A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event
(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings

Dear Sneakylick,

I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him cross that line! One word: Assisi. When someone hears that word, they usually think of that stupid hippy Francis. "Make me a channel of your peace." Yuck! But we can redefine Assisi. You see, the Enemy's Vicar has done something which is very controversial. He invited unbelievers to pray with him! This sickens me. This is why.

You see, the 20th century was our century. We made countries fight each other in almost every decade. We got people to think of man as an object, instead of a subject. We got people to think that man was a mere production of economy. We also got people to think that if you are a certain race, religion, or culture, you are not a person. Not only that, we got them to persecute them! We murdered millions and millions and millions of people. Everywhere you go, there were condemnations. We hate Jews! We hate Blacks! We hate Catholics! I loved it! If not, they were also troubled because they had little money because of the depression. We made man depressed! They had no more hope!

The Enemy's Church knew this. She knew that that man wanted hope. To do this, she had to change her approach on teaching doctrines. She didn't want to follow the "Spirit of the Age" of condemnation. Instead, she wanted to teach truth against the false philosophies, to show that her doctrines are better than the false ones. When I made a person teach false humanism, she striked back teaching authentic humanism: that the perfection of man is life with the Enemy.

She also found a way to evangelize: ecumenism. She prefers to dialogue with other religions. You see, I made people have an "open mind." This means that they hate anything which sounds close-minded. In other words, they are close-minded when it comes to close-mindedness. So when the Enemy taught that His Son is the Only way, people rejected it because it did not feel right and not very open minded. We got people of hating Catholic doctrines such as existence of hell, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and so on. In fact, I made them hate Catholic doctrine so much, that they don't even want to hear it.

The Enemy's Church then made a new strategy. She knows that they don't like to hear those things, so she will present something which both parties agree on and work from there. For example, that ArchIdiot Fulton J. Sheen said that the only way to convert Muslims is through Our Lady of Fatima. He said,

"In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son." (The World's First Love, page 204)

This is what the Enemy's Church did at Assisi. That old charismatic idiot John Paul wanted to have a dialogue. He invited them to pray. Why? Because he wanted to soften their prejudice and dialogue is needed for it. At the same time, he will sneak in the Gospel. Of course, the Church does not condemn this, but your patient doesn't know that. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange once said,

"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)

But don't let your patient see this! Don't even let him try to see the rationale for this event. Make him the judge. Make him condemn the Pope! This is what we want! He doesn't know that communicating with unbelievers isn't necessarily evil, but they should be cautious of it. And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word (ibid). But he doesn't know that. He lives in a country where professors have to be refuted. He has a "debate" mentality. Every error must be refuted. Make him think that the only approach of evangelization is, "Go to Jesus Christ or go to hell!" And if they hear someone saying otherwise, he will refute it. Even though this is not in itself wrong, the Church prefers not to do this. However, make your patient think that the "debate" mentality is the only approach of evangelization. But most of all, never make him read what John Paul preached at the Assisi event itself! Don't make him read things like:

"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).


"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).

If he does read it, make him critique it! Make him say, "But look! It doesn't say Jesus is the ONLY peace! This implies that there can be other ways of achieving peace without Jesus!" Of course, it does not imply that at all, but who cares about truth! By condemning the Pope's teaching, he is condemning Paul's teaching and he doesn't even know it! John Paul is only restating what Paul preached.

But you can make your patient say things like, "But it doesn't say enough! It doesn't say, if you don't convert, you will go to hell!" You see, the Pope could have done that, but didn't. If he said something like that dialogue will be lost and we might have won their soul. But the Pope hates us. He doesn't want them to lose their souls to us. So he says only enough truth that is sufficient for them to hear. They believe in peace, and the Pope says Jesus Christ is the true peace. This might make them re-think their views of Catholicism. This might make them think that Catholicism isn't just condemnation and hell, but also a good and peaceful religion. But your patient doesn't know this. And don't let him know! Don't let him see the rationale for doing it!

Also, when the Pope wanted to have a dialogue, he permitted them to pray according to their own religion. Of course, if a person has religious freedom in any land, he should have religious freedom on the Church's home turf as well. John Paul permitted them to pray so that they can have a dialogue and he can preach the truth. This is because prayer itself is not wrong. No one knows or can control what a pagan for example, will pray to. If he pray to the false god, the Enemy might answer if it pleases Him.

This is the big distinction which you cannot afford to let your patient know. John Paul did not say, "pray to your false god." If he did, then he would be preaching falsehood. He invited him to pray, which again, isn't wrong. But your patient doesn't know that and don't let him. Instead, since he is theologically ignorant, make him condemn it. Make him say things like, "Look! He didn't stop them from praying to their false gods!" But if the Pope did do this, all dialogue will be ended and we could have won their souls. However, that old man didn't. He permitted it so that they can have a dialogue.

One final thing. You can make him disagree with Assisi, but your main goal is to make him condemn it publicly. You see, Cardinal Biffi disagreed with John Paul, but he did not publicly dissent from the Pope by writing articles in newspapers, websites, or blogs. What you want him to do is be unlike Cardinal Biffi.

Make him condemn it. After this, his soul is closer to our Father here below.

Your Uncle, Water Strider, senior devil


Back to Philosophy Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links