By
Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
English atheist and Freemason John Locke is rightly
considered to be the Father of Modern Democracy.
2015 is already here and Catholics,
just like other Nigerians, are warming up, getting ready to vote candidates of
their choices into different elective positions—in fact, others even warming up
to contest! But what actually does our faith as Catholics teach us about modern
democracy? Can a Catholic, practising his faith, really participate in our type
of democracy and still remains a Catholic?
Here, as briefly as possible, I will
try to answer these questions strictly from Catholic perspective.
In my newspaper article entitled “At
Last, Buhari Attacked by Jonathan’s Men!” I disagreed completely with those
advocating for a “dialogue” with Boko Haram members, arguing that Islam, just
like all the ancient religions, including Christianity, is simply
anti-democracy, that is, democracy as understood in the modern world. Shekau
has made it very clear that he is fighting modern democracy which he sees as
evil, I wrote. As he puts it, “The concept of the government of the people, by
the people and for the people must be replaced with government of Allah, by
Allah, and for Allah.” I stated that some Muslims who have argued that Islam
does not support Shekau’s position on democracy are simply mere comedians.
Modern democracy, it must be noted, unlike the type practised in ancient
Greece, was actually propounded by ardent enemies of religion, many of whom
were atheists—no true Muslim can tolerate this.
The origin of modern democracy is simply the
French Revolution, particularly the French Freemasonic Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which affirmed the so-called
principles of civil liberty and of equality before the law. That is why it is
simply alien to Islam and to all the ancient religions. By this I am not trying
to suggest that Islam and Christianity have anything in common, however.
I quoted Pope Leo XIII who, countering
the advocates of modern democracy, wrote the following in his June 29, 1881
encyclical letter entitled “Diuturnum Illud” (On Government Authority):
“Indeed, very many men of recent times,
walking in the footsteps of those who in former ages assumed to themselves the
name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those
who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them
by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the
very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who
affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary
principle.”
Put simply, this was—and still is for
traditional Catholics—the position of the Catholic Church with regards to
government authority until the Second Vatican Council, held in the 1960s, a
Council which was evidently hijacked by the Church’s bitter enemies and hence
which brought unimaginable changes to the Catholic world. Since then, the world
has witnessed wonders, priest-politicians, bishop-politicians,
cardinal-politicians and even, “pope”-politicians!
What is democracy? First, it is
necessary to understand exactly what the word “democracy” means. Strictly
speaking, democracy means “government by the people”. It is in this political
sense that it is generally used. However, it possesses a secondary meaning,
i.e. “movement of benevolence for the benefit of the people.” This has no
political implication, it only denotes a social awareness of the needs of the
people. It could also be found in, say, an absolute Monarchy (Cf. Pius XII,
1944 Christmas message). But it would be more aptly named “demophily” (love for
the people). It is in this latter sense that Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII
used the word “democracy” in their Encyclicals. In view of this, these
Encyclicals cannot be cited to justify political democracy. To do so would be
to disregard the Popes’ express teaching: “Many excellent men find the term
Christian Democracy objectionable. They hold it to be very ambiguous and for
this reason open to two objections. It seems by implication to covertly favour
popular government, and to disparage other methods of political administration…
Under the shadow of its name, there might easily lurk a design to attack all
legitimate power either civil or sacred… It would be a crime to distort this
name of Christian Democracy to politics, for although Democracy implies popular
government, in its present application it is so to be employed that, removing
from it all political significance, it is to mean nothing else than a
benevolent and Christian movement in behalf of the people… This is what
Catholics are to think on this matter.” (Pope Leo XIII, Graves de
Communi).
Democracy is not a new thing; it is
inherited from ancient Greece and Rome. Some city-states in the Middle Ages had
democratic constitutions and many Christian heresies were inspired by a
misguided democratic outlook. It finally found its way into England where it began
to acquire its modern form. French philosophers brought it back from England in
the 18th century and perfected its modern form, with special emphasis on
emancipation from all authority which is not based on popular will, especially
religious authority. During the Napoleonic wars, it spread from France all over
Europe, and eventually throughout the world through colonisation. The English
and American type of democracy was somewhat different from that practised on
the continent of Europe, but it became increasingly influenced by the
continental forms.
Traditional democracy was regarded as
being one possible way, among many others, of designating leaders. It was
seldom regarded as self-sufficient, and never as an exclusive political system.
In traditional democracy, the people designated leaders but did not formulate
policies, leaving that to their leaders, in whom they placed all their trust.
Kings, magistrates, even Bishops, have been elected in this way. But, once
elected, they had effective powers; they were real leaders, not merely
representatives of the people. A leader takes initiatives and assumes
responsibilities, whilst a representative, strictly speaking, takes no decision
of his own, being only the spokesman of the people or the party. Modern democracy,
on the other hand, is regarded as being the only legitimate way to designate
leaders! It claims to be self-sufficient, rejects all other political systems
as being contrary to justice, and gives the people, or political parties, the
“right” to dictate policies. It is no longer exclusively a system of
designation which, owing to circumstances peculiar to times and places, may be
preferred to other systems; it is an exclusive regime, claiming absolute
rights. Any suggestion of its possible suppression is regarded as absurd and
contrary to basic human justice. Traditional democracy was a revocable right,
partly or fully granted—or withdrawn, according to the needs of the moment; but
modern democracy is regarded as an inalienable right, the only fountainhead of
political justice, lawfulness, and authority.
In its modern form, democracy is
absolute. Any law which is not based on popular will is regarded as tyrannical,
and any law based on popular will can never be suspected of being tyrannical.
The possible “tyranny of the masses” is a concept quite alien to modern
democratic thinking. Conversely, the word democracy has become a synonym of
freedom, whilst in fact, tyranny or freedom can indifferently be found or not
found in a democracy. Modern democracy has become an end in itself, a yardstick
of truth and goodness, a mystique, a superstition. It is “a criterion for
judgments, a theory of knowledge, a method, a principle, an aim, an ideal, a
way of life, a matter of faith.” (C. B. Carson) “The people” become the sole
judge of what is good and bad, just or unjust. Natural Law, and especially
Divine Law, have no place in the modern concept of democracy—thus in Nigeria,
for instance, even though Christianity and Islam are the major religions
practised by all, it is simply forbidden to discuss the doctrines of these
religions publicly—for instance, to teach publicly that Catholicism is the only
true religion in the world. And what does this really mean? It simply means
that under democracy it is not permissible to talk about God publicly. And why?
Because modern democracy was not born in the minds of God-fearing men, but in
the minds of so-called philosophers who had already abjured their Christian
faith, and rejected Christian Philosophy. It follows that many tenets of modern
democracy are contrary to Christian doctrine, a thing which the Popes before Vatican II
had repeatedly stressed. In all modern democracies, without exceptions,
Christian principles are continually flouted, and Christian values superseded by
man-made ideas.
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that “people
have the right to choose their rulers,” and he also said that: “rulers can be
chosen from the people,” but he never contemplated majority rule. He did not
see democracy as a political creed or as a self-sufficient and complete system
finding in itself justification for any sort of legislation, but rather as a
set of institutions within a monarchical-hierarchical structure. People have,
indeed, the right to choose their rulers because if it were not so, they might
be ruled against their own wishes. People should also be able to provide rulers
from among themselves, and not choose them only from an upper class, because it
is from the people, in the final analysis, that the life of the nation renews itself.
St. Thomas’ teaching is therefore eminently wise, and he made it clear that:
“such was the form of government established by Divine Law. For this is the
best form of polity, being partly Kingdom, since there is one head of all;
partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority;
partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be
chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.”
St. Thomas gives a number of biblical
references which make it clear that authority is not exercised by the people.
The people only designate rulers, but do not impose them; for the final
appointment of rulers designated by the people rests with the superior
authority. This democratic procedure which has been in various ways explicated
in the Papal Encyclicals, is a far cry from modern ideas of popular
sovereignty. “Let me have from among you wise and understanding men, and such
whose conversation is approved among your tribes, that I may appoint them your
rulers.” (Deuteronomy, Ch. 1, Ver. 13) A similar reference can be found in
Exodus 18:25, which shows that Moses himself, as the supreme ruler of the Jews,
appointed the lesser rulers designated by the people. Modern Popes, in
particular Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII, have re-asserted that
authority comes from above, that is, from God, and is handed down rather than
ascending from the people. The people only designate leaders. Vatican II popes
who teach otherwise are manifestly impostors masquerading as popes, period!
Our modern type of democracy—as well as
the so-called Christian Democracy—is just a dream. The City of God cannot be
built but in a Monarchical order because, “such was the form of government
established by divine law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in
such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of
kingdom.” (“Summa”, Part I, 2, a 105, a.l.)
Man, contrary to modern Freemasonic
doctrines, is not really free. Modern democracy says he is. In a sense this is
true, but Man is free-thinking and responsible in essence. He is free because
God gave him free-will. He is thinking because God gave him an intellect
capable of dealing with abstract ideas contrary to animals which can think only
about concrete realities. He is responsible as a consequence of his freedom and
mental faculties. But these three qualities are only potentialities. In actual
fact, the average man is anything but free, thinking and responsible. It is
indispensable to differentiate between the Absolute (or Essential) and the
Contingent (or Accidental). Failure to do so is at the root of many dangerous
fallacies. A political system (contingent by necessity) cannot be built on the
absolute premises of man’s freedom, intelligence and responsibleness. Man is
not wholly free because he is often a slave to his passions. Being the slave of
his passions, he cannot be fully responsible. Being clouded by emotions, his
judgment cannot be wholly reliable. A system which gives sovereignty to the
least thinking and responsible members of the community is bound to be the
least desirable. “It would be vain to think that their (the enlightened men’s)
sage judgment … will be generally accepted by public opinion, or even by the
majority of men,” said Pope Pius XII in his 1944 Christmas Message. “Human
reason is (not) the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil,”
said Pope Pius IX in his Maxima Quidem. It follows that
the people must be guided and not be the guide. According to St. Pius X (in
the Sillon) “Man will be a man worthy of the name only when he has
acquired a strong, enlightened, and autonomous consciousness, able to do
without a master, obeying only himself, and able to take on and bear without
erring the most demanding responsibilities.”
What then is true freedom, from the
Christian perspective? Used loosely, words can be misleading. It is important
to note that freedom can have two different meanings. In the Christian sense
freedom is the faculty to choose between different courses of action; this is
free-will, as opposed to the mechanistic determinism of inert matter, or the
instinctive automatism of animals. But the free-will of man is morally bound by
certain unchangeable laws of divine origin. Free-will, is in fact, the freedom
to choose between obedience and revolt; our duty is evidently to choose
obedience to God’s authority. That is why Pope Pius XII, commenting on the
trilogy “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” said that freedom was a duty: “What a
spectacle is that of a democratic State left to the whims of the masses!
Liberty, which is really a duty of the individual, becomes a tyrannous claim of
freedom to give free rein to one’s impulses and appetites at whatever cost or
detriment to others.” (Pius XII—Christmas 1944) In this allocution on
democracy, which was widely misunderstood, Pope Pius XII also explained what
the freedom of the citizens of the modern state should be: “They (the citizens)
shall have full freedom to set forth their own views of the duties and
sacrifices imposed upon them.” Duties and sacrifices, the Pope said; but modern
democracy insists on rights and privileges … To set forth views the Pope also
said; but modern democracy holds that the citizens have the right to dictate
their views … These are the significant differences. There is still a deeper
implication in this question of freedom: if freedom of choice really implies
obedience to the moral law, and if obedience to the moral law gives true
freedom, it follows that the alternative, i.e. revolt, can only result in
tyranny. Indeed, the Angelic Hierarchy is perfectly free because Angels are
perfectly obedient to God, their King and Father. Their voluntary obedience
gives them freedom. Compulsion arises only when perfect obedience is lacking.
But modern democracy opposes freedom to obedience. What it calls freedom is, in
fact, a revolt. Having chosen revolt, it can only find tyranny. This is the
deeper reason why modern democracy evolves into Socialism: the element of
compulsion inherent in Socialism is rendered necessary by lack of voluntary
obedience, (to take but one example, nationalisations may be necessary because
Capitalists, who are actuated by greed, fail to observe voluntarily certain
moral principles). Christian freedom, therefore, is the factual faculty to
choose between different courses of action, but not the moral liberty to do so.
In the liberal sense, freedom is a complete emancipation from moral restraint,
a refusal to recognise any superior law, a claim that man is bound only by the
laws he himself makes. Such a belief can have far-reaching consequences, and if
the western democracies have not yet reached a stage of complete anarchy, this
is because the peoples of the West are still influenced by their Christian
tradition. But the fact remains that such a concept of freedom is a revolt
against the laws made by God, a revolt against God Himself. Since modern
democracy is rooted in Liberalism, it is also a revolt against God. The divorce
laws are a case in point. Like all other man-made laws they can be changed
according to the whims of Man, by way of suffrage, until the sacredness of
marriage has been completely destroyed. In other fields, business in
particular, we have seen that this complete freedom can sometimes be broken by
arbitrary measures such as nationalisations, and, thus, freedom ends in
tyranny. Considering now the deeper implication as we have done in the case of
the Christian concept of freedom, we find again that freedom, in the liberal
sense, being essentially a revolt, ends in tyranny through quite a different
process too: obedience to God is true freedom; revolt against God is tyranny.
How can this come about? When all superior laws are rejected, freedom becomes
essentially egoistic. It is the freedom of instincts, that of animals, and,
eventually, the complete subjection of self to inner urgings. Since desires can
never be satisfied, this tyranny knows no limits. Animals, of course, are not
subjected to this tyranny, because their instincts exist only in relation to
their real needs. But Man, as a thinking animal, has imagination; his inner
urgings are imaginary as well as instinctive. That is what the promoters of
liberal ideas failed to realise in their enthusiasm for the animal state:
“Animals have the natural advantage over us of their independence … in that
natural state enjoyed by untamed quadrupeds, birds, and reptiles, man would be
as happy as they”, said Voltaire.
Today we see “Catholics” the world
over—with the backing of Vatican II popes—celebrating the so-called Separation
of Church and State, a “separation” which is simply iniquitous and disastrous.
It is a step backwards which can only have the direst consequences on the
future of civilisation. The State must draw its strength from the Church. A
State separated from the Church is like a man separated from God. “The State
cannot be built unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work
… You cannot build a society without God,” said St. Pius X in “Our Apostolic
Mandate.” As early as in the 18th century, Pope Pius VI, in “Caritas
Quae”, spoke of “the fury of those called the Tiers Etat … (the
authors) of that baleful constitution separated and cut off from the Catholic
Religion.” In “Quanta Cura” Pope Pius IX spoke of “the false and perverse
opinions (which wanted) to abolish that mutual co-operation and agreement of
counsels between the Priesthood and Governments.” In “Ad Apostolicae” he
said that it was an error to believe that: “In the case of conflicting laws the
civil law should prevail (over that of the Church).” And in “Acerbissimum”,
he explicitly condemned the opinion that: “the Church ought to be separated
from the State, and the State from the Church.”
Today, however, many “liberal” or
“progressive” “Catholics” hold such views, seemingly unaware that when the
civil law prevails, the divine law is more and more encroached upon by an
inevitable, irresistible and gradual process. Basic human liberties are then
lost in the name of “freedom.” Let us not forget that Communists, too, speak of
“freedom.” When they believe that they are free from religious “superstition”,
they are not necessarily less in earnest than the modern Democrat of the West
who is convinced that it is a great blessing to be free from the “interference
of the Church” in all domains of life, and in education in particular. The
state of the world today is conclusive proof that the Popes were right. No
lasting improvement will ever be secured in national and international affairs
unless Church and State are united again. Vatican II in “Gaudium et Spes”
stresses the juridical autonomy of Church and State (which is not denied in the
above excerpts), and ignores the moral obligation of the State to follow the
Church’s teachings (which is emphasised above). Vatican II does speak of
“co-operation between Church and State”, but apparently on an equal footing, as
if the Church has as much to learn from the State in order to run her affairs,
as the State has to learn from her in order to run its own affairs. This is a
far cry from the “supervision” advocated by St. Pius X. In many ways, the
process of “supervision” has been reversed. Take education; at first all
schools were run by the Church—which was quite proper since Truth comes from
God and cannot be divorced from the Word of God. But the victory of Masonic and
liberal ideas in general, the rise of agnostics and atheists to power, produced
a new situation: the State set up its own system of education. Today, the State
supervises Catholic Education! This, of course, is intolerable; and there is no
doubt that it would not have succeeded at all if the Catholic Hierarchy had
simply refused to comply with the Law. Indeed, no government can afford to lose
the Catholic vote, and if a particular government were foolish enough to do so
for the sake of its sectarian principles the opposition would immediately grasp
the opportunity and profess a contrary policy. In time, both parties would
recognise the right of the Church to be completely independent, for party
platforms do change from generation to generation—and even from decade to
decade.
So then, to the question: “can
Catholics participate in today’s democratic government?” The answer is simply
NO. Catholics must not participate in today’s atheistic democratic government
because its principles run counter to the doctrines of our holy religion. But
this does not mean that we should cease playing our roles as citizens in a
country where atheistic democracy is being practiced—like paying of tax, etc.
Our attitude as Catholics should rather be like that of the early Christians
who were faithful in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were
commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and who, in this regard,
were faithful even to the point of shedding their blood in battle. “Christian
soldiers,” Augustine writes, “served an infidel emperor. When the issue of
Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They
distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to
the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord” (in psalt. 124,
n.7). Apart from playing our roles as good citizens, the only other help we can
offer to the evil system is a constructive criticism.
I do not need to say much on how—in
countries under democratic governments—the principles of modern atheistic
democracy make it simply impossible for Catholics to practise their faith.
First, among numerous dichotomies, Catholicism teaches that a political leader
must be chosen by God—through different human methods—and therefore must be
accountable to God. Atheistic democracy, on the contrary, holds that “the
people,” and not God, have a “right” to vote in their own leaders who would
govern them according to what they want and not what God wants. Again,
Catholicism teaches that the rights of man are derived from his duties towards
God. Atheistic democracy, on the contrary, turns men and women into “gods” and
“goddesses” by teaching that every man or woman in the State has a “right” to
live his or her life the way he or she pleases. Again, Catholicism teaches that
religion must rule every aspect of our lives, including the government itself.
Atheistic democracy holds that religion must remain a private matter and must
have nothing to do with the government. Catholicism teaches that God is one and
that this one God can only with certainty be sought and found in the one true
religion, that is, in Catholicism. Atheistic democracy makes mockery of this
very idea with its relativism, that is, the doctrine which maintains that there
are truths and values, but denies that they are absolute, and which holds that
one man’s opinion—whether religious or otherwise—is as good as another’s. Worst
of all, atheistic democracy prepares the way to hell for all men and women in
the State by teaching that every man or woman is free to profess any religion
he or she chooses to profess. This is simply terrible, yet, that is the reality
in a country like the United States or Nigeria. I need not say much on the
Church’s teaching in this regard, but to quote the following writing of a wise
pontiff, Pope Leo XIII (his Libertas Praestantissimum):
“…the growth of liberty ascribed to our
age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine
that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion,
namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle
that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
“But, assuredly, of all the duties
which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest
which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of
necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided
by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to
Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue
is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate
good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those
actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honour”,
rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting
religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly
tell us to practise that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily
recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that
it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most
terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such
as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or
abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable
good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and
the abject submission of the soul to sin.
“This kind of liberty, if considered in
relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State
should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him;
that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand
on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even
if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be
taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if
they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are
manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men
are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its
form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance
of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for
society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what
was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own
resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society
must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His
power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the
State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in
godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike,
and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then,
the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be
professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty,
especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were,
engraved upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must
preserve and protect, if they would provide—as they should do—with prudence and
usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the
welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead
men to the prosperity found in this life, in so doing, it ought not to
diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme
good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained
if religion be disregarded…”( Libertas Praestantissimum,
19-21)
On 11 December, 1925, Pope Pius XI
promulgated his encyclical letter Quas Primas on
the kingship of Christ. The encyclical dealt with what the pope described
correctly as the chief cause of the difficulties under which mankind was
labouring. The pope explained that the manifold evils in the world are due to
the fact that the majority of men and women have thrust Jesus Christ and His
holy law out of their lives; that our Lord and His holy law have no place
either in private life or in politics; and as long as individuals and states
refuse to submit to the rule of Our Saviour there will be no hope of lasting
peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the kingdom of
Christ—Pax Christi in Regno Christi.
In the February, 1976 issue of The
Approaches Hamish Fraser stated with, alas, complete accuracy, that Quas
Primas is virtually ignored by the so-called Catholic nations and by
the Catholic clergy. It was, he lamented, the greatest non-event in the entire
history of the Church. “What is it that caused the Catholic clergy, and the
bishops of the world in particular, to be so embarrassed by this encyclical
that it was virtually ignored at the time of its promulgation, and has been all
but forgotten in the post-Vatican II epoch? What is it about this encyclical
which caused its teaching to be passed over in silence, if not actually
contradicted, by the Second Vatican Council?…”
Pope Pius XI, speaking of efforts to
obtain world peace through a League of Nations, declared:
“An attempt in this direction has
already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and,
especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which
divide and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human
institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international
laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in
the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be
denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always
existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations,
and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.”
Michael Davies says the answer to the
question of why Quas Primas was contradicted by the Second
Vatican Council is that in his encyclical Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the unbroken
teaching of his predecessors upon the papal throne that States as well as
individuals must submit themselves to the rule of Christ the King. He says Pope
Pius XI, in reaffirming this fundamental truth of our faith, was not referring
simply to Catholic nations, but to the whole of mankind. The Pope “stated this
truth unequivocally”, he writes, “by quoting a passage from the
encyclical Annum Sacrum of Leo XIII.” The passage from
the Annum Sacrum of Pope Leo XIII is contained in the
encyclical Quas Primas, where Pope Pius XI, in order to reinforce
his teaching, inaugurated the Feast of Christ the King:
“It was surely right, then, in view of
the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the
kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all
nations, should with every token of veneration salute Her Author and Founder in
Her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. …[T]he empire of our
Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of our immortal predecessor, Pope
Leo XIII: ‘‘His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptised
persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by
error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are
outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to
the power of Jesus Christ’’. Nor is there any difference in this matter between
the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively
or individually, are under the dominion of Christ.”
Vatican II Popes reject—though in a
very subtle manner—the kingship of Christ. For instance, both Paul VI and John
Paul II believed and indeed taught that the United nations—an institution which
promotes worldwide genocide in the womb—and not the Catholic Church, is the
institution through which world peace can be attained. On October 4, 1965,
during the final session of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI went to New
York city to pay tribute to the emerging ‘universal public authority’ at its
very centre, the United Nations. To the delight of the U.N. delegates, Paul VI
praised their twentieth century Tower of Babel as ‘this lofty institution’ and
‘the last great hope of concord and peace.’ If the U.N. is the last great hope
of peace, what then is the Holy Catholic Church, founded by the Prince of Peace
Himself in order to bring peace to men of good will? And what about the Message
of Fatima, Heaven’s own plan for peace in this epoch, delivered personally to
the world by the Mother of God within the lifetime of Paul VI? Paul VI did not
talk about Fatima on that day at the United Nations. Instead, to the thunderous
applause of the General Assembly, he placed the Vatican’s seal of approval on a
godless world government to be administered from the glass and steel temple of
the New World Order. “Let unanimous trust grow, let its authority increase”, he
said. And so it has. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Vatican has been a
permanent observer to the United Nations. Vatican bureaucrats have negotiated
the Vatican’s signature to a number of U.N. treaties, including the deplorable
Beijing Conference agreements and the ‘U.N. Convention on the Rights of the
Child’, which makes no mention of the right of the child to be born. The
Vatican signs these humanistic manifestoes with certain ‘reservations’; but
sign them it does!—thereby legitimating the awful notion that the U.N., and not
the Catholic Church, is a valid moral body which ought to exert authority over
the whole of mankind!
Like Paul VI, during his tour of the
United States, John Paul II addressed the General Assembly of the United
Nations on October 5, 1995, proclaiming the “esteem of the “Apostolic See” and
of the “Catholic Church” for this institution”, and pronounced the U.N.—an evil
organization which promotes abortion, contraception, and godless humanism—“a
great instrument for harmonizing and coordinating international life.” As Paul
VI had done in 1965, John Paul II devoted much of his speech to human rights
and called for world peace, that is, world peace to be attained through the
U.N.!
Finally, if we wish to adopt a form of
Christianity consistent with the Bible, then we must seriously consider whether
or not we are perhaps being deceived by our society and culture—and perhaps
also by our own human selfishness—when we preach democracy as the panacea for
all political problems. Aside from offering the citizen certain legal rights,
most versions of democracy tell us we have the power and authority to claim for
ourselves certain “inalienable rights”, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.” Yet this is one of the greatest political lies ever told!
Christianity is a religion of the cross, a religion whose founder taught that
true life comes only to those who are willing to die [see e.g., Mat. 10:38-39;
16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 15:31]. Among other things, this means Christians are called
to give up all rights: not just the basic right to “life”, but also rights such
as “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness.” For the Bible repeatedly says
Christians are to be “slaves of Christ” [e.g., Eph. 6:6; Rom. 6:22] and are to
endure all manner of suffering for the sake of a future glory [see e.g., Rom.
8:18; 1 Pet. 2:18-4:19; and Chapter Six below]. How, then, can a Christian
defend a political system which encourages its citizens to stand up and defend their
“basic human rights”?
