Thomas A. Droleskey
Yes, there was an article on this site five days ago,
Kindred Spirits of the New World Order, that dealt with the fact that the speech given by the Marxist-trained Barack Hussein Obama, the son of Mohammedan from Kenya and the step-son of a Mohammedan from Indonesia, could have been given, despite a few differences here and there, by former President of the United States of America George Walker Bush or by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Each is an advocate of non-denominationalism as the foundation of social order within countries and "peace" among them.
As demonstrated in today's other article, Baal, Yes, Most Holy Trinity, No, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have accustomed Catholics and non-Catholics alike to the incredible spectacle of men who believe themselves to be the Vicars of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth speaking and acting as though they were formally enrolled members of a Freemasonic lodge when addressing groups of people who deny the Sacred Divinity of the One Whose Vicar they have, albeit falsely, believed themselves to be.
Ratzinger/Benedict has praised "Mount Hiei" in Japan as "sacred" as implored "religions" to work for "peace:"
I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.
"From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred [to the devil-worshiping Buddhists, that is] Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!
"Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy.” (Benedict XVI sends message to interreligious meeting in Japan, found at first on a Society of Saint Pius X website, DICI.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has taken off his shoes in two different mosques, going so far as to assume the Mohammedan "prayer" position at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 30, 2006, and turned in the direction of Mecca at the behest of his Mohammedan host. He has called the mosque in Amman, Jordan, as a "jewel" that stands out on the earth and called the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem as "sacred." He has also entered into two Talmudic synagogues (one in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, April 19, 2005, and one in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, on Friday, April 18, 2008) and addressed representatives of Talmudic organizations multiple times in Rome, including a visit by the chief rabbi of Rome to the Vatican, and during his pilgrimage last month to Israel without once exhorting any of his listeners to convert to the true Faith as he treated Talmudic Judaism as a perfect valid means of salvation that is pleasing to God. Ratzinger/Benedict has given every impression that Catholicism is not the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, of course, rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King. He rejects as a matter of principle, not as a matter of a regrettable concession to the reality of the particular circumstances created by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, the obligation of the civil state to recognize the true religion, the Catholic Faith, and to yield to the Church's magisterial authority, exercised judiciously in grave matters only after the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, when the good of souls demands her maternal intervention and correction. Holy Mother Church can accommodate herself to any legitimate form of government. She does insist, however, that a civil state recognize her as the true religion and thus to do nothing contrary to the good of souls as public policy is formed and executed in a due subordination to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
Ratzinger/Benedict believes that it is "good enough" for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to have a "place at the table" with other "religions" to combat secularism, which is, of course, by the logical consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity, and to combat what he calls the "dictatorship of relativism," refusing to recognize that the very principles of the New Theology that shape his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned view of dogmatic truth are themselves relativistic to their very core.
While Holy Mother Church will indeed accommodate herself to the actual reality of the circumstances in which her children find themselves--and while she will indeed make use of every tool provided her by whatever legal and political structure in which she finds herself to fulfill her mission, she never ceases to exhort her children to know the immutable truth of her Social Teaching that the civil state does indeed have an obligation to recognize her as the true religion and as its leaders seek to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. Yes, once again, my friends, let me quote from Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, to provide you with a cogent summary of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the falsity of the separation of Church and State and that the civil state does indeed have an obligation to aid man in the pursuit of his Last End, the possession of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI rejects this clear and cogent summary of the consistent, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the falsity of the thesis of the separation of Church and State. He made this clear to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 14, 1987:
Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious matters."
"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.
"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."
Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and excommunication."
"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."
As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."
How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:
"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.
"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.
Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal's attitude" "Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ." Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: "His faith defies those who love theological quibbles." (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.)
Pope Pius XI made it clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that one no one is free to reject the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church as it is immutable, condemning as moral, legal and, social modernists those who do indeed reject this teaching:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's plain rejection of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church on the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the necessity of praying and working for the restoration of the confessionally Catholic civil state, called the "Catholic City" by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, was one of the principal factors that prompted me to take another look at the claims of sedevacantism in the latter part of 2005 and the beginning of 2006. Ratzinger/Benedict does what no Catholic is "free" to do, that is, to reject the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby showing himself to be, despite his protestations to the contrary, a spear-carrier for naturalism itself.
Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, as can be see in this passage from Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (which is available from Mr. Hugh Akin's Catholic Action Resource Center), explained in the most basic terms the simple truth that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects so boldly:
"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .
"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."
Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:
"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?"
