The History of Europe And the Church   The Relationship that Shaped the Western World The historic relationship between Europe and the Church is a relationship that has shaped the history of the Western World. Europe stands at a momentous crossroads. Events taking shape there will radically change the face of the continent and world. To properly understand today's news and the events that lie ahead, a grasp of the sweep of European history is essential. Only within an historical context can the events of our time be fully appreciated - which is why this narrative series is written in the historic present to give the reader a sense of being on the scene as momentous events unfold on the stage of history.

European Religion Map — (click to enlarge)

Pope Benedict XVI would like to see Europe rediscover its roots. Recently, he co-wrote a book, titled Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, in which, with his co-author, president of the Italian Senate and philosopher Marcello Pera, he explores European secularism, its effects, and the real roots of the European identity: Roman Catholicism. This book outlines Benedict's vision for a united Catholic Europe.

Benedict inherited the job of trying to evangelize Europe from his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. As John Paul II repeatedly called for Europe to rediscover its roots, so too has Pope Benedict. July 24, 2005, Benedict directly quoted John Paul in his weekly address, stating,

"I, bishop of Rome and pastor of the universal church, from Santiago, send to you, age-old Europe, a cry full of love: Return to yourself. Be yourself. Discover your origins. Revive your roots. Revive those authentic values that made your history glorious and your presence beneficial among the other continents" (Zenit, July 24, 2005).

"With that address, Benedict XVI explained, Pope John Paul II launched 'the project of a Europe conscious of its own spiritual unity, based on the foundation of Christian [Roman Catholic] values'" (ibid.).

For Benedict, this goal is paramount. Europe has been the historical stomping ground of the Roman Catholic Church.

Throughout the history of Europe and the Middle East, whenever Muslims and Catholics have clashed, a European power, usually Germany, has stepped up to protect the Vatican and the Catholic faith from destruction. Today, we see Islam and Catholicism beginning to clash, and if history be our guide, the fireworks haven't even started yet. Benedict can see the Muslim threat and is urgent to turn secular Western Europe back to its "holy" Roman roots and to reunite with the Vatican's historical protectors.

In his new book, Benedict makes his argument for the Catholic conquest of Europe. He argues that a secular Europe, dominated by tolerance and acceptance of other religions and cultures, is corroding European values: In short, European tolerance is killing what it means to be European.

Benedict argues that Roman Catholicism gave Europe its values — absolute values. The book states that Europe is

"paralyzed because it does not believe that there are good reasons to say it is better than Islam. And it is paralyzed because it believes that, if such reasons do indeed exist, then the West would have to fight Islam."

Benedict argues that Roman Catholicism is the antidote; rejection of Europe's Catholic roots and acceptance of relativist secularism and multiculturalism has left it helpless. For Europe to survive, it must make the distinction between a secularism that will compromise to the point of Europe's destruction and one that acknowledges its roots in Roman Catholic values.

The problem is, Europe, in particular France, has prided itself on its secularism since the 18th-century "Enlightenment."

Multiculturalism is a more recent phenomenon. Increasingly since the great displacement of refugees that occurred following World War II, high immigration has been predicated partly, if not mostly, on the need for labor — since Europe's fertility rates, coupled with easy access to abortion, have not met economic demand to support an aging population. Millions of Muslims have migrated to Europe over the past 50 years, motivated by a desire for the freedom from societal oppression and economic depression imposed upon them by medieval-style regimes in their home countries. Differing from the postwar refugee movements, these Islamic immigrants have tended not to adopt the traditions of their new home countries.

Benedict sees a threat in this. Addressing the Vatican diplomatic corps, he said that the

"advance of Islam" is once again a threat to the European concept. "Benedict said that 'attention has rightly been drawn to the danger of a clash of civilizations. … Its causes are many and complex, not least to do with political ideology, combined with aberrant religious ideas'" (ibid.).

As yet, Western Europe has not overtly responded to John Paul's or Benedict's calls to rediscover its roots. The Vatican's efforts to have a reference to Roman Catholic values inserted into the preamble of the European Constitution seem to have temporarily failed. Even an Italian diplomat was refused a key post in the European Union because he was viewed as too Catholic. However, this intransigence will not continue. Europe and the Vatican have a historical relationship that belies current perceptions. One of Italian Silvio Berlusconi's cabinet ministers recently calling on the pope to lead a 16th-century-style crusade against Muslims provides evidence of that fact.

As radical Islam, led by Iran, continues to push its extremist policies on Europe, expect more European politicians to begin to show their true colors and turn for guidance to Europe's spiritual leader: Pope Benedict XVI.

In May this year, for the first time ever, the German government spoke out in favor of a reference to God in the EU constitution.

"We live in a world in which we want to understand and communicate with other religions and cultures," EUobserver.com quoted Angela Merkel as saying. "This includes knowing your own roots and being aware of them, which is why God and the Christian belief should be included into the EU constitution, she indicated. It is the first time Berlin has spoken out in favor of a Christian reference in the EU constitution and could potentially reopen one of the most bitter debates surrounding the drawing up of the document four years ago" (May 26, 2006).

A German pope now heads the Roman Catholic Church. This has stirred a revival of Catholicism throughout Germany. Earlier this year the news agency Zenit reported that there "seems to be a rebirth of the faith in Germany" and that the "number of students of theology and of adult baptisms is increasing, as is that of Catholics returning to the church" (May 4, 2006). The number of Germans leaving the church is also decreasing.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur pointed out that

"the most important politicians of the country, from Merkel to President Horst Köhler and the former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, spoke of their 'pride' over Ratzinger's election, despite the fact all of them are Protestants" (ibid.).

Germans are falling in love with the new pope.

Relations between Germany and the Vatican are blossoming. This is a trend of gigantic proportions. This church-state combine has historically been a ruthless and formidable force.

Wars of independence in Latin America started in Venezuela — seven of its eastern provinces being first to gain independence from the Spanish in 1811. Paraguay signed its declaration of independence the same year. Argentina followed in 1816, Chile in 1818, