Conference in Econe - December 1973

Conference in Econe - December 1973 Jan 7, 2019 15:21:47 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2019 15:21:47 GMT

Archbishop Lefebvre

Spiritual Conference given in Econe: December 1973

CASSETTE N ° 2

(2 conferences)

It is with much gratitude we reprint here the English translation (via Google Translate from the French) of a Conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre, shared with us by the member Pulcheria.

Side A

There would be a lot of things to say about all these things that I've already told you about, but I want you to know that these are not personal opinions that I'm giving you and that's why I want to share with you documents, documents of the popes and not an impression, a personal feeling that would easily be attributed to a first formation, or say because well I was at the French Seminary at the time of the father Le Floch who left a name of very marked traditionalism, and so of course he was influenced by what was said to him in his seminary ! But I thank God every day for giving me Father Le Floch as a superior of the seminary and when he was accused of playing politics, it was wrong. Rarely, or perhaps never even, Father Le Floch spoke to us of the crisis of Action Francaise, which was raging at the time when we were at the seminary and was stirring up public opinion so much. But what he constantly told us about was precisely the danger, the danger of modernism, the danger of Zionism, the danger of liberalism, and it was based on the encyclicals of the popes that Father Le Floch was able to convince us the danger of all these errors and I would like ... if I do it now, it is to convey to you this conviction that we must beware of all those errors that are difficult to detect. Why ? Because they always present themselves under equivocal terms, always under ambiguous terms. So it is difficult, if you do not study the problem, to realize the dangers that these words carry, those ideas which can be well interpreted but which are taken on purpose and which are chosen to by the enemies of the Church, precisely in order, under an aspect of goodness, in an aspect which can be well taken, to pass on their subversive ideas and their ideas of revolution.

I would like to read to you some passages of the letter or rather of the address that Pope Pius VI gave at the Consistory on June 17, 1793 after the assassination of Louis XVI. He recalls in a few words how there is a link between the decapitation of Louis XVI and the subversive movement which had been prepared for a long time and of which Leo XIII, whom I quoted you, also spoke of in his encyclicals.

"For a long time already the Calvinists had begun to conjure in France the ruin of the Catholic religion. But to achieve this, it was necessary to prepare the minds and water the peoples of these impious principles that the innovators have not ceased to spread in books that only breathed treachery and sedition. It is in this view that they leagued with perverse philosophers. The general assembly of the clergy of France of 1745 had discovered and denounced the abominable plots of all those artisans of impiety, and ourselves, from the beginning of our pontificate, foreseeing the execrable maneuvers of such a perfidious party, announced the danger to us. imminent threat to Europe in our encyclical letter addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic Church to whom we spoke in these terms.

"Tear the evil among you, that is to say, remove from the sight of your flocks with great strength and continual vigilance all those stinking books"

[+ABL: At that time, the popes were not afraid to use the right words.]

"If we had listened to our representations and opinions, we would not have to groan now at the progress of this vast conspiracy against kings and empires. These depraved men, soon noticing that they were moving quickly in their project, recognized that the moment of accomplishing their purpose had finally arrived - so I spend a few paragraphs - [...] So was published in the life of the ungodly Voltaire that the human race owed him an eternal thanksgiving as the first author of the French Revolution. It is he, it is said, who by exciting the people to feel and to use his forces has brought down the first barrier of despotism : the religious and priestly power. If we had not broken this yoke we would never have broken, we add, that of tyrants ; both were so closely united that the former once shaken, the second was to be soon afterwards. By celebrating, like Voltaire's triumph, the fall of the altar and the throne, the fame and glory of all the impious writers who appear as generals of a victorious army are exalted. After having thus led, by all sorts of artifices, a very large portion of the people in their party to better attract him by their works, by their promises, or rather to make them their toy in all the provinces of France, the The factious ones used the specious word of liberty, they hoisted the trophies, they invited the multitude to meet under its flags which they displayed on all sides. It is truly this philosophical liberty which tends to corrupt the spirits, to deprave morals, to overthrow all laws and all institutions. Hence the assembly of the clergy of France showed so much horror for such freedom when it began to creep into the minds of the people by the most fallacious maxims. These so much vaunted advocates of the human race have added to the false and misleading word of liberty another word which is no less so, that of equality. As if between men united in society, endowed with intellectual faculties so different, and having such opposite tastes, and so disordered an activity so dependent on individual lust, there must be no one who combines the strength and authority necessary to to compel, to repress, to bring back to duty those who deviate from it, so that society, upset by so many diverse and disordered passions, should not be precipitated into anarchy and not fall entirely into dissolution. It is from this laboratory that this sacrilegious constitution emerged, which we refuted in our reply of March 10, 1791, to the exposition of the principles which had been submitted to us by thirty bishops. This is the place to apply the words of Saint Cyprian : where does it come that Christians are judged by heretics, healthy men by the sick, those who are intact by those who have received wounds, those who are standing by those who have fallen, judges by the guilty, priests by sacrilege ? Perhaps that is what we could say a little now, good priests are judged by sacrilege, we are there !

What remains to be done more than to subject the Church to the capitol ? This is a prophecy at that time, a prophecy, because it was in 1870, when the Italian government took possession of the Papal States and the capitol became the symbol, with this famous monument of Victor Emmanuel Who dominates the place of Venice placed on the capitol, against the Church, is it not, to show, to manifest the omnipotence of the civil state against the Church by taking the pontifical states.

And the Church never recovered from this wound that was made to her. That's fine, Pope Pius XI finally accepted the factual situation that was imposed on him by agreeing to make a concordat with Italy and with Mussolini. No doubt it was perhaps better, he felt it was better to do that, but it is quite certain that the Pope never really recovered the power and authority he had while he had his freedom in his Papal States.

Thus the popes, as you see these principles found in philosophers of the 18th century and the French Revolution corruptors principles of society. And that was the first objective of these impious, we can say inspired by Satan, inspired by the demon, inspired by the Masonic sects - all this was prepared in the Masonic sects is not it - because it was necessary to destroy the civil society as it was because the civil society supported the Church, it was therefore the rampart of the faith, it was thus necessary to destroy this rampart of the faith. Once this rampart of faith was destroyed, it would be easy to break into the Church.

As long as there was this political bulwark that surrounded the Church, who protected it, who supported it in its faith and who supported the faithful in their faith because we can say it, we will say what we want, the political institutions were created by God to defend the faith of the faithful, to defend the truth. Civil society is a creature of God, it is a natural society so created by God as the family. The family is a natural society created by God, parents must give the truth to their children, give baptism with grace to their children ; States must also give citizens the right to protect their faith and to develop and maintain it. The day when all these institutions crumble, where the institution of the family is no longer what it should be to protect the faith of children, the day when the state is no longer this protector of faith but more, uses all the means he has to be the corrupter of the faith schools, institutions, means of the press, all means of pressure, the whole administrative machine is against the faith it is obvious that for people people who do not have a culture sufficient to defend themselves, these people Atheism has made considerable progress since the States are no longer Catholics, it is not surprising. !

But they knew it very well, those who did that knew very well that by destroying the rampart of the faith that was the Catholic state they would thus arrive more easily to penetrate inside the families. ; with families, we will destroy the family afterwards by divorce, by laws that are contrary to the laws of God, and will destroy the Christian spirit by public schools, by securing them, removing all that is God in the schools and educating all the children in the public schools that will be atheist schools and then slowly they will reach their goal. And from the day they arrive at this, the families that will still have the appearance of Christianity ... an appearance of Christianity, will be those from which the future seminarians will emerge, these future seminarians imbued with secularism, penetrated by modernism will keep these modernist ideas in them. these misconceptions in them false philosophy of the philosophers of the 18th century ; and so they will come to be priests imbued with false principles, imbued with modernism, imbued with liberalism, imbued with Zionism.

This is how we saw so many priests engage in this movement of the Sillon which was neither more nor less than a new stage, a new phase of this essay that many Catholics were doing since the Revolution of reconciliation between the principles of the Revolution and the Catholic Church. It was necessary at all costs to come to reconcile the Church, to reconcile the Church with the principles of these philosophers, with the false Protestant principles of Protestant origin of Masonic origin. But they did not stop that they arrive at this goal and they are more or less arrived there unfortunately by men like Lamennais for example and the Future. It would be necessary to make a whole study on Lamennais to see how much ... For Lamennais it was the ideal to be able to reconcile the Church with the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And he dedicated his life to this, trying to reconcile the Church with the Revolution while the popes have always always condemned, condemned, condemned ... Take for example again, the great doctrinaire, the Pope who really gave the doctrine of the Church on this subject is Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Immortale Dei :

" There was a time when the philosophy of the Gospel ruled the states. At that time, the influence of Christian wisdom and its divine virtue penetrated the laws, the institutions, the manners of the people, all the ranks and all the relations of the civil society. Then the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, solidly established in the degree of dignity which is due to him, was everywhere flourishing, thanks to the favor of the princes and to the legitimate protection of the magistrates. Then the priesthood and the empire were bound together by a happy concord and the friendly exchange of good offices. Organized in this way, the civil society gave fruits superior to all expectations, whose memory subsists and will subsist, recorded as it is in innumerable documents that no artifice of the adversaries can not corrupt or obscure. If Christian Europe has tamed the barbarian nations and made them pass from ferocity to leniency, from superstition to truth, if it has repulsed victoriously the Muslim invasions, if it has kept the supremacy of civilization, and if in all that does honor to humanity, she is constantly and everywhere shown guide and mistress ; if it has gratified the peoples of true freedom in these various forms ; if she has very wisely founded a host of works for the relief of misery, it is beyond doubt that she is greatly indebted to religion, under whose inspiration and with the help of which she undertook and accomplished so great things. All these things would last longer-if the agreement of the two powers had persevered-and there was reason to hope for even greater ones, if the authority, if the teaching, if the opinions of the Church had encountered a more faithful and constant docility. Because it would be necessary to hold as imprescriptible law what Yves de Chartres wrote to Pope Pascal II

"When the empire and the priesthood live in harmony, the world is well governed, the Church is flourishing and fruitful. But when discord comes between them, not only do small things not grow, but great ones wither away miserably. "

But this pernicious and deplorable taste of novelty that was born in the sixteenth century, after having first upset the Christian religion, soon by a natural slope passed to philosophy, and philosophy at all levels of civil society. It is to this source that we must trace these modern principles of unbridled freedom dreamed and promulgated among the great disturbances of the last century, as the principles and foundations of a new right, hitherto unknown, and over one point at odds not only with Christian law, but with natural law. Here is the first of all these principles : all men, when they are of the same race and of the same nature, are similar, and, in fact, equal to each other in the practice of life ; each one is so good of himself alone that he is in no way subject to the authority of others : he can freely think about anything he wants, do what he likes ; no one has the right to command others. - this is one of the first principles - [...] Therefore, everyone will be free to be judge of any religious question, everyone will be free to embrace the religion he prefers or to follow any if no one authorized. Hence the boundless freedom of all consciousness, the absolute freedom to worship or not to worship God, the boundless license to think and to publish one's thoughts. "

See how logical all this is, as the popes have seen clearly in all these things, they have said it with firmness ever since Pius VI from the time of the Revolution to Leo XIII at the end of the last century. And then we can resume ... Take back all the statements of Saint Pius X at the time of Sillon it's the same thing, always the same thing they condemned, convicted, sentenced. So we have to be impregnated with this doctrine of the popes so that we also understand the harmfulness of these principles because, you know, we are as if petrified, petrified, infested because all our institutions are infested with this spirit of freedom : freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of education. All these freedoms which are false liberties, which are the freedom of truth and error, of good and evil, and consequently the freedom of divorce, the freedom of contraception, the freedom to make the Revolution, the freedom of freedom of the strike, freedom ... and here we are in the middle of the revolution, full of disorder, we are currently living the consequences of these principles and we come to the end, we come to the end of its consequences because we are put in such anarchy, such anarchy that strong and tyrannical states like Russia are ready to eat us because they feel very well that these societies that have no more principles, which have nothing for them to support, have no more organization, no longer have strength because one has destroyed authority, completely destroyed authority. And that is what is serious, is not it, and this was wanted by Masonic societies.

You have to read ... I will not have time today, but to read these documents, these absolutely overwhelming documents, are not they, which have been known by popes elsewhere? : the papers of the Haute Vente fallen into the hands of Pope Leo XII embrace a period that goes from 1820 to 1846 ; they were published according to the request of Gregory XVI and then of Pius IX by Cretineau-Joly in his work, the Roman Church and the Revolution. By the writ of approval of February 25, 1861, which he addressed to the author, Pius IX so to speak devoted the authenticity of the documents cited in this work, but he had not allowed to publish with the real names of the members of the Haute Vente [Alta Vendita]. These are startling documents, absolutely startling, we hardly dare to read them ; but if these are documents that have been approved, that the pope has approved that they be published so that people know and see the conspiracy against the Church, but we do not want to believe, they do not did not want to believe it ! All these liberals and many bishops like Dupanloup and like so many others with him have always said : but no, there is no danger it is necessary to agree with the Revolution by accepting its principles, it is finished now, it is necessary that everyone embraces now, there is no bad people, everyone is good, etc. And during that time, we were in the process of engaging with these people, who know what they are doing, and it is their aim to corrupt us like that and to make us believe that they are not bad : "Freemasonry is not a bad thing, it's a philanthropy, it's people who believe in God, they are people who want the good of humanity, who finally want a universal religion that everyone believe in God - to the great architect! - It's absolutely scary !

You have read elsewhere ** there are some of you who have read it before : "It is at the heart and the head of the Church that this occult government is aiming. What we must ask above all, say the secret instructions, what we must look for and wait like the Jews expect the Messiah, it is a pope according to our needs ". It's the popes, the popes themselves who have published these things, so it's not ... I'm just reading. " The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to secret societies Is the document that says it, " it is up to the secret societies to take the first step towards the Church in order to defeat them both. The work that we are going to undertake is neither the work of a day nor a century perhaps - and this was written in 1844 ! - " but in our ranks, the soldier dies and the fight continues. We do not intend to win popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas, it is a ridiculous dream and in any way turn the events, that cardinals or prelates for example are entered by chance or by surprise into a part of our secrets, it is not at all a motive to desire their elevation to the seat of Peter, this elevation would lose us : ambition alone would have led to apostasy, the need for power would force them to immolate us ". " But these henchmen of Satan, says the author of the book is not it, many of whom externally have a foot in the Church, are not unaware that God preserves his head from any failure of faith, but they need a pope accessible to outside influences ... "

Side B

What I will tell you during these few conferences - I do not know how many - on the causes and the origins of the crisis that the Church is undergoing today will no doubt meet much of what the canon says to you in the past. comments he makes of the various encyclicals of the popes living in the last century but finally I think that for this subject you certainly have the advantage to meditate, to think about it and to work on it because we really can not understand the current situation of the Church and to have an exact idea of the attitude that one must have towards these events if one has not studied a little, makes the history of the times which precede this crisis in hence, as pontiffs do when they speak of the situation in the Church. Already the popes of the time of the Revolution - Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Quanta Cura , Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X - all bring back the origins of the crisis and the struggle that is committed against the Church in a much more open is not it, they postpone the 16th century, that is to say at the time of Protestantism, at the time of the birth of Protestantism.

I told you that we can somehow say that the Renaissance facilitated, facilitated the outbreak of Protestantism because the Renaissance was nothing but a kind of rediscovery : it seemed that we had abandoned the riches of the pagan culture, the Greek culture, all these ancient cultures, and then we wanted to find ... and with this culture we also found the art, we wanted to find the art of those past times and this has resulted in exaggerated magnification of man, nature, natural forces, and consequently the disappearance of some of the supernatural forces, finally, Revelation, the purely human, purely natural side has been exalted. We have, under the pretext of art, introduced into the churches everywhere this nudism, we can speak of nudism, it is not exaggerating. Even look at these works that are considered as extraordinary works of art, probably from the pure point of view of art ... but finally even all the paintings of the Sistine Chapel, for example, well it's a frightening, frightening nudism, and at the same time I would say it's carnal, it's carnal. All this exaltation of the body, of the flesh, all this is contrary to the spirit. Besides, Saint Paul says it well : the flesh and the spirit are always in struggle and if one exalts the body necessarily the spirit and the spiritual values end up disappearing. I do not say that everything is wrong in this art but it should be reserved for museums or salons, for lack of purely civil style, and still ... but not in churches, not in sanctuaries.

Well, all this has facilitated the outbreak of Protestantism which is nothing but a naturalism. If we really study what Protestantism is, we will soon realize that it is the negation of the supernatural, the negation of the supernatural, because for Protestants there is no renovation, we do not let us not be resurrected to the grace of Our Lord, baptism is simply a profession of faith that's all, and because we have faith in Our Lord then we are saved, nature is restored in a certain way, or unless sins are hidden by the faith we have in Our Lord and in His Redemption, but there is no inner transformation, there is no birth to grace, this birth to divine life, this birth to the filiation of the Holy Trinity, which is done by baptism, a rebirth that gives us back the grace we had lost, the rebirth that is made by all the sacraments, which is continued by the holy sacrifice of the Mass, by holy communion, so it's a whole new life that Our Lord has come to bring us, it is a real new life, whereas for Protestants all this is nonexistent, nonexistent, and that is why they do not understand either the value of the sacrifice of the Mass and that they have it reduced to the simple meal because it's enough to have faith, it's always : faith is enough for everything !

Well then Protestantism [white] Naturalism arrived at the moment when new ideas were already appearing in the universities, in the works that appeared at that time, in literature, all this was already beginning to be impregnated, impregnated this spirit of the Renaissance, of this naturalistic spirit, of this spirit can be said to be more or less carnal. It was the moment also of the expansion at the same time, is not it economic, riches that were brought, development of all that was brought by the discovery of the new world and all that made that men well were more attached to the goods of this world and then forgot the supernatural goods.

But then Protestantism, which has already been a very deep and harsh attack on the Church, has only really reached positive results and excessively serious results when the spirit of the Protestants has reached the spirit academics, those so-called philosophers, especially the philosophers of the 18th century and they have finished, corruption ideas, arriving to admit that it was necessary separation of civilian authority and power from the church ; they have not ceaselessly that they come to this, is not it, to laicize politics, because the Revolution is not anything else, the Revolution was made under this sign there, under the sign of the goddess Reason, we must not forget that, we have deified the reason, we deified the man consequently against the Revelation, against Our Lord Jesus Christ, against the faith and therefore against the Church.

It is in this spirit that the Revolution was made, which had already been prepared for almost three centuries, was not it, two centuries ago. It was at this time that the consequences of Protestantism manifested itself and precisely because kings and princes were weak vis-à-vis Protestantism, at that time well the ideas of Protestantism is are widespread. The popes have warned of the danger, but despite everything we can say that the virus, the poison has spread everywhere and the progress of Protestantism and naturalism have only increased and developed.

It is in these events of the late 18th century that was expressed in a more concrete way these principles that were already developed in universities and by the philosophers of the 18th century, principles which were laid the reach of the people - this was done in an absolutely satanic, devilish way - that made the people believe that by this separation of temporal power and ecclesiastical power they would finally be liberated. It has been made believe in a liberation and this liberation is expressed by these three famous words of liberty, equality, fraternity ; by placing under this sign, under the sign of the freedom of equality and fraternity, the Revolution, they conquered the people, the people let themselves be fooled, deceive completely.

We must reread the pages of Saint Pius X condemning the Sillon where he just recalls that the Sillon is neither more nor less imbued with these principles, these ** and he refutes them, he refutes them **. Despite the efforts of the popes, they are in fact and in governments. That perhaps at last ... The pope who tried to analyze all this attack against the Church and to analyze it more theologically, more philosophically, it is Pope Leo XIII in his magnificent encyclicals. Alas, Pope Leo XIII was the pope of the rally, of course, it is said that he regretted after, that he believed in the good faith of the French government, which is possible, but if there is a pope who has justly condemned all the errors that developed at the time of the Revolution and which found their application in the Revolution, it is Pope Leo XIII.

The encyclical Quod apostolici of December 28, 1878, which condemns these modern errors ; he's talking about the source of these mistakes :

"Now, this audacity of treacherous men who threatens civil society every day with more serious ruin, and which excites in all minds anxiety and trouble, draws its cause and origin from those poisonous doctrines which, spread over the latter, times among peoples as seeds of vices, have given, in their time, fruits so pernicious. Indeed, you know very well, Venerable Brothers, the cruel war which since the 16th century has been declared against the Catholic faith through innovative, aimed at this goal reject any revelation and overthrow all the supernatural order so that access should be open to inventions, or rather to delusions of the only reason. [...]

Hypocritically drawing his name from reason, this error which flatters and excites the passion to grow up, natural to the heart of man, and which releases the reins to all kinds of passions, has spontaneously spread its ravages, not only in the spirits of a large number of men, but in the civil society itself.

Then, by a wholly new impiety, which the pagans themselves have not known, governments have been constituted without any regard to God and the order established by him. ; It has been proclaimed that public authority does not take from God the principle, the majesty, the power of command, but from the multitude of the people, who, believing themselves free from all divine sanction, has no longer suffered from being submissive. to other laws than those which she would have brought herself, according to her caprice. »[...]

Now, the supreme pastors of the Church, who bear the burden of protecting the flock of the Lord from the pitfalls of the enemy, have been anxious early to avert danger and to watch over the salvation of the faithful. For, as soon as the secret societies began to grow, in whose bosom the seeds of the errors of which we have spoken, were already sown, the Roman Pontiffs, Clement XII and Benedict XIV, did not neglect to unmask the impious designs of the sects [...] Pope Pius VI, happy memory, immediately revealed, by public documents, the detestable character and falsity of these doctrines [...] the Popes Pius VII, Leo XII anathematized the occult sects and, as far as he depended from them, warned the society again of the danger which threatened it. Finally,everyone knows perfectly well by what very serious words, with what firmness of mind and what constancy Our glorious predecessor Pius IX, of happy memory, either in his addresses, or by his encyclical letters sent to the bishops of the whole universe, fought against the unjust efforts of sects as well as, by name, against the plague of socialism which, from this source, has everywhere burst forth.

But what must be deplored is that those who are entrusted with the care of the common good - that is to say finally the heads of the government -, allowing themselves to be circumvented by the frauds of impious men and frightened by their threats have always manifested to the Church suspicious or even hostile dispositions. "

So he talks about the equality, the mistake of this equality ... It is good that we are reminded because we have a lot of trouble, even even now, I am sure that for you sometimes it causes you problems, it is not possible that this does not pose us any problems because we are so molded of these liberal ideas, of these secular ideas that we ask ourselves : "But finally, this is exaggerating, the popes say that, but finally they said that of their time, but now ... now ... it is no longer possible now, what do you want, we can not ask the governments of to have as religion the catholic religion, it is impossible what you want, it is necessary nevertheless to leave the freedom to the people to have the religion which they want ! and here we are, here we are slowly ... and then we slide to this famous freedom of conscience, to this famous freedom of worship that the popes have condemned and condemned both because it does not suit their time, but condemned on definitive principles and fundamental is not it, fundamentals. Pope Leo XIII for example in the letter ** to the Emperor of Brazil speaks of the consequences of freedom of worship :

"The freedom of worship, considered in its relation to society, is founded on the principle that the state, even in a Catholic nation - even in a Catholic nation, that is to say, in a nation in which people are Catholics - is not required to profess and promote any worship - no worship ; he must remain indifferent to all and keep a legally equal account. It is not a matter of this de facto tolerance which in given circumstances may be conceded to dissident cults - popes have always spoken of tolerance, dissenting cults must be tolerated - but of the recognition accorded to them the very rights that belong to the only true religion - the only true religion - that God has established in the world and designated by clear and precise characters and signs so that all may recognize it as such and the to kiss. So, does such freedom place truth and error, faith and heresy, the Church of Jesus Christ and any human institution on the same line? ; it establishes a deplorable and disastrous separation between human society and God's author ; it finally leads to the sad consequences which are the indifferentism of the State in religious matters or, which amounts to the same thing, its atheism".

These are words in gold that are words that you should almost learn by heart, you know, because that's what we're dying about right now, it's this secularism that has been introduced, of this naturalism, of that rationalism that was introduced against the Church, against Revelation, against the supernatural. * the state, ah the states ! The state must be secular and unfortunately, what do you want, I'll talk about it afterwards, later but finally .. we are right there. And now, see how the Popes speak at that time, Leo XIII, and we can take again Pius XII, we can take the Pope Pius XI, we can take them one after another, all said the same thing : freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of worship are poisonous, poisoned liberties that are false, false ! Freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press.

Well freedom of the press : we are not going to force people to be finally, to not have the freedom to say what they want anyway, we must still leave the opinions free ! Well no, the popes have said it is not possible, a society that allows freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion is a society that is going to ruin because this press will foment revolutions, foment constant conflicts ! Evil can not be free what do you want in a society, no more than let thieves free to steal anything they want, no more than let people free to murder !

To leave the freedom of the press is the assassination of minds and ideas, it is even worse than to let the killers of bodies. And all this now seems out of date ! you can not prevent that, everyone wants to have the freedom of the conscience, the freedom of the individual and personal conscience ... maybe even that vis-à-vis God we do not have the freedom, we are obliged to believe in the truth, one is not free to believe in error or truth, but finally the States do not have a right on the private person, on the private person, but in all the external manifestations of this person, all the outward manifestations of his religion, the state has rights and duties because if this person who is Protestant, who is Buddhist, who is Muslim wants to express his ideas externally and therefore spread them externally, especially in a Catholic state Catholic power has the duty ofto prevent these people from professing their errors and spreading them because Catholics will disappear little by little.

Evidently error is always easier to spread than truth, evil is always easier to spread than good. It's easier to tell people you can have three women than to have one for all their life ; obviously it's easier ... it's easier to tell them you can divorce, it's not difficult, it's much simpler. So you can ** in the sense of moral liberties. But false religions have at the same time a false morality and states have no right, a Catholic state has no right to leave this freedom. And that the popes have always said and said again and again, but we can say that really there the demon what do you want ... that Providence allows that the devil is more powerful than what the popes could say and that all slowly these ideas have always spread, always returning to the surface. The popes had a nice strike, it was another movement, it was liberalism and then it was Zionism and then modernism and then they came back again and again.other names, now progressivism and that, it's the same thing, it's the same ideas, the same principles, it's always naturalism, the man who must have his conscience, his human dignity now poorly understood : read again the text of Saint Pius X on the human dignity, we will have the opportunity to do it a little later, but it is striking to see how all these ideas come back, they come back now, ideas which are condemned by the popes. It is good to read these things, and to reread them to remove from our minds this idea, this false conception of liberty, this false conception of equality.

Finally all men are equal, obviously all men are equal before God, of course we are all equal before God, but we are not all equal from the social point of view, in society we are not all equal ... Well no, you will not all have the same charges later, there will be some who will have bigger charges, people who will have less important charges. Vis-à-vis God, of course, maybe the one who has less important charges will be in heaven in a higher position, will have greater happiness than the one who had a higher charge, it is very possible but in society there are differences, there are distinctions, you do not all have the same intelligence, you do not all have the same facilities, you do not all have the same physical strength, you do not 'do not all ... ** then talk about equality is madness, it's pure utopia : we must put men all the same level, all ... it is no longer a society. A society is precisely made of unequal people who give, who give each other : what one does not have, the other gives him ! Then there are some who would necessarily be people who will always be workers or always ... well maybe a worker one day will become a boss, it is possible and then the one who was boss will become a worker, c is very possible ; at that moment there will always be the difference between them ... but to want to make all the workers of the bosses is pure stupidity finally, it's pure madness. So we have to get back into reality and not let ourselves be carried away by all the slogans that really rotted the ideas and that at a certain time, we can say especially let's say after the last war was manifested in the Church, inside the Church in a way even more serious than during the whole of the 19th century because during the 19th century there was unfortunately ... Catholics did not follow sufficiently the popes and there was this error of the Catholic liberalism which, he, always wanted compromises whereas the popes did not want it.