John Paul II, the “rock of faith” - Michael Journal · 2010. 5. 21. · John Paul II, the...

For the Triumph of the Immaculate

A journal of Catholic patriotsfor the kingship of Christ and Maryin the souls, families, and countries

For a Social Credit economyin accordance with the teachings of the Churchthrough the vigilant action of heads of families

and not through political parties

Pilgrims of Saint Michael, 1101 Principale StreetRougemont, QC, Canada J0L 1M0

Tel.: Rougemont (450) 469-2209; Montreal aera (514) 856-5714; Fax (450) 469-2601Publications Mail Reg. N° 40063742. (PAP) reg. N° 09929

website: www.michaeljournal.org Printed in Canada

Edition in English. 51st Year. No. 339 April-May, 2006 4 years: $20.00

John Paul II, the “rock of faith”April 2, 2006: first anniversary of his death

One year ago, on Saturday, April 2, 2005, the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday, the great Pope John Paul II left us for the Father’s house, but his memory is still vivid through-out the Church and the world.

Pope Benedict XVI, who never misses any opportunity in his various speeches to pay homage to his “venerated predeces-sor”, will go to Poland at the end of May to thank the Poles for the gift of this exceptional man who, for over 26 years, as leader of the Church of Christ, preached and lived total adherence to the Lord Jesus.

Besides, in a short period of time, John Paul II should be declared blessed. Pope Benedict said that he does not intend to write many new documents, since everything has already been said and explained so well by Pope John Paul II — especial-ly the meaning of the Second Vati-can Council — and that our task now is to study the many teachings of the late Pope.

This first anniversary was em-phasized this year all over the world, but especially in Rome with special ceremonies at St. Peter’s Square, with a Rosary vigil that gathered over 100,000 people on the night of April 2, 2006, and a Mass the next day. Here are excerpts from Pope Bene-dict’s speeches for this occasion.

“Open widethe doors to Christ !”

On Sunday, April 2, at noon, be-fore the prayer of the Angelus, Bene-dict XVI said to the crowd gathered in St. Peter’s Square:

On April 2 last year, just as today, in these very hours and here in this very apartment, beloved Pope John Paul II was living the last stage of his earthly pilgrimage, a pilgrimage of faith, love and hope which left a profound mark on the history of the Church and of human-ity.

We all remember the images of his last Way of the Cross on Good Friday: being un-able to go to the Colosseum, he followed it in his Private Chapel, a cross in his hands. Then, on Easter morning he imparted the Urbi et Orbi Blessing, unable to speak, solely with the gesture of his hand. Let us never forget that Blessing. It was the most heartfelt and moving Blessing which he left us as the last testimony of his desire to carry out his ministry to the very end.

John Paul II died as he had always lived, inspired by the indomitable courage of faith,

abandoning himself to God and entrusting himself to Mary Most Holy. This evening we will commemorate him with a Rosary Vigil in St. Peter’s Square, where tomorrow after-noon we will celebrate Mass for him.

A year after his departure from this earth to the Father’s house, we can ask our-selves: what did this great Pope who led the Church into the third millennium leave us? His legacy is immense, but the message of his very long Pontificate can be summed

up well in the words he chose to inaugurate it, here in St. Peter’s Square on October 22, 1978: “Open wide the doors to Christ !”

John Paul II incarnated this unforgettable appeal, which I feel resounding within me as if it were yesterday, in the whole of himself and in the whole of his mission as Succes-sor of Peter, especially with his extraordinary programme of apostolic journeys. In visiting the countries of the entire world, meeting the crowds, the ecclesial communities, the heads of government, religious leaders and various social realities, he was making, as it were, a great gesture to confirm his initial words. He always proclaimed Christ, pre-senting Him to everyone, as did the Second Vatican Council, as an answer to man’s ex-

pectations, expectations of freedom, justice and peace. Christ is the Redeemer of man, he was fond of repeating, the one genuine Saviour of every person and of the entire hu-man race.

In his last years, the Lord gradually stripped him of everything, to make him fully resemble Him. And when henceforth he could no longer travel or even walk, or finally even speak, his gesture, his proclamation,

was reduced to the essential: to the gift of himself to the very end. His death was the fulfilment of a consist-ent witness of faith that moved the hearts of so many people of good will.

John Paul II departed from us on a Saturday dedicated especially to Mary, for whom he had always had a filial devotion. Let us now ask the heavenly Mother of God to help us treasure what this great Pope gave and taught us.

“Fidelity and dedication”On Sunday evening, Benedict XVI

led from his study window the reci-tation of the Rosary with the faithful gathered in St Peter’s Square, and delivered a reflection afterwards:

A year has already passed since the death of the Servant of God John Paul II at this very moment — it was 9:37 p.m. — but his memory lives on, more alive than ever, as is testi-fied to by the many events scheduled to take place in these days through-out the world. He continues to be present in our minds and hearts; he continues to communicate to us his love for God and his love for man; he continues to inspire in one and all, and especially in the young, en-thusiasm for good and the courage to follow Jesus and His teachings.

How can we sum up the life and evan-gelical witness of this great Pontiff? I will attempt to do so by using two words: “fidel-ity” and “dedication”, total fidelity to God, and unreserved dedication to his mission as Pastor of the universal Church. Fidelity and dedication appeared even more convincing and moving in his final months, when he embodied in himself what he wrote in 1984 in the Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris: “Suffering is present in the world in order to release love, in order to give birth to works of love towards neighbour, in order to transform the whole of human civiliza-tion into a civilization of love” (n. 30).

(continued on page 2)

April-May 2006“Michael” Journal, 1101 Principale St., Rougemont, QC, Canada — J0L 1M0Tel.: Rougemont (450) 469-2209; Montreal area (514) 856-5714; Fax (450) 469-2601; www.michaeljournal.org

Contents“Michael”. April-May, 2006

Pages

John Paul II, the rock of faith 1-2Principles of the social doctrine 3 to 5Basic principles of Social Credit. L. Even 5Spirituality of Louis Even’s Work. A.P. 6-7Economic security. Louis Even 8-9Decrease in birth rates. Benedict XVI 10Hu, Yassir, and Kofi... 10Apostolate work in the U.S.A. 10Secularization, the greatest challenge 11Pope Benedict to Canadian Bishops 11The aim of the Financiers. A. Pilote 12-13Questions asked by non-Catholics 14-15The Da Vinci Code attacks the Faith 16

This evening, the first anniversary of his return to the Father’s House, we are in-vited to accept anew the spiritual legacy he has bequeathed to us; we are urged, among other things, to live by seeking tirelessly the Truth that alone brings relief to our hearts. We are encouraged not to be afraid to follow Christ in order to bring everyone the Gospel proclamation which is the leaven of a more fraternal and supportive humanity.

May John Paul II help us from Heaven to continue on our way, remaining docile disciples of Jesus in order to be, as he him-self loved to repeat to young people, “dawn watchmen” at the beginning of this third Chris-tian millennium. For this, let us call on Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, for whom he always felt a tender devotion.

Taking Mary as his ownOn Monday evening, April 3, Pope Bene-

dict XVI celebrated Holy Mass in St. Peter’s Square for the repose of the soul of the late John Paul II. Here are excerpts from the hom-ily:

It was faith, of course, that was at the root of John Paul II’s total offering of himself. To those who had the opportunity to be close to him, that firm and forthright faith was almost tangible. If it impressed the circle of his collab-orators, it did not fail during his long Pontifi-cate to spread its beneficial influence through-out the Church in a crescendo that reached its highest point in the last months and days of his life. It was a convinced, strong and authentic faith — free of the fears and compromises that have infected the hearts of so many people — thanks partly to his many apostolic pilgrim-ages in every part of the world, and especially thanks to that last “journey”, his agony and his death.

The Gospel passage that has just been proclaimed helps us to understand another aspect of his human and religious personal-ity. We might say that among the Apostles, he, the Successor of Peter, supremely imitated John the “beloved disciple”, who stood under the Cross with Mary at the moment of the Re-deemer’s abandonment and death. The evan-gelist relates that Jesus, when He saw them standing near, entrusted the one to the other: “Woman, behold, your son!”... “Behold, your mother!” (Jn 19:26-27). The dying Lord’s words were particularly dear to John Paul II. Like the Apostle and Evangelist, he too want-ed to take Mary into his home: “et ex illa hora accepit eam discipulus in sua” (“and from that hour the disciple took Her into his own keep-ing” Jn 19:27).

The expression “accepit eam in sua” is singularly compact. It indicates John’s deci-sion to make Mary share in his own life, so as to experience that whoever opens his heart to Mary is actually accepted by Her and be-comes Her own. The motto that stands out

in the coat of arms of the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, Totus tuus, sums up this spirit-ual and mystical experience well, in a life completely oriented to Christ through Mary: “ad Iesum per Mariam”.

The Pope of Divine MercyMichael Brown’s website, spiritdaily.com,

published a letter of Robert Allard, director of Apostles of Divine Mercy (divinemercysunday.com), which elaborates on the links between John Paul II and Divine Mercy:

Pope John Paul died on a feast that the Lord Jesus said would be the “last hope of salvation.” The Pope died on the vigil of a feast that he himself established in the Jubi-lee Year 2000 to fulfill what he called “the will of Christ.” Pope John Paul named the new feast “Divine Mercy Sunday.”

The Pope knew as soon as he was named as the Vicar of Christ in 1978 that God had entrusted him with the special mission of preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ. His first words “Be not afraid” must have been sent from above to ease the fears of the people of the world who would face an ever increasing and overwhelming power of evil that is foretold many times in the Book of Revelation.

Jesus Himself selected His two messen-gers that would help Him to prepare the world for His Final Coming. The first was a Polish nun named Maria Faustina Kowalska, whom the Lord called His secretary and apostle of Divine Mercy. The second was a special man named Karol Wojtyla, who would later become Pope John Paul II.

Many believe the Polish Pope to be the “spark from Poland” that Jesus told Saint Faustina would “prepare the world for My final coming.” Faustina was instructed by Jesus to record all of His words to her in a diary that has since been published all over the world. The name of that diary is called “Divine Mercy in My Soul.”

Pope John Paul was exposed, at an early age, to the words of Jesus given to Saint Faus-tina when he was studying for the priesthood in an underground seminary during the Ger-man occupation of Poland in World War II. By God’s Divine Providence, the chapel, now made famous since Faustina was declared a saint, lay directly between the seminary and the labor camp where he worked to survive.

He would stop and pray there, and he be-came knowledgeable of the contents of her diary. Decades later, as the Pope recuperated in his hospital room after being shot, on May 13th, 1981, he had the entire diary reread to him. Later that year while at the Shrine of Merciful Love, he stated, “Right from the be-ginning of my ministry in St. Peter’s See in Rome, I considered this message [of Divine Mercy] my special task. Providence has as-signed it to me in the present situation of man, the Church and the world. It could be said that precisely this situation assigned that message to me as my task before God.”

By God’s Providence, Faustina was canon-ized as the first saint of the new millennium right on Divine Mercy Sunday when John Paul II announced the institution of this new feast. Later that day, he exclaimed “This is the happiest day of my life.”, He had fulfilled the will of Christ !

Five years later, he would die on that feast. Everyone present with the Pope in his final moments celebrated the Feast of Divine Mercy, which Jesus promised would bring the total forgiveness of sins and punishment. Jesus made this promise with certain condi-tions; one must go to Confession and then receive Holy Communion on that Feast of Mercy. The Pope received those sacraments just before he died.

Pope John Paul had prepared a short hom-ily from his deathbed that was to be read on Divine Mercy Sunday. It was indeed read, not by him, but by a Vatican official on that day after the Mass at St. Peter’s for the eternal re-pose of Pope John Paul II. It was an urgent plea for a greater understanding of Divine Mercy, and was read as follows:

“As a gift to humanity, which sometimes seems bewildered and overwhelmed by the power of evil, selfishness, and fear, the Risen Lord offers His love that pardons, reconciles, and reopens hearts to love. It is a love that converts hearts and gives peace. How much the world needs to understand and accept Divine Mercy!

“Lord, who reveal the Father’s love by Your death and Resurrection, we believe in You and confidently repeat to You today: Jesus, I trust in You, have mercy upon us and upon the whole world. Amen.”

John Paul II(continued from page 1)

Pope John Paul II in Krakow, June 7, 1997near the tomb of Sister Faustinaand the painting of Divine Mercy

April-May 2006 “Michael” Journal, 1101 Principale St., Rougemont, QC, Canada — J0L 1M0Tel.: Rougemont (450) 469-2209; Montreal area (514) 856-5714; Fax (450) 469-2601; www.michaeljournal.org

The four principles of theChurch’s docial doctrine:The dignity of the human person, thecommon good, subsidiarity, solidarity

One of the last important documents issued during the pontificate of John Paul II is the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church”, published in October, 2004, which presents, in a systematic manner (300 pages of text plus a 200-page index), the prin-ciples of the Church’s social doctrine in di-verse areas of public life.

When one compares the Social Credit proposals with these four principles, one sees that they are a fresh, concrete and efficient way of applying these principles, especially with the Social Credit dividend that would apply the universal destination of goods, and put into action the principle of subsidiarity: with enough money into the hands of individ-uals and families, there would be less need for State intervention and centralization.

Here are excerpts from Chapter Four of this new Compendium, which explains the four main principles of the Church’s social doctrine. (The numbers in front of paragraphs are those used in the Compendium.)

The heart of Catholic social teaching160. The permanent principles of the

Church’s social doctrine constitute the very heart of Catholic social teaching. These are the principles of: the dignity of the human person, which is the foundation of all the other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine; the common good; subsidi-arity; and solidarity. These principles, the ex-pression of the whole truth about man known by reason and faith, are born of “the encoun-ter of the Gospel message and of its demands summarized in the supreme commandment of love of God and neighbour in justice with the problems emanating from the life of so-ciety.” In the course of history and with the light of the Spirit, the Church has wisely re-flected within her own tradition of faith and has been able to provide an ever more accur-ate foundation and shape to these principles, progressively explaining them in the attempt to respond coherently to the demands of the times and to the continuous developments of social life.

161. These are principles of a general and fundamental character, since they concern the reality of society in its entirety: from close and immediate relationships to those mediated by politics, economics and law; from relationships among communities and groups to relations between peoples and na-tions. Because of their permanence in time and their universality of meaning, the Church presents them as the primary and fundamen-tal parameters of reference for interpreting and evaluating social phenomena, which is the necessary source for working out the cri-teria for the discernement and orientation of social interactions in every area.

The dignity of the human person105. The Church sees in men and women,

in every person, the living image of God Him-self. This image finds, and must always find anew, an ever deeper and fuller unfolding of it-self in the mystery of Christ, the Perfect Image of God, the One who reveals God to man and man to himself.

106. All of social life is an expression of its unmistakable protagonist: the human per-son. The Church has many times and in many

ways been the authoritative advocate of this understanding, recognizing and affirming the centrality of the human person in every sec-tor and expression of society: “Human society is therefore the object of the social teaching of the Church since she is neither outside nor over and above socially united men, but exists exclusively in them and, therefore, for them.” This important awareness is expressed in the affirmation that “far from being the object or passive element of social life“ the human per-son “is rather, and must always remain, its subject, foundation and goal.” (Pius XII, Radio Message of December 24, 1944.) The origin of social life is therefore found in the human per-son, and society cannot refuse to recognize its active and responsible subject; every expres-sion of society must be directed towards the human person.

107. Men and women, in the concrete cir-cumstances of history, represent the heart and soul of Catholic social thought. (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 11.) The whole of the Church’s social doctrine, in fact, develops from the principle that affirms the inviolable dignity of the human person. (Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra.)

132. A just society can become a reality only when it is based on the respect of the transcendent dignity of the human person. The person represents the ultimate end of society, by which it is ordered to the person: “Hence, the social order and its development must invariably work the benefit of the hu-man person, since the order of things is to be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around.” (Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 26.)

Respect for human dignity can in no way be separated from obedience to this principle. It is necessary to “consider every neighbour without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means ne-cessary for living it with dignity.” Every polit-ical, economic, social, scientific and cultural programme must be inspired by the aware-ness of the primacy of each human being over society.

The specification of rights155. The teachings of Pope John XXIII, the

Second Vatican Council (Gaudium et Spes, 26), and Pope Paul VI have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the En-cyclical Centesium Annus (n. 47): “the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environ-ment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality; the right to develop one’s intel-ligence and freedom in seeking and know-ing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth’s material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one’s depend-ents; and the right freely to establish a fam-ily, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one’s sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person.”

The principle of the common good164. The principle of the common good,

to whichever every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which al-low people, either as groups or as individ-uals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.” (Gaudium et Spes, 26.)

167. The common good therefore involves all members of society; no one is exempt from cooperating, according to each one’s possibil-ities, in attaining it and developing it.

Everyone also has the right to enjoy the conditions of social life that are brought about by the quest for the common good. The teach-ing of Pope Pius XI is still relevant: “The dis-tribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge dispar-ity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to, and brought into conformity with, the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.” (Encyclical Letter Quadrages-imo Anno, 197.)

Tasks of the political community168. The responsibility for attaining the

common good, besides falling to individual persons, belongs also to the State, since the common good is the reason that the political authority exists. (Cf. Catechism of the Cath-olic Church, n. 1910.) The State, in fact, must guarantee the coherency, unity and organiza-tion of the civil society of which it is an expres-sion, in order that the common good may be attained with the contribution of every citizen. The individual person, the family or intermedi-ate groups are not able to achieve their full development by themselves for living a truly human life. Hence the necessity of political institutions, the purpose of which is to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods. The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attain-able common good.

170. The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to at-taining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of cre-ation. God is the ultimate end of His creatures, and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent dimension, which moves beyond the historical dimension while at the same time fulfilling it.

The universal destination of goods171. Among the numerous implications

of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods: “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guid-ance of justice tempered by charity.” (Gaud-ium et Spes, 69.) This principle is based on the fact that “the original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28-29). God gave the earth to the whole human race



for the sustenance of all its members, with-out excluding or favouring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth’s goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life.” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 31.) The human person cannot do without the material goods that correspond to his primary needs and constitute the basic conditions for his existence; these goods are absolutely in-dispensable if he is to feed himself, grow, com-municate, associate with others, and attain the highest purposes to which he is called. (Cf. Pius XI, Radio Message of June 1, 1941.)

172. The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal destination of goods. Each person must have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full development. The right to the common use of goods is the “first prin-ciple of the whole ethical and social order” and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.” (John Paul II, Encyclical Let-ter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42.)

For this reason the Church feels bound in duty to specify the nature and characteristics of this principle. It is first of all a natural right, inscribed in human nature, and not merely a positive right connected with changing histor-ical circumstances; moreover it is an “inher-ent” right. It is innate in individual persons, and has priority with regard to any human intervention concerning goods, to any legal system concerning the same, to any economic or social system or method: “All other rights, whatever they are, including property rights and the right of free trade, must be subordin-ated to this norm [the universal destination of goods]; they must not hinder it, but must rather expedite its application. It must be con-sidered a serious and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original purpose.” (Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Pro-gressio, 22.)

Private property176. By means of work and making use

of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property.” (John Paul II, Centes-imus Annus, 31.)

Private property and other forms of pri-vate ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy, and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom... stimulating exercise of responsibil-ity, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty.” (Gaudium et Spes, 71.) Private prop-erty is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church’s social doctrine requires that owner-ship of goods be equally accessible to all, so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion.” (Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 11.)

The heritage of progress179. The present historical period has

placed at the disposal of society new goods that were completely unknown until recent times. This calls for a fresh reading of the principle of the universal destination of the goods, the earth, and makes it necessary to extend this principle so that it includes the latest developments brought about by economic and technological progress. The ownership of these new goods — the results of knowledge, technology and know-how — becomes ever more decisive, because “the

wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources.” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 32.)

New technological and scientific know-ledge must be placed at the service of man-kind’s primary needs, gradually increasing humanity’s common patrimony. Putting the principle of the universal destination of goods into full effect therefore requires action at the international level and planned programmes on the part of all countries. “It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development.”

183. It is by what they have done for the poor that Jesus Christ will recognize His chosen ones... the poor remain entrusted to us, and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from Him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are His brethren.”

The principle of subsidiarity185. Subsidiarity is among the most

constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine, and has been pres-ent since the first great social encyclical. (Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum, 11.) It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of eco-nomic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recrea-tional, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve ef-fective social growth.

This is the realm of civil society, under-stood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen.“ This network of re-lationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity.

186. The necessity of defending and pro-moting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice, and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order, to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the social body, and never destroy and ab-sorb them.”

On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the func-tions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social en-tities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.

Subsidiarity, understood in the positive sense as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, en-tails a corresponding series of negative impli-cations that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the exis-tential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and respon-sibility must not be supplanted.

Opposed to centralization187. The principle of subsidiarity protects

people from abuses by higher-level social au-thority, and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. This principle is impera-tive because every person, family and inter-mediate group has something original to of-fer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of free-dom and initiative.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucrat-ization, and welfare assistance, and to the un-justified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening direct-ly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accom-panied by an enormous increase in spend-ing.” (Centesimus Annus, 48.) An absent or in-sufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice, there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exer-cised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative de-centralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the pri-vate sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.

188. Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply cer-tain functions. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initia-tives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public au-thority can create conditions of greater equal-ity, justice and peace.

(Note of “Michael”: to correct the finan-cial system is certainly one of the duties of the State.)

The principle of solidarity192. Solidarity highlights in a particular way

the intrinsic social nature of the human person, the equality of all in dignity and rights, and the common path of individuals and peoples to-wards an ever committed unity. Never before has there been such a widespread awareness of the bond of interdependence between indi-viduals and peoples, which is found at every level. The very rapid expansion in ways and means of communication “in real time”, such as those offered by information technology, the extraordinary advances in computer tech-nology, the increased volume of commerce and information exchange all bear witness to the fact that, for the first time since the begin-ning of human history, it is now possible — at least technically — to establish relationships between people who are separated by great distances and are unknown to each other.

Four principles(continued from page 3)



In the presence of the phenomenon of interdependence and its constant expansion, however, there persist in every part of the world stark inequalities between developed and developing countries, inequalities stoked

(continued from page 4) also by various forms of exploitation, oppres-sion and corruption that have a negative influ-ence on the internal and international life of many States. The acceleration of interdepend-ence between persons and peoples needs to be accompanied by equally intense efforts on the ethical-social plane, in order to avoid the

dangerous consequences of perpetrating in-justice on a global scale. This would have very negative repercussions even in the very coun-tries that are presently more advantaged.

The economic problem of our ancestors, who had but human labour at their disposal, animal strength and a few simple tools, was to produce enough to sustain themselves. Real poverty, scarcity, was a constant threat. In the twentieth century, with an open continent, with the forces of nature and of applied sci-ence at our disposal, the immediate problem is to find the way to distribute an abundant production. The presence of potential or real-ized abundance should confer to all Canadians the following political rights in the economic domain:

1) Life — The right for each individual of being able to obtain the necessities of life, food, clothing, lodging, without having to re-sort to public charity.

2) Freedom — The right for each individual to choose the kind of occupation which he is best suited for, instead of being compelled to accept such work that he can find.

3) Pursuit of happiness — The right for each individual to leisures which he would be free to use in accordance with his personal initiative, to material, aesthetic, intellectual or spiritual activities.

The possibility to guarantee these rights rests on the undeniable possibility today of producing all the necessary things to its ful-filment while using but a fraction of available human labour.

What is Social Credit?Social Credit is a movement whose goal is

to allow the public consumer to benefit from the full production capacity of useful goods.

Unemployment, of which people suffer to-day, is not the result of the saturation of con-sumers’ needs, nor of the exhaustion of the productive resources, but only from the non-distribution of products and services.

Production goes on only according to the orders it receives. The orders are conditioned by the purchasing power of the consumers. This purchasing power depends on the money between the hands of consumers who have needs to satisfy.

Social Credit presents a studied, polished and protected plan, to make up at all times the gap between the prices of products of-fered to consumers and the money in the hands of the consumers who want these finished products for themselves. This is a system therefore which does not admit in-flation nor deflation, but automatically and mathematically upholds an equilib rium be-tween production and purchasing power. It subdues money and puts it at the service of man. It compels it to fulfil its function: the selling of produc tion, the satisfaction of the consumer as far as the natural and industrial resources permit.

Besides this equilibrium, Social Credit also includes in its proposals the elimination of poverty, through the social guarantee of the individual’s economic security.

No one will deny that Canada is able to easily produce enough goods so as to pro-vide an honest subsistence to each and every-one. The physical possi bility exists; only the financial possibility is lacking. So it is finance that does not serve the Canadians, and this is where one must find a remedy. As Henry Ford remarks, the products are there, but the dol-

lars to buy the products are lack-ing. The producers of goods fulfil their role, but the producers of dollars wrongly carry out theirs. There is an admirable technique in production, but there is none in the mone tary system. The monetary system, still says the great American indus trialist, is outdated, ineffective, and it is high time to change it.

The wealthMoney is not the wealth; it is

only a title, a claim on the wealth. The wealth comes from human or mechanical labour applied to the natural resources. Wealth is not lacking in Canada; it could be much more abundant, since there is much non-utilized human and mechan ical labour. The money comes from manufacturers of money, and because there is a shortage of it, or it is not where it should be, the claims on the wealth being lacking, the wealth does not sell, production stops, pov-erty reigns amid plenty.

Money is made up of metallic pieces, of bank notes and of credits or bank deposits put in circulation by cheques. Today cheques constitute more than 95 percent of business trans actions. Cheques simply shift credits in bank ledgers.

The deposits in the banks therefore form the substantial part of money in circulation. These deposits originate through the credits granted by the banks, in the form of loans, discounts, overdrafts or bond purchases. The banks are the creators of money. But they destroy this money by the recalling of loans, the reduction of overdrafts. If the manufac-turing goes faster than the destruction, the money in circulation increases; if the destruc-tion goes faster than the manufacturing, the money supply decreases. There is no equi-librium between production and money, be-cause the banks do not aim for equilibrium, but for their particular profit.

Moreover, advances are made to produc-tion, but the flow of money from production to consumption does not go as fast as the in-voice of prices, which goes at the rate of pro-duction. It is impossible for anyone, whether he be well intentioned or not, to manage the present monetary system in accordance with the public’s needs and the produc tive capacity to satisfy these needs.

The nationalization of banks would not correct anything, by itself. The changing of the controller is insufficient; one must change the policy which governs control. In other words, it is necessary that control pursues another end, that it looks for a constant equilibrium between prices and purchasing power.

The National Credit OfficeMoney cannot be controlled socially, in ac-

cordance with the facts of production and of consumption of the country, but on a national level, in accor dance with a national account-ancy. It is therefore necessary to have a na-tional monetary body, like we have a judicial body to administer justice.

The private banks can continue their oper-ations in view of profits, in return for services rendered, but must not any more have the right to increase or reduce the money supply. This func tion must exclusively be a matter for the na-tional monetary body, the National Credit Office.

The National Credit Office lists the facts of production and of con-sumption, and acts in consequence so as to issue money in such a way for all the production to sell as long as it answers needs. It enjoys all powers to reach this end for which it is accountable to the nation.

The proposed technique to reach the twofold end of Social Credit — equilibrium of prices and of purchasing power, and the do-ing away with poverty — consists of two methods of distributing new money: the compensated discount and the dividend.

The compensated discountThe compensated discount is aiming to put

prices and purchasing power in equilibrium by creating and distributing money without inflation. The money from the compensated discount finances a reduction of the price in favour of the consumer.

If the available production is $12 billion, and the purchasing power which faces it is only $9 billion, the national Credit Office de-crees a 25 percent reduction on all prices, a discount on all products at the time of the sale to the ultimate consumer. That is to reduce prices to the level of the purchasing power. The discount is compensated to the retailer, that is to say, the Credit Office provides him the money that he sacrificed by the discount. This money is created by the Credit Office exactly in the same manner as today’s bank money. This new money actually favours the consum-er, but provided that he buys; it goes to the retailer, provided that the sale was made. This is money which sells production by lower-ing prices and which satisfies everybody: the buyer, the retailer, and the producer who is only too pleased to sell his production.

The national dividendThe national dividend, as its name implies,

is the distribution of a dividend, of a sum of money representing a surplus or the revenue from a capital, to all members of society —- therefore to each man, woman and child in Canada.

This dividend is based on the existence of the cultural heritage, or social capital, belong-ing to everybody, capital consisting in the dis-coveries and inventions of science. The part this capital is playing in production is greater and greater, while the part of human labour is smaller and smaller. Labour has to be reward-ed, but also the capital, even the social capital. We are all heirs of the accumulations of past generations, we are all capitalists, and we are all entitled to at least a sufficient dividend to shield us from poverty.

ConclusionIn order to understand the possibility of

the application of the monetary system ad-vocated by Social Credit, one must not lose sight of the fact that the world has entered into an age of plenty; that, if there are pau-pers, it is not because there are rich people, but because abundance is not distributed. Therefore there is no need whatsoever to take away from the rich to give to the poor; we just have to put some technique into the monetary system, and not content ourselves with saying that money is made for man, but to establish a system that necessarily puts it at the service of man, of all men.

The basic principles of Social Creditby Louis Even


It is a good thing to go deeper into the spiritual-ity of Louis Even and of his Work, since without his solid faith in God and his immense love for his neighbour, Louis Even would never have under-taken this work of educa-tion of the people, to free them from the financial dictatorship.

Ends and meansClifford Hugh Douglas,

who conceived the Social Credit idea, was an engin-eer by trade, and reasoned logically: He saw the prob-lem — the chronic short-age of purchasing power in the hands of the con-sumers — and established a solution to achieve the

goal pursued. Louis Even had the same logical mind, and was able to clearly under-stand Douglas’s thoughts, expressing them in simple terms, which were understandable to everybody.

In his logic, Louis Even knew how to dif-ferentiate ends from means: money is not an end, it is not true wealth, but only a symbol, a means which allows one to get products. Similarly, employment is not an end, but a means to produce goods. (If these goods can be made with less human labour, so much the better ! )

Louis Even did not stop his logic there, but went as far as to deal with fundamental issues like: “What is the goal, the purpose of life?” The answer is obvious for those who have the Faith; it is the one written in the old catechisms of the past:

Q. Why did God create you?

A. God created me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

Some people would like the “Michael” Journal to deal only with monetary reform, without any mention of religion, and others would pre-fer that the “Michael” Journal should only speak about religion, without any mention of monetary reform.

Yet, we are all made up of a body and a soul; we stay only a short while on earth, like “pilgrims”, but our real destiny is spirit-ual, that is to say, to live in union with God in Heaven forever. Material goods are an end, but the ultimate end is God. The rea-son all of creation exists is to glorify God.

Besides, the words “social credit” mean that one has confidence that one can live in society, that one can trust each other, that there is a minimum of order that allows one to exchange goods and to circulate freely without the fear of being attacked on the street, or of being robbed by one’s neigh-bour. Without respect for the moral order — in other words, without religion — any life in society is impossible; there is disorder, revolution, and anarchy.

However, even though our ultimate end

is spiritual, we must not forget that it is on the love of our neighbour, on what we will have done for our brothers and sisters on earth, that we shall be judged: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his an-gels: for I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you took me not in... Truly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it not to one of these least, you did it not to Me.” (Matthew 25:31-40.)

Social Credit, with its monthly dividend to every citizen, based upon the common inheritance of progress and natural re-sources, would be an emi-nently efficacious way to help one’s neighbour, since it would help everybody, especially the poorest.

Differentiating means from ends also means that we recognize that we are crea-tures, and that God is the Creator; it means that we need God’s help, and that we know that there can be no justice without God: “Vain is the builder’s toil, if the house is not of the Lord’s building” (Psalms 127:1); “Sep-arated from Me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5.)

It also means that if one is not in the state of grace, in a state of friendship with God, one can do nothing good. Louis Even fully realized this, and this is why the “Michael” Journal has never hesi-tated to denounce all that can lead people away from God, and

lead them to sin. This is also why the “Mi-chael” Journal always promotes the means of sanctification: the frequent use of the sacraments of Penance and of the Eucha-rist, prayer, apostolate, the protection of sacramentals, etc.

Material goods alone cannot bring happi-ness to man, since God put in man’s heart a thirst for the infinite, that only an infinite be-ing — God Himself — can fulfill: “Man does not live by bread only, but by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God does man live.” (Deuteronomy 8:3.)

After having searched in vain for hap-piness in the pleasures of this world, Saint Augustine was finally moved by the grace of God — among other things, thanks to the prayers of his mother, Saint Monica — and was able to write, with full knowledge of the facts, in his Confessions: “You have made us for Your-self, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”

Louis Even had not only a genius for ex-plaining Social Cred-it, but also the heart to make it known to others. In fact, Louis Even was already put-ting into practice the teaching of the Church

on the role of the faithful, thirty years before this role was defined by the Second Vatican Council: to renew all of the temporal order to put it in conformity with the Gospel, to the order wanted by God.

Louis Even was a great Catholic who came from an excep-tional family; he was the 14th of a family of 16 children. Six of his brothers and sisters entered religious com-munities, and he him-self became a Brother of Christian Instruction, at the age of 17. Louis Even arrived in Canada in 1903, when religious were chased out of France by an anticlerical government. He taught in Montana, U.S.A., then in the Mont-real area until 1920, at the age of 35, when he was released from his vows, because he had become deaf and could no longer teach. (At that time, hearing aids did not exist.)

But God had His designs on Louis Even, who was to become himself the founder of a Work that is unique in the world, the “Pil-grims of St. Michael”, to overcome the fi-nancial dictatorship. With this Work, Louis Even’s teachings are now diffused all over the world, through the “Michael” and “Vers Demain” Journals, along with the millions of free offprints, now translated into more than ten different languages.

Louis Even died on September 27, 1974 (the feast of St. Vincent de Paul, a French priest who is the patron saint of charitable works), but his writings are so bril-liant that they always re-main topical, even more than thirty years after his

death. They will always remain so, since So-cial Credit can be applied to any possible economic situation, and its principles remain valid in any epoch.

This is why the “Michael” Journal does not hesitate to reproduce Louis Even’s articles: even if some of them may have been writ-ten decades ago, one could swear they were written just recently, because they match the present situation so well. This is the proof that Social Credit is a truth that transcends any era. From 1934 to 1974, quite a general survey of Social Credit was written by Louis Even, and it would require a whole encyclo-pedia to reproduce all of these writings!

ConversionLouis Even’s writings

on Social Credit are so limpid and brilliant that they bring people to re-pentance. Our Lord had said in 1938 to Sister Faustina Kowalska (see picture), a Polish nun who was canonized by Pope John Paul II: “I want a journal to be founded, with new words to convert the atheists and the materialists, in order to make them see God through the wonders of His Creation.”

God has created man with material needs, but He has also put on earth all that we need to satisfy these needs. If millions

The spirituality of Louis Even’s Workby Alain Pilote

I’ve got my dividend!

Louis Even at the age of 17



of human beings have nothing to eat, noth-ing to clothe themselves with, nor nowhere to live, it is certainly not God’s fault, but the fault of the defective financial system — and of those who control it — that does not allow a just distribution of the goods created by God for all human beings.

God gives us an abundance of goods...

...If we do not have access to it, it is because of the bankers and the

governments who side with them. Every person of good will appreciates

justice, and in a just order like Social Credit, all could realize how good God is. For ex-ample, Moslems appreciate the stand of the “Michael” Journal against interest on newly-created money, since interest is forbidden by God, according to the Koran, the holy book of the Moslems. Interest is also condemned in the Bible of the Christians, but unfortunately, too many Christians and Catholics don’t take this point seriously. The “White Berets” of the “Michael” Journal take the Gospel ser-iously; they are true Catholics!

In passing, the “White Berets” are not a cult or a sect; they invented no religion: they are Roman Catholics who preach loyalty to all of the teachings of Pope Bene-dict XVI. They go to Mass every day at their parish church in Rougemont, where they are based, and they are in very good terms with their parish priest and the Bishop of their diocese, who gave them permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament in the chap-els of their two houses, and who came him-self in their chapel of the “House of the Im-maculate” — where their monthly meetings are held — to celebrate the first Mass there. So those who say that the “White Berets” are not Catholics simply do not know what they are talking about; they are talking through their hats.

Interest is condemned300 years before Jesus Christ, the great

Greek philosopher Aristotle condemned lending at interest, pointing out that “money, being naturally barren, to make it breed money is preposterous.” Money is an ab-straction, a sign, not a living being. Sow and water it, and it will not breed some extra money. Yet, this is what the Financiers would like us to believe!

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theo-logica: “He who takes usury for a loan of money acts unjustly, for he sells what does not exist... It follows then that it is

wrong in itself to take a price (usury) for the use of money lent and, as in the case of other offenses against justice, one is bound to make restitution of his unjustly acquired money.”

Social Credit: applied ChristianityWhen Louis Even discovered the great

light of Social Credit in 1935, he immediately understood how this solution would put into application Christian principles of social jus-tice in economics, especially those regarding the right of all to the use of material goods, the distribution of the daily bread to all, through the allocation of a social dividend to every human being. This is why, as soon as he came across this light, Louis Even made it his duty to make it known to all.

Clifford Hugh Douglas, the Scottish engineer who founded Social Credit, once said that Social Credit could be defined in two words: applied Christianity. As it was mentioned in the previous issue of “Mi-chael” (Social Credit and the teachings of the Popes), a comparative study of Social Credit and the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church shows indeed how won-derfully the Social Credit financial propos-als would apply the Church’s teachings on social justice.

Louis Even knew all the social teachings of the Popes, and never missed an oppor-tunity to comment on them in the light of the Social Credit proposals, which would apply the social doctrine of the Church so well. The Social Crediters know that money should be an instrument of service, but the bankers, in appropriating the control over its creation, have made it an instrument of domination. The most striking quote from any Pope on this issue remains that of Pope Pius XI, who wrote in his Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, in 1931:

“This power becomes particularly ir-resistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are

able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the lifeblood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of pro-duction, so that no one dare breathe against their will.”

Saint Louis-Marie de MontfortTwo Saints can be linked to the life and

Work of Louis Even: Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort and Saint Maximilian Kolbe.

Louis Even was born on March 23, 1885, in Montfort-sur-Meu, France, and was chris-tened Louis-Marie, in honor of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Mont-fort, who was also born in Montfort-sur-Meu, in 1673. In his book True Devotion to Mary, Saint Louis de Montfort says that devotion to Mary, far from removing us from Christ, brings us closer to Him; far from being a detour, it is a short cut. Louis Even inherited from his patron saint this devotion to the Virgin Mary, and this consecration to the Mother of God marked all of his life.

Saint Maximilian KolbeAnother Saint that can be linked to Louis

Even’s life is Saint Maximilian Kolbe, a Fran-

(continued from page 6) ciscan Father, who also had a great devotion to Mary, and who founded in 1917 — the same year as the Apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, and also the creation of Social Credit by Clifford Hugh Douglas — the Militia of the Immaculate, to convert the Freemasons.

Saint Maximilian found-ed a monthly review, The Knight of the Immaculate, which was stopped in Sep-tember of 1939, when Hit-ler’s Nazi armies invaded Poland. This same month, the first issue of Louis Even’s journal, “Vers Demain” (the French-language version

of “Michael”) was published in Canada, as though to take over from Father Kolbe’s peri-odical in this battle for the triumph of the Im-maculate. Besides, Louis Even’s motto was “To build the Kingdom of the Immaculate”.

Father Kolbe, who died as a martyr in 1941 in the concentration camp of Oswiecim, had founded Niepokalanow, the “City of the Im-maculate”, where over 600 brothers worked at the diffusion of Father Kolbe’s various publications, to make Our Lady known and loved. Father Kolbe strived to instill into them a blind belief in the importance of so-liciting subscriptions to these publications, and increased the circulation of his paper to over one million copies, when the “City of the Immaculate” was forced to close down in 1939.

To make Our Lady known and lovedIn December of

1964, at the age of 79, Louis Even fell serious-ly ill, to such an extent that one really thought he was going to die, but he recovered, against all expecta-tion, and said: “I have obtained a reprieve. I have loved the Bless-ed Virgin much in my life, but perhaps I have not made Her loved enough.”

Since the beginning of his Movement, Louis Even had begun every meeting with the recitation of the Rosary. But during the last ten years of his life, from 1964 to 1974, Louis Even did even more: besides continu-ing to write on Social Credit, he wrote sever-al articles on the different apparitions of the Blessed Virgin throughout the world, bring-ing out the Virgin Mary’s insistence on the importance and urgency for all human be-ings — Her children — to repent and return to God through the recitation of the Rosary.

In 1968, Mr. Even and the other Direc-tors of “Michael” went to San Damiano, Italy, to meet Rosa Quattrini, to whom the Virgin Mary was appearing since 1964. Our Lady gave this Message to the Directors of “Mi-chael”, through the seer: “Apostles of right thinking, pray a lot to Saint Michael to de-fend you with his sword. Make Me known and loved by everyone through the recita-tion of the Rosary.” It is after this Message that the Pilgrims of St. Michael added the apostolate of reciting the Rosary with the families they visited from door to door, thus starting the “Rosary Crusade”.

It is a great spiritual inheritance that Louis Even passed on to his Pilgrims of St. Michael, “apostles of right thinking” and “pilgrim-warriors”. Let us become worthy of this inheritance, by making known the beautiful Social Credit message, through soliciting subscriptions to the “Michael” Journal !

Alain Pilote



Security means to be sheltered, to be in a safe place. Political security, for example, shelters our nation from intrusions from for-eign countries, and shelters our citizens from thieves and criminals.

Now, let’s talk about economic security. When one talks about economics, one talks about the satisfaction of material needs. Economic security therefore means that one does not need to worry about the necessi-ties of life, that we should not fear lacking the basic necessities of life.

Not to worry about material things does not mean that we must not deal with material things, that we should not produce the necessi-ties of life. Of course not! It means that once we have done what we can, with the means of production at our disposal, that should ensure that we have at least the basic ne-cessities of life, especially when these necessities are not lacking, and are far from lacking.

It is a fact that the necessities of life do not lack today, neither in our country, nor in the entire world. There could be some nations in dis-tress, but then there are also other nations with an overabundance of goods.

We should therefore not have to worry about the necessities of life. Why can’t we follow the advice given to us by Our Lord: “Do not fret over your life, how to support it with food and drink; over your body, how to keep it clothed... See how the birds of the air never sow, or reap, or gather grain into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them; have you not an excellence be-yond theirs? And why should you be anx-ious over clothing? See how the wild lilies grow; they do not toil or spin; and yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... You have a Father in heaven who knows that you need all these things.” (Matthew 6:25-32.)

Exactly! Our heavenly Father, who is our Creator, has put on earth all that is needed to satisfy the needs of all mankind, of every human being. This does not mean that God has put all these things in one single place or country, but overall, on all the surface of the globe. God has put enough goods and natural resources on the soil, underground, in the seas, in the forests, everywhere, to satisfy the normal needs of mankind through the centuries.

We know that; nobody can deny it. However, for whom has God created all these things? Since He is the Father of all human beings, He has created them for all human beings.

Earthly goods have been created for all human beings. This is something that needs to be repeated to those who forget it, to gov-ernments, to various associations, to groups and individuals. Pope Pius XII reminded us of this truth in his Pentecost radio-address of June 1, 1941: “Material goods have been created by God to meet the needs of all men, and must be at the disposal of all of them.”

This is clear. “To meet the needs of all men,” the Pope said. Man is a person, a so-cial person, who lives in society. Man must therefore be able to blossom in society. Soci-

ety must not suffocate man, but enrich him. Similarly, when a person blossoms, it makes society grow richer. Society helps the indi-vidual, and the individual helps society.

This is what normally happens when there are no hindrances, no obstacles. But what do we see today? Even within developed countries like Canada, the United States of America, or nations of Western Europe, one notices that there is an abundance of goods in stores, but at the same time many cases of poverty, families who do without the basic necessities of life, who are obliged to beg, or to ask for aid from governments, whose aid comes only sparingly.

One can see that man excels in produ-cing things today; we can have anything we want as regards production — I do not say we have these products in our homes, but there is anything we want on the market. For example, if we order a coffin, we get a cof-fin; if we order a car, we get a car; if we order bread, we get bread, provided we have the effective means of ordering goods in today’s world. This means is called money. There is precisely an obstacle as regards money, and we will talk about it later.

If men excel in producing goods, they fail pitifully in distributing these same goods. Why? Because men have chosen to impose on themselves regulations — man-made regulations — for the distribution of goods. These regulations are ruled by Fi-nance. These are financial rules.

It is impossible to obtain goods that one did not produce oneself, unless one pays for them. Most people cannot produce goods because they do not own the means of pro-duction. Even those who are employed in production, do not know for how long they will be employed; they can be fired or laid off any time. They do not decide anything about the job they do; their job depends upon circumstances that they do not control — not natural circumstances, but artificial ones, created by the financial controllers.

This is well known to everybody: one can produce all kinds of goods, but if some goods are not produced, it is because money is not there to finance their production. Moreover, when goods are produced but do not reach the families that need them, it is because these families do not have the money to buy those goods.

The aim of productionSome people will say that production

exists to be sold, to be purchased. This is not the purpose of production. Production exists to satisfy human needs, or it has no reason for being. Of course, there is a sys-tem of sales and purchases that has been established; we do not deny that it is prob-

ably a good thing for it allows those who have some money to choose, among the production offered on the market, what they want. And when they buy what they want, what suits them, the production sys-tem makes more similar goods, since there is a demand for them, in such a way that production can serve the consumers when they have the means to express financially their demands of goods to satisfy their per-sonal needs.

People know best what they need, so the present system of sales and purchases, with the use of money, is a good system by it-self, provided this system allows products to

reach all human beings, to ful-fill the aim of production, the plan of the Creator: Material goods have been created by God to meet the needs of all men. Whatever the method used, it must achieve this re-sult. If it does not achieve it, it is either bad or vitiated. Then it must either be changed or corrected; there is no getting away from it.

One must not forget that the aim of economics is to produce goods, and to get these goods to reach those who need them, nothing else. Here is an example of the aim

of economics — and I will not use the tech-nical jargon used by orthodox economists: financial crisis, economic fluctuations, etc.; all this gibberish leads us nowhere.

The multiplicationof loaves and fishes

The example I will quote is taken from the Gospel. Some people will say: “Oh! Can one quote the Gospel for a material pur-pose?” Well, listen. I do not say that this is the only meaning one can give to this pas-sage of the Gospel, but one can certainly ex-tract this meaning from it. What is this pas-sage? It is the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes, as reported in Matthew 14:13-21, in which Jesus fed a multitude, so that they would not faint — which is a ma-terial concern indeed:

“Jesus took a ship from the place where He was, and withdrew into desert country, to be alone; but the multitudes from the towns heard about it, and followed Him there by land. So, when He disembarked, He found a great multitude there, and He took pity on them, and healed those who were sick.

“And now it was evening, and His dis-ciples came to Him and said, `This is a lonely place, and it is past the accustomed hour; give the multitudes leave to go into the villages and buy themselves food there.’ But Jesus told them, `There is no need for them to go away; it is for you to give them food to eat.’ They answered, “We have nothing with us, except five loans and two fishes.’ `Bring them to Me here,’ He said; then He told the multitudes to sit down on the grass, and when the five loaves and the two fishes were brought to Him, He looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples; and the dis-ciples gave them to the multitude. All ate and had enough, and when they picked up what was left of the broken pieces, they filled twelve baskets with them; about five

Economic security for the individualby Louis Even


(continued from page 8)

thousand men had eaten, not reckoning women and children.”

Jesus took the loaves and fishes, blessed them, and said to His disciples: “Distribute them.” And when they picked up the pieces, there was more bread at the end than at the beginning. It is was a miracle indeed, a mir-acle of production. This miracle was done by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And then distribution took place! And the bread was neither sold nor purchased! Yet, the bread reached those who were hun-gry. Our Lord said to the Apostles: “Distrib-ute.” It is not difficult when production al-ready exists; the Apostles did the easy part.

Today, there is no need for miracles to multiply the bread; modern production takes care of it, with all the progress that has been accumulated over the past centuries. There is plenty of production today: it is the diffi-cult thing to do that is actually realized. How-ever, the easier thing to do, to distribute this production, cannot be achieved today.

Why? Because of the present financial system that men decided to impose upon themselves. The human being must come before Finance, the human person must come before money, and governments, or nations, must establish an order that will al-low production to reach those who need it. This is what Pope Pius XII said, in the same radio-address mentioned above:

“Every man indeed, as a reason-gifted being, has, from nature, the fundamental right to make use of the material goods of the earth, though it is reserved to human will and the juridical forms of the peoples to regulate, with more detail, the practical realization of that right.”

“From nature,” the Pope said, or because of the simple fact that a person is born. Not because this person is employed, or smart, or tall, or rich, etc. Every man, the Pope said, has this right, and it comes from nature. It is therefore not a right that can be granted or denied by the government or the financial system, for every man already possess this right since his birth.

However, to exercise this right, the Pope reminded us that “it is reserved to human will and the juridical forms of the peoples to regulate, with more detail, the practical realization of that right.” Juridical forms, a social or political order, that will allow pro-duction to reach all those who need it.

Do we have this order today? Alas, no! Why? Don’t governments and peoples have the power to establish such an order? Yes, but they do not apply it. There are some people who do have at least the necessities of life, but it is not even sure they will enjoy it forever.

In the same address, the Pope continues and says: “National economy must tend to do nothing but to ensure, without interrup-tion, the material conditions in which the individual life of the citizens will be able to develop fully.” We are therefore talking about personal economic security here.

Some people will say: “Do not our gov-ernments already recognize this right with their social security laws?” Yes, there are such laws today, like the old-age pensions, family allowances, unemployment insur-ance, etc. But this financial aid is granted to people in dribs and drabs, and it is based on the country’s capacity to tax, instead of the country’s capacity to produce. Moreover, there is the begging aspect for those who re-ceive these benefits, and the inquiring aspect on the part of government departments.

These negative aspects should be elim-

inated, and we should progressively go to another system, which is more in keeping with human dignity. What system? The one presented by the Social Credit proposals, which will be explained in other articles, for this one is already long enough. Economic security is certainly part of a better world, a world that would be better for all.

Louis Even

The grand objectiveof Social Credit

On one occasion, someone asked Ma-jor Douglas what he was aiming at with his Social Credit proposals. Here is the notable reply made by this great man:

“I will tell you in a broad way what we are aiming at. We are striving to bring to birth a new civilization, something which extends far beyond the bounds of a change in the financial system. We are hoping, by various means, chiefly financial, to enable the human community to step out of one type of civilization into another, and the first requirement, as we see it, is that of ab-solute economic security.”

This then is the great objective of Social Credit, and as such it is an economic gospel, full of promise for the future of the world, and should, we think, command the interest and allegiance of every right-thinking person.

Should you ask, “What especially does Social Credit stand for?”, I will mention but a few items here:

In the first place, Social Credit stands for the sovereignty of the individual. He is su-preme. The State exists for him, and not he for the State. He is not to be subordinated to the will of the dictator, nor to the whim of the autocrat.

Secondly, Social Credit demands that there shall be that measure of economic security provided for everyone compatible with the resources of the nation.

Thirdly, such leisure for personal culture and development shall be available as this age of mechanisation and automation may provide.

Fourthly, there will be an immediate re-duction of the public debt, and an immediate lightening of the present burden of taxation.

Fifthly, the elimination of war through the removal of its cause. Wars do not spring from racial hatreds; they are economic in origin.

And finally, steps taken to restore to the people the ownership and use of their own credit, the right to which has been filched from them by a financial hierarchy for the enrichment and empowerment of itself.

Well, there it is, and the full story has not been told by any means.

From an editorial inThe New Zealand Social Crediter

The late François Even

François Even, attorney and the son of Louis Even, the founder of the “Michael” Journal, passed away on April 1, 2006, in his 83rd year. Proud husband of Marie Therese de Maisonneuve and beloved father of Vir-ginie, Charles, and Pierre, he was also the dear brother of Gemma, Agnes, and Rose Marie. (The picture was taken in September 1999 at our Congress in Rougemont, when we commemorated the 25th Anniversary of the death of his father.)

François shared the Social Credit ideas of his father. He had inherited his father’s su-perior mind. Being an attorney, he was the invaluable legal adviser of the Directors of “Michael”. His expertise and judicious ad-vice always helped us to make wise deci-sions. Always ready to help us at any time of the day, in his office or at home, he devoted countless hours to answer our questions, with charity and simplicity. He was the law-yer of the humble.

With all the Pilgrims of St. Michael and friends of our Movement all over the world, we pay homage to this righteous man, a great defender of our Work against the attacks of the enemy, on the legal scene. He loved justice; may God reward him a hundredfold! “Bless-ed are those who hunger and thirst for justice; they shall have their fill. (Matthew 5:6.)


On April 27, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI ad-dressed a message to the participants in the 12th plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is being held in the Vatican from April 28 to May 2, on the theme: “Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Children and Young People in an Age of Turbulence.” Here are excerpts from the Holy Father’s ad-dress:

While the statistics of population growth are indeed open to varying interpretations, there is general agreement that we are wit-nessing on a planetary level, and in the de-veloped countries in particular, two significant and interconnected trends: on the one hand, an increase in life expectancy, and, on the other, a decrease in birth rates. As societies are growing older, many nations or groups of nations lack a sufficient number of young people to renew their population.

This situation is the result of multiple and complex causes — often of an economic, so-cial and cultural character — which you have proposed to study. But its ultimate roots can be seen as moral and spiritual; they are linked to a disturbing deficit of faith, hope

and, indeed, love. To bring children into the world calls for self-centred eros to be fulfilled in a creative agape rooted in generosity, and marked by trust and hope in the future. By its nature, love looks to the eternal (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 6). Perhaps the lack of such cre-ative and forward-looking love is the rea-son why many couples today choose not to marry, why so many marriages fail, and why birth rates have significantly diminished.

It is children and young people who are often the first to experience the consequences of this eclipse of love and hope. Often, instead of feeling loved and cherished, they appear to be merely tolerated. In “an age of turbulence”, they frequently lack adequate moral guidance from the adult world, to the serious detriment of their intellectual and spiritual development. Many children now grow up in a society which is forgetful of God and of the innate dignity of the human person made in God’s image. In a world shaped by the accelerating processes of globalization, they are often exposed solely to materialistic visions of the universe, of life and human fulfillment.

Yet children and young people are by na-

Hu Jintao, Yassir Arafat, Kofi AnnanSometimes, there are funny names heard

on the news, like Chinese President Hu Jintao (pronounced “who”), the late Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat (pronounced “Yes sir”), and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (pro-nounced “coffee”). As you can imagine, these names can create a lot of confusion when used in a conversation...

Here is a revised version of Abbott and Costello’s famous routine, this time featuring not baseball, but U.S. President Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

George: Condi ! Nice to see you. What’s happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me. Condi: Hu is the new leader of China. George: That’s what I want to know. Condi: That’s what I’m telling you. George: That’s what I’m asking you. Who

is the new leader of China? Condi: Yes. George: I mean the fellow’s name. Condi: Hu. George: The guy in China. Condi: Hu. George: The new leader of China. Condi: Hu. George: The Chinaman! Condi: Hu is leading China. George: Now whaddya’ asking me for?Condi: I’m telling you, Hu is leading

China!George: Well, I’m asking you. Who is lead-

ing China?

Condi: That’s the man’s name. George: That’s who’s name?Condi: Yes. George: Will you or will you not tell me the

name of the new leader of China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China?

I thought he was in the Middle East. Condi: That’s correct. George: Then who is in China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir is in China? Condi: No, sir. George: Then who is? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Condi: No, sir. George: Look, Condi. I need to know the

name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi? George: No, thanks. Condi: You want Kofi? George: No. Condi: You don’t want Kofi. George: No. But now that you mention it,

I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir. George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi? George: Milk ! Will you please make the

call? Condi: And call who? George: Who is the guy at the U.N.? Condi: Hu is the guy in China. George: Will you stay out of China?! Condi: Yes, sir. George: And stay out of the Middle East !

Just get me the guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi. George: All right ! With cream and two

sugars. Now get on the phone.

ture receptive, generous, idealistic and open to transcendence. They need above all else to be exposed to love and to develop in a healthy human ecology, where they can come to real-ize that they have not been cast into the world by chance, but through a gift that is part of God’s loving plan. Parents, educators and community leaders, if they are to be faithful to their own calling, can never renounce their duty to set before children and young people the task of choosing a life project directed to-wards authentic happiness, one capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, good and evil, justice and injustice, the real world and the world of “virtual reality”.

Benedict XVI

Fantastic apostolatework in the U.S.A.

Mr. Pierre Marchildon and Mr. Patrick Tetreault did a tour of apostolate in the U.S.A. from September 18, 2005 to March 19, 2006: six months of intense apostolate work, includ-ing three months in California, and several weeks in Texas. They also toured neighboring States.

During our “Siege of Jericho” in Rouge-mont last March, Mr. Marchildon gave us a good summary of their six-month tour. They held about a hundred meetings. In California, most of the meetings were organized by Fili-pinos. At these meetings, Mr. Marchildon gave a good explanation of the creation of money by banks. Mr. Tetreault and Mr. Marchildon of-fered to people our leaflets The Money Myth Exploded and It is urgent to put an end to the scandal of poverty, and other leaflets to revive the Catholic Faith. People took several bundles to distribute in their areas. Many subscribed to our journal and took bundles of leaflets to dis-tribute around them.

During these six months, our two fiery apostles distributed 13 skids of leaflets, which amount to 15 tons of newsprint. Each skid contains 45,000 leaflets, which means a total of 585,000 leaflets were distributed. The equivalent of a skid of leaflets was also mailed to those who ordered leaflets from our office in Massachusetts. Following this leaflet distri-bution, Miss Marie Anne Jacques of Massa-chusetts, whose phone number is printed on each leaflet, was flooded with phone calls; and Mr. and Mrs. Yves Jacques (also of Massachu-setts), whose address appears on each leaflet, were flooded with letters. Mr. Bob Lambert of Massachusetts lent his cell phone to our two apostles on the road. Miss Jacques kept in touch with them regularly to give them the names and addresses of people who called for more information. Many of these then organ-ized meetings in California and Texas.

In six months, Mr. Marchildon and Mr. Tetreault gathered 3,109 subscriptions to our “Michael” Journal. Also, over 600 subscrip-tions were mailed in to our office in Massa-chusetts. Congratulations to all who had par-ticipated!

The root of the decrease in birth rates:A deficit of faith, hope, and love

Pierre Marchildon and Patrick Tetreault

Hu, Yassir, and Kofi...


On April 6, 2006, in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Benedict XVI met the youth of the Rome and Latium region, in preparation for the dio-cesan-level World Youth Day. Five young people asked questions to the Holy Father, which he answered spontaneously. Here is one of these questions, followed by the Pope’s answer:

Question: Most Holy Father, my name is Inelida. I am 17 years old. In your Message for the 21st World Youth Day, you said: “There is an urgent need for the emergence of a new generation of apostles anchored firmly in the Word of Christ.” These are such forceful and demanding words that they are almost frightening.

Of course, we also want to be new apos-tles, but could you explain to us in greater detail what in your opinion are the greatest challenges to face in our time, and how you imagine these new apostles should be? In other words, what does the Lord expect of us, Your Holiness?

The Pope’s answer: We all ask ourselves what the Lord expects of us. It seems to me that the great challenge of our time — this is what the Bishops on their ad limina visits tell me, those from Africa, for example — is secularization: that is, a way of living and presenting the world as if God did not exist.

There is a desire to reduce God to the private sphere, to a sentiment, as if He were not an objective reality. As a result, everyone makes his or her own plan of life. But this vi-sion, presented as though it were scientific, accepts as valid only what can be proven.

With a God who is not available for im-mediate experimentation, this vision ends by also injuring society. The result is in fact that each one makes his own plan, and in the end finds himself opposed to the other. As can be seen, this is definitely an unliveable situation.

We must make God present again in our society. This seems to me to be the first es-sential element: that God be once again pres-ent in our lives, that we do not live as though we were autonomous, authorized to invent what freedom and life are. We must realize that we are creatures, aware that there is a God who has created us, and that living in accordance with His will is not dependence, but a gift of love that makes us alive.

Therefore, the first point is to know God, to know Him better and better, to recognize that God is in my life, and that God has a place.

The second point — if we recognize that there is a God, that our freedom is a freedom shared with others, and that there must con-sequently be a common parameter for build-ing a common reality — the second point, I was saying, presents the question: what God? Indeed, there are so many false images of God, a violent God, etc.

The second point, therefore, is recogniz-ing God who has shown us His face in Jesus, who suffered for us, who loved us to the point of dying, and thus overcame violence. It is ne-cessary to make the living God present in our “own” lives first of all, the God who is not a stranger, a fictitious God, a God only thought of, but a God who has shown Himself, who has shown His being and His face.

Only in this way do our lives become true, authentically human; hence, the criteria of true humanism emerge in society.

Here too, as I said in my first answer, it is true that we cannot be alone in building this just and righteous life, but must journey on in the company of good and upright friends,

Vatican City, May. 11, 2006 (Catholic News Agency) — In a meeting earlier to-day with a first group of bishops from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bish-ops, Pope Benedict XVI had strong words regarding the state of the Church in that country, stressing the need for increased devotion to the Eucharist, stronger priestly formation, and greater outreach to young people. The prelates, from Quebec, have just completed their “ad limina” visit.

The Holy Father began his address by chiding Canadian society, calling it marked by “pluralism, subjectivism and increasing secularization.” In this light, he said he was grateful for the visit as it allowed him the opportunity to reflect on the Church’s mis-sion in that country.

Recalling that in 2008, Quebec City will celebrate the fourth centenary of its foun-dation and, simultaneously host the Inter-national Eucharistic Congress, Benedict called on the city to “rediscover... the place the Eucharist must occupy in the life of the Church.”

This was a particular point of concern for the Pope who highlighted “the notable drop in religious practice over the last few years,” and “the lack of young people at Eucharistic assemblies,” cited in the bish-ops’ own reports.

Benedict told them that “the faithful must be convinced of the vital importance of regular participation in Sunday Mass, that their faith may grow and find coher-ent expression.”

He said, in fact, that “the Eucharist, source and summit of Christian life, unites and conforms us to the Son of God. It also builds the Church, strengthening her in her unity as the Body of Christ. No Christian community can be built up if it does not have its root and its core in the celebration of the Eucharist.”

The Holy Father also lamented a na-tional drop in the number of priests “which at times,” he said, “makes it impossible to celebrate Sunday Mass in certain places,” but stressed his particular worry over “the place occupied by sacramentality in the life of the Church... The requirements of pas-toral organization must not compromise authentic ecclesiology.”

He said that “the central role of the priest — who ‘in persona Christi capitis’, teaches, sanctifies and rules the commun-

ity — must not be diminished.” He also expressed his gratefulness for

the generous and important role of the laity, but pointed out that it “must never obscure the absolutely irreplaceable min-istry of priests in the life of the Church. Consequently, priestly ministry cannot be entrusted to others without effectively prejudicing the very authenticity of the Church’s being.”

“Moreover,” he asked, “how will young men want to become priests if the role of ordained ministry is not clearly defined and recognized?”

Despite these problems, the Pope af-firmed that “the thirst for renewal percep-tible in the faithful is a sign of hope,” refer-ring to the “positive impact” which 2002’s World Youth Day, held in Toronto, had on young Canadians. That occasion, he said, awoke a fresh interest in Eucharistic ador-ation.

Benedict continued, saying that “if, as John Paul II wrote, Christianity in our time must distinguish itself above all for ‘the art of prayer,’ how can we not feel a renewed need to dwell in spiritual conversation... before Christ present in the Most Holy Sac-rament?”

He then thanked Canada’s consecrated communities for the “apostolic and spiritual commitment of their members,” highlight-ing how “consecrated life is a gift of God benefiting the entire Church and serving life in the world.”

However, the Pope urged, it must take place in a context of “solid ecclesial com-munion,” where consecrated men and women “work ever more closely with pas-tors, welcoming and spreading Church doctrine in all its integrity.”

He told the bishops that “you, as well as the whole Christian community, have a primordial duty to transmit the call of the Lord fearlessly, to awaken vocations, and to accompany young people along the path of discernment and commitment, in the joy of celibacy.”

“In this spirit,” he said, “you must take care over the catechesis of children and young people.” In closing, he likewise in-vited the Catholic community in Quebec “to pay renewed attention to its adher-ence to the truth of Church teaching on theology and morals, two inseparable as-pects of being a Christian in the world.”

Secularization, the greatest challenge of our time“We must make God present again in our society”

companions with whom we can experience that God exists and that it is beautiful to walk with God; and to walk in the great company of the Church, which presents to us down the centuries a God who speaks, who acts, who accompan-ies us.

Therefore, I would say: to find God, to find God revealed in Jesus Christ, to walk in company with His great family, with our brothers and sisters who are God’s family, this seems to me to be the essen-tial content of this apostolate of which I spoke.

Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict to Canadian Bishops:Rediscover centrality of the Eucharist


The basic flaw of the present financial sys-tem is that the banks create money as a debt, charging interest on the money that they cre-ate. The obligation for the debtor countries to repay the banks money that the banks did not create, money that does not exist, brings about unrepayable debts. The Financiers know quite well that it is impossible for these countries to repay their debts, that the present financial system is defective at its base, and that it can only bring about crises and revolutions. But this is exactly what they want!

As Clifford Hugh Douglas, the founder of the Social Credit school, said: “The Money Power does not, and never did, want to im-prove the money system — its consequences in war, sabotage and social friction are exact-ly what is desired.” Why?

It is because the Financiers believe that they are the only ones capable of governing mankind properly, and in order to be able to impose their will upon every individual and control the whole world, they invented the present debt-money system. They want to bring every nation in the world to such a state of crisis that these countries will think they have no alternative but to accept the miracle solution of the Financiers to save them from disaster: complete centralization, a single world currency, and a one-world government, in which all nations will be abolished, or forced to give up their sovereignty.

The Trilateral Commission There are three major economic areas in

the world: Europe, North America, and the Far East (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). If, under the pretext of having to join forces to be able to face economic competition with the two other economic regions, the member countries of each of these three regions de-cide to merge into one single country, forming three super-States, then the one-world gov-ernment will be almost achieved.

This is exactly what is taking place now, and being promoted by the Trilateral Commis-sion, founded in July, 1973, by David Rocke-feller, the chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York. The official aim of the Tri-lateral Commission is “to harmonize the pol-itical, economic, social, and cultural relations between the three major economic regions in the world (hence the name “Trilateral”). This aim was almost achieved in Europe with the Single European Act that was implemented in 1993, requiring all the member countries of the European Community to abolish their trade barriers, and to hand over their monetary and fiscal policies to the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium. Since 1999, all these coun-tries gave up their national currencies to share only one currency, the “Euro”.

As regards the North American area, the merger of its member countries is well under way with the passage of NAFTA (North Amer-ican Free Trade Agreement), first between Canada and the U.S.A., and which later also included Mexico. (The aim is to include all of the Americas.) There is a strong pressure to force these countries to harmonize their fiscal policies, and as it happened in Europe, eco-nomic union will inevitably lead to political union.

In front of these two gigantic economic powers, the countries of the Far East will have no choice but to join forces together and merge, to be able to compete with North America and Europe in the field of internation-al trade.

A one-world currency:the “Mark of the Beast”

To consolidate their power, the Financiers also want to eliminate every existing national currrency, and to install a one-world curren-cy. In the 1970s, Dr. Hanrick Eldeman, Chief Analyst of the Common Market Confederacy in Brussels, unveiled a plan to “straighten out world chaos”: a three-story computer located in the administrative building of the head-quarters of the Common Market, in Brussels, Belgium. People who work there call it “the Beast”.

The plan implies a system of digital enum-eration of each human being on earth. Thus the computer would give each inhabitant of the world a number to be used for each pur-chase or sale. This number would be invisibly tatooed by laser (or implanted with a micro-chip) either on the forehead or on the back of the hand. This would establish a walking credit card system. And the number could be seen only through infrared scanners, installed in special verification counters or in business places. Dr. Eldeman pointed out that by using three entries of six digits each, every inhabit-ant of the world would be given a distinct credit card number.

This reminds us strangely of what Saint John the Apostle wrote in the Book of Rev-elations (13: 16-18): “And he (the Beast) shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and slaves, to receive a mark on their right hands, or on their foreheads, and that none might buy or sell, unless he carried this mark, which was the beast’s name, or the number that stands for his name. Here is wisdom; he that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred and sixty-six.”

Debit cards A few decades ago, before the invention

of computers and microchips, such a system would have seemed far-fetched, a product of science fiction. But now everyone knows about the existence of debit cards with which you can buy anything in stores, without the need to carry any cash on you, the amount of your purchase being debited automatically from your bank account. The avowed goal of the banks is to eliminate all cash, and to force people to use debit cards as the only means of payment.

There is always the risk of losing one’s debit card, or of having somebody else illegal-ly use it. So here comes the ultimate solution: to link people personally to their card, so there is no way they can lose it or have it stolen! And there you have it: a micro-computer chip can be implanted under your skin, or a three six-digital unit can be tatooed on your skin... just as described in Saint John’s Book of Rev-elations.

Everything will be in place for a govern-ment that wants to control everybody’s move, since they will know everything about you: all that you buy, where and when you buy it, who you phone, how much money you have, will all be inscribed in this chip. And if, for whatever reason, you are classified as an “undesirable person” or as an “enemy of the State” by the government, they will only have to erase your number from the central computer, and you will no longer be able to buy or sell (and thus be condemned to disappear before long).

Every pretext, including national security, will be used to impose this chip to everybody. For example, the Real ID Act, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bush

on May 11, 2005, mandates that all U.S. cit-izens will receive a National ID card by May of 2008. This card will include a chip. Already, foreigners who enter the U.S.A. need a pass-port with an embedded microchip.

Without this National ID card, you won’t... drive your car, board a plane, train, or bus, enter any federal building, open a bank ac-count, hold a job.

The Illuminati This quest for a world government has

been going on for a long time. For example, on Feburary 17, 1953, Financier Paul Warburg said before the U.S. Senate: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” This quest for world domination can be traced back to the creation of the “Illuminati”, a secret society, in 1776. Their leader, Adam Weishaupt, wrote out the master plan to bring about the subjection of the whole human race to an oligarchy of Fi-nanciers. The word “Illuminati” is derived from Lucifer, and means “holders of the light”.

As surprising as it may seem, the insignia of the Order of the Illuminati appears on the reverse side of U.S. one-dollar bills. The first time it appeared was in 1933, by order of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the begin-ning of the New Deal (the name given to Roos-evelt’s political reforms of that time).

One can read at the base of the 13-story pyramid, the year 1776 (MDCCLXVI in Roman numerals). Most of the people think that it rep-resents the date of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, but it actually memorializes the foundation of the Order of the Illuminati, which was on May 1, 1776.

The pyramid represents the conspiracy for the destruction of the Catholic Church (and all existing religions), and the establish-ment of a one-world government, or a United Nations dictatorship. The eye radiating in all directions, is the “all-spying” eye that sym-bolizes the terrorist, Gestapo-like, espion-age agency that Weishaupt set up to guard the “secret of the Order and to terrorize the populace into the acceptance of its rule.” The Latin words “ANNUIT COEPTIS” mean “our enterprise (conspiracy) has been crowned with success.” Below, “NOVUS ORDO SE-CLORUM” explains the nature of the enter-prise: a “New Social Order” or a “New World Order”.

This insignia was adopted by the U.S. Con-gress as the reverse of the seal of the United States on September 15, 1789. (The obverse side of the seal bears the eagle, which is used as the official seal and coat of arms of the U.S.A., and which is also shown on the re-verse side of the U.S. $1.00 bills.)

The appearance of this insignia of the Il-luminati on U.S. one-dollar bills in 1933 meant

The aim of the Financiers:A one-world government with a one-world currency

by Alain Pilote


that the followers of Weishaupt regarded their efforts as beginning to “be crowned with suc-cess,” and that they totally controlled the U.S. Government.

A Luciferian conspiracy To say that the Illuminati is a “Luciferian

conspiracy” is not only a stylistic device, but it is literally true, since the leaders of the Il-luminati are actually worshipers of Satan, and their final objective is to have the whole world bow down to him. Through his hellhounds, it is Satan himself who continues his revolt against God by endeavoring to foil God’s plan on earth, and to snatch from God as many souls as possible.

Just like Satan, the Financiers think that they are smarter than God, and that they are the only ones who can lead mankind proper-ly. The members of the Illuminati are people of every race and creed, but who all lust for money and power.

Recognizing the powers involved In the conclusion of his book Pawns in

the Game, which denounces the plot of the Illuminati for world domination, William Guy Carr explains what must be done to stop this plot.

First, we must as individuals recognize the spiritual powers involved, and realize that we are not only facing terrestrial pow-ers, but also spiritual ones; that it is basic-ally a fight between God and Satan. We must choose who we will serve, who we will fight for: God or Satan.

Second, we must take practical steps to counteract the plan of the Financiers which, in Mr. Carr’s own words, can be done only through a monetary reform: “The electors must insist that the issue of money, and the control thereof, be placed back in the hands of the Government where it rightfully belongs.”

The necessity for Social Credit The prayers and sacrifices to obtain the as-

sistance of Heaven are certainly necessary to thwart the plan of the Financiers. But a tech-nique, a temporal means, is also necessary to thwart the plan of the Financiers. This means is the Social Credit reform, conceived by the Scottish engineer, Clifford Hugh Douglas, the only reform that the Financiers really fear, and that would put an end to their power to con-trol all the nations. (“Social Credit” means so-cial money — money created without debt by society, issued with new production, and with-drawn from circulation as production is con-sumed — instead of having a banking credit, as it is the case today —money created as a debt by private banks.)

Douglas first thought that once his discov-ery and its implications would be brought to the attention of the governments and of those in charge of the economy, they would hast-en to implement it. But Douglas soon made another discovery: the Financiers, who ruled the economy, were absolutely not interested in changing the financial system, and its flaws and consequences (wars, waste, poverty, so-cial friction, etc.) were absolutely what they desired, and even fostered deliberately, in order to impose their solution of a one-world government.

So the Financiers did everything they could to stop and silence the Social Credit idea: a conspiracy of silence in the news media, or deliberate falsification of Douglas’s doctrine, in order to render it vulnerable; calumnies and ridicule against the apostles of “Michael”. Douglas wrote in his book Warning Democ-racy:

“So rapid was the progress made by the Social Credit ideas between 1919 and 1923 both in this country (Great Britain) and abroad, and so constantly did ideas derived from them appear in the pages of the press, that the interests threatened by them be-

came considerably alarmed, and took what were, on the whole, effective steps to curtail their publicity. In this country the Institute of Bankers allocated five million pounds (then the equivalent of 24 million dollars) to combat the `subversive’ ideas of ourselves and other misguided people who wished to tinker with the financial system. The large Press Associa-tions were expressly instructed that my own name should not be mentioned in the public press, and no metropolitan newspaper in this country or the United States was allowed to give publicity, either to correspondence or to contributions bearing upon the subject. In spite of this, the Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry, at which I was a witness (in 1923), managed to expose, on the one hand, the ig-norance of even leading bankers of the fun-damental problems with which they had to deal, and on the other hand, the lengths to which the financial power was prepared to go to retain control of the situation.”

One must not forget to mention here that the best way that the Financiers found to stop the advancement of the Social Credit idea was the creation of political parties falsely bear-ing the name “Social Credit”, to make people think that voting for a new party is sufficient to change the system, whereas what is need-ed is the education of the people (by having them subscribe to the “Michael” Journal), to force the elected representatives to serve the population, instead of serving the Financiers. Fortunately, all the so-called “Social Credit parties” are dead and buried now, but they did a lot of damage and spread confusion in the minds of the people while they existed.

“The pyschological moment” Douglas predicted that the present debt-

money system of the Bankers would become unworkable and fall by itself, because of all of the unpayable debts that it creates. All the countries in the world are struggling with skyrocketing debts and heading for disaster, even though everybody knows these debts can never be paid off. Other factors announce the inevitable fall of the present system: auto-mation, for example, which makes full em-ployment impossible.

Douglas said that “a psychological mo-ment” will come, a critical moment when the population, given the gravity of the situation, and despite all the power of the Financiers, will have suffered their debt-money system long enough, and will be disposed to study and accept Social Credit. Douglas wrote the following in 1924, in his book Social Credit:

“The position will be tremendous in its importance. A comparatively short period will probably serve to decide whether we are to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or whether it is to master us; and during that period a small impetus from a body of men who know

what to do and how to do it, may make the difference between yet one more retreat into the Dark Ages, or the emergence into the full light of a day of such splendour as we can at present only envisage dimly. It is this neces-sity for the recognition of the psychological moment, and the fitting to that moment of appropriate action, which should be present in the minds of that small minority which is seized of the gravity of the present times.”

Louis Even, at the end of an article writ-ten in 1970 and entitled “Social Credit, yes — Party, no”, repeated this idea of Douglas:

“The Social Crediters of the Michael Jour-nal maintain, along with Douglas, that as re-gards Social Credit, the most effective work to do is to enlighten the population on the monopoly of financial credit, attributing to it the bad fruits of which it is the cause in the lives of people, of families, of institutions; and, in front of these bad fruits, to expose the doctrine of genuine Social Credit, which is so brilliant and in keeping with common sense. They also endeavor to develop with-in themselves, and to also radiate, a Social Credit spirit, which is clearly in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel: a spirit of service and not of domination, not of an insatiable pursuit of money or material goods, which is of the same nature — with a less powerful means — as the spirit of the barons of High Finance.

“Whether the collapse of the present fi-nancial system, under the weight of its own enormities, or events that have been foretold many times by privileged souls — events one certainly cannot doubt of when one sees the present decadence of moral standards, apostasy, the paganization of affluent na-tions that used to be Christian — occur soon, in either case, the living or the survivors of those events won’t be without a light to es-tablish a social economic system worthy of its name.”

The point to remember in all of this is that the present financial system, which creates money as a debt, is the main means of the Financiers to establish a one-world govern-ment. Debt finance is the bridge that leads us from a free society to complete dictatorship. And the only thing the Financiers fear, the only thing that can stop them in their plan of world conquest, is the reform of the present financial system, the establishment of an honest debt-free money system, along the lines of the So-cial Credit philosophy. Then one realizes all the importance of the Social Credit solution, and the importance of spreading it and mak-ing it known. This is why Soviet Foreign Min-ister Molotov had said to Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 30s: “We know all about Social Credit. It is the one theory in the world we fear.”

Alain Pilote

John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times — 1953 toasting the in-adequacy of his profession before New York Press Club:

“...If I allowed my honest opinions to ap-pear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to prevert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.

“You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, and they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the prop-erty of other men. We are intellectural pros-titutes.“

The following quotation of David Rockefel-ler, then Chairman of Chase Manhattan bank, speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden, Germany, is illustrative of this media control:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attend-ed our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. He went on to explain: It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisti-cated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

Newsmedia controlled



Here are excerpts from the book “The 40 questions most frequently asked about the Catholic Church by non-Catholics”, by Rev. A. W. Terminiello. (The full text can be found on the internet at this address: mafg.home.isp-direct.com/que40cvr.htm)

Bible differencesWhat are some of the differences be-

tween the Catholic and the Protestant ver-sions of the Bible?

The chief difference is in the omission of seven complete books and parts of two others from the Old Testament in the Protestant ver-sions. The books omitted are:

Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I Macabees, II Macabees, Esther (part), Daniel (part).

These omissions should certainly be a matter of concern and investigation. The entire Christian world accepted them as the inspired Word of God until the Reformation. If they did not belong there, then God had permitted the entire Christian world to be led astray for more than a thousand years. On the other hand, if they DO belong there, then Prot-estants are being deprived of a good por-tion of revelation and the inspired Word. No one would presume to say that any-thing inspired by God is unimportant.

Traditions of men? By what right does the Catholic

Church teach doctrines which are not found in the Bible? Is this not what St. Mark calls ‘’Making the word of God of no effect through your traditions? ’’ or what St. Matthew calls “Teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men”?

This certainly would present a prob-lem for the sincere seeker after truth who believes that all revelation is found in the Bible and the Bible ALONE.

By tradition we mean the official inter-pretation of the teaching Church, clarify-ing the written teachings of the Apostles. It also includes the UNWRITTEN teaching of the Apostles and the Church, handed down through the Fathers, the councils, the decisions of the Popes, and the liturgy of the Church.

Scripture is certainly the basis for this trad-ition. Christ sent His Apostles to teach: “All power in heaven and in earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, etc.” (Matt. 28:18-19.)

They were to teach with His authority and to teach all things He taught. They were to go and PREACH: “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to EVERY creature.” (Mark 16:15-16.)

They were to be WITNESSES: “In Jerusa-lem, in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the utmost parts of the earth.” (Acts 1:8.)

Nowhere is there a command to WRITE anything. And so the Church has the duty and the commission to teach all things that Christ taught whether or not those things have been committed specifically to Holy Scripture.

Tradition itself is mentioned by St. Paul: “Hold to the form of sound teaching which thou hast heard from Me.” (II Tim. 1:13.)

Not only was His written word to be obeyed; but also the doctrine committed to them by speech.

“The things which thou hast heard from Me through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy men, who shall be competent in turn to teach others.” (II Tim. 2:2.)

In other words, the teaching of Paul was to be handed down through teachers who were

to follow him. In Romans he says: “How then are they to call upon Him

whom they have not believed? But how are they to believe Him whom they have not heard? ... And how are men to preach unless they be sent?” (Romans 10:14-15.)

We must remember that before the last Apostle, St. John, died, there had already been a succession of four Popes — St. Peter (33-67), Linus (67-79), Cletus (79-91), Clement (91-100).

These men who were accepted by the whole Christian Church as the supreme au-thorities in matters of faith and morals, were teaching before the New Testament was com-pleted. All the Apostles, moreover, except John, were dead BEFORE the entire New Tes-tament was written.

So Catholics do not believe that they are teaching doctrines of MEN, or the traditions of men, or commandments of men. They are teaching DIVINE tradition.

Christ’s Church — corrupt? Is it not true that the Catholic Church be-

came so corrupt before the 16th Century that it was no longer the Church of Christ?

So-called “reformers” have chosen dif-ferent points of history at which the Church of Christ was supposed to have become cor-rupt. No matter what point is chosen, it must then be admitted that UNTIL that particular time, the Catholic Church (the only one then in existence) was the true Church of Christ. To admit CORRUPTION OR APOSTASY, is to say that Christ failed in establishing a church — either because He COULD not, or He WOULD not keep His promise.

Three texts of Scripture prove that Christ made the promise that His Church would go on until the end of time:

Matthew 28:18-20. Christ promised that He himself would remain with the Church until the consummation of the world.

Matthew 16:18. His promise to Peter that He would build His Church upon him as a rock and that the gates of hell would not pre-vail against it.

John 14:16. Christ promised to send the Holy Ghost to abide with the Church forever.

These promises were made by the Son of God; and therefore, He INTENDED to keep them, and WAS ABLE to keep them.

Although individuals, large groups of men, and even entire nations, have apostatized from God, we can never say that the Church itself apostatized; for this would mean that Christ had not kept His promises.

Peter or Christ — the Rock?Christ made Himself the rock foundation

in Matthew 16:18. Does the Church not usurp the power of Christ by claiming that Peter was the rock foundation, and the Popes, his successors?

A careful reading of Matthew 16:18 in the light of St. John 1:41 should show us that Christ, in speaking of the rock, was referring to Peter, and NOT of Himself. Of course we all admit that Christ is the founder of His Church. But St. Peter was the one chosen to be the temporal ruler of this Church. St. John tells the story of the meeting of St. Peter and Our

Lord in St. John 1:42 when Christ said to him: “Thou art Simon, the son of John; thou shalt be called Cephas” (which inter-preted is Peter).

The word “Peter“ in Aramaic which Christ was speaking meant “a rock.“ Christ was following the practice among Orient-als of changing the name of a person to signify a new function which he was to perform. Two years later, Christ was ac-tually to change the name of Simon and to promise to build His Church upon PETER.

“Thou art Peter (i.e., a rock), and upon this rock I will build My church.“ (Matt. 16:18.)

A reading of this chapter from 13 to 20 will show that PETER was the one who was to be the rock. The LORD first asked for a sign of faith from Peter. Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.“ He then rewarded him, “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona — because flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but My Father in heaven.“ And then He changed his name.

“And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against

it.“ (Matt. 16:18-20.) Certainly Christ would not CONFOUND

GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION by saying, “I say to thee (speaking to PETER), thou art Peter (and then changing in the same sen-tence), upon this rock (that is, upon Me), I will build My Church.“

In the very next verse, He then goes back TO PETER, “And I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever THOU shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.“

He FULFILLED this promise after His resur-rection when He commanded Peter to feed His lambs and also His sheep. (John 21:15, 17.) Peter EXERCISED this jurisdiction:

(a) His name was always first on the lists of Apostles.

(b) He proposed the election of an Apostle to succeed Judas. (Acts 1:21-26.)

(c) He preached the first sermon on Pente-cost Sunday. (Acts 2.)

(d) He worked the first miracle. (Acts 3:6-8.)

(e) At the council of Jerusalem, all the Apostles submitted to his authority. (Acts 15:7-12.)

History proves that from that time on,

Is the Catholic Church in agreement with the Bible?Questions frequently asked by non-Catholics

Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the Kingdomof Heaven, by Pietro Perugino, Sistine Chapel


both in the East and the West, the successor of Peter was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the Church. Since that day there have been 264 successors to St. Peter. That this was Christ’s plan is found in the same chapter where He said that the Church founded upon THIS rock foundation was to endure until the end of time, and that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it. The Church was to have the same foundation, for if the Church was to go on, there must be successors who would carry on the work of Peter, the rock.

Why not confess to Godinstead of to a mere man?

Why is it Catholics go to confession to a mere man in order to confess their sins? Is it not easier to go directly to God?

Yes, it is easier to go to God, and probably this is why Christ did not chose this method.

We confess to a man, not because he him-self has the power to forgive sins, but because he acts as an agent, or a judge, in the name of God, and forgives sins in His name.

The words of institution prove that Christ intended specific confession of sins:

“He, therefore, said to them again, ‘Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’ When He had said this, He breathed upon them and said to them, ‘Re-ceive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’.“ (John 20:21, 22.)

By these words Christ gave to His Apos-tles the power EITHER to forgive OR to retain. In order to exercise this judicial power, it is ne-cessary for the sinner to accuse himself spe-cifically of his sins. Most sins are committed in secret, and the priest-judge would have no other way of knowing these sins, except by specific confession.

Furthermore, the priest as a judge must give a penance or work of satisfaction which is proportionate to the sins and helpful to the sinner. This he can do only if he knows what sins have been committed.

The fact that the priest is a sinner, as are all men, does not affect the power which he exer-cises. The power comes to him from his of-fice. The same is true with a President or with a judge in our civil courts. The private lives of these individuals does not affect the authority which they have under the Constitution.

Real Body — Real Blood?Do Catholics really believe they are re-

ceiving the Body and Blood of Christ in Com-munion?

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist on the night before He died, i.e., on the first Holy Thursday, when He changed bread and wine into His Body and Blood; and then command-ed His Apostles to do what He had done in commemoration of Him.

“And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke, and gave it to His disciples, and said, ‘Take and eat; this is My body.’ ... And taking a cup, He gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, ‘All of you drink of this; for this is My blood of the new covenant’.“ (Matt. 26:26, 28.)

Our Lord meant literally to change the bread and wine into His body and blood in-stead of leaving us a mere symbol or memor-ial of His passion.

We know this from the words of His prom-ise to do this in St. John’s gospel, Chapter 6. The important words of this chapter are:

(a) John 6:52, “The bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.“

(b) John 6:54, “... unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, ye shall not have life in you.“

(c) John 6:56, “For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed.“

These and other texts must be taken lit-erally because the entire context demands it; and because any other interpretation would in-volve us in absurd consequences. The words “Eat My flesh and drink My blood“ in a figura-tive interpretation would mean to “persecute or hate bitterly.“ In this sense, it would mean that Our Lord would promise those who hate Him, eternal life and glorious resurrection.

The grammatical construction of the phrases, “This is My Body,“ and “This is My Blood,“ does not admit of a figurative or sym-bolic meaning. When the verb “to be“ is used, the antecedent must always be identical with the consequent, i.e., “This“ must be identical with “My Body.“ Therefore, there must have been a change of substance.

The Apostles understood Christ to speak literally. “The cup of benediction which we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ, And the bread that we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?“ (1 Cor. 10:16.)

“Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of blessing which we bless, unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.“ (I Cor. 10:27.)

This has been the continuous belief of Christianity until the time of the Reformation.

One Mediator? Does not Scripture in 1 Tim. 2:5 tell us

that there is only one mediator? Why, then do Catholics pray to the Saints and to Mary?

Again, this is an example of taking a text out of its context. As a matter of fact, Protest-ants as well as Catholics do use prayers of SECONDARY mediators. Do you not ask your minister to pray for you? Do you not ask your friends to pray for you? If no SECONDARY mediator is necessary, then why ask them to pray for you? Why not go directly to God?

As with all Christians, we believe that all graces come to us through Christ as the PRI-MARY mediator. This does not mean, how-ever, that we should not go to God the Father or to the Holy Ghost directly. The logical infer-ence from the literal translation of 1 Tim. 2:5 is that we must ALWAYS go to Christ first. On the contrary, we have the words of Christ Him-self telling us that when we pray we should say, “Our Father who art in heaven, etc.“

That the text of 1 Tim. 2:5 is NOT to be taken literally is evident from other sources of St. Paul.

“I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God.“ (Rom. 15:30.)

Likewise in the Apocalypse (or Revela-tions) we read: “And when He had opened the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four ancients fell down before the Lamb, having each of them a harp and golden bowls full of incense, WHICH ARE THE PRAY-ERS OF THE SAINTS.“ (Apoc. 5:8.)

Also in this same inspired Book: “And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel.“

The Catholic belief is based upon the doc-trine of the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., that all baptized Christians are members of the Mystical Body of Christ and that all are work-ing for the same objectives, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The very act of go-ing to an intermediary and asking him to go to Christ is an acknowledgment that we believe all graces and blessings can come only from Christ. Furthermore, it does not seem logical that we be permitted to ask living human be-ings to intercede for us, and yet be forbidden to ask the Saints of God to pray for us.

We pray to Mary because Her influence with Her Son is greater than that of any other saint. On earth the power of this intercession was proved at the marriage feast of Cana where Christ performed His first miracle before the time set by Divine Providence, because Mary

had asked Him to do so. (John 2:1-11.) The power of this intercession still exists

in heaven since the mother-Son relationship still exists and because we have so much evi-dence of this intercession here on earth, i.e., the Apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima, etc.

Catholics do not “worship“ Mary in the sense that we worship God. We do not make Her equal to God, nor a substitute for God, nor a sort of a ‘’goddess.“ We consider Her a creature of God — but the purest of creatures, and the one whom God must love above all creatures because of her purity and Her func-tion as the Mother of the Redeemer. Instead of worshipping Mary, we venerate or honor Her.

Worshipping images? Is it not true that Catholics worship im-

ages contrary to Exodus 20:3-5? The first commandment forbids the mak-

ing of graven images “TO ADORE THEM.“ This is found in the Book of Exodus, where we read:

“Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, nor in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them.“

By this we are forbidden to make images to take the place of God, or to adore them, or serve them. This is the sin of idolatry.

That it was NOT the intention of God to forbid the use of images is evident from the fact that the same inspired writer, in Exodus 25, commands the Jews to make two golden cherubims for the ark of the covenant in the temple. Likewise, in the Book of Numbers, God commanded Moses to make a brazen serpent, so that the Jews might look upon it and be saved from the attack of the fiery serpent.

Therefore, images are forbidden ONLY if we attribute to them a power that belongs to God alone, or if we worship them as gods. “Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle.“ (Ex. 25:18.)

“And the Lord said to him: Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign; whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live.“ (Num. 21:8.)

We use pictures and images: to remind us of the virtues of the particular saint, or of the Blessed Mother; to remind us that we should imitate their virtues; to help us concentrate on our prayers; to honor that particular saint, or the Blessed Mother, who are God’s heroes.

The Rosary: vain repetition? When you say the Rosary, is this not vain

repetition condemned by Matt. 5:7? The Rosary is indeed a repetition of pray-

ers... but NOT vain repetition... or useless repetition. In this passage of St. Matthew, our Lord is condemning the Pharisees who “loved to stand in the corners of the streets that they might be seen by men.“ They talked to God only to be seen by men.

Our Lord never condemned repetition in prayer. He Himself repeated the self-same prayer three times in the Garden of Gethse-mani. (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44.) The blind man re-peated his prayer and was cured by Christ. (Matt. 20:31.) We are told that the angels of God in heaven never cease repeating, night and day, the canticle: “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty.“ (Apoc. 4:8.)

Repeated prayers are not necessarily mechanical or unnecessary. The girl who is in love does not rebuke her boy friend for re-peating the statement that he loves her.

In the Rosary, Catholics repeat the Scrip-tural prayers: the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6) and the Angelic Salutation, or “Hail Mary,“ found in Luke 1:28.

Rev. A. W. Terminiello



What is The Da Vinci Code?For the few who

don’t follow the news, let`s summar-ize it: The Da Vinci Code is a novel, writ-ten by Dan Brown, released in March 2003 which, thanks to a skilled market-ing campaign, has become one of the biggest best-sellers ever, with over 60 million copies sold, translated into 44 languages. And as could be expected, a motion picture on the book was inevitable, and was released in May, 2006, with an unprecedented publicity cam-paign.

The Da Vinci Code says that Roman Cath-olicism is a gigantic fraud, that the Church has for centuries been perpetrating a mon-strous hoax, duping hundreds of millions into believing something it knows is a bald-faced lie. At the novel’s heart lies the contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were mar-ried, that they had a daughter, that the Vati-can has known this and been hiding the des-cendants of Jesus, that Opus Dei is a secret order whose agents will engage in murder to protect the secret. Leonardo da Vinci’s paint-ing “The Last Supper” is said to hold the se-cret, as Jesus is portrayed touching the hand of the youngest apostle, John, who holds the place of honor at His side – and who is, on close inspection, Mary Magdalene. In Cath-olic teaching and tradition, the Holy Grail is the chalice that contained the blood of Jesus. In the book, the Holy Grail is Mary Mag-dalene, carrying the flesh and blood of Jesus in her womb.

Big lies presented as factsCracking the Da Vinci Code, an excellent

special report from Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp), explains why this book is a dangerous and in-sidious assault on the Catholic Faith:

Although a work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a “fact” page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers — both Cath-olic and non-Catholic —are taking the book’s ideas seriously.

The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic Faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:

• Jesus is not God; He was only a man. • Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. • She is to be worshiped as a goddess. • Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had

a daughter. • That daughter gave rise to a prominent

family line that is still present in Europe to-day.

• The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.

• Jesus was viewed as a man, and not as God until the fourth century, when He was dei-fied by the Emperor Constantine.

• The Gospels have been edited to sup-port the claims of later Christians.

• In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene, rather than Peter, was directed to establish the Church.

• There is a secret society, known as the Priory of Sion, that still worships Mary Mag-dalene as a goddess, and is trying to keep the truth alive.

• The Catholic Church is aware of all this, and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.

It claims Jesus is not GodBy making Mary Magdalene instead of

Peter the leader of the Church, this book heavily promotes the feminist agenda in the Church (women priests, etc.). For anyone who knows his Faith seriously, it is obvious that any of these assertions is a blatant lie. Let’s exam-ine just one of these lies. Regarding the early Church’s recognition of Christ’s divinity, and referring to the First Council of Nicaea, which took place in A.D. 325, The Da Vinci Code states:

“Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man none-theless. A mortal... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity.”

It is true that Constantine, following his conversion to Christ, presided over the First Council of Nicaea, but it is not true that Con-stantine “turned Jesus into a deity”, or that Christians had not viewed Jesus as God prior to this event.

Constantine had called the Council togeth-er to settle a dispute that had arisen when a priest from Egypt named Arius began to deny that Jesus was God, causing a scandal by re-pudiating the faith of Christians everywhere. Arius gained a number of followers (known as Arians), and the controversy between the Arians and traditional Christians grew so sharp that the emperor called the Council to settle the matter. The bishops of the Council reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus was fully divine.

All the assertions contained in the book are plain nonsense, and yet, many people, after having read them, believe them to be true, because of the way the book is written, pretending to be based on historical facts. With all the campaign surrounding this book (and the movie), one can really say that it is a satanic all-out attack against the Catholic Faith.

The reaction from the ChurchNot surprisingly, the Catholic Church was

not long to denounce this book. “If such lies and errors had been directed at the Quran or the Holocaust,” said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican’s secretary for the congre-gation for the doctrine of the faith, “they would have justly provoked a world uprising.”

Because so many Catholics and Christians do not know their Faith, they fall into these lies. Cardinal Paul Poupard, the Vatican’s high-est authority on cultural issues after the Pope, said: “What I’m concerned about is that de-cent people who do not have the proper re-ligious education will take this nonsense for the real thing.”

In his Good Friday sermon preached this year in St. Peter’s Basilica, Father Raniero Can-talamessa, preacher to the Pontifical House-hold, clearly referred to The Da Vinci Code:

“The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears

will be itching for anything new, and they will collect for themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths»” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

“This word of Scripture —- and in a special way the reference to the itching for anything new — is being realized in a new and impres-sive way in our days. While we celebrate here the memory of the passion and death of the Savior, millions of people are seduced by the clever rewriting of ancient legends to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified... but ran off with Mary Magdalene to India... There is much talk about Judas’ betrayal, without realizing that it is being repeated. Christ is being sold again, no longer to the leaders of the Sanhedrin for thirty pieces of silver, but to editors and booksellers for bil-lions of dollars.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Vatican’s liturgy congregation, said: “This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ re-spected... Those who blaspheme Jesus Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Chris-tian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us... There are some other religions which, if you insult their founder, they will not just be talking. They will make it painfully clear to you.”

In a book written in colaboration with San-dra Miesel, called The Da Vinci Hoax, Carl Olson analyzes this controversial, confusing best-seller (quoted from zenit.org, March 13, 2004):

Q: What are the primary theological prob-lems with “The Da Vinci Code”?

Olson: “The novel is based on a variety of esoteric, neo-Gnostic and feminist beliefs that are in direct opposition to Christianity. Much has been made of the novel’s claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface are belief systems teaching that Christianity is a violent and bloody lie, that the Catholic Church is a sinister and misogynist institution, and that truth is ultimately the creation and product of each person...

“In the end, what Brown has accomplished is the creation of a popular myth that distills and presents statements of belief in a way that is not demanding, but entertaining and attract-ive. This myth works on more than one level, being a mystery novel, a romance, a thriller, a conspiracy theory, and a spiritual manifesto, all at once. One attraction is that it promises a sort of gnosis — or secret knowledge — about a number of topics, and suggests that sub-jective individualism, not traditional religion, holds the real answers to life’s big questions. The sad irony is that some Catholics think the novel is a wonderful work of literature that can somehow help them explore and understand their Faith better. But the novel is based on the belief that Jesus was a mere man, that Christi-anity is a despicable sham, and that all claims to objective religious truth are to be avoided.

“(There is) the case with the radical fem-inist messages in the novel. They have been popular in universities and colleges for dec-ades, but the novel has put them into a fiction-al format that millions, not just a few hundred, will absorb.”

To conclude this article, instead of spend-ing hours reading books like The Da Vinci Code, Catholics should study their Faith, and read for example the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, and they will not fall into the lies of Satan.

The Da Vinci Code:a vicious attack against the Faith

John Paul II, the “rock of faith” - Michael Journal · 2010. 5. 21. · John Paul II, the...

Documents

Transcript of John Paul II, the “rock of faith” - Michael Journal · 2010. 5. 21. · John Paul II, the...