3. You will ruin the world !



WHEN you appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s in Rome on October 16, 1978, you were acclaimed urbe, by the eternal city in the first place, and orbe, by the whole world shortly. Popular enthusiasm ? Or was it orchestration of the various media acting on the orders of certain powers ? Whatever it was – and no stone was left unturned – from the day you became supreme Head of the Church, you also became the most powerful Man in the world. I said it myself, in quite surprising terms, even in 1979:

“ From his first appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s, he, whose very name was as yet unknown, knew how to win the hearts of the Romans, urbi. One year has passed, and he has won over his people. Et orbi. In Mexico, Poland, Ireland, North America and Turkey, the real Church, those masses and millions of the faithful, only reveal themselves through the Pope, in the Pope and for the Pope, a free man, a judicious man, a man of courage... Onward the Pope !

“ The eulogies of John Paul II in the international press read like a dithyramb. Epoca’s headlines read: Quel gran ‘ seduttore ’ di Wojtyla. Those of Europeo, L’atleta dí Dio. Jean-François Revel declares him: the third Great Man, on a level with Carter and Brejnev. Billy Graham has found his master: the moral leader of humanity. ” (CRC, Dec 1979; cf. CRC, Dec 1978)


In reality, the world of 1978 was already very different from the world of a quarter of a century before, when all was optimism, steady growth, decolonisation, and when the third world was about to “ take off ”. Now, the world is all demographic anxiety, oil supply shocks, international competition, the imbalance of North and South, Vietnam, the East-West nuclear escalation, mounting violence, drug addiction, abortion… It is morose and weighed down under the feeling of impending disaster, worries and fears; many calamities have already struck. And there are no great men...

That is why the world acclaimed you when you said, “ Be not afraid ”. It failed to hear the rest of what you had to say: “ to open your doors to Jesus Christ ”. You could easily show up the human nullity of the other “ great men ”: Carter and Brejnev ! “ Yesterday, on Radioscopie, Prince Rainier of Monaco was talking of his profound anxiety at seeing no-one in the whole wide world capable of stemming the universal collapse. Is there really no-one ? he was asked. ‘ Yes ’, he answered after a moment’s silence, ‘ there is the Pope. ’ ” And I added: “ There is our primary reason for being united with the Pope. ” It was at the time of your first (and last) confrontation with the modernist theologians. I was keen to help you, Most Holy Father… It was like Peter’s words at Capernaum: “ Lord, to whom should we go ? You have the words of eternal life, and we believe and know that You are the Holy One of God ” (Jn.6.68-69).

There was no-one in the whole world. But there was you, “ The Strong Man of the West ”, I wrote, and I explained what we could hope for, what we might expect... or demand of you:

“ There is only the Pope. The calm, massive prese nce of John Paul II alone gives us assurance. He alone is the sign of the Catholic renaissance and of the salvation of the world through Christ; he alone shows at one and the same time that sovereign and universal power, that supernatural faith that is as firm as a rock, that vigour and physical courage, and that vitality that lend authority to action. He is like a new Moses freeing his people from slavery; he is like another St. Gregory VII or St. Pius V restoring the Church and saving Christendom with the rosary in his hand. ”

“ That is why, and I hope he knows it, all pious and honest eyes are turned towards him; he is surrounded and accompanied by our prayers in all his undertakings.

“ There are not very many great men in the world today; there are none capable of saving anything, apart from John Paul II. For the West to be roused from its torpor, it needs a strong man, a wise man, a saint, one ready for martyrdom. We have such a one; it is the Pope. ” (CRC, March 1979)

Discussing the “ world ” in the third part of his dialogue with you, Frossard well expresses the general feeling. In a rotten world (N’ayez pas peur, p.280), you are there, our joy and our hope. “ Many have sought their salvation in flight. But this man came, firmly established in a sure faith, and spoke to Christians in something of a solar vision of the Church, which warmed many a heart. ” (Ibid. p.319)

Fully optimistic, you were going to take firm hold of the world. It is up to the two of us now, o world ! you seemed to be saying, giving the impression that you were aware, capable, and desirous of everything that was needed for its salvation. Not by going back, but by making a great “ leap forward ”, with you, “ the great Helmsman of the West ” behind her.


Suddenly, the world understood that you were not going to condemn it, that you were inviting no one to go back on himself, that you were sparing the world the effort of conversion, penance and sacrifice, the habitual arsenal of Christian preaching. Nor would you speak to the world of chastisements. You were too modern, too much a part of this same world to address it in this manner, in a language that it would refuse to listen to. You spoke to it instead of effort, of efforts rewarded with success, guaranteed by you in advance.

Visiting the Favela dos Alagados in Brazil on July 7, 1980, you preached to those pitiful and wretched crowds a gospel other than the usual: “ You see, Love alone counts; it can never be repeated too often that love alone constructs. You must struggle for life; you must do all you can to improve the conditions in which you live; it is a sacrosanct duty, because it is also the will of God. Do not say that it is God’s Will that you should remain in a state of poverty, sickness and unhealthy housing, often in opposition to your human dignity. Do not say, God wants it so ! ” (Documentation Catholique, September 7-12, 1980, p.787-788)

This call to the struggle for better living conditions, to trade unionism, to material and cultural development, to economic change and the conquest of power certainly has nothing in common with the Weltanschauung of the original Gospel, which rather invites each one to resignation, to poverty, to taking up one’s daily cross and begging the Heavenly Father for the means of subsistence... But today, that kind of preaching would provoke a shock, if one were still to hear it anywhere. Your preaching, on the other hand, arouses enthusiasm, joy and hope.

What message did you have for France ? “ I wish to give you a message of peace, confidence, love and faith. Of faith in God, of course, but also, if I may thus express myself, of faith in man, faith in the marvellous possibilities that have been given him to be used wisely and responsibly for the common good and for the glory of the Creator. ” You said that quite calmly, with Giscard d ‘ Estaing the Abortionist, standing beside you on the podium. Thus it was, you said, that you were inaugurating your ministry of preaching the Gospel. (Centurion, p.36) You came, you continued, “ to encourage us on the path of the Gospel ”, “ a narrow path for sure, but a royal path ”. “ This path ”, you assured us, “ does not pass via resignation, renunciation or abandonment ”. (Ibid. p.38) You meant, of course, that there is nothing cowardly, lazy or defeatist about it, but you also wanted to convey that it is a path of human endeavour, human conviction and competence, and also of human success. All the same, it is not “ the royal road of the Cross ” which the Church tirelessly advocates in her eternal book, The Imitation of Jesus Christ.

Beware ! When it was a question of religion, the philosopher’s speculations produced no tangible or immediate sanctions. When it was a question of the Church, only the friends of God and the true disciples of Christ will grieve over the fruits of your administration. But here, it is Onward France ! Reawaken your faith in God, “ of course ! ”, but also your faith in man, you said. Take courage and you will overcome your present difficulties. How much these promises have cost us these last three years ! But let us not run ahead.


For the modern world, you are a happiness merchant. You sell happiness to those three billion people whom you exhort to go forward and continue along their present paths, without giving way to doubt, vertigo or fear. Like that other happiness merchant (de Gaulle), who, in his greatest act of betrayal – the abandonment of Algeria to capitalo-socialism, to the Muslim and Soviet revolution – stated, “ There is only one form of politics: mine, and it is the right one ! ” Frossard, a nearly righteous man, invites you to cast your eyes backwards. But let us read him together:

“ Behind us, a whole world is sinking. It is the contemplative world of the Middle Ages, whose powerful religious and cultural influences have come down to us today, bringing us a sense of the world’s intelligibility, a sense of morality, an intuition of universal harmony, and the hope of an eternal destiny for the human being.

“ All these spiritual goods came to us from God, whose presence at the centre of men’s thinking acted as an irreplaceable (mark well, irreplaceable !) principle of unity and communion. Now, the remnants of this world, huddled around the cathedral, are in the process of disappearing, and it is futile (might he not have written here a timid but insistent “ perhaps ” that you have crossed out ?) – and it is futile (perhaps) to try (one could surely try, with your fantastic power of “ walking on the waters ”) to rescue it from the night of history. ” (N’ayez pas peur, p.280)

You answer Frossard thus: “ Your image is both beautiful and true, but it is, shall we say, ‘ localised ’. I mean that it has its place in a purely Western, European, French mode of thinking. ” In other words, you dismiss it. “ Sometimes, it seems that we ought to go back more than two centuries and rebuild this civilisation once more, ” you say further on, which, as you probably know, was precisely the thinking of St. Pius X in his Letter on the Sillon: “ The City of God cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilisation is not something yet to be found, nor is the new city to be built in the clouds; it has been built, it is already in existence, in the shape of Christian civilisation, of the Catholic City. It is this which must be constantly installed and restored upon these its foundations, which are both natural and divine, against the repeated onslaughts of an unhealthy utopianism based on revolt and impiety: Omnia instaurare in Christo. ” But no, you only raise this idea in order to dismiss it and then to plunge headlong into the future, the happy future of a new humanism where mankind will enjoy happiness here below, without thinking again of that Sillon condemned by Pius X for its political and religious utopianism.

