A full generation before
Vatican II, the techniques this so‑called “pastoral” council
recommended for updating the Church had already been perfected
by Communists working in the Church in China. There it was shown
how the dialoguing “study club" could be gradually transformed
into the “parish council” which would take over the direction of
the parish and eventually the entire diocese.
Editor’s Note: The following
article was written by Mrs. Hertz some years before the
alleged “fall of Communism” was heralded by the heroes of
Glasnost and Perestroika. As Mrs. Hertz explains, Marx’
philosophy has always hinged on the fomentation of constant
change and evolution. Today, Communism is not so much “dead”
as it is evolving into its next stage. The following
retrospective look at Communism as it manifested itself
during the Cold War, therefore, is quite revealing, since
the rapid downward spiral of our world and our Church into
Godless chaos is a direct consequence of the triumph of
atheism, the bedrock of Communism. Indeed, the “errors of
Russia” have now spread throughout the entire world—the
Orthodox schism has not diminished in the least and
atheistic Communism thrives out in the open in the world’s
most populated nation and, everywhere else, has morphed
itself “doctrinally” and “philosophically” into the very
soul of the New World Order. Mrs. Hertz’ article, then, is
perhaps more timely today than it was when it was written
some 25 years ago. MJM
How do you get a cat to eat hot pepper? This question, a
classic in Marxist training manuals, opens an exercise in
revolutionary technique. The answer, to which the student is led by
logic and common experience, explains how Communism has been able to
take over a third of the world without serious opposition.
How does one get a cat to eat pepper, a condiment as unpalatable to
him as Marxist doctrine is to healthy human nature? The first answer
to present itself says the primer, is obvious: Force open the cat’s
jaws and cram the pepper in.
Wrong, the student is told, because the cat’s willing cooperation is
lacking. The second answer – to conceal the pepper in a tasty fish –
is equally inadequate, because as soon as the cat detects the pepper
he simply regurgitates it.
The correct answer: Sprinkle the pepper all over the cat’s mat. When
he lies on it the pepper will cling to his fur and sting, so that he
will soon be licking himself to get it off. This method assures
perfect assimilation because (1) the cat is actually ingesting (2)
entirely on his own initiative, (3) and a completely conditioned
initiative at that, (4) pepper, which he hates.
Pius XI in effect described this cat‑and‑pepper ploy in his
encyclical Divini Redemptorist, promulgated on the feast of St.
Joseph, 1937: “The Communist takes advantage of the present world‑
wide economic crisis,” which he foments “to draw into the sphere of
his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle
reject all forms of materialism and terrorism . . . The preachers of
Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonism and
political divisions . . .”
It wields “a propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has
perhaps never witnessed its like before. It is directed from one
common center. It is shrewdly adapted to the varying conditions of
diverse peoples. It has at its disposal vast financial resources,
gigantic organizations, international congresses and countless
trained workers. It makes use of pamphlets and reviews of cinema,
theatre and radio, of schools and universities” – a list to which
must now be added television and our very churches. “Little by
little it penetrates into all classes of the people and even reaches
the better‑minded groups of the community with the result that few
are aware of the poison which increasingly pervades their minds and
hearts.”
Thus works the mystery of iniquity in our time, sprinkling its
pepper everywhere. By its own admission it employs a simple
technique of temptation which the devil first used on Eve at the
outset of the Revolution in Eden. He teaches his followers the same
kind of spiritual judo, whereby opponents are led to use their own
virtues and strength against themselves, just as the poor cat is
drawn to eat pepper through his very distaste for it.
Fallen irretrievably from grace, Satan has only natural means at his
disposal to effect super-natural destruction, but he uses these with
transcendent craft. Although even in cases of possession he cannot
act directly on the human will, he can solicit it in countless ways
from the outside, courting its cooperation through its desire for
good.
“I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it,” says he
in the book of Job (2:2) exposing the source of his know‑how. His
superior intelligence understands our earthly nature far better than
we do, and he turns it against us with great skill. The richer our
nature, the more he has to work with. Despite all her preternatural
gifts, he captured Eve’s consent by appealing to her natural desires
for what is “good to eat, and fair to the eyes and delightful to
behold” (Gen. 3:6), later tempting the Son of Man in the same three
ways in the desert, through what ascetical theology calls the
concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the
pride of life. By weakening the will and disrupting the judgment,
original sin has rendered our good appetites dangerous for us.
Well did St. Paul warn us that our battle here was not against mere
flesh and blood, but against “the spirits of wickedness in the high
places” (Eph. 6:12), for throughout the ages Satan has taught his
own techniques to his disciples. The Gospels reveal how, after his
failure with our Lord in the desert, Satan inspired the Jews to
continue the subversion he had begun. Inciting our Lord to
revolution in the form of refusing Caesar’s taxes, they began
adroitly by appealing to His integrity and love of justice: “Master,
we know that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in
truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou does not regard the
person of men.” (Matt. 22:16).
Later, in the Acts of the Apostles, we see how judaizers carried the
battle into the Church, for a time even subverting our first Pope.
In the last century descendants of these Jews who rejected Christ –
Marx, Engels, Heine, Lenin, Trotsky and their countless helpers then
and now – have forged an instrument whereby every potential member
of Christ’s kingdom can be tempted as was its Head. Popularly known
as Communism, it actually constitutes a global temptation seeking to
engulf the whole world in Satan’s revolution against God. Through
the avenues of the three concupiscences the full force of our fallen
nature can now be channeled and hurled against all mankind at once.
Communism may be properly called a Jewish heresy, for by its formal
denial of an after life and the supernatural order, its crass
materialism and blind faith in temporal Messianism, it is
essentially a highly developed form of Saducceeism. The Gospels
record conversions to Christianity among the Pharisees, but never
from the Sadducees. Their heresy, now launched wholesale upon the
world, would seem to be unto death.
“It exceeds in amplitude and violence anything yet experienced in
the preceding persecutions launched against the Church,” said Pius
XI. “Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back into a
barbarism worse than that which oppressed the greater part of the
world at the coming of the Redeemer.”
“How is it possible,” asks this Pope, “that such a system, long
since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by
experience, could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world?”
“The explanation,” he tells us, “lies in the fact that too few of us
have been able to grasp the nature of Communism.”
Then too, as Fr. François Dufay points out in Etoile contre la
Croix, we judge Communism much too leniently for the simple reason
that communists are so much better than their doctrine. Recognizing
in them qualities and virtues derived from natural law which remain
in all of us despite the Fall, we attribute these to Communism. The
reverse is true with Christians, who always look bad when judged
against Christianity, a doctrine so sublime it can never be lived up
to completely. Looking at Christians, we think Christianity
defective; looking at communists, we find Communism not so bad.
“Brethren,” pleads St. Paul, “do not become children in mind, but in
malice be children and in mind mature!” (I Cor. 14:20). There’s
nothing Christian about being stupid. “Be wise as serpents,”
commanded our Lord (Matt. 10:16).
Communism has been tragically underestimated by those who will not
make the mental effort to understand it. For most, a communist is
little more than an obnoxious organizer set on annoying us with
strikes. Those who accept Pius XI’s word for it that it is
“intrinsically perverse,” as often as not see it merely as some
force which is out to deprive them of their hard‑earned property,
even as they lick up its pepperiest propaganda.
In sober truth Communism provides a comprehensive explanation of all
reality, geared to satisfy the most penetrating intellect. The proof
is evident, it has won over some of the finest minds in the Church.
No mere ideology, and least of all a political platform, Communism
is a whole philosophy, a theology, a mystique. It has its Thomas
Aquinases, its St. Pauls, its St. Johns of the Cross. For its
“Redeemer” it proposes humanity itself! As our Lord predicted, it
will be “many” who “will come in my name saying, I am the Christ…
and they will lead many astray.” (Matt. 24:5).
Its historical development furthermore reveals a specifically
anti‑Trinitarian, apocalyptic character which is even now coming to
full term . Tempting man totally through the three concupiscences
for food, glory and power as Satan did our Lord, it assaults in turn
the three human faculties which constitute the divine Trinitarian
image in the human soul, the intellect, the mind or “memory”, and
the will. This interior trinity, by whose interchanges man lives as
a human being, is analogous to the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost in the Godhead.
Communism confronts us therefore with a “trinity” of its own: Marx,
Lenin and Mao. I. Marx Accepted generally as the Father of
Communism, Karl Marx plays the role of creator and source from which
the whole movement flows. A theorist who took little active part in
revolutionary events, he laid the main lines of a direct and deadly
temptation aimed primarily at the intellect. To this faculty, which
specifically reflects God the Father in man and is designed to feed
on truth, Marx would offer stones for food. He proposed the satanic
error called dialectic materialism, whose inexorable laws were to
regulate all philosophy, sociology and economics.
To read Marx is to hear Satan’s boast in Isaias: “I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in
the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will
ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the Most
High!” (Is. 14:13‑14). He will explain everything.
As a temptation offered specifically to the intellect, dialectic
materialism necessarily opposes the theological virtue of faith –
without which no one may please God (Heb. 11:6). Pretending to
enlighten man’s thinking, it will plunge him into darkness, for to
accept its tenets is direct denial of God, inasmuch as these hold
that human history is produced by blind forces existing in matter,
and not by the direction of Divine Providence. In other words,
matter created itself, eventually evolving to the point where it
began to think, and became man. The Marxist definition of man –
borrowed, incidentally, from Benjamin Franklin, whom Marx greatly
admired – is an animal which thinks.
The reader is begged to bear patiently with the next few paragraphs,
which may not make easy reading, but they are essential in
explaining Communism as the end product of a long chain of false
philosophies:
1. Marx’ notion of materialism as “dynamic” was actually an
adaptation of the German philosopher Feuerbach’s “metaphysical”
materialism, wherein Marx replaced God by science as revealer of the
universe. With Marx, man no longer receives moral directives from a
force outside the world, but from science, which arises from the
world itself, and whose origin, nature and direction it gradually
explains.
This means there can be no morality outside matter, and inasmuch as
matter is obviously in constant flux, human acts can only vary along
with it. Man need no longer get in tune with an arbitrary God and
His commandments, but must align his actions to developing matter in
a perpetual aggiornamento or “situation ethics.”
2. Marx’ dialectics were derived from Hegel, for whom a “world‑soul”
engendered matter. By simply reversing the process, Marx postulated
that matter in fact engendered spirit – incidentally also
engendering Fr. Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere” and other related
nonsense now basic reading in Moscow. It is true that Hegel
identified reason and “idea,” thought and being, but with him the
universal principle was still spiritual. Not so with Marx, for whom
matter generates the idea.
Hegel furthermore taught that “idea” moves in three (now
well‑publicized) sequences: thesis, anti‑thesis and synthesis, which
Marx adopted into his system, but for him “idea” is always just
matter.
3. Matter moving through these three sequences is dialectic
materialism, the struggle matter goes through which produces spirit
– and history. Materialism and dialectics are the two poles of the
global heresy, with which the world is now so well peppered that
Pope Paul VI, Bishop of Rome, has spoken even of the Church as
“evolving.”
On dialectics hangs change, the constantly shifting relations of
things in themselves and with others. For instance, an apple can be
a bud, a flower, a green apple, a ripe apple, or rotten and
distributing its seeds to make more apples. The apple is constantly
“becoming.” When this principle, which occurs in matter, is applied
to all nature and being, we have constant transition and movement,
appearances and disappearances, in all orders of reality. Nothing
can be definite or absolute, which means ultimately that nothing can
be sacred, because it won’t stand still long enough!
For the Marxist this universal flux is governed by four so‑called
“laws”: 1. Autodynamism, or constant, self‑generated change,
whether in apples or men.
2. Inter‑dependence, whereby these changes act on one another, but
with no closed cycles, because the movement is open‑ended, as in the
apple which liberates its seeds. This produces the ascending spiral
by which matter proceeds in time, constituting “progress.” (For the
Marxist any change is always upward and for the better. )
3. Contradiction. Everything in itself contains its contrary, a
principle of affirmation as well as negation: Life engenders death;
death, life. The apple rots that new apples may come. This battle of
contraries insures development.
4. Finally, there occurs in the process an explosive “leap”, whereby
quantitative changes become qualitative, in the same way that oxygen
and hydrogen together produce water, qualitatively different from is
two constituents. The change is sudden, but long in preparation.
Essentially this is the analogy Darwin and Lysenko applied falsely
to biology.
A classic example offered is that of water being changed into vapor,
or ice, depending on the quantity of heat present. The tendency of
water to remain as it is—thesis. Its tendency to vaporize (or
freeze)—anti‑thesis. These two contradictory internal forces render
its equilibrium precarious, and it is made more precarious by
temperature changes. Arrived at the rupture point where water boils
(or freezes), a sudden “leap” occurs, and vapor (or ice)—synthesis.
All this may be true enough on the purely material plane, but when
we apply these laws to higher forms, the error is monstrous. If
matter is in fact first in the order of reality, then human thought
becomes simply the result of qualitative changes in matter. As soon
as the material brain evolved, matter began thinking, for according
to Engels, the brain is “the organ which produces thought.” He would
not deny that spirit exists, but that’s only matter understanding
itself. The evolution we hear so much about is therefore only the
history of the dialogue matter has been carrying on with itself
throughout the ages, slowly rising from one stage to the next by
means of sudden resolutions of its conflicts. Human intelligence is
merely a threshold, the cosmos as we know it merely the stage matter
has reached for the present.
Applying the four “laws” to human society spells disaster.
