A Concordat With the Vatican Is Like Dancing With the Devil

A Concordat With the Vatican Is Like Dancing With the Devil

Vatican eyes political control and favors in one world government and one world religion quest

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec. 27, 2010

Entering into a concordat with the Vatican makes as much sense as dancing barefoot with the devil on a hot bed of coals.

Most Americans have no idea what a Vatican Concordat entails, but if the truth be known it is like signing your own death warrant.

Right now the Vatican and U.S. have established diplomatic relations for appearance sake, but it might as well be a full-blown concordat.

What is a concordat?

“A concordat is a pact between the Vatican and a nation-state whereby the Vatican gains certain political and financial benefits in return for support of a policy or arm of the national government. Such a concordat in a nation with numerous Catholics is also helpful in getting their allegiance or in curbing opposition to the government.” — Prof. John M. Swomley, St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City, Missouri

“Concordat: An Agreement made between a pope and a very Christian king, through which both of them dispose of things they never had any right to touch in the first place.” — Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach, Portable Theology, 1768

“[When drawing up concordats] the aims of the Church are always the same: money, influence on education and marriage laws. However, not everywhere can the maximal demands be achieved.” — Wolfgang Huber

“…It were to be desired that the Church should never need concordats, and should always find in civil rulers devoted children….” — “Concordats”, Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1913.

“Each concordat marks a state’s renunciation of its own powers and its assumption of the obligation to contribute to those of the Catholic Church. In exchange for these gifts, authoritarian governments buy from the church hierarchy a kind of legitimacy and support for their power, as being in harmony with the commands of God. In some cases they gain influence in the appointment of senior Churchmen. A democratic system does not need this legitimacy […]. Democracy has been the number one enemy of the Church for two centuries — with a short break, during which it was aggressively atheistic totalitarianism [communism] — and there is no reason to believe that it will change. On the other hand, to grant the Church any privileges violates the foundations of democracy, even if the facade is retained.” — Confidential note (therefore anonymous) for Poland’s President Aleksander Kwaśniewski before the ratification of the Polish concordat revealed by MP Ryszard Zając on 12 September 1996 in the Sejm

Since the fall of communism, which was an orchestrated event by the Vatican-led New World Order, the Vatican State has having a fire sale on concordats, entering into them with countries as fast as you can get a bad burger at McDonalds.

In fact, the Vatican has entered into a total of 172 concordats or some sort of diplomatic agreement world wide, granting the Holy, or should we say Hellish See special favor, with the Ivory Coast, State of Scleswig-Holstein (Germany) and the Federal Republic of Brazil being several of the latest.

The web site Concordat Watch explains why a concordat can sometimes being a confusing term:

“The confusion stems from three main sources. First, there really are different kinds of agreements with the Vatican. Second, ever since Vatican II the Holy See itself has not used the word consistently. And third, sometimes it’s politically advisable to pretend that concordats are something else.

“Why aren’t they all called “concordats?

“First, because some of them aren’t. There are different kinds of international agreements and only one type, the treaty, may be called a concordat. A treaty is enforceable under international law, unlike a non-treaty agreement, such as a diplomatic note or a modus vivendi. A concordat implies diplomatic recognition by the Vatican, and to prevent this, agreements concluded with various Communist countries, avoided the international dimension altogether and took the form of a modus vivendi.

“For instance the modus vivendi with Poland, which was the first of these, was officially between the Polish Episcopate and the Communist government, tactfully leaving the Vatican out of it.

“There’s also terminological confusion in the English-language press when reporters make an honest attempt to explain an unfamiliar word. Since Vatican concordats are almost unknown in the English-speaking world, these are often referred to in the press as accords, bilateral agreements, pacts, settlements, conventions or treaties.

“Another reason is that officially, the word concordat was dropped for a time when, after Vatican II (1962-65), these agreements no longer made the Catholicism the state religion. Franco was the last European dictator who would give the Church exclusive religious rights in a concordat. When Spain became a democracy the new agreement in which they relinquished their role as official state church was called an accord. And the agreement with King Hassan II of Marocco in 1983/84 was tactfully called an Exchange of Letters.

