A Matter of God's Sovereignty

by Thomas A. Droleskey

An effort was made this week at the United Nations, sponsored by the government of the United States, to propose an amendment to a document commenting on the "Platform for Action" that is to be adopted in connection with the tenth anniversary of the infamous Beijing Conference on Women. One Catholic organization sent out on e-mail on March 2, 2005, to represent this initiative of the Bush administration as being a step to prevent the "Platform for Action" from being used by pro-abortion groups as "proof" that there exists an international human "right" to abortion that member states of the United Nations must therefore respect and implement. On Friday, March 4, 2005, however, the Bush administration withdrew the proposed amendment, stating that it had accomplished its objective by getting various countries to agree that the Beijing Conference of ten years ago did not "create" a international "right" to abortion. The whole matter arose and fell in the space of two days.

Although some of the people who were so excited about this amendment are shameless cheerleaders for the policies of the Bush administration despite its support for and funding of the chemical abortions of millions of preborn children in this country and across the world by means of "family planning" programs, I decided at first to give them the benefit of the doubt in this matter. If the amendment proposed by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mrs. Ellen Sauerbrey, was a genuine effort to state that there exists no international "right" to abortion, then it might be worth supporting. My initial reservations, though, were indeed correct. This was just another example of how the Bush administration attempts to feed some crumbs to its pro-life political base without doing any substantive to retard baby-killing in our own country. This was never an effort worth supporting.

First of all, there is the simple fact that the United Nations is a Masonically-inspired effort to replace the Church as the foundation of international order. Apart from this fundamental matter of the Catholic Faith, however, there was a statement issued on March 3, 2005, by Ambassador Sauerbrey that vitiated the apparent good contained in the amendment being proposed by the government of the United States at the United Nations. After Ambassador Sauerbrey insisted that the United States was going to proceed with its proposed amendment despite opposition from various pro-abortion and feminist groups around the world, she said, "The United States recognizes the International Conference on Population and Development principle that abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty. And, we are pleased that so many other governments have indicated their agreement with this position."

One gentleman wrote to me on March 4, 2005, to state that he had solicited support for the amendment sponsored by Ambassador Sauerbrey to put the United Nations on record that the Beijing conference did not "create" abortion as an international human "right," which is a separate and distinct matter from Mrs. Sauerbrey's statement characterizing the Cairo Conference as having stated that "abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty." No, this gentlemen is wrong. The Bush administration, which usually tries to give a little something to everyone, was signaling by Mrs. Sauerbrey's comments that each nation is free to deal with abortion as it sees fit. President Bush chooses to deal with the matter of baby-killing by washing his hands in a finger bowl while telling us the country "is not ready" to reverse Roe v. Wade. The country will never be ready to reverse Roe v. Wade if its national leaders who say they are "pro-life" (but who actually support a little bit of surgical abortion and a great deal of chemical abortions) are not willing to use the bully pulpit of their positions and the full force of their executive and legislative power to do so. To endorse the amendment proposed by Mrs. Sauerbrey in behalf of the Bush administration would have been to overlook the simple fact that her own reliance upon the Cairo Conference's assertions vitiates the impact of the proposed amendment.

Consider the observations of Father Lawrence C. Smith:

In essence, our government is saying:

A) That abortion is wrong;

B) That it should not be an international right;

C) That individual nations have the right to make it legal;

D) That our nation has made it legal;

E) That in spite of it being a matter of national sovereignty, a woman's right to choose, and inappropriate for the UN to comment on, abortion is wrong -- but it is not an offense punishable as a crime.

If you can make head or tail out of that, please let me know.

No, I certainly cannot make heads or tails out of the dizzying turn of events that typify the political huckstering of the Bush administration. What I can state with certainty is this: no government (state, local, national, international) has any authority to permit child-killing, whether surgical or chemical, under the cover of law. Period. Anyone who asserts the contrary does not know (and may not be interested in) the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law as entrusted by God to Holy Mother Church.

Defenders of Mrs. Sauerbrey's position will point out, quite correctly, that the much of the language agreed to at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt, was hammered out in part because of the efforts made by representatives of the Holy See to protect regimes in countries with large concentrations of Catholics, especially in Latin America, many of whose delegations were quite active in proclaiming the inviolability of all innocent human life, from being targeted even more by international organizations to force these regimes into enacting legislation to recognize the "human right" of women to "pregnancy health-care" (a euphemism for abortion). The Vatican representatives, allied with those from many of the countries of Latin America and the Mohammedan world, battled representatives of the Clinton administration, who favored language that gave a much broader recognition to abortion as an "international right." Indeed, the accommodation cited on March 3, 2005, by Mrs. Sauerbrey was seen by many in pro-life circles around the world in 1994 as having been a victory following the conclusion of the Cairo Conference. It was not then and it is not now. No conference run by an organization that sees itself as a supranational secular "church" can produce good fruit. (The entirety of the Holy See's 1994 statement and its lists of reservations, issued at the end of the Cairo Conference, is appended at the end of this commentary. Many of the countries of Latin America issued statements with their own reservations, as did several Mohammedan countries.)

Pope Pius XI used his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, issued in December of 1922, to express his unequivocal contempt for the ability of an international organization not founded in the truths of the true Faith to effect any good in the world. Naturally, that great encyclical letter has been consigned to the Orwellian memory hole. Its polar opposite, Pope John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, which embraced the United Nations, has become the modus vivendi for the Holy See since its issuance on April 11, 1963. Those representatives of the Holy See who have worked with the United Nations since that time--and those representatives of non-governmental organizations who have done so--believe in all sincerity that the framework established by Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris, especially as it relates to working with men of different religious sects and exposing them to the influence of believing Catholics in a non-denominational enterprise, is beyond question. Sadly, though, the liberal Pope John XXIIII, who made no reference at all to Pope Pius XI in Pacem in Terris, stresses a a concept of peace that leaves no room for the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Consider theses passages from Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio to find a contrast with the "opening up to the world" of Pope John XXIII:

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.

45. When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. 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 seriously 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.

46. There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

47. It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

That about says it all, folks. Pope Pius XI would never have endorsed even partially any statement that admits a fundamental violation of the Divine positive law and the natural law--the taking of innocent human life in the womb--can be a legitimate policy for national governments to pursue. No human being, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance, has the authority to violate the binding precepts of God's laws as He has entrusted them to Holy Mother Church for their safe-keeping and explication. The only thing that a civil government can do in the instance of abortion, for example, is to enact specific civil and/or criminal penalties for those who participate in baby-killing. No government at any level (state, local, nation, international) has authority founded in the Divine positive law or the natural law to enact or to enforce any legislation or judicial decree that violates any of the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to and taught by the Catholic Church.

Although I was at first quite angry with the representations made by some with respect to the amendment being proposed by the United States delegation to the United Nations, I came to realize that they really cannot be blamed. After all, most of these people are cheerleaders for the Bush administration despite its horrific record on the life issues. They have not uttered one word when the Bush administration argued before the United States Supreme Court in December of 2002 that Joseph Scheidler's activities in saving lives in front of abortuaries were actually depriving legitimate "businesses" of their financial livelihood, thus making him a "bandit" under the terms of the Hobbs Act, an argument that was, fortunately, rejected by the United States Supreme Court two months later, in February of 2003. They really believe "progress" is being made despite the fact that the same number of babies are being killed every day under cover of law in this country as were being killed on January 20, 2001. They really do believe that the current President is our friend despite his funding of chemical baby-killing here and around the world. After all, it's better not to let the "perfect be the enemy of the good," we are told by the incrementalists in the pro-life community. What's good about promoting evils such as terming a pro-life hero, Joe Scheidler, a bandit and funding chemical abortifacients here and around the world, no less appointing pro-aborts to the highest positions in the Federal government, including as Secretary of State in each of President George W. Bush's two terms? What's good about that? You will never hear one of these cheerleaders say anything negative about the "pro-life" president and his anti-life policies. What's good about that?

Most of these people, though, are also cheerleaders for the policies of state enunciated by the Holy See at the Cairo Conference and thereafter. These policies are not received from the hand of God. They are not part of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church They are practical political judgments that have been made by the Holy See in spite of the wisdom of the great Popes of Tradition, including Pope Pius XI. Re-read those passages from Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio. They resonate with Catholicity to the core. There is not one ounce of compromise with the false spirits of Modernity and Modernism. Alas, you see, the willingness to accept the irreversibility of the secular, religiously indifferentist state and the "importance" of international organizations has led the popes of the past forty-seven years to abandon the wisdom of the past in favor of novelties that not only do not resolve any problems but wind up further institutionalizing evils that will only be vanquished when there is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The Church has never argued on the enemy's terms prior to the ethos of conciliarism, ushered in by Pope John XXIII's "opening up to the world." Pope John XXIII forbade any mention of Communism, one of the chief evils of the Twentieth Century, at the Second Vatican Council, believing that this would curry favor with Communist authorities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and thus produce good fruit for Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. Pope Paul VI continued on the policy, known as Ostpolitik during the reign of Jean Cardinal Villot as Vatican Secretary of State, resulting in the double-cross of the courageous Primate of Hungary and Archbishop of Budapest, Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty. The policies of the office of the Vatican's Secretariat of State have been equally disastrous under Agostino Cardinal Cassaroli and under Angelo Cardinal Sodano. Dr. Thomas Molnar gave a withering review of the "diplomatic" policies of the postconciliar popes at a conference I held at Illinois State University on April 25, 1979. He gave a bleak outlook for the then infant pontificate of Pope John Paul II, and Dr. Molnar has been proved quite correct. The Holy See's participation in conferences such as Cairo and Beijing adds credibility to an evil institution, the United Nations, and does not in the least prevent the spread of evils that rightly concern the Church but which have their origin in Original Sin and thus can only be attenuated by a conversion of souls to the true Church and their daily cooperation with sanctifying grace, not a "program of action."

To state that abortion is a matter of "national sovereignty" to prevent the assertion of a broader international "right" to baby-killing winds up admitting that a national government does indeed have the right in the exercise of its own authority to permit baby-killing under cover of law. How it be argued that "abortion is a matter of national sovereignty" as an alleged wedge against the power of international organizations (the United Nations and "family planning" and feminist non-governmental organizations) and then have the bishops of a country turn around and tell that country's civil leaders that their sovereignty is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine plosive law and the natural law?

I will never tire of beseeching Our Lady for some pope to actually consecrate Russia with all of the bishops of the world to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. All of the schemes and plans advanced by the Holy See and seemingly "pro-life" American presidential administrations cannot replace Our Lady's Fatima Message as the ultimate path to know the peace spoken of by Pope Pius XI, the "Peace of Christ in the Kingship of Christ."

Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us to defend the rights of Thy Son, Christ the King, as the Sovereign over all nations at all times.

Saint Isaac Jogues and Companions, pray for the conversion of the United States of America to the true Faith founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

The Statement of the Holy See at the International Conference on Population and Development, 1994:

The representative of the Holy See submitted the following written statement:

Our conference, attended by persons of various traditions and cultures, with widely differing viewpoints, has carried out its work in a peaceful and respectful atmosphere. The Holy See welcomes the progress that has been made in these days, but also finds that some of its expectations have not been met. I am sure that most delegations share similar sentiments. The Holy See knows well that some of its positions are not accepted by others present here. But there are many, believers and non-believers alike, in every country of the world, who share the views we have expressed. The Holy See appreciates the manner in which delegations have listened to and taken into consideration views which they may not always have agreed with. But the Conference would be poorer if these views had not been heard. An international conference which does not welcome voices that are different would be much less a consensus conference.

As you well know, the Holy See could not find its way to join the consensus of the Conferences of Bucharest and Mexico City, because of some fundamental reservations. Yet, now in Cairo for the first time, development has been linked to population as a major issue of reflection. The current Programme of Action, however, opens out some new paths concerning the future of population policy. The document is notable for its affirmations against all forms of coercion in population policies. Clearly elaborated principles, based on the most important documents of the international community, clarify and enlighten the later chapters. The document recognizes the protection and support required by the basic unit of society, the family founded on marriage. Women's advancement and the improvement of women's status, through education and better health-care services, are stressed. Migration, the all too often forgotten sector of population policy has been examined. The Conference has given clear indications of the concern that exists in the entire international community about threats to women's health. There is an appeal to greater respect for religious and cultural beliefs of persons and communities.

But there are other aspects of the final document which the Holy See cannot support. Together with so many people around the world, the Holy See affirms that human life begins at the moment of conception. That life must be defended and protected. The Holy See can therefore never condone abortion or policies which favour abortion. The final document, as opposed to the earlier documents of the Bucharest and Mexico City Conferences, recognizes abortion as a dimension of population policy and, indeed of primary health care, even though it does stress that abortion should not be promoted as means of family planning and urges nations to find alternatives to abortion. The preamble implies that the document does not contain the affirmation of a new internationally recognized right to abortion.

My delegation has now been able to examine and evaluate the document in its entirety. On this occasion the Holy See wishes, in some way, to join the consensus, even if in an incomplete, or partial manner. First, my delegation joins the consensus on the Principles (chapter II), as a sign of our solidarity with the basic inspiration which has guided, and will continue to guide, our work.

Similarly, it joins the consensus on chapter V on the family, the basic unit of society. The Holy See joins the consensus on chapter III on population, sustained economic growth and sustainable development, although it would have preferred to see a more detailed treatment of this subject. It joins the consensus on chapter IV (Gender equality, equity and empowerment of women) and chapters IX and X on migration issues. The Holy See, because of its specific nature, does not find it appropriate to join the consensus on the operative chapters of the document (chapters XII to XVI). Since the approval of chapters VII and VIII in the Committee of the Whole, it has been possible to evaluate the significance of these chapters within the entire document, and also within health-care policy in general. The intense negotiations of these days have resulted in the presentation of a text which all recognize as improved, but about which the Holy See still has grave concerns. At the moment of their adoption by consensus by the Main Committee, my delegation already noted its concerns about the question of abortion. The chapters also contain references which could be seen as accepting extramarital sexual activity, especially among adolescents. They would seem to assert that abortion services belong within primary health care as a method of choice.

Despite the many positive aspects of chapters VII and VIII, the text that has been presented to us has many broader implications, which has led the Holy See to decide not to join the consensus on these chapters. This does not exclude the fact that the Holy See supports a concept of reproductive health as a holistic concept for the promotion of the health of men and women and will continue to work, along with others, towards the evolution of a more precise definition of this and other terms. The intention therefore of my delegation is to associate itself with this consensus in a partial manner compatible with its own position, without hindering the consensus among other nations, but also without prejudicing its own position with regard to some sections. Nothing that the Holy See has done in this consensus process should be understood or interpreted as an endorsement of concepts it cannot support for moral reasons. Especially, nothing is to be understood to imply that the Holy See endorses abortion or has in any way changed its moral position concerning abortion or on contraceptives or sterilization or on the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes. I would ask that the text of this statement and the reservations formally indicated below be included in the report of the Conference.

Reservations

The Holy See, in conformity with its nature and its particular mission, by joining in the consensus to parts of the final document of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 5-13 September 1994), wishes to express its understanding of the Programme of Action of the Conference.

1. Regarding the terms "sexual health" and "sexual rights", and "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights", the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embrace, each in their own way, the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which foster the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in the mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal relationship in accordance with moral norms. The Holy See does not consider abortion or access to abortion as a dimension of these terms.

2. With reference to the terms "contraception", "family planning", "sexual and reproductive health", "sexual and reproductive rights", and "women's ability to control their own fertility", "widest range of family-planning services" and any other terms regarding family-planning services and regulation of fertility concepts in the document, the Holy See's joining the consensus should in no way be interpreted as constituting a change in its well-known position concerning those family-planning methods which the Catholic Church considers morally unacceptable or on family-planning services which do not respect the liberty of the spouses, human dignity and the human rights of those concerned.

3. With reference to all international agreements, the Holy See reserves its position in this regard, in particular on any existing agreements mentioned in this Programme of Action, consistent with its acceptance or non-acceptance of them.

4. With reference to the term "couples and individuals", the Holy See reserves its position with the understanding that this term is to mean married couples and the individual man and woman who constitute the couple. The document, especially in its use of this term, remains marked by an individualistic understanding of sexuality which does not give due attention to the mutual love and decision-making that characterizes the conjugal relationship.

5. With reference to chapter V, the Holy See interprets this chapter in the light of principle 9, that is, in terms of the duty to strengthen the family, the basic unit of society, and in terms of marriage as an equal partnership between husband and wife.

6. The Holy See places general reservations on chapters VII, VIII, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XVI. This reservation is to be interpreted in terms of the statement made by the delegation in the plenary meeting of the Conference on 13 September 1994. We request that this general reservation be noted in each of the above-mentioned chapters.

My comment: Why bother? And bother the representatives of the Holy See and of related organizations did. Day and night. Hours upon hours at a time. Entire days without sleep. Faxes sent back and forth to the Vatican. Drafts of documents sent back and forth between the Holy See and its allied non-governmental organizations and representatives of other nations. There was a lot of hard work and effort poured into attempting to make the Cairo conference's outcome "less bad," and the document itself is absolutely atrocious. Read it. You can find it online at www.un.org. I am not condemning the good people, many of whom spent their own money to travel to Cairo, not exactly a garden spot, who worked so tirelessly in the belief that they were retarding evil. I am simply pointing out that it was wrong of the Holy See to give that conference any credibility at all, worse yet to actually consider some parts of its Program of Action useful.

Why not work on the conversion of the whole world to the Catholic Church, starting with the faithful fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message? Why give even partial credibility and endorsement to a document that is manifestly atrocious and actually diabolical? One will note that there is very little condemnation of contraception in the Holy See's statement and reservations. Yes, there are references to the Church's teaching. Sure. However, there are no explanations as to why contraception is one of the gravest evils of Modernity. There is a reason for this: the late Bishop James T. McHugh, who was one one of the Holy See's representatives, told Ted Koppel on ABC-TV's Nightline in September of 1994, "Contraception is not an issue for us here." (You can look it up, as the late "Ole' Perfessor," Charles Dillon "Casey" Stengel, was wont to say.) Trying to fight a rear-guard effort against the proclamation of abortion as an "international right" without proclaiming the necessity of a conversion of the whole world to the Catholic Church is simply ridiculous. Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio must be read by every serious Catholic, bishop, priest, consecrated religious, and lay man and lay woman, in the world. It stands as a sharp contrast to the machinations and infidelities of the conciliarist era.