The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century


N° 118 – June 2012

Director : Brother Bruno Bonnet‑Eymard


« In order to win over peoples and prevent them from returning to the Christian political order, democracy has been established as a veritable religion, a perfect ideal. Today, this fact is obvious to everyone: democracy is THE Good. No other legitimate regime can be conceived.

« As a new theory of political power – and soon of all human power – modern democracy effectively declares itself to be “the government of the people by the people.” It is the sovereign people who designate, under whatever form it may be, those whom they wish to be their leaders. It is they who delegate to them their powers for this purpose, according to the conditions and within the limits that they are pleased to decree, in such a way that they never cease to govern themselves absolutely. Modern democracy’s first principle is the affirmation of the people’s sovereignty, entire, universal and inalienable.

« 1. Such a theory and its application are essentially anti-religious and anti-national. It implies a permanent and integral revolution, since it makes all truth, authority, public order, the private freedom of persons, and even the very secrets of their conscience, depend no longer on God and the Church, nor even on political and social authorities of natural right and of divine right, but on man! Or rather, on the crowd, on the mass of men, and on their arbitrary wills, which are counted up and – for want of an impossible unanimity – decreed as the general Will of the majority against the minorities. All the while there is the expectation that a party – and its leader – will present itself as the infallible incarnation of the popular will.

« 2. Every way of reconciling the real exercise of political authority with the democratic delegation of power to those who govern has been tried in France since 1789. Under no matter what regime, we are presented with the contradiction of authority which is exercised from the top downwards, as one over many, and of democracy which wants at all costs to delegate from the bottom upwards, as the sovereign crowd to its appointees, the rulers. Such a contradiction produces a shock between two forces, conventionally called right and left, each armed with its own principles, mental reservations, accusations, and religious and metaphysical implications.

« “Every Protestant was a pope, with a bible under his arm” » (Boileau). Every citizen is a king, with the Declaration of the Rights of Man in his hand. In either case, the result is a perpetual agitation caused by the conflict of ideas, the clash of interests, personal ambitions, and corruptive foreign influences and pressures. It must truly be a diabolical ferment that controls an entire people for so long, and today the whole world, in its adoration of democracy, a regime of opinion. For is there anything more absurd and more abject? There is no doubt that the strength of democracy lies in the disordered self-love of modern man, who wishes and imagines himself to be his own master, king and god, but does not tolerate that other men should claim as much as he does. » (Point 66)


Georges de Nantes called them « the four clients of the big madam ».

« All democratic countries are governed by their own representatives who, under the impressive title of “national representation”, do not represent the nation’s higher convictions or permanent interests, but merely the opinions, desires and interests that unite the various parties. Whatever their name or the play of the coalitions, they can be classified according to these four categories:

« 1. The extreme left represents the will of integral democracy, revolutionary at the present time, making a clean slate of the past, and anarchic for the future. Its strength is to incarnate and to impose on all the logic of the system, to the point of folly, without any baulking at the consequences. Such, in our democratic assemblies, was the Communist Party. Such are today Trotskyist parties, anti-globalisation activists or certain ecological groups and green parties.

« 2. The left represents the popular will, resolutely and religiously democratic, but smitten with justice and equality, and very concerned to see its sacred liberty organised in an ideal way! It trusts the Republican state to moderate any arbitrary desires of the people and to make their wishes, the Will of the people, coincide with the interests of the nation, reconciling disorder with order and democracy with state authority. Such is Socialism, whose false position is plain for all to see, but it is reassuring for a public opinion that has little inclination for grandiose, disastrous and bloody revolutionary adventures.

« 3. The right represents a will that is more conservative than revolutionary, more oligarchic than democratic. It is realist! It places above the popular will the conservation of order, the safeguarding of the material and spiritual benefits compromised by the Revolution. Democratic in its approach to power, the right is authoritarian when in government and, in times of crisis, readily caesarean. Democratic but authoritarian, liberal but conservative, the right wants the country to govern itself, the better to dominate it according to its own interests.

« With time, in our old democratic countries, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon world, the two major parties that are alternately in power no longer offer very marked differences. They are the well-established legal country, and they share the power and its emoluments between themselves. To distinguish them, they are called the centre left and the centre right! Nevertheless, the term ‘ right ’, which is associated with conservatism or authoritarianism, reappears during each electoral campaign in order to condemn the centre right or the conservative party.

« 4. The extreme right wishes the reality of being, truth and goodness to prevail over the whims of men and for the nation to be out of reach of the revolution. Although democratically elected, its representatives constitute, in everything they stand for, the total contradiction of democracy. Their presence in democratic assemblies is endured but never accepted. They are excluded on the mental level and, at the first possible opportunity, on the physical level as well, being regarded as reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. The Phalangist would necessarily be of the extreme right. He, however, deplores the sight of integral Catholic nationalism figuring as a party and as an opinion, when it is the only expression of the country’s common good and tradition.

« Nowadays, this extreme right is virtually inexistent. The term only designates small groups of atheist and racist Nietzschean ideology, especially small populist parties that claim to defend the national identity. They take advantage of economical crises and social tensions to increase their popularity that also depends largely on the charismatic personality of their leader; their existence is tolerated, sometimes even boosted by one of the other parties in order to act as a foil in the electoral game. » (Point 67)


« What an interesting game it is! What excitement and a never-ending succession of dramas the life of a democratic society has to offer! The entire people take an active part in it, forming parties to represent their most cherished convictions and choosing from among the programmes of the candidates that which best corresponds to their ideas and desires. In Parliament everything is openly discussed in clear and magnificent speeches, so that the people can see how they are governed and in the name of which principles and interests major decisions of state are taken. If Parliament should commit some wrong, the government is immediately challenged, the administration is overturned, and fresh consultations automatically allow a new, wiser and more just, administration to be formed. Believe it if you like…

« 1. The irresistible evolution of democratic life, as can be clearly demonstrated, leads from the lofty debate of ideas to sordid rivalries of interest, from great national and international politics to the politics of capitalist and trade union pressure groups. The people, whose ideas were supposed to find expression, are transformed through demagogic party competition into an amorphous mass that expresses nothing more than their immediate needs, their desires and passions.

« 2. The irresistible evolution of the parties leads them from their ostensible claim to represent the nation and to govern it according to its convictions, its sovereign interests and choices, to the necessity of selling themselves to the foreigner. “The Republic is the reign of the foreigner” (Charles Maurras).

« All parties – and this was already true of the parties of our old feudal wars and of our wars of religion – can only win decisively over the others by having recourse to foreign money and weapons. Communist ideology draws on the gold of the Urals, Nazism was supported by the German army, the Entente cordiale was maintained by the Bank of London, Europe by the American dollar. So much for history, as for current events, it is the interests of the great international capitalism, of globalisation, of multinationals such as energetic or food-processing consortiums that actually control the important political decisions of our elected members.

« 3. The irresistible evolution of the democratic State leads it from a lofty ideal of public security to an abject servitude under the thumb of the very worst. To begin with, the new power promises to govern virtuously by being incorruptible and generous: the “Republique dure et pure”! A democratic government, however, cannot take on unpopularity. If it imposes rigour on the one side, it has to bring in compensating facilities on the other. As the parties aspiring to power freely outbid one another for popularity, so the party in power is obliged to flatter the passions of the majority and finally to fall to the level of the Roman Lower Empire: Panem et Circenses, which is where we are now. Bread and games. When a people has reached that point, barbarity is not far off and ready to commit massacre. » (Point 68)


« 1. Democracy is a form of servitude. The people are declared to be sovereign, but so little are they the masters that they are not allowed to renounce this supposed sovereignty and hand it back to whom it belongs by right, to God, to the king, to a providential leader. Having been handed over to democracy, the people cannot free themselves from it! Which is a certain proof that this sovereignty is nothing but a sham. Those who ensure that it is perpetuated are the people’s new lords, the occult profiteers of a regime which works so well for them, that they will not permit it to be changed.

« 2. This regime of liberty demands, in effect, an electoral mechanism. Those who hold the key to this mechanism are the masters of a power that is apparently popular but in reality oligarchic. Now, who is able to direct, channel and finally appropriate the tumultuous torrent of democratic opinion? Only those who can create parties, assemble leading public figures, present candidates, control the press, create mass movements, hold gatherings, organise street demonstrations… The only ones who can do these things are those with money, who invest it in this electoral industry, convinced that they can thereby make an excellent deal by dominating the State, occupying every place and systematically bleeding the national patrimony. Plutocracy buys up the men of the press and the men of parliament; it gets its candidates elected and then proceeds to govern in the name of the sovereign people for its own exclusive profit.

« 3. Above the people now levelled down, atomised, and shorn of their natural leaders, there soon struts a minority of no respectable name or address called “the ruling class” or “the political class”, heedless of the scandalously anti-democratic character of the term and of the thing itself. This class enjoys a power more absolute than was ever that of the absolute monarchy of the kings of France or even of the supreme sovereignty of the popes of Rome. Its cunning is to have itself freely elected by a people whom it has intoxicated and then to decree everything in the name of this same people, hailing it as Sovereign!

« 4. This demonstration has been taken from Charles Maurras, and it dates from 1900. The « four confederated states » that share out among themselves the country’s power and revenue, the immovable plutocracy that profits from all the misfortunes of our Christian peoples, are the organised minorities: Jewish, Masonic, Protestant and Metic, or stateless. Such minorities can live harmoniously in a strong well-organised Catholic nation, but when they find themselves emancipated in a democracy, how could they not be tempted to use their all-purchasing money to appropriate a power that is up for sale? » (Point 69)


Charles Maurras perfectly demonstrated that « democracy is the evil, democracy is the death » of our Catholic nations particularly. Nevertheless, they were able to subsist under this regime for a long time, thanks to solid acquisition of virtue, order and wealth. In countries where this was deficient, for example in the Third World countries, democracy after decolonisation immediately brought about the ruin of what little existed.

« In our rich countries, on the contrary, democracy was able to settle in and prosper. Ruin and anarchy, which come about in stages and are subject to recoveries, take time in our countries. Today, before the reality of facts: the general impoverishment of our societies, budget austerity measures, the increase in bankruptcies, the failure of social policies and of national education, one can shut one’s eyes and blame ill luck or misadventure, but democracy alone is the cause of all the evil. The longer the re-awakening, the harder it will be, and the more painful the restoration.

« In the meanwhile, every democracy owes its duration to a centrist majority, a union of liberal capitalism and bureaucratic socialism. The bond between this conservative right and this moderate left is “the centre”, this fringe of the electorate whose vote tips the scales sometimes in favour of one party, sometimes in favour of the other. This real republican power, the decisive complement of all majorities, the arbiter of the situation, is Freemasonry that holds and wields it.

« 1. The conservative right manages society to its own advantage, in a small time way, with no coherent foreign policy, no financial stability, no social or family doctrine, and no overall ecological, educative or spiritual plan. It commercialises everything; industrialises and thinks of nothing but the increased growth of national productivity. Making money, having fun and very few children.

« It regains power when the coffers are empty, because its bourgeois administration allows it to contract fresh debts by still further borrowing in order to stimulate the economy. It proceeds amidst scandal, pillaging people’s savings. It stays in power by brandishing the bogey of waste or revolution and thus justifies its radical irreligion, its immoralism, and its total lack of foresight and nationalist determination.

« 2. The socialist left succeeds it in accordance with the law of the pendulum, the so-called democratic alternation. It opposes this dreary materialism with a show of idealism and militant ardour. It makes itself a programme of Justice and Freedom. Freedom is in danger! Anti-clericalism is a rallying cry that is brought into play when its political positions are threatened.

« Justice, likewise invoked, authorises socialist governments to develop controls over political, economic, educative and social activities, and so to centralise and bring everything under state control, supervising everything by means of an excessive, pernickety, paralysing and parasitical administration, the personnel of which are recruited from the ranks of the socialist militants. The minor war between employers and trade unions conceals another, the major war, which these two devouring monsters – in secret agreement – wage against that which only the legitimist and extreme right remains to defend: the nation’s moral and religious patrimony, the country’s security, its diplomacy and social peace, the independence of the magistrature, order, rural life, family vitality, the savings of the bourgeoisie, and the protection of the weak. In short, the real country. » (Point 70)


« In the last century, Charles Maurras demonstrated that a country, even a rich and wise one, cannot for long be placed in danger of war and invasion, in a situation of religious and social civil war, of being plundered and put up for sale, and of bureaucratic and administrative subjection, without dying from it, or else rebelling, rising up and overthrowing the Republic! “From Demos to Caesar”. It is then that dictatorship comes on the scene. There are several varieties of it. Only one is good, the dictatorship of national security; all the rest are false or catastrophic.

« 1. False dictatorships call themselves democratic but are secretly plutocratic. When the regime is far too compromised, there is the likelihood of a great popular, military or religious movement sweeping the place clean and restoring a nationalist regime. More often than not the great bank will take the initiative and choose its own “providential man”, whose party it will finance and whose coup d’état it will aid. In exchange for supporting the dictatorship it will obtain the consideration of positions gained and fortunes made. Such dictatorships normally cost the nation very dearly, from Bonaparte to Charles de Gaulle, or else they degrade and weaken her, from Napoleon III to Thiers and to Giscard. It is a proven fact that they contribute handsomely to the banking and industrial oligarchies as well as to the republican personnel who are strangely spared.

« These false dictatorships are exposed to the whims of the opinions that Money subsidises. Their fall is as troublesome as their rise.

« 2. Revolutionary dictatorships call themselves democratic, and, in order to be truly so, they are totalitarian. No democratic republic can stand up to a revolution armed from abroad, just as no bank can withstand the submachine guns it has not paid for.

« Such has been the communist seizure of power in twenty countries of the world. Here indeed is the capital crime of high treason committed by our bourgeois democracies which, with open eyes lead the nations they degrade and plunder to this hell, to this Gulag without hope. It matters little whether their doctrine is dialectical materialism or racism, Muslim fanaticism or the cult of a divinised dictator. Whether half or wholly mad, dictatorship leads to the annihilation of all religion, civilisation and social peace, and to human savagery – today scientific and absolute.

« 3. Nowadays, another phenomenon is added to Maurras’ analysis. Our peoples are brainwashed by democracy to the point that it cannot be challenged by anything. Instead of inciting them to reject democracy, the succession of financial scandals, the negligence of governments, and the deception of social promises lead people to claim even more of it, thus plunging them into anarchy. The objective of democracy can no longer be defined as the search for the general interest by the representatives of the people, since they are completely discredited. It is defined as the dogged defence of individual rights, without any consideration of political, international or economical realities. To be a democrat amounts to to claiming freedom of expression, a job for everyone, social allowances, etc… Public debates open to everyone must be multiplied and internet is their ideal chat room.

« Democracy ultimately leads society to the complete destruction of social and political order. It provokes both economical ruin and a return to barbarism, from which only a “divine surprise” could save us through a public security dictatorship. » (Point 71)


« Revolution is a scourge. It is consolidated by caesarean dictatorships. The democratic idea, however, eternalises it. Throughout all their wars, anarchies, tyrannies, declines and spectacular recoveries, the democratic idea enslaves or re-enslaves the peoples to the worst oligarchies, and thereby leads them on to still further catastrophes.

« 1. Then why do the peoples hold on to the democratic idea? Because the men of the Church have chained them to it. First we had the compromise made by the Sulpician Émery with Napoleon, which led to the Concordat of 1801 and its organic Articles, enslaving the Church to a totalitarian power. Then there were the enthusiasms of Lamennais, Lacordaire and Montalembert, who dreamed of marrying God and Liberty, the Church and the Revolution, and who called for “a free Church in a free State”, meaning a State without God, the democratic state (1830-1870). After that there was Leo XIII, who constrained the legitimists to go over to the antisocial, anti-national, anti-clerical, Masonic, Jewish State (referred to in French as the act of “Ralliement” – translator’s note), and who accepted the idea of social “democracy”, thereby opening the path to democrat priests and to the Sillon of Marc Sangnier, all of whom would preach an integral democracy, both political and religious, in opposition to Saint Pius X’s luminous condemnations of it (1910).

« Then we had Pius XI coming to the rescue of the hard-pressed anticlerical Republic by his scandalous excommunication of the Catholics of Action française for the crime of royalism (1926). There was the French episcopate rushing into the servitude of the civil war’s tripartism and forswearing their oath of fidelity to Marshal Pétain in order to return to their democratic enthusiasms (1944). (Point 72)

It was on 1 July, feast of the Precious Blood of Our Lord, that De Gaulle, the perjured Christian, surrendered French Algeria to the Muslim assassin with Pope John XXIII’s blessing and the active complicity of Msgr. Duval, the Archbishop of Algiers.


(April-July, 1962)

The referendum that was to decide Algeria’s future took place on 8 April… but only in metropolitan France, where a landslide majority of votes in favour of the Evian Accords 1 was now ensured. As for Algeria itself, de Gaulle would only called on it to pronounce itself on its own fate on 1 July… when the independence that metropolitan France had voted to accept had become an irreversible fact. In fact, the FLN 2 had had all the necessary time and means to take firmly charge of the whole of the Muslim population through threatens, terror and the dazzling demonstration of its imminent victory.

