If you play with fire…

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”

-– G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, former director of UN World Health Organization

“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.”

— Pope Paul VI’s Address to United Nations General Assembly, October 4, 1965

benetton_titel_grossI’ve never been a big fan of the United Nations. In the abstract it sounds nice, but it smacks of benign globalism and Tower-of-Babel hubris. It is the largest metastasizing engine of what I call the Fat Cracker’s Burden. The most recent example of the Fat Cracker’s Burden was provided by none other than Al Gore, when he reiterated from on high the Western duty to manage the fertility of the dark breeders sub-equatorial populations. Suffice to say that UN-style terraforming is not guileless, as Jacqueline Kasun demonstrates in The War Against Population. It is precisely at the intersection of fertility and Western hegemony, cloaked by a guise of globalistic “development” schemes, that the entire One World Uplift Mofo Progressive Party Plan collapses in on itself. Indeed, the recent praise given by Catholic bishops to anti-LGBT laws in Nigeria is enough to make the liberal headasplode, for in one episode we witness gay rights advocacy clashing with globalist cultural relativism, anti-colonialism careening into critical race theory, “dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!”

What clearer sign could there be that the authentic diversity of peoples and their own values have been subjugated to the reigning anti-family agenda, than the fact that the Sochi Olympics are now identified with one’s solidarity to the gay movement in contrast to one’s loyalty to one’s own traditions and organically conserved identity? The diversity of the rainbow is a pure illusion: the intended effect is monochromatic morality and ideological conformity. The United Nations is, of course, of one mind with such stifling uniformity, and, as I have noted before, it is a uniformity totally inimical to the Church’s liberty. Hence, as this Super Flumina Babylonis article so ably demonstrates, it is equal parts hubris and folly for the Church to play along with the Great Moral Leader Narrative and to seek shelter under the antiseptic Big Tent of the UN. The longer the Church plays with fire, the more She stokes the flames of the secular inquisition’s pyre, as the world instinctively seeks a scapegoat despite allegedly having freed itself from “sin” and “morality”.

Paul VI at UNSymbols matter. (HT to Mundabor)


About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to If you play with fire…

  1. Crude says:

    I don’t quite get what you mean about the Church ‘playing with fire’.

  2. I mean the strategy of meeting the UN as a basically parallel Church of Man, thus implicitly subjecting the Church to the moral standards of the UN. This is what the recent critical UN report is all about. “So you want to play the One World game with us?” the UN asks the Church. “By all means! Knives out!”

    To be more specific about this trend, let me cite the Super Flumina piece:

    A further, and significant, event was Pope Paul VI’s address, on 4th October 1965, the twentieth anniversary of its foundation, to the United Nations General Assembly. Its adulatory content was only matched by its lack of Catholic social and theological principle.[3] In the course of it the Pope—

    • declined to assert the moral authority of the Church, as the Institution established by Almighty God for their good, over the nations of the world ;
      • derogated from the Church’s authority in temporal matters, deferring to that of the United Nations (‘the UN’) which he described as ‘the last hope of concord and peace’ [n. 2] ;
      • suggested the UN reflected in the temporal field the uniqueness and universality that the Church ‘aspires to’ exercise in the spiritual field [n. 3] ;
      • praised the UN as if the gathering of its members manifested an excellence not previously attained in the history of mankind[4] [n. 2], reflecting in this something of the euphoric view of his predecessor[5] ;
      • spoke as if the UN alone could solve the material problems of the world ;
      • deferred to it as offering an interpretation of the highest sphere of human wisdom, ‘We would almost say, its sacred character’ [n. 6] ;
      • adopted, even as he upheld the Church’s teaching on the illicitness of contraception, a Malthusian, that is, inchoately atheistic, attitude to human procreation [n. 6] ; and,
      • abandoned the Church’s condemnation of the right to religious freedom by praising its inclusion in the UN’s ‘Declaration of Human Rights’ [n. 6].[6]

    In his endeavours to assimilate the Church’s teachings the Pope aided the inversion of the proper relationship between the Church and the world.

  3. Crude says:

    Well, here are some more quotes from Paul VI to the UN:

    In a word, the edifice of modern civilization must be built on spiritual principles, which alone can not only support it, but also illuminate and animate it. And it is Our conviction, as you know, that these indispensable principles of higher wisdom can rest only on faith in God. The unknown God of whom Saint Paul spoke to the Athenians on the Areopagus? Unknown to those who, without realizing it, yet sought Him and had Him near them, as happens to so many men of our century? . . . To us, in any case, and to all those who receive the ineffable revelation which Christ has given us of Him, He is the living God, the Father of allmen.”

    Poorly formatted because PDF is a terrible format.

    The peoples turn to the United Nations as to the ultimate hope for harmony and peace. We venture to bring here their tribute of honour and hope, together with Our own. And that is why this moment is great for you too.

    If we’re quoting from the same document, then something seems amiss. The Pope didn’t say the UN, as opposed to the Church, was the last hope for concord and peace. He said people were looking to the UN as the ultimate hope.

    I see no hope about the Pope saying the Church ‘aspires to’ become what the UN already is.

    Something seems amiss here. Do you have quotes?

  4. Crude says:

    Re: Contraception, from the same document:

    “What you proclaim here are the fundamen
    tal rights and duties of man, his dignity, his
    freedom, and above all his religious freedom.
    We feel that you are the interpreters of what
    is highest in human wisdom, We would almost
    say, of its sacred character. For it is above all
    the life of man that is in question and the life
    of man is sacred; no one may dare offend it.
    It is in your Assembly that respect for life, even
    in so far as the great problem of the birth rate
    is concerned, must find its highest affirmation
    and its most reasoned defence. Your task is to
    ensure that there is enough bread on the table
    of mankind, and not to favour an artificial con
    trol of births, which would be irrational, in
    order to lessen the number of guests at the
    banquet of life.

  5. Tony Jokin says:

    I think that every time the Church speaks positively about a secular figure or a secular organization, she is pretty much playing with fire. A secular organization has no fixed truth from which it draws from (other than perhaps that truth is determined by the powerful majority).

    On a different note, I hope you won’t consider me as being ‘out-there’ for saying this but I found your first image in the post somewhat immodest and did sort of wish you could pick a different image perhaps. It’s a little too tempting for folks like me that are struggling with temptation…..

  6. Thank you for saying something. I apologize for my indiscretion. I grabbed one of the more typical “United Colors of Benetton” images off the internet, to make vivid what I think the Zeitgeist behind the UN is, but have since altered the image.

  7. Tony Jokin says:

    No worries. And Thank you for understanding! 🙂

  8. Crude says:

    Nothing on this one? Really?

    I think the pope’s interaction with the UN may have been somewhat misrepresented here by the site you reference.

  9. You’ll not easily find Paul VI, of all people, going soft on contraception, so I don’t think this quotation is exactly germane to my worry. I’m hardly suggesting that praising the UN amounts to endorsing all of its related endeavors. On that score, the quotation about the banquet of life is a great antidote to the eugenicism behind UN-style benign globalism. My point: Would that Paul VI had simply said that, and not thrown in with the One World enthusiasm.

  10. Crude says:

    My concern here is more the site you quoted that you yourself. I think Paul VI’s statements were misrepresented.

    I understand your point. However, I suspect that what Paul VI was doing wasn’t ‘throwing in with the One World enthusiasm’, but recognizing it and trying to guide it. Argue he failed. Clearly, I won’t fight that one. But argue that he shouldn’t have tried, and I get more leery.

  11. “In a word, the edifice of modern civilization…”

    Keep in mind that one of my ongoing themes is the “If you give a mouse a cookie” warning. I’m not trying to prove too much here, as if I need to find a quotation from Paul VI wherein he denounces the Church or God in favor of the UN and Man. No, my aims are more modest. I’m simply noting how putting the Church on a par with something like the UN never benefits the Church, and only works to the good of the honorary ally. Don’t think Paul VI was adulatory enough? Here are some other lines from the message we’re discussing:

    “The peoples turn to the United Nations as their last hope for peace and concord. We make bold to bring here with Our own their tribute of honour and hope“.

    “You exist and work to unite nations, to bring States into association. Let Us put it in the form that you exist to get people together with one another. You are… a bridge between peoples… We are tempted to say that your characteristic is to reflect in the temporal order what our Catholic Church is in the spiritual order – the sole organisation of its kind, and universal. Nothing higher on the natural plane can be imagined in the ideological edifice of humanity

    “There is being established here a system of solidarity which receives the regular and unanimous support, for its supreme civilising objectives, of the whole family of peoples for the good of each and all.

    “This is the finest aspect of the United Nations Organisation, this is what gives it its most genuinely human guise; this is the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world’s greatest hope, for it is the reflection of God’s design – a design transcendent and full of love – for the progress of human society on earth, a reflection in which We can see the gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth.

    Far more sober was Pius X when he said in his Letter on the Sillon (1910):

    “There is no need for Us to point out that the advent of World Democracy can have no relevance to the work of the Church in the world… the reform of civilisation is essentially a religious task, for true civilisation presupposes a moral foundation for it, and there can be no morally based civilisation without the [!] true religion: this is a truth which can be demonstrated from the evidence of history.”

    In the same vein, in 1957, though he was at times given to reveries of his own about One-Worldist optimism, Pius XII, as if previsaging Paul VI’s excesses, cautioned:

    “On this score [i.e. the marginalization of absolute truth for all humans] We must with deepest sadness mourn the help given by some Catholics, both ecclesiastical and lay, to the tactics of obfuscation, calculated to bring about a result that they themselves did not intend. How can they fail to see that such [relativization] is the aim of all that insincere activity which hides under the name of ‘talks’ and ‘meetings’? Why enter a discussion, for that matter, without a common language, or how is it possible to meet if the paths are divergent, i.e. if one party rejects or denies the common absolute values, thereby making all ‘co-existence in truth’ unattainable? Out of respect for the very name of Christian, compliance with such tactics should cease, for, as the Apostle warns, it is inconsistent to wish to sit at the table of God and at that of His enemies (cf. I Cor., x, 21).”

    In the context of the Cold War, the calls for European solidarity made more sense, especially considering that there was still a robust Christian and vocabulary heritage shared by the nations of Europe. The more pluralistic society became, however, and the wider the One-World net was cast, the less coherent Paul VI’s appeals, and those of its kind, to the transcendent became, such that by the time John Paul II and Benedict XVI were calling on the EU not to jettison its Christian identity, they were literally talking into a pluralistic maelstrom that had decades of ecclesial blessing.

    Timing is everything. Paul VI gave his well meaning but ultimately very myopic message to the UN on 4 October, 1964. Fourteen months later Paul VI promulgated Dignitatis Humanae, which was the capstone on a council that for half a decade had been saying to the world, “You guys are doing pretty well, after all. Mind if we play along?” So, certainly, Paul VI’s caveat about “spiritual principles” is groping after the realism of Pius X and Pius XII, but notice how instead of adverting to the uniquely Christian basis of those principles, he nods at the Unknown God and stumps for “religion” in general.

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s