Autodynamism accounts for the automatic progress of humanity from
slavery to servitude to feudalism to bourgeoisie to capitalism and
on to the socialism whereby the antithetical “proletariat” is now
being produced. (This view of history is powerfully depicted in
mosaics at the University of Mexico and the works of the Mexican
communist artist Diego Rivera.)
Social phenomena are also inter‑dependent, economic conditions
acting on social conditions and producing certain kinds of politics,
religion, art, music, etc., each factor being both cause and effect.
Contradiction comes into play because according to Marx social
structures rest on the economic. Believing that economics depend
entirely on the means of production being ever perfected by
technology, Marx envisaged the “class struggle” as an inevitable
disequilibrium between these new means and the social structures
always left over from the preceding stage. Capitalism is doomed, not
by its sins, but because its growing means of production pit a huge
collective work force against privately held property. Those who
possess the means of production are therefore “exploiters” of the
“exploited” workers.
We must note here that in Communism, work occupies the place of love
in Christ’s kingdom. Christianity teaches that man’s proper act is
union with God, but for the communist it is work – not personal
work, but the collective work which is the very essence of humanity
generating itself. (Marx never speaks of persons, but only of
individuals in the “masses”.) It is work, furthermore, which confers
ultimate value on things, whereas for the Christian, value is
estimated according to its usefulness in helping him get to God.
Marxism is not concerned with utility at all in fixing values.
Sociologically speaking, the qualitative “leap” is: revolution,
generated by the innate tensions which produce the next stage of
society. Although Marxists will espouse “reforms” for tactical
reasons, they hold that society as such cannot be reformed. It can
only erupt into its next stage.
Unfortunately not all this reasoning is false. In “dialectic” for
instance, the classical philosopher easily recognizes the hallowed
concepts of “act” and “potency.” What makes Marxism heretical is its
wholesale rejection of any and all transcendental factors, with its
mechanical application of material analogies, true enough in their
place, to higher planes of being. Dialectic, which accurately
describes the painful tensions in a human being seeking his proper
end, is merely a new word for a very old idea now being misapplied.
As Marx sees it, identity and the principle of contradiction in the
classical sense are wholly eliminated. Where everything is in flux,
any number of postulates can be “true.” There is only one absolute
truth in Marxism, and that is that everything is relative. One would
say a thing can’t both be and not be, but Marxism says yes: in that
being is forever resolving its own contradictions by becoming. It
never “is” anything.
Given such a doctrine, what laws can stand? What vows can bind? Even
to study it seriously is to deform the intelligence created for
truth. To put it in practice leads us to the works of Lenin II.
Lenin In accordance with his own teaching, Marx expected world
progress through revolution to take place automatically. At most one
only had to cooperate with the forces at work in matter. When Marx
died, Nicolai Lenin, the man destined to play “Son” to Marx the
Father in the blasphemous trinity, was only thirteen years old, but
soon he would implement on the moral plane what Marx had laid out on
the speculative. A keen intellectual, Lenin was also a man of
action, who saw immediately that the dictatorship of the proletariat
could never be established without help. Although he continued
preaching Marx’ false theory, he had no scruples about acting
counter to it in practice. In him Communism was made visible to the
world and dwelt amongst us. Following him is the destruction of the
theological virtue of hope, for through him and in him Communism
pretends to give us here and now the substance of the things a
Christian must hope for in the world to come. He offers “glory now”,
directing the temptation to the human faculty we call “memory” in
the theological sense, leading to despair.
A student of the military scientist Karl von Clausewitz, he had been
particularly impressed by the latter’s dictum that, “War does not
necessarily result from invasion, but from the defense which the
invaded puts up against the invader,” like the cat against the
pepper. Brilliantly transposing Clausewitz’ strategical theories
from the strictly military plane to the revolutionary scene, he
developed advanced techniques for leading whole nations to devour
themselves in their frenzy to eliminate the evils infecting them.
Systematically arousing hatred wherever it was to be found, he
learned to aggravate it by ruthlessly pitting every possible
“anti‑thesis” against its “thesis” in order to achieve the desired
“synthesis” by the leap of revolution. The demonic forces he
unleashed produced a chain reaction which resulted in terror and
enslavement for millions.
With Lenin, hating became a science. His satanic inspiration can
hardly be doubted. He is the very “brightness of his father’s
glory,” the “image of his substance.”
He envisaged world revolution in three stages, now only too well
known. In opposition to Trotsky, who envisioned simultaneous
revolution in all countries at once, Lenin insisted on first
establishing the dictatorship in one country in order to provide a
solid base of operation from which worldwide revolution could then
be directed. This turned out to be Russia, as our Lady came to tell
us at the time.
Marcel Clement in Le Communisme Face à Dieu, says he regarded the
Russian regime “as the master brain of an immense nervous system
spread throughout the world and working everywhere under detailed
orders at agitation and communist propaganda.” Eventually
“diplomatic representation in every country, through diplomatic
immunity, afforded a practically invulnerable center for
transmitting instructions to each country. Around this center, the
ideological, financial and police units, the use of the
revolutionary elite and the proletarian masses, became a simple
matter of organization. In a few years the network of world
revolutionary organization was extended with extraordinary
efficiency over the whole world.” This “cold war” outside the
borders of Russia constituted the second stage of the Revolution.
Its third stage, establishment of the dictatorship of the
proletariat over all humanity, is now imminent.
Son Lenin, more astute than Father Marx, was well aware that mere
workers could not be depended on to carry out such a program, that
little could be expected of these sheep beyond organizing labor
unions clamoring for better pay and working conditions. He saw the
necessity for carefully choosing and training highly disciplined
professional revolutionaries who would be totally consecrated to the
cause, and who would in fact function in the satanic state very much
as do the religious orders in the Church.
For this purpose was formed the Communist “Party,” which is no party
at all in the accepted political sense. Its primary duty is
implementing the directives of the international body in accordance
with the national problems of each particular nation. Its second
duty is adult education on a massive scale, by means of any media to
hand, whereby a whole country can be psychologically prepared to
take part in the coming revolution. Whereas workers are to be as
many and as visible as possible, party members are strictly limited
in number, periodically “purged,” and work consistently behind
fronts.
So much for the over‑all strategy. Its zigzag tactics as perfected
by Lenin are quintessential chutzpah. The dialectics begin with
vocabulary. Intending to substitute in men’s minds a view of reality
radically different from the one God has revealed in nature and in
the Church, communists as often as possible use the same words we
do. They speak of democracy, nationality, liberty, morality, peace,
the state, etc., but for them these words have totally different and
sometimes entirely opposite meanings. Thus they are able to express
their true thought publicly all the while their opponents interpret
the words according to the generally accepted sense. By the time the
true sense appears, the doctrine has been ingested.
For instance, Lenin defined dictatorship as power limited by no law,
resting on force alone. After it became a bad word under Hitler and
Mussolini, communists began speaking of “popular democracy,” meaning
dictatorship. In like manner, the word “human” which for a Christian
necessarily embodies the notion of person, for a Marxist actually
means non‑person, or even anti‑person, because for him a man is only
individualized matter that thinks. The orthodox definition of
“peace” is the tranquillity of order, but in communist lingo peace
is merely the freedom to carry on the dialectical conflict. In other
words, peace is actually war, the establishment of permanent,
self‑perpetuating revolution. Nor is “science” human knowledge, the
handmaid of revelation, but simply materialism, for the communist
has no God, and science explains everything as matter explaining
itself.
There is actually no common language between Communism and
Christianity, but by pretending there is, Communism can plead for
“dialogue.” So indispensable is dialogue to its offensive, that
wherever it meets with real resistance, it is suspended temporarily
so that it may be resumed safely later, for without this “service of
the word” no conflict could be whipped up and exacerbated.
As St. James warned, “The tongue is a fire, the very world of
iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, defiling the whole
body and setting on fire the course of our life, being itself set on
fire by hell” (3:6). It is a matter of record that the Christians in
China who were least corrupted by Communism were those to whom
dialogue was repugnant. Taught by the devil who first used it on
Eve, Marxists are trained to begin with orthodox interpretations of
their doctrines. Dialogue once innocently begun leads to dialectic,
dialectic to division, and division to death.
Never attacking religion on its own dogmatic ground, Communism sets
out to destroy it as Cain did Abel, by inviting believers “into the
field,” non‑religious ground where the battle is already lost.
Proceeding almost exclusively on the moral, practical plane, Marxism
first lures its victims to acts of which they have become doubtful,
for instance, contraception. Once practiced, these are accepted, and
eventually promoted.
Dialogue is rigged to produce dilemma from which the only escape
always appears to be the Marxist solution. (Discussion of world
population problems is a favorite introduction to the “necessity” of
contraception.) By refusing dialogue at the outset as we would any
other temptation, we refuse dilemma and all its consequences. The
timid take refuge in the enemy’s ambiguous propositions to salve
their consciences, being encouraged to accept Marxist theses in
Christian dress which are later interpreted and executed in the full
Marxist sense.
Post‑Vatican II developments are sufficient example of this master
tactic whereby the dialectical struggle has been introduced into the
Church herself. The only power on earth superior to Communism, she
is being tempted at all levels to set her pace to the world, for she
presents an insuperable obstacle to the Revolution.
The communist never lies or contradicts himself, because for him
there is no absolute right or wrong. His Party, midwife of the
Revolution, uses any means to accelerate delivery, espousing even
reactionary causes if this will aggravate conflict. Lenin laid down
as principle that “one must learn to work legally within the most
reactionary organization.” Within these groups revolutionaries,
always a minority, transmit party orders in the guise of their own
personal opinions, harnessing as many non‑communists as possible to
the work of the Revolution without their suspecting it.
Never openly preaching Communism, party members are adept at
manipulating “peace” offensives, defending “motherhood” and
“democracy,” encouraging “patriotism,” so as to neutralize and
dismantle any real opposition. All the while, management is pitted
against labor to produce the deadly wage vs. price cycle which will
wreck the economy and destroy money itself through inflation.
Conservatives are hurled against liberals, haves against have‑nots,
black against white. In the women’s lib movement even the sexes are
turned against each other to produce crisis in the family, basic
cell of natural society. In the Church agents are found in
traditionalist ranks as they are among the purveyors of the New
Religion, promoting discord from both sides. This kind of
super‑opportunism at work supporting all sides is incomprehensible
to those who can’t see that the basic strategy never varies.
“The dictatorship of the proletariat,” said Lenin, “is a relentless
battle, both bloody and unbloody, violent and peaceful, military and
economic, pedagogical and administrative, against the forces and
traditions of the old world.”
Marcel Clement, on whom this article has drawn heavily, calls
Leninism “the methodical exteriorization of all conflicts, based on
organized deception and incitement to envy and hatred. Christianity
is the acceptance of the Cross, the light of Truth, the pardon of
injuries. We are in a way at the eve of the great option. It’s the
destiny of the world which is at stake.”
Communism, dedicated to such “exteriorization of conflict,” can
never be reconciled with the Faith, which is founded precisely on
interiorization of conflict as exemplified by Christ on the Cross,
of whom the Psalmist had prophesied, “I bear in my bosom all the
accusations of the nations!” (Ps. 88:51). III. Mao A full
generation before Vatican II, the techniques this so‑called
“pastoral” council recommended for updating the Church had already
been perfected by Communists working in the Church in China. There
it was shown how the dialoguing “study club" could be gradually
transformed into the “parish council” which would take over the
direction of the parish and eventually the entire diocese. Religious
activities were systematically used as pretexts for disguised
Marxist indoctrination or ecumenical meetings where real Catholics
driven farther and farther “out into the field” were always
outnumbered and finally excluded. This need not surprise us, for it
was in China, with Mao Tse‑Tung, that Communism attained its
Pentecost.
Chairman Mao plays the part of “Spirit” to Marx the Father and Lenin
the Son in the satanic trinity. Proceeding from both, perfecting the
thought of the one and the revolutionary strategy of the other,
Mao’s cultural revolution means to achieve the satanic
“sanctification” of the world by finishing touches from “the finger
of the Father’s right hand.” There is an eminent congruity in that
Mao rose, not from the world’s masculine west, but from its feminine
east – woman being the ectype of the Holy Ghost according to the
Fathers of the Church. And the Chinese have long been known as “the
Jews of the orient.”
As we might expect, he addresses himself to the third power of the
soul, the will. His specific temptation will therefore be against
the permanent theological virtue of charity. By him humanity is to
be led, not only to unbelief, or to despair, but to the consummate
formal denial of God’s love which constitutes the unforgivable sin
against the Holy Ghost.
Christian imperatives all reduce to one: Thou shalt love – first
God, then one’s neighbor for His sake. As we have seen, being vowed
to dialectical struggle, the Marxist’s imperative is actually: Thou
shalt hate – and deliberately pits neighbor against neighbor. It is
true the Christian also hates. He hates sin, but he loves persons.
The Marxist also loves, but only humanity, and a kind of mystical,
perfected humanity at that, existing only in the future. He hates
persons in their actual state. The real “now generation” are the
Christians, for they love now as well as in the future.
To effect radical reversal of Christian love, Mao brings to
perfection the theories derived from Clausewitz by Lenin and later
by Stalin. Developer of the concept of total war, Clausewitz had
been guided by the principle that war is merely an extension of
politics. He considered warfare as human activity rather than mere
confrontation of physical forces, with victory not necessarily the
result of greater numbers or physical strength. He taught that the
enemy must therefore be weakened not only physically, but above all
morally. Also he noted that the fight need not always be fought to a
finish, but simply used as a way of bringing one’s adversary to the
conference table.
As we saw, Lenin, reversing the thought of Clausewitz, saw politics
as the extension of war. For him, peace was simply more and better
war, but he didn’t neglect bloody terrorism when it suited his
purpose. Compared to Mao, Lenin’s methods seem very crude, for when
it comes to pervasive, indirect but relentless aggression, the
oriental is matchless. With Mao Communism came into possession of
refined psychological instruments so deadly accurate that the battle
against God can now be carried not only into the heart of society,
but into the human soul itself.
It is frightening to study in detail the campaign organized with
such force and accuracy against the pagan Chinese, but especially
against the Church. Although the Chinese Christians constituted
hardly one percent of the total population, it is revealing that
they received the lion’s share of attention from the Communist
propaganda organs. Wherever she is found, the Church alone provides
the opposition her enemy really fears.
Whereas Marx the Father attacked the juridical order by political
revolution, and Lenin sapped the economic order by social
revolution, Mao’s vast revolution against all existing culture is
designed to liquidate the whole interior spiritual order of the
human soul in order to reconstruct it on Marxist lines.
Gauging Marx’ superficiality even better than had Lenin, Mao
contended that the most their methods could produce was a sort of
consumer‑man conditioned to aspire merely to ever greater creature
comforts – a prognostication only too willingly confirmed by both
Plus XI and Pius XII
Mao’s truly pentecostal view of revolutionary man was that of a
completely new creature, so free that he was liberated even of his
entire past, his total human heritage. He saw that mere destruction
of private property (on which personal human dignity is objectively
based) could never of itself eradicate past culture from human
consciousness. All of human memory would have to be blotted out in a
new “baptism of the spirit” – of Chairman Mao.
Understanding the power of obsession, he advocates a total change of
surroundings before addressing the intellect. Slogans, ideas,
posters, radio, songs, dance, theatre, movies, study clubs, schools,
demonstrations, lectures, meetings, all become tools for the
systematic destruction of the past.
By its very nature behaviorist, Communism has always believed that
man will automatically change if his environment can be changed, but
Mao has refined such crudity. For him “class” and the class struggle
are not found outside man, but inside him, and that is where he
looks for it. He has developed what amounts to a whole program
ordered to the production of the diabolic virtues, through a
diametric reversal of the evangelical counsels.
In the name of “poverty” all the trappings of the past, whether
Shakespeare or classical Chinese drama, miniskirts, Mah Jong, are
forbidden to 700,000,000 people. Austerity is demanded of all in a
land where students must work like coolies and coolies must become
students. A Chinese Communist must be denuded of everything. His
only possessions are the thought and will of those who command him,
for his “obedience” must be total, expected in the internal forum of
his conscience as well as in the external, governing not only his
acts, but his most intimate thoughts, in private as in public. Nor
is “chastity” overlooked, for young Maoists are expected to defer
marriage until the age of thirty if they marry at all, in deference
to the exigencies of the Revolution. Man’s noblest instincts have
been harnessed: As one militant explained, “Several generations will
have to be sacrificed before Communism triumphs. These generations
are ours: Neither I nor my son, nor even my grandson will see this
victory. That doesn’t matter, we are nothing; our job is to prepare
a better future for those who will succeed us.”
(It might be asked here, “But what of the Jew Marcuse and the sexual
revolution?” These seem contrary at first glance, but they are
actually mirror images of Mao and his spiritual regime, achieving
the same ends by reverse methods, playing Molinos to his Jansen. By
one or the other means whole populations can and are being rendered
hostile to their established government and to themselves in the
diabolic pentecost whose corrupting fire and flame are even now
seeking to consecrate the whole world to the “man of sin.”)
Needless to say, behind all the paraphernalia for destroying man’s
past there lurks only the satanic desire to obliterate his religion,
which Communism has always maintained is of his own manufacture, a
form of thumb‑sucking which makes him dependent on illusion and
alienates him from himself. Marx called religion “man's
self‑consciousness before he has found himself – or when he has lost
himself,” a “super‑structure” in society designed to console the
exploited in the class struggle, an “opiate for the people.”
For Mao religion isn’t even that, but merely a relic of the past.
“No more martyrs” is now official policy. Christians are never
convicted on religious grounds, but only for impeding the
Revolution. Conclusion In the name of Marx, Communism denies God
the Father, who created heaven and earth out of nothing and who
personally directs its every event, whose eye is on the sparrow, and
without whose consent not a hair falls from our heads. Communism
says it was matter, and not God’s Word, which became man. In the
name of Lenin is denied this very Word, God the Son who said, “I am
the way, the truth and the life,” and outside whom there is nothing
that was made. In the name of Mao it denies God the Holy Ghost, of
whom the Son promised, “He will teach you all things” (John 14:26).
Aping the divine Persons in the Most Blessed Trinity, these three
satanic personifications act in the Party as one throughout the
world. There is still much work for them to do, for integral,
perfected Communism exists nowhere yet, not even in China or Russia,
which at best are still in the socialist stage. In so‑called
communist countries, the government merely governs, all the while
favoring the Party, which is the only direct agent of the
communization which goes on internally over a long period of years.
It keeps the dialectic ferment active in many “outmoded” structures
which are allowed to persist until the new ones can be forged. This
is happening now within the Catholic Church, which is being
subjected to the same dialectics as other social categories. Like
other holdovers, it will be allowed to subsist for a time, but
transformed, its dogmatic content replaced by Marxism, its
apostolate by Leninism and its interior life of grace by Maoism.
When Mao died on September 8, 1976, he joined Marx and Lenin
definitively in their niche in history. The Satanic “trinity” is now
complete. Despite any specious “revisionism” to the contrary, it is
set from now on to spread error throughout the world with
unimaginable coherence – as our Lady warned would happen if mankind
does not fall to its knees.
What is the defense against this creeping horror?
Once we have thoroughly understood its tactics, the only possible
defense is the one proposed by Pius XI: “No one . . . may
collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever!” no matter how
innocent this may appear. He warned how communists, “without
receding an inch from their subversive principles, invite Catholics
to collaborate with them in the realm of so‑called humanitarianism
and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect
harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church.”
In the face of this warning, the “pastoral” Vatican II laid down in
its declaration on Christian Education: “Cooperation is the order of
the day.” In its decree on the Missions: Catholics “should cooperate
in a brotherly spirit with other Christians, with non‑Christians,
and with members of international organizations” with a view to
“building up of the earthly city” – in the Lord! In the decree on
the Church in the Modern World: “It is very much to be desired that
Catholics, in order to fulfill their role properly in the
international community, will seek to cooperate actively and in a
positive manner both with their separated brethren who together with
them profess the Gospel of charity, and with all men thirsting for
true peace,” communists in no way excluded. The Council refused a
petition to condemn Communism.
The choice lies before all, for the temptation is now global indeed:
Apostasy or death? Not a question of saving human life, but of
saving the Faith. “Every other enterprise,” said Pius XI, “however
attractive or helpful, must yield before the vital need of
protecting the very foundation of the Faith and of Christian
civilization.”
Fr. Dufay, who witnessed the battle at close quarters in China, says
to lose no time in preparing the Church of the Catacombs: “Take as
principle that normal exterior life – liturgy, teaching, apostolate
– should continue as far as possible. But, at the same time, prepare
Christians to preserve their essential religious life in the absence
of priests, worship and Sacraments . . . Prepare memory aids on the
dogmas of necessary means, marriage without clergy, perfect
contrition, assistance to the dying, Baptism, child education, etc.,
and place these leaflets in safe places...
“It would be good if trustworthy priests of high caliber were to set
themselves to living the life of the people. They need profound
dogmatic and spiritual formation, especially on the theology of the
Church, the meaning and value of persecution and suffering, and
should be steeped in the remembrance of the great saints and martyrs
of the past. Thus armed, the Christian faith will use its bad times
for growth in charity," making the most of the service Communism
will render it by purifying and detaching it from all that is not
God here below. And again, “Actually it’s solitaries who must be
found and trained, in other words, Christians capable of living
their faith all alone, amid the strongest pressures, the most
painful happenings and the most forbidding of deserts.”
The Counter‑revolution began in Eden with the Revolution itself, for
there on the spot God told the serpent, “I will put enmities between
thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15).
Centuries later, when the battle was approaching a climax in Russia
in 1917, this “woman” appeared on earth at Fatima to warn that “the
errors of Russia” would overflow the whole world unless supernatural
means were marshalled against them.
Of necessity the “errors of Russia” can be overcome only by
supernatural force, because there are no natural means superior to
them. Given the impairment of nature by original sin, there are no
natural means which are even proportioned to these “errors”.
Certainly no material weapons can destroy Communism’s battlements,
let alone shoot down its ideas. No political position can withstand
it. No mere strategy can outwit it that is not rooted in grace.
The defeat of Communism will be effected by prayer and penance, in
the name of Him who before His Passion said, “In the world you will
have affliction. But take courage, I have overcome the world!” (John
16:33). It is not the dictatorship of the proletariat which is
“inevitable,” but the triumph of the Church!
|
