deity infinitely more close and more entrancing than the most daring pantheism ever dreamt of. Our oneness with God will be, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of the immaterial union of the act of vision. We shall see Him as He is, in Heaven, the one true God, eternally happy and infinitely transcendent in the Trinity of divine persons. Here again, in the true doctrine divinely revealed, the affirmation of pantheism is immeasurably surpassed.

Those who pretend to be shocked by the long list of condemnations formulated in the Syllabus of Pius IX or by the decrees of the Holy Office have not sufficiently remarked that, when the Church rejects all the different forms of exaggeration, she proclaims by that very fact the broad universal affirmation which lies behind all the errors. Error and heresy are diminutions of the integral truth, mutilations of the life of the intelligence. It is this mutilation, this restriction, which the Church condemns, thus maintaining the integrity of human thought, the breadth and fullness of the correct idea. Error as such is a negative force, a diminution of truth and being and life; what the Church condemns in an erroneous statement is not the element of truth and life and being accompanying it, but the degradation of these things. The Catholic doctrine of virtue has often been represented as a hindrance to the development of life. Seen in their true light, Catholic truth and Christian life are not to be likened to hampering bonds but to upward-soaring wings. Virginity is spiritual fruitfulness in the Church, as religious vows are the masterpiece of spiritual liberty, for the contemplative orders are active on a higher, transcendent plane.

The anathemas of the Church are in the full sense acts of homage to the integral truth. The poet sees only poetry, the experimental scientist only his test-tube, the astronomer the starry sky. Irreligion nearly always has its source in this narrowness, for irreligion is shortsightedness, a defect of vision. This is one of the causes of the present tide of unbelief, since “science” has buried itself in matter. For “science” thus becomes a narrow view of things, and, because it is narrow, and precisely because of this narrowness, it is anti-catholic. To enter the Catholic Church does not mean abdicating “manly free-thought” for an obscure childish dogmatism; it means the enabling one’s soul to attain true liberty and a complete grasp of the order of the Divine Plan. The Catholic religion dominates over all errors. Opposed to her are all the partial systems, all the individual philosophies, all the particular religions, all the brilliant paradoxes, accompanied by the specious relief which its very isolation and its exaggeration give to every exclusive idea. When we examine them, we see that every element of truth that is found in the religions elaborated by men is to be found in the Church’s teaching, but incorporated into a transcendently higher synthesis. This is a point which it would be well to stress in the teaching of history. Orthodoxy alone has true breadth of view, for it alone is in full conformity with reality. When one understands that, one can sympathetically point out to non-Catholics that the elements of truth to which they cling are all to be found in God’s Church and far more.[6]

It is not enough, however, for the human intelligence to grasp once more the integral order of the world. Our hold on order remains precarious, if it be not linked with love of the Cross. Love goes astray without intelligence, but faith without charity cannot get into contact with God, and the soul separated from God is out of vital touch with the world. The disordered humanism which denies that man is fallen and proclaims that humanity is self-sufficing and will, with time, eliminate defects and limitations from the world, cannot be effectively combated without the full acceptance of Christian life as life in union with Christ Crucified. Man cannot realize himself fully except through, and by, the Cross. Human life is meant to tend to the perfection of love of the three divine persons and this perfection can be attained only along the road traced out by the Sermon on the Mount. Only men animated by such love can promote that spirit which will undo the individual self-seeking of post-Reformation capitalism and the blighting, savage hardness of Judaeo-Russian Communism. It is only through such love that a new social order will be born, in which the Gospel will be respected and the moral and material means of living a Christian life will be afforded the multitude on which our Lord had pity. But each Catholic must begin by accomplishing this work of living in union with our Lord Crucified within himself. That is the theater upon which the evils afflicting the world must first be overcome. We must begin by reforming our own inner life and by accepting fully our Lord’s rule in our own hearts. For we are called to live God’s inner life of knowledge and love on our level of creatures; just as God’s action springs from His inner life, so our efforts for the divine order in the world must have their source in interior union with the Blessed Trinity. Love must redescend from God to the world. “O eternal God,” St. Catherine of Siena used to say, “hasten to have mercy on the world. In its present state, it is clearly on the brink of destruction. For it is deprived of the union of charity with Thee and with the neighbor. Men no longer love one another with a love based on Thee, O Eternal Truth.”

Prayer and penance are the great means recommended by Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Letter, Caritate Christi compulsi, from which we have already so frequently quoted, for the return of politics and economics to their true position of intrinsic subordination to the spiritual interests of human life:

“Penance then is,” says the Sovereign Pontiff, “as it were, a salutary weapon placed in the hands of the soldiers of Christ, who wish to fight for the defense and restoration of the moral order in the universe, It is a weapon that strikes right at the root of all evil, that is, at the lust of material wealth and the wanton pleasures of life. By means of various works of penance, the noble-hearted Christian subdues the base passions that tend to make him violate the moral order. But if zeal for the divine law and brotherly love are as great in him as they should be, then not only does he practice penance for himself and his own sins, but he takes upon himself the expiation of the sins of others, imitating the saints who often heroically make themselves victims of reparation of the sins of whole generations, imitating even the divine Redeemer, Who became the Lamb of God, ‘Who taketh away the sins of the world’ (1Jn. 1:29). …The divine Heart of Jesus cannot but be moved at the prayers and sacrifice of His Church, and He will finally say to His spouse, weeping at His feet, under the weight of so many griefs and woes: “Great is thy faith, be it done to thee as thou wilt’ (Mt. 15:28).”

The development of the spirit of the Mystical Body will demand here in Ireland, as it is demanding elsewhere, a reaction against the movement into the cities.[7] The big city is everywhere dominated by the principle of money-making as the end of human life, and so the organization of life therein is becoming more and more opposed to the spirit of our Lord. Thus city life tends to become infra-human, for it is only thanks to the life which our Lord communicates that we can succeed in being fully human. Of course, the spirit of the Mystical Body will react against the control exercised over human life by those who manipulate finance, but even if the right order of money for production and production for man were restored, life in the country will always remain ideal for men. Our Lord, by coming amongst us as an artisan in a country village, wished to give us the example of a normal human life. The modern “man in the street” with his intelligence atrophied by the press and the cinema, with his senses jaded by jarring sights and sounds, is certainly not normal.[8]

In the organization of life, the spirit of the Mystical Body will seek to make itself felt by a reaction against the class-war which, as we have seen, is for the enemies of our Lord’s divinity only a transition stage on the way to the subjection of the bulk of the nation, as in Russia, to the new aristocracy of the Communist Party. Instead of. war and opposition, a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect, based on charity and justice, must be sedulously cultivated. Organizations of farmers and laborers, for example, must be helped to apply the spirit of the Lord they receive frequently in Holy Communion to their common problems. The Mystical Body of Christ demands an attitude of solidarity from its members, as brothers in Christ, with common interests and a common destiny.[9]

The Catholic family is the foundation and hope of society. Now, minds influenced by the press and the cinema gradually come to regard divorce and license of every kind as “normal” and “progressive.” As a reaction against the divinization of man, underlying the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, thanks to which what is called manhood suffrage has been propagated everywhere, is it not time to increase the voting power of heads of families? The head of a family should have at least twice the voting power of an irresponsible youth. Again, as Communism concentrates its debasing influence on those irresponsible youths, male and female, should not their right to take part in vital decisions be delayed until they are at least thirty years of age and have a grasp of order and some sense of responsibility? Of course the inculcation of that grasp of order and sense of responsibility will demand the foundation of study circles, in which young men and women will prepare themselves for Catholic Action in all spheres of life. “Young people,” we read in the Letter of Pope Pius XI to Cardinal Bertram,[10] “should apply themselves especially to the work of formation and preparation, whilst grown-up men shall devote themselves to the apostolate on a wider scale, without neglecting or excluding any form of beneficent activity, provided it comes within the scope of the divine Mission of the Church.”

To this lay apostolate Pope Pius XI looks for the forces required to co-operate with the Hierarchy in bringing back the world from paganism.

“Present circumstances, therefore,” writes the Sovereign Pontiff in the Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, “Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, indicate clearly the course to be followed. Nowadays, as more than once in the history of the Church, we are confronted with a world which in large measure has almost fallen back into paganism. In order to bring back to Christ these whole classes of men who have denied Him, we must gather and train from amongst their very ranks auxiliary soldiers of the Church, men who know their mentality and their aspirations, and who with kindly fraternal charity will be able to win their hearts. Undoubtedly the first and immediate apostles of the workingmen must themselves be workingmen, while the apostles of the industrial and commercial world should themselves be employers and merchants.

“It is your chief duty, Venerable Brethren, and that of your clergy, to seek diligently, to select prudently, and train fittingly these lay apostles, amongst workingmen and amongst employers. No easy task is here imposed upon the clergy, wherefore all candidates for the sacred priesthood must be adequately prepared to meet it by intense study of social matters. It is particularly necessary, however, that they whom you specially select and devote to this work should show themselves endowed with a keen sense of justice, ready to oppose with real manly constancy unjust claims and unjust actions; that they avoid every extreme with consummate prudence and discretion; above all, that they be thoroughly imbued with the charity of Christ, which alone has power to incline men’s hearts and wills firmly and gently to the laws of equity and justice. This course, already productive of success in the past, we must follow now with alacrity.

“Further, We earnestly exhort in the Lord the beloved sons who are chosen for this task, to devote themselves whole-heartedly to the formation of the men entrusted to them. In the execution of this most priestly and apostolic work, let them make opportune use of the powerful resources of Christian training, by instructing youth, by founding Christian associations, by forming study circles on Christian lines. Above all, let them hold in high esteem and employ with diligence for the benefit of their disciples, the Spiritual Exercises, a most precious means of personal and of social reform, as we said in Our Encyclical, Mens nostra. These Exercises We declared in express terms to be most useful for the laity in general and especially for workingmen, and We warmly recommend them; for in that school of the spirit not only are excellent Christians formed, but real apostles of every state of life are trained and enkindled with the fire of the Heart of Christ. From that school they will go forth, as the Apostles from the cenacle in Jerusalem, strong in faith, unconquerable in steadfastness under trials, aflame with zeal, eager only for the spread in every way of the Kingdom of Christ.

“And in truth, the world has nowadays sore need of valiant soldiers of Christ, who strain every thew and sinew to preserve the human family from the dire havoc which would befall it, were the teachings of the Gospel to be flouted, and a social order permitted to prevail, which spurns no less the laws of nature than those of God. For herself, the Church of Christ, built upon the solid rock, has nothing to fear, for she knows that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (Mt. 16:18); and the experience of centuries has taught her that storms, even the most violent, pass, leaving her stronger and triumphantly victorious. But her maternal bosom cannot but be stirred at the thought of the countless ills which tempests of the kind would occasion to so many thousands; at the thought, above all, of the immense spiritual evils which would ensue, entailing the eternal ruin of so many souls redeemed by the blood of Christ.”

A Contrast in Ideals: Catholicism and Communism

The program of social reform traced out by the Sovereign Pontiffs, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI, is simply the application to economics, that is, to questions concerning the production, distribution and exchange of goods required for bodily life, of the guiding lines that follow from the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the origin and destiny of the human race. The Catholic Church lays down guiding principles to be realized freely by man in accordance with circumstances. The same is true of Marx’s program. He also merely applies to economics his ideas on the origin and destiny of the human race. There is, of course, the enormous difference that Marxism denies spirituality and liberty. Marxians will take account of circumstances, in order to get their program accepted, but, once it is accepted, the mode of application can know of no variety. It must be ruthless and pitiless. There can be no separation between Catholicism and economic life. Neither can there be a separation between Marx’s anti-Christian attitude and his economic program. Marx, like his friend, Heinrich Heine, was a pantheist. For Marx, man is purely material, but as matter, man is God.

“This descendant of a line of rabbins and doctors,” writes the Jewish historian, B. Lazare (L’Antisémitisme, p. 346), “inherited all the logical vigor of his ancestors. He was a clear and lucid Talmudist…a Talmudist who studied sociology and applied his natural aptitudes for exegesis to the criticism of political economy. He was full of that old Hebrew materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects the hope held out of the chance of a Garden of Eden after death. But he was not merely a logician, he was also a revolutionary, a rebel, and a bitter controversialist. Just like Heine also, his gift of sarcasm and invective came to him from Jewish sources.”

Outlines of Catholic Ideal

Consequences of Fall and Redemption

We Catholics must put ourselves by intellect and will on the level of the struggle which is being waged in our day around the divinity of Christ and the reality of the supernatural life of His Mystical Body. We are a race fallen from supernatural life through the sin of our first parents. Through original sin we lost supernatural life and the harmony of our natural faculties was disturbed.

“The fundamental cause of defection from the Christian law in social and economic matters,” writes Pope Pius XI, in Quadragesimo Anno, “and of the apostasy of many workingmen from the Catholic faith which has resulted from it, is the disorderly affection of the soul, a sad consequence of original sin, the source of these and of all other evils. By original sin, the marvelous harmony of man’s faculties has been so deranged that now he is easily led astray by low desires, and strongly tempted to prefer the transient goods of this world to the lasting goods of heaven. Hence comes the unquenchable thirst for riches and temporal possessions, which at all times has impelled men to break the law of God and trample on the rights of their neighbor; but the condition of the economic world today lays more snares than ever for human frailty.”

Through membership of our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Church, the human race has received back supernatural life and, in proportion as men accept that life, coming as it does from our Lord crucified and risen from the dead, the natural life of persons, families and nations, is restored to order. We must, therefore, work for order in the world along the lines laid down by the Church, sacrificing ourselves in and with her, knowing that here below suffering is unavoidable and that man’s nature is prone to revolt against supernatural life. Each and every one of us is obliged to struggle against the tendencies of the fallen nature received from the first Adam. Listen to Pope Leo XIII:

“Civil society was renovated in every part by the teachings of Christianity,” writes that Pontiff in Rerum Novarum. “. . .Of this beneficent transformation Jesus Christ was at once the first cause and the final end; as from Him all came, so to Him was all to be brought back. For when the human race, by the light of the Gospel message, came to know the grand mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the Redemption of man, at once the life of Jesus Christ, God and Man, pervaded every race and nation, and interpenetrated them with His faith, His precepts and His laws. And if society is to be healed now, in no other way can it be healed save by a return to Christian life and Christian institutions. …And this may be asserted with utmost truth both of the State in general and of that body of its citizens, by far the great majority, who sustain life by their labor.”

The Communist strivings for a dead level of equality are anti-natural and doomed to failure; the Pope continues: “Let it then be taken as granted, in the first place, that the condition of things human must be endured, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.” Labor and toil must be accepted as part of our expiation for sin. Suffering cannot be eliminated. The Garden of Eden will not be given back. There is no possibility of a “good time all the time” for fallen man. Pope Leo XIII continues:

“As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly unoccupied; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. ‘Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life’ (Gen. 3:17). In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently—who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment—they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is—and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as we have said, for the solace to its troubles.”

The Catholic Church and the Class-War

The class-war is opposed both to nature and to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption through incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ. Every human being is meant to relive the life of Christ, the life of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Calvary, on his level. Pope Leo XIII points out:

“The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to embrace the idea that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the workingmen are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view, that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the resultant of the disposition of the bodily members, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, and should, as it were, groove into one another, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: Capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in pleasantness of life and the beauty of good order; while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and the guardian) in drawing the rich, and the poor breadwinners, together, by reminding each class of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice. Thus religion teaches the laboring man and the artisan to carry out honestly and fairly all equitable agreements freely entered into. …Doubtless before deciding whether wages are adequate, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this—that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. …But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her master and guide, aims higher still. She lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good feeling. The things of earth cannot be understood or valued aright without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will know no death. Exclude the idea of futurity, and forthwith the very notion of what is good and right would perish; nay, the whole scheme of the universe would become a dark and unfathomable mystery. The great truth which we learn from nature herself is also the grand Christian dogma on which religion rests as on its foundation—that when we have given up this present life, then shall wre really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth, but for things heavenly and everlasting; He has given us this world as a place of exile, and not as our abiding-place. As for riches and the other things which men call good and desirable, whether we have them in abundance, or lack them altogether—so far as eternal happiness is concerned—it matters little; the only important thing is to use them aright. Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion are woven together in the web of our mortal life. He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit; and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Savior. ‘If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him’ (2Tim. 2:12). Christ’s labors and sufferings, accepted of His own free will, have marvelously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope held forth of everlasting recompense He has made pain and grief more easy to endure.”

Thus we have a general view of the Catholic outlook on life, in the words of the heads of the Church. That outlook on life was once embodied in the social institutions of Europe, but since the sixteenth century every effort has been made to weaken the Church’s influence in politics and economics. The resultant evils must be overcome by returning to integral Catholicism. Now, as has been already pointed out in this work, there are four points upon which attack is always concentrated and which reforming action must ever keep in mind. They are: the supernatural and supranational Catholic Church, the State and the native land respectful of the rights of the Church, the Christian family, and the development of the personality of the child through Catholic education. Before, however, sketching the lines of reform according to the Sovereign Pontiffs, a few words must be said about the relation of the human person and of the family to the State. This will enable us later on to bring out the contrast between the Catholic ideal of membership of an ordered State and the complete subjection of the individual to the State-divinity in the system based on Marxian principles.

The human being, in Thomistic language, is both an individual and a person. On the one hand, owing to his having a material nature like the animals, that is to say on account of his being an individual, he is a component part of the whole, formed by the family or by civil society. In this respect he is directly ordered to society, he is only indirectly ordered to God. On the other hand, owing to his having an immaterial soul, by which he resembles the angels, that is to say, owing to his being a person, he is directly ordered to God and society exists for him. The individual is for society, as the part is for the whole, the hand for the body, but society is for the person, as the whole of an inferior order is for the whole of a superior order, as temporal life is for eternal life. We must say, proportionately, that the family is in the State as the part is in the whole and thus is subordinate to it from one point of view, while from another, the family, which provides the primary goods, birth, nourishment, education, dominates the State, which provides only the secondary or supplementary goods. To save the State, a father of a family may be asked to sacrifice his life in war, but the whole order of the State is meant to serve the family and, through the family, the human person. “It belongs directly to Social Justice to ensure respect for the rights of the human person: to Distributive Justice it belongs to safeguard the rights of the individual or citizen.”[11]

Principles Governing Economic Reform

In his Motu Proprio, Fin dalla Prima, December 18th, 1903, Pope Pius X collected the rules of Christian action traced out by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclicals. I shall here quote those dealing with economics, utilizing the English Catholic Truth Society’s translation:

“I. Human society, as God established it, is composed of unequal elements, just as the members of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself (Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris).

“II. The equality of the different members of society consists solely in this: that all men come from the hand of their Creator; that they have been redeemed by Jesus Christ; and that they will be judged, rewarded, or punished by God according to the exact measure of their merits and of their demerits (Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris).

“III. Consequently, it is conformable to the order established by God that in human society there should be princes and subjects, masters and men, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians, who, united by the bond of love, should help one another to attain their final end in Heaven, and their material and moral well-being on earth (Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris).

“IV. With regard to the goods of the earth, man has not only, like the animals, the use of them, but also the right of permanent ownership; and this, not only with reference to those goods which are consumed in being used, but also with reference to others (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“V. Private property is an indisputable natural right, whether it be the fruit of labor or industry, or the transfer or gift on the part of another, and each one may reasonably dispose of it at will (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“VI. To calm the strife between rich and poor, it is necessary to distinguish between justice and charity. Only when justice has been violated is there a right to make a claim (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“VII. The obligations of the poor and of the workman are these: to perform wholly and faithfully the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; not to injure masters in their property or person; to abstain from acts of violence, even in defense of their own rights; and never to turn their demands into disturbances (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“VIII. The obligations of justice for capitalists and masters are as follows: to pay a just wage for workmen; not to injure their lawful savings by violence, fraud, nor by open or hidden usury; to allow them freely to fulfill their religious duties; not to expose them to corrupting allurements, nor to the danger of scandal; not to entice them from a love of their family, and from careful thrift; not to impose on them work unsuited to their strength, age, and sex (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“IX. It is an obligation of charity for the rich and for those who have means, to help the poor and needy, according to the precept of the Gospel. This precept is of such binding force that, at the day of judgment, as our Lord Himself tells us, a special account of its fulfilment will be required (Mt. 25) (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“X. The poor, on their part, ought not to blush for their poverty, nor disdain the charity of the rich, above all when they think of Jesus, our Redeemer, Who, though He could have been born in wealth, made Himself poor to ennoble poverty and enrich it with incomparable merits for Heaven (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“XI. Capitalists and workmen may themselves largely help towards the solution of the labor question, by institutions formed to give timely aid to those who are in need, as also to draw together and unite the two classes. Such are societies of mutual help, numerous private insurance societies, what are called ‘patronages’ for the young, and above all, workingmen’s unions (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum).

“XII. Finally, let Catholic writers, while upholding the cause of the people and of the poor, beware of using language which may inspire the masses with hatred of the upper classes of society.[12] Let them not talk of claims and of justice, when it is a question of pure charity, as has already been explained. Let them bear in mind that Christ wishes to unite all men by the mutual bond of love which is the perfection of justice, and implies the duty of working for each other’s good (Instruction of Sacred Congregation of Ecclesiastical Affairs).”

Workingmen’s Unions

In the eleventh of the fundamental rules of Catholic Action set forth by Pope Pius X, that Pontiff spoke of the necessity of unions, especially of workingmen’s unions. He returned to the point in his Encyclical Letter, Singulari quadam, addressed on September 24th, 1912, to the German Hierarchy. Therein he stresses the need for Catholic associations, in order that a Catholic’s economic life and action may be in harmony with his religious beliefs:

“Whatever a Catholic does, even in temporal matters, he has not the right to neglect his supernatural interests, nay more, the prescriptions of Catholic teaching oblige him to direct everything towards the sovereign good as towards the last end of all things. All his actions, inasmuch as they are either morally good or bad, that is to say, in agreement or disagreement with natural and divine law, come under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church. All those, therefore, who glory in the name of Catholic, whether considered individually or as members of an association, if they are mindful of their duty as Catholics, should endeavor to promote peace and charity and not hostility and jealousy between the different classes of citizens. The social question and the controversies connected with it, about the nature and length of work, about the mode of fixing wages, about strikes, are not purely economic questions, capable of being settled without any reference to the authority of the Church. ‘On the contrary, it is a most certain fact that the social question is above all a moral and religious question, and for that reason must be settled by the principles of morality and according to the dictates of religion’ (Encyclical, Graves de Communi).

“Now with regard to workingmen’s unions, although their aim is to procure temporal advantages for their members, nevertheless those unions merit unreserved approval and are to be considered best calculated to procure the true and lasting good of their members which have the Catholic religion for chief foundation and openly follow the guidance of the Church. We have often proclaimed this, Ourselves, when the occasion presented itself in different countries.

“Hence it follows that Catholic associations of this kind should be instituted and favored in every way, certainly in Catholic countries and in all other regions besides, wherever it seems possible by means of them to provide for the different needs of the associates. Nor in the above-mentioned countries could it ever meet with approval, when associations which touch religion and morality directly or indirectly are in question, that mixed associations, that is, composed of Catholics and non-Catholics, should be favored and propagated. For, to take one point, in associations of this kind, the integrity of faith and just obedience to the laws and precepts of the Catholic Church are exposed to grave dangers or certainly are liable to be so exposed.” With regard to mixed unions in Germany, Pope Pius X decided that they might be “tolerated for Catholic workers.”

“This, however, We grant,” he says, “on condition that special precautions be taken to ward off the dangers which, as We have said, are inherent in such organizations. The chief of these precautions are as follows:

First of all, care is to be taken that the Catholic workers, who are members of these trade unions, be enrolled also in those Catholic associations for workingmen which are called Workingmen’s Associations (Arbeitervereine). …The directors of these latter associations, aware of the needs of our epoch, must teach the workingmen, especially with regard to their obligations of justice and charity, the precepts and laws necessary or useful for them to know thoroughly, in order that they may be able to act rightly in their trade unions and in accordance with the principles of Catholic doctrine.

“Besides, these same trade unions, in order that Catholics may join them, must abstain from every theory and every act not in agreement with the teaching and orders of the Church or of the competent religious authority. There must be nothing reprehensible from this point of view in their writings, words or acts. The Bishops must consider it amongst their most sacred duties to observe how these societies act and to see that Catholics suffer no detriment from their relations with them.”

In Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI has repeated the injunctions of Pius X with regard to neutral trade unions. “It belongs to the Bishops,” he says, “to permit Catholic workingmen to join these unions, where they judge the circumstances render it necessary and there appears no danger for religion, observing however the rules and precautions recommended by Our Predecessor of saintly memory, Pius X. Among these precautions the first and most important is that, side by side with these trade unions, there must always be associations which aim at giving their members a thorough religious and moral training, that these in turn may impart to the labor unions to which they belong the upright spirit which should direct their entire conduct. Thus will these unions exert a beneficent influence far beyond the ranks of their own members.”

The whole question of associations of employers and employees received further development in the Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Lille (France), June 5th, 1929. The following guiding principles are laid down in that document:

“(I) The Church recognizes and affirms the right of employers and employed to form industrial associations, either separately or jointly, and sees in such organizations an efficacious means towards the solution of the social question.

“(II) The Church, under existing circumstances, considers the formation of these industrial associations as morally necessary.

“(V) It is the desire of the Church that industrial associations should be instruments of peace and concord, and with this object in view She suggests the institution of joint commissions (i.e., consisting of representatives of employers associations and trade unions) as a bond of union between them.

“(VI) It is the desire of the Church that industrial associations organized by Catholics for Catholics, should be composed of Catholics, although it recognizes that particular circumstances may compel the adoption of a different course.”

Finally, with regard to this point, Pope Pius XI has urged the creation of vocational or occupational groups, thus applying to the economic affairs of our day the doctrine of our solidarity in the Mystical Body of Christ. In the Encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, the Sovereign Pontiff writes as follows:

“The aim of social legislation must, therefore, be the re-establishment of vocational groups. Society today still remains in a strained and, therefore, unstable and uncertain state, being founded on classes with contradictory interests and hence opposed to each other, and consequently prone to enmity and strife. …The demand and supply of labor divides men in the labor market into two classes, as into two camps, and the bargaining between these parties transforms this Labor market into an arena where the two armies are engaged in combat…there cannot be question of any perfect cure, except this opposition be done away with, and well-ordered members of the social body come into being anew, vocational groups, namely, binding men together not according to the position they occupy in the labor market, but according to the diverse functions which they exercise in society…in these associations the common interests of the whole group must predominate; and among these interests the most important is the directing of the activities of the group to the common good. Regarding cases in which the interests of employers and employees call for special care and protection against opposing interests, separate deliberation will take place in their respective assemblies and separate votes will be taken as the matter may require. …Let those free associations which already flourish and produce salutary fruits make it the goal of their endeavors, in accordance with Christian social doctrine, to prepare the way and to do their part towards the realization of that ideal type of vocational groups which We have mentioned above.”

Further Principles for the Uplift of the Masses

Pope Pius XI has further laid down guiding lines for the uplift of the masses in the same Encyclical, and also for the action of the State in avoiding the two extremes of individualism and collectivism. With reference to the wage-earners, the Sovereign Pontiff writes:

“Every effort, therefore, must be made that at least in future a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy, and that an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workingman. The purpose is not that these become slack at their work, for man is born to labor as the bird to fly, but that by thrift they may increase their possessions and by the prudent management of the same may be enabled to bear the family burden with greater ease and security, being freed from that hand-to-mouth uncertainty which is the lot of the proletarian. Thus they will not only be in a position to support life’s changing fortunes, but will also have the reassuring confidence that, when their own lives are ended, some little provision will remain for those whom they leave behind them. …This program cannot, however, be realized unless the propertyless wage-earner be placed in such circumstances that by skill and thrift he can acquire a certain moderate ownership, as was already declared by Us, following in the footsteps of Our Predecessor.

. . . And, first of all, those who hold that the wage-contract is essentially unjust, and that in its place must be introduced the contract of partnership, are certainly in error. They do a grave injury to Our Predecessor, whose Encyclical not only admits this contract, but devotes much space to its determination according to the principles of justice. In the present state of human society, however, We deem it advisable that the wage-contract should, when possible, be modified somewhat by a contract of partnership, as is already being tried in various ways to the no small gain both of the wage-earners and of the employers. In this way wage-earners are made sharers in some sort in the ownership, or the management, or the profits. In estimating a just wage, not one consideration alone but many must be taken into account, according to the wise words of Leo XIII: ‘Before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered’ (Encyclical, Rerum Novarum). …The obvious truth is that in labor, especially hired labor, as in ownership, there is a social as well as a personal or individual aspect to be considered. …From this double aspect…follow important conclusions for the regulation and fixing of wages. In the first place, the wage paid to the workingman must be sufficient for the support of himself and of his family (Encyclical, Casti Connubii). It is right, indeed, that the rest of the family contribute according to their power towards the common maintenance, as in the rural home or in the families of many artisans and small shopkeepers. But it is wrong to abuse the tender years of children or the weakness of woman.

…Every effort must, therefore, be made that fathers of families receive a wage sufficient to meet adequately ordinary domestic needs. If in the present state of society this is not always feasible, social justice demands that reforms be introduced without delay which will guarantee every adult workingman just such a wage.

…The condition of any particular business and of its owner must also come into question in settling the scale of wages, for it is unjust to demand wages so high that an employer cannot pay them without ruin, and without consequent distress amongst the working people themselves. …Finally, the wage-scale must be regulated with a view to the economic welfare of the whole people. …All are aware that a scale of wages too low, no less than a scale excessively high, causes unemployment.”

The Observance of Catholic Holydays

“If owners of property,” writes Pope Leo XIII,[13] “should be made secure, the workingman, in like manner, has property and belongings in respect to which he should be protected; and foremost of all, his soul and his mind. Life on earth, however good and desirable in itself, is not the final purpose for which man is created; it is only the way and the means to that attainment of truth and that practice of goodness in which the full life of the soul consists. …No man may with impunity outrage that dignity which God Himself treats with reverence, nor stand in the way of that higher life which is the preparation for the eternal life of heaven; nay, more, no man has in this matter power over himself. To consent to any treatment which is calculated to defeat the end and purpose of his being is beyond his right; he cannot give up his soul to servitude; for it is not man’s own rights which are here in question, but the rights of God, the most sacred and inviolable of rights.

“From this follows the obligation of the cessation from work and labor on Sundays and certain holydays. The rest from labor is not to be understood as mere giving way to idleness; much less must it be an occasion for spending money and for vicious indulgence, as many would have it to be; but it should be rest from labors hallowed by religion. Rest (combined with religious observances) disposes man to forget for a while the business of his everyday life, to turn his thoughts to things heavenly, and to the worship which he so strictly owes to the eternal Godhead. It is this, above all, which is the reason and motive of Sunday rest.”

Protestantism attacked the holydays of the Catholic Church. The uprise of the Judaeo-Calvinistic spirit meant the triumph of a mentality completely opposed to that which freed men from toil on certain days, in order to allow their souls to breathe a supernatural atmosphere of other-worldliness. A reaction came later on when an unwilling tribute was paid to the practical sanity of the Catholic Church by the introduction of Bank Holidays. The very name is significant. The power of finance condescends to allow its bond-slaves to taste a pagan respite from work. Should there not be a further reaction towards the sanctification of the Catholic Holydays and their substitution for the Bank Holidays, which are characteristic of the age when men existed for production and production was dominated by money? Could not, for example, the Feast of the Assumption be substituted for the August Bank Holiday?

Role of the State in Social Reconstruction

A few passages from the Encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, will serve to give an idea of the role of the State in the reconstruction of the Social Order, according to Pope Pius XI.

“What We have written thus far regarding a right distribution of property and a just scale of wages is concerned directly with the individual, and deals only indirectly with the social order. …When We speak of the reform of the social order, it is principally the State We have in mind. Not indeed that all salvation is to be hoped from its intervention; but because on account of the evil of ‘individualism,’ as We call it, things have come to such a pass that the highly developed social life, which once flourished in a variety of prosperous institutions organically linked with each other, has been damaged and all but ruined, leaving thus virtually only individuals and the State.”

Accordingly, the Sovereign Pontiff sums up the remedies briefly as follows:

“The principles of right reason and Christian social philosophy, regarding capital, labor and their mutual co-operation, must be accepted in theory and reduced to practice. In the first place, due consideration must be had for the double character, individual and social, of capital and labor, in order that the dangers of individualism and of collectivism be avoided. The mutual relations between capital and labor must be determined according to the laws of the strictest justice, called commutative justice, supported, however, by Christian charity. …To that end all the institutions of public and social life must be imbued with the spirit of justice; and this justice must above all be truly operative, must build up a juridical and social order able to pervade all economic activity. Social charity should be, as it were, the soul of this order and the duty of the State will be to protect and defend it effectively.”

Catholic Ideal is Above Extreme Errors of

Individualism and Collectivism

On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiff insists that free competition alone cannot be the guiding principle in economic matters. This principle gained sway owing to the attack on the Mystical Body of Christ in the sixteenth century and to the prevalence of the Puritan or Calvinistic spirit. It has ultimately led to the domination of the State by the forces that control credit and finance:

“Just as the unity of human society,” writes the Sovereign Pontiff, “cannot be built upon class warfare, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to free competition alone. From this source have proceeded in the past all the errors of the ‘individualistic’ school. This school, ignorant or forgetful of the social and moral aspect of economic matters, teaches that the State should refrain in theory and practice from interfering therein, because these possess in free competition and open markets a principle of self-direction better able to control them than any created intellect. Free competition, however, though within certain limits just and productive of good results, cannot be the ruling principle of the economic world; this has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free run given to these dangerous individualistic ideals. It is therefore very necessary that economic affairs be once more subjected to, and governed by, a true and effective guiding principle…to wit, social justice and social charity.”

The Sovereign Pontiff then points out that as a result of unchecked competition, financial forces dominate the world:

“In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure. This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will. This accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern economic order, is a natural result of limitless free competition, which permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience. …Free competition is dead: economic dictatorship has taken its place.

Unbridled ambition for domination has succeeded the desire for gain: the whole economic life has become hard, cruel and relentless in a ghastly measure. …As regards the relations of peoples among themselves, a double stream has issued forth from this one fountain-head: on the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a not less noxious and detestable internationalism or international imperialism in financial affairs, which holds that where a man’s fortune is, there is his country.”

The independence of States and all that is enshrined in the idea of native land must be strenuously defended against the international financiers, who, it must always be remembered, are largely of one nation, the Jewish nation.

On the other hand, the reaction against the abuse of private property by excessive individualism has paved the way for Communism or collectivism. We saw in an earlier chapter the part played by Jewish financiers in implanting that anti-human system in Russia. Pope Pius XI “does not think it necessary to warn upright and faithful children of the Church against the impious and nefarious character of Communism.” He blames very severely both those who do not try to alleviate the conditions which exasperate men’s minds and those who allow the propagation of Communist doctrines.

To remedy the terrible evils which have come upon the world from the domination of international financial forces, there must be a full return to the true Catholic attitude towards life and to the observance of the moral law. As has been pointed out already, the Church’s teaching upon usury and speculation must be accepted.

“A stern insistence on the moral law, enforced with vigor by civil authority,” writes Pope Pius XI, in the same Encyclical Letter, “could have dispelled or perhaps averted these enormous evils. This, however, was too often lamentably wanting. For at the time when the new social order was beginning, the doctrines of rationalism had already taken firm hold of large numbers, and an economic science alien to the true moral law had soon arisen, whence it followed that free rein was given to human avarice. As a result, a much greater number than ever before, solely concerned with adding to their wealth by any means whatsoever, sought their own selfish interests above all things; they had no scruple in committing the gravest injustices against others. Those who first entered upon this broad way which leads to destruction, easily found many imitators of their iniquity because of their manifest success, their extravagant display of wealth, their derision of the scruples of more delicate consciences, and the crushing of more cautious competitors. With the leaders of business abandoning the true path, it is not surprising that in every country multitudes of workingmen, too, sank in the same morass; all the more so, because very many employers treated their workmen as mere tools, without any concern for the welfare of their souls, indeed, without the slightest thought of higher interests. The mind shudders if we consider the frightful perils to which the morals of workers are exposed in modern factories; if we recall how the present economic regime, and above all the disgraceful housing conditions prove obstacles to the family tie and the family life; if we remember the insuperable difficulties placed in the way of a proper observance of the holy days.”

Catholic rulers and all Catholics everywhere must point out that salvation for the world lies in acknowledgment of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff on usury, on the morality of stock-exchange speculations and on the morality of economic transactions generally.

“For no human institution exists,” wrote Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Letter, Ubi Arcano Dei, “which can impose upon the nations an international code, adapted to the present time, similar to the one which, in the Middle Ages, ruled that society of nations which was known as Christendom. Injustices may have been frequently committed therein, nevertheless the sanctity of the law remained undisputed, a safe standard by which the nations themselves might be judged. But there is a divine institution, which can guarantee the sanctity of the law of nations, an institution which, embracing all nations and transcending them, is endowed with supreme authority and evokes veneration through its plenary powers of rule—the Church of Christ. Thanks to its divine mission, to its nature, to its constitution and the prestige which time has conferred upon it, it alone has shown itself equal to so great a task, and, far from succumbing to the onslaughts of war, it has emerged with vigor marvellously increased. …It is necessary, therefore, that human society be rightly organized, in order that the Church, following its divine mission, may be in a position to defend the rights of God towards men, individually as well as collectively. This is what We have briefly expressed as the reign of Christ.”

All Catholics should realize that there are not two worlds, but one only, in which we must accept God’s plan for ordered life or else wander in aimless disorder.

The granting of credit in a State must not be the monopoly of a few, whose relations with international financiers are unknown and uncontrolled:

“There is no reason why the control of credit should be in the hands of a few anonymous groups for their own profit. …There is  an urgent necessity for banking to be sharply differentiated by its various functions: the provision of safe deposit, the accumulation of savings, the supply of credit, small and large, the assistance of commercial operations, the guidance of investment and the conduct of international transactions. It would at once be seen that some of these functions could be discharged by local groups, others by vocational associations, others again by the State or by international bodies. For the old system has now been proved to be a tyranny of plutocrats divorced entirely from the needs and interests of the people.”[14]

Personal and Social Functions of Private Property

Every human being is bound to lead a good life. “Since the special form of man is rational, there is a natural inclination in every man to act according to reason. This means acting virtuously.”[15] Now two things are necessary for a good life. The chief requisite is virtue and the primary common good of a nation consists in the virtuous life of its citizens. The other requisite for a good life is secondary and quasi-instrumental in character, namely, a sufficiency of material goods, the use of which is necessary for the exercise of virtue and the fulfilment of the moral obligations incumbent on a person.[16] In other words, in order that the average man may be able to lead a virtuous life without being obliged to be heroic, the needs of the body must be provided for in suitable fashion. Accordingly, as things that are without reason are, for man’s use and benefit, and man cannot attain perfection without the aid of these things, every man has a natural right to that sufficiency of material goods which will enable him to live his life in conformity with his nature. To this right corresponds on the part of man the duty of labor.[17] This duty is peculiar to man, for he is lacking in that natural equipment of clothing and protection from the inclemency of the weather enjoyed by the animals. If, however, health or the weakness of childhood render labor impossible, the prior right to the above-mentioned sufficiency of material goods does not cease to exist.

Moreover, man is destined by nature to live in the society of his fellow-men. Accordingly, the organization of society must aim at enabling men to live their lives in a manner befitting creatures of God and human persons. It is therefore the office and duty of the political authority to care for the primary common good, namely, virtue, intellectual and especially moral, as well as for the secondary common good, namely, riches and other external goods, which are required as the instruments of a virtuous life. On account of the connection between the primary common good and the secondary common good, the political authority in the State must accordingly strive to secure to each member of the community the practical possibility of acquiring that sufficiency of worldly goods normally required for a decent life. Now, that sufficiency of goods will not be forthcoming unless the right of private ownership of productive property be respected:

“It is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. …It would throw open the door to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.”[18]

But then private ownership of productive property must also recognize and fulfill the social function incumbent on it, on account of the secondary common good of the members of the society:

“Neither Leo XIII,” says Pope Pius XI, “nor those theologians who have taught under the guidance and direction of the Church, have ever denied or called in question the twofold aspect of ownership, which is individual or social according as it regards individuals or concerns the common good. Their unanimous contention has always been that the right to own private property has been given to man by nature or rather by the Creator Himself, not only in order that individuals may be able to provide for their own needs and those of their families, but also that by means of it, the goods which the Creator has destined for the human race may truly serve this purpose. Now these ends cannot be secured unless some definite and stable order is maintained. There is, therefore, a double danger to be avoided. On the one hand, if the social and public aspect of ownership be denied or minimized, the logical consequence is ‘individualism,’ as it is called; on the other hand, the rejection or diminution of its private and individual character necessarily leads to some form of ‘collectivism.’ To disregard these dangers would be to rush headlong into the quicksands of modernism, in the moral, juridical and social order, which We condemned in the Encyclical Letter issued at the beginning of Our Pontificate.[19] Let this be noted particularly by these seekers after novelties, who launch against the Church the odious calumny that she has allowed a pagan concept of ownership to creep into the teachings of her theologians, and that another concept must be substituted, which in their astounding ignorance they call Christian.”[20]

It is the function of the political authority in the State to get owners of property to fulfill the social function incumbent on them:

“It follows from the two-fold character of ownership which We have termed individual and social,” writes Pope Pius XI,[21] “that men must take into account in this matter, not only their own advantage, but also the common good. To define these duties in detail, when the need occurs and when the natural law does not do so, is the function of the government. Provided that the natural and divine law be observed, the public authority, in view of the common good, may specify more accurately what is licit and illicit for property owners in the use of their possessions. …It is plain, however, that the State may not discharge this duty in an arbitrary manner. Man’s natural right of possessing and transmitting property by inheritance must remain intact, and cannot be taken away by the State; ‘for man precedes the State,’[22] and, ‘the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of man into a community,’[23] Hence the prudent Pontiff had already declared it unlawful for the State to exhaust the means of individuals by crushing taxes and tributes. ‘The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has by no means the right to abolish it, but only to control its use and bring it into harmony with the interests of the public good.’ However, when civil authority adjusts ownership to meet the needs of the public good, it acts not as an enemy, but as the friend of private owners; for thus it effectively prevents the possession of private property, intended by nature’s Author in His wisdom for the sustaining of human life, from creating intolerable burdens and so rushing to its own destruction. It does not, therefore, abolish, but protects private ownership; and so far from weakening the right of private property, it gives it new strength.”

But without a frank and sincere return to the life of the Mystical Body of our Lord, sordid selfishness and self-seeking will frustrate all efforts to reform society.

“Men must observe anew,” remarks Pope Pius XI, “the precepts of Him Who alone has the words of eternal life (Jn. 6:70), words which, even though heaven and earth be changed, shall not pass away (Mt. 24:35). All those versed in social matters demand a rationalization of economic life which will introduce sound and true order. But this order, which We ourselves desire and make every effort to promote, will necessarily be quite faulty and imperfect, unless all man’s activities harmoniously unite to imitate and, as far as is humanly possible, attain the marvelous unity of the Divine Plan. This is the perfect order which the Church preaches with intense earnestness, and which right reason demands; which places God as the first and supreme end of all created activity, and regards all created goods as mere instruments under God, to be used only in so far as they help towards the attainment of our supreme end. …Now in effecting this reform, charity, ‘which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14), must play a leading part. …For, justice alone, even though most faithfully observed, can remove the cause of social strife, but can never bring about a union of hearts and minds. Yet this union, binding men together, is the main principle of stability in all institutions, no matter how perfect they may seem, which aim at establishing social peace and promoting mutual aid. In its absence, as repeated experience proves, the wisest regulations come to nothing. Then only will it be possible to unite all in harmonious striving for the common good, when all sections of society have the intimate conviction that they are members of a single family and children of the same heavenly Father, and further, that they are ‘one body in Christ, and every one members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5), so that ‘if one member suffer anything, all the members suffer with it’ (1Cor. 12:26). Then the rich and others in power will change their former negligence of their poorer brethren into solicitous and effective regard; will listen with kindly feeling to their just complaints, and will readily forgive them the faults and mistakes they possibly make. Workingmen, too, will lay aside all feelings of hatred and envy, which the instigators of social strife arouse so skilfully. Not only will they cease to feel weary of the position assigned them by divine Providence in human society; they will become proud of it, well aware that every man by doing his duty is working usefully and honorably for the common good, and is following in the footsteps of Him, Who, being in the form of God, chose to become a carpenter among men, and to be known as the Son of a carpenter.”[24]

Thus there will be a rebirth of that spirit which will enable men to use their possessions rightly:

“If the question be asked,” writes Pope Leo XIII, “how must one’s possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same Holy Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas): ‘Man should not consider his outward possessions as his own but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence, the Apostle saith, command the rich of this world…to offer with no stint, to apportion largely’ (IIa, IIae, Q. 66, art. 2). …‘It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity—a duty not enforced by human law.’”[25]

Pope Pius XI points out in his turn:

“At the same time a man’s superfluous income is not left entirely to his own discretion. We speak of that portion of his income which he does not need in order to live as becomes his station. On the contrary, the grave obligations of charity, beneficence, and liberality which rest upon the wealthy, are constantly insisted upon in telling words by Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. However, the investment of superfluous income in securing favorable opportunities for employment, provided the labor employed produces results which are really useful, is to be considered, according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor (IIa, IIae, Q. 134), an act of real liberality, particularly appropriate to the needs of our time.”[26]

The result should be really useful, the Pope insists. Money invested in cinemas, for example, is productive of disastrous results. Of money invested in newspapers, which confuse and mislead people about the Divine Plan for Order in the world, practically the same is to be said. On the other hand, papers fully and fearlessly Catholic, to enlighten people and direct reform, are a dire need; the investment of funds in the establishment of credit unions for small loans, like those of the United States, would be of immense value in helping to regulate the functioning of credit. It should not be forgotten either that the distribution of property demands that large departmental stores and multiple shops should not be allowed to oust the small traders who can give personal attention to customers. Big business aims at the concentration of property in a few hands. Property must be diffused.

Workingmen Must be Safeguarded

Against Agents of Secret Societies

Before passing on to examine the Communist ideal, one last point, in connection with the Catholic reform of society, must be touched on. We have seen in an earlier chapter that the Communist International is only a clever means by which vast bodies of workingmen can be maneuvered by leaders, more or less hidden, for objects, largely, if not completely, unknown to the rank and file. This aspect of modern life did not escape the vigilant eye of Pope Leo XIII. He referred to it in the Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus, on Freemasonry, and again in Rerum Novarum. In the former Encyclical, after having extolled the Third Order of St. Francis, in which men are drawn on to “the liberty of the sons of God…the fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all; the equality which, founded in justice and charity, does not take away all distinctions among men, but out of the varieties of life, of duties, and of pursuits, forms that union and that harmony which naturally tend to the benefit and dignity of the State,” he went on to recommend the restoration and adaptation of the guild-system:

“In the third place,” wrote the great Pontiff, “there is a matter wisely instituted by our forefathers, but in course of time laid aside, which may now be used as a pattern and form of something similar. We mean the associations or guilds of workmen, for the protection, under the guidance of religion, both of their temporal interests and of their morality. If our ancestors, by long use and experience, felt the benefit of these guilds, our age perhaps will feel it the more by reason of the opportunity which they will give of crushing the power of secret societies. Those who support themselves by the labor of their hands, besides being, by their very a condition, most worthy above all others of charity and consolation, are also especially exposed to the allurement of men whose ways lie in fraud and deceit. Therefore, they ought to be helped with the greatest possible kindness, and to be invited to join associations that are good, lest they be drawn away to others that are evil. For this reason, We greatly wish, for the salvation of the people, that, under the auspices and patronages of the Bishops, and at convenient times, these guilds may be generally restored. To Our great delight, sodalities of this kind and also associations of masters, have in many places already been established, having, each class of them, for their object to help the honest workman, to protect and guard his children and family, and to promote in them piety, Christian knowledge, and a moral life. And in this matter We cannot omit mentioning that exemplary society, named after its founder, St. Vincent, which has deserved so well of the poor. Its acts and its aims are well known.”

Pope Leo XIII returned to this subject in the Encyclical, Rerum Novarum:

“Associations of every kind, and especially those of workingmen,” wrote the Pontiff, “are now far more common than heretofore. As regards many of these, there is no need at present to inquire whence they spring, what are their objects, or what the means they employ. There is a good deal of evidence, however, which goes to prove that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public well-being; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force workingmen either to join them or to starve. Under these circumstances Christian workingmen must do one of two things: either join associations in which their religion will be exposed to peril, or form associations among themselves—unite their forces and shake off courageously the yoke of so unrighteous and intolerable an oppression. No one who does not wish to expose man’s chief good to extreme risk will for a moment hesitate to say that the second alternative should by all means be adopted.”

Summary

This brief exposition of some Catholic lines of social reform may be fittingly concluded by the following passage from the Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which forms at the same time an excellent summary of the ideas set forth.

“Those Catholics are worthy of all praise—and they are not a few,” wrote Pope Leo XIII, “who, understanding what the times require, have striven, by various undertakings and endeavors, to better the condition of the working class without any sacrifice of principle being involved. They have taken up the cause of the workingman, and have spared no efforts to better the condition both of families and individuals; to infuse a spirit of equity into the mutual relations of employers and employed; to keep before the eyes of both classes the precepts of duty and the laws of the Gospel—that Gospel which, by inculcating self-restraint, keeps men within the bounds of moderation, and tends to establish harmony among the divergent interests and the various classes which compose the State. It is with such ends in view that we see men of eminence meeting together for discussion, for the promotion of concerted action, and for practical work. Others, again, strive to unite workingmen of various grades into associations, help them with their advice and means, and enable them to obtain fitting and profitable employment. The Bishops, on their part, bestow their ready good-will and support; and with their approval and guidance many members of the clergy, both secular and regular, labor assiduously on behalf of the spiritual and intellectual interests of the members of such associations. And there are not wanting Catholics blessed with affluence, who have, as it were, cast in their lot with the wage-earners, and who have spent large sums in founding and widely spreading benefit and insurance societies, by means of which the workingman may without difficulty acquire, through his labor, not only many present advantages but also the certainty of honorable support in days to come. How greatly such manifold and earnest activity has benefited the community at large is too well known to require Us to dwell upon it. We find therein grounds for most cheering hope in the future, provided always that the associations We have described continue to grow and spread, and are well and wisely administered. Let the State watch over these societies of citizens banded together for the exercise of their rights; but let it not thrust itself into their peculiar concerns and their organization; for things move and live by the spirit inspiring them, and may be killed by the rough grasp of a hand from without.”

The Communist Ideal

At the base of Marx’s philosophy is the absolute contradiction that passive inert matter can give birth to reason and thought, that the material can produce the immaterial. To this evolution of the material, Marx applies the Hegelian laws of logic and logical development according to which contradictions present themselves inevitably and are reconciled in a higher synthesis. Thus a purely material evolution is directed towards the highest conditions of life and of social justice, towards the triumph of reason. Now it is the very height of absurdity that a purely material, irrational process can lead to the triumph of reason. No wonder the attempt to build up a social system on that impossibility is giving birth in Russia to untold misery and savage repression of human longings. But given that basis, the Marxian superstructure is rigidly in line. Let us see its salient points in turn.

The Marxian idea is that the mass of the material world produces or evolves men who are pure matter, but who in turn modify and change the matter of which future men are composed, by changes in the methods of production. Therefore, all the matter of the world belongs to all the men equally and can belong to no one in particular. As there is no such thing as personality in our sense, owing to the possession of an immaterial, rational soul, there can be no such thing as a right to own permanently any of the means of production. Man may have things which perish in the use of them, like the animals, but, mere animal as he is, he has not the right to own land and productive goods in stable possession. He is simply brute matter evolving from the common earth and returning completely thereto. For Marxists, then, private property in the means of production is always exploitation.

There are no natures of things, differentiating them specifically and intrinsically. Everything is matter evolving under the action of human labor so that things are worth simply the amount of labor expended on them. And human labor, being the labor not of a person, differing specifically from the animals, but of a mere individual, belonging completely to the society, creates value for the society. Private ownership thus means the confiscation of the labor of others to one’s own advantage. Communists, therefore, reject absolutely the teaching of the Pope, Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum:

“It is the mind or reason,” writes that Pontiff “which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures, it is this which renders a human being human and distinguishes him essentially and generically from the brute. And on this very account—that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason—it must be within his right to possess things, not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession. …When man turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body towards procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates—that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his individuality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without anyone being justified in violating that right.”

Again, for Marxists, there cannot logically be any organization such as we Catholics understand by the family. Men are purely material, like the animals. They have sexual intercourse, as natural instinct inclines them thereto, but the children born of these unions belong to the Marxian World-State. There cannot, of course, be any question of a native land (patria) in the Catholic sense. Material man works and modifies by his labor the particular portion of matter assigned to him by the State-God, but all our language about continuing the spiritual traditions of our ancestors is simply meaningless bourgeois cant. Man is purely material and in due time, given the correct Marxian education, he will be exclusively concerned with matter and its modifications, as he should be. Finally, there is no such thing as God or the Blessed Trinity or the supernatural life of grace. The second person of the Blessed Trinity could not become man, for, as has just been said, there is no God and no Blessed Trinity. Our Lord Jesus Christ is just a mere clod of matter like the rest of us.

Consequences of Communist Ideal for

Religion, Nationality, and Human Personality

Religion

As is clear, the opposition between Communism and all religion, natural and supernatural, is complete. There can be no compromise. An animal can have no religion, for an animal cannot even know of the existence of God. Without that knowledge there can be no question of supernatural revelation. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that human reason can arrive at the knowledge of God from the visible world and she teaches the truths revealed by Him. Marxian Communism may make a truce with religion for a time, from motives of expediency, but it can never logically abandon its aim of destroying every vestige of religion.

An important consequence of Marxism in the realm of morality requires to be stressed, for it is so utterly opposed, not only to Catholicism, but to sane natural reason, that people find it hard to believe that such things are actually taught. The moral law, the Ten Commandments, for example, have no meaning for Communists. For them there can, logically, be no such thing as an eternal law. Matter is evolving and must evolve in the direction of Communism. Accordingly, everything that contributes efficaciously to the construction of the Communist State is moral. Whatever is opposed to it is immoral. Thus the most violent and implacable suppression of every form of opposition, all that we call murder, lying, tyranny, is justified in their eyes if it is useful to the end—the triumph of Communism.

“We deny all morality in the bourgeois sense,” wrote Lenin, “for according to the bourgeois, morality had its origin in the Commandments of God. We affirm that we do not believe in God and we are well aware that when the clergy, the landowners and the middle-class pretended to speak in the name of God, they were in reality trying to defend their own interests as exploiters…our morality, on the contrary, is entirely subordinate to the interests of the proletariat and to the exigencies of the class-war. …We proclaim moral whatever serves to destroy the old exploiting form of society and group together all the workers for the creation of the new Communist society. For us Communists, whatever is useful for this struggle is therefore moral, whatever groups together the workers against every form of exploitation, even against the small landowner, for small ownership gives over, to the individual what has been created by the labor of the whole society. …We do not believe in an eternal moral law. We denounce as lies all those legendary moral laws.”[27]

It must be ever borne in mind that, for Communists, lying which favors Communism and Communist propaganda is not lying at all. It is not immoral, according to their principles, for Communists to dissimulate their real purposes under pretence of patriotism and zeal for national independence. On the contrary, if they can thus succeed in filling misguided young men with enthusiasm for Karl Marx and hatred of the restraining influence of the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, their action is worthy of the highest praise in Communist eyes.

Nationality

According to The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, “the supremacy of the proletariat will efface all national distinctions.” Communists, therefore, will take part in a national struggle only as a matter of tactics. Logically, nationality can be for them only a pretense, for nationality supposes the possession of an immaterial soul. If the Communist State grants entire lingual autonomy it emphatically does not recognize cultural autonomy and liberty. The national cultures are allowed to remain national in form, but they must be proletarian in content.[28] Little by little, the logic of materialism will tend to wipe out national ideas, but there will come a reaction against this as against the other anti-human elements of Marxism.

That the acceptance of Marxism means logically the annihilation of nationality should be always kept in view when we read appeals to James Connolly’s nationalism. Connolly came under the influence of Daniel de Leon, one of the Jews engaged in the task of harnessing the workers of the world to the chariot of Karl Marx’s Neo-Messianism.[29] Needless to say, James Connolly did not recognize the implications of Marx’s ideas. The leading article of The Worker’s Republic, 29th January, 1916, in which he said that he “accepted the family as the true type of human society,” and insisted upon the fundamental agreement between his own views and those expressed by Father Laurence in the Trades Hall a few days before, is ample proof of this fact.[30] As James Connolly never had a chance of studying the philosophy or rather the theology of history from the point of view of the Mystical Body of Christ, he could not fully grasp that the one hope of realization of that solidarity of the members of a nation, about which he spoke so touchingly in the leading article already quoted, was through the life of the Mystical Body. Neither was he aware that the naturalistic revolutionary attack on the Mystical Body which began in 1789 is being pushed forward everywhere now by Communism, now by Masonry, in the attempt to wipe out our Lord and His Church once for all. Would James Connolly knowingly consent to have his country serve as a mere pawn in the Marxian effort for Jewish world-domination?

Human Personality

As we saw, when treating of the Catholic ideal, a human being is both an individual and a person. Individuality is based on matter and therefore belongs to man because of his animal nature. Personality belongs to man because of his having an immaterial soul. Man alone amongst visible beings, can grasp with his intelligence and consciously desire with his will God, the supreme good. Thus, while all other visible beings move to their end, because they are impelled thereto by the current of the world in which they are immersed, man alone can dominate that current and turn directly to God. He resembles the angels in this respect. Liberalism and Romanticism have exaggerated this resemblance. There is, however, another aspect of his nature, by which man differs from the angel. Human nature, like animal nature, can be found realized in innumerable individuals of the same species, and these individuals are necessarily in relation with one another; in other words, they are obliged to form societies. First in order comes the family, which is for the propagation of life, and then civil society, which has for object the development of life. On account of his material nature and the propagation of that nature, through the interrelation of different members of the same species, man resembles the lower animals. Communism and Socialism exaggerate this resemblance of man to the brute creation.

Man is, therefore, neither an angel nor a brute beast, but an intellectual or rational animal. Because man is an individual in the human species, he is an individual in civil society, a part or portion of the body politic. From this point of view, he is ordained to the welfare of the city as the good of the whole of which he forms a part; he is subordinated to the common good which, as such, is of a nobler, diviner order. But when we consider his destiny as a person, the roles are reversed, for civil society is but a means in relation to a person. For every human person is ordained directly to God. Owing to man’s individuality, economic (and political) organization is necessary, but it is required in order to favor the development of man’s personality. Because Communism maintains that man is merely an animal, it thereby maintains that he is merely an individual and thus subordinates him completely to the economic organization of society. This is simply anti-human. For man is also a person to whose spiritual and eternal interests the economic (and political) arrangement of society is subordinate.[31] Catholicism is founded upon love of God and love of our neighbor for God. “Marxism is based upon the negation of love of God and of love of our neighbor. Marxism loves neither God nor man. It denies the existence of God and is pitiless towards man as towards a mere means and instrument.”[32]

Program of Marxian Communism

What are the measures to be taken to bring about the reign of the proletariat and set up the Marxian regime? We find them set forth in The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels in 1848 (French Ed., pp. 53, 54). They are as follows:

“(a) The State to take over all property in land - Rent of land to be applied to defray State expenses

“(b) Stiff progressive taxes

“(c) Abolition of right of inheritance

“(d) Confiscation of the property of all rebels and of those hostile to the regime who leave the country

“(e) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank constituted with the capital of the State and enjoying an exclusive monopoly

“(f) Centralization of the whole transport system in the hands of the State

“(g) Multiplication of national industries - State plan for the amelioration of land

“(h) Work obligatory for all - Organization of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

“(i) Agriculture and industry to be linked together - The difference between town and country must be gradually eliminated

“(j) Free national education for all children - Education and material production are to be linked together, etc.”

These measures are meant by Marx to be applied wherever and whenever possible. A knowledge of them and of the lines of reform insisted upon by the Sovereign Pontiffs is indispensable, in order to diagnose accurately the tendency of modern legislation.

The great means extolled by Marx for the triumph of his Neo-Messianism is the class war. This is rooted in hatred of private property. Poor workers, victims of an anti-Christian capitalistic economic system, are urged on by Marx’s followers to every form of action which can make the holding of private property difficult. Thus the way is prepared for the complete appropriation by the State-God of all property in the means of production. Of course, the prospect is held out to the workers of a future, in which all will be supremely happy with very little work. The Garden of Eden is to reappear. Needless to say, the reality will be a savage army at the beck of officials treating the mass of the people with absolute brutality. The ideas of the dignity of human personality, and of the brotherhood of man in the Mystical Body will have been eliminated. The savagery of the Communist State will be far worse than that of the paganism from which our Lord redeemed us, for it will have rejected Him.

When speaking of Catholic ideals of economic organization, we saw how strongly the Sovereign Pontiffs stressed the need for Catholic Workingmen’s Associations and how emphatically they warned Catholics of the dangers to which workingmen’s unions are exposed. In particular, they pointed out how easily such associations may be led against our Lord, by the agents of secret societies and by plotters skilfully concealing their final aims. In this connection it may be well to point out that in the Pravda’s account of the session of the Central Council of the Red International of Labor Unions, held in Moscow, in 1928, at which two men with Irish names were present,[33] the following resolutions (amongst others) were adopted in regard to Communist activities in Ireland:

“Revolutionary groups (affiliated to the Red International of Labor Unions, with headquarters in Moscow) shall be formed within the existing reformist unions…these groups must work in close touch with one another and form the basis of a Left Wing…to fight against all attempts to form Catholic or other religious unions. …The Pravda of 3rd January, 1930, reproduced a letter from an Irishman with regard to the projected congress of the Krestintern (Communist Peasants’ International) in which we read the following:

“We are following your work with the greatest interest and will co-operate with you in order to overthrow tyranny, against which it is possible to fight only on an international footing.”

The Imprecorr, of 7th April, 1932, stated that “the situation is ripe for the formation and quick growth of a Communist Party which will organize the masses for revolutionary struggle on the basis of a clear class policy and strive for the unity of Ireland through the formation of a Workers and Peasants Republic.”

It is clear that the international plotters have succeeded in enlisting the services of some dupes in Ireland, with a view to the incorporation of our country in the Communist empire. These dupes will, of course, be ruthlessly flung aside, when they have served their turn.

The Model Catholic Social Cell:

The Holy Family of Nazareth

When Catholic family life is being attacked on every side, it is well for us Catholics to keep before our minds the model of family life set up by God for our guidance and imitation. The disorder of modern society results in the passions of youth being played upon by numberless agencies. In the life of passion, it is the material element in us, the source of division and separation, that dominates. The results are inevitable; self-centeredness and selfishness in every form are engendered. Young people come to refuse the sacrifices required of them by their own families and thus unfit themselves to be parents and heads of families later on. Again, there is, on the one hand, a revolt against work, due, in part, to the promptings of selfish laziness and, in part, to the propaganda which, as we have seen, affirms that, by State organization and direction, a new Garden of Eden, in which there will be little or no work, can be brought into existence. On the other hand, that very organization and direction, wherever attempted, deforms the whole idea of work by subordinating man to production and production to financial schemes. It has been thought well, then, to put before readers of this work something about the model of Catholic family life, the Holy Family of Nazareth, and then to study Jesus, God and Man, especially as workman, utilizing some of the documents in which the Sovereign Pontiffs have spoken to us of the Holy Family and its members.

The Holy Family

In the Apostolic Letter, Novum Argumentum, “On the Holy Family,” November 20th, 1890, Pope Leo XIII insists on the fact that the Holy Family is the model of those domestic and social virtues required for the regeneration of human society:

“We are confident,” wrote the learned Pontiff, “that all the faithful, once they understand that, in honoring the Holy Family, they are venerating the mystery of the hidden life which Christ led in the society of His Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, will be greatly stimulated to increase the fervor of their faith and to imitate the virtues which shone forth in the divine Master, the Mother of God, and her most holy Spouse. These virtues, as We have more than once pointed out, obtain the reward of eternal life and at the same time advance the prosperity of domestic and civil society, which is so grievously disturbed at the present time. The common good of the State, of which the family is the foundation, necessarily follows, when the families which compose it live holily. But Our confidence increases still more, when We reflect that the members of the society of the Holy Family, of which We have just spoken, by assiduously imploring help from Christ, our Lord, through the merits of His Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, will undoubtedly receive gracious assistance to live holily and to rejoice that in their homes concord, charity, patient endurance of adversity as well as good morals flourish.”

The same Pontiff returns to the inculcation of those ideas in the Brief, Neminent fugit, of June 14th, 1892[34]:

“When God in His mercy,” he wrote, “had determined to carry out the redemption of the human race, a work which had been longed for down the ages, He so arranged the nature and order of that work that its very beginning should present to the world the august spectacle of a divinely-constituted family, in which all men should behold a most perfect model of family life, displaying every virtue and radiating perfect holiness. Such was the Family of Nazareth, in which the Sun of Justice lay hidden until He allowed the fullness of His light to flash forth over all people: Christ, our God and our Savior, with His Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, who occupied the place of father to Jesus. It is certain that all the praise and glory to God which mounts up from mutual love, from holiness of life and from the exercise of piety in domestic society and family life, were to be seen at their highest in that Sacred Family, which was to be the model for all others. It was, accordingly, so constituted by a benign counsel of Providence that all Christians of every rank and situation, if they turn their thoughts to this Holy Family, may be drawn to the practice of every virtue, seeing that it displays them all. Fathers of families have in Joseph an illustrious example of vigilance and practical foresight. In the Most Holy Virgin, Mother of God, mothers have a perfect model of love, modesty, submission and perfect fidelity. In Jesus, Who was subject to them, children have a divine exemplar of obedience to admire, adore and imitate. People of noble birth will learn from this family of royal lineage how to be temperate in prosperity, and in affliction to retain their dignity. The wealthy will learn from it how much virtue is to be preferred to riches. Workingmen, and all those who are keenly afflicted by family cares and the meagerness of their resources, if they turn their eyes to those Holy Ones who formed the domestic society of the Holy Family, will have reason to be pleased rather than grieved with their lot. In common with the Holy Family, they have to toil and meet the difficulties of daily life. Joseph had to provide for the needs of his family out of his wages. The divine hands themselves had to ply the artisan’s tools. No wonder then that wise men possessing great riches should wish to get rid of them and should elect to live in poverty with Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Rightly and appropriately has the cult of the Holy Family come into vogue amongst Catholics and each day that passes sees it increase. The proof of this is to be seen in the establishment of associations of Catholics under the invocation of the Holy Family, the special honor paid to it, and especially the privileges and favors granted by Our Predecessors in order to stir up devotion towards it. This cult, already in honor in the seventeenth century, was widely propagated throughout Italy, France and Belgium, and spread through almost all Europe. Thence it crossed the wide expanse of the Atlantic to America, extended through the length and breadth of Canada, and flourished under happy auspices. For Christian families nothing more salutary or more beneficial can be conceived than the example of the Holy Family, which is the embodiment of all the domestic virtues in their highest perfection. Therefore, let fervent prayers from every fireside be addressed to Jesus, Mary and Joseph. May They graciously listen to them, maintain charity, regulate conduct and spur on to virtue in imitation of Themselves! May They soften and make more bearable the hardships which meet poor mortals on every side!”