“ … But stranger still, alarming and saddening, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and who dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church ‘ the reign of love and justice ’, with workers coming from all parts, from any religion or no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions – and so long as they share what unites them – a generous idealism and moral forces drawn from ‘ wherever they can ’... What is to come of this collaboration ? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble of seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and Human Exaltation, all resting on an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

“ We fear worse is to come. The end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a democracy that will be neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so its leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men at last become brothers and comrades in the ‘ Kingdom of God ’. – ‘ We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind ’.

“ And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, we ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon ? Alas, this organisation which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable effluent of the great movement of apostasy being organised in every country for the establishment of a universal Church which shall have neither dogmas nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a church could triumph) the reign of legalised cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak and of all those who toil and suffer.

“ We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these destructive doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against them: the exaltation of their feelings, the undiscriminating goodwill of their hearts, and their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards a new Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Saviour, to the extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons, for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some over-hasty improvisation.

“ … As soon as the social question is approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbour and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite Love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. However, for the realisation of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practise virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Furthermore, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself, in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instil in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His Heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of goodwill, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against those who profaned the House of God, against the wretches who scandalised the little ones, and against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lighten them. He was as strong as He was gentle. He reproved, threatened, and chastised, knowing and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of perfect happiness in Heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from a humanitarianism that is without consistency and authority. ” (Letter on the Sillon, St Pius X)

Such is the language of the holy Pope, the great beacon of our twentieth century. Yours is quite contrary to his. You speak to… the world. But what have you to offer the world ? “ An objective ethical order comprising each man’s right and duty to demand for himself his just measure of humanity. ” (N’ayez pas peur, p.310). But listen again, Most Holy Father, to Pius X’s answer to such proposals: “ According to him , Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, is able to do without a master, obeying himself only, and is capable of assuming the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the grand words by which human pride is exalted; it is like a dream that carries man away, without light, without guidance, and without help, into the realm of illusion... ” (CRC, August 1971)

And you, are you joking when you hold opinions so contrary to those of the author of the Letter on the Sillon ? Not at all. You feel that your opinions are more in tune with the aspirations of the young, of the more dynamic layers of contemporary society. And you allow yourself to be taken in by that ? Such naivety is to be pitied.

“ At Unesco, for example, I was amazed by how the Assembly reacted to certain key thoughts and observations that my experience has led me to regard as essential. I felt that there existed in this world a vast accord – though not always conscious –, a broad consensus, not only about certain values, but also about certain threats. My audience represented countries from all over the world and came from every continent. I felt that it was the representatives of the young nations and of the new states who reacted the most warmly to my elaboration of the meaning of culture and of the conditions for its development. It gave me much to think about.

“ Similarly, the very fact of this encounter taking place in the context of the problems of culture, also seemed symptomatic to me. Culture always implies a certain protest by man against his being reduced to the level of a thing or an object. It signifies… the march towards a world where man is able to realise his humanity in the transcendence proper to it, and which calls him to truth, goodness and beauty. ”

What illusions, great God, what illusions ! And what a cruel awakening will follow !


On one hand there is the life that passes by, month after month, and year after year; and quite plainly, nothing changes. On the other hand, there is this torrent of speeches that you pronounce everywhere and at all times. What relationship is there between the two, and what effects are to be seen ? One would imagine that the speeches ought to have some effect, but it is not discernible. Is the effect good or bad ? What direction is the world taking under the impact of all your sermons ? It is not easy to answer, and even when one has seen the answer, it is still not clear: there are hidden connections and “ transmission belts ” that are not apparent.

Most people imagine that your talk is somewhat idle, but I am convinced of the contrary. But who is listening to you ? Who is absorbing your teaching and manoeuvring the Christian masses in accordance with your directives ? Let us begin by listening carefully to your world humanity programme, coolly and methodically expounded by you before the Congress of a Viennese society meeting in Rome, in April 1982. It is a philosophical society that is dear to you, this being the third time you had received them. Its president is Cardinal Koenig, which speaks volumes when one knows that the priests of his diocese openly accuse him of belonging to freemasonry, and when it is known that he was your grand elector at the conclaves in August and October 1978. This little society, whose Latin name – Latin is highly prised by the secret societies – means “ New Hope ”, must enjoy considerable influence for you to apply yourself to inculcating it with your overall plan for world reform.

