There seemed to us a second possible explanation—a farfetched explanation admittedly, but one that would at least account for the contradiction confronting us. Perhaps Marcel Lefebvre and François Ducaud-Bourget were not what they appeared to be. Perhaps they were something else. Perhaps, in actuality, they were agents provocateurs whose objective was systematically to create turmoil, sow dissent, foment an incipient schism that threatened Pope Paul’s pontificate. Such tactics would be in keeping with the secret societies described by Charles Nodier, as well as with the Protocols of the Elders of Sion. And a number of recent commentators—journalists as well as ecclesiastical authorities—have declared Archbishop Lefebvre to be working for, or manipulated by, someone else.14
Farfetched though our hypothesis might be, there was a coherent logic underlying it. If Pope Paul were regarded as "the enemy," and if one wished to force him into a more liberal position, how would one go about it? Not by agitating from a liberal point of view. That would only have entrenched the Pope more firmly in his conservatism. But what if one publicly adopted a position even more fiercely conservative than Paul’s? Would this not, despite his wishes to the contrary, force him into an increasingly liberal position? And that, certainly, is what Archbishop Lefebvre and his colleagues accomplished—the unprecedented feat of casting the Pope as a liberal.
Whether our conclusions were valid or not, it seemed clear that Archbishop Lefebvre, like so many other individuals in our investigation, was privy to some momentous and explosive secret. In 1976, for example, his excommunication seemed imminent. The press, indeed, was expecting it any day, for Pope Paul, confronted by brazen and repeated defiance, seemed to have no alternative. And yet at the very last minute the Pope backed down. It is still unclear precisely why he did so, but the following excerpt from the Guardian, dated August 30, 1976, suggests a clue:
The Archbishop’s team of priests in England ... believe that their leader still has a powerful ecclesiastical weapon to use in his dispute with the Vatican. No one will give any hint of its nature, but Father Peter Morgan, the group’s leader... describes it as being something "earth-shaking." 15
What kind of "earth-shaking" matter or "secret weapon" could thus intimidate the Vatican? What kind of Damoclean sword, invisible to the world at large, could have been held over the Pontiff’s head? Whatever it was, it certainly seems to have proven effective. It seems, in fact, to have rendered the archbishop wholly immune to punitive action from Rome. As Jean Delaude wrote, Marcel Lefebvre did indeed seem to "represent a power capable of confronting the Vatican"—head-on if necessary.
But to whom did he—or will he—allegedly say: "You make me Pope and I will make you King"?
THE CONVENT OF 1981 AND COCTEAU’S STATUTES
More recently some of the issues surrounding François Ducaud-Bourget seem to have been clarified. This clarification has resulted from a sudden glare of publicity the Prieuré de Sion, during late 1980 and early 1981, has received in France. This publicity has made it something of a household name.
In August 1980 the popular magazine Bonne Soirée—a kind of cross between a British Sunday supplement and the American TV Guide—published a two-part feature on the mystery of Rennes-le-Château and the Prieuré de Sion. In this feature both Marcel Lefebvre and François Ducaud-Bourget arc explicitly linked with Sion. Both are said to have paid a special visit fairly recently to one of Sion’s sacred sites, the village of Sainte-Colombe in Nevers, where the Plantard domain of Château Barberie was situated before its destruction by Cardinal Mazarin in 1659.
By this time we ourselves had established both telephone and postal contact with the Abbé Ducaud-Bourget. He proved courteous enough. But his answers to most of our questions were vague if not evasive; and not surprisingly, he disavowed all affiliation with the Prieuré de Sion. This disavowal was reiterated in a letter which, shortly thereafter, he addressed to Bonne Soirée.
On January 22, 1981, a short article appeared in the French press, 16 which is worth quoting the greater part of:
A veritable secret society of 121 dignitaries, the Prieuré de Sion, founded by Godfroi de Bouillon in Jerusalem in 1099, has numbered among its Grand Masters Leonardo da Vinci, Victor Hugo and Jean Cocteau. This Order convened its Convent at Blois on 17 January 1981 (the previous Convent dating from 5 June 1956, in Paris).
As a result of this recent Convent at Blois, Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair was elected grand master of the Order by 83 out of 92 votes on the third ballot.
This choice of grand master marks a decisive step in the evolution of the Order’s conception and spirit in relation to the world; for the 121 dignitaries of the Prieuré de Sion are all éminences grises of high finance and of international political or philosophical societies; and Pierre Plantard is the direct descendant, through Dagobert II, of the Merovingian kings. His descent has been proved legally by the parchments of Queen Blanche of Castile, discovered by the Abbé Saunière in his church at Rennes-le-Château (Aude) in 1891.
These documents were sold by the priest’s niece in 1965 to Captain Roland Stanmore and Sir Thomas Frazer, and were deposited in a safe-deposit box of Lloyds Bank Europe Limited of London.17
Shortly before this item appeared in the press, we had written to Philippe de Chérisey, with whom we had already established contact and whose name figured as frequently as Pierre Plantard’s as a spokesman for the Prieuré de Sion. In reply to one of the questions we asked him, M. de Chérisey declared that François Ducaud-Bourget had not been elected grand master by a proper quorum. Moreover, he added, the Abbé Ducaud-Bourget had publicly repudiated his affiliation with the order. This latter assertion seemed unclear. It made more sense, however, in the context of something M. de Chérisey enclosed in his letter.
Sometime before, we had obtained, from the subprefecture of Saint-Julien, the statutes of the Prieuré de Sion. A copy of these same statutes had been published in 1973 by a French magazine.18 However, we had been told in Paris by Jean-Luc Chaumeil that these statutes were fraudulent. In his letter to us M. de Chérisey enclosed a copy of what were said to be the Prieuré de Sion’s true statutes— translated from the Latin. These statutes bore the signature of Jean Cocteau; and unless it had been executed by an extremely skillful forger, the signature was authentic. We certainly could not distinguish it from other specimens of Cocteau’s signature. And on this basis, we are inclined to accept the statutes to which the signature is appended as genuine.19 They are set out below:
ARTICLE ONE—There is formed, between the undersigned to this present constitution and those who shall subsequently join and fulfill the following conditions, an initiatory order of chivalry, whose usages and customs rest upon the foundation made by Godfroi VI, called the Pious, Duc de Bouillon, at Jerusalem in 1099 and recognized in 1100.
ARTICLE TWO—The Order is called "Sionis Prioratus" or "Prieuré de Sion."
ARTICLE THREE—The Prieuré de Sion has as its objectives the perpetuation of the traditionalist order of chivalry, its initiatory teaching and the creation between members of mutual assistance, as much moral as material, in all circumstances.
ARTICLE FOUR—The duration of the Prieuré de Sion is unlimited.
ARTICLE FIVE—The Prieuré de Sion adopts, as its representative office, the domicile of the Secretary-General named by the Convent. The Prieuré de Sion is not a secret society. All its decrees, as well as its records and appointments, are available to the public in Latin text.
ARTICLE SIX—The Prieuré de Sion comprises 121 members. Within these limits, it is open to all adult persons who recognize its aims and accept the obligations specified in this present constitution. Members are admitted without regard to sex, race or philosophical, religious or political ideas.
ARTICLE SEVEN—Nevertheless, in the event that a member should designate in writing one of his descendants to succeed him, the Convent shall accede to this request and may, if necessary in the case of minority, undertake the education of the above designated.
/> ARTICLE EIGHT—A future member must provide, for his induction to the first grade, a white robe with cord, at his own expense. From the time of his admission to the first grade, the member holds the right to vote. On admission, the new member must swear to serve the Order in all circumstances, as well as to work for PEACE and the respect of human life.
ARTICLE NINE—On his admission, the member must pay a token fee, the amount being discretionary. Each year, he must forward to the Secretariat General a voluntary contribution to the Order of a sum to be decided by himself.
ARTICLE TEN—On admission, the member must provide a birth certificate and a specimen of his signature.
ARTICLE ELEVEN—A member of the Prieuré de Sion against whom a sentence has been pronounced by a tribunal for a common-law offense may be suspended from his duties and titles, as well as his membership.
ARTICLE TWELVE—The general assembly of members is designated the Convent. No deliberation of Convent shall be deemed valid if the number of members present is less than eighty-one. The vote is secret and is cast by means of white and black balls. To be adopted, all motions must receive eighty-one white balls. All motions not receiving sixty-one white balls in a vote may not be resubmitted.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN—The Convent of the Prieuré de Sion alone decides, on a majority of 81 votes out of 121 members, all changes to the constitution and the internal regulation of ceremonial.
ARTICLE FOURTEEN—All admissions shall be decided by the ’’Council of the thirteen Rose-Croix." Titles and duties shall be conferred by the Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion. Members are admitted to their office for life. Their titles revert by right to one of their children chosen by themselves without consideration of sex. The child thus designated may make an act of renunciation of his rights, but he cannot make this act in favor of a brother, sister, relative or any other person. He may not be readmitted to the Prieuré de Sion.
ARTICLE FIFTEEN—Within twenty-seven full days, two members shall be required to contact a future member to obtain his assent or his renunciation. In default of a deed of acceptance after a period of reflection of eighty-one full days, renunciation shall be legally recognized and the place considered vacant.
ARTICLE SIXTEEN—By virtue of hereditary right confirmed by the preceding articles, the duties and titles of Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion shall be transmitted to his successor accord ing to the same prerogatives. In the case of a vacancy in the office of Grand Master, and the absence of a direct successor, the Convent must proceed to an election within eighty-one days.
ARTICLE SEVENTEEN—All decrees must be voted by Convent and receive validation by the Seal of the Grand Master. The Secretary-General is named by Convent for three years, renewable by tacit consent. The Secretary-General must be of the grade of Commander to undertake his duties. The functions and duties are unpaid.
ARTICLE EIGHTEEN—The hierarchy of the Prieuré de Sion is composed of five grades:
ARTICLE NINETEEN—There are 243 Free Brothers, called Preux or, since the year 1681, Enfants de Saint Vincent, who participate neither in the vote nor in Convents, but to whom the Prieuré de Sion accords certain rights and privileges in conformity with the decree of January 17, 1681.
ARTICLE TWENTY—The funds of the Prieuré de Sion are composed of gifts and fees of members. A reserve, called the "patrimony of the Order," is settled upon the Council of the thirteen Rose-Croix. This treasure may only be used in case of absolute necessity and grave danger to the Prieuré and its members.
ARTICLE TWENTY ONE—The Convent is convoked by the Secretary-General when the Council of the Rose-Croix deems it useful.
ARTICLE TWENTY Two—Disavowal of membership in the Prieuré de Sion, manifested publicly and in writing, without cause or personal danger, shall incur exclusion of the member, which shall be pronounced by the Convent.
Text of the constitution in XXII articles, conforming to the original and to the modifications of the Convent of June 5, 1956.
Signature of the Grand Master
JEAN COCTEAU
In certain details these statutes are at odds both with the statutes we received from the French police and with the information relating to Sion in the "Prieuré documents." The latter shows a total membership of 1,093, the former of 9,841. According to the articles quoted above, Sion’s total membership, including the 243 "Children of Saint Vincent," is only 364. The "Prieuré documents," moreover, establish a hierarchy of seven grades. In the statutes we received from the French police, this hierarchy has been expanded to nine. According to the articles quoted above, there are only five grades in the hierarchy. And the specific appellations of these grades differ from those in the two previous sources as well.
These contradictions might well be evidence of some sort of schism, or incipient schism, within the Prieuré de Sion, dating from around 1956—when the "Prieuré documents’’ first began to appear in the Bibliothèque Nationale. And indeed, Philippe de Chérisey alludes to just such a schism in a recent article.20 It occurred between 1956 and 1958, he says, and threatened to assume the proportions of the rift between Sion and the Order of the Temple in 1188—the rift marked by the "cutting of the elm." According to M. de Chérisey, the schism was averted by the diplomatic skill of M. Plantard, who brought the potential defectors back into the fold. In any case, and whatever the internal politics of the Prieuré de Sion, the order, as of the January 1981 convent, would seem to constitute a unified and coherent whole.
If François Ducaud-Bourget was the Prieuré de Sion’s grand master, it would appear clear that he is not so at present. M. de Chérisey declared that he had not been elected by the requisite quorum. This may mean that he was elected by the incipient schismatics. At any rate, he is on record as having publicly repudiated any affiliation with the order. He has thus placed himself in violation of Article Twenty-Two of the statutes. We can therefore assume that his affiliation with Sion—whatever it may have been in the past—no longer exists.
The statutes quoted above not only clarify the status of François Ducaud-Bourget. They also make clear the principle of selection governing the Prieuré de Sion’s grand masters. It is now comprehensible why there should have been grand masters aged five or eight. It is also comprehensible why the grand mastership should move, as it does, in and out of a particular bloodline and network of interlinked genealogies. In principle the title would seem to be hereditary, transmitted down the centuries through an intertwined cluster of families all claiming Merovingian descent. When there was no eligible claimant, however, or when the designated claimant declined the status offered him, the grand mastership, presumably in accordance with the procedures outlined in the statutes, was conferred on a chosen outsider. It would be on this basis that individuals like Leonardo, Newton, Nodier, and Cocteau found their way onto the list.
M. PLANTARD DE SAINT-CLAIR
Among the names that figured most prominently and recurrently in the various "Prieuré documents" was that of the Plantard family. And among the numerous individuals associated with the mystery of Saunière and Rennes-le-Château, the most authoritative seemed to be Pierre Plantard—or, as he now signs himself, Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair.21 According to the genealogies in the "Prieuré documents," M. Plantard is a lineal descendant of King Dagobert II and the Merovingian dynasty. According to the same genealogies he is also a lineal descendant of the owners of Château Barberie, the property destroyed by Cardinal Mazarin in 1659.
Throughout the course of the inquiry we had repeatedly encountered M. Plantard’s name. Indeed, so far as release of information during the last twenty-five years or so was concerned, all trails seemed to lead ultimately to him. In 1960, for example, he was interviewed by Gérard de Sède and spoke of an "international secret" concealed at Gisors.22 During the subsequent decade he seems to have been the chief source of information for M. de Sède’s books on both Gisors and Rennes-le-Château. 23 According to recent disclosures M. Plantard’s grandfather was a personal acquaintance o
f Bérenger Saunière. And M. Plantard himself proved to own a number of tracts of land in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Château and Rennes-les-Bains, including the mountain of Blanchefort. When we interviewed the town antiquarian at Stenay in the Ardennes, we were told that the site of the old Church of Saint Dagobert was also owned by M. Plantard. And according to the statutes we obtained from the French police, M. Plantard was listed as secretary-general of the Prieuré de Sion.
In 1973 a French magazine published what seems to have been the transcript of a telephone interview with M. Plantard. Not surprisingly he did not give very much away. As might be expected, his statements were allusive, cryptic, and provocative—raising, in fact, more questions than they answered. Thus, for example, when speaking of the Merovingian bloodline and its royal claims, he declared, "You must explore the origins of certain great French families, and you will then comprehend how a personage named Henri de Montpézat could one day become king."24 And when asked the objectives of the Prieuré de Sion, M. Plantard replied in a manner whose evasive-ness was predictable, "I cannot tell you that. The society to which I am attached is extremely ancient. I merely succeed others, a point in a sequence. We are guardians of certain things. And without publicity."25
The same French magazine also published a character sketch of M. Plantard, written by his first wife, Anne Léa Hisler, who died in 1971. If the magazine is to be believed, this sketch first appeared in Circuit, the Prieuré de Sion’s own internal publication—for which M. Plantard is said to have written regularly under the pseudonym of "Chyren":
Let us not forget that this psychologist was the friend of personages as diverse as Comte Israel Monti, one of the brothers of the Holy Vehm, Gabriel Trarieux d’Egmont, one of the thirteen members of the Rose-Croix, Paul Lecour, the philosopher on Atlantis, the Abbé Hoffet of the Service of Documentation of the Vatican, Th. Moreux, the director of the Conservatory at Bourges, etc. Let us remember that during the Occupation, he was arrested, suffered torture by the Gestapo and was interned as a political prisoner for long months. In his capacity of doctor of arcane sciences, he learned to appreciate the value of secret information, which no doubt led to his receiving the title of honorary member in several hermetic societies. All this has gone to form a singular personage, a mystic of peace, an apostle of liberty, an ascetic whose ideal is to serve the well-being of humanity. Is it astonishing therefore that he should become one of the éminences grises from whom the great of this world seek counsel? Invited in 1947 by the Federal Government of Switzerland, he resided for several years there, near Lake Leman, whose numerous chargés de missions and delegates from the entire world are gathered. 26
Holy Blood, Holy Grail Page 25