“However, in 1993 the term concordat reappeared as the official title of the Polish concordat and in 2004 with the Portuguese concordat, as well. It may be that this was meant to be a special honour to these two countries, as concordat means literally, “a union of hearts”. Poland, after all, was the homeland of John Paul II and Portugual, the country of the Fatima revelations in which he so fervently believed. But this is speculation based only on two examples from one pope. What future policy will be, we do not know.

“And, finally, there are the attempts to pretend that concordats are something else. Sometimes the word “concordat” is unacceptable politically, when neither the Vatican, nor the local politicians care to alert the citizens. Then these agreements are disguised under names, such as “convention” or “endorsement”.

“Napoleon avoided using this term for his Concordat of 1801, fearing that the would be regarded as a sellout of the principles of the French Revolution. Instead, he called it a “Convention” and this tactful term was used by a restored Bourbon monarch for two further concordats in 1828.

“In 1929 the papal nuncio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) negotiated a Concordat with social-democratic Prussia. When Lutherans objected, Pacelli suggested calling the Concordat a ‘solemn convention.’ Everybody was pleased.* Today it is officially titled a “treaty” (Vertrag).

“More recent concordats with secularist France from 1974 and 1999 are called “Endorsements” (Avenants).

Concordats prove the Vatican uses religion as a front in order to gain political control since they are recognized as a temporal power and a City/State.

What is Vatican strategy, according to geo political researchers at Concordat Watch?

These church-state accords generally give the Church massive state subsidies and other privileges. They also permit Church employees to be hounded about their private lives. Yet as “international treaties”, concordats bypass the democratic process, making parliaments powerless to modify, let alone revoke them.

The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and state. “The Vatican is inserted into the international community because it is a state; once there, it behaves like a church.”[1] By setting up three legal identities and then adroitly switching from one to another, the Vatican has obtained unprecedented legal rights and international influence.

The right gets a concordat, the left, a modus vivendi

Concordats have traditionally been made with rightwing governments, whether absolute monarchies or fascist dictatorships. However, only a quiet working arrangement has been made with authoritarian governments on the left, as these compete with the Church ideologically, rather than complementing it.

Concordats promote authoritarianism

Authoritarianism concentrates power in one man or group. It tends not to remain at the top, but to pervade society at all levels. Blind obedience comes to be seen as the necessary glue for keeping society together, and it is applauded by the mini-dictators throughout such a society. However, as recent research shows, a lack of power is deeply damaging to the individual.

Concordats control women

Concordats can be a powerful tool for social control. These Vatican “treaties” can prohibit divorce, get a woman fired for remarrying or even deny her access to sex education and family planning. Concordats help keep women married and bearing children for the Church. Yet studies have shown that most Catholics worldwide disagree with many key Vatican doctrines — as do many priests.

Concordat agenda: the “Papal dictation”

This internal Vatican memo was dictated by Gregory VII near the beginning of his papacy. It sets an agenda for increasing papal power, and underlies the pope’s demand that William the Conqueror pay him fealty. The English king’s refusal shifted the focus of the power struggle to Vatican control over bishops, which led to the “investiture controversy” and the earliest concordats.

Perspectives: The Second Coming of papal politics

Christoph Prantner of Der Standard offers this view from Austria, which has long experience of Church involvement in politics. The debate about Islam, he says, is also reviving political Catholicism. In Madrid, Paris and Rome the boundaries between church and state are becoming blurred, raising the danger of a return to theological politics.

Canon Law

This is Catholic religious law, the Vatican’s counterpart to (Jewish) Halakha, Hindu Law and Sharia. Concordats help let this law influence the lives of many who are employed or served by Church social service agencies….

Canon Law can cancel civil rights

A Swiss priest was forbidden to research or publish anything about Opus Dei until its founder was safely canonised. A Polish priest was banned from investigating or writing anything about clerical complicity with the Communist Secret Service. And countless others who never make it into the newspapers suffer the same fate. For they are bound by Canon Law, the Church regulations whose jurisdiction is guaranteed by concordats — often in the very first article.

One thought on “A Concordat With the Vatican Is Like Dancing With the Devil

  1. In the words of Richard Bennett:
    “The Pope authorized the invasion of Ireland and sent the king a ring of investiture as Lord of Ireland.”
    Ireland was conquered for papal profit:
    “The fact is that many Irish Catholics find it hard to accept that the Church of Rome, as a temporal and feudal institution, was not a friend to the Irish nation. It is hard to accept that there was something other to the Church of Rome than its professed ‘spirituality’. The Popes regarded themselves as temporal princes, with more feudal power than most emperors, and they often led their own armies into battle to assert that power and reap tribute from those they subjected. […]
    So it is quite clear that when Ireland became just another province of the Angevin Empire, with its High King having accepted Henry II as his feudal lord – that is Dominus Hiberniae (Lord of Ireland) – Ireland had, in fact, constitutionally become a papal fiefdom. The Bishops of Rome, as temporal feudal princes, had conspired in the conquest of Ireland, asserting themselves as feudal lords of all the lands of Europe. In this position, they were able to give Ireland into the charge of Henry II in return for payment. […]

    Ireland continued to be a papal fiefdom, at the whim and gift of the Bishops of Rome, but with the English kings as middlemen. The Irish kings and princes were instructed, on pain of excommunication, to obey the authority of the English kings. It was in 1534 that Henry VIII broke with Rome.Yet the important year for Ireland was 1541 when Henry VIII, rejecting the title of ‘Lord of Ireland’, styled himself King of Ireland (Rex Hiberniae) becoming the first English King to do so and making Ireland a separate realm from his kingdom of England.
    To achieve this, Henry VIII determined to pursue a policy which abolished all the Irish titles and styles of the kings, princes and nobility. The Irish aristocracy were forced to surrender their titles and, in turn, accept English titles, methods of land holding, English law, the English language and, of course, the Reformed Faith with Henry VIII as head of the new church.
    If they did not do so, they were be eliminated or forced to flee into exile.”

    So while today the Roman Empire incorporates all of its further provinces with treaties called concordats, the papacy has been enthroned its new provincials thoughout the Middle Ages with the ring of investiture making kings with rings to lords “by the grace of god”. And while Alexandre Dumas portrayed his “Count of Monte Cristo” after the Superior General being confronted with the papal suppression order, could therefore the pope himself as the “king of the kings” not been considered as a “Lord of the Rings”?

    This comes on the heels: this was done on May 9, it was signed on April 30, 2007. President Bush – again without congressional approval – signed an agreement with the European Union in which he created a transatlantic economic council, a new cabinet level office. Again, no congressional approval of the office being created with the idea to economically integrate us with the European Union. And it was co-signed […]”
    I’m afraid this signature set extensive centralization procedures in motion although my search for more thorough informations on this agreement and the announced “economic council” hasn’t had any success yet.
    Putting aside the fact that Bush officials have denied Congressman Peter DeFazio from his duty to review classified White House documents that describe how the Administration plans to conduct the US government if martial law is declared. The thing that was much more critical from my point of view was what else happened on April 30, 2007:

    “The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as ‘Loyalty Day’. This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html) GEORGE W. BUSH”
    Yes, “Illuminati Day“!
    With greetings from the “righteous” brotherhood of Loyola …
    (“26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government”)

    Let’s hear some interesting and concordat-related thoughts on the state and church issue from a member of the notorious Society of St. Pius X. which blatantly refuses to call the Dark Ages dark:
    “In effect, the black legend of the Inquisition is the product of Protestant propaganda, which was passed down to the 18th century by the philosophy of the “enlightenment,” to the 19th century by Masonic anticlericalism, and to the 20th by “Christian-democracy.”
    Nevertheless, the most serious historical studies have henceforth recognized that the Inquisition was an honest tribunal, which sought to convert heretics more than to punish them, which condemned relatively few people to the flames, and which only employed torture in exceptional cases. However, the anti-inquisitorial myth still circulates in public opinion. […]

    The doctrine of the Syllabus, which recognized for the Church and for the State a power of constraint in religious matters, was in accord with Catholic tradition. Pope Leo X. (1513-1521) specifically condemned Martin Luther’s proposition which affirmed that the Church did not have the right to burn heretics. Bellarmine and Suarez also defended the right of the Church to impose the death penalty, on condition that the sentence be executed by the secular power, that is to say by the State. St. Thomas Aquinas supported the use of constraint, even physical, to combat heresy. St. Augustine appealed to the Imperial [Roman] authority to suppress the Donatist schism by force. The Old Testament punished by death idolaters and blasphemers.
    The power of constraint in religious matters rests upon the principle of the duties of the State toward the true religion. The divine law does not apply only to individuals, it must include all social life. […] In the true Gospel there is nothing to be seen of that moral and doctrinal laxity which the modernists qualify as “tolerance” or as “liberty of conscience.” Christ was patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but He never recognized any right of error and He exposed obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord. […]

    The anti-inquisitorial argument rests also upon a confusion between freedom of conscience and religious liberty. The act of faith must be freely consented to, since it constitutes definitively an act of love toward God. A forced love cannot be a true love. That is why the Church has always been opposed to forced conversions. Epinal’s famous image of the Spanish monk who is presenting a crucifix to an Indian while the conquistador threatens him with his sword, is yet another fruit of Protestant propaganda. If a few princes had occasionally forced the baptism of conquered peoples, as, for example, Charlemagne did in Saxony (c. 780), this was done against the will of the Church.
    But if the Church recognizes the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the Church respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines. […]

    Nevertheless, while the Church denies in principle the right of public expression of false religions, she may not necessarily persecute them in practice. To avoid a greater evil, such as a civil war, the Church can tolerate the sects. This is what Henry IV did in promulgating the Edict of Nantes (1598) which granted a certain amount of liberty to the Protestants of France. But this tolerance does not constitute a right. When political circumstances permit it, the State must re-establish the exclusive rights of Catholicism, as Louis XIV did when he revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Moreover, the pope congratulated the “Sun King” for taking this action.
    Naturally, the traditional doctrine of the Church on religious intolerance is only applicable in those countries where the State is officially Catholic. The harmony between priesthood and empire is the normal order of things in societies. In this regard, the Inquisition was a model of agreement between the Church and the State, since the tribunal exercised a mixed jurisdiction, both religious and civil. […]

    The central idea which justifies the Inquisition is that heresy professed publicly is a crime similar to any other crime against the common law. Religion being the foundation of morality, and morality being the foundation of the social order, it follows that a falsification of the faith leads, ultimately, to an offense against the social order. St. Thomas compared heretics to counterfeiters, who, during the Middle Ages, were condemned to the flames. Thus the State, as guardian of the public order, had the duty to combat heresy. But in its role of temporal power, it was not competent to distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy. For this, it had to rely upon an ecclesiastical tribunal. […]

    As in all wars, the Albigensian Crusade was the occasion of excesses. The taking of Béziers (1209) was a veritable massacre. It was impossible to distinguish the Cathari from the Catholics among the population of the city. The papal legate, Arnold de Citeaux, was to have said, “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.” The words are probably apocryphal and can be filed under the panoply of anticlerical commonplaces. But they reflect all the same an undoubted fact: the Cathari, who had, for a long time, been drawing down the hatred of the people upon themselves because of their immorality and their practicing of usury, ran the risk of a general lynching.
    But the Inquisition prevented this massacre by distinguishing between the heretics and the orthodox, and between the leaders and the followers, and by applying proportionate punishments to the diverse degrees of heresy.
    Finally, the Inquisition was a humanitarian work. In severely punishing the leaders, she spared the mass of the Cathari, who were more victim of than responsible for the heresy.
    In ferreting out the heretics who had gone underground, she prevented the renaissance of Catharism and of all the social and moral disorders that this doctrine provoked. […]

    The inquisitorial procedure varied according to the country and the times, but a basic outline becomes clear. In a general manner, one can say that the Inquisition left the heretic every chance to extricate himself, and only severely punished the “irreducibles,” those who were pertinacious in their rejection of the Faith. The Inquisition sought to educate as much as to restrain. Its action sometimes was more of a work of eradicating popular superstitions than of battling against subversion. The judicial procedure was always accompanied by solemn preachings. […] The Inquisition did not have at its command a secret police or a network of spies. It counted upon the collaboration of the Catholic people, acting in this way more as a guardian of the social consensus than as an oppressive apparatus of the State. […] The Inquisition was not concerned with the conscience of the heretics, but only with their exterior action.
    The pope confided the Medieval Inquisition to the Dominicans and the Franciscans. These two newly founded orders gave serious guarantees of probity and sanctity. The theological and canonical knowledge of the inquisitors was remarkable. In fact, the Inquisition was entrusted to the finest flowers of the clergy of the era. […]

    The Inquisitor did not render his judgment alone. He was assisted by some assessors (assistant judges), selected from the local clergy. The Inquisition was, in a way, the beginning of the institution of the jury system. In addition, the bishop audited the sentences and the accused could appeal to the pope. Thus the inquisitorial procedure was suitable, even by the standards of our modern criteria of justice. […] The number of heretics burned by the Inquisition has been greatly exaggerated. […] Jean Dumont speaks of about 400 executions during the 24 years of the reign of Isabella the Catholic. That’s few indeed in comparison to the 100,000 victims of the purge of “collaborators” in France from 1944-45, or the tens of millions killed by the Communists in Russia, China, and elsewhere. (Kommunismus wie Kommunität??)
    The State’s primary duty of charity is to protect the public order, to defend the physical and spiritual well-being of its subjects. If capital punishment is necessary to assure public security, the State or the Church can have recourse to it. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (chap. 33, §1) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by John Paul II (art. 2266) recognize the legitimacy of the death penalty.

    St. Thomas Aquinas justified the execution of criminals in noting that the fear of death often facilitated their conversion. Indeed, prison chaplains can bear witness to the fact that during the era that hanging still existed as a punishment in Canada, it was rare to see one of the condemned mount the scaffold without being confessed by a priest. Thus, the temporal punishment of death allowed the criminal to avoid the eternal death penalty which is hell. In this way, the State was practicing true charity. To restore him to freedom, as is done today on the pretense of forgiveness, is to give the criminal the occasion of relapsing back into sin and losing his soul. […] At any rate, the death penalty constituted less than 1% of the sentences pronounced by the Inquisition. […]
    The Inquisition was not charged with protecting persons and property from the various aggressions they might undergo. It was created to prohibit a belief and a cult. Now we are at the heart of the matter. […]

    After all, the only thing that the liberals can still reproach the Inquisition for is having fought against the false religions. That is normal enough, since the liberals do not believe that the Catholic Church is the one way to salvation. They cannot comprehend the supernatural finality of the Inquisition. […] Recall that a third of the German population perished during the numerous religious wars which took place between 1520 and 1648. If the burning of a few hundred heretics had enabled Spain to avoid such a conflict, one must conclude that the Holy Office performed a humanitarian act. […]
    But if there is not occasion to restore the Inquisition, one must certainly rehabilitate it in the eyes of history. With all due deference to those who love to see the Church disparage itself, Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in the past work of this holy tribunal.”

    And while “the German pope is trying desperately to rewrite history“, OUTFOXED anchorpeople are still believing they would do themselves a tremendous favor with what they’re doing every day.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s