This is what you expounded. I shall interrupt as little as possible in order to concentrate on penetrating the meaning. (Published in full in l’Homme Nouveau of July 4; cf. CRC, September 1982)


“ You are in search of a new humanism. Certainly, there is no lack of analyses of the contemporary situation from a moral, philosophical, political, economic or sociological point of view. The whole world is talking of ‘ crisis ’. With good will, people are trying to examine injustices and redefine individual rights – in general, the rights to ‘ having ’. But very often such attempts merely displace the problem and remain locked in the same perspective of a merely quantitative progress, as if one were to fill up the gaps in a wall when the foundations are faulty.

“ If we want an authentic, complete and concrete humanism, we must come to a deeper and more global anthropology: one that regards man as a personal subject transcending his existence, and himself effecting a synthesis of every dimension of his being, without allowing them to be isolated from one another or to develop in a way that would be detrimental to the others. For man is a being who needs both to increase his scientific knowledge and to answer the needs of the absolute through faith, prayer and moral conduct; he needs to communicate with others in an interpersonal dialogue, to work to transform the world in order to answer his own needs and those of others.

“ It is on the unity and wholeness of all these dimensions that man’s salvation and the remedy for all his ills depend. Have we not too often privileged ‘ having ’ at the expense of the qualitative value of ‘ being ’ ? Have we not over identified man as a possessor of things and so practically reduced man to situating himself and his kin in the world of things, resulting in the will for power, fear and class warfare ?

“ Even on the level of science and history, man tends to consider himself as a product, the product of his own evolutive process or of the mechanisms of social life, dispossessed of his subjectivity, whereas he is in fact a creature of God, free to realise the unity of his being and to promote fundamental human values. It is a question of ethically recomposing the personality of each individual and of every community. ”

Concerning this first part of your speech, there is nothing to say other than that it is the fruit of your humanist philosophy, making a right of every man’s aspirations – not only his aspirations to possessing but also his aspirations to being, to spiritual being, and to subjectivity, the basis for the supreme values of culture, including faith, prayer and moral conduct.

How does this relate to our world ? Like this:


“ This anthropological vision might seem to be an abstract, theoretical ideal having no real influence on the evolution of society and its institutions. In reality, however, – and it is your responsibility to make a convincing proof of this – it is profoundly related to the way we approach all human problems, among which you draw attention to man’s relationships, dialogue between cultures, man’s habitat and environment, his work, and means of social communication...

“ It is from such a personalist angle that I myself have striven to deal, among other things, with the problems of human love and work. Yes, your initiative may well represent a new hope, ‘ nova spes ’, since it includes a project for the qualitative development of man in the original sense of his being, in his wholeness, in the dynamism of his existence. ”

Such indeed is the way in which all “ societies of thought ” operate. Their efficacy escapes notice, and yet their effects have been decisive in the history of all peoples struck by Revolution since the eighteenth century. It is a game of very high-sounding and noble principles, philosophically propounded, but it thus gains entry into every question: family, work, national and international life, and religion. And once it has entered, it adopts positions secretly decided in the Lodge, in the name of Reason, and so irresistibly leads world opinion in the desired direction, as though it were purely spontaneous and a matter of intelligence alone.

You give yourself as an example – no longer as an apprentice, but as a master. Thus, you “ dealt with the problems of human love and work, among other things ”, orientating public opinion in the direction determined (in the Lodge ?) in the name of the highest philosophical principles. Here, I can imagine how your theories on love and work have succeeded in shaping the evolution of the religious and ethical life of our societies in a way that is, let us say, masonic. It is a discovery that fills me with alarm and despondency. These theories result in sexual love being considered the highest form of interpersonal communication on the spiritual plane; they result in the mixing of sexes and eroticism being introduced into the hitherto reserved spheres of education and religion. They result in earthly work being regarded as the most exciting and effective form of co-operation man can make to the creation and completion of God’s world. Thus when the least contestation or controversy arises, it is man and woman in their sexual – I do not say “ carnal ” – loves and in their labours to transform and dominate the world, who are the new models for humanity in our time, the closest “ images and likenesses ” to God. It is this man and woman – blossoming in their union, in their knowledge and consciousness, and in their dominion of the earth, thus conquering their own grandeur in love and action – who are the humanist substitute for the former ideal of holiness consecrated and dedicated to God alone !

The consequences of all this for morality, for the family and for society are incalculable. You are working well !


“ But we should not stop at purely theoretical considerations. The problem is to find a way of transforming this hope into reality, of eliciting support for this anthropology and its ethical application from the world of culture, from public opinion and from those in positions of responsibility. Finally, the problem is one of arranging that the lives of people and communities, their choices and decisions, are characterised by this anthropology. Which is precisely the second, operational stage, now being approached by the Nova Spes Foundation.

“ Since it is a question of recomposing the unity of man, whose essential characteristics are thought, belief, communication and work, it is good, as you propose, to invite specialists from the fields of science, religion, social communications and economics to a common reflection and collaboration with a view to promoting an ‘ alliance ’, which at present is lacking.

“ A whole series of fundamental ethical problems and of human rights can then become the object of your debates, your resolutions and your testimony. It falls to you to see that your generous plans are brought to maturity in a language that speaks to our contemporaries, and that they are put into operation through an adequate strategy, which will mean finding concrete means and effective bases on both the national and international planes.

“ For my part, I give you every encouragement. I pray that the Holy Spirit will give you His gifts of light and strength to carry out this undertaking, which is both human and Christian. And with my whole heart I bless you and those who collaborate with you. ”

Here, we touch the very mechanism of this world domination through these discreet societies of thought. Thus it is that the Nova Spes Foundation has to act on public opinion so as to obtain from the competent authorities, churches, states, public and private institutions the necessary decisions that will change society in keeping with its views. In order to reach this end, it has only to reveal itself in symposiums, sessions and conferences, where the learned assemble along with personalities representing every level and opinion. It is during these “ forums ” and these “ seminars ” (how apt the word !) that their hidden programmes emerge into the public sphere under the cover of free and competent discussion. These seminars are the “ bases ” you dared to speak of, revealing before our eyes the whole mechanism of the secret societies. It was doubtless to redeem this audacity that you concluded by recalling that the Foundation was… Christian – though no-one would have noticed – and that its “ projects ” and “ strategy ” – apparently anodyne, though in reality explosive – aimed at renewing the world, were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and imprinted with His light and strength.

Nova Spes must be a federation of “ deist ” masonic lodges, open to the “ values ” of Christianity. Of which you would have been a member or correspondent at Lublin or at Cracow ? Whatever you may have been, surely that is not what you are in Rome !


The Council, and you yourself in the first place, wanted, as we say in France, to eat the white bread first and leave the black bread till later ! You preferred to announce to the world “ Joy and Hope ” first, leaving the “ Sadness and Anguish ” in the shade. (Gaudium et Spes, no.1) The Council deliberately opted for optimism. As did you ! But the “ prophets of woe ”, from Elijah to John the Baptist, from Our Lord Jesus Christ to St. Pius X, and all the saints without exception, proceeded the other way round. They all taught the world that the way to the Light is through the Cross, that in order to enter Life we must be dead to the world. For my part, I like to meditate on this simple proverb inspired by DivineWisdom:

“ Before destruction the heart of man is exalted,
But humility ever goes before glory.
 ” (Prov. 18.12)

Your coming was far too glorious. You wished to persuade the world, the vast and terrible world, that you – as a man or even Man ! – had within you all that was necessary for its complete renewal, that through your human wisdom you could bring it happiness on hearth and thence, in addition, lead it to God.

Now that it has been laid bare, we see that this humanism is the masonic ideal. Your fulcrum is those occult powers who claim to govern the world, and if they have not placed you where you are now so that you may serve them, at least it is clear that they counted and still count on you to maintain and extend their dominion, whilst you in turn feel supported by them in your work of changing religion, transforming the Church, and ultimately holding the leadership of the planet’s “ spiritual authorities ”.


In these last pages, I would like to prove to you that you are mistaken in your understanding of the world, of the forces that really dominate the politics of nations, and consequently the joys or the tears, the hopes and far more often, alas, the anguish, the fears, and the despair of peoples; the torrents of blood, the charnel houses, the Auschwitzes, which you talk about, and the Katyns, which, of course, you never refer to.

I, who am nothing, would like to make you understand that you know nothing of politics, and would dare to tell you that you are ignorant of the mainsprings of human psychology and of those consuming passions which no sense of dignity, no ideal of responsible freedom or of human transcendence will ever overcome. I can tell you these things because misfortune has taught me more than you have learned from your all too easily and quickly gained glory. For you, all men are good, and – unlike Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, at a time when society was still Christian, well-ordered and generally sound, taught that society depraved and corrupted man – you believe, now that society is apostate, brutal, disorganised and corrupt, that this society wishes to be and has to be, indeed already is, the spontaneous principle for their general human progress !


Your desire is that Joy and Hope should reign first. But if they are not from God, these two, as is well known, give rise to nothing but weeping and gnashing of teeth. In the next world ? In this world too ! You think of being Pope in the year 2000. Perhaps you remember Leo XIII, whom you resemble in many circumstances and features, and who, having been elected Pope in 1878, turned the century and died in 1903. You often speak of entering upon this third millennium, as though it were going to be the Dawn, fixed by you in advance, of this “ Civilisation of Love ” finally brought to successful completion by men through their own wisdom and virtue.

This is the dream in which you live, and this dream, indefinitely repeated, is stifling religion, demolishing the Church and subverting the age-old order of civilised nations. Your demolition work will prevent us from reaching the year 2000, which you seem even now to be touching, as though with your hand. We are threatened by a thousand, ever increasing dangers. But you, by reason of your follies, not only refuse to see them, but are actually inviting them, aggravating them and hastening their day. We shall not reach the year 2000. We shall not even get to the year 1990. World collapse is already here and the divine chastisement it conveys is due to fall. I announced it for the year 1983, and do not retract what I said, much as I would like to see my forecast belied by God’s Mercy.


To the degree that men (and women, as you would say) have placed their faith, hope and love in you, in answer to your appeals and solicitations, You have become a prophet for them. But when the prophet is declared to be a liar, then anger, contempt and hatred befall him and his fate is most unenviable. For them, you are a Saviour, making them walk on the waters with you – re-read your Frossard. It is all fine and wonderful, as long as entire peoples sinking into the abyss of slavery and falling prey to communist persecution and the disorders of revolution with their endless train of woe, are very, very far away. Or when after your Messiah-like passage through their midst, the miseries of the poor, exploited by internationalism and powers of freemasonry, continue unchanged. Are you a saviour for the “ Boat People ” and for the Miskito Indians ?

The happy days of conciliar and montinian illusion are rapidly receding beneath the blows of destiny – due to the stupidity and egoism of some and the ferocity and pride of others. From the four corners of the former colonial empires refugees are pouring in, only too eager to recover the order, justice and kindness of their former colonial masters ! And when one of these exiles asks you for asylum in the Vatican, you refuse. But how indeed could you welcome the entire distressed world into the Vatican ? And yet you continue to spread the hollow calumnies of anticolonialism, thereby personally aggravating and engendering new calamities that you are powerless to heal.

From your own Poland, as well as from the Sahel and from Vietnam and from a hundred other places, appeals to our charity as rich people pour in, as is quite normal. And to answer these appeals, you make them a duty of justice for us, since we are supposed to have reduced these peoples to misery and famine, in order to enrich ourselves out of their wealth. But when you were at the Gemelli clinic, Most Holy Father, your Frossard ought not to have told us that you seemed to be “ the very image of Christ on the Cross. Yes, we thought we were seeing Christ crucified. ” (N’ayez pas peur, p.362) And thereupon he ranked you among the world’s suffering humanity, constantly incriminating us, the sated and depraved Christian peoples of the West. Or if he wanted to tell us that, then he should not have added, with the same emotion, that your doctors were surprised at your portliness and supposedly recommended you to lose weight. Before the attempt on your life, you were overweight ! A man turned sixty should weigh rather less than more. It seems that you have since gone on a diet and are feeling all the better for it. (Ibid. p.357) I am happy for you. At least there is one Pole who is not suffering and who is living in Joy and Hope, in accordance with the authentic wishes of the Second Vatican Council !


But as long as you are happy, will the civilised world continue each year to lose some new land, devastated by the ravages of the weather that no protective colonial power is there to foresee and prevent, or some new people, thrown as food to the Soviet monster or to bloodthirsty anarchy by the overthrow of one of those saving National Security regimes, which you find intolerable ? Must disaster touch you personally ? In your very flesh ? But all that is best would quickly and painlessly be mobilised to heal you. Must it touch your heart and your affections ? There, I dare not continue... Must it touch your people ? Ah ! no, that would be too dear a price to pay ! Be converted at much less cost. Listen to God ! Listen to the Gospel ! Listen to the Church ! Listen to St. Pius X ! They all speak to you in the language of supernatural Christian wisdom, quite contrary to the language of your speeches. But their language is productive of eternal salvation for souls, and a little respite and earthly happiness for the poor peoples here on earth as well.