In the Encyclical Letter, Quamquam pluries, August 5th, 1889, St. Joseph is held up as the special model of workingmen:

“Proletarians, workingmen, and all those whose worldly means are small,” wrote Pope Leo XIII in that Encyclical, “have a special and peculiar right to turn to Joseph and find in him a model for imitation. Though a man of royal blood, husband of the greatest and holiest of all women and held by men to be the father of the Son of God, he yet passed his life toiling as an artisan in order to procure what was necessary for the upkeep of his home. Therefore, the condition of those whose means are slender is not despicable. Not only is manual labor not dishonorable, but it can be of sublime dignity, if coupled with virtue. Satisfied with his scanty possessions, Joseph endured with a calm and lofty spirit the hardships which are the inevitable accompaniment of slender means, thus following the example of his Son, Who, though Lord of all, took the form of a slave and subjected Himself of His own free will to the greatest want and indigence. The poor and all those who live by the work of their hands ought, by meditating on these things, to sustain their courage and maintain a correct outlook of life. They certainly have the right to raise themselves above want and improve their condition, by every legitimate means, but neither reason nor justice permits them to overthrow the order established by divine providence. Nay more, to have recourse to violence, and by sedition and rioting to attempt to bring about a change, is extremely foolish, as it causes the very evils, from which relief is sought, and even most of the time makes them worse. Let the poor, then, if they are wise, not place any reliance in the promises of seditious men, but trust in the example and patronage of St. Joseph and in the maternal charity of the Church, which is ever exercising a most solicitous care for their welfare.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God

A few extracts from the Encyclical Letter, Magna Dei Matris, September 7th, 1892, of Pope Leo XIII, will bring before us at the same time the virtues of our Blessed Mother and the efficacy of the beautiful devotion of the Rosary, so dear to Irish families in the past:

“The Christian,” writes the great Pontiff, “is so absorbed by the various occupations of life and so easily distracted by things of little moment that, unless he is often warned, he forgets little by little the most important and most essential matters. Hence it happens that his faith languishes and may even fail altogether. To preserve her children from this great danger of ignorance, the Church neglects none of the means suggested by her solicitude and watchfulness, and the Rosary in honor of Mary is one of the chief remedies to which she has recourse, in order to come to the aid of faith. The Rosary, in point of fact, along with a most beautiful and fruitful form of prayer recited in accordance with established order, brings before our minds in succession the principal mysteries of our religion for our contemplation and veneration. In the first place, come those mysteries by which The Word was made Flesh and in which Mary, Virgin and Mother, carries out her office of Mother with holy joy. Then succeed the bitter sorrows, torments and death of the suffering Christ, by which He paid the price of our salvation. Finally, in the glorious mysteries we behold His triumph over death, His Ascension into heaven, the coming of the Holy Ghost, together with the radiant splendor of Mary welcomed beyond the stars, and the eternal glory of all the elect, in company with the Mother and the Son. By the recital of the Rosary, these wonders are often and assiduously brought before the minds of the faithful in regular order, nay, they may be said to take place before their very eyes. Thus it is that the Rosary fills the minds of those who recite it with an ever-renewed sweetness of devotion, producing almost the same impressions and emotions as they would feel, if they were listening to the very voice of their most merciful Mother, explaining the mysteries to them and urging them along the path of salvation. Accordingly, it does not seem an exaggeration to affirm that those persons, families and peoples, amongst whom the practice of reciting the Rosary has remained in honor, need not fear loss of faith through ignorance or the pestilential errors of our times.

“The Church hopes also for another and not less important blessing for her children from the recitation of the Rosary, namely, the bringing of their lives and conduct into harmony with the rules and precepts of our holy Faith. …The contemplation of the mysteries admirably conduces, by stirring up souls to the pursuit of virtue, towards bringing about the happy result of action and life in accordance with the faith we profess. What a sublime and lofty example does not the work of salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ offer us on all points. …It is not possible that one should consider attentively such proofs of immense love of us, on the part of our Redeemer, without our hearts being stirred with gratitude towards Him. The force of purified faith will be so great that, our minds being illuminated and our hearts vividly affected, we shall be wholly drawn on to follow in the footsteps of Christ, in spite of all obstacles. Thus we shall be able to proclaim with St. Paul: ‘Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword?’ (Rom. 8:35). …‘And I live, now not I but Christ liveth in me’ (Gal. 2:20). Along with the mysteries of Christ, Who was both God and Man, we have before our eyes (in the Rosary) the spectacle of the mysteries of His most Holy Mother, lest, being conscious of our own weakness, we should fail, through fear, to imitate the sublime examples He puts before us. She was descended, it is true, from the royal house of David, but she had nothing left of the wealth and magnificence of her ancestors. She lived an obscure life in a humble village, under a still more lowly roof, all the more content with her obscurity and poverty, because she could thus the more freely raise her mind to God, and the more closely adhere to Him, Who is the highest and most desirable good. …God, therefore, in His Wisdom and goodness, has given us in Mary a most suitable model of every virtue. When we fix our eyes and thoughts on her, we are not, so to say, dazzled by the splendor of the divinity and discouraged, but rather, being drawn on by the close tie of a common nature, we strive more confidently to imitate her. If with her especial assistance, we give ourselves up fully to the pursuit of this ideal, we shall assuredly succeed in reproducing in ourselves, at least in outline, her mighty virtue and holiness, and by imitating the wonderful conformity of her life to all the counsels of God, we shall be permitted to follow her to heaven. … Therefore, true Christians should often have their Rosary in their hands and should recite it, at the same time piously meditating on the mysteries. In the Rosary are appropriately and suitably united together an excellent form of prayer, one well-adapted to be a powerful instrument for the preservation of our faith, and a remarkable example of perfect virtue.”

The Worship of Jesus, the

Humble Workingman of Nazareth

In all worship there are two elements: the person honored and the motive on account of which the person is honored. In other words, in every cult we must distinguish between the material object and the formal object to which our worship is directed. By material object of a science or art or virtue we understand the subject-matter, without further qualification, with which that science or art or virtue deals. By formal object of a science or virtue we understand the aspect under which it apprehends its object or that which it looks at primarily in the material object. In the cult of Jesus the workingman, what are the material and formal objects? Worship is an act of the virtue of religion. Now the act by which we honor our Lord as workingman has for total material object the adorable person of the Word made flesh. It honors Jesus, God and Man, and would consider as a horrible sacrilege the separation of the humanity of the Savior from His divinity. The human nature of our Lord since the Incarnation has never been and shall never be separated from the person of the Word, Who possesses it and directs it in all its actions. The particular material object of our worship of Jesus the workingman is our Lord considered specially as workman. In this worship, the Catholic contemplates the Savior during the long years of His life at Nazareth spent in accomplishing the tasks that were demanded of Him. The formal object of this cult is the excellence of the divine person Who toils and works. Jesus the workingman is truly and really God. By reason of the hypostatic union, uniting divinity and humanity in the unity of the divine person of the Savior, the state and the labors of the workingman of Nazareth have been divinized. The human work of our Savior is, at the same time, divine work. The human work of Christ belongs to the divine person of the Word, Who has the entire responsibility for it. Thanks to His humanity, the Word was a workingman at Nazareth and His work was both human and divine. Because it belongs to the person of the Word, the human work of the Savior infinitely surpasses the activity of every creature. It is a legitimate object of our worship.

Now the remote or total material object and the formal object of the Catholic worship of our Savior never change. All the feasts of the year honor the person of our Lord and honor Him on account of His divinity. But the particular and special object of the homage offered to our Lord by the Church is not always the same. The immediate object of the devotion of Jesus the workingman is not identical with that of the devotion to Jesus in the manger at Bethlehem or with that of the worship of the Child-Jesus amongst the Doctors. In our day, when workingmen are urged on to deny the reality of original sin and to revolt against the order of the world, the worship of Jesus as workingman seems peculiarly appropriate. He freely chose to become a workingman, with that same love with which He accepted a life of poverty and humiliation, “Who having joy set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2). The Catholic Church is represented by Communists and Socialists—conscious or unconscious agents of financial schemers—as the Church of the rich and not of the poor. In many countries, workingmen have been caught by the propaganda and have turned against the Church. “The greatest scandal of the nineteenth century is that the Church has lost the working class,” said Pope Pius XI to l’Abbé Cardyn.[35]

Has the Church shown that she approves of this devotion aiming at the preservation of workingmen from the contamination of naturalism and at the restoration of the Christian concept of work? Yes. Towards the end of 1917, Pope Benedict XV urged l’Abbé Schuh, who was in charge of a parish of workingmen at Geneva, to “make Jesus the workingman known everywhere and preach the great examples of Nazareth: obedience, work, and fidelity to duty.” Later on, the same Pontiff raised the Apostolic Work of Jesus-Workingman, erected at Geneva, to the rank of primary or central work for the entire world. Pope Pius XI urged l’Abbé Schuh, in 1923, to obtain the signatures of the Catholic Hierarchy to a petition for the institution of a feast in honor of Jesus the workingman. On June 15th, 1927, the Abbé presented His Holiness with three volumes containing the names of thirty-three Cardinals and of five hundred and sixty Bishops requesting the institution of this feast. Finally, by an Apostolic Letter of July 11th, 1928, His Holiness Pope Pius XI transferred the principal seat of the Apostolic Work of Jesus the workingman from Geneva to Rome, in the house of the Master-General of the Dominican Order. Henceforward the work, so valiantly begun by l’Abbe Schuh, is to be under the jurisdiction of the Master-General of the Dominicans, and its development is confided to the sons of St. Dominic.

[1]Imitation of Christ, Book ii. chap. xi.

[2]Luther’s Correspondence, 10, p. 81, written about 11th March, 1534, quoted by H. Grisar, S.J., Martin Luther. (French Edition, p. 278).

[3]Apostolical Letter Testem Benevolentiae, January 22nd, 1899, On True and False Americanism in Religion.

[4]“Deus est supra omnia per excellentiam suae naturae, et tamen est in omnibus rebus ut causans omnium esse…esse autem est illud quod est magis intimum cuilibet et quod profundius omnibus inest.” (Ia, Q. 8, a. I. c. et ad I).

[5]Deus est omnia eminenter, formaliter eminenter aut virtualiter eminenter. “Cum ergo Deus sit prima causa effectiva rerum, oportet omnium rerum perfectiones praeexistere in Deo secundum eminentiorem modum.” (Ia, Q. iv. a. 2)

[6]Readers are strongly recommended to peruse two little works by Joseph Serre: Au Large! and L’ Eglise et I’Esprit large, in which many of the points touched upon here are developed.

[7]Cf. The Church and the Land and Nazareth or Social Chaos, by Rev. Vincent McNabb, O.P., also Flee to the Fields by Rev, J. McQuillan, D.D., etc. - All available from Loreto Publications

[8]Is not summertime a sign of the subordination of country to town an indication of the subjection of the primary occupations to the secondary ones

[9]The Association Muintir na Tire here in Ireland is an application of the spirit of the Mystical Body to the Irish countryside.

[10]Letter, Quae nobis, of 13th Nov., 1928. “The centers of sound doctrine,” we read in this Letter, “must be legitimately constituted and in consequence, receive the assistance and support of the authority of the Bishops.”

[11]Culture latine et ordre social, by Rev. M. S. Gillet, O.P., p. 44. Cf. idem. p. 80.

[12]In a Letter of Cardinal Gasparri, Secretary of State, of 10th September, 1926, to Mgr. Otto Miller, President of International League of Catholic Workingmen’s Associations, this point is also touched upon: “A dangerous tendency is showing itself even amongst some Catholics, who, under pretense of favoring the rights of workingmen—a matter in itsself assuredly very just and praiseworthy—do not seem to take as much account of their duties.”

[13]Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum.

[14]G.K.’s Weekly, March, 9th, 1933. “ The best means of ending it [usury] is to set up organizations through which credit, that indispensable element of all economic activity, is put at the disposal of those who need it for their occupation, and this not, as too often happens, under conditions that chiefly benefit those who give credit, but on the contrary, entirely favorable to those who receive it. Such are co-operative credit associations, now happily widespread.” (A Code of Social Principles. C. S. G., p. 50. Cf. p. 51).

[15]Ia, IIae, Q. 94, a. 3

[16]St. Thomas, De Regimine Principium, 1. 1, c. 15.

[17]“As manual labor is ordained to the gaining of one’s livelihood, it is necessary with a necessity of precept, inasmuch as it is required for that end …” (IIa, IIae, Q. 187, a. 3). St. Thomas points out in the same place that by manual work is to be understood work done with hands or feet or tongue.” Inasmuch as the hand is the instrument of instruments, by the work of the hands or manual work is to be understood every operation by which a man may lawfully gain a livelihood.” Cf, Quodlibet, vii, a. 17,

[18]Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum.

[19]Encyclical Letter, Ubi Arcano, December 23rd, 1922.

[20]Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno.

[21]Ibid.

[22]Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum.

[23]Ibid.

[24]Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno.

[25]Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum. St. Thomas also writes: “Possessions are to be held separately; but on account of the virtue of the citizens, who will be liberal and generous to one another, they will be common in use” (In II Polit., lect. 4). This attitude implies a personal moral obligation binding on the person holding property. Cf. De Principiis Functionis Socialia Privatae Proprietatis, by P. J. Perez Garcia, O.P., pp. 70 et seqq.

[26]Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno.

[27]Quoted in Revue Thomiste (1932), pp. 613, 614.

[28]Cf. Nationalism in the Soviet Union, by Dr. Hans Kohn. In the Soviet Union there are 185 peoples speaking 147 languages.

[29]De Leon’s name is mentioned with others similarly occupied on p. 344 of Lazare’s book L’ Antisemitisme. According to the Dictionary of American Biography, de Leon always pretended to be a Venezuelan Catholic.

[30]Cf. The Social Teachings of James Connolly, by Rev. L. McKenna, S.J.

[31]Cf. article by M. l’Abbé Journet in La Vie Intellectuelle of October, 1929, pp. 103–105. Cf. also, notes to English Edition of Trois Reformateurs by J. Maritain, and Culture latine et Ordre Social, by Rev. M. S. Gillet, O.P.

[32]N. Berdiaeff, Le Marxisme et la Religion, p. 44.

[33]Jim Larkin and Jack Carney (Bulletin of Communist and Socialist Activities, June, 1932).

[34]Lessons of the Second Nocturn of the Feast of the Holy Family, Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

[35]Quoted in Jésus-Ouvrier, Doctrine et Culte, p. 67, by l’Abbé J. B. Bord. This excellent little work has been freely utilized in these few pages about the devotion to Jesus the workingman.

Chapter X

State Organization and the Kingship of Christ

Society’s Duty to Christ The King

In Chapter II of this book an attempt has been made to set forth in bold relief the Divine Plan for Order in the world. This plan demands the acceptance, not only by individuals but also by States and nations, of the Mystical Body of Christ—the Catholic Church. The members of the human race must give to God the things that are God’s, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. But Caesar, too, that is, organized States and rulers of nations as such, must give to God the things that are God’s. Caesar is bound to worship God in the supernatural way in which He has declared that He wants to be worshiped. “We are bound absolutely,” writes Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei), “to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.” Caesar is likewise bound to accept the decisions of the representatives of Christ the King, the Pope and the Bishops, in regard to what favors the diffusion of the supernatural life of grace or is opposed to it, thus acknowledging what is called the indirect power of the Catholic Church, which is a participation in the Spiritual Kingship of Christ. “Whatever, therefore,” writes Pope Leo XIII, in the same Encyclical, “in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given command that what is Caesar’s is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God.”

God does not command what is impossible. Accordingly, sufficient grace, that is, supernatural light and strength, has been given and will be given to all, rulers and ruled, to see the Divine Plan and accept it. On account of our solidarity in the Mystical Body of Christ, the failure or weakening of one involves the failure and weakening of others, just as, on the other hand, every valiant stand for the integral truth has its repercussion in the correspondence with grace on the part of many. “Just as in man’s physical body, the healthy functioning of any member redounds to the good of the whole organism, so in the spiritual organism of the Church, inasmuch as all the faithful form one body, every development in the spiritual life of one member has its repercussion on that of the others (‘We being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5).”—(St. Thomas’s Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed).

Now, in spite of resistance; in spite, that is, of the refusal of many persons to co-operate with the sufficient grace given them, Europe, gradually but progressively, accepted the Divine Plan for Order in the world. Broadly speaking, by the thirteenth century, Caesar, or organized society, worshiped God in the way He had declared to be His will and the organization of society aimed at helping individual citizens to develop their personality by the grace and love that come from Our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the social framework in which the members of society found themselves, when they came out of church after having expressed submission to God the Father in the Mass, not only recognized the reality of the supernatural life communicated by the Blessed Eucharist but favored the development of that life. “There was once a time,” wrote Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei, “when States were governed by the principles of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates, and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation.”

Consequences of Decay in

Acknowledgment of Kingship of Christ

Since the thirteenth century till our time, that is, till the reaction to a certain extent towards right order in Portugal, Austria, Italy and Ireland, there has been steady decay. That failure to recognize the supernatural Messias in the countries which once acknowledged His Kingship has two results.

Firstly, those nations, as nations, are apostates before God. All their citizens, however faithful to Christ individual citizens may be, are members of nations that have revolted against the Divine Plan. For example, if States which once recognized the indissolubility of Christian marriage as representing the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church, His Mystical Body, now admit divorce, these societies as such, are in a state of disorder before God. They are not only not in right relation to God, they are turned away from Him by a deliberate rejection of the supernatural truth they once held. They must expect the inevitable consequence of their apostasy in an inability to seek the common good of their subjects in proper fashion. Secondly, the tendency of public life will inevitably be towards greater opposition to man’s supernatural end. These societies are therefore called upon to undo that wrong by acknowledging their guilt and reaffirming their allegiance to Christ the King. “The security of the State,” writes Pope Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Letter Tametsi, “demands that we should be brought back to Him from Whom we ought never to have departed, to Him Who is the way, the truth, and the life, not for individuals merely, but for human society through its whole extent. Christ our Lord must be reinstated as the ruler of human society. It belongs to Him as do all its members. All the elements of the commonwealth: legal commands and prohibitions, popular institutions, schools, marriage, home-life, the workshop, and the palace—all must be made to come to that fountain and imbibe that life that comes from Him.”

All the citizens of these States, moreover, are receiving sufficient grace to stand for the full rights of Christ the King. “We earnestly hope,” writes Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical Quas Primas “that the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. …If the faithful would generally understand that it is their duty to fight bravely and continually under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would endeavor to win over to Our Lord those who are estranged from Him or know Him not, and would valiantly defend His rights.” A good deal of Catholic inaction is due to ignorance of the duty of society as such to God, and of the apostasy of the nations of modern Europe. That ignorance is also in part responsible for our allowing practically all initiative to pass to the enemies of Christ.

The New Irish Constitution

It may be a dull thing for my readers to be asked to read through such a long statement of fundamental principles; but such a statement is required if they are to understand the comments I am about to make on the new Irish Constitution.

In a lecture which I gave to the National Convention of the C.Y.M.S. of Ireland on the Feast of Pentecost, 1937, I said: “In the former Free State Constitution there was no acknowledgment of the duty of the State or organized Society to worship God. …By Article 8 of the same Constitution the Mystical Body of Christ was placed on the same level as other forms of religion.[1] We were thus, as a State, in a wrong attitude before God. The new Constitution does away with these two embodiments of the Masonic principles of the French Revolution. …God grant that the whole country may one day worship God in the way which He has shown to be His Will, to use the words of Pope Leo XIII, already quoted.” I thus praised the present Irish Constitution for the advance it makes on the previous Constitution, but I insisted on the progress still to be made.

The following description of a modern revolutionary Constitution given by Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical Immortale Dei, might be applied to our former Constitution: “The State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of religion, or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show any form of religion special favor; but on the contrary is bound to grant equal rights to every creed.” In referring to the new Irish Constitution I took care—as my readers can see—to emphasize the fact that we had still a big advance to make to enter fully into harmony with the Divine Plan. The words of Pope Leo XIII are emphatic: “We are bound absolutely to worship God in the way which He has shown to be His Will.” To be fully Catholic, the new Irish Constitution should acknowledge the one true Church to be the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, and should explicitly declare its determination to worship God according to the rite of that Church. It should also acknowledge the Catholic Church to be, in the words of the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, “the true and sole teacher of virtue and the guardian of morals.” This last point is particularly necessary in view of the fact that the Constitution uses the phrase “subject to public order and morality.”

The Statutes of the Irish Republican (or Fenian) Brotherhood of which the principles, according to one of my critics, are embodied in the new Constitution, reject absolutely the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on this point. According to the Statutes of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, quoted in Chapter VI, p. 106, “there shall be no State religion in the Irish Republic.” Thus the Irish State, aimed at by this secret society, could never accept the divine order of the world. It was wrong to get Irishmen to enter a secret society, it was an additional crime to compel them to swear that they would never fully accept the rule of Christ the King.

Of course the significance of the phrase quoted would be unnoticed by many. For them it would simply mean that the clergy would not be paid by the State. They would not advert to the fact that by it another country and another people had signified their intention of not acknowledging the rule of Christ the King, thus definitely associating themselves with the naturalistic movement of social apostasy inaugurated at the French Revolution. As this attitude is opposed to the emphatic declarations of Pope Leo XIII and excludes the full acceptance of Christ’s rights demanded by the Divine Plan, it is explicitly repudiated by me in my lecture to the C.Y.M.S. I could not whittle down or change what I have written on this point without finding myself in opposition to Catholic principles.

I have also stressed the truth that the Mystical Body of Christ is above the British Empire and the Irish nation. Both Ireland and England are meant to be on equal terms within the unity of the Catholic Church. England has to get rid of her Judaeo-Masonic clique and return to submission to the Mystical Body. Then, when she accepts fully the rule of Christ she will no longer selfishly seek to force Ireland to accept what is opposed to the common good of the Irish people. Ireland on her side must steadily strive to get rid of the ideas of the French Revolution and return to the full Catholic concept of patria or native land. There can be no real happiness for countries or for individuals except in ordered subjection to Christ. “The case of governments,” writes Pope Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Letter Tametsi, “is much the same as that of individuals; they also must run into fatal issues, if they depart from the way. …Let Jesus be excluded, and human reason is left without its greatest protection and illumination; the very notion is easily lost of the end for which God created human society, to wit: that by the help of their civil union the citizens should attain the natural good, but, nevertheless, in such wise as not to conflict with that highest and most perfect and enduring good which is above nature. Their minds busy with a hundred confused projects, rulers and subjects alike travel a tedious road; bereft, as they are, of safe guidance and fixed principles.” Nations are not meant to return to the modes of communication or to the dress of the thirteenth, or indeed of any other century, but the formal principles of Christian social order accepted in the thirteenth and previous centuries must be acknowledged once more. Until this is done states and nations cannot be said to be in right relation to the Blessed Trinity, source of life. Do all Catholics realize this?

In Addition, the New Irish

Constitution is Ambiguous

As I have touched on the attitude of the new Irish Constitution to religion, it may be well to say a few words about another point. In Article 44 we read: “The State recognizes the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens. The State also recognizes the Church of Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution.” The use of the word “recognizes” with reference both to the Catholic Church and to the non-Catholic bodies is unfortunate. By it the State seems to attribute rights to erroneous systems as such. Now error can have no rights.[2] “For right,” to quote Pope Leo XIII on Human Liberty, “is a moral power which it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood … for it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.”

If, therefore, the Irish State recognizes rights to the Catholic Church, which proclaims the great truth that the Messiah has come, and recognizes rights to Jewish Congregations which agree in maintaining that the Messiah has not yet come, it involves itself in contradiction. The two claims cannot be true together, and error, as such, has no rights. The State may and ought to recognize rights to persons, not because of their errors, but because they are persons whose intelligence may not be forced to accept the truth. “The Church does not concede any right to anything save what is true and in order” (Pope Leo XIII on Human Liberty), and “deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who patiently tolerate that custom or usage be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed, that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei)).

Pope Pius IX in the Allocution Singulari quadam of December 9th, 1854, insisted upon the fact that there are souls in good faith outside the Catholic Church. “It is of faith,” he declared, “that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church, that this Church is the one ark of salvation, and that he who does not enter therein will be overwhelmed by the deluge. Nevertheless, it must also be held as certain that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true Religion incur no guilt on that account in God’s sight. Now who will dare to claim that he can indicate the limits of invincible ignorance, in view of the nature and variety of peoples, countries, characters, and so many other factors?” But the same Pontiff in the same Allocution still more strongly urged the Bishops of the whole world to do all in their power “to keep men’s minds free from the impious and fatally destructive opinion that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatever.” Pius XI in the Encyclical Quas Primas warns us of the duty to strive manfully against the plague of secularism, by which “the Catholic Church has been gradually lowered to the level of false religions and ignominiously placed in the same category with them.” On the one hand, then, we must respect the good faith of the individual conscience and not force it, but, on the other hand, we have the stern duty of acknowledging the objective order instituted by God and recognizing unequivocally the Kingship of Christ. That imposes on us as a necessary consequence the grave duty of striving to defeat the attempts of human beings, holding erroneous views in good faith, to set up a social organization opposed to Christ the King.

Conflict Inevitable in Ireland

On the one hand, the Holy Father in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno insists that “then only will it be possible to unite all in harmonious striving for the common good, when all sections of society have the intimate conviction that they are members of a single family and children of the same Heavenly Father and further, that they ‘are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5), so that ‘if one member suffer anything, all members suffer with it.’ (1Cor. 12:26).” For the return of social justice, by the formation of vocational groups, for example, the Holy Father insists upon the necessity of the supranational life of the Mystical Body of Christ, which comes from Christ as Priest. On the other hand, if our economic arrangements, that is, the production, distribution and exchange of goods or real wealth as well as the control of the volume of the medium of exchange or token wealth, fall more and more into the hands of Jewish and Masonic bankers and industrialists, it will be useless to talk of the diffusion of the supernatural spirit. Freemasonry is by its very essence a naturalistic Society and Jewry looks forward, as Rabbi Julian Weill expressed it in a broadcast from Paris in 1931, to “the liberation to come and the Messianic Passover of the peoples of the world,” that is, to the reign of a Messias who must be purely natural and as such anti-supernatural. Thus it is to be feared that conflict lies ahead of us in Ireland, for the installation of the natural Messias aimed at by the Jewish nation inevitably leads not only to the elimination of the supernatural Messias, our Lord Jesus Christ, but to the subjection of all nations to the Jewish nation. Citizenship of the Irish State can be for the Jews only a means for the attainment of their own national ideal.

It is sad to have to insist upon those things, but it is indispensable to have a clear grasp of the situation before us. If we are to stand valiantly for the rights of Christ the King, and bring back society to Him, as the Holy Father exhorts us in the Encyclical Quas Primas, then we must make determined efforts to prevent our economic life from being dominated by Jews and Freemasons. That will not be enough, of course, for Catholics and non-Masons will have to bring their conduct in business into harmony with the spirit of the Mystical Body of Christ. But the domination of our economic life by the Judaeo-Masonic combinations will make it impossible for Catholics even to survive. “The accumulation of power in the hands of a few is particularly irresistible,” writes Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, “when those few hold and control money, but it is a natural result of limitless free competition. Such competition permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience.”

We greatly fear that the result of Professor Theodor Emmanuel Gugenheim Gregory’s efforts on the Irish Banking Commission which, at the moment of writing (January, 1938), is about to present its report, will not be favorable to the principles enunciated by Pope Pius XI in the Encyclicals Quadragesimo Anno and Caritate Christi compulsi. The exercise of the Sovereignty of the State in the creation of currency and the control of credit, in such wise as to promote the common good and eliminate the domination of a few, is indispensable for the reign of Christ in economics. Currency and credit supply the life-blood to the entire economic body, to use Pope Pius XI’s phrase in Quadragesimo Anno. Does Professor Gregory want the rule of Christ the King in economics? Let us see. According to A. N. Field in All These Things (page 3), he was one of two emissaries of the Bank of England who visited New Zealand in 1930 to advise its government on monetary matters. “Their names were not distinctively British. One was Sir Otto Ernest Niemeyer; the other was Professor Theodor Emanuel Gugenheim Gregory, a member of the teaching staff of the London School of Economics…staffed largely by teachers bearing names indicative of foreign extraction. …Professor Gregory seems to have been detached temporarily from the staff of this institution to accompany Sir Otto Niemeyer to Australia and New Zealand as ‘economic adviser.’

“Sir Otto Niemeyer made a report advising the government of New Zealand to establish a private corporation to control the volume of currency and credit in the country. He also proposed that this privately owned central reserve bank should be given a permanent monopoly of all the government’s ‘money, remittance exchange and banking transactions.’ …It was not easy to see what advantages the government was to gain from an institution set up as recommended in this report. Sir Otto Niemeyer certainly pointed to no outstanding benefit to the people of New Zealand.”

The sequel was interesting as we learn from Mr. Field’s work and from other sources. Sir Otto Niemeyer and Professor T. E. G. Gregory imposed a Central Bank with a statute parity with sterling on New Zealand and this was undoubtedly to the advantage of English and international finance. The result for New Zealand was a heavy aggravation of the effects of the world depression. Economic recovery was rendered impossible. As a consequence, there was an outburst of national feeling against the ministers of the government that had invited and followed Professor Gregory’s disastrous advice and the Coalition government fell in 1935. Honeycombed with Freemasonry as it was, it had also exercised a naturalistic influence detrimental to religion in education. The Labor government which came into office in 1935 promptly undid part of Sir Otto Niemeyer’s and Professor Gregory’s scheme. It did away with private control of the Central Bank and reserved that control to the State. It seems, however, that though the Labor ministers have not made the mistake of nationalizing the banking system and have tried to adjust the volume of currency to the welfare of the families of New Zealand, yet they have kept themselves subordinate to London and to international finance by repegging their exchange to sterling at a new level. Mr. Field wisely remarks (op. cit. p. 224): “international finance will endeavor to use the Labor government for its own ends, just as it has used all other governments.” The New Zealand Labor government is, unfortunately, predisposed for enslavement by international finance. Its official program includes “the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” That way lies slavery, though many Labor members may not know it.

Again, on pages 187 and 188 of the same work, Mr. Field points out the connection between Professor T. E. Gugenheim Gregory and the P.E.P. Group or Political and Economic Planning Group of which Mr. Israel Moses Sieff is chairman. Mr. Sieff is the chief personage in the firm of Marks and Spencer Ltd. (chain stores), and he is vice-president of the English Zionist Society. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald is also connected with P.E.P. “From the quotations hereinafter given,” writes Mr. Field, “it is clear that the mildest descriptive word for the planning of the P.E.P. Group would be socialism; but from the arguments used, and the references to Soviet practice, some would prefer to use the word Communism or Sovietization.”[3] It is quite clear that though the word co-operation is used in connection with the efforts of P.E.P., it is simply a vast plan for imposed coercive regimentation of agriculture and industry through the Milk Marketing Board, Pig Marketing Board, etc., etc. Are not Professor Gregory’s efforts on the Irish Banking Commission more likely to tend towards regimentation than towards monetary reform? “From monetary reform,” writes Mr. Field (page 208), “Planners, International Financiers, and Communists alike shy right away.”

There is another point. There is on the Irish Banking Commission a representative of the Bank of International Settlements (B.I.S.), a Mr. Jacobsson. The Bank for International Settlements has been internationalized in peace and war alike, pays no taxes, and is above and beyond all law. In All These Things (page 5), Mr. Field mentions the connection between this Bank and the German banking house of Max Warburg and Company, through Dr. Carl Melchoir. Dr. Melchoir was a partner in Max Warburg and Co., Hamburg. Max Warburg was the brother of Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York, the man who was instrumental in setting up the Federal Reserve Board in the U.S.A. We know that the American Secret Service attributed the financing of Lenin and the Russian Revolution to Kuhn, Loeb and Co. Mr. Field points out that provision was made in the New Zealand Reserve Bank Act, drawn up under the influence of Sir Otto Niemeyer and Professor Gugenheim Gregory, for the New Zealand Reserve Bank to join up with the Bank for International Settlements. He adds further on that it is manifest that “these reserve banks were established as part of the network of an international money trust.” Are all these facts, with their implications, sufficiently known to Catholics?

In the Encyclical Caritate Christi compulsi (1932) of Pope Pius XI, there is a phrase of which the full significance does not seem to have been brought out in the English C.T.S. translation. In the original Latin it runs as follows “Hac vero tempestate hominum genus universum cum pecuniae caritate turn rei oeconomicae angustiis adeo comprimitur,” etc. It may be translated as follows: “At the present time owing to the scarcity of money and economic difficulties the whole human race is so securely caught in the toils that the more it struggles, the harder appears the task of loosening its bonds.” The Holy Father there says that the insufficiency of the medium (currency) required to effect exchanges of goods that can be produced in abundance is one of the causes of the present world depression. A little further on he says that some of the few who by their speculations are in great part the cause of so much woe pay the penalty of their crimes by being themselves the victims of the depression. But the Holy Father knows well that behind those whose names are noised abroad in the press, when they fall, there are others whose names are less familiar, yet whose activities are more formidable and more efficient. The international money-creators do increase and decrease the volume of currency in circulation in countries almost at will. What is Professor Gugenheim Gregory’s attitude to that evil? Will the solution adopted by the Banking Commission with regard to our currency be calculated to promote the common good of the ordinary decent Catholic people of our country or will it aim at preparing the Messianic age? The New Constitution demands that “in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.”

It is accepted at present that man exists for the production of goods or real wealth and that production is for money or token wealth. That is inhuman and therefore utterly opposed to the rule of Christ the King in economics. Those ideas must be overthrown and the creation and manipulation of money or token wealth must have for end the production and distribution of real wealth and the production and distribution of real wealth must be subordinate to development of human personality in and through membership of the Mystical Body of Christ. A stern struggle for the reign of Christ the King in our economic organization lies ahead of us in Ireland. It remains for us to base our efforts on the magnificent stand outlined in the Preamble of the new Constitution, wherein “we humbly acknowledge all our obligations to our divine Lord Jesus Christ.” Given that attitude, there need be little fear as to the outcome of the struggle.

[1]Pope Pius VII in the Letter, Post tam diuturnas, 1814, inveighs in strong terms against the insult to the Catholic Church involved in this attitude. “By the fact,” writes that Pontiff,” that the freedom of all forms of worship without distinction is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, outside of which there can be no salvation, is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish perfidy.”

[2]I have tried to express this truth in another context: “It is enough to consider what truth and error are in order to understand this. Truth is found in the intellect in the measure in which the intellect is in exact conformity with reality. When the intellect has an idea which is not in conformity with reality, then we have error. But what is really happening in such a case? I have in my mind the idea of something as if this thing formed part of the order of being. I attribute to it rights in my mind as if it were portion of the divine scheme of things. But it is not so in reality. In point of fact it is a baseless creation of my own mind.” (The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord, p. 55). And, as such, it cannot have rights.

[3]A full account of P.E.P. is given in a pamphlet, The Unseen Net, published by The Liberty Restoration League, 24 Essex Street, London, W.C.2.

Chapter XI

The Struggle of the Jewish Nation

Against the True Messias

The Movement of History

The decay in the social acceptance of the Divine Plan for ordered life, since the 13th century, has had for inevitable consequence the gradual disappearance of supernatural influences and ideals from the political and economic life of nations. This is the first result. There is a second. The elimination of the supernatural from public life is making smooth the path for the coming of the natural Messias. “He that is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30). The world is not standing still and the once Christian nations have to choose between returning to the integral truth of the Catholic Church and falling more and more fully under the yoke of those who are systematically preparing for the advent of the natural Messias. The supernatural Messias proclaimed the supremacy of the Catholic Church, His Mystical Body, which is both supernatural and supra-national and respectful of the natural qualities and particular roles of all nations. The natural Messias can only have for end the subjection of all nations to the Jewish nation, for the refusal of the Jews, whose national organization had been set up by God to prepare for Christ, to accept the supra-national Church of Christ, inevitably leads to their setting up their nation as the highest embodiment of the divine order. Calvary has then a twofold aspect. It is at one and the same time, the rejection of the supernatural Messias with His program which is summed up in the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the ‘proclamation of a program to be accomplished by the natural Messias to come. In the Mystical Body of Christ all nations are on equal footing, each nation aiming at the temporal prosperity of its subjects so as not only not to hinder but to favor their attaining their supernatural end—union with the Blessed Trinity in supernatural life, The natural Messias to whom the Jews look forward is to bring happiness to the world by the imposition of Jewish domination. It cannot be otherwise, given their Messianic aspirations. Our Lord asked them to be the heralds of a supra-national kingdom. Their refusal meant that they elected instead to impose their national form on the world, and they have put all their intense energy and tenacity into the struggle for the organization of the future Messianic Age. Thus when any nation turns against the supernatural Messias it will be pulled in the direction of subjection to the natural Messias. Even Hitler and Rosenberg with their deification of the German race and their campaign against the supernatural life, which comes from the true Messias, are in the last resort, owing to the superiority of Jewish organization, only preparing the way for the new ruler who will put Israel über alles. Satan has a wide view of things. He will be quite prepared to utilize the naturalism of Hitler and Rosenberg to the formation of which Prussian Freemasonry and the philosophy of Kant, Fichte and Hegel, have so powerfully contributed, against Our divine Lord. There is laughter in hell when human beings succumb once more to the temptation of the Garden of Eden and put themselves in the place of God, whether the new divinity be the Jewish race or the German race.

Of course there are differences amongst the Jews. The orthodox Jews want the return to Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of their worship, while awaiting the coming of a personal Messiah. The nonorthodox or Reform Jews have departed from the central hope of Judaism by rejecting belief in a personal Messiah.[1] But they believe in the advent of a Messias in the sense of a Messianic Age which will come through the leadership and domination of their race. “In general the Jews,” writes the Jew, Bernard Lazare, in his well-known work, L’Antisémitisme, “even the revolutionaries, have kept the Jewish spirit, and if they have given up religion and faith, they have nevertheless been formed, thanks to their ancestry and education, by the influence of Jewish nationalism. This is true in a very special fashion of the Jewish revolutionaries who lived in the first half of this (19th) century. Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx are two typical examples.” This is true also of the Jews of High Finance, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Schiffs, etc. etc. They are one with their people in the ideal of the domination of the race and, therefore, in opposition to the supernatural life coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord, according to them, attempted to turn aside the Jewish nation from its destined goal.

The Working Out of Historical Laws

Does that mean that all Jews are bad men? Needless to say, it does not. There are Jews in whom may be seen excellent natural qualities, and the supernatural life is poured out upon us all by our Lord, even upon those who reject Him. It does mean, however, that all Jews, in proportion as they are one with the leaders and rulers of their race, will oppose the influence of the supernatural life in society and will be an active ferment of naturalism. Let us take some examples from New York where the Jews are powerful: We read in the New York Jewish paper, Freiheit, of January 10th, 1937: “According to the Jewish religion, the Pope is the enemy of the Jewish people by the very fact that he is the head of the Catholic Church. The Jewish religion is opposed to Christianity and to the Catholic Church in particular.” Again we find in the New York Jewish National Day of December 14th, 1935: “The public schools must be kept clear of Christmas carols and other Christmas influences. We want all this Christmas propaganda stopped.”

Thus where the Jews are powerful, they openly attack the supernatural Messias and the supernatural life of grace which comes from Him. In countries where they are only advancing to power, they content themselves with desupernaturalizing the observances and customs which have sprung from acceptance of the supernatural Messias. When the latter process has been carried on for a sufficiently long time and Catholics have grown weak, the open attack on the observance of Sunday or Christmas Day, for example, can then be launched.

As an example of Jewish action in the elimination of the supernatural significance of an observance, let us take the custom of exchanging Christmas cards. Christmas is in reality the anniversary of the birth of the Redeemer, of the second Adam who restored the supernatural life of our souls. That is the real inner reason for our joy on that day. Families and friends come together to celebrate the coming amongst us as a little human child of Him in Whom we are one as members of His Mystical Body. The body is meant to have its share of the happiness too, because the Son of man knows that we are human beings. Now the exchange of Christmas cards is meant to remind us of these great facts in their due relation. The supernatural significance of the great feast of the Nativity should of course be always prominent. Yet what do we find? Cards which show only holly and Christmas puddings have some relation to the feast, it is true, but not to the Christ Mass. Others with merely a row of dogs or a few birds have nothing to remind the recipient of what the rejoicing is for, while Yule-tide greetings seem to refer to some pagan festival and to be preparing the way for a Nazi revival of paganism.

In this process of eliminating the supernatural Messias from the celebration of the anniversary of His birth, Messrs. Raphael Tuck and Sons, Ltd., the largest firm of Christmas card manufacturers, have certainly played a great part. “The Directors of this firm,” according to The Britisher of December 15th, 1937, “are registered as Gustave Tuck, Desmond Adolph Tuck and William Reginald Tuck, Bt., and the Secretary is a Mr. H. G. Jacobs. All three Directors appear in the Communal Directory of the Jewish Year Book. Mr. Desmond Tuck is a warden of the Central Synagogue. Gustave Tuck is a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies Committee, a member of the Committee for the fund for German Jewry,” etc. This firm is not alone, but it has certainly been a great influence in propagating naturalism by fostering a naturalistic tone.

It will be useful for Irishmen to examine how much of Dublin’s real property has already passed into Jewish hands. Such a control must bring influence and Jewish influence will operate against Christian social principles. Irish Catholics can see the advance of the elimination of the supernatural from public life, when a Jewish shop exhibits a card to the effect that the shop will be open all day on Christmas Day, and when Jewish professional men make appointments for Sunday morning. This disruption of the organization of society based on the reality of the supernatural life of grace and on the vital significance of the Mass cannot proceed without disastrous effects on Catholics individually and as a body. For we know that it is only through the supernatural life which comes from our Lord that we can be good men according to the way which God requires and can correct the defects of our natural life. On the one hand, then, the increase of Jewish influence, with its inevitable naturalistic, that is, anti-supernatural, character, cannot take place without such disruption. On the other hand, we are exhorted to work for the return of society to Christ the King so that, instead of having to combat influences hostile to our supernatural life when we leave the Church after Mass, we shall on the contrary be aided by the current of life around, us. Thus Jewish naturalism renders conflict inevitable.

Jewish naturalism, then, is disruptive of all social organization based upon the divinity of our Lord. This disruptive process inevitably leads to a reaction on the part of the subjects of Christ the King and thus renders social conflict inevitable. But, besides these two deleterious effects, there is a third. Jewish naturalism is harmful to the Jews themselves. Opposition to the supernatural life of grace that comes from our Lord and, consequently, to ordered submission to God, our Father, is disastrous for the Jewish soul and character. Writing of the ceremonies and rites of the Old Law, such as circumcision and the worship of the Synagogue, St. Thomas says: “In like manner, the ceremonies of the Old Law prefigured Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer; whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too, it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old accomplished with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching of St. Augustine.” (Ia, IIae, Q. 103, a. 4) Objectively, therefore, the Jews as a nation put themselves against the ordered return to God which can only be through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Their opposition has not only had dire consequences in preventing and retarding the world’s acceptance of Him, but also sad effects on themselves. The results of that ceaseless battle against order are becoming increasingly visible amongst them. The persistent rejection of the one mediator, Christ Jesus, in spite of abundant light and grace, is having its inevitable consequences. As Jewish power in the material order grows they are ceasing to believe in the God of Israel and are falling a prey to pantheism in its various forms, Marxian and other.

Does it then follow that all Jews are pantheists? It does not. In all this reasoning about the Jewish nation we are dealing with what we may speak of as moral laws in a wide sense. We cannot deduce conclusions therefrom to every individual member of the race. We must take account of the play of human liberty under the influence of the grace that comes from the Sacred Heart of Jesus to the members of the race which He loves as His own. We must affirm, however, that the Jews as a nation and therefore the vast majority of their individual members, given the solidarity of their national organization, will everywhere show themselves hostile to the supernatural life.

His Excellency Right Rev. Antonio Garcia, Bishop of Tuy, one of the signatories of the Collective Letter of the Spanish Hierarchy of July 1st, 1937, has summed up in striking language the essential features of the present struggle in the world, as outlined in the previous chapters of this book. He has had a splendid opportunity of seeing the Spanish phase of it. Mgr. Garcia writes as follows: “It is evident that the present conflict is one of the most terrible wars waged by Anti-Christ, that is, by Judaism, against the Catholic Church and against Christ. And at this crisis in the history of the world, Jewry uses two formidable armies; one secret, namely that of Freemasonry; the other, open and avowed, with hands dripping with blood, that of the Communists and all the other associated bodies, Anarchists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Socialists, as well as the auxiliary forces, Rotary, and Leagues of Benefaction…in which are preached the exclusion of Christ, of His morality and of His doctrine, or in which one hears at least that abstraction is made of such, as if Jesus Christ had not clearly declared: “He that is not with Me is against Me.’” (Cf. July 15, 1937, p. 431)

A writer who sees in a study of the consequences of the Jewish nation’s naturalism merely a series of fantastic statements about a supposed Jewish conspiracy has not grasped either the unity of the Divine Plan or the meaning of the Kingship of Christ. The Jews do work with abnormal secrecy (cf. Belloc, The Jews), and in the Masonic society they certainly have a powerful secret auxiliary force working for naturalism, along with open and avowed auxiliary forces of Communists, Anarchists, etc. This book, however, insists primarily upon the consequences of the fact patent for all to see, that, in the world as it exists, the Jews, as an organized nation, refuse to accept Him Who is the corner-stone of the building and the foundation of right order, and look forward to a Messianic era to be ushered in by another Messias. Do they not proclaim this from the housetops? Klausner, Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, writes as follows: “What is Jesus to the Jewish nation at the present day? To the Jewish nation he can be neither God nor the Son of God, in the sense conveyed by belief in the Trinity. Either conception is to the Jew not only impious and blasphemous, but incomprehensible. Neither can he, to the Jewish nation, be the Messiah: the kingdom of Heaven (the ‘Days of the Messiah’) is not yet come. …(The ethical code of Jesus) is no ethical code for the nations and social order of today, when men are still trying to find the way to that future of the Messiah and the Prophets, and to the ‘kingdom of the Almighty’spoken of by the Talmud, an ideal which is of this ‘world’ and which, gradually and in the course of generations is to take shape in this world.” A critic may point out that the attack on Christianity by immoral art and by unbelief would continue without Jews in the world. It is quite true that, even if the Jews were to disappear utterly, there would still be original sin in the world and consequently forces of revolt working for naturalism, under the leadership of Satan, whose whole being is in revolt against the supernatural life of grace. What must be insisted upon, however, is that in that hypothesis, the best organized visible force, the one with the greatest cohesion and dynamic energy, would be withdrawn from the naturalist camp.

Responsibility of Jewish Leaders

The leaders of the Jewish race have a terrible responsibility. St. Thomas insists (IIIa, P.Q. 47, a. 6 ad 1um) that the excusing words of our Lord, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk. 22:34) were uttered on behalf of the common people, but not on behalf of the princes of the Jews. Not only have they formed the ordinary people of their race to consider the idea of our Lord being the Messiah promised to their fathers as absolutely absurd, but they keep them in strict subjection. Pogroms in which the rank-and-file of the Jewish nation suffer serve the useful purpose of keeping the rank-and-file in absolute dependence on their leaders. This may serve as a partial comment on a statement in The Catholic Gazette (May, 1936). The writer stated: “The Jewish persecution in Germany which leaves Jewish bankers untouched is rather significant of an absence of unity (between the Jewish financiers and the ordinary Jews).” It is true, for example, that statements have appeared about the position of the Bank of Bleichroeder-Mendelssohn in Nazi Germany, but there is nothing in that to indicate an absence of solidarity in the Jewish race. The rank-and-file of the Jews see that some of their leaders have been able to survive the persecution and they know that these leaders will not lose sight of the interests of the Jewish race, however they may have to dissemble for the moment. They trust that the day will come when Germany will have to yield once again to the pressure of International Finance. In the meantime they see a ferocious attack being launched by erstwhile Christians on those who have remained faithful to the supernatural Messias. That, of course, in the last resort prepares the way for the coming of the natural Messias.

The Opposition of Naturalism to

Our Supernatural Well-Being

The fundamental nature of this opposition will be seen more clearly when we examine a point in which what I have been saying differs to some extent from the thesis of a writer whose name is a household word in Catholic circles. In his splendid work on the Jewish question, Mr. Belloc writes as follows: “We are asked to believe that this political upheaval (the Bolshevik revolution by which the Jews got control of Russia) was part of one highly-organized plot centuries old the agents of which were millions of human beings all pledged to the destruction of our society and acting in complete discipline under a few leaders superhumanly wise. The thing is nonsense on the face of it. Men have no capacity for acting in this fashion…moreover the motive is completely lacking. Why merely destroy, and why, if your object is merely to destroy, manifest wide differences in your aims? …The conception of a vast age-long plot, culminating in the contemporary Russian affair, will not hold water.” (The Jews, First Edition, p. 168)

Four points need to be touched upon. First of all, the opposition between the supernatural Messias and the natural Messias is in the very nature of things. The Jews, as a nation, have refused to accept the supernatural Messias, God Himself, Who came into His own world to restore our most real life, and they still look forward to another Messias. Thus inevitably they are opposed to the true order of the world. As I have already said, the Jews do work with abnormal secrecy and in the Masonic Society they have a powerful secret auxiliary force working for naturalism, but I am here speaking of their opposition as a nation to the supernatural. It is absurd and confusing to speak of that opposition as a plot or a conspiracy, for not only is it clear to us but the Jews proclaim it openly. We must always bear in mind that the world is one and that it is only through acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ as the true Messias that we can live our lives as the objective order of the world demands. Mr. Belloc seems to miss the force of the opposition between naturalism and the supernatural. That is one point.

Again, opposition to the order God has established in the world leads inevitably to decay in belief in God among the Jews, and to corruption in regard to the correct attitude towards their fellow-human beings and in regard to the means to be employed to get other nations to accept the Messianic message. It is morally inevitable that nations which resist God and oppose the supernatural order of the world should suffer decay in the process. The excesses of the Bolshevik revolution thus find their explanation. We are, however, dealing with a moral law in the wide sense. God is merciful and the Sacred Heart of Jesus loves the members of His own race with a special love. We cannot, as has been said, draw conclusions from such a law to all the individual members of the nation.

The third point concerns the differences amongst the Jews. Of course, there are differences amongst them and that, more unavoidably than amongst other nations, because of their opposition to order, but that fact[2] cannot hide the truth of their strongly-organized national solidarity. Is not the sympathy of the Jewish-controlled press throughout the world with the Muscovite, that is, Judaeo-Russian, Red government of Spain a proof of a strong unity?

The fourth point is that the Jews are not attacking Christian supernatural civilization merely for the sake of destroying it. They are demolishing what for them are the accretions due to pagan conceptions, by which Catholicism has disfigured the Messianic ideal. They want to prepare the way for the Messias who, according to them, is still to come and who is to bring about peace and harmony amongst all the people of the world under their own rule. They demolish for the sake of reconstructing on another foundation. No wonder they persecuted St. Paul for his insistence on the fact that “Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.” (1Cor. 3:11)

The orthodox Jews speak of the Fatherhood of God, but they refuse to accept God’s supreme manifestation of His paternity, His sending of His Only-Begotten Son. They consider as blasphemous the true doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and of the supernatural life by which we can enter into the family circle of the Blessed Trinity and love the Father with the Son and the Holy Ghost. In their pride they want to impose their will on God instead of humbly accepting His Will. In their pride they oppose physical descent from Abraham to the true doctrine of spiritual descent from him in unity of faith. “Know ye, therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham…for you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. …And if you be Christ’s then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:7, 26, 29) In their pride, they refuse to see in the prophecies of Isaias about the sufferings of the Messias, e.g., Isaias, 53:7, 12, the narrative of the treatment that was to be meted out by them to the Messiah when He came. They cannot believe that they could have made such fools of themselves as they actually did and continue to do by attempting to apply the promises of God concerning the world-wide sway of the Mystical Body of Christ to their own nation. This terrible pride is the source of the obstinacy with which they refuse to accept the supernatural Messias.

The Dual Citizenship of the Jews in Modern Times

Modern Progress as the Growth of Naturalism

In the thirteenth century, the high-water mark, so far, of man’s acceptance of the order established by God, Catholic Europe acknowledged the divinity of our Lord, the reality of the supernatural life of grace, and the divinely-appointed right of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, to say what was opposed to that life and what favored it, in other words, to be the judge of what was moral and what was immoral, whether in the actions of states or individuals.

The so-called Reformation saw this claim of the Mystical Body of Christ denied by a large part of what was once Catholic Europe. This meant rejecting the order set up by Our Lord Jesus Christ while attempting to retain belief in His divinity. From the Jewish point of view, it was a big step in advance, for it meant the abolition of the supremacy of the supra-national Mystical Body of Christ over a number of states. The State, in each country which embraced Protestantism, took the place of the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus a purely natural entity arrogated to itself divine functions, by organizing its particular form of religion, composed of a mixture of natural and supernatural elements, as a state department. It is true that this natural entity, the State, still acknowledged that, as a society, it had a duty to God and retained some elements of supernatural religion.

The French Revolution carried on the process of decay in the acceptance of the Divine Plan a step further. Religion was considered to be a private matter only; for the State, as a society, denied that it had any duty to God, natural or supernatural. This was complete social apostasy on the part of nations which had once been Catholic and, as such, had acknowledged the rights of Christ and of His Mystical Body on earth. Every country in which a masonically-directed revolution proved successful, as in France in 1789, began by decreeing the separation of Church and State. Thus, country after country completely rejected the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus the supernatural Messias was dethroned, while at the same time, the way was positively prepared for the advent of the natural Messias by the granting of full citizenship to the members of the Jewish nation. The Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, expresses this very forcibly in his work, L’Antisémitisme, p. 361. “The Jew,” he writes, “is the living testimony of the disappearance of the State founded upon theological principles and which the Christian anti-Semites dream of reconstructing. The day when a Jew became the holder of a public position, the Christian State was in danger. That is perfectly accurate, and the anti-Semites who affirm that the Jews have ruined the idea of State could say with greater justice that the entry of the Jews into society symbolized the destruction of the State, that is, of course, of the Christian State.” When the Jews become citizens of the non-Jewish states, they still retain their primary allegiance to their own nation, which, according to them, is the chosen vehicle of divine order for the other nations. They still continue to look forward to the natural Messianic era, that is, to the era when their nation will dominate over the others. Their advance to positions of power and influence aided by their control of finance has in the once Catholic states been everywhere utilized to eliminate from public life the influence of the supernatural life and the remains of the Catholic organization of society. For example, when the Jew, Naquet, got the French state to pass a divorce law, this meant that France, as a state, no longer acknowledged the indissolubility of the union of Christ and His Mystical Body. Thus French society was brought a stage nearer to the new Messianic Era. Such is the inner significance of that historical event, of which the consequences in the natural order have been disastrous for France.

Freemasonry has Contributed

to the Advance of Naturalism

In this work of elimination of the supernatural life from society, the Jewish nation has been powerfully aided by Freemasonry. Freemasonry is a naturalistic society, that is to say, a society which claims to make men good and true independently of the supernatural life which comes to us through membership of our Lord. Masonry thus, in fact and in deed, puts itself above the Mystical Body of Christ and its action has powerfully contributed to the elimination of the Catholic tradition, based on the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the advent of the anti-supernatural or naturalistic mentality and outlook. The nations of Europe thus find themselves helplessly confused and weakened when the Jews, having succeeded in getting control of the Russian State, use its resources to liquidate the remaining stocks of the ancient Christian civilization of Europe.

Masonic propaganda has so blinded the nations, even those that did not revolt against the Mystical Body in the sixteenth century, to the significance of naturalism, that it is difficult to rouse them to the full perception of the real issues at stake. The warnings of the Sovereign Pontiffs and the Judaeo-Masonic attack on the supernatural life in Spain have succeeded, it is true, in getting them to stir uneasily in their slumbers, but they cannot be said to be as yet awake. The Masonic Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 has contributed also to bewilder people with regard to the significance of the Communistic attack on private property. The real meaning of the equality of the French Revolution, the one behind which is all the driving force of masonry, is that all men are equally God. Accordingly, in a properly constituted state, an absolute social equality should counterbalance natural inequalities. The right of private property as the greatest cause of social inequality must be abolished.[3] We need not be surprised then at the lukewarm opposition to Communism wherever the virus of the French Revolution has penetrated. And the poorer members of Society, who have had such sad experiences in the so-called Christian countries, since the sixteenth century, are easily drawn to listen to Marx’s cajoling words. The proletariat, according to the Jewish siren, is a Messianic class destined by its rule to bring about a new era in the world. People are slow to grasp that both the proletariat in general and the Russian proletariat in particular are only means for the Messianic dreams of Marx’s own nation.

The Significance of the Balfour Declaration

Thanks to their dual citizenship in modern times, the Jews, while retaining their primary allegiance to their own nation and their devotion to the ideal of the domination of the natural Messias, have been able to use their positions of power for the furtherance of their national program which, as I have so often insisted, is necessarily and inevitably opposed to the rule of the supernatural Messias, Christ the King. And now, unfortunately, the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, would seem to have for effect the perpetuation of this anti-supernatural, anti-Christian anomaly. The text of the letter addressed by Arthur James (later Lord) Balfour, then British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Lord Rothschild, is as follows:

“Foreign Office,

“November 2nd, 1917.

“Dear Lord Rothschild,

“I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

“His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

“I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

“Yours sincerely,

“Arthur James Balfour.”[4]

For citizens of other states, citizenship is restricted to one State. Why should Jews be permitted to be citizens of two States? The anomaly is already glaring when they form a State within a State: it is doubly so when they have a Jewish State in Palestine. And it must always be remembered that it means keeping the enemies of Christ’s Kingship in a specially favored position.

We read in Der Tag (Yiddish daily), New York, 10th July, 1937: “Hail the Jewish State in Palestine!—for close on two thousand years it has lived only in the memory of an uprooted, wandering people. Conquered and leveled to the earth by the Roman hosts of Titus, aided by the hordes swarming across Europe from the primeval forests of old Germania, it is now about to rear its head once more, looking with new hope across the Mediterranean. It is our historic privilege, denied our forefathers for twenty centuries, to see the Jewish State revived again in the old historic site. The landless people, so long deprived of nationhood, is landless and stateless no longer. Once more are we a member of the family of nations, recognized and welcomed as such. Our Ambassadors and Ministers will be found in every capital, and a seat will be reserved for us at the council table of the League of Nations. Even in Germany, whence two thousand years ago came those who destroyed us, just as today they plot our ruin, we shall have our envoy speaking for us proudly, courageously, as one government representative to another. Washington, the center of Jewish hope in the Western World, will count the Jewish Ambassador among the youngest members of its diplomatic family …Hail the new Jewish State!” (Quoted in The Patriot, August 12th, 1937).

An Ambassador represents a foreign nation in the capital of the country to which he is accredited. The Jews are, therefore, on their own admission members of a foreign nation in the various countries in which they for the time being dwell. The members of a nation which is represented by a foreign ambassador to the government of a country, cannot logically at the same time occupy posts in the government and seats in the parliament of the country in question. That would be an intolerable anomaly, for example in the case of Frenchmen in Germany and Italians in England. The same must hold good for the Jews, in fact, it must hold a fortiori in their case because of their naturalistic Messianic aims. The setting up of the Jewish State must logically lead to the elimination of Jews from the public life of England, Ireland and other countries.

By the fact of the Jews becoming citizens of a Jewish State and ceasing to be citizens of other States another evil can be remedied. The small minority of sincere Jewish converts to Catholicism have up to the present always for all practical purposes been excluded from their own nation. The Jews insisted upon the “rights of minorities,” that is, their “rights,” being safeguarded in the treaties at the end of the Great War. We must insist upon the rights of the minority of Catholic Jews and see that those who accept the supernatural Messias must have special guarantees against ostracism and social injustice on the part of their own people. The Jewish State cannot treat its minority differently from the way the Jews claimed that they should be treated in the States of Western Europe. They surely cannot always expect to have it both ways.

Jewish Naturalism and the Duty of Catholics

On the one hand, we have to stand valiantly for the divine personality of Our Lord and for the transcendent claims of His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, in which He continues to live and into which all must enter in order to be one with Him. The personality of our Lord, true God as well as true Man, is not merely the subsistence of a created soul: it is the personality of the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. The Jews as a nation have always rejected that divine personality and then, efforts are directed to combating the influence of the supernatural life which He seeks to diffuse through the Catholic Church. We have to stand, therefore, unequivocally for the rights of Christ the King. Jewish efforts to eliminate the supernatural life of grace and the faith in Jesus tend inevitably to drag life down to an infra-human level. We have, therefore, to resist and defeat Jewish efforts to dominate our society and mold it along naturalistic lines. In particular, the creation of money and the regulation of the volume of currency used by Christian peoples must be taken out of their hands. I have seen a saying of Meyer Amschel Rothschild quoted as follows: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

On the other hand, our Lord, true Man as well as true God, is a Jew of the House of David, born of the Virgin Mary, the Lily of Israel. Our Lord’s individuality, that by which as a man He is distinct from other members of the human race and belongs to a certain environment and a certain descent, is Jewish. The blood that was poured out on the Cross at the hands of the official leaders of His own nation for the restoration of the divine life of the world was Jewish blood. Our Lord’s Sacred Heart is a human heart and He loves His own nation with a special love. We must never forget that or allow ourselves to fall victims to an attitude of hatred for the Jews as a nation. We must always bear in mind that He is seeking to draw them on to that supernatural union with Himself which they reject.

It is not easy to combat Jewish naturalism in public life and at the same time keep oneself free from racial hatred, which is itself but a form of naturalism. Yet it must be done. On March 25th, 1928, the Congregation of the Holy Office abolished the association called The Friends of Israel, which in action and language had departed from the mind of the Church and of the Fathers and had adopted a mode of procedure abhorrent to the liturgy, thus falling into naturalism. Nevertheless, in that same decree the Church insists upon the fact that she “habitually prays for the Jewish people which was the custodian of the divine promises down to Jesus Christ, and this, in spite of, nay rather on account of, their subsequent blindness. Actuated by this spirit of charity the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust treatment and, as it condemns every kind of hatred and jealousy between nations so in a special manner it condemns hatred of the people once chosen by God, namely that hatred commonly designated as ‘Anti-Semitism.”[5]

Particular attention must be called to the phrase once chosen by God. It is the second time that the Holy See uses the phrase in recent years, the other being in the text of the prayer approved of by His Holiness Pope Pius XI for the consecration of the human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Holy See is evidently insisting upon the fact that there is no longer any chosen people or race, except in so far as the Jews, who were the custodians of the divine promises down to Jesus Christ, despite their official rejection of the supernatural Messias, have not ceased to be the members of His own race. Certain nations have at times shown themselves, to some extent at least, dazzled by the belief that they were the chosen people or race, in the natural order. The pagan cult of race advocated by official Nazism is but a modern manifestation of a very old pride and naturalism.

We have, therefore, a twofold program set out before us. We must, on the one hand, defend our Lord’s rights and, on the other, seek to tear away the veil from the eyes of those whose blindness hurts Him in a special way. This is the program set before us in these words of the Encyclical Letter Quas Primas of the present Holy Father:

“If the faithful generally would understand that it is their duty to fight bravely and continually under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would endeavor to win over to our Lord those who are estranged from Him or know Him not, and would valiantly defend His rights.”

Pope Pius X insisted in most appealing fashion upon courage on the part of Catholics in the modern world, in the discourse he pronounced on the 13th December, at the Beatification of Joan of Arc. To St. Joan’s mind the coronation and anointing of the King of France were ever present, because that anointing did homage to the universal Kingship of Christ and linked up political power with the government of the Lord Jesus. She was the saint sent to remind the world, at the decline of the Middle Ages, of the formal principle of order in the world, the acknowledgment of the Kingship of Christ. The saintly Pope spoke of the heroism of Blessed Joan, and contrasted it with the timidity of so many Catholics in our day: “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men. …All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of thy hands? the answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved me. I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.”

Anti-Semitism

After all that has already been said, it will be easy to deal with the question of anti-semitism. What is meant by the term? anti-Semitism is the word used by the Jews to designate any form of opposition to themselves, and they strive persistently to associate irrationality and want of balance with the term. They evidently want the world to believe that anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less mentally deranged.

Now, first of all, it must be remarked that the term is too wide and too loose. The Arabs are doubtless Semites. Yet the Arabs in Palestine, on account of their opposition to Jewish domination, are anti-Semites.

Secondly, as we must stand valiantly for the rights of Christ the King, the true supernatural Messias, and strive to re-impregnate society with the supernatural spirit of the Mystical Body, we must combat Jewish efforts to permeate the world with naturalism. In that sense, as there is only one Divine Plan for Order in the world, every sane thinker must be an anti-Semite. The Jewish World, February 9, 1883, contained the following program: “The great ideal of Judaism is…that the whole world should be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a universal brotherhood of nations—a greater Judaism in fact—all the separate races and religions shall disappear.” That means the elimination of the supernatural Messias and the disappearance of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. The Jews need not be surprised that such pretensions evoke “anti-Semitism.” That program is a challenge to the Catholic Church to a duel to the death.

Historical Attitude of the Church in this Matter

It can be said with the writer of the article, Juifs et Chretiens, in the Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Chretienne, that the Church has spoken for and against the Jews. On the one hand, the Church has spoken for the Jews to protect their persons and their worship against unjust attacks. She has always condemned acts of violence against the Jews and has respected the liberty of their consciences and allowed them freedom for their cult. On the other hand, the Church has spoken against the Jews, when they wanted to impose their yoke on the faithful and provoke apostasy. She has always striven to protect the faithful from contamination by them. As experience in past centuries showed that if the Jews succeeded in attaining to high offices of state they would abuse their powers to the detriment of Catholics, the Church always strove to prevent Catholics from coming under their yoke. They were forbidden to proselytise and were not allowed to have Christians as slaves or servants. Pope Benedict XIV in the Encyclical Letter A Quo Primum (1751) addressed to the Polish Hierarchy, wrote as follows: “In this matter as in all others We follow the same rule of conduct as Our Venerable Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs. Alexander III forbade Christians under severe penalties to become domestic servants in Jewish households. ‘They ought not,’ he wrote, ‘serve Jews for pay in permanent fashion.’” The same Pontiff explains the reason for this prohibition as follows: “Jewish customs and ours are in complete opposition and, on account of their superstition and their perfidy, they will easily pervert the minds of the simple and the ignorant who will be thus living amongst them continuously and familiarly.” Pope Benedict XIV then went on to repeat the warning of Pope Innocent III against admitting Jews to Christian towns and cities except on conditions that would prevent them from returning evil for good, “like the serpent cherished in one’s bosom.”

It is easy to make the application of those principles to the present day. We have seen that the once Catholic nations of Europe have revolted against the supernatural Messias, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, and have at the same time conferred a second right of citizenship on the members of the Jewish nation, thus facilitating their preparations for the natural Messias. The Jewish attempt to use Russia as a lever to impose their yoke upon the other nations and eliminate every vestige of the influence of the supernatural Messias is bringing the struggle to a head. Jewish domination in the State through the control of currency and credit and the Jewish campaign of naturalism through the press and the cinema are threatening with slavery not only individuals but nations. Our main duty as Catholics in face of this naturalism is, as always, the strengthening of our supernatural life by a formation in which our membership of Our Lord’s Mystical Body will become the leitmotiv of everything. Some at least of the remedies in the political and economic spheres are also obvious. Jews must be citizens of one State only, the Jewish State. The creation of money and the issue of credit must be controlled by the State for the common good, not by private individuals, and the laws of the Catholic Church on usury and speculation must be restored to honor. If we do not strive with all our might for the restoration of the reign of Christ the King in society, so that the whole framework of society may aid us in living our lives in harmony with the submission to God the Father we profess at Mass, we shall be reduced to slavery in the Jewish Messianic Age.

Explanation of Persistence of Opposition to the Jews

But what is the reason of the peculiar persistent opposition to the Jews? The ultimate reason is in the perversion by them of the supernatural mission they as a nation received from God. They were destined to be the heralds of the divine life of grace to the world. They did not listen to Our Lord when He spoke to them of the reality of a higher life and of a higher unity for the peoples of the world than their national life and the unity imposed by their nation. The Jews as a nation refused to aid in building up the supernatural, supra-national Mystical Body of Christ into which all nations were invited to enter. “In the time of Our Lord,” writes Pére Lagrange, O.P. (L’ Evangile de Jésus-Christ, p. 463), “the Talmud was not yet written, but its spirit already animated the doctors of Israel.” It is that spirit of self-centered pride and contempt, owing to their being specially favored by God, which roused the opposition of the nations to the Jews before the coming of Christ. It is the Talmud which has maintained that organized pride and systematic contempt amongst them since. This perversion of the normal relation of a nation to other nations is the morally inevitable result of their refusal to accept the Divine Plan for Order in the world. Opposition to God and rejection of grace lead to decay. Moral wrong becomes right for a mind persistently opposed to God and the one Mediator, Christ Jesus. In Chapter VI, I summed up the results of Jewish opposition to the Divine Plan as follows: “If we now consider the opposition of the Jewish nation to the Mystical Body of Christ since Calvary, we shall find it codified and crystallized, so to say, in the Talmud and Kabbala. The Talmud contains, chiefly but not exclusively, the deviations from the order of the world in regard to the organization of society (social life). The terrible pride of the Jewish race, due to their having lowered and corrupted the idea of the mission to which God had called them, is very visible therein. While the Talmud represents the codification of Jewish opposition to the Kingship of Christ, the Kabbala reflects rather the opposition to the priesthood of Christ. In the latter we see chiefly, but not exclusively, the divagations from order which have arisen amongst the Jews, with regard to mystical union with God and spiritual life, owing to their persistent want of submission to God and to Jesus Christ Whom He has sent. The refusal to accept the divine life offered by Our Lord has resulted in the deification of the natural powers of man. The Kabbala furnishes the key to the pantheism of Freemasonry, Theosophy, and the other occult societies which promise to reveal the secrets of a higher life to their adepts.”

Talmudic Formation and the Conversion of the Jews

The Talmudic formation, then, is responsible for the attitude of the Jewish nation to other nations which leads to the quite special friction they provoke. What are the characteristic traits of that formation? Let us hear them from two very different sources. Mgr. Landrieux, Bishop of Dijon, France, in his excellent work, L’Histoire et les Histoires dans la Bible, outlines the effect of the Talmud as follows: “It is a systematic deformation of the Bible …The pride of race with the idea of universal domination is therein exalted to the height of folly …For the Talmudist, the Jewish race alone constitutes humanity; the non-Jews are not human beings. They are of a purely animal nature. They have no rights. The moral laws which regulate the mutual relations of men, the Ten Commandments, are not of obligation in their regard. They oblige exclusively between Jews. With regard to the Goim (non-Jews) everything is allowed: robbery, fraud, perjury, murder. When the Talmud became known, especially in the sixteenth century, thanks to the invention of printing, such indignation was roused throughout the Catholic world that a Jewish General Assembly in 1631 gave orders that the most obnoxious passages should not be printed, but added that, a little circle, O, should be put in the place of the suppressed passages. This will warn the Rabbins and the schoolteachers that they are to teach these passages orally so that the learned among the Christians (Nazarenes) ‘may no longer have any pretext for attacking us in this regard.’[6] In our day the Talmud does not provoke either astonishment or anger amongst Catholics, because it is no longer known.” On the other hand, the Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, in his well-known work, L’Antisémitisme, describes the influence of the Talmud on the mentality of his race as follows: “Without the Law, without Israel to observe it, the world would cease to exist, God would no longer continue to preserve it. The world will know happiness only when it shall be subject to this law, that is, to the rule of the Jews. Consequently, the Jewish people is the people chosen by God to be the custodian of His wishes and His desires.

The Jewish people is the only one with which the divinity has concluded a pact. The Jew is the elect of the Lord. When the serpent tempted Eve, says the Talmud, he infected her with his poison. When Israel received the revelation on Sinai, the Jewish race was freed from that infection: the other nations remained subject to it …Israel is the specially beloved son of the Most High, the people which alone has a right to His love, His benevolence, to His special protection. The men of the other nations are in His eyes on a plane inferior to the Hebrews. It is only by a concession that they have a share in the divine munificence, since only the souls of the Jews descend from the first man. The possessions that are assigned to the other nations in reality belong to Israel. . . This belief in their predestination, in their being the object of a special predilection, gave rise to a terrible pride on the part of the Jews. The result was that they looked upon non-Jews with contempt …The Jews thus came amongst the modern nations, not as guests but as conquerors. They were like a flock or herd that had been long penned up. When of a sudden the barriers were thrown down they rushed into the field that had been opened to them. Now they were not warriors, and besides, it was not a propitious moment for the expedition of a relatively small force, but they succeeded in making the one conquest for which they were really armed, the economic conquest for which they had been preparing for years.” (Op. cit. 9, 223)

The Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, in the article Juifs et Chritiens (cols. 1691–1694), gives a long list of Papal Decrees condemning the Talmud and the Talmudic formation, since the Talmud became known to Catholics about 1238–1240. Do the Jews still continue to receive this Talmudic formation? In the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, we read: “For the majority of Jews, it (The Talmud) is still the supreme authority in religion.” It is true that we there find also: “Modern culture has gradually alienated from the study of the Talmud a number of Jews in countries of progressive civilization. …Yet it occupies a prominent place in the curricula of the Rabbinical seminaries.” Now, England is surely one of the countries of “progressive” civilization, yet references to Talmud Torah schools may be found in The Jewish Chronicle of London as a matter of course. The issue of that paper of September 3, 1937, contained a paragraph about a flag day for the 3,000 children attending London Talmud Torahs. Again, in the same volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia we find that the Schulchan Aruk of Joseph Caro owed “its authority to the fact that it was recognized as the most convenient codification of the teachings of the Talmud.” And in the Jewish Chronicle, we read that at a meeting of the Council of the union of orthodox Hebrew Congregations in London on January 30, 1938, “Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld welcomed the new President into office, and Mr. Stern, in returning thanks for his election, said amid applause that his guide would always be the Schulchan Aruk.”

These testimonies, taken out of many, go to show that the Talmudic formation is flourishing in England. Let us now turn to the United States, of which the civilization is surely “progressive.” The first volume of The Jewish Library, published by The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, is entitled Essentials of Judaism. Its subtitle is A Guide to Facts of Jewish Law and Life, and it is written by the General Editor, Rabbi Leo Jung. In it we read:

What is the Jewish Law?

“Jewish law is composed of the oral law and the written one. The latter is contained in the Pentateuch, the Torah proper. The former was for a long time kept unwritten, handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. ‘Moses handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the men of the Great Synod, and the men of the Great Synod to the Rabbis’ (Mishnah, Aboth I, i), until with the dispersion of Israel the danger arose that it might be forgotten. Rabbi Judah the Prince (200 C.E.) finally collected and edited it in the Mishnah. The Mishnah, then, contains the body of Jewish law. As with all other legislations, these laws were commented upon to establish their exact force. They were discussed in the Jewish academies of Palestine and Babylonia, and we possess authentic records of these discussions which are called Gemara. About 400 C.E. in Palestine, and about 500 C.E. in Babylonia, these discussions were collected and, together with the Mishnah, they were embodied in one great volume—the Talmud. The Talmud is an encyclopedia of Jewish lore and life, for, in addition to the laws, it contains the maxims, parables, mottoes, which were in vogue through the centuries, as winged words in the Jewish academies. Each of the two countries produced its own Talmud, and we have thus the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudim, of which the latter, more fully preserved, is authoritative for the Jews.

What is the Schulchan Aruch?

“These Talmudim contain many thousand pages of tremendous interest and value to the student; but they are too large and too all-embracing to help the layman in finding the law in every instance. Hence several attempts have been made to excerpt the Talmud or to rearrange it, so that it might be easier even for the unlearned to handle. Maimonides (thirteenth century) rearranged the Talmud, with the view of systematizing its laws, and Rabbi Joseph Caro (seventeenth century) finally wrote his Schulchan Aruch, which in four volumes comprises every aspect of Jewish law; it is our authoritative code. This code, which grew out of the text of the Talmud together with the many discussions of the Rabbis of latter days, is being continually brought up to date by the Respona (Teshuvoth) of the Rabbinic authorities, who have to decide with every change of condition how the immutable law of Judaism is to be applied. There is thus an unbroken chain of Jewish tradition connecting the days of Moses with our own. Never in the whole course of Jewish law was any change made in the law.” That is conclusive for the United States.

Finally, Mgr. Landrieux, in the work already cited, L’Histoire et les Histoires dans la Bible, quotes the Jewish organ, L’ Univers Israelite (June, 1887) as follows: “For two thousand years the Talmud has been and remains an object of veneration for the sons of Israel whose religious code it is,” as well as the Archives Israelites, according to which “the absolute superiority of the Talmud over the Bible of Moses must be recognized by all.” That pitiful and regrettable Talmudic formation, with its inevitable resultant aversion and contempt of the Jew for the non-Jew, evidently still flourishes. The expressions of that contempt, especially the Jewish attitude towards non-Jewish female honor, lead to reactions on the part of non-Jews, and thus friction in country after country becomes unavoidable.

The Conversion of the Jews

The Talmudic formation renders the conversion of the Jews in great numbers almost morally impossible. In spite of it, it is true, individuals do surrender to the loving Heart of the true Messias, but anyone who realizes how strongly the human heart is gripped by the associations of childhood will not be astonished at the relatively small number of those who come home to their Father’s house.

One of the most remarkable conversions of modern times, in spite of a strong Talmudic formation, was that of the Venerable Francis Mary Paul Libermann, C.S.Sp., Founder of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and first Superior-General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary after the union of the two Congregations in 1848. In the life of the Venerable Servant of God by the Rev. Prosper Goepfert, C.S.Sp. (pp. 19–24), there is an account, from Father Libermann’s own conversations, of the Talmudic formation he received from his father, a distinguished rabbin. “According to the teaching of the Talmud,” writes Fr. Goepfert, “the possessions of the Goim should be regarded as a desert and as the sand of the sea, of which the first possessor is the real proprietor. The Talmud expressly forbids the Jew to save a Christian from death, to restore to him his lost property, or to have pity on him. The rabbins…have concluded that, when dealing with a Christian, the Jew is at liberty to make a mistake for his own advantage, and that it is honest to deprive a Christian of any sum of money. These pernicious doctrines formed a part of the instructions which the rabbin of Saverne inculcated on the minds of his children, who naturally received them as the purest expressions of truth, and would profit of every occasion to put their father’s precepts into practice. One day Jacob (later Father Libermann) was sent to the house of a neighboring Christian woman, to change a piece of money. Imagining he was doing an excellent deed, he dexterously took away a penny from the infidel Goim. He returned, quite proud of this feat, which gained for him the applause of his family, especially of his father, who saw in this youthful exploit an indication of a brilliant future.” What a change was wrought when that little boy was baptized many years later![7] Francis Mary Paul Libermann became the founder of a religious congregation having as its special object to make known the truth of our Lord’s supernatural mission to the most abandoned of the Goim, and the heroicity of his charity, justice, humility and disinterestedness has been solemnly proclaimed by the Catholic Church in 1910.[8] Father Libermann’s wonderful humility was based on the recognition of the special sorrow inflicted on the Heart of Jesus by the pride and obduracy of the Jewish nation. One sees this in his whole life.

The Catholic Church and the Conversion of the Jews

The Catholic Church longs for the conversion of the Jews to the true Messias. It is because of that longing that she has so repeatedly in the past condemned the Talmud. The Church knows that their rejection of Christ, which brought about His death, was permitted by God, but that it is neither universal nor irreparable. “By their offence,” writes St. Paul (Rom. 11:11, 12, 28–31), “salvation is come to the Gentiles …Now, if the offence of them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them the riches of the Gentiles how much more the fullness of them? …As concerning the Gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as you also (Gentiles) in time past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy through their unbelief; so these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy.” If a great number of Jews sincerely accepted the true Messias and put all that restless energy and unshakable tenacity into the furtherance of the Kingship of Christ, which they now display against His rule, would not the conversion of the world be more rapidly achieved? Just picture for a moment Jewish influence in the press of the world directed towards featuring the truth of the message of Lourdes and the horror of the rejection of God and Christ in Russia! Just think of Jewish influence on the cinema, instead of being directed towards the elimination of the supernatural life by the production of irksomeness with all moral restraints, canalized into showing the solution of human unrest by the loving acceptance of membership of Jesus! No wonder St. Paul exclaims: “If the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” (Rom. 11:15)[9]

The two Fathers Lemann, converts from Judaism, drew up a Postulatum to obtain from the Vatican Council in 1870 an appeal full of mercy to the Jewish nation. They obtained the signatures of 510 bishops, and all the bishops present at the Council would have signed only that the Fathers Lemann wished to leave the honor of the greatest number of signatures to the Postulatum for Papal infallibility. The prorogation of the Council interrupted the work of the convert brothers, but the reassembling of the Council will see the work continued. God grant that the appeal, if and when it comes, may be heard! Thus will peace at last come to Israel, and thus will a powerful impetus be given to the passage of the nations of the world to the dignity of children of Abraham by faith in the true Messias. This is what we pray for in the beautiful Collect after the fourth prophecy on Holy Saturday, after having begged God on Good Friday to withdraw the age-long veil from Jewish hearts: “Let us pray, O God, Whose ancient miracles we see renewed in our days, whilst by the water of our regeneration Thou workest for the salvation of the Gentiles, that which by the power of Thy right hand Thou didst for the delivery of one people from the Egyptian persecution: grant that all the nations of the world may become the children of Abraham and partake of the dignity of the people of Israel. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

[1]Cf. Campaigners for Christ, by David Goldstein, p. 30.

[2]“The Jews are always and everywhere the tools of their ruling clique: to it they pay heavy indirect taxes, and in return receive help in exploiting the land which harbors them.” (Waters Flowing Eastwards, by L. Fry, p. 30)

[3]Cf. Chapter V, p. 54.

[4]Quoted by L. Fry in Waters Flowing Eastwards, p. 17.

[5]It is to be regretted that in a pamphlet published by the Paulist Press entitled, The Church and the Jews, the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Office is quoted as if its main purpose were to condemn Anti-Semitism. The decree does condemn Anti-Semitism in unequivocal terms, but its main purpose was to suppress a society which by its coquetting with Jewish naturalism was becoming a source of confusion. In addition, the significant phrase ‘once chosen by God’ (olim a Deo electum) is omitted from the text of the decree, as quoted in the pamphlet, and there is no indication in the pamphlet of its suppression. This is regrettable. A carefully thought-out explanation of all that is implied in that phrase would, it seems to me, have helped to clarify some of the paragraphs of the pamphlet. Again the title of the pamphlet is too wide for the matter treated. It does not treat of the whole question of the relations of the Catholic Church and the Jewish nation nor of naturalism and supernaturalism. It deals rather with the refutation of the arguments used by the Hitlerite government of Germany to justify its treatment of the Jews. A more accurate title would be The Church and the Hitlerite Campaign against the Jews. As such, it is excellent.

[6]Cf. Harmony between the Church and the Synagogue, by the celebrated ex-Rabbin Drach.

[7]24th December, 1826. The distinguished ex-Rabbin Drach quoted by Mgr. Landrieux took an active part in the instruction of young Libermann.

[8]Father Libermann is the first Jew whose cause has been introduced since the inauguration of the present procedure of beatification and canonization.

[9]The Commentary of St. Thomas on this chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is very beautiful. The Angelic Doctor had a perfect synthetic grasp of the Divine Plan. In his Commentary on St. Matthew, 26:39, he speaks of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemani asking His Father to have the redemption of the world be accomplished without the crime of the Jews, His own nation, but bowing down to what the Father was permitting, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” He (St. Thomas) there refers to Rom. 11:11.

Appendix I

Jewish Power

A

(“The Russian Revolution and the English Official White Paper, Russia, No. 1, 1919,” by O. P. Mudge, in Loyalty, June, 1924)

Does the British Foreign Office Suppress

the Truth Unpalatable to Jewry?

In the April issue of the Loyalty League I dealt with the attempt made, in the course of a series of lectures by a Mr. M. Farbman, at the London School of Economics, to transfer the responsibility for the hideous Russian revolution of 1917 from the real perpetrators, the Jews, and to ascribe it to a purely agrarian movement among the peasants. I undertook in that article to marshal the voluminous and conclusive evidence that this revolution was entirely Jewish in organization and operation, to show that it had nothing to do with an agrarian movement, or indeed with any cause that had Russian interests in view.

Perhaps one of the most damning pieces of evidence, not only that this revolution, but also the world-revolution which is planned, is Jewish, lies in the strenuous and partially successful efforts which organized Jewry has made to suppress the truth about it. Not only has Jewry succeeded in large measure in suppressing the truth, but it has seemingly been able to intimidate or cajole the British Foreign Office to suppress a very vital part of one of its own official publications.

What has Become of the Official White Paper?

In April, 1919, there was published by the command of His Majesty, and by His Majesty’s Stationery Office, a White Paper entitled, Russia, No. 1 (1919). A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. The Foreword, on p. 6, is as follows: “The following collection of Reports from His Majesty’s official representatives in Russia, from other British subjects who have recently returned from that country, and from independent witnesses of various nationalities, covers the period of the Bolshevik regime from the Summer of 1918 to the present date. They are issued in accordance with a decision of the War Cabinet in January last. They are unaccompanied by anything in the nature either of comment or introduction, since they speak for themselves in the picture which they present of the principles and methods of Bolshevik rule, the appalling incidents by which it has been accompanied, the economic consequences which have flowed from it, and the almost incalculable misery which it has produced.”

The position, then, is this: This document as it then stood was published by the specific decision of the British War Cabinet. It was such an appalling document, that it needed neither comment, explanation nor extension. The information in it came from His Majesty’s official representatives in Russia and from independent persons who had returned from that country with first hand knowledge of conditions. The testimony from all these sources of information is the same. Apart from the appalling and fiendish cruelties, the one vital fact which this White Paper reveals is given on page 6, in a report issued by the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, September 6th, 1918. The Minister was then acting officially for the protection of British subjects and interests, our own official representative, Captain Cromie, having been murdered by the Bolsheviks. The part of the report, in which the one vital and central fact is found, reads as follows:

“The foregoing report will indicate the extremely critical nature of the present situation. The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact; and the most unusual action of German and Austrian consuls-general, before referred to, in joining in protest of neutral legations, appears to indicate that the danger is also being realized in German and Austrian quarters. I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it IS ORGANIZED AND WORKED BY JEWS WHO HAVE NO NATIONALITY, AND WHOSE ONE OBJECT IS TO DESTROY FOR THEIR OWN ENDS the existing order of things. …I would beg that this report may be telegraphed as soon as possible in cypher in full to the British Office in view of its importance.”

The British Foreign Office Suppresses Part of its Own Published Official Documents

This very vital and significant report was sent by the Netherlands Minister in Russia, to Sir M. Finlay, British representative at Christiania, and by him telegraphed to Mr. Balfour at the British Foreign Office. There are many questions that could very pertinently be asked concerning this report. But there are two at the moment that press for an answer beyond all others:

1) Why was this very alarming and crucial information not published in the press? Why the almost universal silence concerning it? Whose influence suppressed it?

(2) Why did this official White Paper, published by His Majesty’s command at the express decision of the War Cabinet in April, 1919, disappear from circulation and become unobtainable? And why was there published in its place an abridged edition, in which this particular passage and very little else of equal importance from the Netherlands Minister’s report was eliminated? So that when innocent and unsuspecting Englishmen applied to His Majesty’s Stationery Office (never suspecting guile or deception in their own Foreign Office) for this particular White Paper, they were given the abridged edition, without specific attention being called to the fact.

A large proportion of those who applied in the ordinary course doubtless accepted what was given them, and little realized the important nature of the truth which had been expunged in the abridged edition. Some, however, wishing for the fullest information, returned the abridged edition and asked for the original. They were told it was out of print. That was the message I myself received about October, 1919. I made a few subsequent applications, always with the same result. It was an untruth for the Stationery Office to say then that it was out of print.

Now we come to the crucial question: Why was this abridged edition substituted for the original? Why did the abridgment take the form it did—i.e., eliminate the damning and sinister fact that: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

Why is the original edition unobtainable? It is an official document and therefore public property. Under what constitutional right does the British Foreign Office refuse to supply it?

It is obviously and logically clear that there is only one race on earth that has any interest in the suppression of this official document, and that race is the Jewish race. No other race nor any civilized government can be benefited by its suppression, for the report within it says quite specifically: “The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened.”

B

(Extract from the Patriot, April 6th, 1933, on

the Russian Revolution)

Mr. Norman Bentwich, O.B.E., M.C., was legal secretary, then Attorney General, of the government of Palestine, and had been in the Ministry of Justice, Cairo. He had served as co-editor of the Jewish Review, is a lecturer on Jewish subjects, and author of historical and legal books. In an American paper, B’nai B’rith Magazine, for March, he had an article, “Is Judaism Doomed in Soviet Russia?” to which he says “No”; and from that article the quotations given below are of interest. The “B’nai B’rith” [Children of the Covenant] is a Jewish secret society, not affiliated to Freemasonry, but having much the same ritual and operative methods:

“The teaching of the Hebrew Prophets, ‘to set free the oppressed and to break every yoke,’ was the underlying motive of the Bolshevik revolution. It is certain that the principal prophet of the proletarian movement was the German Jew, Karl Marx, whose picture hangs in every public institution and whose book, Das Kapital, is the gospel of the Communist creed; that another German Jew, Ferdinand Lassalle, whose heroic statue adorns the Nevski Prospect of Leningrad, was one of the inspirers of the early revolutionary parties; that Jews have, from the beginning to the present day, played a part in the creation and the maintenance of the revolution; and that for no community has the revolution brought about a greater change of status than for the Jews. Under the Czars their life was outwardly a long humiliation; but it had its compensations in the inner strength of the community and in the national ideal of which the flame burnt eternally. Today, they have been given complete civic and social equality with the rest of the population; and, indeed, Lenin’s saying is constantly quoted, that those peoples which were previously oppressed should be specially favored. On the other hand, their inner strength and cohesion are broken, and the hold of the traditional religion is weakened by every possible pressure and persuasion: while the fostering of the Zionist ideal is punished ruthlessly by the State as a counter-revolutionary movement.

“The essential feature about their community which strikes the visitor is that the Jews, and particularly the younger generation, feel at home, and part and parcel of the new order. They are proud of their share in the councils of the revolution: of Trotsky, who organized the Red Army (though among non-Jews he is in disgrace and his name is not mentioned), and of the Jews who hold high positions in the Foreign Office and other Ministries, in the Army and the Navy, in the economic councils and academies.

“When we landed in Leningrad, our interpreters and guides from the State Tourist Organization were usually Jews and Jewesses. It is the function of the Jew to be the interpreter of Soviet Russia to the world and of the world to Soviet Russia; for he forms the principal element in the proletarian society which has close touch with the Western European culture and languages. …The suppression of the ghetto and of the Orthodox Church has brought this outward freedom; and the government punishes severely any outward manifestation of anti-Semitism.

“The industrial enthusiasm of the Soviet State, which finds its expression in the Five Years Plan, has been an advantage for the Jews, who can acquire a technical capacity quicker than the rest of the people. The policy of collective farming with mechanical machinery and the industrialization of agriculture, which is being carried out with breathless and ruthless vigor, accords also with the Jewish intelligence. For the Jew is often by nature a collectivist.

“The achievement in the way of fostering industrial skill, in the heavy as well as in the lighter industries, among the Jews, has been equally remarkable. Hundreds of thousands are working in the textile factories, the metal works, the electric power stations, the tailor shops, and the manifold industries of the State. Their numbers were reckoned in 1932, at over 1,300,000.

“In the towns such as Kiev, Odessa, Berdichev, where the Jews are a quarter or more of the whole population, there are Yiddish law courts and Yiddish codes of law, and Yiddish is an official language. But the Rabbinical law which used to regulate Jewish family affairs may not be applied, and the Beth-Din may not function. The academy of higher learning in such centers, which has taken the place of the former university, includes a section for Jewish learning and research. …

“The Communist Party, which controls the Soviet government, is opposed to Judaism as to any other established religion; for its dominant creed is a militant atheism. Yet it has to be recognized that the attack on the old Jewish worship and learning, the demand for the closing of synagogues and schools and yeshivas comes principally from the younger generation of Jews. The Jewish Communist youth in large part have revolted against the old order. …The question arises whether Judaism will survive in this hostile atmosphere, without the religious hold and without the national ideal, reduced to a matter of national or racial pride and feeling. …The spiritual motive of the revolution goes back to the principles of Socialism in the teaching of the Hebrew prophets, even though the Communist denies the rock from which he is hewn and knows not the hole from which he is dug. The revulsion of this generation against the old creeds and its devotion to a materialistic theory of the work will not be a permanent belief. It is contrary alike to the Russian and the Jewish nature and to the outlook of science in our day.”[1]

C

(Extract from The Patriot, July 18th, 1929)

Censorship of the Anglo-Saxons

Using the term Anglo-Saxons in its broad modern sense of meaning the English-speaking peoples, it will be generally considered an impossible proposition that those peoples—reputed pre-eminent in their love of freedom—are subject to a very real censorship over what they are permitted to read. At a time when the utmost license is exercised daily in printed and spoken word against God, King, morals, and country, it will seem to most Anglo-Saxons an absurd story that they are not permitted to read, or to publish, a certain class of subjects of world-wide bearing, which are freely published and discussed by non-English speaking peoples. The seeming absurdity of the statement is due to the fact that the censorship is invisible in application, is never mentioned publicly, and its decrees are discreetly enforced, usually without any specific judgment having to be pronounced. For simplicity in explanation of the broad facts, this article will be confined to the censorship under which publishers of books and newspapers must conduct their part of the education of Anglo-Saxons on current events and past history. The recognition of the authority of the censorship is based, in most part, on a great commercial power at the disposal of the censors; and in part on the indirect effects of a vast propaganda in the shaping of popular opinion in a sense favorable to the aims of the censors. It is obvious that a deliberate limitation, in any country, of what can be profitably published is a restriction of the freedom in reading for the great mass of people in that country.

The censorship in force is Jewish in character, in backing, and in its operative machinery. But it is not confined in its supervision and operation to a definitely organized body of men, even if there be such an organization unknown to us. The Jewish race is absolutely apart from all others in its solidarity, which is maintained in spite of complete dispersion over the globe, and in spite of fundamental differences in religion, in politics, and in material and spiritual attachments within many different nations. The dispersion of the individuals—accompanied as it is by close inter-communications, through business relations in all countries, and by literature on racial interests—permits of the exercise of an ever-growing world power. The guiding of that power cannot be traced to any one central control; but there are many organizations which co-operate in all matters affecting racial interests. In England there is a very influential “Board of Deputies of the British Jews”; in America there are the “New York Kehillah” and the “American Jewish Committee,” as powerful directors of Jewish thought and actions; whilst the equivalent of a great Masonic lodge of the Jewish people is found in the “Independent Order of B’nai B’rith,” which has a very large (American) membership, as well as lodges in many countries. In France there is the nucleus of the building of a single directing center in the Alliance israelite universelle, with the ambition of domination over the earth, and working thereto hand in hand with subversive anti-Christian Grand Orient Freemasonry. Other countries have also organizations aiding Jewish solidarity; and that this solidarity does exist can be shown by two illustrations: First, the amazing way in which the whole world was shaken up on several occasions during the long period of the trials for treason of a single French Army officer, Dreyfus; and second, by the persistent policy of concealment, from all peoples, of the leading part played by a section of revolutionary Jews in all the bloodshed and commercial destruction of the Russian people. That concealment is enforced so successfully that neither writers of books nor editors of newspapers can safely forget the interdict. Even a Government White Book issued in April, 1919, and making clear the world-danger of the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy against civilization was, by some unknown influence, suppressed, and a bowdlerised abridgment was substituted.

The over-riding power in literature and publicity of a small Jewish minority in most countries is made up of a variety of elements. There is vast wealth to be drawn on for racial objects; there is ownership or control of large numbers of newspapers; and that control is not merely over the complexion given to some news, but over those reviews of new publications which affect largely their sales. The news agencies feeding the newspapers are mostly under Jewish control. The power exercised in film and theatrical productions is pretty generally known. The enormous potential force of a combination of the wealthy Jewish advertisers in all important papers is fully recognized by journalists, for whom advertisements are the life blood of commercial publication. While the political power of Jews might appear negligible because they are equally active in all three parties here, it is a fact that the division works to great advantage; for, not only is the power exercised out of proportion to numbers in each party, but it is multiplied by three in matters of racial interest. This is clearly expressed in the words of Emanuel Shinwell, M.P. (Financial Secretary to the War Office), in a speech at the annual dinner of “B’nai B’rith,” on 23rd June: The Jews in the House of Commons, whatever their political opinions may be, will always stand in that assembly for the rights of the Jewish community. It has been said that they must emphasize the fact of their Judaism before the fact of citizenship. He held that they must regard themselves as Jews and citizens equally.

In England there is general ignorance of the existence of any important Jewish question. The old idea still prevails that Jews are merely a religious sect; and, in Britain, are mostly rich, and consequently unsympathetic to revolutionary movements. It is a ridiculous misconception of the facts, and it makes the British people particularly easy to guide in matters affecting the Jewish race. There is an important section of Jews who join, and lead, every revolution, as Disraeli made clear in his books; and their predominance in the Bolshevik seizure of power and regime of atrocities should have long ago dissipated the old British illusion. So much sympathy with Bolshevism was shown even in English Jewish papers that ten of the best known British Jews felt forced to write a letter to the press in April, 1919, repudiating all such sympathy. Large numbers of Jews who first went to Palestine were so little religious, and so much Bolshevik, that orthodox Jews, long settled in the country, objected; and a universally esteemed Rabbi, who was about to visit London to protest, was assassinated. Zionism is an acute subject of differences between the Jews. Some want a national standing of their own centered in Palestine, and also to enjoy full national rights in any country they choose for residence. Others have no desire to weaken their present position of full citizenship in their adopted countries.

Mr. Ford owned a weekly paper called the Dearborn Independent, and in this a series of articles appeared on the international Jews, and on the Jewish power in America. Those articles were reproduced in four volumes, beginning in November, 1920, and were largely based on Jewish authorities. Three or four lawsuits for large sums were brought against Mr. Ford, and later he received serious injuries in a motor car accident, and shortly after that he made a public recantation of all that had appeared in his paper about Jews. Since that date the Jewish power and censorship have found no chronicler in America. When Ambassador Page was editor of the Atlantic Monthly he gave the following advice to a young journalist: “The most interesting fellow in America is the Jew: but don’t write about Jews: without intending it, you may precipitate the calamity America should be most anxious to avoid—I mean Jew-baiting.” Incidentally we may mention that an English book which happened to contain that quotation was suppressed, soon after birth, by a very obvious withdrawal of the usual advertising nourishment.

Anglo-Saxon historians—with the exception of Mrs. Nesta H. Webster—have, to an extraordinary degree, kept off the vital subject of revolutions, on which many learned French writers have produced so much; and, in consequence, English readers are still spoon-fed on the picturesque fables of Carlyle and others, about the French Revolution, which was typical of all later revolutions in its creation and guidance. In October there will be issued an English translation of the Vicomte de Poncins’ book Les Forces Secrètes de la Revolution: a compilation from the French school of writers just mentioned, selling well in France, and now appearing in Germany. The “reaction” of our accepted censorship to the book may give occasion for a supplement to this present article.

(Extract from The Patriot, February 20th, 1930)

In the Patriot of 18th July, 1929, an article under the heading “Censorship of the Anglo-Saxons” pointed out how the English-speaking peoples are today subject to a very real censorship over what they can read, and over what they may publicly state, on a certain range of subjects. That censorship has no legal authority, nor is it a visible organization; but its indisputable power depends on control over the press and book publishers, exercised either through direct financial interests in the businesses of newspaper and book-production, or through indirect influence over producers by the enormous, power of bestowal of advertisements and of effectual boycotting. As regards the influence over public speaking, the exercise of power is more subtle and diffused, and is maintained partly by strength in all three of our political parties, partly by varied means of propaganda—including the press, the films, and broadcasting—which contribute to public ignorance or misdirection on some subjects. In the article it was explained how and why the censorship was in Jewish hands, although large numbers of Jews are in no way conscious parties to its operation.

The preponderating part played by Red Jews in the Bolshevik revolution, which dispossessed the Menshevik government, established on the abdication of the Czar, is beyond doubt, if the facts in the case are put squarely before anyone capable of impartial reasoning. Nevertheless, the censorship, in force for the last twelve years, has been so effective that most British and American people have been kept in ignorance of the essential facts of the past and present situation in Russia, and of tbe threat involved to civilization and Christianity in most parts of the world. That this Anglo-Saxon ignorance is due to continuous suppression of the publicity of all undesired views is evident from the fate which has befallen the occasional attempts in newspapers, books, and lectures, to show that the preparation, the execution, and the administration of the Soviet dictatorship were all the products of Jewish brains, aided by a few Russian leaders, prominent as figure-heads. A Government White Book of April, 1919, gave unqualified information as to the Jewish foundation of Bolshevism; and also as to that consequent serious danger of world-revolution, which is giving today such damning proof of the correct diagnosis by our representative in Petrograd of the disease and its course. That a censorship was already active in 1919 is obvious from the suppression of the unpleasant truth in a second edition of the Government White Book.

As bearing on the part taken by Red Jews in the Bolshevik triumph over Russia, we quote Dr. Angelo S. Rappaport, a Jewish writer, who published a book in 1918 called Pioneers of the Russian Revolution:

“To a greater degree than the Poles, the Letts, or Finns, or, indeed, any other ethnic group in the vast empire of the Romanovs, the Jews have been the artisans of the revolution of 1917. … It is no exaggeration to say that the small, even insignificant, amount of freedom obtained by the Russian Liberals in 1905 and 1906 was largely due to the effort of the Jews. …There was no political organization in the vast empire that was not influenced by Jews or directed by them.

. . . Throughout history the spirit of the Jew has always been revolutionary and subversive. …Long before they had been formulated in French, the principles of the ‘Rights of Man’ had been announced in Hebrew. …The Russian Jews, the pioneers of the revolution, are now continuing to fight for the cause of justice, for the principles of Democracy against German Militarism.” When the Jewish and Russian Bolsheviks seized power, Red Jews flocked to the scene from all countries, and reinforced the brains and hands of the murderous tyranny. Mr. Robert Wilton, for seventeen years a correspondent of The Times in Russia, and who was decorated for his work on the Russian front in the earlier part of the late war, wrote a book, The Last Days of the Romanoffs. This book showed that the murder of the Czar and his family was the work of Red Jews, and that they prepared the whole revolution, and became masters of Russia from their domination of all the important offices under the Soviet. He wrote in 1920: “The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians…they are all mere screens or dummies behind which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovdepia continue their work of destruction.”

After this Mr. Wilton’s chances in English journalism were gone. He was a true British patriot; and he died in very straitened circumstances in France in January, 1925. No one who has paid the slightest attention to the course of Russian events since the Bolshevik accession to power in November, 1917, can have failed to know that, when all the important members of the Russian aristocracy, the learned professions, the Army and Navy, had been executed, or imprisoned, or driven abroad, Red Jews were in possession of the great majority of responsible positions in and under the Soviet. So clear was this that, in the past, Jewish apologists, here and in America, have explained the fact by the true statement that only among the Jews could be found any longer the brains and business experience for filling important posts. Yet in the face of this situation there have been dozens of books published in English, and innumerable articles throughout the press, and any number of lectures delivered, all with the astounding omission of any mention of Jewish handiwork in Russian Bolshevism. There have been public references to the sufferings of some orthodox non-Communist Jews at the hands of the Soviet.

Newspapers bear witness to a censorship over them by what they omit to publish, and by their sketchy apologetic mention of incidents tending to produce undesired conclusions about the march of events. Authors can safely reckon on the refusal of book publishers to produce any book unorthodox to current propaganda which supports the censorship. Mr. Ford ran a newspaper of his own, in which for several years the worldwide question of growing Jewish predominance was treated; but so much pressure was brought to bear on him that he had to drop the subject and recant all he had published thereon, although he had not himself written the articles.

Censorship over the enormous propaganda of “Labor,” in the formation of public opinion, is rendered easy by the almost unanimous sympathy of the Socialist and Communist elements, constituting the party, with everything originating in Russia: a senseless sympathy based on the belief that Sovietism is a demonstration—if “a crude one”—of the practicability of Socialism.

A very recent illustration can be cited here in support of some of the above statements. The Patriot has been the vehicle of advertising a new book, The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by the Vicomte L. de Poncins. It is an English translation from the second edition of a French book, and treats of the influence of Grand Orient Freemasonry and of the Red Jews, in all revolutionary and subversive movements since the French Revolution. The publishers, on issue of the book here, sent review copies as usual to important daily and weekly papers to the number of eighty. Out of the eighty, one provincial newspaper gave a notice which was confined to less than one half the book, that portion relating to French Masonry; the larger portion, relating to Jewish activities, was not mentioned. It is obvious that such a book might provoke violent differences of opinion among reviewers; but, considering that it is a compilation from well-known French, German and English writers, and that it treats of the vital question of the world revolution, of which the first step is the destruction of our empire; considering these things, a universal silence cannot be accepted as natural.

Appendix II

The Forces that Govern

A

(Extracts from three articles by Mr. Hilaire Belloc in G.K.’s Weekly, May 31st, 1930, June 21st, 1930, and November 26th, 1932)

The Forces that Govern England

A great country is never governed by one force alone; that which controls its policy is always a congeries of wills, many of them in more or less direct conflict with others, and what directs the whole is a resultant of these many forces at work. Human society is an organism and everything organic is complex. But it imports those who would understand the times in which they live and the nature of that which orders them, to appreciate the proportion each factor holds in that complicated thing which controls us all and our destinies: the complicated thing called real government.

These factors are, in the reverse order of their importance, as follows:

(1) A vague public opinion. Of this there is but a trace. It is hardly apparent as a governing factor, save in rare crises (such as the war) patent to all and acutely affecting all.

(2) A tiny representative element almost negligible: the effect of voting at the polls. This, like public opinion, has a much stronger action on the policy of the nation in rare crises. But normally it hardly counts; indeed, voting on essentials, such as a policy of peace or war or the levying of an insurance tax on wages is not permitted, or, when expressed, not heeded.

(3) Next, certain professional politicians—less than a hundred all told—who co-opt new recruits into a kind of club called the Front Benches. They appoint themselves to the nominal headship of various departments which they shift round from hand to hand. These headships vary in personal power from next to nothing (as in the case of Chancellor of the Exchequer) to quite a respectable amount of petty patronage and private decision.

(4) Then comes the much more powerful factor of the permanent officials.

These four categories may be called the tail-end of the forces which govern us. It is impossible to put such things numerically, but, as a sort of rough picture of the thing, if we give the whole force that governs us the value of a hundred, we may count public opinion as anything from zero to five (most of the time); representation, that is the power of votes, anything from five to seven; the professional politicians round about fifteen, and the permanent officials, and services as a body and in varying degrees (the Home Office, the Police, the Magistrates and Judges, the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, the very powerful Treasury, etc.) about twenty-five.

From this lower category we pass to one quite different and on quite another scale of strength: the element of wealth.

We have for a long time past been a plutocracy and by far the greatest effective instrument in directing our lives, submitting us to regulation, and deciding our internal and external affairs, is the control exercised by a few rich men over production, distribution and transport information, and finance. This major element in government we might reckon, in the numerical scale just adopted, as running from eighty to the full hundred. It counts far more than the whole body of the permanent services and indefinitely more than the politicians. The masters of our great trusts (which are in the main international, many of them having their centers out of this country, some few wholly domestic) are also the masters of the community. For instance, to take but one detail, the odd and apparently meaningless restrictions upon the hours and places wherein it is lawful to drink cease to be meaningless and become exceedingly logical, when we appreciate the truth that the law-givers in this instance are a handful of millionaires who control the brewing and distilling industries. The new restrictions have more than doubled their wealth and will continue to increase it.

Now of these great monopolies (some complete, others only covering the major part of their respective fields but tending every day to become more perfect) the chief is the banking monopoly.

The reason the banking monopoly holds this preponderant position is twofold. First, it is the most immediate, secret, universally informed, elastic and direct in its action, and controls every individual above a very low level of income. It is for the banks to permit those economic activities they approve; those they disapprove they can destroy at will. And, since in modern life every political activity has an economic result, the banks can equally affect what may seem at first sight to be merely political questions. Second, the banking monopoly is in this country the European branch of that main international world monopoly in finance which has its center in New York and exercises its universal power from that center. Our local banking monopoly is the servant of New York after the same fashion that a provincial bank manager is the servant of a head office in London; and, therefore, in our now admitted dependence on the United States, it is the mouthpiece of “the senior partner.”

Is this superior control of policy by the banking monopoly a thing to be applauded or deplored? It is a question of the highest practical importance, and one eagerly debated by the few who see public life as it is, and concern themselves rather with real policies than with the newspaper façade and the silly outworn stage play at Westminster. I have heard some of the best thinkers, the most sober and well-informed of those with a wide survey of affairs, maintain that it is a boon. They point to its palpable results. We are free (they tell us) of the Irish incubus, through the banks refusing in 1921 to admit further expense in repression of the rebellion. We have recovered a stable currency and credit on a gold basis through the government by the banks, and we alone have done so out of all belligerent Europe. Others fear the preponderance of this factor in government though in varying degrees. Which party is right, the supporters or the opponents? I propose to discuss this in a future article.

In the political field alone the banks have made us dependent upon America. One might say that there was a tendency that way anyhow; but whereas the French and the Italians have successfully reacted in part, and the Germans have left it open to themselves to react in the future, against American domination, the banks have made the dependence of this country upon the United States certain and absolute. All the world now regards us as dependent upon the United States.

But that is only part of the argument against the present control of England by the banks; the main argument is that no private interest can be identical with the public interest. That is true no doubt of all forms of government, of an aristocracy or even of a King; it is enormously true of the professional politicians. It must, in a sense, be true of any form of government. The public servant must always be watched like any other, lest he betray his master. But in the case of the banks there is this particular point which is of first-rate importance: their whole business consists in looking after a private interest and they cannot in the nature of things consider the public interest at all.

We are blinded on this matter by the historical fact that for three lifetimes the interest of England was virtually identical with the interest of finance, long before the international banking monopoly was dreamt of. The standing example is Egypt.

The Rothschilds, who are equally at home in Vienna, Paris or London, negotiated loans of money at usury to the ruler of Egypt. The English people then had to pay for military and naval action to maintain this debt and recover the interest for the bondholders. It was not an operation directly aimed at enriching England. It was an operation directly aimed at enriching the Rothschilds and their dependents all over the world. Nevertheless, the operation was of advantage to Great Britain. Great Britain was immensely advantaged by the holding of Egypt and the Suez Canal. Indeed, in any great operation between Waterloo and the end of the nineteenth century the interests of international finance were so closely parallel, if not identical, to the interests of Great Britain that no patriotic Englishman could object.

Today that is no longer true. A divergence has appeared. We are now beginning to be bled, as we in the past have bled others. The process is not yet highly developed. The gulf between the two interests, national and international, though already marked, is not yet enormous. But it is getting wider every day, and during the lifetime of most people now living it will be emphasized.

For instance, (the whole affair being secret after the modern fashion) no one knows how much money the taxpayer is now giving to foreign holders of English bonds resident abroad. The middle class man of £2,000 a year has no idea what proportion of his check to the Inland Revenue is paid out as tribute to be spent in foreign countries, but a certain proportion is so spent, and it is increasing.

On the spiritual or moral side, which is ultimately the most important by far, the chief indictment against the banks lies in the mere fact that it is secret. Secrecy is a bad thing from this essential and central point of view. The mere fact that the banking power is universal is equally important. The fact that it is not responsible is more important still. The fact that it, or its agents, are unconscious of its ultimate effects on individuals is perhaps the most important of all. No doubt the banking monopoly will destroy our society as it destroyed that of Genoa and Venice; but peacefully.

Its principal agency of destruction just now is the sapping of the middle class through a system of direct taxation, for which it is wholly responsible, and in which the productive directing intelligence of society is handicapped against the blind mass without initiative below it and the gambler-millionaires and evaders above it. But the poison works slowly. It will be tempered shortly by a partial repudiation called “conversion,” and its worst effects will not appear till our generation is gone.

The international banking interest is in favor of getting rid of English and French tribute to the United States, for precisely the same obvious reason that it desired to get rid of German reparations. The payment does not go to the bankers directly or indirectly, it goes to the private bondholders in America …. (such payments) make the international bankers less certain of getting their tribute—the interest on private loans which they have advanced for reconstruction all over Europe. The lie is the more impudent, because it comes at a moment when we are loudly insisting on a far more crushing tribute from Ireland. But that tribute the bankers are determined to get out of the Irish goes to the bankers as interest on the money they have lent on the Land Stock; hence Thomas.

B

(Extract from, The Truth about the Slump, by A. N. Field)

The Forces that Govern U.S.A.

Soon after Mr. Wilson had become President, in 1912, Congress set up a Commission, known as the Pujo Commission, to enquire whether or not there was a Money Trust in the United States. This Commission reported in March, 1913, that there was a Money Trust in existence, and it named the following concerns as constituting the inner ring and directing force:

J. P. Morgan and Company

The National City Bank of New York

Lee, Higginson and Company of Boston and New York

Kidder, Peabody and Company

Kuhn, Loeb and Company

The Commission reported that by a system of interlocking directorates, stock holding companies and other forms of domination, the above five banking houses controlled no less than 112 banks and financial and industrial companies with resources in capital and reserves totaling the prodigious sum of £4,449,000,000. A full list was published of the concerns thus controlled.

The following is a summary:

Class of Undertaking             Resources in dollars

34 banks and trust companies        2,679,000,000

10 insurance companies              2,293,000,000

32 transportation companies

(railroads, express and steamship companies)        11,784,000,000

24 producing and trading companies            3,339,000,000

12 public utility companies (power, light, telegraph, etc.)                         2,150,000,000

112 companies        Resources   22,245,000,000

In the course of its voluminous report the Commission described the relations of the inner ring of five as follows:

“The first group, which for convenience we will call the inner group, consists of Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company, the recognized leaders, and Mr. George F. Baler and Mr. James Stillman, in individual capacities and in joint administration of the First National Bank, the National Bank of Commerce, the Chase National Bank, the Guaranty Trust Company, and Bankers Trust Company of New York.

“The second group, closely allied to this inner and primary group, is composed of the powerful international banking house of Lee, Higginson and Company, Kidder, Peabody and Company, with three affiliated banks in Boston.

“The third group consists of the international house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. This firm is only qualifiedly allied to the inner group, yet through its relations with the National City Bank, the National Bank of Commerce, and other financial institutions with which it has recently allied itself, it has many interests in common; conducting large financial transactions with them and having what virtually amounts to an understanding not to compete, which is defended on the principle of banking ethics. Together they have, with few exceptions, pre-empted the banking business of the important railways of the country.

“The fourth group is in Chicago.”

Elsewhere in its report the Commission said:

“The powerful grip of these gentlemen is on the throttle that controls the wheels of credit, and on their signal those wheels will turn or stop.”

The general effect of this financial combination on American industry was outlined by the Commission on page 160 of their report as under:

“Issues of securities of local or small enterprises requiring moderate sums of money are frequently financed without the cooperation of these gentlemen; but from what we have learned of existing conditions in finance, and the vast ramifications of this group throughout the country and in foreign countries, we are satisfied that their influence is sufficiently potent to prevent the financing of any enterprise in any part of the country requiring 10,000,000 dollars or over, of which, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, they do not approve. Therein lies the peril of this money power to our progress, far greater than the combined danger of all existing combinations. …

“The acts of this inner group, as here described, have nevertheless been more destructive of competition than anything accomplished by the trusts, for they strike at the very vitals of potential competition in every industry that is under their protection, a condition which, if permitted to continue, will render impossible all attempts to restore normal competitive conditions in the industrial world. …

“The gentlemen constituting this inner circle, however, violated no law in what they have done, so far as we can discover, but that is rather because…the law has not yet properly safeguarded the community against this form of control.”

Another partner in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company since 1897 is Mr. Otto H. Kahn. Mr. Kahn was born in Mannheim, in Germany, in 1867. He became a naturalized American citizen and later on a naturalized British subject. Mr. Kahn gave his London residence, St. Dunstan’s Lodge, as a hospital for blinded British soldiers during the war. Mr. Kahn published a book of memoirs, in 1921, Reflections of a Financier (Hodder & Stoughton), and the foreword to it is written by the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, now Secretary of State for the Dominions. Mr. Thomas wrote of Mr. Kahn in highly eulogistic vein, his concluding words being, “Otto Kahn’s face is towards the light.” When we come to examine the worldwide ramifications of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and the nature of its activities, this intimacy of a British Labor Leader with one of its partners will appear a little singular.

(Extract from article by O. A. Hinkson in G.K.’s Weekly)

Northern Shadows

In European countries the constant revolutions which trouble the Republics of South and Central America are an enigma. They are regarded as endemic. The only reason which is alleged is the temperament of the people; but they remain incomprehensible.

In the Old World, where most countries are self-dependent, the capacity of foreign capitalists and more especially of the economic imperialism of the United States of America, to create political turmoil, is rarely appreciated.

The experiences of Nicaragua were even more unfortunate, partly owing to her closer proximity to the U.S.A. and also to the fact that it was a little country with less than three-quarters of a million inhabitants. In 1912 a revolution broke out in Nicaragua against a corrupt government, which was financed by New York bankers. The American Minister demanded a guarantee that the lives and property of American citizens would be protected. The puppet government replied that it was unable to give the guarantee and suggested that the United States should undertake the task with its own armed forces. The American Minister immediately communicated with an U.S. battleship which was lying off the coast and asked for a guard to protect the Legation. The following day the U.S. Marines landed in Nicaragua. The revolt was crushed a few days later: but the Marines remained for thirteen years.

In a little book entitled Nicaragua, and published in Paris in Spanish, the author, Carlos Quijans, describes with eloquence the fate of his country. There is a passage which, translated, reads:

“The imperialism of the United States has been a factor of disorder, backwardness, and corruption in Nicaragua. It has fomented civil war, it has corrupted political life, or contributed to corrupt it. …It has prevented the Central American Union, and created a permanent state of discord and anxiety in the Isthmus, it has despoiled the country, delivering it to the rapacity of the New York bankers and of their Nicaraguan accomplices. …The United States exercises complete domination over Nicaragua.”

Financial Influences in U.S.A.

To gauge the strength of the power of finance in the U.S.A., it is useful to read some of the able books recently published, dealing with the reactions against the control exercised by financial forces. Two such works are: Money! Questions and Answers (Published by The National Union for Social Justice, Royal Oak, Michigan) and Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, by Frederick Soddy.

In La Vie Intellectuelle of January 10th, 1935, some interesting information is given about the influence of U.S.A. financiers in Haiti and about the war between Bolivia and Paraguay. This sanguinary conflict is, it seems, really a struggle between the Standard Oil Company of America and the Royal Dutch Company supported by England, for the control of the petroleum wells of the Gran Chaco.

(Extract from The Breakdown of Money, by C. Hollis)

We are sometimes ready to congratulate ourselves that our age has outgrown all superstitions. But the historian of the future will, I fancy, reckon in the same class as number-worship and astrology and the study of the gizzards of birds the strange superstition that, whenever money is invented, a percentage must be paid forever afterwards as a propitiation to a banker. It is on that superstition that the whole empire of Mammon is built. There is no basis for it in reason, and in our day, when it has for the first time been overtly recognized and challenged, the defenders of it have utterly failed to justify their superstition. … It is inconceivable that the world will be content for long … to tolerate want with abundance all around, the destruction of food while men and women and children are perishing for the lack of it. And, if sound finance continues to put forward such a demand, then at the last, it will be so much the worse for sound finance.

Appendix III

Germany

Jewish Influence in Germany

and Hitler’s Reaction

An extract from Schonere Zukunft of November 13th, 1927, from the pen of Dr. Joseph Eberle, will show the extent of Jewish control of German life. Schonere Zukunft is a splendid Viennese Catholic weekly directed by Dr. Eberle:

“Today, Catholics are almost completely silent about the question of Judaism, though Jewish influence, not only in Russia, Hungary, Poland, France, England, America, and Austria, but also in Germany, has attained a degree of power and might, altogether out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total populations of these countries. Three-fourths of the large banking concerns, at the head of which we must place the four big D-Banks—Deutsche Bank, Darmstadter Bank, Diskonto-Gesellschaft, and Dresdener Bank,—three-fourths of the big exchanges, including those of Berlin, Frankfort, and Hamburg, three-fourths of the principal commercial enterprises, including those of Karstadt, Tietz, and Werheim, three-fourths of the leading newspapers, of the publishing firms, of the telegraphic and advertising agencies, of the groups controlling theaters and cinemas, are Jewish. In Austria, matters are still worse. Of course, there are still many non-Jewish industrial magnates, but they are becoming more and more subservient to banks directed by Jews. There are certainly still to be found rich landed proprietors and wealthy financiers who are Christians, but so far as the direction of economic affairs is concerned, they are without influence, in comparison with Jewish financial magnates, such as Charles Fürstenberg, Dr. Solmssen, Mammroth, Bleichroder, Speyer-Ellissen, Sobernheim, Iandu, Arnhold, Dr. Solamonsohn, Eugen Gutman, Von Straus, Kempner, Freiherr von Oppenheim, Warburg, etc. There are still influential Catholic publishing firms, but even firms like those of Herder and Kosel-Pustet are much inferior to the Jewish publishing firms of Ullstein, Mosse, Cassirer, E. Goldschmidt, etc. There are certainly many non-Jewish writers, nevertheless we learn from statistics of the publishing business that, in Germany, foreign and Jewish authors are more widely read than German and Christian authors, so that Borries von Munchausen speaks of the passing of the German soul. It can be established also that the best known non-Jewish men of letters, as for example Gerhart Hauptmann and Sudermann, owe their literary success to their friendliness towards Judaism. Such are the intellectual and economic power and influence of Jews in Germany today. And yet Catholics in great measure keep silence about the matter. This silence is, in part, due to ignorance, especially in the provinces. But it is also due to an already existing dependence on Jews. Three-fourths of the Christian newspapers would be reduced to two-thirds or even one-half of their present size, if they were compelled to give up the advertisements of Jewish shops and banks, and Jewish advertisements would not be forthcoming if the Jewish question were treated of.”

Now the movement which centers round the figure of Hitler has reacted against the state of affairs outlined by Dr. Eberle. The Jewish claim to be the race and nation destined by God to mold other nations—this is the metaphysically necessary significance of their looking forward to another Messias—has led to a partial conflict. The conflict is, however, not so serious as a great portion of the press of the world would have us believe. Mr. H. Belloc writes as follows in G.K.’s Weekly (May 18th, 1933):

“I do not think that the way in which the Jews have been treated by Prussia, abominable as it is, will lead to any particularly bad consequences for Prussia itself. I think that if Prussia gets into trouble, it will be through her own grotesquely swollen head and her consequent total misunderstanding of her true position among national forces today. Already I see the Jews throughout the press of the world making excuses for Prussia; and I note that no great Jewish banker has suffered at the hands of the Prussians—which is significant! I also note that the great Frankfort paper which is the chief expression of Jewish policy in Europe welcomes the new Prussian regime.”

But the Hitlerian movement has not only come into conflict with the international naturalism of the Jewish nation, but also with the supranational supernaturalism of the Catholic Church. What, then, are the forces behind the movement? An extract from the R.I.S.S. (Revue Internationale des Sociitis Secrètes) of June 1st, 1933, pp. 333–335, will help us to get some idea of them. The article in question runs as follows:

“Prussian Freemasonry rules in Germany with the triumph of the National Socialism of Hitler. The three Grand Lodges of Prussia had already made clear their aims in the following Declaration adopted on February 16th, 1924, by the assembly of the Prussian Grand-masters: ‘The National Grand Lodge ‘‘At the Three Globes,” the National Grand Lodge of the Freemasons in Germany, and the Prussian Grand Lodge “Friendship,” declare that they stand for a German and Christian view of the world. …We insist on these convictions as well as upon the respect of the rights of others, because we are persuaded that there is no universal humanitarian ideal and that, just as every personality has its root in race, only boundless love and fidelity to one’s race can develop personality; and that, in a community aiming at the realization of humanitarian ideals, it is indispensable to have fundamental unity of outlook and conviction, not only from the national but also from the religious point of view.’ Thus, in 1924, Prussian Freemasonry separated itself from World-Masonry. As Oswald Wirth very accurately noted, Prussian Freemasonry abandoned the ideal of Anderson’s Constitutions for that of a narrow Germanism. It must be admitted today (1933) that the aim which Prussian Freemasonry set itself in 1924 has been realized. …It has transformed itself into orders of chivalry. In the letter addressed by the National Grand Lodge ‘At the Three Globes,’ to the Minister for Home Affairs, Frick, we read:

“‘We have transformed the National Grand Lodge “At the Three Globes,” founded by Frederick the Great in 1740, into the national Christian Order of Frederick the Great. To realize a complete internal transformation necessarily involving the total severing of the links still existing with Masonic Associations, the imposition of the obligation of German racial origin for the members, the suppression of the secret with regard to the ceremonial and the disappearance of the words “Freemason” and “Lodge,” the order has adopted an entirely new constitution. The reconstruction of the two other Grand Lodges will follow the same lines. The Grand Lodge of the Freemasons of Germany will be known in future as the “German Christian Order of the Templars.” The Prussian Grand Lodge “Friendship” will select its new title next Saturday.’

“The National Christian Order published the following declaration: ‘The character of the Order is determined by the complete transformation of its organization and of its regulations. The ideals which inspire the order are German Christianity, German Nationality, German Work. This is made clear in the preamble to the new constitutions of the Order.’

“The Order professes a German Christianity with which the old Aryan cult of our ancestors has many points in common. The symbols of the Order are Light and the Cross. The Order professes an ideal of pure Germanic Racial Nationality. The chosen symbols of this ideal are the hammer of Thor and the knightly sword.

“The Order believes in the upward march of the German people by German work.

“At the same time, the Nazis suppress all the other lodges. The humanitarian lodges, etc., disappear from the scene.” Freemasonry means pantheism and the deification of man. Here we see that Hitlerism is supported by Prussian Freemasonry, which is tantamount to the deification of the German Race under the hegemony of Prussia. To a certain extent then, the Hitlerian reaction against Jewish domination represents the deification of the German Race in opposition to the deification of the Jewish Race.

Thanks to the efforts of international finance and international Masonry, Prussia with Berlin as capital, ousted Austria with its brilliant capital, Vienna, from the leadership of the German-speaking peoples. Cardinal Richelieu’s policy during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) prepared the way; Frederick the Great, that cynical, conscienceless ruler, carried on the work. International Finance and International Masonry then brought about the birth of the German Empire of the Hohenzollern, which grouped a large number of German-speaking Catholics under the hegemony of Prussia. The Nazi movement is now endeavoring to bring the rest of the German-speaking Catholics under the same rule, in the name of the naturalistic principle of race.

By a decree issued by Hitler on January 31st, 1934, A. Rosenberg, deputy, was given the charge of controlling the intellectual and philosophical formation of the Nazi party. A few weeks later Rosenberg’s book, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, was placed on the Index. The following extract will serve to show the spirit of the book: “We see today that the negative Christianity of the Roman Church and the Protestant Church do not any longer correspond to the needs of our soul. Their ideals stand in the way of the organic forces of the Nordic peoples and they must give way.” At the same time a book by Professor Bergmann, The German National Church, was also placed on the Index. One extract from this work will show the character of the Hitlerian movement in its true light: “We, Germans, are looking for a German religion. That we may not perish through our intestinal warfare, we are returning to our natural Gods in a new and nobler guise. We reject the alien God who deceived us and did not save us from the disaster of 1918, as well as the corresponding doctrine of a false redemption. In a word, we want a German National Church, in which the twenty-nine sectional Protestant Churches and the German Catholic Church, if we can succeed in detaching it from Roman Catholicism, shall be amalgamated in the Church of the German Reich, just as in Bismarck’s time the German tribes were united in the Reich.”[2] The German Race is God.

From an article by H. Belloc in G.K.’s Weekly, February 8th, 1934, we learn that the English and American governments, supported by the French Anti-Clericals, notably the Freemason, Clemenceau, refused to allow a Catholic South Germany and a Rhineland State (also predominantly Catholic) to arise. The work of the Freemason Bismarck was not to be undone. Now Catholic Austria is to be incorporated.

Statement in Pastoral Letter of Austrian Hierarchy

(Extract from The Clergy Review, February, 1934, p. 173)

After referring to the “mission of Austria in the Kingdom of God on earth,” the episcopal letter goes on to praise the government of Dr. Dollfuss on the grounds that it has suppressed public dangers, given protection to public morality, taken steps to meet social distress and to look after the welfare of youth, re-Christianized public life, introduced a social corporative order, revived the religious spirit of the schools, embarked on a new Constitution, reorganized the army in a Christian spirit and negotiated the Concordat.

The most striking part of the Pastoral Letter deals with what its authors call “Four fundamental truths,” which are set forth as follows:

1.  Mankind is one family built upon justice and love. Therefore, we condemn racial obsession which leads to racial hatred and conflict. Likewise, to be condemned, is the sterilization law, as it is contrary both to Catholic law and to nature.

2.  True Christian nationalism is of God and the Church; and love of one’s people and country is ingrained in the nature of man. We preach the virtue of Christian patriotism and we condemn treason against one’s country; and we also condemn radical, racial anti-Semitism.

3.  Nation and State are different, and the State is above the Nation. Therefore, we condemn extreme nationalistic principles, defend the historic rights of our country, and favor the cultivation of the Austrian conception.

4.  Over and above nationalism is religion, which is supernatural, and ennobles every nation.

Every nation can be elevated by religion, and religion is not restricted to certain peoples, but is a message of salvation to all nations. (Cf. Judaism, Christianity and Germany, by Card. Faulhaber)

Holy Father’s Message

In the Sovereign Pontiff’s heartening Easter (1934) message to German Catholic Youth we read: “In spite of propaganda filled with plausible appeals, and in spite of the pressure put upon you to accept a new view of life which leads away from Christ and back to heathenism, you have stood fast in love and fealty to your Savior. By so doing your allegiance is all the firmer to your Home and Country, which you so much wish to serve.” The Holy Father goes on to say: ‘‘Know that your cause is also Our cause,” and adds, “In paternal love We lead you beneath that Cross of Jesus Christ which burns upon your banners.” (The Tablet, April 7th, 1934, p. 426) Cf. Pastoral Letter of German Bishops, August, 1934.

Germany and the Jews by Nesta H. Webster

The attitude of the British press towards the present regime in Germany offers much of interest and not a little humor. Only two months ago the anti-French and pro-German campaign was in full blast throughout this country; at any moment, we were led to believe, the sabots—to revert to Mr. Lloyd George’s graceful simile—might again descend on the defenseless body of Germany and its mild and peace-loving people be driven into war by the provocative attitude of France or Poland.

Those of us who declined to view the Germans as quite the woolly lambs they were represented by the protagonists, who, on the contrary, saw them as an intensely patriotic race, with many virtues, but with an inherent love of warfare, and prone to a violence foreign to our nature, were sternly silenced. No, the only people likely to disturb the peace of Europe were the hysterical, the intractable, the jingoistic French!

But now, all at once, a change has come over the spirit of the dream. The columns of the press are filled with denunciations of German brutality and German violence. The menace of Hitlerism has replaced the menace of French militarism.

What has happened to bring about this volte-face? Has Germany, in a fit of frenzy, torn up the Treaty of Versailles? Has the Reichswehr invaded Belgium or the Graf Zeppelin dropped bombs on the inhabitants of Paris? Worse, far worse! Germany has dared to “discriminate” against the Jews!

It is not a case of ill-treatment, still less of pogroms, which would naturally be abhorrent to every humane mind. Such acts of violence as have been committed were shown to have been isolated incidents which any time of upheaval is liable to produce. In these the government of Germany does not seem to have been more responsible than was the British government for the recent mobbing by Jews of a peaceful German citizen in the streets of London—an incident which was not recorded in our press. Already the accusation of atrocities has been acknowledged by influential bodies of Jews to have been grossly exaggerated, and “persecution” is shown to have taken mainly the form of “discrimination” and a one-day boycott.

In what does this discrimination consist? Briefly, in a policy of “Germany for the Germans.” We, who have consistently advocated a “Britain for the British,” can hardly cavil at this.

Whilst resolutely opposing the principle of Deutschland über Alles as applied to the world in general, we cannot dispute Germany’s right to adopt it within her own borders. “Discrimination,” therefore, apparently resolves itself into this: that Hitler has decided that German influences shall prevail in public life, and that Germans should be given the preference in the matter of employment by setting up a quota of Jews who may hold posts in proportion to the numbers of the Jewish population. For years we have been told of the distress prevailing amongst the German professional classes since the war, yet when Hitler adopts this very obvious remedy a howl of execration goes up from the so-called “friends of Germany” in our midst. It is evident now where their real sympathies lie.

As to the one day boycott, this was calculated to draw attention to the principle advocated in our own country under the slogan of “Buy British,” by which native industry is to be encouraged.

Those of us in England who have been subjected for years to a real boycott, organized by Jews, so that our writings are denied mention in leading organs of the press, our voices, raised in defense of our empire, unable to make themselves heard through the medium of the so-called “British” B.C., can hardly be expected to shed tears over this turning of the tables. As natives of a country where anyone who has ever ventured to oppose Jewish interests finds himself ostracized and his career ruined, or at best declared to be insane—a policy, by the way, adopted with regard to Hitler, who in 1923 was announced by the Jewish press to be incarcerated in an asylum as a hopeless lunatic!—we, who are under a dictatorship quite as rigorous as that of Hitler or of Mussolini, find it difficult not to envy a country where patriotism is an asset and not an obstacle to advancement in literary or political life.

The best answer Hitler can make to his denouncers is to refer them to Colonel Lane’s The Alien Menace, boycotted by the press for showing the extent of the penetration and corruption caused by the flood of undesirable aliens who have found refuge here. If Hitler desires to rid his own country of these elements is he to be blamed? If he determines to purge it from the poison of Marxism is he not to be applauded? For it must not be forgotten that in Germany, as everywhere else in the East of Europe, the Communists being predominantly Jewish, suppressing Communism necessarily involves taking action against a number of Jews. Are these people to be immune simply because they are Jews? Hitler certainly does not think so, and the fight against Communism is being carried on with characteristic German thoroughness. The raid on “Karl Liebknecht House” must have dealt a terrible blow to Soviet intrigue. (The Patriot, April 13th, 1933)

The Visa of Professor Einstein

Professor Einstein has informed the world, through the press, of his difficulty in getting an American visa in Berlin, owing to the U.S. Consul having been warned that he is an undesirable alien by the American Women’s Patriotic Association. In the end the professor got his visa, and chuckled over the fact that the sentries of America had not given heed to “the wise, patriotic ladies,” but had forgotten the occasion when “the Capitol of mighty Rome was once saved by the cackling of its faithful geese.” The fact is that the patriotic American women had as substantial a reason for giving warning as had the Roman geese. The Patriot has given many instances in which Americans had as much right to object to the meddling of Professor Einstein in revolutionary movements on his visits to the U.S. as we have to protest against the Bolshevik finger in the preparation of revolution by British Communists. Below will be found a few extracts from the formal charge put before the Visa Division of the Department of State, Washington, by the “Woman Patriot Corporation.” In this charge there is a summary of all the existing Mandatory Alien Exclusive laws. Among the classes of objectionable aliens are:

“Anarchists or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force and violence of the government. … Or who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government. …The burden of proof shall be upon any alien to establish that he is not subject to exclusion under any provision of the immigration laws.”

Some of the specific objections by patriotic Americans to the politico-scientific professor are:

“Albert Einstein believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches a doctrine which, in a legal sense, as held by the courts in other cases, ‘would allow anarchy to stalk in unmolested’ and result in ‘government only in name.’

“He advises, advocates, or teaches, and is a member of and affiliated with groups that are in ‘militant’ and admittedly ‘illegal’ opposition to the most fundamental principle of organized government.

“He believes in or is affiliated with Communist groups that advocate the overthrow by force of the government of the United States; he advocates ‘acts of rebellion’ against the basic principle of all organized government that it may defend its existence and compel obedience to its laws by force of arms; he advocates ‘conflict with public authority’; admits that his ‘attitude is revolutionary’; that his purpose is ‘illegal,’ and that he intends to organize and lead, and collect money for and contribute money to a ‘militant opposition.’ …He teaches and leads and organizes a movement for unlawful ‘individual resistance’ and ‘acts of rebellion’ against officers of the United States in time of war, and which, on the part of participants in such unlawful and ‘revolutionary’ ‘combat,’ ‘conflict,’ or ‘rebellion’ (as Albert Einstein himself names his objectives) must promote treason, desertion, or other ‘crimes against the existence of the government’; he believes in or advocates a system of organized sabotage against all preparations of the United States to defend its existence, and the unlawful destruction of necessary means for such defense.