Ratzinger/Benedict is both a progenitor and an apologist for conciliarism's apostate view of Church-State relations. He is also a progenitor and and an apologist for conciliarism's embrace of various Judeo-Masonic organizations, such as the United Nations Organization, as the means of providing "peace" and contributing to the "welfare" of men in the world as those organizations violate the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, including those precepts of the Natural Law that concern the inherent right of parents to supervise the education of their children and the inherent sovereignty of kingdoms or what we call today nation-states.
That is, various Judeo-Masonic "world" organizations promote a belief that children are "at risk" in the home if their parents seek to "impose" religious "values" upon them and endeavor to discipline them when they misbehave, thereby undermining the inherent Natural Law right of parents to educate and to judiciously discipline their children. Similarly, the phalanx of inter-related Judeo-Masonic "organizations" that have grown in the sixty-five years since the end of the Second World War have robbed nations of their sovereignty.
This is particularly true in Europe as the European Union has grown in the past thirty years from the time of the election of the first "European Parliament" (during what was then called the European Economic Community or "Common Market") and as result of the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993, which formally established the "EU," and has created a common currency, the Euro, for sixteen of its twenty-seven member nation-states. A European Union passport has been created, coexisting with passports issued by individual nation-states. It is widely believed, and not without justification, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (The NAFTA), is a prelude to a North American Union and the issuance of a trans-national currency called the Amero.
These supranational organizations are staffed by Marxist-oriented apparatchiks who have a contempt for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Lord exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. They are statists to the core of their beings, men and women who are radical environmentalists, globalists, and feminists who are committed to all manner of
"population control," including the surgical and chemical assassination of innocent preborn children, and the promotion of perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in the name of "human rights" and "diversity." These apparatchiks are committed to the usurpation of parental rights and to the undermining of the innocence and purity of children by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that serve as actual incentives to commit sins against Holy Purity.
Those possessed of the Marxist view of life believe that women are not "fulfilled" unless they have careers of their own, thus making it a "necessity" for children to be placed in the brainwashing centers known as "day care" programs and "after-school" programs in order for them to develop proper "sensitivities" about the "environment" and "feminism" and morality (or the lack thereof). It is indeed one of the most bitter of the bitterest fruits wrought by conciliarism that there is almost no difference between the brainwashing in one naturalistic ideology after another in the "educational" facilities run by naturalists (day-care, after-school, public schooling) and the brainwashing in one naturalistic ideology after another in most, although not all, of the "educational" facilities under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Contraception is thus taught as the means by which women can "control" their bodies so as to have a career outside of the family and thus to "fulfill" themselves as children are in the near-constant supervision of hard-core ideologues.
There is quite a kinship between most, although not all, of the professional educators in the concentration camps known as public schools and those who control the curricula in schools in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially regarding their mutual contempt and hatred for home-schooling. Those who seek to propagandize revolutionary ideologies cannot stand to have their falsehoods contradicted. This is one of the reasons why Adolf Hitler banned home-schooling in Nazi Germany, a law that is still in effect in the Federal Republic of Germany today, and it is one of the reasons why those in the public and conciliar school establishments are so supportive of various international "agreements" and domestic and international court decisions that either ban or restrict the ability of parents to home-school their children.
We should not underestimate the success of these efforts. Behold the fact that Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States of America on November 4, 2008.
Writing in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, Pope Pius XI described the Marxist approach to family and education:
Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man's relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement .
Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.
Each and every international "organization" is shaped by a Marxist-vision of the world, which is why the Marxist-trained Barack Hussein Obama is so favorably disposed to surrendering more and more of American national sovereignty to them.
Propagandists of these various organizations that have arisen as a direct, logical and inevitable consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry (and thus the creation of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity with which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict is so enamored) have been able to expand the scope of their influence by means of various international "agreements" and "conventions." One of the most odious efforts in this regard is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by one hundred ninety-three countries, including every member of the United Nations Organization except for the United States of America and Somalia.
Efforts to get the United States of America to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was signed on November 20, 1989, and went to effect on September 2, 1990, have been unsuccessful thus far, although the statist administration of then President William Jefferson Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., tried to persuade the United States Senate to do so in the 1990s. Barack Hussein Obama has called the failure of the United States of America to ratify this supranational usurpation of the Natural Law rights of parents as "embarrassing." It is, of course, no such thing.
Dr. Stephen M. Krason, a sedeplenist who is the chairman of the Department of Politics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville and a co-founder, along with Dr. Joseph Varacalli of Nassau Community College, of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, has written extensively on the odious provisions of "child abuse" laws in the fifty states of the United States of America. It was in an 2007 article of his that Dr. Krason mentioned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, making detailed reference to a letter that he co-wrote with this writer in 1995 that was sent to every member of the United States Senate at that time:
While all of these legal problems are caused by the nature of both our federal and state laws, a new threat to the family has loomed on the international horizon which, if not approached properly by the U.S. Government, may render fruitless any efforts to correct our laws--and may have the effect of extending the threat to families throughout the world. This is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was motivated by the thinking of, and drafted by, Western and Western-oriented "child-savers" and has now been widely ratified by nations around the world, some with reservations, although the U.S. Senate has not yet done so. A detailed discussion of the Convention is not possible here. We will merely quote from a letter
the Society of Catholic Social Scientists sent to all the members of the Senate, urging a vote not to ratify. The letter was primarily drafted by political scientist and journalist Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey and contributed to by this writer:
It is clear that the Convention on the Rights of the Child seeks to subject parents to close bureaucratic supervision. Parents who do not educate or raise their children according to the dictates of the prevailing cultural trends will be subject to all kinds of civil and criminal penalties, if not the seizure of their children. This is a form of ideological totalitarianism.
Article 12 of the Convention states that children have the "right" to express their own views freely in all matters. All matters? Child-rearing? Discipline? The fact there are some self-appointed child advocates, such as Hillary Clinton, who believe that children as young as seven years of age can assert legal rights indicates that it would be possible under the Convention for grammar school students to sue their parents in order to express their views. This is absurd. Children are children. They need to learn about life. They need to respect their parents. They need to understand the virtues of humility and obedience, of submission to lawful authority. Also, of course, they will not be able to sue or otherwise oppose their parents on their own. The state will do it for them, with "child advocates" supplanting parents and deciding what is best for children.
Article 13 asserts that children have the right to receive all kinds of information through the "media of the child's choice." Parents concerned about protecting the purity and innocence of their children would be legally barred from censoring the television watched in the home, the movies their children choose to watch, and the books they choose to read. And those parents who do not have a television in their homes might be forced to secure one in order to respect their children's "right" to receive information. Is it overkill to point out that child pornography laws would be invalidated by this article of the Convention? Article 17 extends this "right" to national and international sources in the media.
Article 14 discusses the right of each child to freedom of religion. This appears, at first glance, to be praiseworthy. The article, however, contains an implicit threat to the rights of parents to raise their children. Can a child who does not want to receive religious education sue his parents for abuse because the parents refuse to honor the child's wishes? Can parents who tell their children to engage in family prayers be judged guilty of not respecting a child's freedom from religion? This is an attempt on the part of the secularists to free children from the influence of parents who desire to pass along transcendent truths to their children.
Article 16 immunizes children from any degree of parental censorship insofar as correspondence is concerned. While confidentiality is an important part of correspondence, parents nevertheless have to monitor the activities of their children, particularly those in the adolescent years. Can one seriously suggest that a parent has no right to determine if his child is being solicited by a pornographer or child molester? Does a parent have no right to determine if his child is receiving contraband drugs through the mail? This is absurd.
Article 18 seems likely to encourage the displacement of parents in raising their children by the state as it calls for the expansion in the state role in providing facilities to care for children.
Article 19 provides the basis for the establishment of dangerous, coercive state structures to track and pressure parents who violate the Convention’s notion of their children's "rights." In fact, Article 43 establishes perhaps the ultimate in distant, arrogant bureaucratic structures--an international committee of ten "experts" to oversee the progress of the Convention’s implementation. In other words, ten individuals will dictate to the hundreds of millions of parents in the world how to raise their children.
It appears as though Article 30, which guarantees a child the right to use his own language, might sanction the use of profanity. A parent would be powerless to tell his child to speak clearly and nobly, never using any vile language. And Article 31, giving children the "right to rest and leisure," would make it difficult for parents to command their children to do anything. All a child would have to do to avoid chores or assignments is to say that he is entitled to rest and leisure.
Unfortunately for my former colleagues in the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, for whom I continue to have the utmost of respect and whose collaboration on various projects in the past I will always appreciate, efforts to oppose ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United States Senate has just been made a bit more difficult by an open advocate of the New World Order, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Vatican City, Jun 5, 2009 / 10:39 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict XVI has sent a telegram to the International Catholic Child Bureau (BICE) to lend his support to a worldwide call for a "new mobilization on behalf of children" initiated by the United Nations in Geneva.
The telegram references the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child and says, "Twenty years after its ratification, there is an urgent need for it to be implemented to the full." This is especially important, "given the new challenges" of the modern world. The Convention, ratified two decades ago, sets out the basic human rights of children that must be respected, based on the four core principles of non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child.
National governments that have agreed to the obligations of the Convention have committed themselves to upholding its standards and to being held accountable before the international community.
Now, the Pope is calling upon the international community to see that the principles outlined in the Convention are being put into practice.
In his telegram, the Holy Father stresses the necessity of "respecting the inviolable dignity and rights of children, of recognizing the fundamental educational mission of the family" and of "a stable social environment capable of favoring the physical, cultural and moral development of all children."
The Pope continues by calling on Catholic organizations such as BICE "to work generously for a correct application of the Convention, and for the construction of a future of hope, security and happiness for the children of our world."
Founded in 1948, BICE works to promote and protect the rights and dignity of children around the world. It works in a special way to support the most vulnerable children in society, including those at risk or suffering from abuse, exploitation, or violence. (Benedict backs U.N. push to protect children.)
Ratzinger/Benedict's endorsement The United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used by the enemies of the rights of parents, Barack Hussein Obama being chief among these enemies, in the United States America for their own nefarious purposes. The very people who ignore the teaching and mock the teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception and abortion and conjugal morality will invoke Ratzinger/Benedict as a "moral authority" for the Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is not a protection of children. It is a thoroughly Marxist-based effort to undermine the Natural Law right of parents to educate and to discipline their children so as to make sure that children around the world will be "citizens of the world" before they are citizens of any particular country and, obviously, in the place of being conscious of any obligation to consider oneself a citizen of Heaven by virtue of having been incorporated into the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Baptismal font. And that is, of course, the ultimate goal of such "conventions" as the one on the "rights of the child" as international organizations and treaties and agreements and conventions gradually create a system of One World Governance (if not a One World Government) that apes the true supranationality of the Catholic Church and replaces it perversely with a network of international laws designed to institutionalize the devil's rejection of Christ the King and the moral law and to criminalize any effort to defend "traditional" morality, including most especially any and all efforts aimed at seeking the conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there is no true social order.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict serves, therefore, as a kindred spirit of the New World Order as he enables such a perverse ape of the Catholic Church to be created on the stage of global governance in the civil realm to match the perverse ape of the Catholic Church that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism, an entity that long ago surrendered any claim of Catholicism being the one and only means of personal and social order, the one and only path to the true peace written of by Pope Pius XI in the aforementioned Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio:
Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.
Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)
Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.
Giovanni Montini/Paul VI explained on October 4, 1965, that it was the United Nations Organization, not the Catholic Church, that was the best hope for mankind on earth:
Our message is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from Our historical experience. It is as an "expert in humanity" that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own, convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.
In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965.)
What utter apostasy. The Catholic Church alone is "the last hope of concord and peace." Pope Pius XI noted in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio that the only "remedy for such state of affairs is the peace of Christ since the peace of Christ is the peace of God."
There will be well-meaning people who will mount a campaign to try to "convince" Ratzinger/Benedict that he is wrong to urge ratification and full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These are the same well-meaning people who have tried to "convince" Ratzinger/Benedict that he is wrong about his embrace of Theistic evolutionism and that he is wrong about his method of Scriptural exegesis and that he is wrong about his "non-binding" belief that the souls of all unbaptized infants go to Heaven, who dared to state the following about Limbo in The Ratzinger Report (his interview with Italian journalist Vito Messori):
Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of limbo, if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be."
True popes do not need to be "educated" about matters of Faith and Morals. While it is, of course, true that our true popes prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism made decisions on administrative matters (appointment of curial officials and bishops) and on temporal matters of diplomacy (Pope Leo XIII's agreement with Otto von Bismarck and Pope Leo's embrace of the Third Republic of France, Pope Pius XI's calling upon the Cristeros in Mexico to lay down their arms, the failure of Popes Pius XI and XII to fulfill Our Lady's request for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, Pope Pius XII's early embrace of the United Nations Organization, an embrace that was tempered in the years approaching his death, etc.) that are subject to review and criticism, it has never been the case that lay Catholics have had to launch one "campaign" after another to "petition" a true pope to take "correct" stands on such things as Biblical interpretation and Special Creation.
What has been lost on the well-meaning Catholics who will try to "convince" Ratzinger/Benedict that he is wrong about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is that his own personal constitution is favorably disposed to the advancement of the very international organizations that the passage of time itself have proved to be enemies of First and Last Things and thus enemies of the common temporal good. Ratzinger/Benedict is indeed a kindred spirit of the New World Order.
Far, far from the mind and heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is the following expression of Catholic truth found in Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
May we believe in this exhortation with all of our hearts as we give unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary all of our efforts to plant a few seeds when all men everywhere will exclaim as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when the only peace plan that matters, Heaven's Peace Plan, Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan, is fulfilled.
We need to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and make much reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as clients of those twin Hearts of matchless love that suffered as one during our Redemption and beat now as they have always beat, as one Heart that wills our salvation and the right ordering of men in states that are subordinate at all times to the Social reign of Christ the King.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Primus and Felician, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints