Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 July 16, 2013

Where Does One Begin?

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

This article could have been entitled, "Live the United Nations, Die by the United Nations."

Although it is difficult sometimes to know where to begin with the virtual landslide of offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity that rolls down from the conciliar Vatican on an almost daily basis since the accession of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis as the "Petrine Minister" of its counterfeit church, the Vatican's obeisance to the United Nations that began with during the reign of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one).

Preceding Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's call in Caritas in Veritate, June 29, 2009, for a "global" system of financial governance that would respect the principle of subsidiarity while at the same time stripping nation-states of their sovereignty in matters of finance and banking (Ratzinger/Benedict has never let contradictions get in the way of thought process ), Roncalli/XXIII noted in his last encyclical letter, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963, that the United Nations Organization had his personal endorsement as the kind of necessary "global" political authority to govern men according to a "synthesis" of scientific and philosophical principles:


136. Moreover, if we carefully consider the essential nature of the common good on the one hand, and the nature and function of public authority on the other, everyone sees that there is an intrinsic connection between the two. And, indeed, just as the moral order needs public authority to promote the common good in civil society, it likewise demands that public authority actually be able to attain it. From this it follows that the governmental institutions, on which public authority depends and through which it functions and pursues its end, should be provided with such structure and efficacy that they can lead to the common good by ways and methods which are suitably adapted to various contingencies.

137. Today the universal common good poses problems of worldwide dimensions, which cannot be adequately tackled or solved except by the efforts of public authority endowed with a wideness of powers, structure and means of the same proportions: that is, of public authority which is in a position to operate in an effective manner on a world-wide basis. The moral order itself, therefore, demands that such a form of public authority be established.

138. This public authority, having world-wide power and endowed with the proper means for the efficacious pursuit of its objective, which is the universal common good in concrete form, must be set up by common accord and not imposed by force. The reason is that such an authority must be in a position to operate effectively; yet, at the same time, its action must be inspired by sincere and real impartiality: it must be an action aimed at satisfying the universal common good. The difficulty is that there would be reason to fear that a supra-national or worldwide public authority, imposed by force by the more powerful nations might be an instrument of one-sided interests; and even should this not happen, it would be difficult for it to avoid all suspicion of partiality in its actions, and this would take from the force and effectiveness of its activity. Even though there may be pronounced differences between nations as regards the degree of their economic development and their military power, they are all very sensitive as regards their juridical equality and the excellence of their way of life. For that reason, they are right in not easily yielding obedience to an authority imposed by force, or to an authority in whose creation they had no part, or to which they themselves did not decide to submit by their own free choice.

139. Like the common good of individual states, so too the universal common good cannot be determined except by having regard for the human person. Therefore, the public and universal authority, too, must have as its fundamental objective the recognition, respect, safeguarding and promotion of the rights of the human person; this can be done by direct action when required, or by creating on a world scale an environment in which leaders of the individual countries can suitably maintain their own functions.

140. Moreover, just as it is necessary in each state that relations which the public authority has with its citizens, families and intermediate associations be controlled and regulated by the principle of subsidiarity, it is equally necessary that the relationships which exist between the world-wide public authority and the public authority of individual nations be governed by the same principle. This means that the world-wide public authority must tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural character which are posed by the universal common good. For, because of the vastness, complexity and urgency of those problems, the public authorities of the individual states are not in a position to tackle them with any hope of a positive solution.

141. The world-wide public authority is not intended to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of the individual state, much less to take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public authorities of each state, its citizens and intermediate associations, can carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and exercise their rights with greater security.[64]

142. As is known, the United Nations Organization (U.N.O.) was established on June 26, 1945, and to it there were subsequently added specialized agencies consisting of members designated by the public authority of the various countries with important international tasks in the economic, social, cultural, educational and health fields. The United Nations Organization had as its essential purpose the maintenance and consolidation of peace between peoples, fostering between them friendly relations, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and varied forms of cooperation in every sector of human endeavor.

143. An act of the highest importance performed by the United Nations Organization was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved in the General Assembly of December 10, 1948. In the preamble of that Declaration, the recognition and respect of those rights and respective liberties is proclaimed as a goal to be achieved by all peoples and all countries.

144. We are fully aware that some objections and reservations were raised regarding certain points in the Declaration, and rightly so. There is no doubt, however, that the document represents an important step on the path towards the juridical-political organization of all the peoples of the world. For in it, in most solemn form, the dignity of a human person is acknowledged to all human beings; and as a consequence there is proclaimed, as a fundamental right, the right of every man freely to investigate the truth and to follow the norms of moral good and justice, and also the right to a life worthy of man's dignity, while other rights connected with those mentioned are likewise proclaimed.

145. It is therefore our ardent desire that the United Nations Organization -- in its structure and in its means -- may become ever more equal to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks, and may the time come as quickly as possible when every human being will find therein an effective safeguard for the rights which derive directly from his dignity as a person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable rights. This is all the more to be hoped for since all human beings, as they take an ever more active part in the public life of their own country, are showing an increasing interest in the affairs of all peoples, and are becoming more consciously aware that they are living members of the whole human family. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Roncalli/John XXIII had a starry-eyed vision of the future of the United Nations Organization that was mirrored Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's delusional hopes for a global financial organization that would pose no threat to national sovereignty while respecting the Natural Law principle of Subsidiarity:


In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for right. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. (Caritas in veritate, June 29, 2009.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have not only rejected and abandoned the Social Reign of Christ the King, they have bowed down in complete, docile obeisance to a the hegemony of secular political bodies that reject the Sacred Divinity of Our King as being completely irrelevant, if not a matter of "division" and "discord" that needs to be kept in check, to the pursuit of justice within and among nations. In doing, this, of course, these contemptible little pests of Modernism make a mockery of these words of Pope Leo XIII and of Pope Pius XI:


This world-wide and solemn testimony of allegiance and piety is especially appropriate to Jesus Christ, who is the Head and Supreme Lord of the race. His empire extends not only over Catholic nations and those who, having been duly washed in the waters of holy baptism, belong of right to the Church, although erroneous opinions keep them astray, or dissent from her teaching cuts them off from her care; it comprises also all those who are deprived of the Christian faith, so that the whole human race is most truly under the power of Jesus Christ. For He who is the Only-begotten Son of God the Father, having the same substance with Him and being the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance (Hebrews i., 3) necessarily has everything in common with the Father, and therefore sovereign power over all things. This is why the Son of God thus speaks of Himself through the Prophet: "But I am appointed king by him over Sion, his holy mountain. . . The Lord said to me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Psalm, ii.). By these words He declares that He has power from God over the whole Church, which is signified by Mount Sion, and also over the rest of the world to its uttermost ends. On what foundation this sovereign power rests is made sufficiently plain by the words, "Thou art My Son." For by the very fact that He is the Son of the King of all, He is also the heir of all His Father's power: hence the words - "I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance," which are similar to those used by Paul the Apostle, "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews i., 2).

But we should now give most special consideration to the declarations made by Jesus Christ, not through the Apostles or the Prophets but by His own words. To the Roman Governor who asked Him, "Art thou a king then?" He answered unhesitatingly, "Thou sayest that I am a king" John xviii. 37).And the greatness of this power and the boundlessness of His kingdom is still more clearly declared in these words to the Apostles: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew xxviii., 18). If then all power has been given to Christ it follows of necessity that His empire must be supreme, absolute and independent of the will of any other, so that none is either equal or like unto it: and since it has been given in heaven and on earth it ought to have heaven and earth obedient to it. And verily he has acted on this extraordinary and peculiar right when He commanded His Apostles to preach His doctrine over the earth, to gather all men together into the one body of the Church by the baptism of salvation, and to bind them by laws, which no one could reject without risking his eternal salvation.

But this is not all. Christ reigns not only by natural right as the Son of God, but also by a right that He has acquired. For He it was who snatched us "from the power of darkness" (Colossians i., 13), and "gave Himself for the redemption of all" (I Timothy ii., 6). Therefore not only Catholics, and those who have duly received Christian baptism, but also all men, individually and collectively, have become to Him "a purchased people" (I Peter ii., 9). St. Augustine's words are therefore to the point when he says: "You ask what price He paid? See what He gave and you will understand how much He paid. The price was the blood of Christ. What could cost so much but the whole world, and all its people? The great price He paid was paid for all" (T. 120 on St. John).

How it comes about that infidels themselves are subject to the power and dominion of Jesus Christ is clearly shown by St. Thomas, who gives us the reason and its explanation. For having put the question whether His judicial power extends to all men, and having stated that judicial authority flows naturally from royal authority, he concludes decisively as follows: "All things are subject to Christ as far as His power is concerned, although they are not all subject to Him in the exercise of that power" (3a., p., q. 59, a. 4). This sovereign power of Christ over men is exercised by truth, justice, and above all, by charity.

To this twofold ground of His power and domination He graciously allows us, if we think fit, to add voluntary consecration. Jesus Christ, our God and our Redeemer, is rich in the fullest and perfect possession of all things: we, on the other hand, are so poor and needy that we have nothing of our own to offer Him as a gift. But yet, in His infinite goodness and love, He in no way objects to our giving and consecrating to Him what is already His, as if it were really our own; nay, far from refusing such an offering, He positively desires it and asks for it: "My son, give me thy heart." We are, therefore, able to be pleasing to Him by the good will and the affection of our soul. For by consecrating ourselves to Him we not only declare our open and free acknowledgment and acceptance of His authority over us, but we also testify that if what we offer as a gift were really our own, we would still offer it with our whole heart. We also beg of Him that He would vouchsafe to receive it from us, though clearly His own. Such is the efficacy of the act of which We speak, such is the meaning underlying Our words.

And since there is in the Sacred Heart a symbol and a sensible image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ which moves us to love one another, therefore is it fit and proper that we should consecrate ourselves to His most Sacred Heart - an act which is nothing else than an offering and a binding of oneself to Jesus Christ, seeing that whatever honor, veneration and love is given to this divine Heart is really and truly given to Christ Himself. (Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, May 25, 1899.)

The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right."

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, should give us pause before we continue to rush into the insanity of considering the conciliar officials as anything other than outside the pale of the Catholic Church as they embrace naturalism while rejecting the fact that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society.  (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

As is well-known, the United Masonic Nations Organization has been in the vanguard of promoting one attack against the integrity of the family after another, starting with its hideous policies that have funded and promoted population "control" by means of contraception, sterilization and the surgical execution of innocent preborn children. So much for the "dignity of the human person" So much for Roncalli/John XXIII's absolutely mad, delusional, insane belief that the "universal common good" would be promoted by an organization founded on the principles of Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

Indeed, the United Masonic Nations Organization is of its very insidious nature an effort to substitute a secular vision of the world to replace the concept of national sovereignty and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church over the course of time. It has been aided and abetted at every turn by the lords of conciliarism even though its predecessor, the League of Nations (which existed, at least on paper, from 1919-1945, although its effective end date was the start of World War II on September 1, 1939, when the forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics invaded Poland from the east two days before the armed forces of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich invaded Poland from the west), was mocked as follows by Pope Pius XI in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

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.

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.

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. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)


The conciliar revolutionaries scoff at such "pessimistic" evaluations of the "progress" that they believed had been made by the lords of Modernity to realize a world where people would become "aware" they were "living members" of "one human family." How much proof, ladies and gentlemen, does one need to understand that the conciliar revolutionaries reject the simple fact that the Catholic Church, founded as she was by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, is the only means that God has given men to be truly united in the one bond of the true religion.

Roncalli/John XXIII's successor, Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick famously praised the United Masonic Nations Organization as follows in his infamous address of obeisance to this Judeo-Masonic body on October 4, 1965, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi:


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.)

No, it is not Christ the King Who brings concord and peace through His true Church. The United Nations does so.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II brought a similar message to the United Masonic Nations on October 2, 1995, an event to which I was an eyewitness in my capacity as correspondent for The Wanderer at the time:


I come before you today with the desire to be able to contribute to that thoughtful meditation on the history and role of this Organization which should accompany and give substance to the anniversary celebrations. The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family. It is this awareness which inspires my thoughts today; they will not dwell on any particular social, political, or economic question; rather, I would like to reflect with you on what the extraordinary changes of the last few years imply, not simply for the present, but for the future of the whole human family. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's Address to the United Nations Organization, New York, October 5, 1995. Ratzinger/Benedict delivered similar remarks on Friday, April 18, 2008. See No Room for Christ the King at the United Nations

Common concern for the human family?

The common temporal good must be pursued in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Through its support of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, the sterilization of women in the name of "health," the provision of various kinds of prophylactics to prevent the spread of a disease that is contracted principally by means of unchaste behavior, the agitation in favor of lower population growth rates to facilitate a "greener earth," policies of pantheistic environmentalism, promotion of the lavender agenda in the name of "diversity" of human rights" and, of course, attacks on parental rights in the name of "protecting" children, the United Masonic Nations Organization has promoted all manner of evil. How can evil be the foundation for the provision of the "universal common good"?

Oblivious to all of this, the conciliar revolutionaries recently subordinated the Holy See's criminal law penalties to those of the United Masonic Nations Organization and the International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague, The Netherlands:

These laws, however, have a broader scope, since they incorporate into the Vatican legal system the provisions of numerous international conventions including: the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, on the conduct of war and war crimes; the 1965 Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; the 1984 Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the 1989 Convention on the rights of the child and its optional protocols of 2000.



Of particular note in this context is the introduction of the crime of torture and a broader definition of the category of crimes against minors (including: the sale of children, child prostitution, the recruitment of children, sexual violence and sexual acts with children, and the production and possession of child pornography).

A section of the legislation introduces a list of crimes against humanity, in particular, the crimes of genocide and apartheid, following broadly the definitions adopted in the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court. The section of the Criminal Code regarding offences committed in the exercise of public administration has also been revised in light of the 2003 United Nations Convention against corruption. With regard to penalties, that of life imprisonment has been abolished and it has been replaced with a maximum penalty of 30 to 35 years of imprisonment.

In line with the most recent developments at the international level, the new legislation also introduces a system of penalties for juridical persons who profit from the criminal activities of their constituent bodies or personnel, establishing their direct liability and providing as penalties a set of interdictions and pecuniary sanctions.

In the area of criminal procedure, the general principles of presumption of innocence and due process within a reasonable time have been recognized explicitly, while the power of the judicial authorities to adopt precautionary measures has been increased by bringing up to date the provisions for confiscation and the freezing of assets.

Also of importance is the modernization of the rather dated norms governing international judicial cooperation, with the adoption of measures in line with the standards of the most recent international conventions. (Francis the Mason issues Motu Proprio on criminal law matters in Vatican.)

This is all so eerily of a 1973 Columbia Broadcasting System made-for-television motion picture, Catholics (retitled thereafter as The Conflict), that starred a thirty-three year-old Martin Sheen and a sixty year-old Trevor Howard that took place after "Vatican IV." Although the first ten minutes of the motion picture has since, according to online reviews of an edited DVD release, been edited out, it is in those first ten minutes that one could see a very eerie but nevertheless prophetic account of the Vatican's surrender to world authorities as Sheen's character, Father Kinsella, who was first seen engaging in "Zen meditation," being given his marching orders by the pope, who had received his marching orders from an ecumenical world church in The Hague to stamp out the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in a monastery on an island off of Ireland.

Whether or not writer Brian Moore, on whose novel of the same name he based his own teleplay adaptation, intended to portray the scene as such is unknown. However, the clear implication even at the time was that the conciliar Vatican was heading in the direction of total subordination to an ecumenical world church and other such authorities. I found the suggestion so very disturbing that I mentioned this possibility six years later to a Dominican priest who had taught me at Saint John's University in the Spring of 1972, who dismissed it out of hand as absurd.

Well, a "pope" who answers to The Hague is not so absurd after all, is it, ladies and gentleman.

Ah, but live by the United Masonic Nations Organization and you shall die by the United Masonic Nations Organization:

United Nations committee concerned with children’s rights is requesting that the Vatican provide complete details about every accusation it has ever received of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy.


The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, published “a list of issues” it found lacking in the Vatican’s latest report on its compliance with international obligations.

The Vatican is being asked to provide “detailed information on all cases of child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns”, as well as how it has responded to victims and perpetrators of abuse, whether it ever investigated “complaints of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of girls in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland and how it dealt with allegations that young boys, who were part of the Legion of Christ, were being separated from their families.

The committee also requested information on what the Vatican has done to address discrimination between boys and girls in Catholic schools, including removing sexual stereotypes in school textbooks, whether it has “clearly condemned” corporal punishment of children, if it still labels children born out of wedlock as “illegitimate”; and how it is working to prevent child abandonment and trace infants’ identities when Church-run facilities receive unwanted children, including through so-called “baby boxes”.

The committee also asked the Vatican to explain what measures it took to “avoid retaliation against child victims of pornography” and whistleblowers, and whether the Vatican ever investigated recently discovered allegations of thousands of babies being “sold for adoption over the past decades in Spain by a network of doctors, nun and priests”.

The committee had also requested that the Vatican clarify whether it had explicitly defined and criminalised the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

In an on-going effort to bring its legal system and laws up to date, the Vatican issued a number of new measures this week to comply with provisions required by a number of UN conventions the Vatican is party to, including explicitly outlawing the crime of torture and providing a broader definition of the category of crimes against minors.

Giuseppe Dalla Torre, president of the Vatican City State court, told reporters that such offences were always crimes in the Vatican, but a new law makes the criminal activities and penalties more explicit. That’s because the penal code used by the Vatican is based on Italian laws from the 19th to early 20th centuries, which meant there were no provisions against some things, such as child pornography.

The UN committee requires governments of signatory countries of the convention and its two optional protocols on child trafficking and on armed conflict to submit a comprehensive review of how convention regulations are being implemented, as well as progress reports every five years.

The Vatican has been party to the 1989 convention since 1990, but had been lagging behind in turning in its mandatory reports.

After reviewing the Vatican’s most recent periodic report, the UN committee published in response a four-page outline of concerns and requests for additional information and clarifications. It asked the Vatican to respond by November, before the committee meets for further review in January 2014.

The Holy See was just one of six countries, including Germany, Russia and Yemen, whose reviews by the UN committee were published in early July on the committee’s website.

Almost all of the reviews requested more information about how countries were dealing with the problems of sexual abuse, violence and corporal punishment against minors, though without the kind of detail requested of the Vatican.

Each review was also tailored to specific situations of concern in each country, such as female genital mutilation and child marriages in Yemen, criteria used to remove children from their parents in Russia, and mental health guidelines in Germany for diagnosing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. (UN asks Vatican to account for every abuse allegation it has received.)

Subordinating oneself to the devil and his minions in the world does not win any degree of "respect" from the adversary, who becomes bolder and bolder the more that his global institutions are praised and the more that they are paid obeisance by what most people think is the Catholic Church but is actually his own tool to prepare for the coming of Antichrist.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI bear direct responsibility the loss of the Holy See's sovereignty (not that the conciliar Vatican has handled abuse cases honestly, of course, something that has been the subject of scores of articles on this site over the years) as the former agreed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the latter urged more and more nations to ratify this Judeo-Masonic attack on parental rights:


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.)

The Holy See was the fourth of the currently one hundred ninety-three nations to have signed the United Nations Convention on the Child, doing so under the direction of Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 20, 1990. Fourth. Well, live by the United Nations, die by the United Nations.

Dr. Stephen M. Krason, 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 to convince them not to ratify this Marxist "convention:"

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. 



How ironic it is that I helped to draft the points above while being oblivious to the fact that the man I believed to be the "pope," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had legally bound the Holy See to the very United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child whose passages I had critiqued. To be honest, it is pretty shameful to have been reasonably clear about the dangers in the "convention" while ignoring the fact that the "pope" supported the very thing I was opposing.

Then again, the whole concept of "World Youth Day" was something that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II borrowed from the 1985 United Nations "Year of Youth:"


VATICAN CITY -- Blessed John Paul II rallied young Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI instructed them and Pope Francis is preparing to send them out on mission.

When he travels to Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day, Pope Francis -- the former archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina -- will be continuing a tradition begun by Blessed John Paul in Buenos Aires in 1987, gathering Catholic youths from around the world together for several intense days of faith-building and celebration.

In cities from South America to Europe, Asia to North America and back again, each World Youth Day with the pope has been different in size and in the culture the youths experienced and shared.

But the contributions of each pope -- because of both personality and personal emphasis -- also have left striking marks on the 11 international gatherings held since 1987. With Pope Francis, that tradition of the evolving World Youth Day is bound to continue in Rio July 23-28.

World Youth Day gatherings are so much a part of Catholic life now that it is hard to imagine just how innovative Blessed John Paul's idea first seemed. The Polish pope invited young people to his Palm Sunday celebration at the Vatican during the 1985 U.N.-proclaimed Year of Youth and Vatican officials were shocked when some 250,000 young people showed up; they had planned for 60,000 pilgrims. (Apostates put personal stamp on World Youth Day celebrations.)

"World Youth Day" is, after all, a celebration of the conciliar version of Judeo-Masonry, replete with immodesty, indecency, diabolical "music," sacrilegious liturgical ceremonies and syncretism in the name of "the new evangelization." "World Youth Day" is very much a part of the "world," that is, of course, of the world, the flesh and the devil.

That "World Youth Day" should have found its origins during a United Nations "Year of the Youth" is itself unsurprising when one of conciliarism's own iconic revolutionaries, the pantheistic evolutionist named Father Pierre Martin Teilhard Chardin of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's own Society of Jesus (a man who was recently praised in the pages of--what else?--L'Osservatore Romano; see Teilhard praised for predicting the world's socialization), served as a diabolical inspiration for the very "principles" of the United Masonic Nations Organization, something that Mr. James Larson, who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, pointed out very clearly in an article:


We must begin by noting again that what Teilhard de Chardin speaks of as having “seen” (he even speaks of having “come down from the mountain” after this vision) is the “great vision” of a “cosmic liturgy” to which the present Pope [Benedict XVI] refers in his homily at Aosta. Therefore, we are not here speaking of some individual fantasy which has had little effect upon the reigning thinking within the Catholic Church. Nor are we dealing with something which is taken seriously only by Catholic modernists. In an article titled "The Occult Character of the United Nations," author Alan Morrison writes the following:

"I have often spoken about the fact that the United Nations is an organization which has been widely infiltrated by occultists and propagators of the ‘New Spirituality’ (New Ageism). In the book ‘The Aquarian Conspiracy’, by Marilyn Ferguson, a survey of New Agers showed that the leading influence on their spiritual ‘awakening’ was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The occultist and well-known ‘channeller’, Dr. Robert Muller, who was an Assistant Secretary General at the United Nations until recently, wrote in one of his books: ‘Teilhard [de Chardin] had always viewed the United Nations as the progressive institutional embodiment of his philosophy’ (Robert Muller, ed., The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation, Miranana, 1983, p.304). As the darling of the ‘New Spirituality’, Teilhard de Chardin rigorously applied his monist, evolutionary philosophy to the world political situation, leading him to advocate a vision of some kind of one-world government. In his book ‘The Future of Man’ (Harper & Row, 1955, p.182), he wrote: ‘Although the form is not yet discernible, mankind tomorrow will awaken to a 'pan-organized' world’.”


It is absolutely essential, therefore, that we take to a careful study of Teilhard de Chardin in order to understand where his current philosophical and theological aberrations are leading the Church and the world. It is especially demanding of Catholic traditionalists to comprehend what this might entail for the liturgical “Reform of the Reform.” and for what Cardinal Koch has termed “the common rite” of the future. (A Living Host: Liturgy, and Cosmic Evolution in the Thought of Benedict XVI and Teilhard de Chardin.)

Well, the "reform of the reform" is dead under Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis The Jansenist.

The esteem of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his evolutionist, pantheistic heresies that lead ultimately to a One World Ecumenical Church that is itself subordinated to various global bodies of international governance continues unabated.

The late 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 the conciliar revolutionaries reject so boldly even though they keep being bitten by the snake whose allurements they simply cannot resist:

"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?"


The conciliar revolutionaries do not see or accept this because they have rejected the Catholic Faith in favor of another: the New World Order of Judeo-Masonry.

It is that simple.

Where does one begin to explain to the unconvinced that none of the errors being promoted by the conciliar revolutionaries come from the Catholic Church?


As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Yes, The Chair is Still Empty.

Far, far from the mind and heart of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, 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?

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.

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.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.