“…It is not necessary to prove the alien guilty of any criminal or other offence, or of any overt act. It is enough if his beliefs, opinions, or affiliations show him to be among any one of the several classes of aliens that ‘shall be excluded from admission into the United States.’

“Albert Einstein is a member of or affiliated with at least three organizations or groups that believe in, advocate, teach, and publish Anarchist and Communist doctrines, namely,

“(1) The World Congress Against Imperialist War—characterized even by European Socialist leaders as ‘a Communist plot’—in which 800 Communist delegates took part and in which ‘Marcel Cachin, Communist member of the French Chamber of Deputies, and Willi Munzenberg, Communist deputy to the German Reichstag, put forth most effectively and dramatically the Communist program of action against war.’

“He is on the ‘World Committee’ of the above Communist Congress, his name heading the list of German members, followed by that of Clara Zetkin, Willi Munzenberg, and other notorious Communist leaders. (See the Daily Worker, official American Communist organ, October 11th, 1932)

“The ‘manifesto’ of the above Congress declares that ‘each of us’ and ‘altogether’ they have pledged and sworn themselves ‘…to fight with all our force and with all the means at our command against imperialist capitalism…against armaments, against war preparations, and in consequence against the governments ruling us.’

“He is also one of the leaders of the World Congress of the Anti-Imperialist League—a subsidized affiliate of the Communist International—that met at Frankfort, Germany, 20th July, 1929, and his picture was featured among such leaders of that Communist Congress.

“(2) The Workers International Relief—This organization is a well-known affiliate and creature of the Communist International. The contribution of money, ‘or anything of value to any organization’ of this class, constitutes affiliation, under the statute, with the Workers International Relief, and therefore with its affiliate, the Communist International. (See Kjar v. Doak, p. 6)

“Einstein, 1st March, 1931, wrote to the Workers International Relief, American section: ‘The work of your organization has the highest importance in a country in which the individual is so insufficiently protected.’

“(3) The War Resisters’ International—This organization or group, with which Albert Einstein is enthusiastically affiliated, openly admits and proclaims affiliation with Anarchist as well as Communist groups…and, under the law and the decision in the Kjar case cited, Einstein’s affiliation with the War Resisters’ International constitutes affiliation with its affiliates.

“In the list of ‘affiliated sections’ of the War Resisters International at least three ‘Anarcho-Socialist’and ‘Anarcho-Communist’ affiliations are admitted.

“…‘I shall expect to have thousands of responses to this appeal. They should be addressed to me at the headquarters of the War Resisters International, 11 Abbey Road, Enfield, Middlesex, England. To enable this great effort to be carried through effectively, I have authorized the establishment of the “Einstein War Resisters International Fund.” Contributions to this fund should be sent to the treasurer of the W.R.I., 11 Abbey Road, Enfield, Middlesex, England. (Signed) Albert Einstein.’ “The League of Nations Chronicle, published at Chicago, for March, 1931, contains the following report of Einstein’s address to 400 ‘peace advocates’ at Chicago: ‘No one mentioned relativity. …Militant opposition to militarism was his keynote. …‘It is my conviction that the only way is actual refusal of military service,’ he said. …‘What I propose is illegal, but whenever a government demands criminal actions from its citizens, they have a very real right to oppose it, and we must uphold them.’” (The Patriot, December 22nd, 1932)

An Open Letter to Mr. Samuel Untermeyer

Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, Executive Officer,

World Jewish Economic Federation.

On last Sunday, August 6th, through your broadcast over Station W.A.B.C. New York, and on the following day through the press, we are informed that under your leadership a World Jewish Economic Federation was organized at Amsterdam, one of the main purposes of which is to engage in an economic boycott of Germany. In your address you urge that I join your movement: “Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this Sacred War, should do so now and here.”

Before doing so I should like to assure myself that you are really leading the world in what is in fact and reality a Sacred War.

Memories of the vast amount of false propaganda with which we were gorged in the name of justice and humanity, to make the world safe for democracy, in the name of a Sacred War, to terminate all war, memories of the massed anti-German propaganda, which even the authors now admit to have been created to further the holy (?) cause, still linger in the minds of some of us. Your own address, indeed, vividly recalls many similar-worded sweeping, tearful appeals of the world war period and suggests the advisability of cautious investigation before hasty action, which your address counsels.

As a Gentile, as a Christian and as a Catholic may I request of you, as one of the outstanding responsible organizers and executive officers of this World Jewish Economic Federation, information on the following issues:

1.  Can you guarantee that your Federation will not be used to promote policies and ends that are inimical to Christian civilization, or that will frustrate the extension of the social reign of Jesus Christ so ardently advocated by His Holiness Pope Pius XI?

2.  Will you, as leading member of the executive of this World Jewish Economic Federation, exert your full influence to have this economic boycott include not only Germany, but Mexico, Spain, and the Russian Soviet Republics, in view of the brutal and outrageous persecution that Catholics and other Christians are experiencing in these countries?

3.  Can you secure from your international Jewish compatriot and fellow member of the World Jewish Economic Federation, Mr. Litvinoff, Foreign Minister of the Russian Confederated Soviet Republics, assurance from his Communistic government of a guarantee of the right of religious liberty for Catholics and other Christian denominations, as well as restoration of the many thousands of Catholic churches, convents, colleges, schools and other institutions confiscated, besides compensation for the many hundreds of millions of church and other properties destroyed, as also adequate reparation for the lives of many thousands of bishops and priests and the billion odd lay men and women wantonly and brutally murdered because of their religion?

You make a sweeping but unsubstantiated charge that on “an investigation into the facts, the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale in significance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal and law-abiding people … for the Jews are the aristocrats of the world.”

Can you also furnish me with definite and accurate information on the following points:

1.  As to the number of Jewish rabbis, if any, that have been murdered in Germany by the National-Socialist government, the number of synagogues that have been confiscated and destroyed, and the actual number of Jewish synagogues that are at present permitted to hold religious services?

2.  As to whether the wireless to the Jewish owned daily, The New York Times, of May 23rd, 1933, records facts when it states that in the annual election of the officers of the world-renowned “Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Sciences,” which had expelled Einstein because of his alliance with Communistic Russia, “three persons of the Jewish faith were re-elected” on May 23rd to the governing Board, and that this society pledged itself “ready to co-operate joyously in the reconstruction of the new National State”?

3.  As to whether one may credit the wireless of the New York Times special correspondent from Frankfort-on-Main of June 19th that “Jewish shops are as well patronized as ever. They sell brown shirts at reduced prices. …

“The Jews of the possessing classes are inclined to regard their sufferings under Hitler as the lesser of two evils. Whatever the fact there is no doubt Germany was convinced she was on the verge of Bolshevism. The fear of Communism, now subsiding, amounted to national hysteria.

“One is a director of a great bank, in himself proof that the proposal to remove Jews from all directorates is already scrapped. The banker was depressed and reserved, but insistent that outside interference only aggravated the situation.”

4.  Is it true that Dr. Rose Nellor, novelist and playwright, who is now undergoing sentence of six months heavy penal servitude, having confessed and been convicted by the Vienna Courts of having staged an “Attempted Nazi Assassination” in order to denounce the German Nazis, is a Jewess? The Associated Press despatch from Vienna, May 20th, carries the following report of the case: “Slashing herself four times with a knife, it was charged, she called police and told them the wounds were inflicted by a young Nazi. She presented a list of Viennese Jews, apparently targets for attack, which she said the youths had left behind. Later, police said, she confessed that the wounds were self-inflicted, and that the list of names was written on her own typewriter.”

5.  Is it true that a considerable number of the leaders and members of the German Communistic Party, which polled at the National election in July, 1933, over 6,000,000 votes, are Jews?

6.  Is it true that ten days prior to this election, Chancellor Von Papen found it necessary to arrest the Chief Commissioner of Police and two of his assistants and to reorganize the Berlin Police Force as well as to assume the Dictatorship of Prussia, in an effort to forestall a revolution in Germany?

7.  Is it true that the headquarters of Communistic World Militant Atheists and of the Communistic Terror Troops were, until routed out by the German government, located on Grenadier Strasse in the heart of the Berlin Jewish colony?

8.  Is the statement of Rev. Karl H. Von Wiegand reliable, that during the past year “150 Protestant preachers, including myself, have become Socialists,” and, furthermore, that “the Socialist German Free Thinker (Atheistic) Society had, until dissolved recently by the Hitler government, 6,000,000 paying members, 2,000 branches, 21 offices, and a fortnightly newspaper with 400,000 circulation”?

9.  Is it true that, after Hitler’s overwhelming victory at the poll in March of this year, “the Kommintern issued orders to its members to close ranks with the Second International, which until then they had fought most fiercely, in common opposition to German Fascism”?

10.  Can you inform me as to how many members of the Kommintern are Jews? Is the statement exaggerated that “of the 545 officials of the Soviet regime 447 members, or 83% of the total, are Jews”? Can you furnish me the exact data?

11.  Is it true that Yaroslavsky-Goubelman, the head of the Soviet-Atheistic Propaganda Bureau and the author of the Anti-Religious Front, is a Jew?

12.  Is it true that Trotsky, Kerensky, Lenin, Zinovieff, Kameneff, Litvinoff and most of the other leaders of the Russian Bolshevistic Anti-Christian revolution were Jews?

13.  Is it true that the universally recognized apostle of Communism and anti-religious Socialism, Karl Marx, the author of Das Kapital, was a German Jew?

14.  Is it true that Freud, who Papini states “glories in the well-deserved reputation of a scavenger of souls,” the apostle of the modern sex cult and nudism and the founder of the modem pseudo-scientific humbug Freudianism, is an Austro-German Jew?

15.  Is it true that the foremost exponent of Atheism, author of The Anti-Christ, who blatantly boasts of “the debauchery of the Christian religion,” and characterizes as “the most harmful vice, pity shown to the misbegotten and feeble Christianity,” Nietzsche, is a German Jew?

16.  Is it true that Einstein, the Jewish scientist on whom was conferred honorary German citizenship by being voted membership in the German Academy of Sciences, is a Socialist and a member of the Communistic International Red Relief, an organization which uses its funds for the propagation of Communism among the working-classes? According to the statement of the Executive Committee of the Communistic Kommintern, “The end of this revolutionary relief organization for the aggressive proletariat is the establishment throughout the whole world of the Communistic regime. This is the principal end, for the relief to the revolutionists is only secondary.”

17.  Is the report true that Joseph Schiff, former president of the International Jewish banking firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of New York, “presented Lenin with one million dollars to finance Atheistic Communism”?

18.  Is it true that Bela Kun, who staged the red terroristic revolution in March, 1919, in Budapest, Hungary, and through which Catholic churches, convents and other religious institutions suffered so terribly, and who was, according to recent Associated Press reports, arrested, disguised when attempting, with faked passports, to pass into Austria for the purpose of establishing a new European center of Communistic revolution, that this same Bela Kun is of Jewish nationality?

19.  Is it true that Kurt Eisner, whose monument in Munich was recently demolished by order of the National Socialist government and his disinterred remains turned over to the Jewish synagogue for disposal, was, with six other Jews—Levin, Landauer, Sontheiner, Toller, Levin and Mukam—the leader of the Communistic revolution which controlled Bavaria at the end of the World War?

20.  Is the press report correct that the perpetrator of the recent Holy Year bombing outrage of St. Peter’s Church in the Vatican City was a Spanish Jew named Salomon?

21.  Is the statement of Leon Blum made to the Zionist Congress at Zurich, Switzerland, true, that “Judaism finds its highest and final expression in Socialism”?

22.  Is the press report contained in the March 28th issue of the New York Herald Tribune correct, that, in the monster Jewish meeting held in Madison Square Garden on the previous evening, Bishop Manning “was greeted with wild applause when he entered the Garden, but when he condemned the persecution of Soviet Russia he was vigorously booed by his hearers”?

23.  Is it true that Bishop Gfoellner, of Linz, Austria, in a pastoral letter issued this year, while condemning all class, racial and national hatreds, states that “the international Jewish spirit is altogether different from the Jewish nationality and the Jewish religion. It is incontestable that a number of Jews devoid of all religion exercise a supremely pernicious influence in all the domains of modern civilization. … To combat and destroy this pernicious influence of Judaism is for all sincere Christians not only a legitimate right but an imperious conscientious duty”?

24.  How are we to reconcile with your statements the recent editorial of the Catholic Times, London, England, which states: “We hold no brief for persecution but, is it quite certain that the alleged Nazi persecution of the Jews is quite what it is made out to be? We cannot easily forget the part played by international Jewry in the present state of world distress. Nor can we overlook the fact the Jews are back of much of the present propaganda of irreligion and immodesty, two of the Atheistic Communism’s main lines of attack on that civilization which Herr Hitler, for all his faults, has sworn to uphold. When Signor Mussolini set about rebuilding Italy, one of the first great actions he deemed necessary was to crush the power of Jewish Freemasonry, and among the first he sent packing was the infamous Nathan, the Jew Freemason Mayor of Rome. If the Jews find themselves beneath the same heel that has set out to crush Communism, who is to blame?”

Donald A. MacLean, M.A., S.T.L., Ph.D., Professor of Social and Political Ethics, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

August 11th, 1933.

(The Catholic Gazette, December, 1933)

Appendix IV

Spain

The Masonic Origin of the Spanish Republic

At the banquet which brought to an end the proceedings of the Convention of the Grand Lodge of France in 1931, Brother Mateo Barroso, Chancellor of the Supreme (Masonic) Council of Spain, spoke as follows: “I salute you cordially and fraternally in the name of the Supreme Council of Spain. It has been said that Spanish Masonry was weak. Yet you see that we have the Republic already. We have besides—and you may not be aware of these details—six Masons as ministers, twenty Masons in important official positions and more than one hundred and twenty Masons as deputies to the Constituent Assembly. You see our ‘feeble’ Masonry has been at work and has succeeded in creating a democratic and republican consciousness. I may tell you that Spanish Masonry is striving for universal peace and is taking an active part in the work of the League of Nations.”[3]

In the article of the Swiss review Nova et Vetera, which has been quoted in the text, we also read: “The revolutionaries of Jaca had drawn up a Provisional government which comprised eight militant Freemasons: Indalecio Prieto, Alejandro Lerroux, Fernando de los Rios, Manuel Azana, Alvaro de Albornoz, Largo Caballero, Martinez Barrios.”

The R.I.S.S. has given the name of Marcelino Domingo as that of another Mason, as well as the name of Emilio Palomo, the civil Governor of Madrid.

It is of even still greater interest, however, to learn that Zamora and de los Rios are descendants of “Marranos.” L’Univers Israélite of May 15th, 1931, boasts of this. The “Marranos,” it must be remembered, are those Jews who, under cover of conversion to Catholicism, continued to remain faithful to the spirit of the Talmud. In these facts, we may see at least a partial explanation of the coincidences that the Jews are being welcomed back to Spain, while the Jesuits are being expelled. By a communication of the Kipa (Catholic) Agency we are informed that a Jewish leader named Rubenstein, returning to the United States after having interviewed the Jewish vice-president of the Spanish senate, A. Pulido, about the outlook for the Jews in republican Spain, declared that “the Jews can look with confidence on Spain as a land of new hopes and bright prospects.” Ten million dollars are to be collected for the Jews who are to settle in Spain. It is certainly striking that, when a number of nominal Catholics are attacking and persecuting the faithful Catholics, Jewish prospects should be so bright. We need not be surprised, however, to read in the Irish Independent of May 22nd, 1931, that “a big petrol deal has been concluded between Spain and Russia. Under conditions which will mean a saving to her of 200,000,000 pesetas, approximately £4,000,000, Spain is to resume purchases of petrol and oil from Soviet Russia. …The Soviet terms are understood to include prices which show a reduction of 18%.” Thus we have the modern equivalent of the thirty pieces of silver mentioned on a certain well-known occasion in the Gospel.

A communication recently appeared in the press (this is written at the end of June, 1933), to the effect that F. de los Rios was studying the question of the recognition of the Soviet Republic by the Spanish Republic. And so the game goes merrily on!

Once set up, the Masonic State always places itself above the Catholic Church and puts the Mystical Body of Christ on the same level as all man-made religions. It usually inaugurates its rule by an attack on the religious orders of the Catholic Church, in order to destroy those bulwarks of the divine life in a country. We see both those principles illustrated in the law called “The Religious Denominations (Confessions) and Congregations Law,” promulgated in Spain on June 2nd, 1933.

The following English translation of that iniquitous measure is taken from the Boston Pilot of July 15th, 1933:

Preliminary Section

“Article 1. The present Religious Confessions and Congregations Law enacted for the enforcement of Articles 26 and 27 of the Constitution of the Spanish Republic, shall be the regime in this matter throughout Spanish territory and every subsequent regulation of the same matter, whether by decree or regulation, shall be strictly in accord therewith.

Section I

Concerning Liberty of

Conscience and of Worship

“Article 2. In accordance with the Constitution, the liberty of conscience and of the practice or abstention from the practice of religious activities, are guaranteed in Spain.

“No privilege nor any Restriction of rights can be based on religious conditions or beliefs, excepting in so far as is provided in Articles 70 and 87 of the Constitution.

“Article 3. The State has no official religion. All confessions can exercise worship freely within their temples. To exercise worship outside these, special governmental authorization will be required in each case.

“Religious meetings and manifestations may not have a political character, no matter what may be the place in which they are held.

“The symbols, signs, announcements or emblems on buildings devoted to worship shall be subject to the general police regulations.

“Article 4. The State will concede to individuals belonging to the armed institutions the necessary permissions to comply with their religious duties, provided this does not injure the service.

“Further, the State may authorize the rendering of religious services in its several dependencies when the same is petitioned for by the interested parties and is justified by the occasion.

Section II

Concerning the Juridical

Position of Religious Confessions

“Article 5. All religious confessions will have the rights and obligations established in this Section.

“Article 6. The State recognizes in all the members and entities which hierarchically are comprised in religious confessions, personality and competence in accordance with the internal regime of the confession, in accordance with the present law.

“Article 7. Religious confessions will freely appoint all the ministers, administrators and dignitaries to ecclesiastical posts and functions, and they have to be Spaniards.

“Regardless of the provision of the antecedent paragraph, the State reserves to itself the right to veto appointments made under authority of the antecedent disposition, if the appointment goes to a person who, by his conduct in office, is found to be dangerous to the order or the security of the State.

“Article 8. Religious confessions shall freely ordain their own internal regimen and shall apply their own rules to those elements comprised in it, without juridical transcendency other than that they be compatible with the laws and not in prejudice of the sovereignty of the State.

“Article 9. Every alteration of the territorial boundaries of the Catholic Church will have to be made known to the government before it can be effective.

“Other confessions will be obliged to communicate to the government boundaries which they intend to establish or may have established in Spain, as well as alterations of these, subject to the provisions of the antecedent paragraph.

“Article 10. The State, the regions, the provinces and the municipalities cannot maintain, favor or assist economically any churches, associations or religious institutions, in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.

Section III

Concerning Control of Property

of Religious Confessions

“Article 11. Temples of all kinds with their annexed buildings, episcopal palaces and rectories with their gardens annexed or not; seminaries, monasteries, and other buildings devoted to the service of the Catholic cult or of its ministers belong to the national public property. Furniture, vestments, images, pictures, vases, jewels, cloths, and all other objects of this kind installed in the temples and devoted expressly and permanently to the Catholic cult, to its splendor or to necessities directly related to it, are subject to the same conditions.

“The houses and any rights relating to them, referred to in the antecedent paragraph, remain under the safeguard of the State as the juridical personification of the nation to which they belong and shall be subject to rules established by the following articles.

“Article 12. The houses and rights referred to in the antecedent article will continue to be devoted to the same religious need of the Catholic cult, and for this purpose will continue in the possession of the Catholic Church for their conservation, administration, and use, each in accordance with its own nature and the purpose to which it is devoted. The Church cannot dispose of these and is limited to their use only for the purpose for which they are recorded.

“The State alone, when justified by reasons of public necessity and authorized by a special law, can dispose of these goods for any purpose other than that stated in the antecedent paragraph.

“Buildings annexed to the temples, episcopal palaces, and rectories, with their gardens annexed or not; seminaries and all other buildings devoted to the services of the ministers of the Catholic cult shall be subject to contributions inherent in their use.

“Article 13. The things to which the foregoing articles refer, until the special law provided for has been promulgated, shall be inalienable and imprescriptible (not subject to the statute of limitations), and no encumbrance can be placed upon them which is not compatible with the purpose to which they are devoted or the condition under which they are held.

“Article 14. Before the special law referred to in Article 12 shall be promulgated, a hearing should be organized at which the representatives of the Catholic Church will be heard regarding the procedure to be adopted for placing articles devoted to cult at the disposition of the Administration.

“Article 15. Houses and rights which, without being comprised among those stated in Article 11, may also be considered as ecclesiastical properties, shall have the character of goods which may be privately owned.

“In any case of doubt, the Minister for Justice will provide for a hearing in which will be heard the representative of the Catholic Church and the person who alleges that he is the owner of the goods. Authority to decide after the hearing in each case resides in the government and shall be subject to appeal to the Administrative Board of Claims (contencioso-administrativo).

“Article 16. The State, by a special law in each case, can cede, fully or with limitation, to the Catholic Church any things and rights comprised in Article 11, which, because of their lack of value, or of artistic interest, or of historic importance, it is not deemed necessary to conserve as belonging to the national patrimony.

“The law will state the conditions of the cession.

“The maintenance and conservation of anything ceded in this manner shall remain wholly a charge against the Church.

“Temples and buildings, precious objects, or artistic or historical treasures stored in these, for the service, the splendor, or the support of worship can in no case be ceded.

“These things, although they continue to be devoted to cult in accordance with the provisions of Article 12, shall be conserved and maintained by the State as a part of the national artistic treasure.

“Article 17. Goods and objects which constitute the national artistic treasure are declared to be inalienable, whether they are devoted to public worship or not, even though they belong to ecclesiastical entities.

“The said objects will be kept in a place accessible to the public. The ecclesiastical authorities will give all the facilities compatible with the safeguarding of their custodianship, for the examination and study of these articles.

“Any transfer of these objects from one place to another shall be reported to the Board of Defense of the National Artistic Treasure.

“Article 18. The State will stimulate the establishment of museums by ecclesiastical entities, lending the technical advice and the police protection required for the guardianship of the national artistic treasure.

“It can further dispose of any article whatever belonging to the national artistic treasure which is preserved in the museums just mentioned.

“The Board for the Conservation of the National Artistic Treasure will proceed at once with the cataloging of all objects which constitute the national artistic treasure and which are in possession of ecclesiastical entities, and these latter shall be held responsible for any articles which they may have hidden as well as for the conservation of the said treasure and for the strict observance of the provisions of the present law, and of laws enacted regarding the protection of the national artistic treasure and monuments, which are herewith declared to be in force unless shown to be in conflict with the antecedent precepts.

“Article 19. Any goods which the Catholic Church shall acquire after the promulgation of the present law, and goods of any other religious confession, will have the character of property that can be privately owned, subject to the limitations of the present article.

“The competency of the Catholic Church, of its institutions and entities, and the competence of any other religious confession to acquire and possess personal property of every kind, is recognized.

“They may also acquire real property and rights in such property; but they can hold such property only in the quantity necessary for religious service. Any property in excess of that so required shall be disposed of and the proceeds invested in securities issued by the Spanish State.

“In like manner all personal property which may produce interest, income, or a participation in the earnings of industrial or mercantile activities, should likewise be disposed of and the proceeds invested in the same manner.

“By the enactment of a law, the State can limit the competency of religious confessions to acquire property in any class of goods, whenever these are in excess of the normal necessities of religious services.

Section IV

Concerning Teaching by Religious Confessions

“Article 20. Churches can found and direct establishments devoted to the teaching of their respective doctrines and the formation of their ministers. Inspection by the State will guarantee that within these institutions there shall be taught no doctrine contrary to the safety of the Republic.

Section V

Concerning Institutions of Benevolence

“Article 21. All private benevolent institutions and trusts whose control, direction or administration is to be exercised by religious authorities, corporations, institutes, or juridical persons, hereafter will be obliged, although they may not have been so obliged in the past, to send within the term of one year an inventory of all their properties, investments, and objects, and to render annual accounts to the Ministry of the condition of their holdings and of their economic operations, even in cases where by title of their franchise they have been exempt from the obligation of rendering such accounts.

“Failure to comply with this obligation or the concealing of any amount, investment, or price equivalent to the exact amount which has been reported will result in the dismissal of the management, direction, or administration of the benevolent institution.

“If what has been concealed is less than the exact amount, it may be resolved to suspend the said management, direction, or administration for a period not to exceed one year.

“Without prejudice to jurisdiction over these institutions conferred upon the State by laws now in force, the government will adopt opportune measures to adjust them to new social necessities, respecting, where that is possible, the will of the founders, principally in what affects removal from office.

Section VI

Concerning Religious Orders and Congregations

“Article 22. For the purpose of the present law there is understood by the words ‘religious orders and congregations’ those societies approved by the ecclesiastical authorities in which the members take public vows, either perpetual or temporal.

“Article 23. Religious orders and congregations admitted in Spain, under Article 26 of the Constitution, can exercise no political activity of any kind.

“Any infraction of this precept, in case the activity in question constitutes a danger for the safety of the State, will be sufficient cause for the closing by the government, as a preventive measure, of all or any of the establishments of the religious society which may be held responsible. The courts will decide regarding the definite closing of the establishment or the dissolution of the religious institute, taking into consideration all the circumstances.

“Article 24. Religious orders and congregations shall be subject to the present law and to general legislation.

“As a requisite for their legal existence they must be recorded in public registry in accordance with the provisions of the following article.

“Article 25. To comply with the requirement of registration, orders and congregations will, within a term not exceeding three months, file in the office of the special registrar set up for that purpose in the Ministry of Justice the following data:

“A—Two copies of their constitutions and bylaws in which there is expressed the form of government along with their canonical provinces or related monastic groups, together with an inventory of their houses, residences or other local entities:

“B—A certificate of the purposes to which the respective religious institutions, houses or residences, whose registry is requested, are devoted:

“C—A certificate issued by the registrar of property of the deeds recorded relative to the buildings which the community occupies, and these have to be the property of Spaniards, nor may they be encumbered or alienated in favor of foreigners:

“D—An inventory of all the personal property, investments, and precious objects which they possess directly or through some interposed person:

“E—The names and surnames of all provincial and local superiors who will have to be of Spanish nationality:

“F—A report of the names and surnames, and of the condition of their members indicating those who are to exercise administrative office of government or representation. Two-thirds at least of the members of the orders or congregations will have to be of Spanish nationality:

“G—A statement of the goods brought to the community by each one of its members.

“Any alteration which may occur with regard to the antecedent points will be made known to the Ministry of Justice within sixty days.

“Article 26. Every religious house or residence will deliver and exhibit to authorities dependent upon the government, whenever they are required to do so, a copy of the report referred to in clause F of the antecedent article, in which record is made that they have complied with the corresponding requirement of registration.

“To conceal or falsify will be punished in accordance with the laws.

“Article 27. Religious orders and congregations cannot possess, either by themselves or through an interposed person, more goods than those which are shown to be devoted to their use as a dwelling or for the direct accomplishment of their particular purposes.

“For this purpose they will send every three years to the Ministry of Justice a copy of the statement referred to in clause D of Article 26 and a certified statement of their normal income and expenses. It shall be considered what goods are necessary for their sustenance and for their other needs when income derived from them, taking into consideration the natural variations of income, does not exceed the exact amount of their expenses.

“Article 28. Religious orders and congregations admitted, and registered in Spain within the limits of the preceding article, will have competence to acquire, to alienate, to possess, and to administer goods, and these shall be subject to all the taxation laws of the country.

“They cannot, however, retain real property or rights in real property for the purpose of receiving from these any rent, pension, or income, and must invest the product received from their disposition in securities of the public Debt.

“Article 29. Religious orders and congregations cannot exercise commerce, industry, or agricultural exploitation by themselves or through an interposed person.

“Article 30. Religious orders and congregations cannot devote themselves to teaching.

“Any teaching which they may organize for the formation of their own members will not be understood as being comprised in this prohibition.

“Inspection by the State will have a care that religious orders and congregations are not allowed to create or support private schools directly or by making use of interposed secular persons.

“Article 31. Prior to the admission of any person into an order or congregation, a record shall be made and authenticated of the quantity and nature of the goods which he brings with him or over which he cedes the administration.

“The State will protect any member of an order or congregation who desires to retire from the same, regardless of any vow or promise contrary thereto.

“The order or congregation will be obliged to return to him all that he brought with him or which he ceded to the same, deducting those goods which have been consumed in use.

Transitory Provisions

“The two following are the only transitory or additional provisions for the enforcement of this law:

“a—The government will fix the time, not to exceed one year from the date of the publication of the present law, within which those religious orders and congregations who exploit industries or who have introduced novelties which are supposed to be a source of wealth must discontinue the exercise of this activity.

“b—The exercise of teaching by religious orders and congregations will end on the 1st of October next for every class of teaching except primary, and this will terminate on the 31st of the following December. The government will adopt the means that may be necessary to provide a substitute for both these kinds of teaching within the indicated period.”

Who Finances Anti-Catholicism in Spain?

In the Swiss Catholic paper, the Freiburger Nachrichten, of December 7th, 1933, in a short note about the Spanish elections which had just been held, we read: “The Spanish Catholic papers publish the information given by the journal, Moti, according to which the Spanish Marxists received considerable sums from the American Free-Thought Association. This Association has a branch at Paris, directed by a certain Lewin. The Spanish Socialist Party had incurred such expense in the electoral campaign that its funds were exhausted. …

Suddenly two emissaries from Paris, well-known in pre-revolutionary days, appeared on the scene and immediately the Socialist paper, Socialista, increased its size and lowered its price. Thus the Marxists were strengthened for the second balloting. We are accordingly in possession of the fact that American capitalists help the Spanish followers of Marx against the Catholics. The announcement made a few days ago in the French-Swiss papers to the effect that there are negotiations going on between the Jewish millionaire banker, Rothschild, and the Socialist government of Geneva is an item of news of a similar nature.”

Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Pius XI

In an Encyclical Letter of June 3rd, 1933, Pope Pius XI dealt with the persecution of the Mystical Body of Christ in Spain and, in particular with the iniquitous law, of which the provisions have just been quoted. The following are some of the salient passages of this noble document:

“Urged on by Our paternal affection, We could not fail to warn again and again the actual rulers of the Spanish State that they were following a wrong course and adopting a foolish line of action. For it is not possible, while insulting and wounding the feelings of the people, to bring about that union of all citizens, which is so necessary for the prosperity of every nation. …But now We cannot forbear from once more raising Our voice in protestation and complaint against the law which they have recently voted concerning religious confessions and congregations,’ since it is a new and more serious insult, not only to the Church and religion, but also to the laws and institutions of civil liberty, which are the boasted foundation of the newly-created government of Spain.

“This declaration of Ours, let them bear well in mind, is not prompted by sentiments of hostility—as some assert We have entertained—to the new Spanish government and to the political changes which have recently taken place.

“Everyone knows that the Catholic Church does not favor any particular type of government, provided the rights of God and of the Christian conscience be safeguarded and respected, and that she never places any difficulty in the way of agreement with every kind of civil society, whether it takes the form of a kingdom or of a republic, whether it rests on the supremacy of the nobility or on that of the populace. …We are amazed and deeply grieved that some, as if trying to justify the wicked persecution that is being waged against the Church, should have publicly declared that the need of protecting the new republic called for the measures adopted.

“This sort of argument is so clearly calumnious and false that we can justly infer therefrom that this persecution of the Church in Spain has been set on foot, not so much from ignorance of Catholic teaching and of its benefits, as from the hatred and enmity, which the destroyers of all order, religious and civil, banded together in secret societies as in Mexico and Russia, cherish and stir up ‘against the Lord and against His Christ.’ . . .

“But now to return to that iniquitous law ‘concerning religious confessions and congregations,’ it is assuredly with no small grief We learn that the legislators have openly declared that the State has no religion, and that they have accordingly confirmed and ratified what the Constitution of the Spanish government has already unjustly laid down, namely, the separation of Civil Society from the Church.

“To avoid dwelling long on this matter, We do not wish to point out at too great length what a grievous error they commit who hold that such a separation is licit and worthy of approval, especially since it is a question of a nation almost all of whose citizens glory in the name of Catholic. Indeed, if we examine the matter closely, this iniquitous separation, as We have more than once, when the occasion presented itself, indicated, for example, in the Encyclical Letter Quas primas, is the necessary consequence of the theories of the Laicists who aim at cutting themselves and human society adrift from God and therefore from the Church. …That sad consequences of this nature follow from the separation of Church and State is proved by the example of many countries. As a matter of fact, after having embodied this principle in their constitutions, these countries soon saw that they had to retrieve their mistake. This they did, either by changing the laws hostile to the Church or by moderating their force at least in interpretation and practice or, while allowing the separation to continue, by striving to bring about a condition of peaceful harmony and mutual collaboration between the State and the Church. The new Spanish legislators have not taken any account of these lessons of history. They have decreed a form of separation which is radically opposed to the Catholic faith professed by nearly all Spaniards. This separation, We affirm, is all the more disastrous and iniquitous, because though it has been imposed in the name of liberty, it is yet pushed to the denial of the ordinary rights of citizens, and of that very liberty which they had promised to grant and assure to all without distinction. They have so hampered the Church and her sacred ministers with unjust restrictions that they have practically placed them at the mercy of the civil power.

“In point of fact, in virtue of the ‘Constitution’ and of other decrees, every opinion, however false, can be publicly expressed and diffused abroad without let or hindrance, but the Catholic religion alone, whose most loyal sons Spaniards profess themselves to be, sees the instruction she imparts jealously watched and scrutinized, while Catholic schools, so well-deserving from the point of view of the progress of Spanish science and art, have been subjected to numerous vexations.

“The very performance of the ceremonies of divine worship, even in regard to the most important points of traditional Catholic ritual, is hampered by restrictions: for example, the teaching of religion and the exercise of the sacred ministry in institutions depending on the civil authorities; religious processions, which are placed under the incompetent control of public magistrates; finally, the very administration of the Sacraments to the dying and the funeral obsequies of the dead.

