Mostrando postagens com marcador English version of the critical articles🇺🇸. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador English version of the critical articles🇺🇸. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 23 de março de 2026

BOOK: THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN: THE GLOBAL BATTLE FOR GOD, TRUTH AND POWER, BY MELANIE PHILLIPS

In The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power (2010), British journalist Melanie Phillips delivers a relentless diagnosis of the civilizational crisis afflicting the West. With analytical rigor and striking examples drawn from politics, science, culture, and international relations, Phillips demonstrates that the contemporary world is experiencing a radical inversion of values: truth and lies, good and evil, victim and aggressor swap places. The book's title is not poetic metaphor—it is a precise diagnosis. And the root cause, according to the author, is one and the same: the systematic abandonment of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition that underpinned reason, objective morality, and Western progress.

Phillips is clear: “It was Christianity and the Hebrew Bible that gave us the concepts of reason, progress, and an ordered world—the foundations of science and modernity” (Phillips, 2010). By rejecting this heritage, the West did not become more rational or free, as the secular Enlightenment promised. On the contrary: it plunged into collective nihilism, an “explosion of irrationality” in which objective truth was replaced by cultural relativism, ideological dogma, and emotion as the supreme criterion.

📉 The root of nihilism: religious emptying

The book details how aggressive secularism, postmodernism, and radical multiculturalism destroyed confidence in reason anchored in faith. Without belief in an ordered and just Creator God, society loses the foundation for distinguishing the real from the imaginary. Phillips shows that:

Morality was privatized: everyone became “their own pope,” and laws rooted in biblical tradition came to be seen as oppressive.

Science was politicized: what was once a disinterested pursuit of truth became an ideological instrument (classic example: the dogmatic treatment of anthropogenic global warming, where dissenters are excommunicated as heretics).

International politics inverted: Israel—the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, direct heir to the biblical tradition—is demonized as oppressor, while radical Islamic terrorism is romanticized as “resistance.”

A surreal alliance emerged between the Western radical left and political Islam: both share hatred of Judeo-Christian civilization, moral relativism, and the desire to impose a coercive utopia.

The result is total nihilism: a society that no longer knows what truth, goodness, or reality is. Without a transcendent anchor, the West heads toward cultural and spiritual collapse.

⛪ Why Catholicism is the only solution

Phillips does not stop at diagnosis: she points the way to recovery. The only possible way out is the “robust reassertion of Judeo-Christian principles” that built the West. Here, however, the logic of the book demands one further step that the author herself leaves implicit, but which becomes inescapable: only Catholicism possesses the institutional, theological, and historical structure capable of fully restoring this heritage.

Why? Because Catholicism is not merely one “religious option” among many. It is:

The historical guardian of the Bible and integrated reason—The Catholic Church preserved the sacred texts through centuries of chaos, founded the first universities, developed scholastic philosophy (Saint Thomas Aquinas) uniting faith and reason, and gave the world the concept of objective natural law. Protestantism, by fragmenting authority, unintentionally opened the door to the individual relativism that Phillips so condemns. Modern secularism is the child of that fragmentation.

The only tradition that maintains unity between God, truth, and power—Phillips insists that only a unified religious vision can combat nihilism. Catholicism offers exactly that: the apostolic authority succeeding Peter, the infallible magisterium in matters of faith and morals, the sacraments as real channels of grace, and a complete social doctrine that responds to all contemporary challenges (family, life, justice, genuine environment).

The specific antidote to the threats Phillips identifies—Against radical Islam, Catholicism offers the only cultural and spiritual response that has already defeated similar invasions in the past (Lepanto, Vienna). Against postmodern leftism, it offers Catholic social doctrine as a coherent alternative to cultural Marxism. Against scientism and dogmatic environmentalism, it offers the biblical vision of ordered creation and responsible stewardship, without falling into neopagan pantheism.

Any other proposal—liberal Protestantism, emotional evangelicalism, “spirituality without religion,” or a generic return to the “Judeo-Christian” without structure—is insufficient. Phillips demonstrates that the West was only saved historically when it anchored itself in robust, institutional faith. Today, only Catholicism maintains that robustness intact. Everything else is fragmentation or dilution—and fragmentation is precisely what generated the nihilism the book describes.

🚨 The urgent call

Melanie Phillips concludes her work with a dramatic appeal: either the West recovers its founding faith or it will perish. Applying her diagnosis faithfully, the remedy cannot be vague. It is not enough to “return to religion.” It is necessary to return to the full source: to the Catholic Church, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which has never abandoned the alliance between God, truth, and reason.

The world is turned upside down. Only Catholicism has the power—and the divine authority—to set it upright again.

📚 Reference

Phillips, Melanie. The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power. New York: Encounter Books, 2010. (Original hardcover edition: ISBN 978-1-59403-375-9; paperback edition: 2011, ISBN 978-1-59403-574-6).

segunda-feira, 16 de março de 2026

Padre Élcio Murucci and the Apostolic Administration of Campos, between the fierce resistance of Dom Castro Mayer and submission to Vatican II

When Father Élcio Murucci completed, in December 2024, half a century of priesthood, the Personal Apostolic Administration Saint John Mary Vianney (AAPSJMV) celebrated with a solemn Mass and effusive messages on social networks. Ordained on December 8, 1974, by Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer himself, Murucci represents the last living link of the generation that, alongside the emeritus bishop of Campos, raised a true wall against the reforms of the Vatican II Council. But, 24 years after the “regularization” of 2002, what remains of that resistance? An official structure, yes. Full fidelity to the spirit that animated Dom Castro Mayer? The facts and the harshest criticisms from radical traditionalists say no.

Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer did not see Vatican II “with good eyes.” This is a historical euphemism. The prelate, who participated in the Council as bishop of Campos (1948-1981), became one of the most intransigent voices against what he considered a “self-destruction” of the Church. In a personal letter to Paul VI, dated September 12, 1969, he denounced the Novus Ordo Missae for “omissions and mutations” that, in essential points, no longer expressed the theology of the Eucharistic Sacrifice defined in Trent. He refused to implement the new missal until his retirement, in 1981. He published pastoral letters and manifestos – such as the “Open Letter to the Pope and the Episcopal Manifesto” of 1983 – condemning ecumenism, collegialism, religious freedom and conciliar “latitudinarianism” as contrary to the perennial Magisterium. Ally of Dom Marcel Lefebvre and the TFP, Castro Mayer created, in 1981, the Priestly Union Saint John Mary Vianney: 25 priests and thousands of faithful who exclusively maintained the Missa Tridentina and formed, in practice, a “parallel diocese” in the North Fluminense region.

The crisis was unique in the history of the Church in Brazil – theme of a recent academic study published in March 2026 in the magazine Vértices, which describes the phenomenon as “unparalleled.” For two decades, the Union lived in an irregular situation, assisted first by Castro Mayer himself (deceased in 1991) and then by Dom Licínio Rangel. For many, it was the last trench against the “modernism” that, according to the bishop, had infiltrated the Church.

On January 18, 2002, John Paul II erected the Personal Apostolic Administration Saint John Mary Vianney by the decree *Animarum Bonum*. The “priests of Campos” returned to Roman communion. Dom Fernando Arêas Rifan, ordained bishop in 2002 by the Colombian cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, assumed the direction. Today the structure has 12 parishes and another 12 communities, headquarters in Campos, official website (adapostolica.org) and active presence on the networks. Father Murucci continues celebrating and preaching – vicar in Ururaí and other localities, with a YouTube channel where he distributes meditations and homilies in the ancient rite.

So far, everything seems like a victory. But the tone changes when one reads the criticisms coming from the harder traditionalist field, especially from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX). In texts still circulating on sites linked to the Fraternity, the priests of Campos are accused of “dreadful betrayal.” They ask: “What new public lie from Dom Rifan do they need?” They argue that the marriages celebrated in irregularity between 1981 and 2002 would have been declared null with the reconciliation, that the Union was “recognized without any requirement” and that Dom Castro Mayer would have been, in the Roman view, “schismatic.” The central point of the accusation is clear: by accepting the personal structure, the Administration would have traded pure resistance for obedience to Vatican II.

The most recent proof came in November 2025. Dom Rifan, at 75 years old, presented his resignation to the new Pope Leo XIV. In a private audience at the Vatican, he guaranteed to the Pontiff the “fidelity of the Administration to the traditional liturgy and to Vatican II.” The Pope accepted the resignation, but asked that Rifan remain in office for another 18 months “to reflect and prepare the successor.” Rifan, who has already edited pastoral letters defending the “continuity” of the Council and condemning as schismatic the positions of the FSSPX, made official what many traditionalists feared since 2002: the Administration is no longer a stronghold of resistance, but an “approved exception” within the conciliar Church.

Father Élcio Murucci, faithful spiritual son of Dom Castro Mayer, continues celebrating the Missa de sempre and defending the perennial doctrine. His faithful in Varre-Sai, Porciúncula and Ururaí find there the Catholicism that the founder loved so much. However, the institutional context has changed. The structure that was born to combat Vatican II now declares fidelity to it. It is the paradox that defines the AAPSJMV in 2026: it maintains the Tridentine rite by special grace from Rome, but lost, in the eyes of many who lived the Castro Mayer era, the spirit of combat without concessions that animated the Priestly Union.

While Father Murucci completes another year of apostolate, the uncomfortable question remains in the air of the North Fluminense: was the legacy of Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer preserved or domesticated? History – and the most radical critics – has not yet closed this chapter.

quinta-feira, 5 de março de 2026

Book: The Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, Francis Clark (about Anglicanism)

The doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice lies at the heart of the Reformation schism, representing a flashpoint where the Catholic understanding of the Mass as a perpetuation and application of Christ's redemptive work clashed with the Protestant emphasis on the historical uniqueness of the cross. The rupture was not an organic process of purification, but a systematic and often violent eradication of a traditional religious culture that was theologically cohesive and widely accepted by the population (DUFFY, 1992). This conflict is meticulously dissected, drawing on primary sources from medieval theologians, Reformers, and post-Tridentine apologists (CLARK, 1967). Published amid growing ecumenical dialogues, the research challenges narratives that attribute the Reformation's repudiation of the Mass to mere abuses or misunderstandings, positing instead a profound theological incompatibility. This analysis is particularly salient for Anglicanism, as it traces how continental Protestant influences shaped the English Reformers' views, leading to the crafting of formularies and liturgical rites specifically designed to reject sacrificial interpretations of the Eucharist (DAVIES, 1976). This article exhaustively outlines the findings from the two parts of the research, centering on their relevance to the Church of England, the role of figures who architected the change like Thomas Cranmer, and the enduring impact on Anglican theology.

🔍Part One: The Case Against the Pre-Reformation Church and the Facts of the Reformation Conflict over the Mass

In Part One, a detailed historical and theological framework is constructed to argue that the Reformation's assault on the Eucharistic sacrifice was rooted in core doctrinal principles, rather than in exaggerated late-medieval corruptions. The pre-Reformation Catholic doctrine, practical abuses, and the Reformers' motivations are analyzed, with a strong emphasis on the English context, where continental ideas intersected with local political imposition to produce distinct Anglican positions. It becomes evident that orthodox theology was not in decay, but formed the living tissue of medieval English society before being brutally dismantled (DUFFY, 1992).

📑Chapter Breakdown and Key Findings

Part One is organized into nine chapters, each building toward the conclusion that the English Reformers' rejection was deliberate, calculated, and theologically driven.


⚖️Chapter I: The State of the Question. The Eucharist is framed as central to Reformation debates, noting that Catholic teaching views the Mass as a daily offering where "Jesus Christ is daily offered on the Church’s altars... his propitiatory sacrifice... to apply to mankind in every age the benefits of redemption" (CLARK, 1967). Ecumenical optimism is highlighted, including Anglican developments like the Oxford Movement's reintroduction of sacrificial language, but persistent divides are emphasized. For Anglicanism, this sets the stage for examining how 19th- and 20th-century Anglo-Catholics (e.g., via the Lambeth Conference 1958) attempted to reinterpret the Reformers' objections as responses to abuses, a revisionist thesis untenable in light of historical evidence (DUFFY, 1992; CLARK, 1967).


📜Chapter II: The Origins of the Controversy on the Anglican Formularies. It delves into debates over the Thirty-Nine Articles, particularly Article XXXI, which condemns "the sacrifices of Masses... [as] blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It is argued that Reformers like Cranmer saw the Mass as incompatible with sola fide, rejecting it not as a misunderstanding, but as a direct threat to justification by faith alone. Cranmer emphasized sacraments for personal reception: "Christ ordained [sacraments] ... that every man should receive them for himself" (CLARK, 1967).


🏛️Chapter III: The Development of the Case Against Late-Medieval Mass Theology. The narrative of "nominalist decadence" is severely critiqued, asserting that "the English Reformers could not but repudiate the traditional teaching on the Mass... incompatible with their basic theology of grace and justification" (CLARK, 1967). Exhaustive research in parish records demonstrates that the traditional faith was vibrant and theologically sound among the laity, destroying the myth of a diseased religion waiting for a Protestant cure (DUFFY, 1992). Abuses existed, but they were not the root cause; the Reformers targeted the doctrine itself.


🔮Chapter IV: Practical Abuses and Superstitions. When surveying phenomena like bleeding hosts, their presence is conceded, but it is argued they did not define orthodoxy and were not the primary impetus for English reforms. The real target was the very structure of traditional Catholic religion (DUFFY, 1992).


📚Chapter V: A Survey of the Theology of Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is affirmed that there was no unified Catholic "norm" in details, but a strong core consensus: the Mass applies Calvary's benefits, as in the prayer "Quoties huius hostiae commemoratio celebratur, opus nostrae redemptionis exercetur." For Anglicans, this underscores that the Reformers rejected a known, orthodox doctrine, and not a caricature of it.


✝️Chapter VI: The Fundamental Reasons for the Rejection of the Mass. Rooted in sola fide and the cross's sufficiency, Cranmer is cited: "Justification... is the office of God only... trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice [cross] once offered" (CLARK, 1967). Influences from Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin decisively shaped English views.


🌍Chapter VII: The Impact of Continental Protestantism on England. It details how the 1547 Homilies implicitly rejected the Mass, with figures like Gardiner recognizing the revolutionary shift and Bucer praising the changes. The importation of this theology required violent social engineering to be imposed on English parishes (DUFFY, 1992).


🗣️Chapter VIII: The Reformers' Opinions on the Sacrifice of the Mass. English Reformers acknowledged the Catholic view as applicatory, but rejected it as derogating from the cross. Cranmer: "They say that they offer Christ everyday... distribute the merits... But Christ himself... made a sacrifice... never more" (CLARK, 1967). John Bradford: "The mass is no new sacrifice but the application... Yet doth it manifestly appear to be a mere cavillation." It is concluded that this stems strictly from justification by faith.


🛠️Chapter IX: The Anglican Formularies in the Making. The explicit rejection is traced in Article XXXI and the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), where Cranmer ensured a memorial focus: "The sacrifices of Masses... are blasphemous fables." The liturgical revolution was implemented in stages to avoid immediate rebellions (DAVIES, 1976), with the 1549 BCP serving as a deceptive interim and 1552 being entirely anti-sacrificial.

🚩Overall Conclusions in Part One

Exhaustive analysis reveals that the English rejection was eminently theological, not reactive to abuses, and imposed against the will of a devout population (DUFFY, 1992). The formularies—Articles, BCP, and Ordinal—embody this, purging oblationary language (e.g., 1549 offertory for the poor only: "Entirely desiring thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" [CLARK, 1967]). Tellingly, the physical destruction of stone altars and their replacement with wooden tables was not an act of misguided zeal, but an official mandate to erase the very idea of sacrifice from the popular mind (DAVIES, 1976) ("Altar... to make sacrifice... table... to eat"). The Ordinal redefined priesthood as strictly pastoral ("To be the messengers, the watchmen... of the Lord"). This aligns Anglicanism with Zwinglian virtualism, denying real, objective presence as a basis for sacrifice.

🔬Part Two: A Detailed Study of the Doctrinal Errors about the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Late Middle Ages

Part Two shifts to a granular examination of alleged errors, arguing they were fabricated, exaggerated, or non-existent in orthodox theology. This is used to reinforce that the Anglican rejection targeted the doctrine's essence, not corruptions. Primers and lay instruction of the period confirm that popular understanding was in remarkable harmony with the Church's orthodoxy (DUFFY, 1992).

📑Chapter Breakdown and Key Findings

Comprising thirteen chapters, Part Two systematically debunks claims of widespread heresy, with profound implications for how Anglican formularies aimed to attack medieval orthodoxy, and not deviations from it.


📋Chapter X: Syllabus of Errors and Popular Theology. Popular views are distinguished from scholastic ones, asserting that errors were not widespread. Parish piety reflected a robust understanding of the communion of saints and the applicatory power of the Mass (DUFFY, 1992). Reformers attacked the core doctrine.


⚠️Chapter XI: Heretical Teaching on an Independent Propitiatory Sacrifice. It is demonstrated that the Mass applies, not independently redeems: "The Mass... applies the remission... merited on the cross" (CLARK, 1967). Gardiner deplored such misrepresentations of the Catholic faith; it is concluded there was no teaching of a "new sacrifice."


🩸Chapter XII: Crude Expression on the Sacrifice Being the Same as Calvary. This deals with the unbloody mode; crude but orthodox expressions: Henry Smith: "Christ... offered... once on the cross... Mass... applying the virtue" (CLARK, 1967). Reformers saw in this a derogation of the cross.


☁️Chapter XIII: Exclusive Focus on the Passion, Neglect of the Heavenly Offering. A possible imbalance is critiqued; Vatican II corrects this, but it relates to Anglican emphases on glorification.


📉Chapter XIV: The Baleful Influence of Nominalism. Historically overemphasized; it was not the vicious root of errors, a thesis widely refuted by the social history of medieval religion (DUFFY, 1992).


⚖️Chapter XV: The Scotist Doctrine Underrating the Value of the Mass. Scotus valued it; it is Christ who offers via the priest.


🚿Chapter XVI: Corrupt Notions on the Remission of Sins. It always required repentance; it was not a magical or mechanical rite, as the lay primers of the time made clear (DUFFY, 1992).


📢Chapter XVII: The Common Error Denounced by Cajetan. It was not mechanical; the priest acted instrumentally from Christ.


☠️Chapter XVIII: Equation of Sacrifice with Death. Oversimplified; the sacrifice is unbloody; a source of great deadlock at the time.


🗡️Chapter XIX: Popular Belief in Daily Blood Shedding. Strictly a peripheral superstition, not taught doctrine.


🧱Chapter XX: Post-Tridentine Destruction Theories. Theories are cataloged (e.g., virtual immolation by Lessius: "Words... present Christ’s blood... apart from body"; status declivior by De Lugo; kenosis by Franzelin). Symbolic representation is favored (Bellarmine: "Simul esse debent sacrificium reale et sacrificium repraesentativum") (CLARK, 1967). Aquinas: represents the passion. Conclusion: Not destructive; perpetuates the cross without a new death.


👹Chapter XXI: The Widespread Heresy on Atoning for Actual Sins. The cross atones for all; the "monstrous doctrine" (that the cross was only for original sin and the Mass for actual sins) is proven to be a Lutheran polemical invention (Melanchthon: "Christ offered on the cross a sufficient sacrifice for the debts of all men" [CLARK, 1967]). Catharinus was orthodox: "Blood of Christ perpetually immolated wipes out... daily sins."


🔭Chapter XXII: Retrospect and Prospects. The conflict stems from a theological "basic difference of interpretation," not misunderstandings.

🚩Overall Conclusions in Part Two

The findings confirm the integrity of medieval orthodoxy: there was no general decadence; the Mass was universally understood as an unbloody application (e.g., Tissington: "Every day... selfsame sacrifice"; Netter: "One sacrifice... numerically one" [CLARK, 1967]). The "monstrous doctrine" was pure polemical invention. For Anglicanism, this means Article XXXI condemns "the best pre-Reformation eucharistic theology and practice," not its aberrations. Reformers like Ridley linked the denial to the end of all controversy: "If we did once agree... the whole controversy would soon be at an end." The priesthood was ontologically redefined, invalidating the intention to ordain sacrificing priests (DAVIES, 1976) (Cranmer: "Because Christ is a perpetual and everlasting priest... his priesthood neither needeth nor can pass to any other" [CLARK, 1967]). Sacrificial language was strictly limited to praise.

👑Specific Conclusions on Anglicanism

Anglicanism is centered as the main case study, arguing that the English Reformers (Cranmer, Bradford, Latimer, Ridley) rejected the Mass as an applicatory means, implementing a new liturgy designed to eradicate the old faith (DAVIES, 1976). Bradford declared: "Away therefore with their abominable doctrine, that the sacrifice of the mass is the principal mean to apply Christ’s death..." (CLARK, 1967). They affirmed no sacrificial offering at the Last Supper; no priestly power (Latimer: "All our works are evil and imperfect..."). There was the explicit denial of objective real presence (Cranmer: "No more truly is Christ corporally [in the supper]... than he is in... baptism"). The 1552 revisions banned sacred vestments (DAVIES, 1976), and the Reformatio punished belief in the traditional Mass. Anglo-Catholic reinterpretations (e.g., Newman, Mascall, Kidd) are completely demolished, historically proving that Cranmer's objections targeted Catholic doctrine per se. The medieval summary (10 points: re-presentation, mysterious victim offering) confirms this. The English Catholic martyrs died defending the core revelation of the Church, not late developments or local abuses, facing death because they refused to abandon the religion of their ancestors (DUFFY, 1992).

📚References

CLARK, Francis. Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967.
DAVIES, Michael. Cranmer's Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism through Liturgical Change. Fort Collins: Roman Catholic Books, 1976.
DUFFY, Eamon. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

terça-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2026

🗡️The divinization of the State and the ruin of the human person: Jouvenel's critique of Hegel's political gnosticism

Examination of Hegel's ideas in the work "Du Pouvoir: Histoire naturelle de sa croissance" by Bertrand de Jouvenel (1972 edition), with particular emphasis on Book One, Chapter III ("Les Théories organiques du Pouvoir") and reflections in Book Three, Chapter VII.

🗿 Introduction: the abandonment of the natural order and the genesis of the idol

The profound radiography of the state monstrosity undertaken by Bertrand de Jouvenel in Du Pouvoir finds one of its culminating points in the analysis of the philosophical revolution of the 19th century. Starting in Book One, Chapter III ("The organic Theories of Power"), the author demonstrates how the subversion of the Catholic and medieval order - which saw society as a community of souls under the immutable law of God - paved the way for the idolatry of the Nation. In this context of apostasy and denial of Christian metaphysics, the figure of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel emerges. From the traditionalist perspective, Jouvenel's work reveals that Hegel is not merely a philosopher, but the high priest of a political pantheism. He provided the unchained Minotaur with its definitive theoretical justification: the divinization of the State as the march of the Absolute on Earth, obliterating the dignity of the human person and legitimizing the totalitarianisms that would bloody the coming centuries.

✝️ From the Christian society to the hypostasis of the nation

Jouvenel notes that, before the French Revolution and the advent of philosophical romanticism, Western thought conceived society in a "nominalist" way. The people were seen as an aggregate of real men, holders of natural rights and duties, subordinated to a transcendent end. However, the Revolution brought about a profound psychological commotion: "The throne was not overthrown, but the Whole, the persona Nation, ascended to the throne" (p. 92). The Nation transformed into a "hypostatized We" (p. 92), a supreme Being that transcends and absorbs the parts.

It is in the midst of this Germanic nationalist fervor that Hegel, according to Jouvenel, "formulates the first coherent doctrine of the new phenomenon and grants the Nation a diploma of philosophical existence" (p. 93). The tragedy of Hegelian thought, denounced by Jouvenel's observation, lies in the artificial and perverse dichotomy that the German philosopher establishes between "civil society" and the "State". "Civil society" is relegated to the realm of particular and transitory interests. The "State", on the contrary, becomes the incarnation of Reason and objective Morality. For Hegel, man only reaches his true destiny when he begins to "consciously integrate his activity into the general activity, to find his satisfaction in the realization of Society, to take it finally as a goal" (p. 93-94).

For the traditional Catholic, such a postulate is the basest of idolatries. The ultimate end of man is not Society or the State, but eternal Blessedness in God. By transferring the eschatological end to the immanence of the Hegelian State, the individual loses his absolute value as a creature made in the image and likeness of the Creator, becoming a mere sacrificial cog on the altar of the "collectivity".

📈 The perversion of the common good and the justification of state growth

Hegel's philosophy irretrievably destroys the Thomistic and medieval conception of the Common Good. Jouvenel teaches that, in the Middle Ages, the end of Power was Justice (jus suum cuique tribuere), guided by a fixed Law and by Objective Right, which made the king's activity "essentially conservatory" and put a brake on the development of Power (p. 94).

With the "realist conception of Society" of the Hegelian kind, "the notion of the Common Good receives a completely different content" (p. 94). The objective is no longer to protect the right of the individual, but to "seek a much less defined Social Good" and to realize an "increasingly higher Morality that must be realized in Society" (p. 94-95). The consequence of this lack of definition is lethal: "As the agent of this realization, and by reason of this objective, Power will be able to justify no matter what growth in its extension" (p. 95). Hegelian theory offers the State a blank check. If the end of the State is the realization of the Spirit, no moral, customary, or religious barrier can oppose its expansionist hunger.

👁️ Political gnosticism and the tyranny of the "conscious"

The most devastating aspect of Jouvenel's analysis of Hegel is found in the dissection of the "General Will". While Rousseau linked the general will to the consensus of particular wills (albeit in a confused and flawed way), Hegel emancipates it entirely from the real people. For Hegel, the General Will is that which "tends towards the objective... towards the realization of the highest collective life" (p. 96). It is what "must be realized, with or without the assent of the individuals who are not conscious of the objective" (p. 96).

This engenders a gnostic heresy applied to politics: the idea that there is an enlightened "universal class" (p. 96), holder of the true consciousness of the meaning of History. Only the will of this minority coincides with the "rational in itself and for itself" (p. 97). Jouvenel points out that this philosophical justification legitimizes violence against the social body. The "conscious part" does not do violence to the Whole by forcing it, just as "a midwife does not do violence, even if she employs force" to precipitate the birth of what must be (p. 96-97).

The historical consequences of this doctrine are catastrophic, and Jouvenel makes a point of naming Hegel's theoretical offspring:

The Prussian Administration (Beamtenstaat), the arrogant bureaucracy that believes its will is not a whim, but "knowledge of what must be" (p. 97).

The scientific Socialism of Marx, where the "conscious part of the Proletariat" speaks and wills in the name of the Whole, forcing the inert mass towards utopia (p. 97).

The Fascist Party, which acts as the "conscious part of the Nation, wills for the Nation, and wills the Nation as it must be" (p. 97).

All these totalitarian abominations, which drowned the Christian order in rivers of blood, "come directly from Hegelianism" (p. 97). Hegel's doctrine consecrates the right of an oligarchy of the enlightened - be they intellectuals, bureaucrats, or party leaders - to guide the majority by force, destroying natural liberty under the pretext of realizing "Destiny". "It seems that Hegel did not want to construct an authoritarian theory. But it is judged by its fruits," Jouvenel implacably sentences (p. 98).

🧠 The dialectic of egoism and the moral blindness of speculative thought

Further on in the work (Book Three, Chapter VII), when dealing with the expansionist character of Power, Jouvenel indirectly resumes the problem of the Hegelian justification of Evil in history. Power is essentially egoistic, but the great conquerors and idealists intoxicated with themselves tend to merge their egoism with a supposed historical altruism (the cunning of Reason).

Jouvenel warns that speculative thought (of which Hegel is the apex) despises the complex, Christian, and organic order. Passionate about rational unity, the intellect divorced from Faith seeks to simplify and standardize the world. "Whenever the intellectual imagines a simple order, he serves the growth of Power" (p. 223). Hegelian philosophy, by postulating a continuous evolution in which the modern State permits social differentiation only to "bring back an ever-growing diversity to an increasingly richer unity" (p. 99), provides the framework for the crushing of local and familial autonomies (the legitimate social authorities).

By attempting to found perfect altruism in the State, philosophy produces absolute tyranny. For, as the author warns, the most terrible political failures derive from arbitrary visions of the "rational" that ignore common sense and moral instinct (p. 213-214). The Hegelian justification that the particular passions and egoisms of rulers end up serving inexorable social ends (p. 202) is the definitive capitulation of morality before the brutality of the consummated Fact.

☠️ Conclusion: the idealist poison and the rise of the political antichrist

The analysis of Hegel's ideas through the masterful pen of Bertrand de Jouvenel leaves no doubt as to the intrinsically perverse nature of state pantheism. Under the lens of traditional Catholic doctrine, the Hegelian State reveals itself as the diabolical reverse of the Holy Church: it demands for itself the adoration, unconditional obedience, and sacrifice that belong solely to God.

By substituting the transcendent Creator and the Eternal Law with the "earthly God" marching in history; by trading the objective Common Good (Justice) for the mutable abstraction of the "realization of collective life"; and, above all, by arming gnostic "elects" with the moral duty to bend the ignorant by force, Hegel built the intellectual cathedral of Totalitarianism. His ideas destroyed the moral defenses of the individual and of intermediary societies (the family, the Church, the municipality). Without God above Power, man was left naked before the modern Leviathan, confirming Jouvenel's thesis that, far from Tradition, every philosophy of the State is, at bottom, an apology for universal slavery.

📚 References

JOUVENEL, Bertrand de. Du Pouvoir: Histoire naturelle de sa croissance. New ed. Paris: Hachette, 1972.

segunda-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2026

🗡️ The State as a Permanent Revolution Against the Natural Order: The Anti-Christian Genesis of State Absolutism, Bertrand de Jouvenel

This article constitutes an examination of the ideas exposed by Bertrand de Jouvenel in his magnum opus, Du Pouvoir: Histoire naturelle de sa croissance (1972 edition, covering from the threshold of the work to Book Four, Chapter X). The original text, conceived in exile during the scourge of the Second World War, presents a sociological and historical anatomy of the monstrosity of the modern State. Jouvenel's work transcends mere political science to reveal itself as a complete and tragic realization of the apostasy of nations. By rejecting the sweet yoke of Christ and the limiting tutelage of Holy Church, modernity did not achieve the promised freedom, but spawned a merciless Leviathan, culminating in total conscription, wars of extermination, and the dissolution of the natural hierarchies that once protected human dignity.

⚔️ The Awakening of the Minotaur and the Tragedy of Total War

Jouvenel's inaugural thesis destroys the foundational myth of the Enlightenment and liberal democracies: the illusion that the fall of traditional monarchies limited power. On the contrary, the author notes, under the Dantean spectacle of the Second World War, that modernity produced the most atrocious war in the history of the West, where the "entire population was requisitioned to provide the most effective instruments of death" (p. 21). This phenomenon of total regimentation of civilian life would be absolutely unthinkable under medieval Christendom or even under classical monarchies.

The progress of war is inseparable from the progress of power. In the traditional order, the feudal king had only the contingents of his vassals at his disposal for forty days and did not possess the right to tax. "War then is very small: because power is small" (p. 25). However, democratic and revolutionary subversion freed the State from its bonds. Universal military conscription and permanent taxation, once seen as intolerable tyrannies under a Christian monarch, became unquestionable demands when disguised under the veil of the "general will." As the author aptly quotes relying on Taine, conscription and universal suffrage are twin brothers that operate as "blind and formidable conductors or regulators of future history," promising massacres and regression "to selfish and brutal instincts" (p. 30). The democratic State is nothing but the incubator of totalitarianism, allowing the Minotaur to assume "the amplitude of which an unprecedented despotism and war in Europe have given us the measure" (p. 37).

👑 The Metaphysics of Power and the Subversion of Divine Right

In investigating the mystery of civil obedience, Jouvenel delves into the theories of sovereignty, revealing the modern perversion of sound doctrine. The author demystifies the fallacy that the theory of divine right was the cause of absolutism. In truth, during the Middle Ages, the concept that power comes from God operated exactly to contain it. "The sacred king of the Middle Ages presents us with the least free, least arbitrary power we can imagine" (p. 62). He was subjected to divine law and to the law of custom (lex terrae). Holy Church, in the person of its pontiffs and bishops, exercised moral control over the monarch, admonishing him that he was "the protector and not the owner of his people" (p. 63).

The genesis of absolutism, paradoxically but historically proven by Jouvenel, stems from the theory of popular sovereignty, first weaponized by heretical legists like Marsilius of Padua to free the emperor from papal tutelage. The Protestant revolution was the coup de grâce. With Luther, the secular censorship of the Church is broken, and the reformed princes appropriate sovereign right free from spiritual oversight (pp. 64-65). Without the Church to impose the law of God, the ground was prepared for theorists like Hobbes, Spinoza, and Rousseau to postulate a total alienation of individual rights into the hands of an impersonal sovereign.

Rousseau, with his Social Contract, elevates the principle of sovereignty to a limitless imperium. Instead of Hobbes who hands this power over to a monarch, Rousseau hands it to the "general will," creating a collective tyranny where "the injured subject must consider himself the very author of the unjust act" (p. 70). It is the secular deification of the State, where parliamentary control fails miserably, for representation tends to usurp sovereignty for itself. As Rousseau himself foresaw with horror regarding feudal representation, "the English people think they are free: they are greatly mistaken; they are free only during the election of members of parliament; as soon as they are elected, they are slaves, they are nothing" (p. 81). Popular sovereignty is thus revealed to be much more arbitrary and lethal than royalty submissive to God.

👥 The Organicist Fallacy and the Absorption of the Individual

The 19th century attempted to replace the efficient cause of power (its origin) with the final cause (its purpose), relying on dangerous philosophies originating from idealism and positivism. The French Revolution created the hypostasis of the "nation," an autonomous and deified being. Hegel provided its metaphysical basis, in which the State is the supreme realization of society, and higher morality demands the submission of the parts to the whole. This political pantheism endows a "conscious class" (the Prussian bureaucracy, the fascist party, or the Marxist vanguard) with the supposed right to guide the unconscious (pp. 96-97).

Coupled with this, the organicist theories of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer (undue borrowings from Darwinian biology) began to conceive society no longer as a community of families before God, but as a physiological body where the State is the regulating nervous system. Jouvenel demonstrates that this view was adopted to justify the "indefinite growth of the functions and apparatus of government" (p. 110), transforming human beings into mere disposable cells and crushing the eternal value of the human person in the name of the forced social solidarity of theorists like Durkheim, who blasphemously stated that, under the name of God, we worship only society (p. 111).

🗡️ The Origins of Power: Magic, Sword, and Corruption

In search of the factual origins of command, Jouvenel rejects the Enlightenment presumption of the free and inherently good natural man. In primitive societies, marked by the terror of evil spirits, original power was of a magical nature, managed by a ritualistic gerontocracy that maintained strict observance of custom through fear to appease divine wrath (pp. 130-136). This suffocating and conservative gerontocracy gave way to the warrior. War forced the transformation of hierarchies: physical strength and heroism replaced pure mysticism, giving rise to patriarchies, aristocracies, and the first wealth generated by plunder and slavery (pp. 149-152).

The figure of the king is born, historically, from a symbiosis between the military leader (dux) and the religious intercessor (rex). But the essential point is to understand that power carries with it, indelibly, the superstitious reverence of its ancestral origin, which explains the almost pathological passivity with which modern peoples accept State oppression. The idolatry of today's rulers is an irrational remnant of tribal fear in the face of the wielders of occult forces (pp. 140-141).

🐉 The Dialectic of Command and the Egoism of the Leviathan

The core of Jouvenel's thesis destroys the naive and liberal conception that the State is a mere passive "instrument" serving the common good. Power, taken in its pure state, is an end in itself, generated not by a rational consent of the masses, but by the egoistic instinct of domination (p. 173). Great nations were not born of "collective wills," but were forged by the coercive force of conquering hordes and militarized bands—the embryos of the modern State.

The State machinery was erected aiming at the taxation and submission of the people. However, as the author warns, power transitions from "parasitism to symbiosis" (p. 183). To guarantee its duration, it pretends (and sometimes believes) to act out of love for the people. It distributes justice, roads, and order to legitimize its constant assault on natural liberty. There is an ineradicable dualistic nature in power: on the one hand, it provides undeniable services; on the other, it is driven by an insatiable expansionist egoism. The more "socialist" the State claims to be to justify its intrusion, the more its egoistic core grows. "No power is maintained when it has lost its magical virtue" (p. 141), but none survives without incessantly feeding its own majesty, multiplying taxes and bureaucrats. The ideologue philosopher who dreams of utopian republics is, therefore, the tyrant's greatest ally, as he "furnishes power with the most effective justification for its growth" (p. 228).

🌪️ The State as a Permanent Revolution Against the Natural Order

Perhaps the most somber and traditionalist realization of the work is the role of the State as the perpetual aggressor of the social order. Jouvenel thoroughly demonstrates that political power views any and all organic authority—be it the father of the family, the feudal lord, the Church, or the employer's leadership—as an odious obstacle to its own expansion (pp. 260-261).

To concentrate all energies, obediences, and tributes within itself, the State acts as a subversive and revolutionary force against traditional hierarchy. Historically, it stealthily allies itself with the "plebs" and the discontented to dismantle intermediary bodies. By leveling the classes and crushing the aristocracy or the patriarchy, the State sells the illusion of democratic liberation, when, in reality, it is merely eliminating competition for dominion over men. The State is essentially a leveler "because it is the State" (p. 261).

The king in conflict with the people, the monarchy undermining feudalism to collect financial aids (p. 272), and the republic swallowing the patriarchal family and capitalist/employer authority—all are part of the same crushing advance. As a logical result, the final limit is reached: "social atomization," where no private bonds of dependence and charity remain among men, but only isolated and defenseless individuals under the yoke of the sole remaining suzerain, "state omnipotence" (pp. 280-281). When the State, exhausted and overflowing, finally collapses, it is dismembered by a new statocracy (its own bureaucracy), which inaugurates a new feudalism, until the infernal wheel of the thirst for power turns again.

📌 Conclusion

The analysis exposed in Du Pouvoir, when distilled to its ultimate historical and philosophical consequences, echoes a desperate outcry in the face of the bankruptcy of anthropocentric modernity. Bertrand de Jouvenel leaves us no room for sweet Rousseauian illusions. It becomes evident that the replacement of divine right—and, consequently, of the moral subjection of the State to the Church and to the natural order instituted by the Creator—with the demonic general will generated not an earthly paradise, but the ravenous Minotaur. Bureaucratization, mass enlistment, total war, and the revolutionary leveling of the family and the aristocracy prove that, by renouncing the wisdom and restraints of the Christian organic order, society plunged into the most absolute and unscrupulous tyranny ever recorded in the annals of civilization.

📚 References

JOUVENEL, Bertrand de. Du Pouvoir: Histoire naturelle de sa croissance. New ed. Paris: Hachette, 1972.

terça-feira, 17 de fevereiro de 2026

📜 Book: Lettere by Abbot Georges de Nantes

Based on the selected writings from the work Lettere by Abbot Georges de Nantes, published in 1969, this article presents a complete and analytical summary of the author's central ideas, from a critical and traditionalist perspective of the catholic faith.

⛪ The crisis in the post-conciliar church: an analysis of the rupture with tradition and the accusation of heresy in the writings of Georges de Nantes

This article aims to summarize and fully analyze the ideas contained in the work Lettere, by Abbot Georges de Nantes, according to the selection and presentation by Hilarius Volpe in the 1969 edition. The work constitutes a primordial document of traditionalist catholic resistance to the reforms originating from the second vatican council, tracing the path of a priest who, starting from an initial hope, reaches a radical denunciation of rupture, subversion, and heresy within the highest hierarchy of the church. The tone of the writings is vehemently critical, revealing the anguish of a soul that feels compelled, by fidelity to the church of always, to oppose what it perceives as a "new religion" imposed by the church of its time.

🕊️ From cautious hope to the realization of the great conflict

Initially, the abbot of Nantes welcomes the election of pope John XXIII and the summoning of the ecumenical council with a hope founded on faith. He recalls that, after the magisterial pontificate of Pius XII, "excellent doctor, light of the church" (de Nantes, 1969, p. 11), the election of a "transition" pope was the common prediction. However, he saw in John XXIII a pontiff of great sanctity, close to saint Pius X, and the announcement of the council emerges as a manifestation of the holy spirit to oppose the "divine unanimity of the church" (de Nantes, 1969, p. 13) to the "attraction that the compact block of soviet countries exerts over the peoples". His hope was that the council would serve to unmask and condemn the errors of naturalism, modernism, and progressivism, which were beginning "the crumbling of christian society" (de Nantes, 1969, p. 14).

This hope, however, quickly dissipates with the start of the conciliar work. In the first session, the author identifies a "great scontro of traditionalism and reformism" (de Nantes, 1969, p. 15). On one side, he positions the roman curia, personified by "true 'columns of the church', such as cardinals Ottaviani, Siri, and others" (de Nantes, 1969, p. 15), representing the party of tradition. On the other, he describes the French, German, Belgian, and Dutch episcopates as "the party of movement", committed to a "de-italianization of the church" (p. 15). Nantes' analysis points out that, although the criticisms of traditional forms were brilliant, the "new solutions advocated could not appear more dangerous or inconsistent" (p. 16).

The turning point in his analysis is the "message to all men", released by the conciliar fathers. De Nantes considers it a text of progressive inspiration, whose perspective is "earthly and natural" (p. 18), in flagrant contrast with the supernatural vision of the church. He criticizes the emphasis on building "a more just and more fraternal city" in this world, in collaboration with "all men of good will", without distinction of belief. For him, this represents the abandonment of the sovereign magisterium of the church, which intervenes in earthly things to "recall the law of god and show heaven" (p. 19), in favor of an assimilation into an "immense and wonderful socialist movement" (p. 19).

⚖️ The persecuted priest: fidelity as a crime

The personal trajectory of the abbot of Nantes becomes emblematic of the conflict he describes. In his letter titled "prete perduto" (lost priest), he narrates his forced removal from the parish of Villemaur. His misfortune, according to him, is due to his refusal to remain silent in the face of the great crises of his time. First, his opposition to General de Gaulle's policy in Algeria, which he qualified as "lie", "homicide", and "treason" (p. 40), and second, his increasing resistance to the "new spirit" rising in the church. Reading John XXIII's opening speech of the council on October 11, 1962, was a shock, as he perceived there a "spirit of blissful optimism and universal reform, quite contrary" to his convictions (p. 43).

He refuses to accept that the church should practice "aggiornamento" to conform to the "modern world". His vocation, he states, is "to recall the rights of god, to tell the truth, to speak for the weak and the innocent persecuted, even at the cost of our lives" (p. 23). In this struggle, he identifies a "mystification" (p. 44) and a "religious subversion" (p. 44) in progress, where a new theology, that of Teilhard de Chardin, and a new evolutionary morality are taught to justify a chain of crimes against faith and fatherland. His resistance is, therefore, an act of fidelity to the faith taught to him, to the morality of the decalogue, and to the catholic and French elite that sees itself trampled by a hierarchy that has surrendered to the revolutionary movement.

📜 The accusation of heresy and the rupture with tradition

The core of Georges de Nantes' criticism is that the second vatican council does not represent a development of tradition, but a mortal rupture with the infallible past of the church. In his text "funesto concilio" (fatal council), he argues that conciliar "reformism" introduces "a mortal contradiction between its infallible past and its fallible present: Teilhard in place of st. Thomas Aquinas" (p. 34). The inevitable consequence, for him, is the ruin of the church's own authority, for, "having disowned its tradition, it could no longer claim either the perpetual assistance of the holy spirit or its unique title as a revealed religion" (p. 34).

To ground this accusation, he cites the intellectual Étienne Borne, who openly stated that the passage from the syllabus to the new doctrine of religious freedom could not occur by a development from the implicit to the explicit, but only "through rupture and open negation" (p. 35). For de Nantes, vatican II positions itself as an anti-Gregory XVI, an anti-Pius IX, an anti-Pius X, and an anti-Pius XII (p. 35). The reform, therefore, is not an adaptation, but a revolution that changes the religion and makes the old one heretical.

This conviction leads him to directly accuse pope Paul VI of heresy. In his long and detailed letter to the supreme pontiff, he affirms the existence of two religions and two churches: "that of traditional dogmatics and that of modern pastoral care; that of catholicism and that of ecumenism; that of the worship of god in Jesus Christ and that of the worship of man in the world" (p. 109). He argues that the pope, by becoming a promoter of this "new religion", acts not as the 263rd successor of saint Peter, but as an innovator who founds a new community based on a "transcendent humanism" of masonic inspiration (p. 110). Recalling medieval theology, cited in the presentation of the work by Hilarius Volpe, he defends that a heretical pope loses his primacy ipso facto (p. 7-8), thus justifying his appeal to the clergy of Rome to proceed with the canonical deposition of Paul VI.

🏛️ The appeal to rome and the "sconfessione" (disavowal)

Faced with the sanctions imposed by his bishop, the abbot of Nantes decides to appeal to the judgment of the holy see. In his letter to cardinal Ottaviani, then pro-prefect of the holy office, he requests a doctrinal judgment on his writings, reaffirming his catholic faith and his submission to the legitimate magisterium. He does so, however, under a fundamental principle: "that the new doctrines and laws of the pope, the council, and our bishops must always be understood and accepted in the exact and exclusive measure in which they agree with the immutable doctrine and the constant norms of catholic tradition" (p. 74).

The process that follows, however, does not result in a doctrinal judgment, as he expected. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith, now under the prefecture of cardinal Šeper, demands that he sign a formula of retraction of his "errors" and his "grave accusations of heresy". He categorically refuses, arguing that such a formula requires a blind and unconditional submission to fallible "pastoral" acts, which he considers "exorbitant and visibly contrary to the doctrine of the faith" (p. 187-188). He reaffirms that he cannot, in conscience, retract the accusation of heresy against the pope, as classical catholic theology recognizes such a possibility and teaches that papa haereticus deponendus est (a heretical pope must be deposed) (p. 190).

The final result is a public "notification" from the congregation, in August 1969, which "disavows" him (sconfessa). The document states that, by rebelling against the magisterium, de Nantes "disqualifies the whole of his writings and his activities" (p. 211). Crucially, the notification does not impose formal canonical sanctions, such as excommunication. The abbot interprets this fact as a victory: "the conclusion of this ill-conducted process is, like the whole life of the current church, a double-entry" (p. 213). For him, pope Paul VI, as vicar of christ, could not condemn him for heresy, as his writings contained no doctrinal errors. However, pope Montini, as "pioneer of the aggiornamento", wanted to discredit him for his opposition to the reform. The absence of a formal condemnation is, for de Nantes, proof of the inability of reformist rome to refute the doctrine of eternal rome, and therefore, a tacit validation of his counter-reformation. He concludes that he is not a schismatic, but remains a "son of the church" (p. 194), faithful to tradition, even if persecuted by the revolutionary hierarchy.

📚 Reference

NANTES, Georges de. Lettere. Rome: Giovanni Volpe Editore, 1969.

📜 Indigenist Theology, Ecclesiastical Tribalism and the IV Revolution: Analysis of the Labaka Case

✝️ Canonical Recognition and Historical Context

In a projection dated May 22, 2025, the Vatican approved the decree recognizing the "offering of life" (oblatio vitae) of Bishop Alejandro Labaka and Sister Inés Arango, declaring them Venerable Servants of God. This act represents the first formal step in the beatification process, utilizing the canonical path introduced by Pope Francis in 2017. This category applies to acts of voluntary sacrifice for love of neighbor, accepting certain death, without the need to prove the traditional requirement of "hatred of the faith" (odium fidei) required for martyrdom proper. However, one observes here a symptom of the crisis that has penetrated the sanctuary itself, where doctrinal clarity gives way to pastoral formulas that sometimes obscure the distinction between the defense of Revealed Truth and humanitarian altruism. Such a phenomenon fits into the context of the "smoke of Satan" that has entered the temple of God, generating uncertainty and the auto-demolition of the Church (Oliveira, 1998).

Labaka, a Spanish Capuchin bishop, and Arango, a Colombian Capuchin tertiary religious, were killed on July 21, 1987, by members of the Tagaeri tribe in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The declared intention of the missionaries was to protect these isolated indigenous communities from the pressure of oil companies. The pontifical recognition emphasizes missionary dedication and sacrifice as an "offering of life," paving the way for beatification upon proof of a miracle.

🧐 Moral and Documentary Controversy: The Diaries of Labaka and the IV Revolution

However, the cause for beatification faces serious objections based on the analysis of the bishop's personal writings. Allegations of imprudent conduct incompatible with the clerical state arose in subsequent public discussions, based on Labaka's diaries. These documents reveal not only a personal deviation but the manifestation of a deeper phenomenon: the nascent IV Revolution. If the III Revolution was communism, the IV is the tribalist and structuralist revolution, which aims at the extinction of individual reflection and immersion in the tribal collectivity, marked by the disappearance of sartorial traditions and the return to life in the jungle (Oliveira, 1998).

Although there is no direct evidence of consummated sodomitic acts, the autograph texts mention interactions that denote, at the very least, reckless imprudence and moral ambiguity. The bishop describes the act of sleeping naked next to indigenous adolescents and the normalization of curious touches to his genitals by the natives. Such behavior, celebrated as "blessed nudism," confirms the prediction that the collapse of Western customs would lead to the appearance of habits where, at most, a feather belt would be tolerated. It is the hypertrophy of the senses and the abolition of modesty as a preparatory stage for the implementation of a structuralist-tribalist society (Oliveira, 1998). Such practices are the factual manifestation of a revolutionary process that operates at three depths: in tendencies (a sentimental sympathy for primitivism), in ideas (the theological justification for the violation of morals), and finally, in facts (concrete acts against virtue). Pride and sensuality, the driving passions of the Revolution, find their synthesis here: egalitarian pride that refuses the superiority of Christian culture over paganism, and liberal sensuality that tears down the barriers of moral law (Oliveira, 1998).

🌍 Indigenist Theology: Roots of a New Missiology and Ecclesiastical Tribalism

The theoretical foundation for such practices is found in Indigenist Theology, a branch of Liberation Theology developed in Latin America. It is a concrete application of what can be called "ecclesiastical tribalism." In this conception, the hierarchical and canonical structure of the Church, instituted by Our Lord, is dissolved into an amorphous tissue, where authority gives way to tribal "prophetism" (Oliveira, 1998). The goal was no longer the plantatio Ecclesiae and the conversion of souls, but the insertion of the "pastoral agent" into indigenous cultures.

This theology justified practices such as nudism and excessive physical intimacy adopted by missionaries like Labaka, viewing them as acts of "divestment" of Western colonialism. For Indigenist Theology, the missionary's nakedness would be a sacrament of equality; for perennial Catholic theology, it is a scandal. The Revolution, in its metamorphoses, uses the myth of the "noble savage" to promote a cultural revolution that denies abstraction and doctrine, favoring a "civilization of the image" and the senses, typical of the tribal state (Oliveira, 1998).

In the Amazonian context, the "preferential option for the poor" was translated as political defense. For Labaka, total immersion was necessary: he described the nudism of the Huaorani as a "natural morality like in Paradise before sin." This utopian vision is characteristic of the revolutionary spirit, which denies original sin in order to deny the need for Redemption and Christian civilization, proposing instead an anarchic and egalitarian chimera (Oliveira, 1998).

⚖️ Critical Analysis in Light of Traditional and Perennial Magisterium

From the perspective of traditional Catholicism, the Indigenist justification constitutes a grave doctrinal deviation. Tradition points out fundamental errors:

Denial of Original Sin and Absolute Morality: Nudism and permissiveness, even if culturally justified, objectively violate the virtue of chastity. The Revolution aims to destroy the moral order, and it does so by denying the very notion of sin. By exalting primitivism as innocence, the reality of fallen nature and the need for grace are denied, promoting a Pelagian optimism that serves the interests of subversion (Oliveira, 1998).

Abandonment of the Mandate of Conversion: Indigenist theology abandons the divine mandate to teach all nations. By refusing to transmit Catholic culture and morals, the missionary becomes an agent of the Revolution, collaborating in the maintenance of the state of barbarism and paganism, which is diametrically opposed to Christian civilization, which is order par excellence (Oliveira, 1998).

Syncretism and Indifferentism: The idea of entering "spiritually naked" to discover God in animist religions flirts with religious indifferentism. This attitude reflects the metaphysical hatred of all inequality and superiority, an essential characteristic of revolutionary pride. By leveling Truth with error, the ground is prepared for pantheism and the dominion of the preternatural, where "all the gods of the gentiles are devils" (Ps 95:5), opening the doors to the sinister influence of darkness over souls (Oliveira, 1998).

In short, analyses indicate that Indigenist Theology has profoundly influenced pastoral practice in the Amazon. However, from a traditional point of view, the case of Bishop Alejandro Labaka should not be seen merely as an example of human courage, but as a warning about the penetration of the IV Revolution into Catholic circles. We are facing a process that aims to transform the Church and society into a tribal agglomeration, without defined dogmas and without objective morality. The counter-revolutionary must, therefore, denounce this metamorphosis and fight for the restoration of hierarchical and sacral Christendom, the only barrier against tribalist chaos (Oliveira, 1998).

📚 References

Labaka, Alejandro. Crônica dos Huaorani. [Edição póstuma], Vicariato Apostólico de Aguarico.

Oliveira, Plinio Corrêa de. Revolução e Contra-Revolução. 4. ed. São Paulo: Artpress, 1998.

segunda-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2026

📜 The “Letter from beyond”, September 1937

The “Letter from beyond” transcribed below refers to the eternal damnation of a young girl. The original of this letter was found among the papers of a deceased Nun, who had been a friend of the condemned girl. In it, the Nun recounts the events in her companion’s life as if they were known and verified facts, as well as her eternal condemnation communicated in a dream. The Diocesan Curia of Trier (Germany) authorized its publication as highly instructive reading.

The "Letter from beyond" appeared for the first time in a book of revelations and prophecies, together with other narrations. It was Reverend Father Bernardino Krempel C.P., a doctor of theology, who published it separately and gave it greater authority by undertaking to show, in the notes, its absolute consistency with Catholic doctrine. Among the manuscripts left in her convent by a Nun, who in the world was called Clare, the following testimony was found.

✍️ Clare's account:

I had a friend, Anita. That is, we were quite close because we were neighbours and colleagues in the same office M. Later, Anita got married and I never saw her again. From the moment we met, there had been, deep down, more courtesy than actual friendship. Because of that, I felt her absence very little when, after her marriage she went to live in the elegant district of the villas, far from mine. During my holidays on Lake Garda (Italy), in September 1937, I received a letter from my mother in which she said: “Anita N died in a car accident. She was buried yesterday in Wald Friedhof”. The news shocked me. I knew that my friend had not been what you would call religious. Would she have been prepared to go before God? In what state would her sudden death have found her? The following day I heard Mass, I received Holy Communion with Anita in my intentions, in the sisters’ boarding house, where I was living. I prayed fervently for her eternal rest, and I offered my Holy Communion for that same intention.

During the whole day I experienced a certain uneasiness, which went on increasing in the evening. I slept restlessly. I woke up suddenly, hearing something like a jolt at my room door. I turned on the light. The clock showed ten minutes past twelve. There was nothing. No noises either. Only the sound of the waves of Lake Garda monotonously striking the garden wall of the boarding house. There was no wind. I had the feeling that on wakening up I would hear, as well as the knocking at the door, the noise of a breeze or the wind, similar to what my office manager produced when in a bad temper he would throw a letter which had annoyed him onto my desk in the office. I thought for a moment if I should get up. No! All of this is only my imagination, I told myself, upset by the news of the death. I turned over in the bed; prayed a few Our Fathers for the Holy Souls and fell asleep again.

I dreamt then that I got up in the morning, at 6 o’clock, and went to the Chapel. When I opened my room door, I found a number of sheets of paper. Picking them up, recognising Anita’s handwriting and screaming only took a second. Trembling, I held them in my hands. I have to confess that I was so terrified I couldn’t pray. I could hardly breathe. The best thing was to get away from there, to get outside. I got ready quickly, I put the letter into my bag and I got out straightaway. I went up the winding road between the olive trees, the laurels and the village farms. Daybreak was radiant. On previous days I stopped every hundred paces or so marvelling at the view of the lake and Garda Island. The gentle blue of the water refreshed me; like a child who looks in wonder at her grandfather, I gazed in wonder at the ashen-coloured Mount Baldo, rising on the opposite shore of the lake to an altitude of 2,200 metres. On that day I didn’t have eyes for all of that. After walking for a quarter of an hour, I dropped mechanically onto a bench which was situated between two cypresses, where the evening before I had enjoyed reading “The Maid Teresa”. For the first time I could see in the cypress trees the symbol of death, something I had not thought about before. I took the letter. It had no signature. Without the slightest doubt, it was written by Anita. The large ‘s’ was not lacking nor the French ‘t’ to which she had become accustomed in the office, to irritate Mr G. It was not her style. At least, that was not how she used to speak. The usual thing with her was pleasant conversation, laughter, underlined by her blue eyes and her congenial nose... It was only when we spoke about religious matters that she became mordant and adopted the rough tone of the letter. I myself feel engulfed by its agitated cadence. Here is the letter from beyond from Anita N, word for word, just as I read it in my dream.

✉️ The letter

Clare, do not pray for me, I am damned. If I give you this warning - what is more, I am going to speak to you at length on this - don’t think that I am doing it out of friendship. Those of us who are here no longer love anyone. I do it because I am forced to. It is part of the work “of that power that always wants evil and carries out good”. In reality, I would like to see you here, where I am now forever. Don’t be surprised about my intentions. Here, we all think like this. Our will is petrified in evil, that is to say, in what you consider to be “evil”. Even when I can do something “good” (such as I am doing now, opening your eyes to hell), I’m not doing so with upright intention. Do you remember? It was four years ago when we met, in M. You were 23 years old and had already been working in the office for six months previously, when I came in. Several times you got me out of trouble. Frequently you gave me good advice, which for me, as a beginner, was very useful. But, what is “good”? I wondered, at that time, about your “charity”. Ridiculous... Your helping me was pure ostentation, something which I have suspected since then. Here we do not recognize any good whatsoever in anyone. But since you knew me in my youth, it is now time to fill in a few gaps.

According to my parents’ plans, I should never have existed. Due to an oversight, the misfortune of my conception became a reality. My sisters were 14 and 16 years old when I came into the world. I wish I had never been born! I wish I could now annihilate myself, flee from the torments! There would be no pleasure comparable to that of ending my existence, just as a dress is reduced to ashes, without leaving a trace. But it is necessary for me to exist. It is necessary for me to be what I made of myself: the total failure of the purpose of my existence. When my parents, who were then single, moved from the countryside to the city, they lost contact with the Church. it was better that way. They kept up relations with people who were disconnected from religion. They met at a dance, and they were “forced” to get married six months later. At the marriage ceremony, they received only a few drops of holy water, sufficient to draw Mum to Sunday Mass a few times a year. She never really taught me to pray. All her efforts went into the daily household chores, although our situation was not bad.

Words like prayer, Mass, holy water, Church, I can only write them with inner repugnance, with incomparable revulsion. I profoundly hate those who go to church and, in general, all men and all things. Everything is torment. All knowledge received at death, every memory of life and what we know, becomes an incandescent flame. And all these memories show us the opportunities in which we despised a grace. This torments me so much! We don’t eat, we don’t sleep, we don’t walk on our feet. Spiritually chained, we reprobates contemplate our failed lives in despair, howling and gnashing our teeth, tormented and full of hate. Do you understand? Here we drink hatred like water. We hate each other. More than anything, we hate God. I want you to understand that. The blessed in Heaven have to love God, because they see Him without veil in his dazzling beauty. That makes them indescribably happy. We know that, and that knowledge infuriates us. Men on earth, who know God by Creation and Revelation, can love Him. But they are not obliged to do so. The believer - I am telling you this in fury - who meditates, contemplating Christ with his arms open on the cross, will end up loving Him. But the soul that God approaches, fulminating, as just avenger because one day He was rejected, which is what happened with us, that soul can only hate Him, as we hate Him. She hates Him with all the impetus of her ill will. She hates Him eternally because of the deliberate resolution to separate herself from God with which she terminated her earthly life. We cannot change this perverse will, nor would we ever want to change it. Do you understand now why hell is for all eternity? Because our obstinacy never melts, it never ends. And against my will I have to add that God is merciful, even with us. I say “against my will” because, even if I say these things voluntarily, I’m not allowed to lie which is what I would like to do. I leave a lot of information on paper against my wishes. I also have to stifle the avalanche of foul words that I would like to vomit. God was merciful with us because He did not permit us to pour out on the earth the evil that we would have wanted to do. If He had so permitted we would have increased our guilt and punishment far more. He made us die prematurely, as He did with me, or made attenuating circumstances intervene. God is merciful, because He does not force us to go any closer to Him than we are, in this remote infernal place. That lessens the torment. Every step closer to God would cause me greater affliction than what you would feel by taking another step closer to a bonfire.

I displeased you one day by telling you, during a walk, what my father said a few days before my Communion: “Enjoy your new dress Anita; the rest is nothing more than a sham”. I almost felt ashamed at your displeasure. Now I laugh at it. The only reasonable thing about all that comedy was that children were allowed to receive communion at the age of twelve. At that time I was already quite taken over by the pleasures of the world. Without any scruples, I left religious things aside. I did not take Holy Communion seriously. The new custom of allowing children to receive their first Communion at seven years of age infuriates us. We use all means to mock this, making believe that to receive communion there must be understanding. It is necessary for children to have committed some mortal sins. The white Host will be less harmful then, than if it is received while faith, hope and love, the fruits of baptism - I spit on all this - are still alive in the child’s heart. Do you remember me thinking like that when I was on earth?

I return to my father. He fought a lot with Mum. I rarely told you because I was ashamed. What a ridiculous thing shame is! Here, everything is the same. My parents no longer slept in the same room. I slept with Mum, Dad slept in the next room where he could come in at any hour of the night. He drank a lot and he spent our money. My sisters were working; they said that they needed their own money. Mum began to work. During the last year of her life, Dad struck her many times when she didn’t want to give him money. With me, he was always very gentle. One day I told you about a caprice that scandalized you. And what didn’t scandalize you about me? When I twice returned a pair of new shoes, because the shape of the heels wasn’t modern enough. On the night Dad died, as a result of a stroke, something happened which I never told you about, for fear of an unpleasant interpretation. Today, however, you should know about it. It is a memorable fact: for the first time, the spirit that torments me approached me. I was sleeping in Mum’s room. Her regular breathing meant that she was in a deep sleep. Then I heard someone say my name. An unknown voice murmured: “What will happen if your father dies?” I didn’t love Dad anymore, since he had begun to mistreat my mother. In actual fact, I loved absolutely no one: I was only grateful towards a few people who were kind to me. Love without the hope of retribution in this world is only found in souls who live in the state of grace. This was not my case. “He will certainly not die”, I answered the mysterious speaker. After a brief pause I heard the same question. “He will not die!”, I replied sharply. For the third time I was asked: “What will happen if your father dies?” At that moment I brought to mind the way my father often came home, half drunk, shouting, abusing my mother, embarrassing us in front of the neighbours. I then answered furiously: “Well, that’s what he deserves. Let him die!” Afterwards everything was silent. The following morning when Mum went to tidy Dad’s room, she found the door locked. At midday they opened it by force. Dad, partially dressed, was dead on top of the bed. On going for beer in the cellar he must have suffered a fatal crisis. He had been ill for a good while. (Did God let it depend on the will of his daughter, with whom the man had been kindly, for him to obtain more time and the opportunity to convert?)

Marta K and you got me to join the Youth Association. I never concealed from you that I considered the instructions of the two directors, the Misses X, to be far too “parochial”. The games were fairly enjoyable. As you know, in a short while I came to have a leading role there. That is what I liked. I also liked the excursions. I even let myself confess and receive Communion a few times. To tell you the truth, I didn’t have anything to confess. Thoughts and words didn’t mean anything to me. And I wasn’t mature enough for any other more offensive acts. One day you admonished me: “Anna, if you don’t pray more you will be lost.” In actual fact I prayed very little, and the little that I did, I did with displeasure, unwillingly. Doubtlessly you were right. Those who burn in hell either did not pray, or prayed little. Prayer is the first step towards reaching God. It is the decisive step. Especially prayer to the One who is the Mother of Christ whose name we may not even pronounce. Devotion to Her snatches innumerable souls away from the devil, souls whose sins would have infallibly thrown them into his hands.

I am continuing with fury, because I am forced to do it, although I can’t bear this any more, from so much fury. Praying is the easiest thing that you can do on the earth. And precisely because it is so easy, God makes our salvation depend on it. Little by little, God gives light to those who persevere in prayer, and He strengthens them in such a way that even the most hardened sinner can recover, even though they are sunk in the mire up to the neck. During the last years of my life I didn’t pray anymore at all, depriving myself of the graces, without which no one can be saved. Here we do not receive any kind of grace and even if we did receive any we would scornfully reject it. All the vacillations of earthly existence end in this other life. On earth, man can go from the state of sin to the state of grace. From grace, he can fall into sin. Often I fell out of weakness; few times out of wickedness. With death, each one enters a final, fixed and unalterable state. As one advances in age, changes become more difficult. It is true that one has time up until death to unite with God or turn their back to Him. However, as though drawn along by the current, before the final transit, with the last vestiges of his will weakened, man behaves according to the habits of his whole life. The habit, good or bad, becomes a second nature. This is what drags him down at the supreme moment. And so it happened with me. I lived entire years separated from God. As a consequence, at the last call of grace, I decided against God. The fatality was not having sinned frequently, but that I didn’t want to rise up anymore. You often invited me to attend sermons or to read pious books. My habitual excuses were that I didn’t have time. Did I perhaps want to increase my interior doubts?

Finally, I have to give testimony to the following: when I reached this critical point, shortly before leaving the youth Association, it would have been very difficult for me to change course. I felt unsure and miserable. But a brick wall was being erected in front of my conversion. You didn’t suspect how serious it was. You believed that the solution was so simple that one day you said to me: “You have to make a good confession, Anita, and everything will be normal again”. I realized that this would be so. But the world, the devil and the flesh, kept me firmly grasped in their clutches. I never believed in the devil’s influence. Now I bear witness that the devil acts powerfully on people who are in the situation that I found myself in at that time. Only a lot of prayer, my own and the prayer of others, together with sacrifices and sufferings, could have rescued me. And even with that, little by little. Although there are few people possessed in body, innumerable are those who are possessed internally by the devil. The devil cannot take free will away from those who give themselves up to his influence. But as a punishment for their almost complete apostasy, God permits the “evil one” to nest in them. I also hate the devil. However, I like him, because he tries to ruin all of you: he and his minions, the angels who fell with him at the beginning of time. There are millions of them, roaming around the earth, innumerable, like swarms of flies; you don’t see them. It is not up to us reprobates to tempt: that is the responsibility of the fallen spirits. Every time they drag a new soul to the depths of hell their torments increase even more. But, hatred is capable of anything!

Although I was walking a tortuous path, God sought me. I was preparing the way for grace, with acts of natural charity which I did many times because of the inclination of my temperament. Sometimes, God attracted me to a church. And there I felt a certain nostalgia. When I was looking after my sick mother, in spite of my work in the office during the day, making a real sacrifice, God’s attractions acted powerfully. Once I went into the Chapel in the hospital where you took me during the break at midday. I was so impressed, that I was just one step away from conversion. I was crying. But at once the pleasures of the world appeared, poured out like a torrent on top of the grace. The thorns strangled the wheat. With the explanation that religion is sentimentality, as they always said in the office, I rejected this grace as well, like all the others. On another occasion you drew my attention to the fact that instead of a genuflection to the ground I only made a very slight nod with the head. You thought that I was doing this out of laziness, without suspecting that, by then, I had already ceased to believe in the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Now I believe, although only materially, such as one believes in a storm, the effects and signs of which can be seen.

In the meanwhile I had created my own religion. I liked the general opinion in the office, that after death the soul will come back to this world in another being, reincarnating successively, without ever reaching an end. With this, the distressing problem of the afterlife was resolved. I felt that it no longer troubled me. Why did you not remind me of the parable of the rich man, Epulon, and the poor man, Lazarus, in which the narrator, Christ, sent one to hell after death and the other to Heaven? But what would you have achieved? Not much more than you achieved with all your other holy speeches. Little by little I was making a god: with sufficient attributes to be called that. Far enough away from me, so that he couldn’t force me to have any kind of connections with him. Sufficiently hazy, so as to be able to transform him at will. So without changing religion, I could imagine him as the pantheistic god of the world or think of him, poetically, as a solitary god. This “god” did not have heaven to reward me, nor hell to frighten me. I left him in peace. And that was what my worship consisted of. It’s easy to believe what pleases us. With the passing of years, I was more persuaded about my religion. I could live well there without any bother. Only one thing could have broken my self-sufficiency: a profound and prolonged pain. But that suffering did not come. Do you understand now the meaning of “God punishes those whom He loves?”

One Sunday in July, the youth Association organized a walk in A. I liked the outings, but not the insipid discussions and other pieties. Another image, very different from that of Our Lady of Graces of A., had already taken its place on the altar of my heart. It was the distinguished Max from the warehouse next door. We had already enjoyed pleasant conversation, several times. Precisely that Sunday, he invited me to go for a walk. The other girl, with whom he usually went out, was sick in hospital. He understood that I was looking at him a lot. But I wasn’t thinking of getting married yet. His economic situation was very good but he was also too friendly with all the other young girls. At that time I wanted a man to belong to me exclusively, as the only woman. I always kept a certain natural education. During this walk Max showered me with kindness. Our conversations, of course, were not about the lives of saints like yours. On the following day, in the office you scolded me for not having gone on the Association walk. When I told you about how I enjoyed Sunday your first question was: “Did you hear Mass?” Silly! How could we have gone to Mass if we went out at 6 in the morning? I remember that, very annoyed, I said to you: “The good God is not as petty as the priests are”. Now I must confess that God, in spite of his infinite goodness, considers everything much more seriously than all the Priests put together.

After this first walk with Max, I only went once more to the Association during the Christmas celebrations. Some things appealed to me. But internally, I had already separated from all of you. The dances, the cinema and the walks continued. At times we fought together but I knew how to hold on to him. I hated my rival a lot, who, coming out of hospital, became furious. Actually that was to my advantage. The distinguished calm which I displayed produced a great impression on Max, who inclined definitively towards me. I found a way to belittle her. I expressed myself calmly: externally with objective realities, but internally vomiting gall. Those feelings and attitudes quickly lead to hell. They are diabolic, in the strict sense of the word. Why am I telling you all this? To explain to you that this is how I definitively turned away from God. In reality, Max and I didn’t often reach the extremes of familiarity. I realized that I would cheapen myself in his eyes if I give him full freedom ahead of time. That is why I was able to control myself. Actually, I was always prepared for what I considered to be to my advantage. I had to conquer Max. For that, no price was too high. We gradually came to love each other, because we both had very good qualities which we mutually appreciated. I was resourceful, efficient, and of pleasant character. I held onto Max firmly and I managed at least during the last months before our marriage to be the only one who possessed him. That was what my apostasy consisted of: in making a god out of a creature. In nothing else is apostasy more fully realized than in the love of a person of the opposite sex, when that love is drowned in the material. That is its enchantment, its sting and its poison. The “adoration” which I had for Max became my religion.

At that time, in the office, I virulently attacked priests, the faithful, indulgences, the Rosary and the other stupidities. You tried with a certain intelligence to defend everything that I attacked, although perhaps without suspecting that in actual fact the problem was not in those things. What I was looking for was a foothold. I still needed one to rationally justify my apostasy. I was rebelling against God. You didn’t realize it. You thought that I was still a Catholic. On the other hand I wanted to be called such; I even paid the contribution for worship. Because a little “insurance” doesn’t do any harm. It is possible that your answers at times hit the mark. But they didn’t reach me, because I didn’t agree with you. Because our relationship was based on falseness, our separation, due to my marriage, caused me little sorrow. Before getting married, I confessed and I received Communion once more. It was a formality. My husband thought the same thing. If it was a formality, why not fulfil it? You say that such a Communion is “unworthy”. Well, after that “unworthy” Communion, I achieved a certain calm in my conscience. That Communion was the last.

Our married life went ahead, in general, in harmony. In almost all points we were of the same opinion. And also in this: we did not want to be burdened with children. Well, in actual fact, my husband wanted to have just one, naturally. Finally, I managed to get him to give up on that desire. What I liked most were the dresses, the luxurious furniture, the worldly gatherings, the car trips and other distractions. One year of pleasure passed by between my marriage and my sudden death. Every Sunday we would go out for a trip in the car or visit my husband’s relatives. I was ashamed of my mother. Those relatives were prominent in social life, the same as we were. But interiorly, however, I was never happy. There was something undetermined which was gnawing at me. My desire was that, at the hour of death - which was doubtless a long way away - everything would end. It happened exactly as I had heard as a child, during a talk: God rewards in this world every good work that is done. If He does not reward it in the next life, He does so on earth. Unexpectedly, I received an inheritance from aunt Lote. My husband was fortunate to see his income significantly increased. And so I was able to comfortably set up a new home. My religion was dying, like a twilight glow in a distant firmament. The bars in the city, the hotels and the restaurants through which we passed on our journeys, did not bring us closer to God. All those who frequented them were living like us: from the outside in, not from the inside out. If during our holiday travels we visited a famous cathedral, we would try to distract ourselves with the artistic value of the lovely masterpieces. The religious sentiments which they radiated - especially the medieval churches - I would neutralize them, criticizing the lay brother who guided us; I would criticize his negligence in hygiene, I would criticize the commerce by the pious monks who made and sold liquor, I would criticize the eternal ringing of bells calling people to the sacred offices, saying that their only purpose was to make money…

And so that was how I managed to turn grace aside, every time that it called me. I especially discharged my bad humour before some paintings from the Middle Ages representing Hell in books, cemeteries and other places. There the devil was roasting souls on a red and yellow fire, while his companions with long tails, were bringing him more victims. Clare, hell can be drawn, but never exaggerated! I always used to mock the fire of hell. Remember a conversation during which I put a lighted match below your nose, asking you: “Does it smell like that?” You put the flame out immediately. Here, no one can do that. I tell you something else: the fire of which the Bible speaks is not the torment of conscience. Fire is fire! It should be interpreted to the letter when He said: “Depart from me, accursed of my Father, go to the everlasting fire”. To the letter! And how can a spirit be touched by material fire? You will ask. How can your soul suffer, on earth, if you put your finger into a flame? Your soul itself doesn’t burn, but at the same time the whole individual suffers the pain. In the same way, we who are here are spiritual prisoners of the fire of our being and of our faculties. Our soul lacks the agility which would be natural to it; we cannot think nor love what we would want to.

Don’t be surprised at my words. It is a mystery contrary to the laws of material nature: the fire of hell burns without consuming. Our greatest torment is in knowing that we will never see God. How can this torment us so much, if on earth we were indifferent to it? While the knife is on the table, it does not make an impression on you. You see the blade, but you do not feel it. But if the knife enters your flesh, you will scream in pain. Now, we feel the loss of God. Before we only thought about it. All souls do not suffer the same. The greater the wickedness, the greater the frivolity and stubbornness, so much more the loss of God will weigh on the damned, so much more will they be suffocated by the creature of which they made abuse. Catholics who damn themselves suffer more than those from other religions, because, in general, they received and wasted more lights and greater graces. Those who had greater knowledge suffer more bitterly than those who had less. The one who sinned through wickedness suffers more than the one who fell through weakness. But no one suffers more than they deserve. Oh, if this were not true, I would have a reason to hate.

One day you said to me: no one goes to hell without knowing it. That would have been revealed to a Saint. I was laughing at that while I took refuge in this thought: “if that’s the case, I will always have enough time to pull back”. That revelation is exactly right. Before my sudden death, it is true that I did not know hell as it is. No human being knows that. But I was fully aware of something: “If you die, I said to myself, you will enter eternity like an arrow, directly against God; you will have to bear the consequences”. As I told you I did not turn back. I persevered in the same direction, dragged along by habit, as happens to men the older they become.

My death occurred like this: A week ago - I speak according to the way you count time, because if I were to calculate by my pain, I could have been burning in hell for ten years - my husband and I went out on another Sunday excursion which was the last one for me. It was a radiantly sunny day. I felt very well, as on rare occasions. However, a sinister foreboding was creeping over me. Unexpectedly, on the journey home my husband and I were blinded by the headlights of an oncoming car at high speed. Max lost control of the vehicle. Jesus! It escaped from my lips, not as a prayer but as a cry. I felt a crushing pain: compared with my torment now, it was a trifle. Then I lost consciousness. How strange! That very morning, without explanation, this thought came into my mind. “For once, you could go to Mass”. It was like a plea. A clear and decisive “no!” put a stop to that idea. “I have to finish with those things for good”. That is to say, I took on all the consequences. Now I bear them. You know what happened after my death. The plight of my husband, of my mother, what occurred with my body, my burial. I know by the natural intuition we have; all of us who are here. Of the rest of what happens in the world we have a confused knowledge. We know what refers to us. Therefore I see the place where you live.

I awoke suddenly at the moment of my death. I found myself enveloped in a blinding light. It was the same place where my body had fallen. It happened just like in the theatre, when they turn out the lights in the room, the curtain raises and a tragically illuminated scene appears. The scene of my life. As in a mirror, my soul showed itself. I saw the graces despised and trampled on, from my youth until the last “no” before God. I felt like a murderer being taken to court to see the lifeless victim. Repent? Never! Shame? Never! However, I could not remain under the gaze of God whom I rejected. I had only one way out: to take flight. So just as Cain fled from Abel’s corpse, so my soul sought to flee far from that vision of horror.

This was the particular judgment. The invisible judge spoke: “Depart from me”.

Immediately my soul, like a yellow sulphur shadow, fell headlong into the eternal torment.

🌅 Clare’s epilogue

So ended Anita’s letter on Hell. The last words were almost illegible because the letters were so twisted. When I finished reading the last line, the letter turned into ashes. What was I hearing? In the midst of the harsh terms of the words which I imagined I had read the sweet ringing of a bell sounded. I woke up immediately. I was asleep. I was in bed in my room. The morning light was coming in through the window. The chiming of the Hail Marys was coming from the parish Church. Had it all been a dream? I had never felt such consolation from the Angelus as I felt after that dream. I said the prayers slowly. Then I understood: The Blessed Mother of Our Lord wants to defend you. Venerate Mary filially, if you do not want to have the destiny which she told you of - although in a dream - a soul that will never see God. Trembling still by the night time vision, I got up, dressed quickly and hurried to the Chapel of the house. My heart was pounding. The guests who were closest were looking at me with concern. Perhaps they thought that I was agitated for having run down the stairs. A kindly lady from Budapest, a sacrificed soul, small as a child, short-sighted, though fervent in the service of God and of great spiritual penetration, said to me that evening in the garden: “Miss, Our Lord does not want to be served in agitation”. But she could see that something else had agitated me and was still worrying me. She added kindly: “Let nothing disturb you - you know Saint Teresa’s counsel - Let nothing alarm you. Everything passes. Whoever has God lacks nothing. God alone suffices”. While she was whispering this without taking on a magisterial attitude, she seemed to be reading my soul. “God alone suffices”. Yes, He has to be enough for me in this world or in the next. I want to possess Him there one day, whatever sacrifices I have to make here to overcome. I do not want to fall into hell.