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 itself.

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 Christmas 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 Church.

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 Adenauer, 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 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 Embassy”.(153)

(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.

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 cassock.

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 everyone…”

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 c o n stitutes a direct and spectacular intervention in international diplomacy”

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 situation.

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!

*PUBLISHER’S NOTE:

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.191 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 U.S. 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. J.T.C.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: