by Charles Lamb
Whatever one thinks of an upcoming war on Iraq, one thing is becoming abundantly clear: Vatican officials are curiously slouching toward favoring a one-world governmenta world that is ruled by the United Nations.
As recently reported by a number of Catholic journals, in relation to a possible war with Iraq, Cardinal Ratzinger opined that that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would not be justifiable. Ratzinger stated: "Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power." What the Catholic press has neglected to mention is that Cardinal Ratzinger's comments do not even remotely reflect classical Catholic just war theory.
A Question of Authority
Hidden in Ratzinger's comments is the fact that he does think that military action might be justifiable, but that "unilateral" military action would not be justifiable. Therefore, his statement goes right to the issue of authority, which Ratzinger seems to deny outright.
In contrast to Cardinal Ratzinger, St. Thomas teaches that, for a war to be just, "the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged" must be present. In other words, the one who declares war must possess the authority of a leader.
Therefore, according to classical Catholic just war theory, the United States has the authority to declare war on any country. That does not mean that any war would be justindeed, any war may fail the Catholic "just war" litmus test for other reasons, but the authority of the United States to declare war would never be questioned by any serious student of Catholic war theory.
Furthermore, contrary to Cardinal Ratzinger's musings, the United Nations does not have the authority to declare war on Iraq. From a Catholic theological standpoint, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, possesses no authority. His "authority" is a legal fiction. From a Thomistic standpoint, he does not have the power to declare war because he is neither a sovereign, nor does he have care of any community.
The sad fact about Cardinal Ratzinger's comments is that not only are they out of line with Catholic tradition, but they deny the sovereignty of a single nation in favor of a group of nations. To make matters worse, Ratzinger has essentially stated that the only entity that possesses the power to declare war is the United Nations.
United Nations: License to Kill
The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger has ruled out national sovereignty in favor of a group of nations would be harmful enough, but to recognize the United Nations over the United States is particularly offensive, not only to Americans, but also to Catholics.
The agenda of the United Nations is unabashedly anti-Catholic, and extremely pro-abortion. The fact that the United Nations promotes genocidal abortion both in principle and in practice cannot be denied. Literally hundreds of cases could be cited to prove this point.
According to The New American, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities gave an award to Communist China's Qian Xinzhong for having "implemented population policies on a massive scale." No doubt he did. The hallmark of China's population policy is one child per family. This includes, of course, forced sterilization and abortion, the murder of children outside their mother's wombs, including lethal injections, drowning, beating babies to death, etc.
A short time ago, the United Nations sought emergency aid for refugees in the Balkans. Flooding with fresh money, the United Nations proceeded to send "aid" to the refugees. Most people would consider "aid" to be in the form of medicine, food, and bandages.
That's probably what the refugees needed, but it's not what they got.
The United Nations Population Fund sent "Emergency Reproductive Health Kits" to Balkan refugee camps. These "care packages" contained abortifacient pills, intrauterine abortive devices, and in the case the woman didn't get the message from these items, the kits also included "manual vacuum aspirators," devices which literally suck the lives out of babies.
It is commonly known that the United Nations sends medical personnel to third world countries who vaccinate women against pregnancy, under the guise of vaccinating them against disease. This is a human-rights abuse par excellence.
Those in the womb aren't the only ones at whom the United Nations would aim. In the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the noted oceanographer Jacques Cousteau stated: "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
"Eliminate 350,000 people a day"? Not even Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler had dreams that lofty.
Based purely on the human rights record of the United Nations, the thought that Cardinal Ratzinger would endorse the United Nations as the sole authority in determining whether a war is just defies comment.
United Nations: Live and Let Die
In the same interview quoted above, Cardinal Ratzinger stated: "The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."
Cardinal Ratzinger's comment contains one essential thesis: if the situation were really that bad, then the United Nations would get involved. This comment would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. When the Soviets marched their tanks into Hungary in 1956, Afghanistan in 1979, and many other nations, setting up puppet governments and murdering the citizens, the United Nations did nothing.
When the Khmer Rouge turned Cambodia into a killing field, murdering one million people over the course of a few weeks, the U.N. did nothing. Sixty million people died at the hands of Mao, yet the U.N. did nothing. The official response of the United Nations toward Chinese aggression was to throw the country of Taiwan out of the United Nations.
That is only the beginning. The United Nations has not only done nothing to preserve peace, it has done just the opposite. It has sponsored genocidal maniacs, and helped them remain in power.
Though cases abound, the story of Idi Amin is one of the foremost examples of U.N. idiocy and depravity. Though circumstance prevented him from being the greatest mass-murderer in history, Amin was perhaps one of the most satanic rulers the twentieth century saw. Amin, a militant Moslem who came to rule Uganda by force in 1971, was a genocidal maniac, who murdered three-hundred-thousand Ugandans in the eight years he was in power. He personally murdered many Catholic priests; he murdered and dismembered his first wife. Amin was perhaps the only major ruler in the twentieth century who was a known ritual cannibalhis own son being one of his victims.
According to Paul Johnson's research in Modern Times, the refusal of the United Nations to take action against his regime cost the lives of 200,000 Ugandans. Not only did the United Nations refuse to take action against Amin, but four years into his regime, Amin was invited to speak at the United Nations, at which time he was given standing ovations at the beginning and at the end of his speech. The following day, the UN Secretary-General gave a dinner in Amin's honor. All of this happened at a time when it was well-known that Amin was guilty of genocide.
The fact that this incident doesn't even stand out is a testimony to the evil nature of the United Nations. The United Nations is constantly standing by those rulers who commit atrocities. Cardinal Ratzinger's comment that the United Nations would take action if they deemed it necessary is incomprehensible.
Cardinal Ratzinger's comments elevate the United Nations to a point which should anger not only all Catholics, but also those who seek to preserve Western culture everywhere. The United Nations is looked upon as a greater political entity than any one country. Not only is this legally incorrect, it is dangerous.
From Mecca with Love
I suspect that the current opinions of Cardinal Ratzinger have relatively little to do with just war or unjust war, and very much to do with coddling the disciples of Mohammed. Iraq is predominantly Islamic, and, as the logic goes, we don't want to hurt the good people over there.
In the real world, Christians are referred to by Moslems as infidels and looked upon as potential notches in their AK-47's. This "peaceful" religion of Islam does not view war as evil. In the religion of Islam, war is evangelization by other means.
Before the horrific events of September 11, the Vatican's love affair with Islam was merely nauseatingnow it is maddening. It's as if the Vatican has granted "Most Favored Religion" status to Islam. Under the leadership of the Vatican, millions of Catholics have defected to the religion of Islam, while the Vatican has applauded itself and its "new evangelization."
Even Pope John Paul II has repeatedly referred to Moslems as "our brothers in the one true God." He has apologized for Christian "failings in understanding" Moslems, and, on at least one occasion, kissed the Koran, calling it a "holy book." The fact that the Vatican has endorsed Islam and lost Catholics to that religion is at least partially responsible for the violent political situation in the world today.
Debating questions like whether America can declare a just war over a glass of brandy is all fine and good when you're sitting at the Vatican, but the real world is being attacked by Moslems. The fact that Moslems murdered thousands of people in New York and Washington D.C. pales in comparison to what Moslem regimes are doing in other countries, such as Iraq and the Sudan. Sudanese Moslems are killing Catholics in that country by the thousand.
No offense, your Eminence, but no one blew up the Vatican. Thousands of innocent people were murdered in the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. They died at the hands of Moslems (uh, I mean, "our brothers in the one, true God"). Imagine if the Vatican were blown up by Islamic terrorists (an unlikely scenario, I'll grant you, since the Vatican was a major contributor to the mosque in Rome, and they wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds them).
There has been much written by columnists on both sides of the aisle who decry the fact that the United States has made itself the world's policeman. The fact that the United States has found itself in this position is certainly unfortunate, but it is also undeniable that many people benefit from the presence of a worldwide cop. This applies to the Vatican as well.
Ultimately, the United States stands as the de facto protector of the Vatican State. If the Vatican were ever actually attacked, is it in a position to defend itself?
The Swiss Guard ain't exactly a commando unit.
Being that it could not defend itself, to whom would it appeal? It would not appeal to Moslems; it would not appeal to the United Nationsit would appeal to the United States.
Cardinal Ratzinger might do well to remind himself of that.