TENTH HERESY 
Error of the so-called christian democracy, 
secular, personalist and socialised

ARGUMENT

YOU militate on behalf of respect for man, you preach the cult of the “ human person ” as if he were a son of God, or a god himself. You have faith and confidence in him, you love him. He is, if you will pardon me, the idol you offer us for our worship and service. Yes, the entire world must be in his service.

1892. “ The human person is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the object of every social institution. ”

But, how can you make billions of little gods – or great Gods ! – live together in this world in accordance with this lofty principle ? That is what you are going to tell us.

Your article 1: The person and society

You will look for the solution in God, and you will present this solution as the rule for “ human community ”... when it is already difficult enough to approximate to such perfection in a Carmelite convent or among the Jesuits, let alone in your Roman Curia at the Vatican !

1878. All men are called to the same end: God Himself. There is a certain resemblance between the union of the divine persons and the fraternity that men must establish among themselves in truth and love. Love of neighbour is inseparable from love for God.

After this daring comparison between our fraternity and the divine Persons in Their marvellous union and circumincession of wisdom and love, the return to reality is brutal:

1879. The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brothers, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.

This suggests that you are somewhat cynical. Is one to conclude that man is “ social ” through self-interest and self-love ? Between the options of making use of others for oneself or working for the common good and for the eternal salvation of one’s neighbour, can you hesitate ?

1880. A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is constituted an “ heir ” and receives certain “ talents ” that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop. Each individual rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part, and respect for the authorities who have charge of the common good.

Having said that, you return to your intolerable principle:

1881. Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules, but “ the human person is and must be the principle, the subject, and the end of every social institution. ”

You think a modern realistic solution lies in “ socialisation ” tempered with “ the principle of subsidiarity ”. That was fashionable during the time of the Church’s “ connivance ” with the Communists, when a happy and fraternal social-democracy was anticipated, at the time of John XXIII – but it is bankrupt now. I shall not speak of that here, but I wonder at the way you scale the highest heavens to save your fantasy from the ridiculous situation in which it is stuck:

1884. God did not wish to reserve for Himself alone the exercise of every power. He entrusts to each creature the functions it is capable of exercising, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be imitated in social life. God’s conduct in the government of the world – which testifies to such great respect for human liberty – should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should conduct themselves as ministers of divine providence.

This proves how little you know of God and of human reality.

In fact, without clearly admitting it, you steer your readers towards the choice of a particular system – one that is opposed to “ instinctive and brutal ” forms of fascism and respectful of “ spiritual and personalist ” values – Christian democracy therefore. In this system the primacy of the Person is affirmed and lived out daily, preventing any aggressive comeback by the abominable theory of the primacy of the common good over any private temporal good: it is Pius XI against Mussolini. You are working for our “ conversion ” on a global scale to a social democracy that is “ personalist ” and therefore “ Christian ”.

1886. Society is indispensable to the realisation of the human vocation. In order to reach this goal, it is necessary that the correct hierarchy of values be respected, which “ subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones ”…

1887. The inversion of means and ends, which results in giving the value of an ultimate end to that which is only a means of attaining it, or in considering persons as mere means towards a goal, engenders unjust structures which “ make it very hard and practically impossible to behave in a Christian way in conformity with the commandments of the Divine Lawgiver ”.

That speech is, alas, from Pius XII. His excuse is its date: June 1, 1941, the darkest moment of the Nazi-Communist alliance. Three weeks later the German eagle would pounce on the Russian bear, and as a result the USSR would pass over to the camp of the great personalist democracies ! Fifty years later you generalise this momentary teaching to make it serve your ideology.

1888. It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The priority granted to the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary it imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than obstruct it.

“ Sin ” is fascism, it is nationalism, even Catholic nationalism ! It is man’s authority over man. Horror and putrefaction ! beneath the cover of the Gospel, here is your “ Liberation theology ” – the daughter of Lammenais, the mother of all revolutions and the subsequent evil dictatorships – embellished here with Tolstoyan non-violence:

1889. Without the help of grace, men would be unable to “ discover the often narrow path between cowardice which yields to evil and violence which, though thinking to combat it, only makes it worse. It is the path of charity, that is to say, of the love of God and of neighbour. Charity represents the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice and it alone makes us capable of it. It inspires a life of self-giving: “ Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it ” (Lk 17.33).

It is the self-giving of the guérillero – who is only violent in a necessity ! What hatred in these pharisaical words, where it is all a question of love. You would be well advised to teach instead the doctrine of St. Pius X, in order to save your soul and to spare the world rivers of innocent blood. But your CCC refuses even to pronounce the name of this Pope, the only really poor and saintly pope of our century.

Your article 2: Participation in social life

You have some excellent things to say about political authority, but then, as you proceed, there are other things that are certainly questionable, until finally you return to your vomit and re-state your absurd and impious Christian-Democrat doctrine that was condemned by St. Pius X in his Letter on the Sillon of August 25, 1910.

Here are a few sound principles, ones that are classical and wise:

1918. “ There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God ” (Rom 13.1).

1920. “ The political community and public authority find their foundation in human nature and therefore belong to an order fixed by God. ”

1921. Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the pursuit of the common good of society. In order to attain this, it must use means that are morally acceptable.

This next one is false, and you know it as well as I do:

1901. Though authority relates to an order fixed by God, “ it must be left to the free decision of citizens to determine their political regime, in the same way as they determine their leaders ”…

Then your CCC becomes completely bad.

1902. Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but it must act for the common good as “ a moral force based on... [I was expecting: on God, or better still: on Jesus Christ]… on freedom and on a sense of responsibility ”…

That is to build on sand. The immediate continuation shows that this sand is nothing but sludge and permanent anarchy:

1903. Authority is only exercised legitimately when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it uses morally licit means to attain that end. If it happens that rulers enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, these arrangements would not be binding in conscience. “ In such a case, authority ceases to be itself and degenerates into oppression. ”

The first demand refers to the second, which is madness. So is the following section:

1904. “ It is preferable that every power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of competence which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of ‘ the just State ’ in which sovereignty belongs to the law and not to the arbitrary will of men. ”

I doubt whether anyone will fully understand what I find so pernicious in this maxim of John Paul II on “ the just State ”. Possibly only disciples of Maurras... But Maurras is the great demon, the only one excommunicated by the Church of Leo XIII, of Pius XI, and of the conciliar generation. So is there no one left who understands anything about political science ? I fear so.

Your article 2, continued: The common good

And by way of proof that a world which has become democrat, even personalist and… Christian is unable to understand political wisdom and science – without which societies are doomed to die of appalling convulsions – we are given these three principles which your CCC has drawn from Gaudium et Spes, on the common good !

1905. In keeping with the social nature man of man, the good of the individual is necessarily related to the common good. And the common good can only be defined in reference to the human person…

The first proposition is true; the second contradicts it. But it is the second part that prevails and corrupts the whole discourse.

1906. The common good has to be understood as “ the overall social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily ”. The common good concerns the life of everyone. It demands prudence from the individual, and even more so from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

The first element is in fact the fierce enemy of the common good; the second its dangerous rival. Finally, the third is its servant, assumed to be naturally capable, dedicated and efficient, so there is no need to worry or say anything about it !

1907. It supposes in the first place respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society must allow each of its members to fulfil his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of those natural freedoms which are indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “ the right to act according to the correct rule of one’s conscience, the right to protect one’s private life, and the right to a just freedom, including freedom in matters of religion. ”

That is the auto-destruction of all society...

1908. Secondly, the common good requires the social well-being and the development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests. But it should make accessible to each person what he needs in order to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

Thus governments will be absorbed in satisfying the desires and passions of their citizens: economic and social considerations will cause the neglect of public security.

1909. Finally, the common good implies peace, that is to say the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should guarantee by honest means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defence.

1910. Though each human community possesses a common good, which allows it to be recognised as such, its most complete realisation is to be found in the political community. It is for the State to defend and promote the common good of civil society, of its citizens, and of intermediate bodies.

In the end, the minimum of attention is given to “ security ” and “ peace ”, as if these were automatic and were not worth a moment’s effort, all this in a climate of utopia and pleasure which makes such an effort impossible. This idolatry of man is all too contradictory to the service of one’s country and the Church, as it is to the worship and service of the God of Jesus Christ.

I have said enough said to conclude…

ANATHEMAS

I. If anyone says that “ the human person is and must be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions ”, without positioning him under the benign law of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

II. If anyone asserts the primacy of the human person over the common good of temporal and spiritual societies, family, country, and Church, let him be anathema.

III. If anyone calls any human authority sovereign without referring its power back to God, sole sovereign Lord and Master of all His creatures, let him be anathema.

IV. If anyone says that the most natural political regime for the human race and the closest to the Gospel ideal is democracy, let him be anathema.

V. If anyone accepts as legitimate forms of government those regimes that base their entire system on the principle of the sovereignty of the nation, let him be anathema.