+Feast of Corpus Christi+

For those who like to keep an eye on what passes as “news” on television and on the internet, I have a question: What among all these reports of secular madness (literally) will help us attain salvation? While some documentaries and essays are perhaps useful to help especially the younger generation understand what has happened to the world and more importantly to the Church, the majority of them are actually chockful of error, and even those that are helpful are often incomplete and/or must be mentally purged of certain things not in conformity with Catholic truth. While an eye must be kept to a certain extent on world affairs, devoting too much time to these pursuits has pulled many into error.

Even some among those praying at home routinely visit Traditionalist sites, read Traditionalist literature and even consider certain Traditionalist views as worthy of credence.  We have explained before how the Church considers this a grave danger to the faith. Some Catholic truths can be found on these sites, yes; but that makes them all the more dangerous, because it is much easier to lure others into error when it is mixed with truth. Especially those articles and documentaries that profess a scientific basis have no way to be evaluated properly by Catholics, since the Church is the sole judge of what can be believed in the scientific realm.

This also applies to those chasing down endless sensationalistic conspiracy theories, both political and religious, a type of voyeurism. This unfortunate hobby often preoccupies these people to such an extent that they become discontented with simply praying at home and tending to daily duties. These are the ones, spoken of in Holy Scripture, who possess itching ears, and who, always seeking novelties, even go so far as to flirt with new alternatives to practicing their faith. Because of their carelessness and unbridled curiosity, they often succumb to those outside the Church who maintain they are justified in questioning, even denying, the Scriptural and magisterial proofs pointed out here and elsewhere.

Those preying on the weaker members among pray-at-home Catholics neglect to offer credible, verifiable proofs for what they profess, often relying on hearsay, third-hand reports and blatant misinterpretations and misrepresentations of Canon Law and Church teaching, or their own private opinions on these, which are not certainties. This despite the words of St. Paul: “But prove all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:2).

If true Catholics would only limit themselves to those things presented in accordance with Catholic teaching, then searching no further, they would be far better informed and far less likely to be led astray. Since politics and world affairs seem to be such a draw for many of them and have become a national pastime, also since a crucial election is looming in this country next year, it is important that (relatively recent) sources be mentioned here that are based on Catholic truth.

Democracy defined and a bold new definition of government

Australian Yves Dupont’s 1962 work The Popes and Democracy is a good primer on democracy and its development over the centuries. Unfortunately, he quotes works by John 23 and Paul 6 and recommends (in the 1976 Tenet Books edition) works by Marcel Lefebvre. On a more serious note, Dupont recklessly states that there have been several heretical popes throughout history, an opinion also voiced by Traditionalist writer Hutton Gibson. This, of course, is heretical in itself, as the Vatican Council teaches. Before reading Dupont, Catholics must FIRST read Pope St. Pius X’s entire encyclical on the Sillon, Our Apostolic Mandate, and then the ENTIRETY of those documents mentioned in Dupont’s work. Only then will the mind of the Church on democracy be sufficiently known. So those reading Dupont’s work should ever keep in mind the cautions and suggestions above, in reading this essay. But f these things are discounted, and their bearing on the topic dismissed, this work presents a good overall view of the origins of democracy and its many dangers. Yet its conclusion is deficient, for reasons seen below.

In his other works, Dupont promotes the discredited “Great Monarch” theory, shown by several sources as Protestant, even pagan in origin. He also believes the peace promised at Fatima will occur during this “monarch’s” reign, prior to the coming of Antichrist. This alone, knowing Paul 6 was Antichrist proper and the Fatima predictions are questionable, shoots down his assumptions. And so his work, while definitely worth the read (given the necessary cautions), leaves the reader with unanswered questions. Those questions are laid to rest in Prof. Disandro’s work, written at about the same time, (1966). Disandro had a much clearer picture of the end result, and he knew that what America and other countries call democracy was no such thing. To give the readers a taste of what is contained in these essays, excerpts of their content will be provided below.

Dupont on democracy

“…The basic principle of democracy, the designation of rulers from the people and by the people, is good and reasonable. But even then, its use is limited. Moreover, it is within a hierarchical and monarchical structure that it works best. The designation of rulers cannot be equated with the granting of authority; this is the error of the agnostic philosophers of the 18th century, and which is now widely accepted even among Christians… Modern Democracy is inseparable from other evils; it inevitably evolves into tyranny. These two main points have been acknowledged by countless thinkers all over the world. When numbers count more than individuals, when the community counts more than persons, when society is considered as an end for which man exists, when it is regarded as a living thing whose interests have precedence over individual interests, tyranny is sure to follow sooner or later… It does not matter whether the tyranny to which some of these evils give rise is called Bureaucracy, Plutocracy, Sociocracy, Technocracy, Fascism, Socialism or Communism, it is still the same tyranny and the only difference is a difference of emphasis. It is all rooted in Liberalism and Humanism [democracy included].”

Like Communism, though to a lesser extent and to a lower degree, Democracy has most of the anti-Christic characteristics: craving for unlimited material power (Antichrist will want to create things), rejection of God (Secularism), and, last but not least, modern Democracy has such a wide appeal as to deceive a large number of the elect themselves. This craving for power and deceptive appearance were noted by Pius XII: ‘ … a social order which, beneath a deceptive appearance, or mask of conventional formulas, conceals a fatal weakness and an unbridled lust for profit and power’ (Christmas address,1952)… St. Thomas Aquinas, who had studied both authors, did not advocate absolute democracy, but only democratic institutions within a monarchical social structure (it being understood that the monarch should have real authority, and not be a mere figurehead). In more recent times, St. Pius X made a similar remark about tyranny – ‘Yes, truly, one can say that the Sillon (i.e. Democracy) brings in its train Socialism’ (St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate).”

Dupont duly notes that the popes were opposed to the two-party system, which can only lead to endless disputes and factional rivalries. In essence the two-party system is only a tool in the arsenal of Hegelianism, the Communist tactic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Example: Trump moves the country to the far right. Biden takes over and moves it far left. Far right is certainly where it once was from an historical standpoint, but never mind. The goal is to spread the poles so far apart than when the next man takes office, the middle will actually look more like the far right when it actually is much closer to the far left by contrast. This is true because unbeknownst to the public, their perception of it has been readjusted. Even among those who realize this, compromise seems preferable and less wearing than to continue the fight for truth and justice, And because this is really psychological warfare, the powers that be know this! We continue with quotes from Dupont:

Being the triumph of private individual judgment as against the judgment of an elite, Modern Democracy is in politics what the Reformation was in religion. It has a complete faith in public opinion and claims that public opinion is expressed by the press and the party, or parties… Pius XI noted that representative regimes were dangerous. “It is patent that these led themselves more readily than any others to factional intrigues.” (Pius XI “Urbi Arcano Dei”). Once a party is in power, the State becomes only a means to further its ambitions and the masses become the instrument: “The masses … can be used by the State to impose its whims on the better part of the real people.” (Pius XII – Christmas 1944) Cardinal Pie noted that the first attempt at universal suffrage (in the Christian era), resulted in the release of Barabbas and the condemnation of Christ, a very striking observation which fully justifies the warning given 19 centuries later by Leo XIII, namely, not to confuse “the deceptive wishes of the multitude with truth and justice.”

“As long as we do not recognise our errors we will not be prepared to introduce any changes. Whilst the fatalism of history is a myth, the free choice of an error has fatal historic consequences. When things come to a show-down, it is probable that the western democracies will crack from within. Faced with agonising alternatives and harrowing dilemmas, the wavering middle-of-the-course leaders will gradually give way to more resolute and more extremist Leftist politicians. Then, the transition from Socialism to Communism will be a speedy process. A global war is unlikely, but that does not mean that there will be no fighting at all. Nor does it mean that the struggle will be over, but only that our social order, as such, will collapse… If Communism is to be a divine punishment, (we have seen that it is, and the Fatima message, among others, gives an implicit confirmation), it is logical to expect that it should score a temporary victory…” (End of Dupont quotes)

And here we quote something from Pope St. Pius X that Dupont does not quote, something that is yet another example of the ability of this great saint to foresee the future: “Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men who become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”… [For they say]: We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”  (St. Pius X, “Our Apostolic Mandate”).

What Dupont envisioned above was not to be. No Great Monarch, no Fatima peace, even temporary, because the faithful failed to sufficiently practice prayer and penance prior to World War II. What happened instead is exactly what Pope St. Pius X predicted. One thing Dupont states that must especially be taken to heart is the fact that we might still expect a miracle to save us, but only if we prove to Our Lord we are willing to fight; and to this I add make sacrifices, especially in avoiding all non-Catholic sects and their services. But this is not what happened following Vatican 2.

Catholics allowed themselves to be lured into a state of complacency and a distrust, bordering on contempt, of the papacy. And since the papacy has been taken away and cannot be restored by the hierarchy, something those claiming to be “valid” priests and bishops allowed, with the concurrence of the “educated” laity, it is certainly apparent that God will not count this as a willingness to fight for the Church. The game, however, was already over when Pope Pius XII died. And although Dr. Disandro laid out a very fine plan for reviving Catholic rule in Argentina, using democratic principles, this did not transpire either because there were then no Catholics left to fight for it and put it into practice and/or because the rot was already beyond rooting out. Yet he left us with a much better description of government today, something Dupont with his Lefebvrist-Traditionalist mindset did not anticipate and therefore could not describe. Disandro defined it as synarchy.

What is Synarchy?

Wikipedia defines this noun as “…rule by a secret elite. The word synarchy is used, especially among French and Spanish speakers, to describe a shadow government or deep state, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an oligarchy where the elite is or could be known by the public.”  And so America is in the grips of this sinister form of government, a fact even openly admitted by certain politicians, and cannot and must not be referred to any longer as a democracy. Regarding Disandro’s understanding of it specifically, the authors below explain:

“Synarchy is a belief in the existence of a global network sustained by forces as diverse as capitalism, communism, Freemasonry and Zionism, claimed to be working together to undermine the spiritual, material and territorial integrity of a country. Our analysis reconstructs the projection and impact of such conspiracy theories in Argentina during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. While we distinguish between anti-Semitic trends and the broader hold of Conspirationism in Argentina, we show that narratives about a conspiring Synarchy, with roots in early 20th-century radical nationalist and right-wing Catholic circles, were adopted – albeit without anti-Semitic purposes – by Juan Domingo Perón following the coup that toppled him from power in 1955… While not necessarily anti-Semitic, the suspicion of an underground affected the imaginary of society, spilling at times and under certain circumstances into explicit anti-Semitism.

“Perón relied on others, among them the Catholic nationalist philologist Carlos Disandro, a central figure in a group of far-right Peronist university instructors and students… Disandro had impressed General Perón with an essay on the Synarchy that he delivered in person in Madrid in 1966. In a letter thanking Disandro, the leader expressed his admiration: “Your excellent work deepens analysis and profoundly depicts the problem of Argentina, as it [the country] became submissive to the strategy of Synarchy power … ” (Perón 1966)… For Disandro, Synarchy was demarcated by a sort of agreement between the “pseudo- empires” of the United States and the Soviet Union, which, even if appearing as strongly opposed, would subjugate the “spiritual essence” of the other nations of the world. To this kind of plot, Disandro added post-Vatican II Catholicism and Judaism, through what he called “the myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition” (Piglia 2007; Graf, Fathi, and Paul 2011;  Conspirationism_Synarchism_and_the_long_shadow_of_Perón_in_Argentina (Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 2018).

And in another work we find:

“For Disandro, as he writes in his essay, the power of the United States constitutes a pseudo-empire, whose capitalist plot seeks technocratic rulership over the old and crumbling works of liberalism. The Soviet power, in turn, is another pseudo-empire, whose socialist-communist framework has been built on the disastrous results of iniquitous wars and sinister plans. The Soviet Union and the United States are veiled invaders that threaten the Nation. That is why he cries out…: Total war against the invader, consolidation of the entitative Justice of the Nation, establishment of a foundational State, forged by Argentines, with the joyful consecration of the Argentine land.

“The enemies it faced were powerful: not only the Soviet Union and the United States, but also Zionism and a Catholic Church ruled from the Vatican by a communist infiltrator known as John XXIII. To encompass all these enemies, Disandro lumped them together in a blurry category – the agents of the international synarchy’” [blurry because they remain incapable of being identified! – Ed.]. “In his essay The Synarchic Conspiracy and the Argentine State, he writes that “Synarchy, according to its etymological background, means the radical convergence of principles of power at work in the world since the origins of mankind. This convergence of opposed principles of power is what indicates that we are in a new moment in the process of world government, because this has until now not occurred, neither in the Illuminist lodges of the 17th and 18th centuries, nor in the revolutions of the 19th century; it occurs instead in the 20th century, after the process of liquidation of the world wars.” By Eduardo Anguita and Daniel Cecchini (https://ormulus.substack.com/p/carlos-disandro-the-quiet-classics?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2)

In a later essay, Disandro would describe the actual foundational state, based on Catholic principles. He excoriates the writings of Paul 6 confidante Jacques Maritain on integral humanism and  the “Christian Democracy” tenets promoted by Giorgio Montini, father of Paul 6. He also writes a very telling description of traditionalism, one that should be remembered by all. He explains that genuine traditionalism, the type mentioned by Pope St. Pius X in his Our Apostolic Mandate, is the kind that recognizes God as its source and the Catholic Church acting as the representative of God’s Son on earth. The second type of Traditionalism “…has to do with the men, institutions, events, etc., that constitute the logical surface phenomenon but whose validity depends on the correct relation with their sources. That is why it has been said above that this aspect tends toward frequent errors.”  

This description refers not only to the Church, making those not properly related to their Apostolic sources and guarantors invalid, but to the State, when in violation of its own laws and founding documents. In the second instance, Disandro writes, “This relationship is not guaranteed, and the Nation is not obliged to safeguard something which would mean its suicide.” In other words, Godless men do not come from the proper source, even if according to the popular understanding — no matter how false it may be — that this country was founded as “one nation under God.” Because that relationship is not guaranteed and we cannot know what the people who govern us truly believe or think, this country has ceased to exist as a democracy and can now be defined as a synarchy.

And in that synarchy, Disandro states: “…there are religious powers at play, embodied in the vast manoeuvring of Judeo-Christianity, whose visible manifestation is ecumenism, contrary to the best religious and patriotic traditions. These synarchical powers are… opposed to national sovereignty… The Nation is independent of global centralizing tendencies, and its destiny should not be submitted for any reason to the dictates of destructive international powers: money, banks, propaganda, military-political technology, esoteric sects, etc. Each of these factors should be studied in order to overcome its attacks and ambushes, because they seek to CRUSH THE NATION” (emph. his). So here we see the denunciation of globalization with its many evils and the very complaints that are being voiced by those categorized as “the radical right.”  But that faction makes three fatal mistakes:

1) They fail to insist that no country can be successfully ruled without acknowledging God as the ultimate source of any power held by its leaders and without obedience to His laws.

2) If they demand God be recognized as the founder of this nation, as some do, they recognize Him only in way of a God who considers all religions on an equal footing, a heresy.

3) None of them proclaim that unless the spiritual situation is addressed and resolved first, then no possible hope of “draining the swamp” can ever be realized. Swamp creatures or those secretly aligned with them cannot police themselves.

Pope Pius XII on the duty of voting

God alone can deliver us from the rule of overlords empowered by Satan; man is helpless to do this himself. This brings us to the question: How must Catholics view this since they are commanded by Pope Pius XII to vote in elections, as pointed out by our Spanish readers? The pope teaches: “IT IS A STRICT DUTY FOR ALL WHO HAVE THE RIGHT, MEN OR WOMEN, TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS. WHOEVER ABSTAINS, ESPECIALLY OUT OF COWARDICE, COMMITS A GRAVE SIN, A MORTAL FAULT.  Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now, it is evident that the voice of this conscience imposes on every sincere Catholic the duty to give his vote to those candidates, or to those lists of candidates, WHO REALLY OFFER SUFFICIENT GUARANTEES TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF GOD AND OF THE SOULS OF MEN, for the real good of individuals, families and society, ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF GOD AND CHRISTIAN MORAL DOCTRINE” (Address to the Delegates of the International Conference on Emigration, 17 October 1951).

When Pius XII made this statement there was still some hope that things could be reversed, and that voting for moral, God-fearing candidates could effect this reversal. That is not the case today, as Dr. Disandro explains, especially given the demise of the Church. So can ANY of the candidates in the running in this country today truthfully be said to offer these guarantees?! Or are they all members of this synarchy whose intent is well-expressed above, and who, despite their rhetoric, cannot be trusted to even honor the promises they make to the public? The answer to this question is anything but clear. But we cannot proceed to make such a decision based on agenda-driven documentaries and videos, conflicting reports from the media or assumptions, either, since truth has become an almost unobtainable commodity these days.

We can judge only by the good fruits we see as attributable to such people, by external actions, as Canon Law teaches regarding such situations. All we can do is follow what Pope Pius XII teaches and vote for the person who seems most sincerely committed to upholding the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, guaranteeing our right to at least practice the Catholic faith. We cannot be faulted if somehow we should err, but did so only to follow what the pope has taught. Yes, we have the ironclad responsibility to vote even for the lesser of two evils, as long as we can be relatively certain that the candidates(s) for whom we vote at least appear to be sincere about protecting the right of freedom of religion. As St. Robert Bellarmine has observed: “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts;” but must be judged by their external works. There is no guarantee of course that our candidate will win, but there could always be a defector buried in the bowels of the synarchy.

May the Holy Ghost enlighten and guide us in these evil times

(See recent additions to Mr. Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Handbook here.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email