Growing Vatican Sovereignty
Rev John MacLeod
When Britain, in 1972, was about to join the Common Market (now the European
Union) the Prime Minister at the time, the Rt Hon Edward Heath, assured us that
there was no question of the Roman Catholic Church being involved in what was
happening; the Vatican was not influencing the course of events; for us to sign
up to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome would not affect our national sovereignty,
nor would it undermine in any way the foundations of our Protestant throne and
constitution. In short, we were told that our fears were groundless.
Thirty years later Mr Heath is openly declaring that he was actually "a federalist
of long-standing" and it emerges that "his reassurances that British sovereignty
would not be impaired were at odds with the advice of government legal officers
about the supremacy of Community law". So much for the honesty and integrity
of a British Prime Minister! That successive amendments to the Treaty have
adversely affected the authority and legislative powers of the Westminster
Parliament is accepted as reality. And if the proposed new European constitution
is adopted, it is to be feared that the remaining decision-making of importance
will be in the hands of an assembly on the other side of the English Channel.
One well-known political commentator has said that its adoption would have "a
profound and fundamental effect on British sovereignty and our national independence".
The fact that our present Prime Minister claims that it would be "patriotic" for
Britain to sign up to it should immediately put us on our guard.
In 1972 only far-seeing Protestants recognised that the Treaty of Rome was
Vatican-inspired, but it is now being observed by others. The evidence is compelling.
At a critical time in our nation's history, it is encouraging to find The
Spectator recently carrying an article by Adrian Hilton (author of The
Principality and Power of Europe) in which he, in our view, admirably expresses
the thoughts and concerns of all patriotic British subjects who espouse the
Protestant cause. Its preamble is as follows: "Adrian Hilton says that the
EU is a means of undoing the Reformation and extending Vatican sovereignty
over Britain". He makes the following points, among others:
"'This realm of England is an Empire . . . governed by one Supreme Head and
King.' So proclaimed Thomas Cromwell in his most critical piece of legislation,
the Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1533. By calling England an empire, he designated
it a sovereign state, with a king who owed no submission to any other human
ruler and who was invested with plenary power to give his people justice in
all causes. Interestingly, the Act's critics in Parliament were not so much
concerned by its doctrinal corollaries, as by the fear that the Pope might
retaliate by organising a European trade embargo against England. The Pope,
of course, laid claim to the ultimate divine right. He was, after all, the
Vice-Christ, appointed to establish one unified empire under one emperor, belonging
to one Church under one God.
"England finally rid itself of papal interference in the Bill of Rights of
1689, which declared that 'no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or
authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm'. It may have taken
440 years from Cromwell's foundational declaration, but entry in 1973 to the
'European Economic Community' brought England back into the [Roman] Catholic
fold, and exactly 460 years after the English monarch was declared sovereign,
the present Queen was reduced to vassal status under the terms of the Maastricht
Treaty, which rendered her a European citizen and thereby subject to 'foreign
princes and potentates'.
"The issue of European religious union is one that has been concealed even
deeper than the plans for political union, but the ratchet towards a [Roman]
Catholic Europe is just as real. The Pope's recent demand that 'God' be featured
in the emerging European constitution has been echoed by many leading [Roman]
Catholic politicians and bishops. While on the surface such a reference may
offend only Europe's atheist and humanist contingent, it must be observed that
when the Vatican refers to God, she sees herself as God's infallible vice-regent
upon earth, the leading organ of divine expression; indeed, according to its
publication Dominus Iesus (5 September 2000), as the only mediator in the salvation
of God's elect, insisting that all other Churches, including the Church of
England, 'are not Churches in the proper sense'.
"The Roman Church is founded on a political dogma claiming that the Pope is
'supreme ruler of the world'; superior to all kings, prime ministers and presidents.
These spiritual and temporal claims remain very much fundamental dogmas of
[Roman] Catholic teaching, permitting the Pope, through Cardinal Ratzinger,
the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to issue clear
directives to [Roman] Catholic politicians on how they should vote. Since their
obedience is considered a 'moral duty', they devolve everything to the overwhelmingly
[Roman] Catholic European Council of Ministers, Commission and Parliament,
and the ultimate Caesar is the Pope."
Hilton draws attention to a 1991 newspaper article which stated: "'Karol Wojtyla
is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his
Divine Right - that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the
Atlantic'. The [Roman] Catholic Church is achieving this through its political
wings - the Christian Democrat and Christian Socialist parties - with the EU's
'Founding Fathers' now reaping the ultimate reward: sainthood. The Pope has
beatified Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer for founding
the Union 'on Roman Catholic principles'. A supporter of their canonisation
said it shows that Europe 'was built upon a rock', adding, 'I think that the
European Union is a design not only of human beings but of God'. The very act
of bestowing sainthoods on politicians is purposely designed to inculcate that
European unification is God's will, and that those who lead it govern by divine
right.
"During the 1975 referendum campaign, Shirley Williams unambiguously associated
the vision of Europe with Rome's goal of assuming political and religious authority
over the lives of all Europeans. She observed, 'We will be joined to Europe,
in which the [Roman] Catholic religion will be the dominant faith and in which
the application of the [Roman] Catholic social doctrine will be a major factor
in everyday political and economic life'. While the EU has adopted many symbols
of nationhood (a passport, flag, anthem and currency) and is now moving towards
the attributes of government (a president, foreign secretary, global ambassadors
at the UN and G8), it follows that, since Europe has no unified demos [that is,
populace], a 'deeper' cohesive force is necessary to hold the whole project together.
When Cardinal Maria Martini of Milan addressed the European Parliament in 1997
in a symposium on Remembering the Origins of the Process of Integration,
he identified this 'deeper' something - effectively a common state religion -
reminding the Parliament that its true foundation was a religious one. He outlined
the importance of a single faith (Roman Catholicism), and emphasised that religions
must not support nationalisms (that is, the Church of England must not defend
the English constitution), and Europe must recognise the 'primacy of the divine'
(that is, the primacy of the Pope). His address included demands for a new welfare
state, in accordance with Roman Catholic social doctrine, and his contention
that European integration was never about economic and monetary issues alone.
He said, 'The Europe we must build is a Europe of the spirit'.
"When divinity rules, it is, of course, infallible. According to canon law,
the Pope claims immunity from all moral and civil authority: 'The First See
is judged by no one'. This is precisely the spirit in which the EU governs,
with the Court of Justice deeming that political criticism of its leaders is
akin to the most extreme forms of blasphemy. It is therefore possible to suppress
it without violating freedom of speech, affording the EU an undefined and seemingly
unlimited power to restrict political criticism. Like the Papacy, the Court
is supreme, accountable to no one, and the sole arbiter of citizens' 'rights'.
Lord Shore, in his book Separate Ways, observed that the Commission
acts precisely 'like a priestly caste - similar to what it must have been in
pre-Reformation days, when the Bible was in Latin, not English; the Pope, his
cardinals and bishops decided the content of canon law'.
"Accordingly, any decision of the people which does not accord with the divine
will has to be corrected. The very notion of 'destiny' is simply a euphemism
for government by divine right, and this is the teleological explanation for
three referendums in Denmark on the Treaty of Maastricht, two referendums in
Ireland on the Treaty of Nice, and the suspension of democracy altogether in
Belgium and Italy in order to ratify treaties or force through budgets. In
each referendum, there is a 'wrong' and a 'right' outcome. It also accords
with the EU's sanctioning and funding of 'acceptable' political parties, that
is, those who ultimately accord with its own aims.
"Such a destiny can be foisted upon recalcitrant nations only when they are
weakened. The Roman principle of divide and rule is resurrected in the 'Europe
of Regions' strategy, which encourages each 'region' of Europe to look directly
to Brussels for policy and funding, bypassing national parliaments in the process.
This is a re-creation of a mediaeval Europe of small, ineffectual states which
can be easily dominated. The ecumenically-minded Church of England has been
complicit in the fracturing of England, with its bishops chairing regional
conventions, but the Ecumenical Movement is in reality a parallel front to
Rome's divide-and-rule strategy. When Cardinal Bea stated that 'no concessions
in dogma can be made by the Church for the sake of Christian Unity', he was
simply reiterating Rome's belief about itself. Any movement or concession is
only ever on the part of the subsidiaries, since the centre is infallible.
"There is much debate about whether the EU is a democracy, a theocracy, an
oligarchy or a collective dictatorship, but at root it is none of these. It
is an amphictyony - a confederation of states established around a religious
centre. A [Roman] Catholic EU will inevitably result in the subjugation of
Britain's Protestant ethos to Roman Catholic social, political and religious
teachings. The Queen's coronation oath 'to govern the peoples of the United
Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant
Reformed religion established by law' is negated by the process of deeper European
integration. It is almost a symbolic confirmation of the Queen's vassal status
that a 20p coin of Gibraltar bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Our Lady of
Europa' - the suzerain spiritual authority - while the Queen is stripped of
her usual titles: DG REG, FD, Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith.
"Under the constitution for Europe, the EU will have a [Roman] Catholic Caesar
presiding over the Protestant monarch. . . . The allegiance of the Queen's subjects
is usurped by the demand for allegiance to the suzerain power; a spiritually
unifying allegiance which is primary, for without the unity of the demos, the
European vision will die. Accession to the constitution for Europe would finally
confirm that the United Kingdom yields to the suzerain European Ecumenical Community
- an empire in which everything belongs to Caesar, and where Caesar is God. Rendering
the euro unto him would be all that remains for this vassal state to perform."
|