“In regard to the right of private ownership, the contradiction is even more clearly apparent. For the ‘Constitution’ concedes to all citizens the legitimate power to possess and own and, as is the case in every organized State, guarantees and protects the exercise of this most important right, which is derived from human nature itself. Yet even here an exception has been made to the detriment of the Catholic Church. With manifest injustice, they have stripped the Church of all her possessions. …

“Nor can it be asserted that for the future the law allows at least a certain right of private ownership to the Catholic Church. For the words which follow in the text of the law—‘the Church can retain only those possessions which are required for the performance of religious duties’—render almost worthless the power thus granted. At the same time the Church is obliged to leave to the civil magistrates to decide what is necessary for divine service. Accordingly, the rulers of the State claim to be supreme judges and to regulate what the Church may demand for the exercise of her divine functions. And, indeed, it is to be feared that the decisions of these rulers will be altogether in favor of revolutionaries and of the anti-Catholic intentions of the law and the lawgivers.

“Yet they were not content with this, but declared movable goods also to be the public property of the State, being careful to include therein, by means of lists drawn up with the minutest care, so that nothing should be omitted, liturgical vestments, images, pictures, sacred vessels, precious ornaments and other such things expressly set apart in perpetuity for the splendor and glory of Catholic worship.

“Not only do the men in power all but deprive the Church of the right to use her possessions, which she herself has either legitimately acquired, or has received as gifts from the faithful members of Christ, but they actually arrogate to themselves an unlimited power to abuse these sacred objects, even those which by a special consecration have, been withdrawn from profane usage. And they do all this without laying down any condition, and without making any provision to compensate the Church for the loss she would suffer.…

“The religious congregations have also been sacrilegiously persecuted and ignominiously treated by this iniquitous law. For they have been unjustly branded with the suspicion that they are capable of being a danger to the safety of the State, so that by thus spreading reports about them and bringing accusations against them, the hostility of the people may be aroused. This is certainly an easy way to prepare minds for more baneful measures against them. They are subjected to so many reports, ordinances and inspections, that all their property, besides being exposed to those vexations, is weighed down by fiscal exactions. Finally, they are prevented from exercising the right to teach or practicing any art by which they may gain a livelihood in becoming fashion. They are compelled to pay taxes, although it is quite clear that, despoiled as they are of all their possessions, they will necessarily lack the means to pay the sums imposed. This procedure seems to be merely a hypocritical method of making life impossible for them. …But though, as We have said, We are deeply grieved by such acts of injustice, yet both We Ourselves and you, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, are still more pained by the insults offered to the Divine Majesty. For when they pronounce the dissolution of those orders of religious who are bound by vows of obedience to authorities other than those of the State, do they not clearly show that their mentality is hostile and antagonistic to God and to the religion revealed by Him?

“It is for this motive and for this reason that they have sought to dissolve and expel the Society of Jesus which can rightly and deservedly glory in the fact that it is one of the strongest supports of the Chair of the Prince of the Apostles.

“They hope, perhaps, that they will be able with time to blot out the teachings of the Catholic faith and the precepts of Catholic morality from the minds and hearts of the Spanish people, the people that gave to the Church that brilliant luminary, St. Ignatius of Loyola. But they have not even stopped at this. As We have long ago publicly proclaimed, they have tried to attack and even to overthrow the supreme head of the Catholic Church. They have not, it is true, dared to mention the Roman Pontiff by name, but they have, as a matter of fact, proclaimed that the authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ is foreign and apart from the Spanish nation. As if the office of Supreme Pontiff, confided to him by the divine Redeemer, could be said to be foreign in any part of the world or as if the recognition of and reverence for the divine authority of Jesus Christ would lower legitimate human authority and hamper it or, in fine, as if the spiritual and supernatural power of the Church could be detrimental to the civil power. Certainly such opposition can be held to exist only by those who wickedly desire it. For they are well aware that the unfortunate flock deprived of their Pastor will stray from the path of truth and more easily fall a prey to false leaders. …And it is not only against the illustrious and well-deserving Society of Jesus that they have acted so harshly. They have exercised their pitiless tyranny against all the religious orders and congregations by the recent law. For, by a deplorable act of downright ingratitude and injustice perpetrated openly, they have deprived them of the right to teach. Why are categories or groups of citizens, merely because they have embraced a more perfect mode of life, deprived of the privilege of teaching? Will anyone pretend that those who have entered a religious congregation and devote themselves with apostolic zeal to the training and education of youth, Are for this very reason less suited to and less equipped for the work of teachers and educators? On the contrary, We see by experience with what diligent attention and far-seeing wisdom of doctrine these men have fulfilled their function and what abundant fruits they have reaped, thanks to their strenuous work in the training of minds and the formation of characters. A most striking proof of this is to be found in the numbers of their past pupils who have been both eminent in science and animated by an exemplary Catholic spirit. The great, one might even say, the enormous increase in the teaching establishments and in the numbers of their pupils is another efficacious proof of this. Finally, in confirmation of Our statements, We have the action of fathers and mothers of families, who have with complete confidence confided their children to those same schools. We say fathers and mothers, for, inasmuch as they have received from God Himself the right and the duty of educating their children, they are thereby also endowed with that most sacred of liberties, namely, that of choosing their collaborators in this work.

“The Spanish legislators, however, have not been satisfied with perpetrating this most heinous crime against religious orders and congregations. They have besides trampled on the most undeniable rights of property and openly violated the freely expressed will of founders and benefactors, by taking over by force the school premises and transforming them into godless schools. And this was done in spite of the fact that the founders had expressly laid down that a purely Catholic formation should be given therein.

“From this, it is easy to see the end aimed at by these legislators. They want to bring up the coming generations in religious indifference, nay, even imbue them with a contempt for sacred things. They desire to eradicate from the souls of the young the traditional sentiments handed down from their ancestors and so deeply rooted in Spanish hearts. It is evident, too, that they have concentrated all their energies on getting the laicist theories adopted in the training and the education of Spanish youth, and thus supplant the Christian faith and moral principles with which that training has up to this been impregnated.

“On the promulgation of these regulations, so bitterly opposed and so detrimental to the rights and the freedom of the Church, rights, We proclaim, which should be preserved intact. We consider that We should be altogether wanting to our Apostolic duty, if we did not condemn this law which is such a scandalous attack on the divine constitution of the Church.

“Wherefore, solemnly and with all Our might, We denounce and condemn this law and We declare that it can have no force against the inviolable rights of the Catholic Church. Yet, notwithstanding, We cannot here abstain from again expressing our great confidence that our well-beloved Spanish children, becoming fully aware of the injustice and the evils resulting from these laws, will make use of every means placed at their disposal by nature or by law, to persuade the legislators to amend these prescriptions which are opposed to the rights of every citizen and especially to those of Catholics. It is Our hope, too, that they will succeed in getting adopted in their stead other laws, acceptable to and in harmony with Catholic ideals.

“Meanwhile, however, urged on by Our solicitude as Father and Pastor, We especially exhort Bishops, Priests and all those whose function it is to train the young, to pay the greatest attention to imbuing children’s minds more fully with the precepts of religion and of Christian morality. We hold that there is all the more need for this, in view of the fact that the laws recently promulgated in Spain, by infamously introducing divorce into the State, seek to pollute the sanctuary of the family and have thus, by preparing the way for the disruption of the home, sown the seeds of the direst evils for civil society itself.

“Faced therefore with these disasters, We want to warn once more, energetically, all Spanish Catholics that it is Our will that they should lay aside their private quarrels and aims and subordinate particular interests to the good of religion and of their native land. Thus, welded together into a compact body tor the defense of their faith, they will strenuously strive to avert the dangers which threaten the nation.”

Appendix V

“The Protocols”

Some Extracts from The Protocols

of the Learned Elders of Zion.[4]

“Our call of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity brought whole legions to our ranks from all four corners of the world through our blind agents, and these legions carried our banners with enthusiasm. In the meantime these ideas were eating, like so many canker-worms, into the well-being of the Christians (Goyim) and were destroying their peace, quiet and solidarity, thus ruining the foundations of States. As we shall see later on, it was this action which brought about our triumph. Amongst other things, it gave us the possibility of playing our mastercard, namely, the abolition of privileges: in other words, the existence of the Gentile aristocracy, which was the only protection nations and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and hereditary aristocracy of the Goyim we set up an aristocracy of our own, founded upon wealth, of which we had control and upon science promoted by our scholars. …The press in the hands of existing governments is a great power, by which the control of peoples mind is obtained. …It is in the press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the Goyim States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the press we have obtained influence while remaining ourselves in the background. Thanks to the press, we have accumulated gold, though it has cost us oceans of blood. …But it has paid us, though we have sacrificed many of our people. …Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the clutches of merciless profiteers who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers. We intend to appear on the scene, as though we were the liberators of the worker from this oppression, when we shall propose to him to join the ranks of our fighting forces—Socialists, Anarchists and Communists. The latter we always patronize, pretending to help them, in accordance with the principle of fraternity and the general interest of humanity, evoked by our Socialistic Masonry. …Our strength lies in keeping the workingman in perpetual want and misery. …We move the masses by making use of feelings of jealousy and hatred, enkindled by oppression and need. With their hands we shall sweep aside all those who impede our advance. …This hatred will become still more acute, thanks to an economic crisis, which will stop dealings on the Exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We will create by all the secret underhand methods known to us and with the help of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis, whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers, simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These mobs will run with delight to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from childhood, and whose possessions they will then be able to loot. Ours they will not touch, because the moment of the attack will be known to us and we will take measures to protect our interests. …

“Gentile Masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and for our purposes, but the plan of action of our force and even our headquarters remain perpetually unknown to the world at large. Even liberty might be harmless and have its place in the economy of States, without injury to the well-being of peoples, if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of man, unconnected with the idea of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation. …With such a faith as this, the people might be governed by their parish-rulers and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of their spiritual pastors, submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. Hence it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the Christians (Goyim) the very idea of God and replace it by arithmetical calculations and material needs. In order to divert the minds of the Christians (Goyim) from our policy, it is essential that we should keep them occupied with trade and commerce. Thus all nations will be striving for their own advantage, and in this world-wide struggle will not remark their common enemy. But, so that liberty may entirely dislocate and ruin the Goyim (Christian) communities, we must put industry on a speculative basis. The result of this will be, that the wealth of the land extracted by industry, will not remain in the hands of the Goyim (Christians), but will come through speculation into our coffers. The struggle for supremacy and the unceasing speculations in business will create a demoralized, selfish and heartless Society. Such a society will become completely indifferent to and even disgusted with religion and politics. Lust of gold will be their only guide and will become with them a veritable cult, for the sake of the material pleasures which they can procure by its means. Then the hour will have arrived, when the lower classes of the Goyim, not for a noble motive nor even for the sake of wealth, but purely and simply out of hatred for the upper classes, will follow our lead against our rivals, the more intelligent amongst the Christians (Goyim). …

“The aristocracy of the Christians (Goyim), as a political force, is dead—we need not take it into account; but as landed proprietors they can still be dangerous to us, because their independence is secured, thanks to their resources. It is essential therefore for us to deprive them of their land at whatever cost. To attain this object, the best method is to force up rates and taxes, thus increasing the burdens upon landed property. These measures will keep landowners in a state of humble and unconditional submission. … At the same time, we must give all possible protection to commerce and industry, but above all to speculation, of which the principle role is to act as a counterpoise to industry. In the absence of speculation, industry would multiply capital in private hands and would serve to restore agriculture by freeing the land from indebtedness to the land banks. What we seek to bring about is that industry should drain the land of all its riches and that speculation should transfer into our hands all the wealth of the world. Thus all the Goyim will be thrown into the ranks of the proletariat. Then the Goyim will bow down before us, in order to obtain a precarious right to exist. In order to ruin the industry of the Goyim and to help speculation, we will encourage the desire for boundless luxury, which we have already developed. We will raise wages, but this will not bring any advantage to the workers, for at the same time we will raise the prices of the first necessaries of life. …We will also artfully undermine the basis of production, by sowing the seeds of anarchy among the workmen. …In order to prove that all the Goyim governments of Europe are subject to us, we will show our power to one of them by means of crimes of violence, that is to say, by a reign of terror,[5] and in case they all rise against us, we will respond with American, Chinese or Japanese guns. …When we introduced the poison of Liberalism into the State organism, its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness—blood-poisoning. There remains only to await the end of their agony. …What prompted us to adopt such a line of action, if it was not because we could not, as a scattered race, attain our object by direct means, but only by circumvention? This was the real cause and origin of our organization of Masonry which those Goyim cattle do not fathom, and the aims of which they do not even suspect. They are attracted by us into the ‘show’ army of Masonic lodges in order to throw dust in the eyes of their fellows. …

“When we at last definitely come into our kingdom…we shall make it our task to see that against us such things as plots no longer exist. …Every kind of new institution of anything like a secret society will also be punished with death; those of them which are now in existence are known to us, serve us, and have served us, those we shall disband and send into exile to continents far removed from Europe. In this way we shall proceed with those Goyim Masons who know too much; such of these as we may for some reason spare will be kept in constant fear of exile. We shall promulgate a law making all former members of secret societies liable to exile from Europe. …Meantime, however, until we come into our kingdom, we shall act in the contrary way: we shall create and multiply Masonic lodges in all the countries of the world, absorb into them all who may become or are prominent in public activity, for in these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence offices and means of influence. All these lodges we shall bring under one central administration, known to us alone and to all others absolutely unknown, which will be composed of our learned elders. The lodges will have their representatives who will serve to screen the above-mentioned administration of Masonry and from whom will issue the watchword and program. In these lodges we shall tie the knot which binds together all revolutionary and liberal elements. …The most secret political plots will be made known to us and will fall under our guiding hands on the very day of their conception. …The class of people who most willingly enter into secret societies are those who live by their wits, careerists, and in general people, mostly light minded, with whom we shall have no difficulty in dealing and in using to wind up the mechanism of the machine devised by us. …It is natural that we and no others should lead Masonic activities, for we know whither we are heading. We know the final goal of every form of activity, whereas the Goyim have knowledge of nothing. …The Goyim enter the lodges out of curiosity or in the hope, by their means, to get a nibble at the public pie, and some of them in order to obtain a hearing before the public for their impracticable and groundless fantasies: they thirst for success and applause, of which we are remarkably generous. And the reason why we give them this success is to make use of the high conceit of themselves to which it gives birth.

“In order to keep the Goyim from discovering for themselves any new line of action in politics, we will also distract them with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, people’s palaces, and so on. Soon we shall start advertising in the press, inviting people to enter for various competitions in art, in sport of all kinds: these interests will finally turn away their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them. …We have taken great care to discredit the clergy of the Christians (Goyim) in the eyes of the people, and thus have succeeded in ruining their mission, which could have been very much in our way. The influence of the clergy on the people is lessening daily. Today freedom of conscience prevails everywhere, and now only a few years divide us from the time when Christianity will finally crumble away. …We will confine the clergy and their teachings to such a small part in life, and their influence will be made so uncongenial to the populace, that their teachings will have the opposite effect to that which they formerly had. …”

In an interview published in the New York World, February 17th, 1921, Mr. Henry Ford is reported to have said: “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.” Anyone who reads the above extracts will agree that they fit the world situation, perhaps even better in 1934.

Appendix VI

Freemasonry

The Pantheism of Freemasonry

If we deliberately reject our divine Lord and His grace, we try to make ourselves superior to God. Inevitably then we run the risk of accepting the absurdities of pantheism, not only in practice but even speculatively, for the will prevents the intellect from contemplating the full force of the arguments for truth. This danger is, of course, enormously increased when a man enters a naturalistic society which professes indifference to the supernatural order of the world and of which the underlying teaching is pantheistic. This we see illustrated in Freemasonry. The doctrine veiled by its symbolism is pantheism, and the final result to which initiation tends is the pantheistic deification of man, particular stress being laid upon the generative powers of the human race. Only a few passages will be quoted here in proof of these statements, but they are taken from authors of unquestioned authority amongst the members of the Craft. Many others of similar import could be cited.

The first passage I shall quote is taken from The Masonic Initiation, by W. L. Wilmshurst (pp. 48, 49).[6] “The 43rd Psalm,” writes this Masonic dignitary, “restates the same instruction: Introibo ad altare Dei, ‘I will go to the divine altar.’ Similarly, the Masonic Initiation contemplates a going within oneself, until one reaches the altar or center, the divine principle or ultimate hidden basis of our being. …True self-knowledge is unobstructed conscious union of the human spirit with God and the realization of their identity. In that identic union the unreal, superficial selves have become obliterated. The sense of personality is lost, merged in the Impersonal and Universal. The little Ego is assumed into the great All, and knows as It knows. Man realizes his own inherent ultimate divinity, and thenceforth lives and acts no longer as a separate individual, with an independent will, but in integration with the divine life and Will, whose instrument he becomes, whose purposes he therefore serves. This is the ‘great day of atonement,’ when the limited personal consciousness becomes identified or made at one with one’s own divine, omniscient, vital and immortal principle.” This is pure pantheism. Later on in the same work (pp. 65, 66, 71, 88, 92), the influence of Theosophy is revealed in the development of this doctrine. The following extracts from the pages mentioned need no comment: “Thus the universe and man himself are constructed ladder-wise, in an orderly organized sequence of steps. The one universal substance composing the differentiated parts of the universe ‘descends’ from a state of the utmost ethereality by successive steps of increasing densification until gross materialization is reached; and thence ‘ascends’ through a similarly ordered gradation of planes to the original place. …It was this cosmic process which was the subject of the dream or vision of Jacob and which accounts for ‘Jacob’s ladder’ being given prominence in our symbolism. …He (the Initiate) can witness the descent of human essences or souls through planes of increasing density and decreasing vibratory rate. …

And he can watch the upward return of those who conquer in the strife and…ascend to their source. …The superstructure to be erected (by the Mason) is the organization of an ethereal or spiritual body in which the skilled mason can function in independence of his physical body and natural personality.

…That Ego, the ultimate divine principle in man, is represented by the triangular flap of the Masonic apron. …The body or form (or rather the succession of bodies or forms), which that Ego assumes on descending into manifestation through the ladder-like planes of the universe … is represented by the lower quadrangular part of the apron. …The Tau displayed upon the apron of those of Master rank is a form of the cross, and also of the Hammer of Thor, of Scandinavian religion. …The further important point should be noticed that the apron covers the creative, generative organs of the body; and it is especially to these that the significance of the Tau attaches. Spiritual self-building and the erection of the ‘superstructure’ are dependent upon the supply of creative energy available from the generative, nervous center, the ‘power house’ of the human organism. Thence that energy passes upwards through the ganglionic ‘transformers’ and, reaching the brain, becomes finally sublimated and transformed into consciousness. Conservation of that energy is therefore indispensable both for generating consciousness and providing the material for the finer vehicle or ‘superstructure’ in which that consciousness may function; the life-energy is always creative, either in the direction of physical propagation or in that of super-physical up-building.” Finally (pp. 146–180), this author gives an allegorical description of what “real, as distinct from merely ceremonial, Initiation involves and leads to” in terms that are a parody of Catholic mystical writers like St. John of the Cross, terminating with a description of the “identic union between finite object and infinite subject, that nirvanic absorption of the spirit’s still flame within the fire of divine mind, of the human water-drop in the ocean of that immaculate illimitable which is nothing, but without which nothing is. In this state of ‘identic union’ thought died also; its flickerings and veil-wisps gradually falling away, till stark blankness only remained. Nothing of me still was, save the laboring spirit that strove to be born but could not. It was the zero-point of negative consciousness, the moment of the apparently everlasting No; where nothing is, and God is not. Eloi, Eloi! Lama Sabacthani. I revived—yet not I—at length, in Light: a new indescribeable light, so much more than light because it is also life; life beyond the category of personality; life in the universal Spirit of light. …” The terms used in this allegory are veiled, but the doctrine is pantheistic and seems to indicate the action of a fallen angelic nature on a human mind.

Let us now turn to another work by one of the recognized Masonic authorities, viz., Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, by the Grand Commander, Albert Pike. On the title-page of this work we read that it was prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States and published by its authority. In the preface it is stated that the work is specially intended to be read and studied by the brethren of that obedience, in connection with the Ritual of the Degrees, and it is hoped that each will get a copy and make himself familiar with it. In this work we again find the affirmation of pantheism. God is regarded simply as the soul of the world. The term transcendence is used of God, but the true notions of the divine transcendence and immanence are corrupted. On pages 706–710, we read: “We continually remind ourselves that He (God) is infinite: because otherwise we should degrade His nature: but He would be for us as if He were not, if His infinite nature had not forms inherent in ourselves, the forms of our own reason and soul. …From the necessity of His nature, the Infinite Being must create and preserve the Finite, and to the Finite must in its forms, give and communicate of His own kind.[7] We cannot conceive of any finite thing existing without God, the Infinite basis and ground thereof, nor of God existing without something. …If it be of His nature to create—if we cannot conceive of His existing alone, without creating, without having created, then what He created was co-existent with Himself. If He could exist an instant without creating, He could as well do so for a myriad of eternities. And so again comes round to us the old doctrine of a God, the soul of the universe, and co-existent with it.…His (God’s) being is an infinite activity, a creating, and so a giving of Himself to the World. The World’s being is a becoming, a being created and continued. …All this is philosophy, the unavoidable conclusion of the human mind. It is not the opinion of Coleridge and Kant, but their science; not what they guess, but what they know.” Further on (p. 771) this writer gives us the meaning of the cross in Masonry: “To us,” he writes, “Creation is mechanism: to the ancients it was generation. …From this idea of generation came the reverence paid the image of generative power, which formed the stauros of the Gnostics, and the philosophical cross of the Masons.” Finally, Pike glorifies the Jewish Kabbala: “All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabbala and return to it: everything grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabbala; all the Masonic associations owe to it their secrets and their symbols.”[8] Then he gives a pantheistic summary of the doctrine of the Kabbala and adds “Masonry is a search after light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabbala.”[9]

In Symbolic Teaching or Masonry and its Message, by Thomas Milton Stewart (Past Master Avon Lodge, No. 542 F. & A. M., Corresponding Member of the Authors Lodge, No. 3456, London), we find the following clear statements (p. 8): “We must always remember that it is only through the doctrines of the more ancient philosophies that the religion preached by Jesus may be understood. …The doctrine of God being the Universal Mind diffused through all things underlies all ancient philosophies.” Further on in the same work the writer attempts a defense of Masonry against the arguments of a Protestant clergyman, Rev. M. L. Wagner, who had written a book to prove that Masonry is phallic worship. In the course of his remarks (on p. 224) Stewart makes the following assertion: “According to ancient teachings man and woman are from creation co-equal and co-existent, because both are necessary to the future of the race. This fact the Christian translators of the Bible have been at great pains to conceal, by carefully suppressing every reference to the feminine portion of deity, and by constantly translating feminine nouns by masculine ones.” From this absurd and horrible affirmation about the divine nature and from the avowed pantheism of Masonry as admitted by him in the above quotation, and in numerous other passages, it is clear to every sane philosopher that the Rev. Mr. Wagner is right. A French Masonic writer named E. M. Harran, in a work written in defense of the higher grades of Freemasonry,[10] is not under any mistaken impression about the significance of the cross as a Masonic emblem. He says: “Without exposing for the moment the reason of the symbolism of the cross, I must say that the cross of the chapter degrees is not that of Christ,” and again, “The cross, surmounted by a ring was and is yet the sign of the planet called Venus. Now Venus was the goddess of love, in India, in Egypt, in Assyria, Germany, etc.”[11]

The human mind, by its unaided natural powers, can attain only to an analogical knowledge of God, the first cause of all things. Raised to the supernatural order by divine grace, which is a participation in the inner life of the Blessed Trinity we are destined to the vision of God in His Essence, “face to face,” in the world beyond the grave. Here below the vision is denied us. By infused contemplation, however, we can have a foretaste of that vision, but infused contemplation proceeds by the way of love, not by the way of pure intelligence and of concepts. All knowledge of God obtained by means of ideas and concepts, though absolutely true and certain, remains out of proportion to God as He is, by the way it attains to and signifies Him. But “this same God, grasped by Faith in obscurity.…supernatural love lays hold of immediately in Himself uniting us to that which is hidden in faith. …It is God, thus become ours by charity, Who is experienced by and in supernatural love as giving Himself to us within us and Who is known affectively, in virtue of an incomprehensible union, in a dark night surpassing all distinct knowledge, all images and all ideas. This knowledge is communicated to us under the action of the Holy Ghost, dwelling in us and acting by His gifts. It transcends infinitely all that all creatures will ever be able to conceive of the divine Majesty.”[12] The contemplation of the saints is not only for the sake of the divine love: it is by that same love that it can be ours. In it the soul does not aim at exalting herself nor does she wish to lose her personality. She desires to unite herself to Him Who has first loved her, Who exists before us and without us, Who is incapable of being grasped by the natural powers of angels and of men, but Who can be laid hold of divinely and “Who has given us a share in the divine life for that purpose.”[13]

By the vision “face to face” in heaven, the soul becomes divine in the order of intelligence and will (intentionaliter) but not substantially one with God. The soul is really united to God because, thanks to the divine essence illuminating and actualizing her intelligence, she sees and loves what the three divine persons see and love. But the human intelligence, on this side of the Beatific Vision, cannot procure us real union. The love of Jesus Crucified alone can do it in the way mentioned above. Accordingly, we see the human intelligence ever faced with the problem of Faust. “It is inevitable—unless in the case of some strange human deviation—that intellectual life with us should proclaim its inability to satisfy our longings. If human wisdom does not turn upwards to love of God, it will turn downwards to Margaret.”[14] Freemasonry with its deification of the generative powers of man is a perfect confirmation of this truth. There is only one way to union with God. It is the royal road of the Cross and of complete self-denial.

We must remember that intellectual mysticism, which aims at ecstasy by means of an asceticism that is exclusively metaphysical and of which examples may be found among the Neo-Platonicians and the Gnostics and in some oriental schools, may sometimes reach that rapture in unity which Porphyrius relates, when speaking about his master.[15] This form of rapture seems to be a sort of superhuman state due to the intervention of an angelic nature. We can well understand too that a metaphysical ecstasy of this nature, in which the human mind comes as it were to the edge of an angelic abyss, is at an infinite distance from the veritable experience of divine things,[16] and, in practice, results almost inevitably in pantheism.[17]

Mr. Wilmshurst’s development of the occult signification of Masonry, in the work from which we have quoted above, will lead many English Masons in the direction of pantheism. The issue of The Freemason of December 20th, 1924, lauded the work in question, The Masonic Initiation, and expressed the hope that it would be “read, marked, learned and inwardly digested by all the members of the Craft.” This will inevitably result in an acceleration of the process of corrosion of the truths of Christianity still retained by English Protestants.

Outline of the Relations

Between Anti-Catholic World-Forces

(Extract from article by Pierre Loyer in

R.I.S.S., April 13th, 1930, p. 352)

“There can be no doubt about the existence of one or more groups aiming at world-domination. …These large groups, compenetrating one another, but nevertheless remaining distinct, by their inspiration as well as by their action, are seeking to become all-powerful. They are: the Jewish group, the Occult group and the Masonic Group. It is commonly admitted that Masonry is under the control of the Jewish group. It is also clear that the group comprising the various cultist societies is inspired by and, we may say, impregnated with the spirit and the teachings of the Jewish Kabbala. Of course, all three groups are the instruments of Satan in his war against the Church of Christ. The Masonic Group, in some countries a vehicle of sectarian hate, in others an agency for the diffusion of religious indifference and enervating liberalism, carries on the struggle in the electoral and parliamentary field. The Occultist groups, with their pretense of mysticism, bring about moral corruption by appealing to man’s animal instincts. The Jewish group, the most secret of all, pulls the strings of international politics, prepares its designs long in advance and uses the other groups to carry them out.

“What are the ends which these bodies of men have in view? They are certainly different. It would be silly to believe that they are in possession of the marvelous secret of universal domination and that all are working by explicit agreement for the same end. Masonry caresses as its ideal, the freedom of the individual and the divinization of ‘Humanity,’ as the result of ‘Progress.’ It is at one and the same time devoted to the cult of mysticism and preoccupied with material interests, for its members have a sort of abstract religion of Progress, Humanity, Liberty, Equality, etc.…and are also the most self-seeking of social and political intriguers (in France at least). The Occultist groups are much less concerned with such matters: they are endeavoring to get into contact with all kinds of mysterious powers and forces. The demon can there act freely and directly. The world-revolution interests them far less than the limitless expansion of the animal ‘Ego.’ Amongst the Jews, the Kabbalists are akin to the Occultists. Others are cool, calculating individuals, mere atheists or pantheists (the terms are almost synonymous). Others again still maintain respect for the letter of the Bible of the prophets of God and of Israel. For the skeptics, the end to be attained is the vengeance of humiliated Jewry and the acquisition of gigantic material might and strength. For the believers, the end is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, the advent of the all-conquering Messias who shall impose his rule on all the peoples of the earth and exalt Israel.

“All these different aims agree in one point: the Church of Christ must be overthrown. Their hatred of her links them all together. The Mason hates the Church as an obstacle to his desire of individual liberty. The Occultist hates her with a hatred fanned by Satan. The Jew, having rejected the cornerstone, can rebuild his ideal Jerusalem, only on the ruins of the Church and of the civilization sprung from Christ.”

Appendix VII

France

Fifty French Catholic laymen, including Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Yves Simon, Joseph Vialatoux, M. Brillant, Stanislas Fumet, J. Madaule, have recently published a Manifesto entitled, Pour le Bien Commun; les Responsabilités du Chrétien et le moment Présent. They point out the way to a reform of the present social order in France, with its corruption and injustice, along the lines indicated in Quadragesimo Anno. They, at the same time, declare themselves opposed to both Fascism and Communism. The following are some of the salient passages in this remarkable document:

“There is nothing to be looked for from hatred but hatred and destruction. …We believe that Catholics ought to reply ‘no’ to the men who would bar the way to Fascism by enrolling them in the ranks of those who have a materialistic idea of work and of human life and who teach that religion is the opium of the people.

“And we hold that Catholics should also answer ‘no’ to the men who would bar the way to Communism by enrolling them in the ranks of those who compromise the ideas and virtues of order, authority and discipline, by associating those ideas with the prejudices and interests of a class, as well as with a too narrow view of the national good and an inhuman misconception of the dignity of labor, and who, besides, too often regard religion merely as a means of governmental control. …

“The political and social domain is, above all and essentially human, that is to say, moral. …Political action is intrinsically inseparable from morality. The spiritual and the temporal are intimately linked together. It is all over with the separations and extrinsic connections of the age that is past. Religion and politics while remaining distinct, must be vitally associated. …

“Finally, it is not the myth of Class or Race or Nation or State, it is the idea of the dignity of the human person and of our spiritual vocation, as well as of the common good of the State, founded upon justice and charity, which must be the animating principle of social life and of united effort. The poles of a truly human social and political regime must be the responsibility and liberty of human persons. The State must not be either Totalitarian or Communist, for both are opposed to an organization of life in accordance with the Catholic ideal.

The State must be pluralist,[18] uniting in an organic unity a diversity of groups and social structures, which express and safeguard personal liberty.”

Pope Pius XI praises vocational groups, in order to “promote harmony between the various ranks of society.” The aim of social legislation must be the re-establishment of such groups. “Those who are engaged in the same trade or profession will form free associations among themselves, for purposes connected with their occupations, etc.” But “just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so, too, it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies…there are some who fear that the State is substituting itself in the place of private initiative, instead of limiting itself to necessary and sufficient help and assistance. It is feared that the new syndical and corporative institution possesses an excessively bureaucratic and political character.”[19] State imposed, centralized, corporative organization is at variance with that outlined in Rerum Novarum and Quadragesima Anno, as those able Frenchmen point out.

[1]In connection with this extract, it is well to note that Jews who are members of the B’nai B’rith may be Freemasons, but that non-Jews are not allowed to enter the B’nai B’rith.

[2]These extracts have been translated from an article by Dr. K. Turner in La Vie Intellectuelle, March, 1934. For the pantheism of the two works by Rosenberg and Bergmann see the pamphlet, Germany’s National Religion, with a Foreword by G. K. Chesterton.

[3]R.I.S.S., December 15th, 1932, p. 809. At the same assembly, Brother .˙. Pangal, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Rumania, said: “Thanks to the protection of King Carol, we have been able to give full development to Masonry. I will not tell you how many Masons are to be found amongst the Ministers, but I can assure you that they form a goodly number.”

[4]The translation chiefly used is the one published by The Britons, London, but French versions have been consulted also, as well as the excellent English version published in Waters Flowing Eastward, by L. Fry.

[5]Note the state of affairs in Russia long years after this was written.

[6]Just as these pages are being sent to the printers, Mr. Wilmshurst has received still further honor from the craft. He has just been promoted to the rank of Provincial Senior Grand Warden of West Yorkshire at the hands of Viscount Lascelles, the Provincial Grand Master, in the presence of Lord Ampthill, the Pro. Grand Master of England, both of whom paid the highest compliment to the work of Mr. Wilmshurst” (The Menace of Freemasonry, by Rev. C. Penney Hunt, 4th edition (1930) pp. 10, 11).

[7]That God was obliged to create the world is an idea utterly at variance with sane philosophy, as well as being against Faith (Vatican Council). For the refutation of it, cf. St. Thomas, Ia Pars. Q, 19, a. 3, 10.

[8]Op. cit. p. 744.

[9]Ibid. p. 741.

[10]Bordeaux, 1869, Imprimerie Auguste Lavertujon, rue Gouvion.

[11]Cf. A. Preuss, A Study in American Freemasonry, especially pp. 45–62, on this whole question.

[12]Les Degrés du Savoir, by J. Maritain, p. 24.

[13]Ibid. p. 22.

[14]Les Degrés du Savoir, by J. Maritain, p. 15.

[15]Plotinus. Cf. Les Degrés du Savoir, p. 13.

[16]Spoken of by Dionysius, quoted by St. Thomas, IIa, IIae, Q. 45, a. 2.

[17]Les Degres du Savoir, by J. Maritain, p. 547.

[18]Loreto Editor note: Not religiously pluralist as the word is commonly used today, but pluralist in the sense of composed of various socio-economic classes such as farmers, artisans, clergy, academics, businessmen, and professionals etc.

[19]All of these quotations are from the Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno.