Modernism as the cause of Rwanda masacre

April 5, 1995

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

What was the real story behind the appalling massacre in Rwanda, Central Africa, last year, of some half a million people? A fascinating and well-argued answer is circulating amongst friends of ours in France, and that answer is: modernism, or democratism, in the Catholic Church. Theology is not just theory — Exam errors in theology flow torrents of blood!

The answer just mentioned does need to be backed with arguments because it violates principles cherished by many people today, which includes devout Catholics, as to how society should be run. This letter is too brief to do more than just outline those arguments, but let Catholics see here that outline, because if they can then take the fullness of the arguments on trust, they will the better grasp the nature firstly of modernism, which concerns us all, and secondly of the problem in Rwanda, which may flare up again.

In brief, God makes different men with widely differing natures, for instance some natural leaders, many natural followers, so that by men's different gifts completing and complementing one another, all men may together make up a harmonious society on earth and the communion of saints in Heaven.

This is the crucial principle of common sense as of Catholicism which was violated in Rwanda by egalitarian and democratist modernism, with catastrophic consequences. However, since the principle so offends against the notion of equality between men widely held today, let us immediately turn to St. Pius X for an authoritative statement made at the outset of his papacy in a Motu Proprio of December 18, 1903: -

"I. Human society, as established by God, is made up of unequal elements; to make them equal is impossible and would be the very ruination of society.

"II. The equality between various members of society consists solely and exclusively in the fact that all men originate from God, have been redeemed by Christ, and must, according to the exact measure of their merits and demerits, be judged, and rewarded or punished, by God.

"III. Consequently, it is in conformity with the order established by God that there should be in society rulers and subjects, employers and workers, men educated and uneducated, an upper class and a lower class, all of whom united in the bonds of love are to help one another to achieve their final destiny in Heaven, and their material and moral well-being on earth."

Such a land-mark statement of principle, behind which Pius X put his full "apostolic authority", would no doubt today be widely dismissed as "elitism" or "racism", or, more subtly, as "mixing religion and politics", because it crashes into modern ideas of human equality. For instance, does not the venerated Constitution of the leading republic of our age exclude all "Titles of Nobility" (I,9,10) from the republic being constituted? Yet does that republic not now have, sure enough, its ruling upper class, better known as the East Coast Liberal Establishment? And is not the problem with this ruling class not its existence but its liberalism?

Likewise in the little "country of a thousand hills" of Rwanda, lost in the centre of Africa until the first white man arrived in 1894: for some eight centuries prior to his arrival the minority pastoral Tutsis had peacefully ruled the majority agricultural Hutus because as a tribe the Tutsis had the natural gifts to do so, and they had been wise enough on the whole not to misuse those gifts.

Nor was this natural order disturbed when Catholicism arrived soon after with Belgian missionaries teaching the true religion in the wake of the first World War, in fact Tutsis and Hutus who speak the same language mingled happily in the weeks-long celebrations to commemorate in 1933 the consecration of their joint land to Christ the King by the Tutsi King Mutara III.

The troubles only came when modernism on a large scale began to contaminate Catholics in Europe between the wars: man is God; so man, not Christ, is king; so all men are king, so one man must have one vote. As this democratism spread to Rwanda, so the Hutus were progressively indoctrinated by their clergy and leaders with the insufferability of their undemocratic status as one tribe ruled by another over which they enjoyed numerically a three-to-one majority. Moreover, from 1939 to 1945 did not the whites give a spectacle to the whole world of shedding torrents of blood in the name of "Crusade for Democracy"? Democracy is obviously sacred! Bloodshed between the blacks became inevitable.

The first wholesale slaughter of Tutsis took place in 1963; from 1973 on has followed a series of mutual blood-baths between Hutu and Tutsi culminating, not necessarily terminating, in the horror of the half million dead last year.

Well, let us assume this analysis is correct. Let us assume that egalitarian democratism, whereby all men are sovereign and therefore equal, is a deadly virus in human society. How did that virus manage to get inside the Catholic Church in Europe between the wars, especially when Pius X (1903-1914) had been so recently condemning it, as above? Fascinating question. Answer, Pius XI who was Pope for most of those inter-war years, 1922-1939, was no Pius X. Thus in 1925 Pius XI issued an Encyclical magnificent in theory on the social kingship of Christ the King ("Quas Primas"), but then in practice, the very next year, in an action speaking (as usual) louder than his words, he went on to proclaim, surely unwittingly, the social kingship of man by condemning the vanguard anti-democratists of "Action Francaise".

At that time clear Catholic minds (e.g. Cardinal Billot) saw and said that the Pope's left hand was knocking down what his right words were building up, that his course of action despite its appearance of spirituality was heading the Church for disaster, but such warnings were drowned beneath the chorus of "devout" Catholics protesting that the Pope can do no wrong, that democracy is not such a bad thing, that "Action Francaise" was fascist, etc., etc., in which protestations these "devout" Catholics found to their surprise and delight that the world and the media were for once on their side! Just as at Vatican II! No doubt the world was at last being converted!

Alas, alas.

One of Pius XII's first actions as successor of Pius XI in 1939 was to lift the condemnation of "Action Francaise" — could he also do no wrong?? — but it was too late. Democratist thinking was by then well established inside the Church in France and Europe, from where it spread to Rwanda with the results we have seen.

At this point some of you readers may again be suspicious that the Society of St Pius X (or at least one of its bishops) has a hidden political agenda, fascist and anti-American into the bargain. Let us once more assure any such readers that we have no interest in politics except as manifesting religious problems; that we put no trust in fascism, at its best mere anti-communism, to solve those problems, and that we have nothing against America as America, on the contrary, the problem is liberalism, disguised as politics but in fact an anti-religion, in fact the anti-religion.

Dear friends, this anti-religion is on the point of bringing the house down, both Church and world, around our ears. The time is past for tinkering, or for "going my way" with the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. It may just be that more souls could be saved at that time by disowning the principles of "action Francaise", but no longer! 1995 demands the whole truth about the past. A man cannot be blamed if his foresight is not 20/20, but he is an ostrich if he wants less than 20/20 hindsight. The time is over for "devout" Catholicism!

Pray. Pray the Rosary. Pray the Rosary every day. The Mother of Cod can still obtain our salvation from her divine Son, and she will obtain it if we pray her Holy Rosary. And remember Winona's Doctrinal Session for men from July 25 to 29, where the thinking of the Society of St. Pius X is proved to be not fascist but papal!

And may God bless you and all your families.

Sincerely yours in Christ,