The Jesuit New World Order

Thursday, 7 June 2012

If Pius XI and Pius XII's goodwill and friendliness never failed towards
the Fuhrer whom they had brought to power, we must admit that he
fullfiled all the conditions of the pact by which he was bound to the
Vatican. As he had expressly promised to "strangle" the anticlericals, they
soon followed the liberals and Jews into the concentration camps. We
know how the chief of the Third Reich had decided the fate of the Jews:
they were simply massacred or, when more advantagous, made to work
until worn out then liquidated. In this case the 'final solution' was only
But let us see, first, how an especially "authorised" personality, Franco,
Knight of the Order of Christ, expressly confirmed the collusion between
the Vatican and the nazis. According to "Reforme", this is what the press of
the Spanish dictator (Franco) published on the 3rd of May 1945, the day of
Hitler's death:
"Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending
Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to
lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his
mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the
martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory".(107)
This funeral oration of the nazi chief, a challenge to the victorious allies, is
voiced by the Holy See itself, under the cover of Franco's press. It is a
communique of the Vatican given via Madrid.
Of course, this missing hero well deserved the gratitude of the Roman
Church and they do not attempt to conceal it. He served her faithfully: all
those this Church pointed out to him as her adversaries felt the
consequences. And this good 'son' wasn't slow in admitting what he owed to
his Most Holy Mother, and especially to those who made themselves her
(107) "Reforme", 21st of July 1945.

soldiers in the world.
"I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits", said Hitler... "Until now,
there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the
hierarchical organisation of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this
organisation into my own party... I am going to let you in on a secret... I am
founding an Order... In my "Burgs" of the Order, we will raise up a youth
which will make the world tremble... Hitler then stopped, saying that he
couldn't say any more.."(108)
Another highly placed hitlerian, Walter Schellenberg, former chief of the
German counter-espionage, completed this confidence from the Fuhrer,
after the war:
"The S.S. organisation had been constituted, by Himmler, according to the
principles of the Jesuits' Order. Their regulations and the Spiritual
Exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to
copy exactly... The "Reichsfuhrer SS"—Himmler's title as supreme chief of
the SS—was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits' "General" and the whole
structure of the direction was a close imitation of the Catholic Church's
hierarchical order. A mediaeval castle, near Paderborn in Westphalia, and
called "Webelsbourg", was restored; it became what could be called a SS
For their part, the best theological pens were busy demonstrating the
similarity between the Catholic and Nazi doctrines. And, for that work, the
sons of Loyola were the busiest. As an example, let us see how Michaele
Schmaus, Jesuit theologian, presented to the public a series of studies on this
"Empire and Church" is a series of writings which should help the
building up of the Third Reich as it unites a national-socialist state to
Catholic-christianity... The national-socialist movement is the most
vigorous and massive protest against the spirit of the 19th and 20th
centuries... A compromise between the Catholic faith and liberal thinking is
impossible... Nothing is more contrary to Catholicism than democracy... The re-
awakened meaning of "strict authority" opens up again the way to the real
interpretation of ecclesiastical authority... The mistrust of liberty is founded on
Commandments and those of the Catholic Church have the same
(108) Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig:
"Hitler m'a dit", (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939,  pp.266, 267, 273 ss).
(109) Walter Schellenberg: "Le Chef du contre-espionnage nazi vous parle" (Julliard, Paris
1957, pp.23-24).
(110) "Begegnungen   zwichen    Katholischen   Christentum   und   nazional-sozialitischer
Weltanchaunung", by Michaele Schmaus, professor at the Faculty of Theology of Munich.
(Aschendorf, Munster 1933).
This aim was the "new middle-ages" Hitler promised Europe. The
similarity is obvious between the passionate anti-liberalism of this Jesuit from
Munich and the equal fanaticism expressed during the "act of consecration
of the F.N.C. in the basilica of Montmartre". During the occupation, the R.P.
Merklen wrote: "These days, liberty no longer seems
to merit any esteem".(l 11)
Quotations such as these could be multiplied by the thousand. Is not this
hatred of liberty under all its forms the character itself of the Roman
Master? It is easy also to understand how the Catholic "doctrine" and the nazi
"doctrine" could harmonise so well. The one who ably demonstrated this
accord, "The Jesuit Michaele Schmaus", was called by 'La Croix', ten years
after the war, the "great theologian of Munich"( 112), and nobody will be
surprised to learn that he was made a "Prince of the Church" by Pius XII.
Under the circumstances, what becomes of the "terrible" encyclical letter
"Mit brennender Sorge", from Pius XI, which was supposed to condemn
nazism? No casuist has tried to tell us... naturally!
The "great theologian" Michaele Schmaus had many rivals, according to a
German author who sees in the "Katolisch-Konservatives Erbgut" the
strangest book ever published by the German Catholic Publications:
"This anthology which brings together texts from the main Catholic
theorists of Germany, from Gorres to Vogelsang, makes us believe that
national-socialism was born out of Catholic ideas".(113)
When writing this, the author certainly didn't realise he was describing it so
Another well informed person, the mainspring of the pact between the
Holy See and Berlin and the pope's secret chamberlain, Franz von Papen, was
even more explicit:
"The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but
also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy".(l 14)
To this, we will add the result of this "putting into practice": 25 million
victims of the concentration camps—the official figure issued by the United
Nations Organisation.
Here, we find it necessary to add something especially for candid minds, for
those who cannot admit that the organised massacres were one of the
papacy's   "high   principles".   Of   course,   this   candour   is   diligently
(111) "La Croix", 2nd of September 1951.
(112) "La Croix", 2nd of September 1954.
(113) Gunter Buxbaum- "Les Catholiques en Europe centrale" ("Mercure de France", 15th of
January 1939).
(114) Robert d'Harcourt of the French Academy: "Franz von Papen, l'homme a tout faire"
L'Aube, 3rd of October 1946).
—"Such barbarian deeds belong to the past"!
So say some good apostles to the simple, while shrugging their shoulders
before the non-catholics "for whom the fires of the Holy Inquisition are still
So be it! Let us set aside the superabundant testimonies about the clerical
ferocity of years gone by to consider the 20th century.
We will not recall either the exploits of men like Stepinac and Marcone in
Croatia, nor Tiso in Slovakia, but will confine ourselves to examining the
orthodoxy of certain "high principles" they put so well into practice.
Are they really out-dated today—these principles—disowned by an
"enlightened doctrine", officially rejected by the Holy See with other
mistakes of a dark past? It is easy to find out.
Let us, for example, open the "Great Apologetics", by the Abbe Jean
Vieujan, which can hardly be described as mediaeval as it is dated "1937".
What do we read?
"To accept the principle of the Inquisition, one only needs a Christian
mentality, and this is what many Christians lack... The Church has no such
One could not put it better.
Is another proof, no less orthodox and modern, necessary? Listen to the
R.P. Janvier, a famous conference speaker at Notre-Dame:
"By virtue of her indirect power over temporal matters, should not the
Church have the right to expect Catholic States to oppress heretics even to the
point of death, so as to suppress them?
Here is my answer:
"I do advocate this, even to the point of death!... Leaning first of all on the
practice, then on the teaching of the Church itself; and I am convinced that no
Catholic would say the opposite without erring gravely".(117)
We could not accuse this theologian of speaking in riddles. His speech is
clear and concise. It would be impossible to say more with fewer words.
Everything is there, concerning the right the Church arrogates to herself to
exterminate those whose beliefs do not correspond with hers: the
"teaching" which compels her, the "practice" which legitimates by
tradition, and even the "call to the Christian states", of which the hitlerian
crusade was such a perfect example.
The following words, far from ambigious, were not pronounced in the
darkness of the Middle-Ages either:
"The Church can condemn heretics to death, for any rights they have are
(115) "Temoignage chretien", 6th of December 1957.
(116) Abbe Jean Vieujan: "Grande Apologetique" (Bloud et Gay, Paris 1937, p.1316).
(117) Conference of the 25th of March 1912.
only through our tolerance, and these rights are apparent not real". The
author of this was the Jesuits' general Franz Wernz (1906-1915), and the fact
that he was German as well gives even more weight to his declration.
During the 20th century also, Cardinal Lepicier, notoroius prince of the
Church, wrote: "If someone professes publicly to be an heretic or tries to
pervert others, by his speech or example, he can not only be
excommunicated, but also justly killed..."(118 & 118a). If that's not a
characteristic appeal to murder, I might as well be "changed into a
peppermill" as the late Courteline said.
Is the Sovereign Pontiffs contribution wanted as well? Here it is, from a
modern pope whose "liberalism" was criticised by intransigent clerics, the
Jesuit Pope Leo XIII: "Anathema on the one who says: the Holy Spirit
does not want us to kill the heretic".
What higher authority could be invoked after this one, apart from that of the
Holy Spirit?
Even though this may displease those who manipulate the smokescreen
(reference to those who put out smoke signals during the choice of a Pope), the
soothers of disquieted consciences, the papacy's "high principles" remain
unchanged and, amongst other things, the extermination for the Faith is as
valid and canonical today as it was in the past. A conclusion most
"enlightening"—to use a word dear to mystics—when we consider what
happened in Europe between 1939 and 1945.
"Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and most members of the party's "old guard"
were Catholics", wrote M. Frederic Hoffet. "It was not by accident that,
because of its chiefs' religion, the National-socialist government was the most
Catholic Germany ever had... This kinship between National-socialism and
Catholicism is most striking if we study closely the propaganda methods
and the interior organisation of the party. On that subject, nothing is more
instructive than Joseph Goebbel's works. He had been brought up in a Jesuit
college and was a seminarist before devoting himself to literature and
politics... Every page, every line of his writings
recall the teaching of his masters; so he stresses obedience... the contempt
for truth... "Some lies are as useful as bread!" he proclaimed by virtue of a
moral relativism extracted from Ignatius of Loyola's writings..."(119)
Hitler did not award the palm of Jesuitism to his chief of propaganda,
though to the Gestapo's chief, as he told his favourites: "I can see Himmler as
our Ignatius of Loyola"(120).
(118) "De stabilitate et progressu dogmatis", first part, art VI 9 I ("Typographia editrix
romana, Romae 1908").
(118a) See Sol Ferrer-Francisco Ferrer. Un Martyr au XXe siecle (Fischbacher, Paris). (119))
Frederic Hoffet: "L'lmperialisme protestant" (Flammarion, Paris 1948, pp.172 ss). (120) Adolf
Hitler: "Libres propos" (Flammarion, Paris 1952, p.164).
To speak thus, the Fuhrer must have had some good reasons. First of all, we
notice that Kurt Heinrich Himmler, Reichsfuhrer of the SS, Gestapo and
German police forces, seemed to be the one most impregnated by
clericalism amongst the Catholic members of Hitler's entourage. His father had
been director of a Catholic school in Munich, then tutor of Prince
Ruprecht of Bavaria.  His brother, a Benedictine monk, lived at the
monastery of Maria Laach, one of the Pan-German high places. He also had
an uncle who had held the important position of Canon at the Court of Bavaria,
the Jesuit Himmler.
The German author Walter Hagen gives also this discreet information:
"The Jesuits' general, Count Halke von Ledochowski, was ready to
organise, on the common basis of anti-communism, some collaboration
between the German Secret Service and the Jesuit Order".(121)
As a result, within the SS Central Security Service, an organisation was
created, and most of its main posts were held by Catholic priests wearing the
black uniform of the SS. The Jesuit Father Himmler was one of its superior
After the Third Reich's capitulation, the Jesuit Father Himmler was
arrested and imprisoned at Nuremberg. His hearing by the international
tribunal would have apparently been most interesting, but Providence was
keeping a watchful eye: Heinrich Himmler's uncle never appeared before that
court. One morning, he WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CELL, and the public
never learned the cause of his death.
We will not insult the memory of this cleric by supposing that he willingly
ended his days, against the solemn teaching laws of the Roman Church.
Nevertheless, his death was as sudden and opportune as the one of
another Jesuit, sometime before, Father Staempfle, the unrecognised
author of 'Mein Kampf'. Strange coincidence indeed...
But let us come back to Kurt Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo,
which meant he held in his hand the essential reins of power of the regime.
Was it his personal merits which earned him such a high position? Did
Hitler see in him a superior genius when he compared him to the creator of the
Jesuit Order? It is certainly not what the testimonies of those who knew him
imply as they saw in him nothing more than mediocrity.
Was that star shining with a borrowed brightness? Was it really Kurt
Heinrich Himmler, the ostensible chief, who actually reigned over the
Gestapo and the secret services? Who was sending millions of people,
deported for political reasons, and Jews to their death? Was it the flat-faced
nephew or the uncle, former Canon at the Court of Bavaria, one of von
Ledochowski's favourites, a Jesuit Father and superior officer of the SS?
It may seem reckless, and even presumptuous, to take such an indiscreet
(121) Walter Hagen, op.cit., p.358.
look behind the scenes of History. The play is performed on the stage,
before the combined lights of the footlights, the stagelights and the arc lights.
This is normal for any show; and the one who wants to see behind the props may
well be regarded as troublesome and ill-bred.
However, the spell binding actors on whom the public's gaze is fixed have
all come from behind the scenes. This is more than evident when we study
these "sacred monsters" and realise that they are far from equal to the individuals
they are supposed to represent.
Such seems to have been the case of Himmler. But wouldn't it be right to say
the same of the one whom he helped as his right hand man, Hitler?
When we saw Hitler gesticulating on the screens or heard him bawling his
hysterical speeches, did we not have the impression of looking at the
movements of an automaton ill adjusted, with overstretched springs? Even his
most simple and composed movements reminded us of a mechanical puppet.
And what about his dull and globular eyes, flabby nose, bloated
physiognomy whose vulgarity could not be disguised by that famous lock of
hair and brush moustache which seemed glued under his nostrils.
Was this snarler at public meetings really a chief? the "real" master of
Germany, an "authentic" Statesman whose genius was going to turn the
world upside-down?
Or was he just a bad substitute for all that? A covering skin cleverly blown
up and a phantom for the use of the masses, a rabble rouser?
He himself admitted it when he said: "I am only a clarion". M. Francois-
Poncet, then French ambassador to Berlin, confirms that Hitler worked very
little, was not a reader and let his collaborators have their own way.
His helpers gave the same impression of emptiness and unreality. The first
one, Rudolf Hess, who flew to England in 1941, looked on his own trial at
Nuremberg as a total stranger, and we never learned if he was completely insane
or just a lunatic. The second one was the grotesque Goering, vain and obese,
who wore the most spectacular comic-opera uniforms, a glutton, a great
robber of paintings and, to top it all, a morphine drug addict.
The other main personalities of the party bore the same resemblance and,
at the trials of Nuremberg, it was one of the journalists greatest surprises to
have to report that—apart from their own particular defects— these Nazi
heroes lacked in intellect, character, and were more or less insignificant.
The only one who stood above that vulgar mob—because of his
astuteness and not his moral worth—was Franz von Papen the
chamberlain of His holiness, "the man for every job"... who was bound to be
If the Fuhrer comes out as an extraordinary puppet, was the one he
modelled himself upon more consistent? Let us recall the ridiculous
exhibitions of that "Caesar fit for a carnival", rolling his big black eyes that he
wanted to flash under that strange hat decorated with curtain tassels! And
those photographs meant for propaganda, taken from his feet and depicting
only his jaws, jutting out against the sky, the wonder man, as an immovable
rock—symbol of a will which knew no obstacles!
What a will! From the confidences of some of his companions, we get the
picture of a man constantly undecided; this "formidable man" who was going
to "invade everything", with elemental force (to use terms of Cardinal Ratti,
future Pius XI), did not resist the advances made to him by the Jesuit Cardinal
Gasparri, secretary of State, on behalf of the Vatican.
Just a few secret meetings persuaded the revolutionist to enlist bag and
baggage under the Holy Father's standard, to carve out the brilliant career we
know so well, and the well known former minister Carlo Sforza could write:
"One day, when time will have attenuated the bitterness and hatred, it will
be recognised we hope, that the orgy of bloody brutalities which turned Italy into
a prison for twenty years, and ruins through the 1940-1945 war, found its
origin in an almost unique historical case: the utter disproportion between the
legend artificially created around a name and the real capacities of the
poor devil who bore that name, a man who was not obstructed by
This perfect formula is applicable to Hitler, as well as Mussolini: same
disproportion between the legend and capacities, same lack of "culture" in
those two mediocre adventurers with almost identical pasts; their lightning
careers can find an explanation only in their gift for haranguing the masses, a
gift which brought them before the glare of publicity.
That the legend was "artifically created" is evident enough when we know
that, today, the Fuhrer's retrospective apparition on the screens of Germany
provokes nothing more than a huge laugh.
But was not the obvious inferiority of these "providential men" the very
reason for which they were chosen to be elevated to power? The fact is that the
same lack of personal qualities can be found in all those the papacy elected to
be its champions.
In Italy and Germany, there were some "real" statesmen, "real" chiefs, who
were able to take the helm and govern without having to resort to this delirious
"mystic". But these were too bright intellectually and not sufficiently
pliable. The Vatican, and especially the "black pope", von Ledochowski, could
not have held them "as a baton in his hand", according to the fiery formula, and
made them serve his aims at all costs until catastrophe struck.
We have seen how the revolutionist Mussolini was turned inside out, as
(122) Count Carlo Sforza: "L'ltalie telle que je l'ai vue", (Grasset, Paris 1946, p.158).
one would do with a glove, by the Holy See's emissaries who promised
him power.
The unbending Hitler was to prove just as malleable. The Ledochowski's
plan was, originally, to create a federation of the Catholic nations in
central and eastern Europe, in which Bavaria and Austria (governed by
the Jesuit Seipel) would have had the pre-eminence. Bavaria had to be
separated from the German Republic of Weimar—and, as by chance,
the agitator Hitler, of Austrian origin, was then a Bavarian separatist.
But the chance to realise this federation and place a Hapsburg at its
head became more and more slim, whilst Monseigneur Pacelli, the
nuncio who had left Munich for Berlin, became the more conscious of
the German Republic's weakness because of the poor support the Allies
gave it. The hope to get hold of Germany as a whole was then born at
the Vatican and the plan was modified accordingly:
"The hegemony of Protestant Prussia had to be prevented and as the
Reich was to dominate Europe—to avert the Germans' federalism—a
Reich had to be reconstituted in which the Catholics would be
This was enough. Turning completely round with his "brown shirts",
Hitler, who had been until then a Bavarian separatist, became overnight
the inspired Apostle of the Great Reich.
(123) Mercure de France: "Pius XI and Hitler", 15th of January 1934.
172 Section V
Chapter 6
The Death Camps and the Anti-Semitic
To what extent the Catholics were masters of Nazi Germany soon
became apparent as also did the severity with which some of the "Papacy's
high principles" were applied.
The liberals and Jews had plenty of spare time to find out that these
principles were far from out-dated, as the most orthodox voices confirmed it.
The right the Church arrogates herself to exterminate slowly or speedily those
who are in the way was "put into practice" at Auschwitz, Dachau, Belsen,
Buchenwald, and other death camps.
The Gestapo of Himmler, "our Ignatius of Loyola", diligently performed
these charitable deeds; civilian and military Germany had to submit
"perinde ac cadaver" to this all-powerful organisation.
No need to say that the Vatican washed its hands of these horrors. When
giving an audience to Dr Nerin F. Gun, a Swiss journalist who had been
deported himself and who wondered why the pope had not intervened, at least
by providing some assistance to so many unfortunate people, His Holiness
Pius XII had the affrontery to answer:
"We knew that, for political reasons, violent persecutions were taking place
in Germany, but We were never informed as to the inhuman character of
the Nazi repression".(124)
And that at the time when the speaker of Radio Vatican, the R.P.
Mistiaen, was declaring that "overwhelming documentary proof"
concerning the cruelty of the Nazis had been received".(125)
Without any doubt, the Holy Father was not informed either on what was
going on in the "Oustachi" concentration camps, in spite of his own legate's
presence in Zagreb.
(124) "Gazette of Lausanne", 15th of November 1945.
(125) R.P. Duclos: "Le Vatican et la seconde guerre mondiale", (Ed. Pedone, Paris 1955.
p.255) Imprimatur 1955.
Once, though, the Holy See was seen to take some interest in the fate of
certain people condemned to deportation. They were 528 Protestant
missionaries, survivors of all those who had been taken prisoners, by the
Japanese, in the islands of the Pacific and interned in concentration camps in
the Philippines. M. Andre Ribard, in his excellent book "1960 and the secret of
the Vatican", reveals the pontifical intervention on behalf of these unfortunates.
The text appears under No.1591, dated: Tokio 6th of April 1943, in a report
from the Department for Religious Affairs in occupied territories, and I
quote the following extract: it expressed the wish of the Roman Church
to see the Japanese pursue their politics and prevent certain religious
propagators of error to regain a freedom to which they were not entitled".(126)
From the "Christian" point of view, this charitable step needs no
comment, but is it not most significant, politically speaking? In Slovakia— as
we know—Monseigneur Tiso, the Jesuit Gauleiter, was also free to persecute
the "separated brethren" even though Germany, to which his State was a
satellite, was mainly Protestant. It says a lot about the influence the Roman
Church had in the Hitlerian Reich!
We have also seen the part played in Croatia by the representatives of that
Church, in the extermination of Orthodox believers.
As for the anti-Jewish crusade, the Gestapo's masterpiece, it may seem
superfluous to mention again the part played in it by Rome, as we have
already related the exploits of Monseigneur Tiso, the first provider of
Auschwitz's gas chambers and crematoria furnaces. We will just add a few
characteristic documents to this dossier.
First of all, here is a letter from M. Leon Berard, ambassador of the
Vichy government to the Holy See:
Marshall Petain, Sir,
In your letter dated 7th of August 1941, you honoured me in asking
certain information touching the questions and difficulties which could arise,
from the Roman Catholic point of view, out of the measures your government
took concerning the Jews. I have the honour to answer that nothing has been
said to me, at the Vatican, which could be interpreted as a criticism or
disapproval of the laws or directive deeds in question..."(127)
The periodical "L'Arche", when mentioning this letter in an article
entitled   "The   Silence   of   Pius   XII",   tells   of   a   subsequent   and
(126) Andre Ribard: "1960 et le secret du Vatican", (Librairie Robin, 38, rue de Vaugirard. Paris
1954, p.80) and Frederic Hoffet: "Politique romaine et demission des Protestants" (demission
des laiques) (Fischbacher, Paris).
(127) and (129) Leon Poliakov: "Breviaire de la haine" (Calmann-Levy, Paris 1951, pp
345, 350, 351).
complementary report which M. Leon Berard sent to Vichy on the 2nd of
September 1941:
Is there a contradiction between the Status of the Jews and the Catholic
doctrine? Only one, and Leon Berard respectfully points it out to the head of
State. It resides in the fact that the law of the 2nd of June 1941 defines the Jews as
a race... The Church (wrote Vichy's ambassador), never professed that the
same rights should be given to all citizens... As someone in authority at the
Vatican told me, you will not find yourselves in difficulties over the Status of
the Jews".(128)
There is, "translated into practice", the "terrible" encyclical letter "Mit
brennender Sorge", against racism, widely referred to by apologists.
But we find something even better, in M. Leon Poliakov's book:
"The proposal of the Protestant Church in France that, together with the
Roman Church, they should take some measures against the rounding-up of
Jews, during the Summer of 1942, was rejected by the Catholic
Many Parisians still remember how the Jewish children were taken from
their mothers and sent, by special trains, to the crematory furnaces of
Auschwitz. These deportations of children are confirmed, amongst several
other official documents, in a note of the "SS Haupsturmfuhrer
Danneker", dated 21st of July 1942.
The awful callousness of the Roman Church—and of its chief in
particular—inspired,   not  long  ago,  these  revengeful  lines  from the
aforementioned periodical "L'Arche":
"Over five years, Nazism was the author of outrage, profanation,
blasphemy and crime. Over five years, it massacred six million Jews.
Amongst these six million, 1,800,000 were children. Who, yes, who said once:
let the little children come unto me? And for what reason "Let them come unto
me so that I can butcher them?" The militant Pope has been followed by a
diplomatic pope.
From occupied Paris, we go to Rome, occupied also by the Germans after
the Italian collapse. Here is a message addressed to von Ribbentrop, Nazi
Foreign Affairs minister:
"German Embassy at the Holy See. Rome, 28th of October 1943.
Even though urged on every side, the pope has not expressed any
demonstrative reprobation of the deportation of Jews from Rome. He can
expect our enemies to reproach him in this attitude, and see it exploited by the
Protestants of Anglo-Saxon countries in their propaganda against
Catholicism; when considering this delicate question, the endangerment of our  
relations    with    the    German   government   was   the   deciding
(128) "L'Arche", November 1958.
(129) See earlier on.
17 5
Signed: Ernst von Weiszaeker( 130)
When relating the career of this Baron von Weiszaeker—tried as a war
criminal "for having prepared extermination lists"—"Le Monde" of the 27th
of July 1947 wrote:
"Perceiving a German defeat, he had himself appointed at the Vatican,
taking this opportunity to work closely with the Gestapo".
For the benefit of our readers not yet fully convinced, we will quote the
following official German document which sets out the Vatican's
dispositions—and those of the Jesuits—towards the Jews, before the war:
"Studying the evolution of anti-semitism in the United States, we note with
interest that the number of listeners to the radio broadcasts of Father
Coughlin (a Jesuit), well known for his anti-semitism, exceeds 20
The militant anti-semitism of the Jesuits in the United States, as
everywhere else, is not surprising on the part of these ultramontanes, as it is in
perfect accord with the "doctrine". Let us see what M. Daniel-Rops, of the
French Academy, has to say on the subject; this author specialises in pious
literature and publishes only under the auspices of "the Imprimatur". We read
in one of his best known works, "Jesus and His times", published in 1944,
during the German occupation:
"Over the centuries, wherever the Jewish race was scattered, blood
flowed, and always the call for murder uttered at Pilate's judgment hall
drowned the cry of despair repeated a thousand times. The face of a
persecuted Jewish nation fills History, but it cannot obliterate this other
face, smeared with blood and spittle, for which the Jewish crowd felt no pity.
No doubt, Israel had no choice in the matter and had to kill its God after
disowning Him, and, as blood mysteriously calls for blood, Christian charity
may have no choice either; should not the divine will compensate with the
horror of the progroms the unbearable horror (the Crucifixion') (132)
How well said! Or, to put it more bluntly: if millions of Jews had to go
through the gas chambers and crematory furnaces of Auschwitz, Dachau and
elsewhere, it was their just desert. This adversity was wanted by the "divine
will" and "Christian charity" would err if turning towards them.
The eminent professor M. Jules Isaac, president of the "Amitie judeo-
chretienne", exclaimed when referring to this passage:
"These terrible and blasphemous phrases provoke an unbearable horror
(130) "Secret archives of the Wilhelmstrasse".
(131) "Secret archives of the Wilhelmstrasse", (document 83-26 19/1, Berlin 25th of January
(132) Daniel-Rops: "Jesus en son temps" (Artheme Fayard, Paris 1944, pp.526, 527).
Imprimatur, 17th of April 1944.
themselves", aggravated the more by a note which says: "Amongst the Jews
today...,  some of them...  try to  shrug off this heavy responsibility...
Honourable sentiments indeed, but we cannot go contrary to the evidence of
History... the terrible weight (of Jesus' death) which Israel must bear is not up
to men to reject".(133)
M. Jules Isaac brings to our notice that the phrases in question have been
altered by the publisher "in the more recent editions" of this edifying
book—that is to say, after the Liberation. There is "a time" for everything: the
crematory furnaces were out-dated.
So, from the doctrinal affirmation of the papacy's high principles to
their putting into practice by Himmler, "our Ignatius of Loyola", the ring is
closed—and we will add the half mad anti-semitism of the Fuhrer thus loses
much of its mystery.
But—going back to this subject—does it not also shed more light on that
baffling individual?
The things which were imagined, before the war, in an attempt to explain the
evident disproportion between the man and the part he had to play! There
was a gap, an obvious vacuum felt by all. To fill this gap, legends were
abounding: stories were spread abroad not always without the secret purpose
of misleading!, Occult sciences, oriental magicians, astrologers inspired, so
we were told, the sleep-walking hermit of Berchtesgaden. And the choice of
the swastika as the Nazi party's insigna, which originated from India,
seemed to corroborate the idea.
M. Maxime Mourin refuted this particular assertion:
"Adolf Hitler had been a pupil at the school of Lambach and sang
amongst the choir boys in the abbey bearing the same name. He discovered the
swastika there, as it was the heraldic sign of Father Hagen, the abbey's
administrator".( 134)
The Fuhrer's "inspirations" are also easily explained, without having to
resort to mysterious or exotic philosophies. If it is obvious that this "son of the
Catholic Church", as he was described by Franco, was submitted to the
impulses of mysterious leaders, we know also that these had nothing to do
with oriental magic.
The earthly hells which devoured 25 million victims bear another stamp,
easily recognisable: the one of people who had to go through a lengthy and
meticulous training, as prescribed in the "Spiritual Exercises" (of the
(133) Jules Isaac: "Jesus et Israel" (Albin Michel, Paris 1948, p.382).
(134) Maxime Mourin: "Histoire des Grandes Puissances" (Payot. Paris 1958, p.134).
Section V
Chapter 7
The Jesuits and the Colleqium Russicum
Amongst the various causes which decided the Vatican to start the first
world war, by urging the emperor of Austria, Francis-Joseph, to "chastise the
Serbians", the main one was, as we have seen, to strike a decisive blow against
the Orthodox Church, this hated and centuries old rival.
Beyond the small Serbian nation, the Vatican aimed at Russia, the
traditional protector of Orthodox believers in the Balkans and the East.
M. Pierre Dominique wrote:
"To Rome, this affair became most important; a victory of apostolic
monarchy over Czarism could be looked upon as a victory of Rome over the
schism of the East".(135)
The Roman Curia was in no way concerned that such a victory could only
be acquired through a gigantic holocaust. The risk, rather the certainty of
it, was accepted, as the alliances made it unavoidable. Urged on by his
secretary of State, the Jesuit Merry del Val, Pius X made no secret of it and the
Bavarian Charge d'Affaires wrote to his government, on the eve of the
conflict: "He (the pope) does not think the French and Russian armies would
be successful in a war against Germany".(136)
This wicked calculation proved wrong. The first World War, which
ravaged the north of France and left several millions dead, did not fulfil
Rome's ambitions; it divided Austria-Hungary instead, so depriving the
Vatican of its main stronghold in Europe and liberating the Slavs who were
part of that double monarchy from Vienna's apostolic yoke.
In addition, the Russian revolution liberated from the Vatican's control
those Roman Catholics, for the most part of Polish origins, who lived in the
Czars former empire.
The defeat was total. But the Roman Church "patiens quia aeterna" was
(135) Pierre Dominique, op.cit., p.246.
(136) Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, I I I ,  p.206.
going to pursue with fresh efforts her politics of the "Drang nach Osten", the
thrust towards the East which combined so well with the Pan-German
For that, as we mentioned earlier on, the raising up of Dictators and the
second world war with its retinue of horrors; the "cleaning up" of the
Wartheland, in Poland, and the "compulsory catholicisation" of Croatia
were two examples, especially atrocious, of these horrors.
It was of no importance that 25 millions died in concentration camps, 32
millions soldiers were killed on the battle fields and 29 millions were
wounded and maimed; these are the official statistics of the United Nations
Organisation (137) and show the magnitude of that carnage! This time, the
Roman Curia thought her aims had been reached, and one could read in
'Basler Nachrichten' of Basle:
"The German action in Russia poses the question of that country's
evangelisation; the Vatican is most highly interested in it".(138)
And this, from a book devoted to the glorification of Pius XII:
"The Vatican and Berlin signed a pact allowing the Catholic missionaries of
the Russicum college to go to occupied territories and the placing of the
Baltic territories under Berlin's nunciature".(139)
The "catholicisation" of Russia was about to be launched, under the
protection of the Wehrmacht and SS, in the manner Pavelitch and his
associates were carrying it out in Croatia, but on a much vaster scale. This
was indeed a triumph for Rome!
What a disappointment, then, when the hitlerian thrust was stopped at
Moscow and when von Paulus and his army were trapped in Stalingrad! It
was Christmas time, Christmas of 1942, and one must re-read the
Message—rather the vibrant call to arms—addressed to the "Christian
nations" by the Holy Father:
"This is not a time for lamentation, but action. May the Crusades'
enthusiasm get hold of Christianity, and the call of "God wants it!" will be
heard; may we be ready to serve and sacrifice ourselves, as the Crusaders of
old..." We exhort and implore you to take upon yourselves the awful
gravity of the present situation... As for the volunteers who participate in this
Holy Crusade of modern times, "raise the standard high, declare war on the
darkness of a world separated from God".(140)
On this day of the Nativity, we were far from "Pax Christi"!
This war-like address was not the expression of the "strict neutrality" the
Vatican flatters itself to observe in international matters. This address was
made even more improper by the fact that Russia was the ally of England,
(137) "La Croix", 7th of September 1951.
(138) "Basler Nachrichten", 27th of March 1942.
(139) and (140) "War messages to the world", by Pius XII (Ed. Spes, Paris 1945, pp.34 and
257 ss).
America and Free France. We smile while reading the vehement
contestation of Pius XII's thurifers who tell us that Hitler's war was not a
real "crusade", when that word is mentioned in the Holy Father's Message.
The "volunteers" the pope called to arms were those of the
"Azul Division" and those recruited by Cardinal Baudrillart in Paris.
"Hitler's war is a noble enterprise in the defence of European culture",
he exclaimed on the 30th of July 1941.
We note, though, that the Vatican is not interested any more in the
defence of this culture now that it strives to make African nations revolt
against France. Pius XII said: "The Catholic Church does not identify
herself with western culture". (141 and 141a)
The impostures and gross contradictions are endless on the part of
those who accuse Satan of being the "father of all lies".
The defeat sustained in Russia by Hitler's armies, "these noble defenders
of European culture", involved also the Jesuit converters. One wonders
what Saint-Theresa was doing before such a disaster! Pius XI had
proclaimed her "patron-saint of unfortunate Russia" and Canon Coube
represented her standing, "smiling but as terrible as an army set for battle
against the Bolshevist giant".(142)
Had the Saint of Lisieux—used for all kinds of work by the Church—
succumbed under the new and gigantic task assigned to her by the Holy
lather? It would not be surprising.
But, instead of the little saint, there was still the Queen of Heaven who
had taken upon herself, in 1917 already, under certain conditions, to bring
back schismatic Russia to the Roman Church's fold. Let us read what 'La
Croix' said about it:
"We will remind our readers that the Virgin of Fatima had herself
promised the conversion of the Russians, if all Christians sincerely and
joyfully practised all the commandments of the evangelical law".(143)
We want to point out that, according to the Jesuit Fathers who are
great specialists in miraculous matters, the celestial Mediator
recommended as especially effective the daily use of the rosary.
This promise from the Virgin had even been sealed by a "dance of the
Sun", a wonder which occurred again in 1951, in the gardens of the
Vatican, for the benefit of His Holiness Pius XII only.
Nevertheless, the Russians entered Berlin, in spite of the crusade called
tor by the pope—and, until now, the fellow-countrymen of Mr.
Khrushchev have not shown any eagerness, as far as we know, to appear
(141) "Le Monde", 13th of April 1956 (Congress of African catholic students).
(141a) See also Francois Mejan: "Le Vatican contre la France d'Outre-Mer" (Fischbacher).
(142) Canon Coube: "Sainte Therese de l'Enfant Jesus et les crises du temps present"
(Flammarion, Paris 1936, p.6 ss). IMPRIMATUR 11th of January 1936.
(143) "La Croix", 11th of June 1947.
before the doors of Saint-Peter in penitent garb with the halters around
their necks.
What went wrong? Had christains not 'told' sufficient beads on their
rosaries? Were Heaven's requisite number of 'tens' not fulfilled?
We would be tempted to believe this to be the cause if there wasn't that
rather scabrous detail in the wonderful story of Fatima. The promise of
Russia's conversion, sensibly given to the clairvoyant Lucia in 1917, was
"revealed" by her in 1941 only, when she had become a nun, and made
public in October 1942 by Cardinal Schuster, a keen partisan of the Rome-
Berlin Axis; it was made public by request, or shall we say order, from Pius
XII—this same Pius XII who, three months later, expressed the
aforementioned call for a Crusade.
Very "enlightening" indeed: One of Fatima's apologists admits that,
because of it, the matter "evidently loses some of its prophetic
value..."(144) This is the least one could say about it! A certain canon, great
specialist in the matter of the "Portuguese miracle" tells us in confidence: "I
must confess that, as far as I am concerned, it is only with great reluctance that
I added to my first editions the text revealed to the public by His Eminence
Cardinal Schuster..."(145)
We certainly understand the good canon's feelings:
So, the Holy Virgin told the shepherdess Lucia, in 1917: "If my requests are
heeded, Russia will be converted...", while charging her to keep this "secret"
to herself. How, then, could the Christians have come to know these
"requests" and meet them?
"Credibile quia ineptum".
It seems that, from 1917 until 1942, "unfortunate Russia" did not need to
have prayers offered on her behalf, and that they were urgently needed only
after the Nazi defeat at Moscow and when von Paulus was trapped in
At least, it is the only conclusion this late revelation allows. The
supernatural—as we have said already—is a powerful thing, but it must be
handled with some care.
After Montoire, the Jesuits' general, Halke von Ledochowski, already
spoke haughtily about the general meeting the Company would hold in
Rome, after England had capitulated, the importance and brilliance of
which would not find an equal in all its history.
But Heaven had decided otherwise, in spite of Saint-Theresa and the Lady
of Fatima. Great Britain braced herself against the enemy, the United States
entered the war, (even though the Jesuit Father Coughlin had
(144) Michel Agnellet: "Miracles a Fatima" (Ed. de Trevise, Paris 1958, p.54). Imprimatur
(145) Canon Barthas: "Fatima, merveille du XXe siecle", (Fatima Editions, Toulouse 1957,
p.81) Imprimatur 1957.
worked so hard), the Allies disembarked in North Africa and the Russian
campaign was a disaster for the Nazis.
For Ledochowski, it was the collapse of his great dream. Wehrmacht, SS,
"cleaner-ups" and Jesuit converters were retreating together. The general's
health did not stand up to such a disaster and he died.
Let us see, though, what this "Russicum" is which Pius XI and von
Ledochowski added, in 1929, to the already so rich and varied Roman
"With the apostolic Constitution "Quam Curam", Pius XI created this
Russian seminary, in Rome, where young apostles of every nationality would
be trained, "on condition that they adopt, before anything else, the
Byzantine-Slav rite, and that their minds were made up to devote
themselves entirely to the task of bringing Russia back into Christ's
This is the aim of the Russian pontifical College, alias "Russicum", the
Oriental pontifical Institute and the Roman College—these three Centres are
also administered by the Company of Jesus.
At the "Roman College"—45, Piazza del Gesu—we find the Jesuits'
noviceship and, amongst the novices, some bear the name of "Russipetes", as
they are destined to "petere Russiam", or go to Russia.
Orthodox believers should watch out, for so many valorous champions are
determined to crush them. We must point out, though, that the
aforementioned "Homme nouveau" affirms:
"All these priests are certainly destined to go to Russia. But this project
cannot be realised for the time being".(147)
According to this particular publication, the Soviet press calls these
apostles "the Vatican's parachutists". And, from the testimony of someone
well-informed on the subject, we come to the conclusion that this name fits
them quite well.
The person in question is no less than the Jesuit Alighiero Tondi,
professor at the Gregorian pontofical University, who repudiated Ignatius of
Loyola, the "Spiritual Exercises" though not without a considerable row and
resigned from the famous Company, together with its pomp and deeds.
We can read the following, amongst other declarations, in an interview he
gave to an Italian newspaper:
"The activities of the Collegium Russicum and other organisations linked
to it are many and varied. For example, together with Italian fascists and what
remains of Geman nazism, the Jesuits organise and co-ordinate the various
anti-Russian groups, on the ecclesiastical authority's order. The ultimate aim
is to be ready, eventually, to overthrow the governments
(146) "L'Homme nouveau" (L'Avenir catholique), 7th of December 1958.
(147) "L'Homme nouveau" (L'Avenir catholique), 7th of December 1958.
of the East. Finances are provided by the ruling ecclesiastical
organisations. This is the work the leaders of the clergy apply themselves to.
These same ones would readily tear their cassocks apart, out of grief, when
they are accused of meddling in politics and urging the bishops and priests of
the East to conspire against their governments."
"When talking to the Jesuit Andrei Ouroussof, I said that it was
disgraceful to affirm in the "Osservatore Romano", the Vatican's official
voice, and in other ecclesiastical publications, that the unmasked spies were
"martyrs of the faith". Ouroussof burst out laughing.
"—What would you write, Father? he asked me. Would you call them spies,
or something worse? Today, the Vatican's politics need martyrs. But, at the
moment, martyrs are difficult to find. So they are fabricated.
—But this is a dishonest game!
"He shook his head ironically.
—You are ingenous, Father. Because of your work, you should know better
than anyone else that the Church's leaders have always been inspired by the
same rules.
—And what about Jesus-Christ? I asked.
He laughed: "One must not think of Jesus-Christ", he said. "If we
thought of Him, we would end up on the cross. And, today, the time has
come to put others on the cross and not be hoist on it ourselves."(148)
So, as the Jesuit Ouroussof said it so well, the Vatican's politics need
martyrs, volunteers or not. It "created" millions of them during two world
(148) Interview which appeared in "Il Paese" on the 2nd of October 1954.
Section V
Chapter 8
Pope John XXIII removes the mask
Out of all the fictions generally accepted in this world, the spirit of peace and
harmony attributed to the Holy See is probably the most difficult to root
up—as this spirit seems inherent to the nature of the apostolic magister
In spite of the lessons of History, not fully known or too quickly
forgotten, the one who calls himself "Christ's vicar" must necessarily
incarnate, in the eyes of many, the ideal of love and fraternity taught by the
Gospel. Does not logic, as well as sentiment, want it to be so?
In reality, the events make us realise that this favourable presumption must
be greatly abated—and we believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated.
But the Church is prudent—as we are often reminded—and it is seldom that
her real actions are not surrounded by the indispensable precautions which
will take care of appearances. "Bonne renommee vaut mieux que ceinture
doree" (A good reputation is better than a golden belt), says the proverb. But it
is even better to possess both. The Vatican— immensely rich—guides itself
by this maxim. Its political lust for domination always assumes "spiritual"
and humanitarian pretexts, proclaimed "urbi and orbi" by an intense
propaganda which a goldplated belt provides for—and the "good reputation",
thus preserved, maintains the inflow of gold to the said belt.
The Vatican does not deviate from that line of conduct and, when the
stand it takes in international affairs is clearly revealed through the attitude of its
hierarchy, the legend of its absolute impartiality is kept alive by those solemn
and ambiguous encyclical letters and other pontifical documents. Recently,
the hitlerian era multiplied such examples. But could it be otherwise of an
authoritative power which is supposed to be transcedent and universal at the
same time?
The instances when that mask was seen to fall are very rare.
For the world to be a witness of such a spectacle, a contingency is
necessary which,
to the Holy See's eyes, endangers its vital interests. Only then does it throw
aside all ambiguity and openly places all the credit at its disposition on one of
the scales.
This is what happened in Rome, on the 7th of January 1960, concerning the
"summit" conference which was to bring together heads of Eastern and
Western governments, in an attempt to settle the conditions of a truly
peaceful co-existence between the defenders of two opposite ideologies.
Of course, the Vatican's position before such a project did not leave us in any
doubt. In the United States, Cardinal Spellman demonstrated it plainly by
urging Catholics to show their hostility to Mr. Khrushchev when he was the
guest of the American president. For his part, and without expressing it
clearly, His Holiness John XXIII had shown little enthusiasm for the "detente"
in his Chritmas message. The "hope" it expressed, to see peace set up in the
world, a wish which is a "must" in such a document, seemed very weak
accompanied as it was with many calls to Western leaders to be prudent.
But, so far, the Vatican put on a good face.
What happened, then, within less than two weeks? Did another long-
cherished "hope"—to see the first one fail—prove vain? Did the decision of Mr.
Gronchi, president of the Italian Republic, to go to Moscow make the cup of
Roman bitterness overflow?
Whatever happened, the storm broke out suddenly on the 7th of
January—and the ecclesiastical thunders burst (with unprecedented fury) upon
the "Christian" Statesmen, guilty of wanting an end to the cold war. On the
8th of January, "Le Monde" printed the following:
"On the day the president of the Italian Republic was to leave to pay a
minutely-prepared official visit to Moscow's leaders, Cardinal Ottaviani,
successor of Cardinal Pizzardo as secretary of the Holy-Office
congregation, or chief of the Church's supreme tribunal, delivered a most
astonishing speech in the bascilica of "Saint-Marie-Majeure", during a
morning propitiatory service for "the Church of Silence".
"Never before had a prince of the Church, holding one of the Vatican's most
important posts, attacked the Soviet authorities, so furiously, nor
reprimanded so harshly the Western powers who dealt with them".
"Le Monde" gave substantial excerpts of that violent speech which amply
justified the qualificative of "most astonishing" it had just used. "Tamerlanes's
times are back", affirmed Cardinal Ottaviani—and the Russian leaders were
described as "new antichrists" who "condemn to deportation, imprison,
massacre, and leave nothing but wasteland behind them". The orator was
shocked that nobody anymore was "scared to shake hands with them", and
that, "on the contrary, a race was arranged to see who would be the first to do
so and exchange smiles with them". Then he reminded his listeners that Pius
XII withdrew to Castelgandolfo when Hitler came to Rome—forgetting
though to add that this same pontiff had
concluded with the said Hitler a Concordat most advantagous for the
Space travel was not spared either in that violent denunciation: "the new
man... believes he can violate Heaven by feats in space and so demonstrates
once more that God does not exist".
The Western "politicians and statesmen" who, according to the cardinal,
"grow stupid with terror", were severely hauled over the coals—as were all the
"Christians" who "do not react or leap with rage any more..."
Finally, this virulent and significant conclusion:
"Can we declare ourselves satisfied with any kind of detente when, in the first
place, there cannot be any sort of calm, within humanity, unless we observe
an elementary respect for conscience, our faith, the face of Christ covered
once more with spittle, crowned with thorns and struck? Could we hold out
our hand to those who do this?"
These dramatic words cannot make us forget that the Vatican can hardly
speak of "respect for consciences" as it shamelessly oppresses them in
countries where it dominates, such as in Franco's Spain where the
Protestants are persecuted. In fact, it is most impudent—on the part of the
Holy-Office's secretary especially!—to demand that others observe this
elementary respect" when the Roman Church rejects it entirely.
The encyclical letter "Quanta cura" and the "Syllabus" are explicit:
Anathema on the one who says: every man is free to embrace or profess the
religion his judgment considers to be right".
("Syllabus", article XV)
"... It is madness to think that the freedom of conscience and worship are
mere rights to every man." ("Encyclical letter "Quanta cura")
Judging by the way it treats "heretics", it is no wonder that the Vatican
systematically condemns all attempts to come to terms between "Christian"
States and those who are officially atheistic. "Non est pax impilis"—"No
peace for the wicked"!
And the Jesuit Father Cavelli, like many others before him, proclaims that
this "intransigence" is the Roman Church's "most imperative law".
As a counterpart to this explosion of fury on the cardinal's part, we will
quote another article which appeared in the same number of "Le Monde", on
the 9th of January 1960:
"Humanity is approaching a situation where mutual annihilation
becomes a possibility. In the world today, there is no other event which can be
compared, in importance, to this... We must then strive incessantly for a just
peace". So said President Eisenhower, yesterday, Thursday, before the United
States Congress, at the same time as Cardinal Ottaviani, in Rome,
condemned the co-existence as partaking of the crime of Cain.
The contrast between two manners of thought cannot be more striking: the
human and the theocratic—nor more obvious the mortal danger
hovering over the world because of that nucleus of blind fanaticism we call the
Vatican. Its "sacred" egoism is such that circumstances and the urgent
necessity for an international accord, in order to avoid the almost total
extermination threatening humanity, do not matter.
The Holy Office's secretary—this supreme tribunal whose past is too well-
known—does not take into account such negligible contingencies. Do the
Russians go to mass? This is the important thing, and if President
Eisenhower does not understand it, it is because he "seems to have grown
stupid with terror", to use the terms of the fiery "Porporato".
The delirious frenzy of Cardinal Ottaviani's speech makes us smile at the
same time as shocking us. And many think that this firebrand will find it
difficult to persuade "Christians" that the atomic bomb must be accepted
gracefully. But we must be on our guard! Behind this spokesman of the Holy
See, there is all the pontifical organisation—and especially this secret army of
Jesuits not made up of ordinary soldiers. All the members of that famous
Company work within the corridors of power, and their action, without
making a great deal of noise, can be singularly effective, that is to say evil.
A rumour was spread that Cardinal Ottaviani's brutal stand was not the
exact reflection of the Holy See's thought, but only that of one of the so-
called "integrist" clan. The Catholic press, in France at any rate, tried to
attenuate the import of that violent speech—and "La Croix", in particular, only
printed a short extract from which all violence had been omitted. Wise
opportunism indeed, but it could not deceive anyone. It is just impossible that
such a sharp criticism, of an exceptional political importance, could have
been uttered from the pulpit of "Sainte-Marie-Majeure" by the Holy Office's
secretary, without the approval of that Congregation's chief, of its "prefect",
the Sovereign Pontiff himself. And, as far as we know, he never disowned his
eloquent subordinate. Pope John XXIII could not throw that bomb himself, but
by making one of the most important of the Curia's dignitaries take his place,
he wanted to make his connivance obvious to everyone.
Moreover, and by a strange "coincidence", a more modest explosion took
place at the same time, in the form of an article in the "Osservatore
Romano", condemnding once again socialism, even non-marxist, as
"opposed to Christian truth". However, those who practice this political
"mistake" are not excommunicated "ipso facto" like the communists. They still
have the hope of escaping Hell—but the threat of Purgatory remains!
By showing its opposition to any attempt at bringing together East and
West so vehemently, was the Vatican expecting some positive results? Was it
really hoping to intimidate the Statesmen who pursue these politics of peace?
Or was it at least hoping to provoke a move contrary to the "detente"
amongst the faithful?
As unreasonable as such a hope may seem, it may well have haunted
these clerical minds. Their peculiar views are bound to produce such
illusions. What's more, these soothsayers, they could not have forgotten
a certain illusion used for so long to deceive those who trusted them—and
which they apparently shared. We are referring to "Russia's conversion",
apparently announced at Fatima by the Holy Virgin in person—in
1917— to Lucia the shepherdess, who eventually embraced holy
orders and testified of it somewhat late, in 1942, in the "memoirs" she
wrote at her superiors' request.
This cock and bull story may make us smile, but the fact remains that
the Vatican—under Pius XII's pontificate—propogated it throughout
the world with any amount of speeches, sermons, solemn declarations,
a torrent of books and pamphlets, and the peregrinations of the statue of
that new and very political "Notre-Dame" across every continent—where
even the animals, so we were told, came to pay homage. This noisy
propaganda is still clearly remembered by the faithful—as are the wild
affirmations such as this one, printed on the 1st of November 1952 by
"La Croix":
"Fatima has become a cross-roads... The fate of the nations can be
decided better there than around tables".
Its thurifers cannot find refuge in ambiguity any more. The alternative
is perfectly clear: "detente or cold war".—The Vatican chooses war—
and does not hide the fact.
This choice should not surprise anyone—if past experience, even in
the recent past, has been a lesson to us. And if it surprised some, we
believe that it is because of its unceremonious proclamation, or without
the usual camouflage."
We begin to understand the violence when we consider the importance
of the stake to the Roman pontiff. We would misjudge the Vatican by
thinking it capable of renouncing a hope as old as the Eastern schism
itself, the one of bringing back Orthodox believers under her obedience
through a military success. Hitler's rise was due to this obstinate hope—
but the final defeat of his Crusade still did not open the eyes of the
Roman Curia to the folly of such an ambition.
There is another and even more pressing desire: to liberate in Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia this famous "Church of Silence" which has
only become such because of the unexpected turn of events—for the
Holy See—in the Nazi Crusade. "Qui trop embrasse mal etreint (grasp
all, lose all): a wise proverb which has never inspired fanatics.
To resume its march towards the East, its clerical "Drang nach
Osten", and first retrieve the lost strongholds, the Vatican still relies
upon the Germanic "secular arm", its main European champion in need
of new strength and vigour. At the head of Federal Germany—western
section of the great Reich—it had placed a trusty man, Chancellor Konrad
the pope's secret chamberlain—and the politics he pursued for more than
fifteen years clearly display the Holy See's stamp. Exhibiting at first great
caution and an opportune "liberal" state of mind, the man his fellow-
countrymen nicknamed "der alte Fuchs"—"The old fox" worked at
rearming his country. Of course, the "moral" rearmament of the
population, and of the German youth in particular, was an imperative
supplement to the first.
That is why important posts in the ministries and administrations of
Western Germany are held by many individuals with notorious hitlerian
pasts—the list is long—and captains of industry such as von Krupp and Flick,
who had not long since been condemned as war criminals, direct again their
gigantic works which were restored to them. The end justifies the means. And
this end is clear enough: to forge Siegfried's new sword, the arm necessary for
revenge—a revenge which would be shared by the Vatican.
It is then with a perfect synchronsim that the chancellor-chamberlain,
during an interview given to a Dutch periodical, echoed the fulminating
speech Cardinal Ottaviani had just expressed:
"...The peaceful co-existence of nations whose views are totally opposite is
just an illusion which, alas, still finds too many supporters".(150)
The incendiary "sermon" given on the 7th of January at "Sainte-Marie-
Majeure" preceded by a few days—as by accident—the visit of Konrad
Adenauer to Rome. The reports the press gave were unanimous at
underlining the friendly and sympathetic atmosphere which prevailed during
the private audience His Holiness John XXIII gave to the German chancellor
and his Foreign Affairs minister, Mr. von Brentano.
We could even read in "L'Aurore":
"This meeting provoked a rather unexpected declaration from the
chancellor, when answering the pontifical address which praised the
courage and faith of the German government's head:
"I think that God has given the German people a special part to play in
these troubled times: to be the protector of the West against the powerful
influences of the East threatening us".(151)
"Combat" accurately noted:
We had heard this before, but in a more condensed manner: "Gott mit
uns"—"God with us". (The motto on the belt buckle of the German soldiers in
the 1914/18 war).
And that newspaper added:
"Dr Adenauer's evocation of the work attributed to the German nation
(150) "ELSEVIERS WEEKBLATT", quoted by "Combat" on the 11 th of January I960.
(151) "L'Aurore", 23rd of January 1960.
(152) "Combat", 23rd of January 1960.
(153) "Le Figaro", 23rd of January I960.
found its inspiration in a similar declaration from the previous pontiff. We are
therefore allowed to presume that if Dr Adenauer pronounced this phrase in
the present circumstances, it is because he thought his listeners were ready to
hear him".(152)
In fact, one would have to be singularly naive and utterly ignorant of
elementary diplomacy to think that this "unexpected" declaration was not part
of the programme. We wager also that it did not cast any shadow over "the
prolonged conversation Mr. Adenauer had with Cardinal Tardini, the Holy
See's secretary of State, whom he entertained for luncheon at the German
The spectacular intrusion of the Holy-Office in international politics,
voiced by Cardinal Ottaviani, shocked even Catholics who were long
accustomed to the Roman Church's encroachments in the affairs of State.
Rome was aware of it. But the perpetuation of the cold war is so vitally
important to the Vatican's political power, and even its financial
prosperity, that it did not hesitate repeating such political views, even
though the first one had been badly received.
The journey Mr. Khrushchev made to France, in March 1960, gave it
another opportunity. Dijon was one of the cities the Soviet leader was to
visit. Like all his colleagues in the same situation, the mayor of Dijon had to
welcome courteously the guest of the French Republic. The chief city of
Burgandy had an ecclesiastic as its deputy-mayor, Canon Kir.
According to the canonical law, the Holy See had expressly authorised thc
priest to accept this double mandate—with all the functions and duties
entailed. However, his bishop forbade the mayor-canon to receive Mr.
Khrushchev. On that occasion, the municipal sash had to give way to the
So, the visitor was welcomed by an assistant who stood in for the absent
deputy-mayor. But the unconstrained manner in which the "hierarchy"
scoffed at civil authority on that occasion aroused the sharpest comments, On
the 30th of March, "Le Monde" wrote:
"Who is actually exercising authority over the mayor of Dijon: the
bishop or the prefect? And above these representatives of a central power: the
pope or the French government? This is the question asked In
The answer is not doubtful: theocracy first. But, from now on, to be
received by a cassock wearing mayor, will the guests of the French
Republic have to be supplied with confession tickets?
In the aforementioned article, the editor of "Le Monde" also rightly says:
"Beyond this French interior question, the Kir affair brings to our notice
a  larger problem. The Vatican's action is not concerned only with the
relations between a mayor and his government. In the way it took place, it
constitutes   a   direct   and   spectacular   intervention   in   international
This is certainly true—and the reactions this affair provoked nearly
everywhere show that its import was clearly understood by world opinion. In
the United States especially, the public, which had already witnessed the
hostile demonstrations organised by the cardinals Spellman and Cushing
during Mr. Khrushchev's visit, started to question the real independence a
Roman Catholic president could preserve with regard to the Holy See.
Many feared, in that case, to see the foreign politics of the country bent in
favour of the Roman Church's interests—to the prejudice of the nation's
interests, no small danger in any circumstances, but above all in the present
The resistance to the move for an East-West "detente" was then
organised "openly", after the "bomb" thrown by Cardinal Ottaviani.
A ridiculous instrument, some may say, compared with those which
threatened to bury under ruins—sooner or later—nations mad enough to
remain in the deadlock of a snarling antagonism. But we can see that the
Vatican, compelled to use "spiritual" arms, endeavoured to make the best of
them. The Jesuits, who steer its diplomacy, were doing their uttermost to ward
off the worst "calamity" which ever hovered over the Holy See: an
international accord which excluded resorting to war.
What would become of the Vatican's prestige, its political importance and
all the advantages, pecuniary and others, which proceed from it if, because
of such an accord, it could not plot anymore, use its influence, haggle over
its co-operation with governments, favour some and bully others, oppose
nations, create conflicts for the benefit of its own interests— and if, to serve
its immoderate ambitions, it could not find any more soldiers?
*No one can be deceived—and the Jesuits even less than others—a general
disarmament would toll the knell of the Roman Church as a world power.
And the "spiritual" head itself would totter.
We must then expect to see the sons of Loyola opposing with all their
arsenal of tricks the desire for peace of nations and governments. To ruin the
edifice whose foundations are tentatively laid, they will not spare their mines
and counter mines. It is a war without mercy, a holy war, sparked off by
Cardinal Ottaviani's mad speech. And the Company of Jesus will pursue it with
the blind obstinacy of the insect—"ad majorem papae gloriam"— without
any anxiety as to the catastrophes which will result. The world must perish,
rather than the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff!
Edmond Paris was at a disadvantage in that he wasn't aware that a shift was already under way by the
'Whore of Revelation" to fulfill Bible prophecy. She is prepared for all eventualities.
The Jesuits evaluated World War III and decided the U.S. would lose, and the Vatican always goes
with the winner. Since then she has enthusiastically thrown her support to Moscow and even acquired a
communist pope from Poland. She is secretly preparing a concordat with Russia, and currently pushing
a Marxist gospel world wide. The Jesuits are currently behind the disarmament movement to subdue the
Moscow will serve the Vatican as the muscle to conquer nations where Roman Catholicism will he the
only religion tolerated world wide. Russia will be pushed to attack Israel, fulfilling the prophecies of
the Bible (Ezekiel, chapters 38 & 39) and the antichrist of the Vatican will await his doom at the second
coming of Christ.
We have recapitulated, in this book, the main manifestations of the
multiform activity deployed by the Company of Jesus, during four
centuries; we have established also that the militant, even military,
character of this famous and ultramontane institution fully justifies the title
often attributed to it of "secret army of the Papacy".
To the front of the action, for the glory of God—and especially of the Holy
See—is the order these ecclesiastical soldiers gave themselves and of which
they are proud; at the same time, they endeavour, through the book and pious
press which they supervise, to disguise as much as possible and present as
"apostolic" enterprises the action they exercise in their favourite field: the
nations' politics.
The clever camouflage, the protestations of innocence, the railleries
about the "dark schemings" attributed to them by the disordered
imagination of their enemies—and which are groundless, according to
them—all this is outweighed by the unanimous hostility of public opinion
towards them, always and everywhere, and by the inevitable reaction to their
intrigues which brought about their explulsion from every country, even
from the most strongly Catholic.
These fifty-six expulsions, to quote only the main ones, provide an
invincible argument! It would be sufficient to prove the evil nature of this
How could it not be injurious to civil societies as it is the papacy's most
efficacious instrument in imposing its law on temporal governments, and that
this law—by nature—has no consideration for the various national interests?
The Holy See, being essentially opportunist, does embrace these interests when
they coincide with its own—we saw this happen in 1914 and 1939—but, if it
brings them a substantial help then, the final result is not beneficial for all
that. This was seen also in 1918 and 1945.
Terrible to its enemies, or those who oppose it, the Vatican, this
amphibious clerico-political organisation, is even more deadly to its
friends. By observing some vigilance, one can be forewarned of its
underhand thrusts, but its embraces are deadly.
On that subject, Mr. T. Jung wrote, in 1874, the following lines which
have not grown old-'The power of France is in inverse ratio to the intensity
of her obedience to the Roman Curia".(l)
And from a more recent witness: M. Joseph Hours, when studying the
effects of our very relative "disobedience", he wrote:
"There is no doubt about it; right through the continent (and maybe,
today, all over the globe), wherever Catholicism is tempted to become
political, it is also tempted to become anti-French".(2)
A just remark indeed, even though the term "tempted" is rather weak.
We will nevertheless conclude that "to obey" would be more to the point.
Is it not better, in fact, to expose oneself to this hositlity, rather than to
have to come to this conclusion, like Colonel Beck, former Foreign Affairs
minister of the very Catholic Poland (2a)".
"The Vatican is one of those principally responsible for the tragedy of my
country. I realised too late that we had pursued our foreign politics just to
serve the sole interests of the Catholic Church".
Moreover, the fate of the very apostolic empire of the Hapsburgs was not
too encouraging; as for Germany, so dear to the hearts of popes, and
especially Pius XII's, she could not be pleased, finally, with the costly
favours Their Holiness lavished on her.
In fact, we wonder if the Roman Church reaped any profit at all from this
mad aspiration to govern the world, a pretension kept alive by the Jesuits
more than anyone else. In the course of four centuries in which these
firebrands spread strife and hatred, slaughter and ruins in Europe, from the
Thirty Years War until the Hitler Crusade, did the Church enjoy gain or
suffer loss?
The answer is easy: the clearest and most incontestable result is a
continuous diminution of the "heritage of Saint-Peter"—a sad end to so
many crimes!
Did the Jesuits' influence obtain better results within the Vatican itself? It
is very doubtful.
A catholic author wrote:
"They always aim at concentrating the ecclesiastical power which they
control. The pope's infallibility exasperates bishops and governments: they
nevertheless ask forit at the Council of Trent and obtain it at the Vatican
Council (1870)... The Company's prestige fascinates, within the Church, its
(1) T. Jung: "La France et Rome", (Charpentier, Paris 1874, p.369).
(2) "L'Annee politique et economique", 19, quai Bourbon, Paris 4e, January-March 1953,
pp.2 ss.
(2a) Declaration made on the 6th of February 1940.
adversaries as much as its friends. We have respect or, at least, we fear it; we
think it can do anything, and we behave accordingly".(3)
Another catholic writer strongly stated the effects of this concentration of
power in the Pontiffs hands:
"The Society of Jesus was suspicious of life, the source of heresy, and
opposed authority to it.
The Council of Trent seems already to be the testament of Catholicism.
It is the last genuine Council.
"After that, there will only be the Vatican Council which consecrates the
abdication of the councils.
We are well aware of the popes' gain at the end of the councils.
What a simplification—what an impoverishment also!
Roman Christianity takes possession of its character of absolute
monarchy, founded now and forever on papal infallibility.
The picture is beautiful but life bears its costs.
Everything comes from Rome, and Rome is left to lean only on
Further on, the author sums up what the famous Company must be
credited for: "It delayed maybe the death of the Church, but by a kind of
pact with death".(5)
A kind of sclerosis, if not necrosis, is spreading and corrupting the
Church, under that Loyolan ascendancy. Vigilant guardians of the dogma,
whose antiquated character they accentuate with their aberrant worship of the
Virgin Mary, the Jesuits, masters of the Gregorian Pontifical University
which was founded by Ignatius of Loyola, check the teaching of the
seminaries, supervise the Missions, reign at the Holy-Office, animate the
Catholic Action, censure and direct the religious press in every country,
patronize with tender love the great centres of pilgrimages: Lourdes,
Lisieux, Fatima, etc. In short, they are everywhere, and we can regard as
significant the fact that the pope, when ministering at the mass, is
necessarily assisted by a Jesuit; his confessor is always a Jesuit, too.
By working at perfecting the concentration of power in the hands of the
Sovereign Pontiff, the Company is in fact working for itself and the pope,
apparent beneficiary of that work, could echo these famous words: "I am
their chief, so I follow them".
So, it becomes more and more hopeless trying to distinguish the action of the
Holy See from the one of the Company. But this Order, the very back bone of
the Church, tends to dominate her entirely. For a long time now, the bishops
have been nothing more than "civil servants", docile executors of the orders
coming from Rome, or rather from the Gesu.
(3) Andre Mater- "Les Jesuites" (Reider, Paris 1932, p. 118).
(4) and (5) Henri Petit: "L'Honneur de Dieu" (Grasset, Paris 1958, p.88).
Without any doubt, Loyola's disciples endeavour to mask from the eyes of
the faithful, the harshness of a more and more totalitarian system. The
Catholic press, under their direct control, assumes some variety of
inspiration, to give its readers the illusion of a kind of independence, to be
open to "new" ideas: the Fathers, who are all things to all men, willingly
practise these juggler's tricks which deceive only the star-gazers. But,
behind these petty amusements, the everlasting Jesuit is watching, about
whom an aforementioned author wrote: "Intransigence is inborn in him.
Capable of being a shuffler, because of his craftiness, he only excels at being
We find excellent examples of that stubborness and insidious bias in the
patient work of the Company's members, to conciliate, for better or worse, the
"modern" and scientific spirit to which they take care to be attentive with the
demands of the "doctrine" in general and, especially, with these rather
idolatrous forms of devotion—the worship of Mary and wonderworking—of
which they remain the most zealous propagators.