The result of the vote of 8 April affords an illustration of the falsehood and homicide that are connatural to democracy. The comparison of figures speaks for itself: in September 1958, since the French were still moved by the enthusiasm aroused by the strong national reaction that had been manifested in Algiers on 13 May, 66 % of them had cast an aye in favour of French Algeria, whereas 17.4 % composed almost exclusively of communists had voted “no”. On 8 April 1962, de Gaulle finally obtained the reversal that he desired: more than 46 % of the French added their votes to those of the communists (18.5 %). The result was a majority of 64.8 % in favour of independent and Islamo-Marxist Algeria.

Thus, still in the name of democracy and through democratic methods, de Gaulle achieved his ends after four years of false promises and betrayals, Machiavellian ploys, purges and crimes: in the name of the sovereign people, he handed this French province over to the fellaghas. He did this in defiance of the fact that four years before, the people of Algeria had mandated him – by a majority of 96 % of the votes – to keep it a part of France.


On 13 April, the military High Court condemned to death General Jouhaud, General Salan’s assistant at the helm the OAS. 3

In the meanwhile, the FLN, which gave no heed to the Evian Accords’ ceasefire that only served to disarm our harkis, multiplied its acts of violence. Let us quote one example: on 15 April, three young French conscripts were attacked. When they were found, they had their throats slit, were disembowelled and had their heads crushed with stone blocks… Dozens of victims could be counted every day. The press, however, which had received orders, never reported these crimes. This did not prevent the government from releasing two hundred rebels from the prison of Fresnes on 22 April. Among them was the killer, Yacef Saadi, who had been condemned to death several times and reprieved with the head of the FLN, Ben Chérif. All these murderers were sent back to Algeria where they strengthen the groups of outlaws and partook in the fight against the OAS and French opposition.

On 20 April, Good Friday, General Salan was arrested in Algiers. From then on, the last glimmer of hope was extinguished. The OAS, which had already been totally infiltrated for several months by secret government police agents and agitators in the pay of the authorities, was unrestrainedly handed over to leaders – like Susini – who were suspect, to say the least; they advocated the use of revolutionary methods. They soon attempted to conclude an impossible and dishonourable agreement between the oas and the fln, in order, at last, to embark on a mad scorched earth policy…

At the beginning of May, the kidnappings of Europeans or pro-French Muslims were increasingly numerous. In the week of 7 to 14 May, fifty-two persons including two priests were reported missing in the Algiers region alone. The exodus also intensified: around one thousand five hundred persons were already taking the plane to metropolitan France every day, while, in harbours, ships were being assailed by thousands of pieds-noirs who were fleeing their country.

On 5 July, Pope John XXIII’s message was made public:

« Oh! How we trembled these last years, particularly these last months, at the thought of very dear Algeria. Recent events invite us to thoughts of confidence: our most cordial wishes go with these populations. They have to deal with the important task of studying the constitutional charter while the voice of their young liberty resounds throughout the world, where they are establishing normal and fructuous relationships with the various peoples of the earth. As for Us, We will continue to pray that courageous wisdom, moderating prudence, justice and equity may prevail in every decision. »

On 7 July, the French press reported that Fr. Robert Davezies, who was accused of having actively supported the fln and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in January 1962, was granted a remission of his sentence and regained freedom. On the other hand, the day before, at Fort d’Ivry Lieutenant Degueldre was executed by a firing squad for having defended French Algeria. He had been sentenced to death by the Military Court of Justice, a scandalously illegal special tribunal. De Gaulle had refused to grant him a pardon. As for Fr. Davezies, he would be found a few years later in the revolutionary resistance in Angola!

On that same day, Msgr. Duval, the Archbishop of Algiers received a telegram from the Pope, the text of which was immediately published in the press:

« On the occasion of the proclamation of Algerian independence, the Sovereign Pontiff formulates fervent wishes of prosperity for the new State, hoping and praying for the harmonious collaboration of the various communities, which is encouraged with so much zeal by your Excellency. His Holiness invokes whole-heartedly on all the inhabitants of the Algerian land the abundant blessings of Almighty God. »

In the same newspapers of 7 July – how significant this happenstance is! – other articles relate… the profanation of the cathedral of Algiers.

« Algiers, on 6 July. This morning, towards 7:45 AM, around eight hundred Muslims, among whom there were many women who uttered these cries: “ you-you ”, burst into the cathedral of Algiers, on which an Algerian flag had been hoisted the day before. » An arm of the statue of Joan of Arc was broken, Msgr. Jacquier’s armorial bearings were thrown to the ground, Msgr. Duval’s throne was moved and the public address system destroyed. An imam ascended the pulpit to harangue the masses. The choir was invaded and the tabernacle opened…

Archbishop Duval found that quite normal; a curate of the cathedral, who witnessed the scene, said to the press: « They did not plunder anything. They were curious, they wanted to see with their hands [sic!]. They did not have bad intentions. A non-commissioned officer from the ATO ( a police brigade formed of Muslims who were recruited since May 1962 to replace the French military hierarchy that de Gaulle was withdrawing from Algeria ) who ascended the pulpit [following the imam] even spoke very highly of Archbishop Duval. »

On 9 July, in a speech to pilgrims of the Diocese of Metz, John XXIII praised France for her attitude towards her former colonies. Among other benefits:

« France made them aware of the rights and duties that the great human family grants to all peoples for the development of each of them. The past guarantees the future. Bearing in mind the events of these last months, this is what inspires Us thoughts which, despite everything, are full of trust and optimism . » (Catholic Documentation, of 2 September 1962)


From 19 March on, the day of signature of the Évian Accords, hundreds of them were arrested, dreadfully tortured and massacred by the troops of the “Armée de Libération Nationale” [National Liberation Army]. « Some were crucified on doors, with eyes gouged out, nose cut off, tongue torn out and were systematically emasculated. Others were torn to pieces alive with tongs, stoned, scalded, bound hand and foot and thrown into blazing infernos before horrified populations that had been gathered together. » (Camille Brière, “ Ceux qu’on appelle les Pieds-Noirs ”, p. 186)

In order to stop these savage reprisals, which were obviously foreseeable on a massive scale after independence, French officers tried to organise the repatriation of their harkis. The Gaullist government, however, was opposed to it:

« Official telegram n° 125/igaa/16 Mai 1962. Minister of State asks High Commissioner to recall that all individual initiatives aimed at settling French Muslims in France are strictly forbidden. Inform urgently all SAS leaders. » The SAS(Specialised Administrative Sections) were responsible for the defence, the material and moral support of the threatened Muslim populations.

This directive of the Minister, Louis Joxe, was immediately implemented… On 23 May 1962, according to Le Figaro :

« Some time ago, around sixty harkis, who arrived in Marseille, were turned away and sent back to Algeria because their papers were not in order. Yesterday fifty-five harkis and their families from the region of Palestra, were also turned away on their arrival in Marseilles. »

In Algeria also instructions had been given by the government to limit as much as possible the number of people that would be welcomed and protected by the army. As for the others, they were turned away in order not to displease the new masters.

On 21 May, a mass grave containing thirteen bodies of Europeans, who had been dreadfully mutilated by the FLN, was discovered at Hussein-Dey, near Algiers. On 29, another one containing thirty-five corpses was found at Bouzaréa. Then, several others were exhumed again in June.

The awful reprisals taken by the FLN against the former soldiers of France starting in mid-July, during the whole summer and autumn 1962, began to resemble a veritable genocide. The press of that time spoke of 10,000 victims. In reality, about 2 000 harkis were massacred after savage tortures in each of Algeria’s seventy-two districts, that is to say a total of around 150,000 victims: « According to a document of theMinistry of Defence of 21 April 1977, out of 200,000 back-up soldiers who had been recruited in Algeria, 150,000 were considered missing or executed”. »

The moving chapter in Bachaga Boualam’s book, “Les harkis au service de la France”, in which countless testimonies are quoted, is must reading. They are alas as dreadful as incontestable! They report the tragic end of these unfortunate people who had chosen France.

Before the Evian Accords, de Gaulle did not want to respond to Algeria’s deputies who assured him that Muslims were attached to the French-Algerian cause.

« When questions embarrassed de Gaulle, Bachaga Boualam reports, he did not answer. Alas! All that I could tell him, all that others like me could also tell him, was pointless. »

When they ask him with anxiety what they themselves, their harkis and their populations faithful to France would become in an Algeria handed over to the Fellaghas, he showed unbelievable cynicism. Let us once again quote Bachaga Boualam:

« To my colleague of the House of Representatives, Larradji, also a Muslim, who told him: But we are going to suffer, Mr. President! He replied: Well! You will suffer!” » (“Mon Pays la France”, éd. France-Empire, 1962).

Here are some examples chosen from amongst a thousand, taken from the appendix that Lucie Santini devoted to the “Martyre des harkis”, in “Les Sacrifiés”:

« We know that a camp of harkis who are prisoners of the ALN is established near Nemours (France). A special court is responsible for judging them. The supreme sanction is called “death in two stages”: the condemned man is brought to the front of the troops. He has his eyes gouged out and his arms cut off. If he survives these mutilations, he has his throat slit. The former harkis and village leaders of the region of Beni-Hamdoune (commune of Tayerbout) had their lips and nose cut off before being exhibited in neighbouring douars. Three Muslim officers (Bendida, Ligate et Habid), who all belonged to the Georges commando, had their throats slit. They were put in cauldrons and taken to douars, near Saïda. Laïchi Salah, a sergeant in the ccas of the 151 infantry regiment, was cudgelled to death and then dismembered. Seventy-four harkis of the region of Guelma were murdered around 15 July.

« Ournader Abdelkader, a sergeant of the Fedj-M’zala harka was abducted by civilians towards 10 August. Taken to the village square , he was “flayed alive” with tongs. He died three days later. His brother, Hocine, was subjected to the same death. His father, a disabled ex serviceman and officer of the Legion of Honour, who worked as rural policeman, met the same fate. As for the harki Belkacem, a former tirailleur of the French army, lawmen came to apprehend him at Bordj-Ménaïel where he was on the point of departure for France. The last time Belkacem was seen, he had the eyelids sewed shut!

« The famous Georges commando numbered 200 harkis, only 12 of whom survived because they had been repatriated to France. The other 188 were torn to pieces and thrown into cauldrons of boiling water. The honour of wearing Military Crosses and Crosses of Military Merit, which France awarded to the quasi totality of the 30 moghaznis of the sas of Lamartine, a small town situated in the area of Orléansville, cost them their lives », etc.


In the first months of 1962, French newpapers were teeming with episcopal speeches entirely directed against the acts of violence committed by the defenders of French Algeria. During the whole summer and the last months of the year, however, we vainly try to find one episcopal text that expresses the slightest protestation, the least disavowal of the systematic massacre our harkis. After having hypocritically condemned « violence from any source whatever », through their declaration of 13 October 1961, our bishops did not utter a single word of commiseration concerning the tragic fate of these poor people.

Msgr. Duval, the Archbishop of Algiers, made the following declaration in a press release of 25 July:

« A few weeks ago, there was every hope that, in the joy of its recent liberty and according to the possibilities that were given to Algeria, the country would rapidly proceed toward a future of peace and prosperity [sic!].If today certain regions set an example of tranquillity and orderly work [?], others, on the contrary, are the scenes of acts of violence that nothing can justify: kidnappings, exactions of all sorts, even the tombs where the dead rest are sometimes [sic! In fact, the list of desecrated cemeteries and profaned churches is spectacular] profaned. There are many [?] Christians who have accepted… to commit their future to the new Algeria… Now, I see them on the verge of despair. »

Besides the appalling blindness that led the Archbishop of Algiers to imagine that, after the departure of the French, the country, which had been handed over to the Muslim and pro-Marxist Fellaghas, would obviously be a paradise, how can we fail to see how much his charity is peculiarly selective? Clearly, Archbishop Duval only thought about his Christian progressivist friends, to which the new masters did not show the thoughtfulness that their good services deserved. These men wanted « to serve the new Algeria » but « on condition that their dignity be respected ». Archbishop Duval went so far as to claim this respect for them… The Archbishop of Algiers, however, did not even find one word to address to the tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who had been persecuted and massacred for their faithful service of France. They did not exist for him. Moreover, a few weeks later, he resumed his office of servile propagandist of the new regime. Having forget the kidnappings, murders, profanations and violent acts of all sorts that continued to be committed every day, on 30 August 1962, Archbishop Duval guaranteed to all those who wanted to go to Algeria that « Muslims observed the respect for individuals as well as for Catholicism and for Catholic institutions and organisations. »


Soon, more than 800,000 of the baptised were forced to leave St. Augustine’s country. During the months following independence, more than four hundred churches would be closed. These sacred edifices where holy Mass had been celebrated, where Jesus the Host had been present and worshiped, where the Blessed Virgin and saints had been honoured and where generations of Christians had prayed, were deconsecrated. Often, after having suffered dreadful profanations, these hundreds of churches were transformed into mosques – as were the cathedrals in Algiers, Constantine and Cherchell, etc. –, into Koranic schools, health centres or gymnasiums, cinemas, or even brothels or public latrines.

Archbishop Duval, however, did not cease to be very pleased with the excellent situation of the Church in the new Algeria. Admittedly, he granted, « the major trial for the Church was the departure of nine-tenths of her members »… Aside from that, everything was going very well:

« In Algeria, relations between Church and State are good. In Algeria, the Church, as she ought, did not choose to be foreign, but Algerian. For their part, public authorities give proof of a benevolence for which we are grateful… »

« The fate of Christianity is not bound to that of the French flag in Algeria any more than it is elsewhere », headlined the front page of the issue of “ Informations catholiques internationales ” published on 1 July 1962 to celebrate independence.

Well! A few weeks, a few months later, events had – once again! – sorely belied this slogan of anticolonialist propaganda and flagrantly demonstrated that it is the opposite that is true: the future of the Church, her survival and prosperity in Algeria as well as everywhere else in our former colonies were indissociable from the French presence and protection, on which they depend entirely. However much Archbishop Duval and his progressivist friends declared their calm satisfaction at and pride in their work, Algeria’s Christianity was dead and it was they who had killed it by criminally siding with the Muslim rebels who were manipulated by Moscow, against Catholic, pacifying, civilising and missionary France.

A priest in France saved honour. His Letters to My Friends and sermons contrast with many episcopal or pontifical declarations that we cannot reread fifty years later without feeling ashamed. When we consider these two series of opposing documents in the light of the dreadful tragedy that the Christians of the Middle East live out today, we realise that neither series have lost any of its topicality.

1 July 1962:
Sermon of Fr. de Nantes,
Parish Priest of Villemaur,
for the feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord

« “Te ergo, quæsumus, tuis famulis subveni, quos pretioso sanguine redemisti ; We beseech You, Lord, to come to the help of Your children whom You have redeemed by Your Precious Blood.” »

« My Dear Brethren,

« Although today is the feast of the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, it is something, alas, that scarcely moves us. The reason for this is as disturbing as the fact itself. Never have Christians and civilised people been so indifferent to bloodshed as they are in our time, and I am thinking of blood shed for our own defence and salvation. No doubt, the radio, the newspapers and demonstrations for this and that cry out against every act of violence, every assassination indiscriminately. It is precisely this absence of discrimination, however, that is so disturbing and alarming. Are we to put on the same level the martyr, the innocent victim, the soldier fighting for his country and assassins, bandits, criminals of every sort who are rightly opposed and condemned in our law courts? Worse still, the latter seem to find more sympathetic defenders than the former. There are few who lament for the parish priest of Birmandreis; or rather, as long as he was held to be a victim of the OAS, his name made the headlines in the papers; then total silence fell on him when there was good reason to believe that he had been killed in hatred of the Faith. It is testimonies of people from Oran who informed me of the kidnapping, the disappearance of my friend, the priest of Rio-Salado, because instructions to remain silent forbade speaking about it. Actually, one only speaks of what is in line with one’s own politics and blood only has the right to cry out for vengeance against the enemies of our tranquillity.

« Do not say that we loath bloodshed at a time when we vociferously demand a new judgment for the general [Salan] who is the most decorated of France, so that at last the law does its duty that consists – in order to satisfy us – in sending him to death!

« Admittedly, what we want is that blood no longer flows and that we no longer be bothered with all these stories of war, of fights. In fact, when we turn the knob of the radio, we say: “This does not concern us”, even if it means being ungrateful towards those who have given their life for us. I will not fear to say – ah! My brethren, you will forgive me for this frankness that aims at eradicating our guilty egoism – that if one million pieds-noirs were to drown like rats when crossing the Mediterranean,, we would be relieved to think that we now no longer need to share our house or our work with them.

« Such is now our state of mind, or rather here is how our minds have been warped! So, the Blood shed by Jesus Christ to gain our eternal salvation nineteen hundred years ago, is hardly likely to move us if we are indifferent to that of our brethren near at hand today.

« And yet, my brethren, the Blood shed, from the days of Cain and Abel, is sacred in the eyes of God. It still cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

« And so I shall remind you today of the three memorable principles dominating the history of human societies: contempt for the field of honour has always led peoples to slavery and to death; if there are no more innocent victims to go out to meet death and to offer their blood, it is the multitudes that will be struck; finally, indifference towards the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ leads Christians, quite rightly, to damnation. These principles are so clear and obvious that, to cut things short, I shall not linger over proving them. Rather, I prefer to develop the positive truths that must direct our effort.

« 1° Firstly, let us rekindle in our hearts the memory and cult of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed in reparation for our crimes. This devotion keeps souls in a state of baptismal innocence, for they are so moved by it that they never, at any price, want to be the direct, brutal and odious cause of so many wounds inflicted on the divine Body of Jesus Christ. They already know that they have all too criminally shared in humanity’s common fault and they are moved by compassion to carry their Saviour’s Cross themselves. This devotion also allows the sinner to benefit from God’s magnanimous forgiveness; in this way he can pass from the camp of the persecutors to the family of the Victim, to the society of God’s children, washed in the Blood of the Lamb, to taste the joys of divine Love, at the very moment when he deserved the weight of His Wrath.

« 2° This devotion, dear brethren, cannot but go together with a heartfelt and fervent devotion for the blood of the martyrs of our cause. Nor can we avoid feeling intense emotion at the sight of so many innocent dead among our fellow citizens and brethren in the Faith. Our gratitude and admiration should perpetuate the memory of those who have gone where the danger was greatest and whose sacrifice enables us to live in tranquillity. Ah! my brethren, I find it intolerable to see their graves spat upon.

« For they are the martyrs and the soldiers of our cause, and this is something I must insist on. We can wash our hands and say that Verdun, Sedan, Dien-Bien-Phu and Algiers have nothing to do with us, but in so saying we dishonour ourselves and divest our existence of all dignity. Those who live in peace around here should know that they are but one with the Church of the martyrs and with fighting France. For those of us who are far from danger, it is our pride and our nobility to make this bloodshed our own and to recognise its merit and its rights over us.

« 3° Does this mean that we should all leave for battle and offer ourselves to be martyrs? No, of course not. History teaches us that human egoism is in part legitimate, and that societies would be hard put to find a large number of heroes and saints. That is perhaps, after all, the secret of the life and death of nations. The fact that the Church has lived through the ages and that France herself has spanned the centuries, bearing the Gospel at the same time as civilisation to the ends of the earth, is due to this brilliant cohort of heroes and saints which has always been found in both. The best have always understood the words of Jesus, King of Martyrs and of Confessors: “Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for those whom he loves.” Let us understand this and, fostering this ideal of generosity in our families and in our parishes, let us not stifle such vocations when they appear in the generous hearts of some of our children. These children will be the guarantors of our peace tomorrow.

« Let us Conclude, Dear Brethren: The Apostle Saint Paul tells us expressly: “There is no remission of sins without shedding of blood.” There will be no profound peace except in a return to devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. There will be no social harmony except in the memory of those who have died for us. There will be no salvation in these threatening times in which we live unless the best of our children devote themselves to those fearsome but noble tasks where one gives, where one risks one’s life.

« You may tell me: “Then slaughter will always exist?” I answer you: “Here below is the place of Cain’s crime and of the shedding of the blood of the righteous. Peace will be given in Heaven. Do not seek on earth this lost paradise by disowning yourself and your brethren. Share the sacrifice of your neighbour, be grateful beneficiaries, be fervent disciples and you will enter the abode of Peace with the One Who has opened its doors at the price of His Precious Blood and Who will recognise you as His brethren.”

« Amen! »


The Second Vatican Council’s Opening Address, which was delivered on 11 October 1962 by Pope John XXIII, revealed that such preaching was now quite out of place in the Church. For the closing of the Council, on 7 December 1965, « Paul VI proclaimed and celebrated the cult of man in the Temple of God, St. Peter’s basilica in Rome, the heart of Christendom, the source of the unity of the Catholic priesthood now become the source of the confusion of tongues and of the political apostasy of the Church (1965)! There was also John Paul II whose apostolic journeys raised the defence of the dignity of every man to the rank of the foremost evangelical virtue. On the other hand, his encyclicals instilled the principles of the Wojtylian gnosis into the Church fabric. It is now Benedict XVI whose “hermeneutic of the continuity” aims at reconciling the Enlightenment of the philosophers and the truths of the Faith that are reduced to evangelical values.

« 2. A political science that would draw on the lessons of past experience, what Maurras called organisational empiricism, would suffice a hundredfold to make the nations abjure the mad and cruel dogmas of democracy, at least when they are struck by the misfortunes that democracy attracts and provokes. The nations would escape from this infernal cycle if the Church were to preach them a different kind of politics, if she were to remind them that political perfection and legitimacy cannot come from below or from the anarchic multitude, but must come from God, that they can only be exercised in the name of Christ and must reach their maturity in the fullness of the Holy Spirit through the establishment and extension of Christendom, which is God’s work in the world.

« But no! Avid to please the people by exalting liberty, to please individuals by preaching them their rights rather than their duties, and still more avid to please the rich and powerful, the men of the Church no longer dare to fight for God against the Revolution. From compromise to betrayal, they end up hand in glove with democracy, scandalously and inconsiderately making themselves the enemies of God’s glory and their brethren’s salvation! » (Point 72)


« 1. Our Lady warned us at Fatima, on 13 July 1917: “Several nations will be annihilated.” This is what weare witnessing in a process that is accelerating as our nations forget that they were born of a profound and powerful religious sentiment and as the break with the Christian principles whereby they were constituted.

« As a result of Communism’s wars of conquest, the establishment of large interstate coalitions or the armed fight against dictatorships, entire nations are disappearing from the map. Unless they lose all vitality to merge into vaster groups, preludes to globalisation.

« 2. Yet, the national consciousness remains so strongly rooted in peoples that very often revolutionaries were obliged to exploit it in order to achieve their ends! Today, however, as people are disillusioned, they are sensitive to the memory of their more peaceful and happier past that lingers despite an incessant slanderous propaganda. It could give rise to a reaction.

« Nevertheless, the ideals of the revolution are so wide-spread and considered everywhere as the Good, the Truth that today every nationalist reaction would be hampered by it and thus doomed to failure. In fact, how is it possible to save a nation if people remain attached to democracy that divide and to the Rights of man that consolidate individualism.

« 3. The lesson of history and the teaching of the Church coincide: « Christendom is a single Body whose Head is Christ and whose soul or vital principle is the Holy Spirit. There has never been anything greater in history. In future there will never be anything better than this Body which, step by step, is to win over the whole of mankind... Every true science, every happy art and every progress are part of this movement. If we do not want this Messianic Kingdom of Christ, then we shall have Satan’s monolithic imperialism, which together with the Masonic Republic and Socialist Democracy leads the rebellious world against its Lord and into the Communist slavery of atheistic materialism. That is the message of Fatima. Either Jesus or Hell, in this world and the next! The hell of the present world is the image of that to come! All bad politics came from an ideological and practical infidelity to the Total Christ, to Christianity. All good politics will be born anew in minds freed from the pseudo-Christian utopia and rendered to the service of the true Christian world. » (Point 73)


1) Evian Accords : agreements made between the French Government and the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic in Évian-les-Bains, in March 1962.
The negotiations that opened on May 20, 1961 in Évian were, on the French side, accompanied with the most liberal measures: the transfer of the terrorist leader Ben Bella and the criminals imprisoned with him to Turquant castle, the liberation of six thousand prisoners and above all, in Algeria, the unilateral interruption of offensive military actions. The new commander-in-chief, General Ailleret, a technician rather than an officer familiar with the battlefield, was charged with planning the French military withdrawal. In the month of June, the main body of the paratroopers had regained metropolitan France.
For its part, the A.L.N. (the terrorist National Liberation Army) was careful not to observe the truce. Rebel bands re-formed with complete impunity. Most of the time they exploited the desertions that the obviously ineluctable outcome of the war encouraged. This resulted in an increase in terrorism, as they struck recalcitrant Europeans or Muslims without discrimination.
In Évian, the conference was suspended on 13 June, since the envoys of the FLN were making extravagant demands.
In fact, it was an uneven contest ever since Paris showed that it was more eager than the Provisional Government to put an end to the conflict. This was already signalled when in the previous March the Provisional Government signed, a “protocol of cooperation” with the USSR, which prepared the Sovietisation of Algeria and the Maghreb. The talks thus resumed on 20 July but once again failed over the question of the Sahara and its rich mineral resources that the FLN coveted.
On September 5, de Gaulle made concessions and recognised that the Sahara would be part of the new Algeria.

2) The FLN “Front de libération nationale” (National Liberation Front) was a movement that came into being in the spring of 1954 when from twenty-two activists decided to leave the Special Organisation, the terrorist branch of Messali Hadj’s Marxist movement: the Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Liberties to proclaim themselves the historical leaders of the FLN. The Front inherited from the Special Organisation its revolutionary character and its method: terror. It always excluded Communists to avoid having to submit to them, but nevertheless it kept their methods and their Marxist dialectic. The FLN also used the ulemas to rouse the peasant masses to fanaticism and to justify the acts of slaughter that they would commit in the name of Islam.

3) The OAS “ Organisation de l’armée secrète ” (Organisation of the Secret Army) was founded in February 1961 in Madrid by Pierre Lagaillarde and Jean-Jacques Susini, who were both former presidents of the students of Algeria. An OAS committee was formed in Algiers in the last days of April. It was led by the disturbing Susini and the enterprising Godard.
A former member of the Resistance, Colonel Yves Godard had participated in the Battle of Algiers. A man of sangfroid and astuteness, trained in the intelligence school, he wanted to develop the OAS by giving it structures copied exactly from those of the terrorist FLN. On 4 June 1961, he presented to General Salan, who had gone underground in May after the putsch that he had led in Algiers had failed, an entirely theoretical organisation that was intended to control the city of Algiers. His plan was to command the population and to wage a revolutionary war, i.e. terrorist actions against the FLN and the Gaullist authorities.
In actual fact, the members of the OAS were already carrying out attacks, in the form of plastic explosives bomb attacks. It was a question of intimidating the adversary: agents of the government, FLN rebels, European Communists or liberals. At least initially, it was their belongings that were targeted: houses, vehicles, stores, workshops.
On 24 June 1961, Captain Ferrandi, General Salan’s aide-de-camp, remarked: « The OAS staff in Algiers has decided to increase “sporadic operations”: they should have for main objective the repressive apparatus that is directed against us. We are engaging ourselves on a formidable slope. Who will determine its confines and the points where one can stop? Will we be able to resist the inevitable thrust to violence? Will we succeed in controlling it, guiding it, maintaining it within the limits that we have set today? »
When the Gaullist government’s complicity with the fellaghas became obvious, above all during the unilateral truce, which provoked an upsurge of FLN extortion demands and attacks, the OAS had to fight on two fronts. State repression pursued all those who were suspected of sympathising with the Organisation. When these “suspects” fell into the hands of the government’s secret police agents, they suffered interrogations and torture that, in Salan’s opinion, « stretched the limits of cruelty. »
In these conditions, it is understandable that the OAS commandos waged a fierce battle, in particular, against the government’s secret police. Recourse to terrorism, however, was the grave error the result of which was to sully in the eyes of metropolitan France the just cause of French Algeria. It is not with revolutionary and immoral means that one can save a moral cause like that of the French community in Algeria.
« The error of the OAS, Rieunier wrote, is to have answered Gaullism with its own weapons. Formerly, chivalry put violence in the service of the weak and the oppressed, but it had taken care to define its rules and limits. The OAS was free of stain from the cause it defended. It did not remain so due to the methods that it employed. Nevertheless, the methods that the leaders or soldiers of the OAS used in 1962 had been taught to them by de Gaulle on the BBC from London. »
It must be said also that the Secret Army, like all clandestine movements, was very quickly infiltrated by the police and the government’s secret police agents, who were recruited in metropolitan France and sent to Algeria to infiltrate the nationalists, to act as provocateurs, to kidnap or assassinate them.
Our Father, who was a parish priest at Villemaur at that time, was favourable to the OAS for its defence of French Algeria, while condemning the methods it was using, which he did not understand.