January 21, 2002
volume 13, no. 11

The Ideal of the Universal Republic Blessed by the Conciliar Pontiffs

Part Two

    In League with the League of Nations and the UN
    In the last article, I described the revolutionary dream of establishing world-wide a Universal Republic with the goal of living in a peace independent of God. One could call it a recurrence of the sin of the peoples who tried to build the Tower of Babel. That article presented many quotes from revolutionary thinkers, writers, politicians and activists who pointed to the Universal Republic as their final aim.

    In contemporary history, the League of Nations was the first official public organization that sought to realize the ideal of the Universal Republic in the wake of the revolutionary dream documented in my last column. Deeply inspired by the thinking of Kant, it was founded shortly after the First World War in 1919, as a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. Like the Tower of Babel, its immediate proposed goal was to unite the nations in a peaceful society centered on man and independent from God.

    The League of Nations had the full support of the Masonic lodges. A 1923 document of the Convent of the Grand Orient states this clearly: "The League of Nations which we desire will have all the more real moral force and influence as it will be able to depend on the support of Masonic Associations throughout the entire world." [16] 16. Léon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, (1968), p. 63. Its principal tasks would be "the extension of a general pacifist education, relying especially on the development of an international language . . . the creation of a European spirit, and a patriotism loyal to the League of Nations, in short the formation of the United States of Europe, or rather the Federation of the World." [17] 17. Convent of the Grand Lodge, 1922, in ibid.

    However, the Masonic ideal represented by the League of Nations soon ran against practical difficulties. The great powers of the epoch were not so eager to abandon their interests in order to embrace the collective ideal. In 1923, France occupied the Ruhr and Italy occupied Corfu [Kerkira], despite the League's pacifist purposes. Even though Germany joined the League in 1926, the National Socialist [Nazi] government withdrew in 1933. Japan also withdrew in 1933, after Japanese attacks on China were condemned by the League. Finally the League was unable to prevent the events in Europe that led to World War II. [18] These events signaled the League's death.18. Encarta Encyclopedia Online 2001, entry "League of Nations".

    In 1945 representatives from 50 nations met in San Francisco and drafted the charter of the United Nations. This conference recognized the failure of the League of Nations, but considered it the UN's predecessor. The conference sought to create an organization that could represent all the world's nations and deal effectively with a broad range of issues. The charter provided the framework for the UN, which established its headquarters in New York and continued to work toward its primary goal of maintaining world peace. [19] 19. Ibid.

    To make its revolutionary goals clear, in 1948 the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a revised version of the Declaration for the Rights of the Citizen of the French Revolution. With the foundation of the UN, we have a second attempt to install the governing organ of a Universal Republic.

    Further, the revolutionary aims of the UN were made clear by Joseph Kornfeder, a former top -Communist member, who said in 1955:

    "The Kremlin masterminds . . . never intended the UN as a peace-keeping organization . . . It is a Trojan Horse who's aim is to serve the Communist penetration of the West . . . I need not be a member of the United Nations Secretariats to know that the UN blueprint is a Communist one. I was at Moscow headquarters for nearly three years and was acquainted with most of the top leaders . . . I went to their colleges, I learned their patterns of operations, and if I see that pattern in effect anywhere, I recognize it . . . It's [the UN's] internal setup, Communist designed, is a pattern for sociological conquest, a pattern aimed to serve the purpose of Communist penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive." [20] 20. For further testimony on the Communist roots of the United Nations, see Global Tyranny, Step by Step by William Jasper [Western Islands, Appleton, WI, 1996] Chapter 4: "Reds." The quote from Korndofer is cited in this book as coming from G. Edward Griffen, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations [Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1964], p. 75.

    The UN has had a difficult history. The last 57 years have been marked by constant wars in Europe, Asia and Africa. These wars signify failures for the pacifist ideal of the Universal Republic. Like its predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN has also been almost completely ignored at times.

    The UN has had to struggle against the disinterest of many nations to the point that it often seemed to play a merely symbolic role, without exercising any practical authority. At crucial moments, however, who has come to the rescue of this organization that represents the ideal of Freemasonry? Would it be the official revolutionary forces? Unfortunately this is not necessarily the case. The ones who came to the aid of the wobbly UN were the conciliar Popes and Vatican Council ll.

    In future articles I will analyze several eulogies Paul VI made of the UN, and I will examine some of the assistance John Paul ll has given the organization.

    But first, for clarity sake, let me define some expressions I will be using.

Differences between the Catholic State and the Modern State

    I use the term Modern State to mean the egalitarian and bourgeois conception of a liberal State, born from the French Revolution. This excludes, therefore, not only States that maintained their pre-Modern State structures and retained a hierarchical, organic or feudal political constitution, but also States with an even more revolutionary configuration than the Modern State, such as those established in the communist countries.

    Although revolutionary in its egalitarian structure, in its amoral customs, and in its indifferentist conception of faith, the Modern State retained from its Catholic precursor some principles of the natural order, such as, the right of private property, free enterprise, and certain institutions and traditions. Defending such points should in no way be construed as adherence to the ideals of the French Revolution, but rather as preserving the good remnants of the natural order that still remained from a healthy Catholic past. Today such remnants habitually are the targets of progressivist critiques.

    With the advent of the French Revolution, whose ideas soon spread throughout the Christian West, its partisans turned their assaults directly against the Catholic State in order to continue the destruction of Christendom that Humanism and Protestantism had begun. Thus, many countries saw the installation of various stages of separation between Church and State, equal status in civil law for the true Catholic Religion as well as for false religions, an effort to end Catholic instruction and to establish a secular educational system, the State's refusal to recognize Catholic marriages, and State confiscation of large numbers of ecclesiastical properties. The end of the 18th Century, the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th, saw an unrelenting struggle between this secular onslaught and the Catholic Church.

    Had it not been for the infiltration of such ideas into the Catholic camp through the Modernist movement and, beginning in the 1930's, the eruption of Progressivism, the Church, with her normal preeminence, would have won this war------just as she triumphed over the Kulturkampf in Germany under Bismarck. However, her forces were divided by the internal fight she was obliged to undertake against the Modernist-Progressivist 'fifth column' and the external combat against the liberal secular offensive. Thus, the Church gradually lost ground as the Modern State increasingly usurped the prerogatives of the Catholic State.

    Nevertheless, even though much of the Modern State had been established de facto, the Church did not grant it legitimacy de jure. She always continued to defend the Catholic State against the Modern institution, as can be seen in papal documents of the past which I will provide in my next column. [21] 21. A summary of papal teachings praising the fundamentals of the Catholic State and opposed to the Modern State, essentially a-confessional and egalitarian, can be found in excerpts from the Encyclical Immortale Dei of Pope Leo XIII. On the fundamentals of the Catholic State, see nos. 5, 11, 12, 16, 20; for a critique of the Modern State: sovereignty of the people, see no. 36; religious indifferentism, no. 37; freedom of thought and expression, no. 38.

Atila Sinke Guimarães

Next Monday: Part Three

Your email:
Your name:
E-mail it  to:
For past columns by Atila, see Archives of On the BattleLine

Monday, January 21, 2002
volume 13, no. 11
Return to Current Issue