To say that these efforts are crowned with success would be an
exaggeration: when blending water and fire, we obtain mainly steam. But
even the inconsistency of these clouds is rather pleasing to certain subtle
minds, even though warned about the dangers too much precision in the
thoughts brings to a sincere piety. "Vade retro, Satanas"!
As far as that is concerned, German metaphysics are most helpful; we find
in them everything we need, and even the opposite. There isn't any childish
superstition which, after pedantic treatment, does not acquire some
appearance of seriousness and even depth. It is rather amusing to follow the
game in the periodicals and bulletins of various cultural groups.
There, the enquirer finds the material he needs, and especially the one
who, through an inclination somewhat aberrant, enjoys reading between the
However, these men full of bitterness do not live only the speculative
sphere, the good Fathers made sure they gave their apostolate amongst
"intellectuals" a solid temporal foundation. To the gifts of the Spirit the
lavishly bestow upon their disciples are added substantial advantages.
Besides, it is an ancient tradition. In Charlemagne's time, the converted
Saxons received a white shirt. Nowadays, the beneficiaries of a newly-found
or re-discovered Faith enjoy other favours, especially in the academic and
scientific worlds: the not very clever student passes examinations without
difficulties; the professor is given the professorial chair of his choice; the
physician who is a "believer", in addition to rich clients, has preference when
wanting to join some important society, etc.. Through a natural mechanism,
these choice recruits will bring others and,
(6) Andre Mater, op.cit., p. 192.
as there is strength in numbers, their conjugated action will be most
efficacious in what we call the leading spheres.
This can be seen in Spain, so we are told, and even elsewhere.
In "Le Monde" of the 7th of May 1956, M. Henri Fesquet devoted an
important article to the Spanish "Opus Dei". When defining the action of the
pious and occult organisation, he wrote: "Its members... aim at helping
intellectuals to reach a religious state of perfection through the exercise of their
professions, and sanctify professional work".
This is no new story, and M. Fesquet knows it, for he says a little further on:
"They are accused—and the fact doesn't seem deniable—of wanting to occupy
the keyposts of the land, to be at the core of the University, administration,
government, to prevent from entering or even expel from them unbelievers
and liberals".
The "Opus" apparently entered France "clandestinely" in November 1954,
"brought in" by two priests and five laymen, doctors or medical students. That
may be so, but we doubt if this reinforcement coming from "tras los montes"
was really necessary to the pursuit of their work which has been going on for a
long time now, in France, mainly in the medical and academic worlds, as
certain scandals in examinations and competitions revealed it.
In any case, the French branch of this Action, supposed to be "God's work",
doesn't seem to be clandestine after all, judging by what Francois Mauriac
wrote about it:
"... I was the recipient of a strange confidence, so strange in fact that, if it had
not been signed by a Catholic writer who is one of my friends and whom I
trust, I would think it was a practical joke. He had offered an article to a
periodical which accepted the offer gladly, but never acknowledged its receipt.
Months go by, my friend becomes anxious, makes inquiries, and eventually
receives this answer from the director of that periodical: "As you probably
know, the "Opus Dei" has been checking what we publish for the past few
months. And this "Opus Dei" absolutely refused to allow that text to be
printed". This friend asks me the question: "What is the "Opus Dei"? And I,
too, openly and candidly ask it..."(7)
This question—about which M. Francois Mauriac hints is not as
"candid" as he says—the eminent academician could have asked it from
people he knew well: writers, publishers, booksellers, men of science,
lecturers, theatre and cinema people—unless he preferred to inform
himself quite simply at the editing centres.
As for the opposition the "Opus Dei" is supposed to meet from certain
Jesuits, we see in it nothing more than group rivalry. The Company as we have
said and proved—is "modernist" as easily as "integrist", according to
(7) "Le Bloc-notes de M. Francois Mauriac", in the "Express" of the 29th of October 1959
the opportunities, as it is determined to have a foot in both camps. In fact, the
same publication "Le Monde" printed an article by M. Jean Creach,
ironically inviting us to admire an "Auto-da-fe of the Spanish Jesuits",
fortunately limited to the works of French literature. Indeed, this Jesuit
censor doesn't seem to be a "modernist", judging by what M. Jean Creach says:
"If Father Garmendia had the power of Cardinal Tavera, the one whose
gaze was resuscitated by Greco like lightning in a greenish mask, above the
purple, Spain would be acquainted only with our literature by
emasculated... or even beheaded authors".
Then, after quoting several amusing examples of the Reverend Father's
purifying zeal, the author tells this pertinent reflection:
"Are the brains formed by our Jesuits so weak that they cannot confront
even the smallest danger to triumph over it themselves?", whispered a
mischievous tongue? "Tell me, dear friend; if they are incapable of it, what is
the value of the teaching which renders them so feeble?"(8)
To this humorous critic, we can answer that the said weakness of the
brains moulded by the Jesuits is, in fact, the main value of their teaching—
and its danger as well.
This is the place to which we always have to return. Through a special
vocation—and in spite of some honourable, even famous, exceptions— they
are the sworn enemies of freedom of the mind: Brainwashed brainwashers!
This is their strength, as well as their weakness and injuriousness. M.
Andre Mater stated extremely well the absolute totalitariansim of their Order
when he wrote: "Through the discipline which unites him, in spirit, to all his
fellow-members, each one of them acts and thinks with the intensity of
thirty-thousand others. This is Jesuitic fanaticism".(9)
More terrible nowadays than ever before, this Jesuitic fanaticism,
absolute master of the Roman Church, has embroiled her deeply in the
competitions of world politics in which the militant and military spirit
distinguishing this Company delights in. Under its care the papal
organisation and the swastika launched a deadly attack on the hated
liberalism and tried to bring about the "new Middle-Ages" Hitler promised
In spite of von Ledochowski's prodigious plans, in spite of Himmler, "our
Ignatius of Loyola", in spite of the slow-death camps, in spite of the
corrupting of minds by Catholic Action and unrestrained propaganda of the
Jesuits in the United States, the "providential man's" enterprise was a
(8) "Le Monde",.31st of August 1950.
(9) Andre Mater, op.cit., p. 193.
(10) Frederic Hoffet, op.cit., p.172.
failure, and the "heritage of Saint-Peter", instead of increasing in the East, was
reduced by that much.
An undeniable fact remains: the national-socialist government, "the most
Catholic Germany ever had"(10), was also and by far the most abjectly
cruel—without excluding from the comparison the barbarian epochs. Painful
declaration indeed for many believers, but one it would be wise meditating
upon. In the Order's "burgs", where the training was a copy of the Jesuitic
method, the master—apparent, at least—of the Third Reich formed this "SS
elite" before which, according to his wishes, the world "trembled"—but also
vomited with disgust. The same causes produce the same results. "There are
disciplines too heavy for the human soul to bear and which would utterly
break a conscience... Crime of alienation of oneself masked by heroism... No
commandment can be good if, first of all, it corrupts a soul. When one has
engaged oneself fully in a society, other beings lose much of their
importance".(l 1)
In fact, the Nazi chiefs had no consideration for the "other beings"; we can
say the same as well of the Jesuits!
"They made obedience their idol".(12)
And this utter obedience was invoked by the accused of Nuremberg to
excuse their awful crimes.
Finally, we borrow from the same author, who analysed Jesuitic
fanaticism so well, this final judgment:
"We reproach the Company with its skill, its politics and deceit, we
ascribe to it all the calculations, all the hidden motives, all the underhand
blows; we reproach her even with the intelligence of its members. Yet there
isn't one country where the Society has not experienced great
disappointment, where it hasn't behaved in a scandalous manner and drawn
upon itself righteous anger.
"If their machiavellism had the depth generally attributed to it, would these
grave and thoughtful men constantly throw themselves into abysses human
wisdom can foresee, into catastrophes they were bound to expect as the Order
experienced similar ones in all civilized States?
"The explanation is simple: a powerful genius governs the Society, a
genius so powerful that it thrusts it sometimes even against stumbling-
blocks, as if it could break them, ad majorem Dei Gloriam".
"This genius is not the one of the general, of his advice, of the provincials, nor
the heads of every household...
"It is the living genius of this vast body, it is the inevitable strength
resulting from this gathering of sacrificed consciences, bound intelligences; it
is the explosive strength and domineering fury of the Order, resulting from
its nature itself.
(11) and (12   Henri Petit: "L'Honneur de Dieu", pp.25, 72, 73.
"In a great accumulation of clouds, lightning is powerful and the storm is
bound to break out".(13)
Between 1939 and 1945, the storm killed 57 million souls ravaging and
ruining Europe.
We must be on our guard; another and even worse catastrophe may lie
hidden in these same clouds; lighting may strike again, throwing the world into
"abysses human wisdom can foresee", but out of which, if it had the
misfortune to let itself be thrown into, no power could rescue it.
In spite of what Rome's spokesmen may say, it is not "anticlericalism"
which prompted us to study carefully the Vatican's politics, or those of the
Jesuits', and to denounce its motives and means, but the necessity to
enlighten the public about the sly activity of fanatics who do not retreat
before anything—the past has proved this too often—to reach their aims.
We have seen how, during the 18th century, the European monarchies
united to demand the suppression of this evil Order. Nowadays, it can
concoct its intrigues in peace and the democratic governments do not seem to
appear concerned.
The danger the world is exposed to because of this Company is far
greater today than at the time of the "family pact", and even greater than
when the two World Wars broke out.
No one can nurse any illusion as to the deadly consequences another
conflict would have.
(13) Henri Petit, op.cit, pp.152-153.

No comments:

Post a Comment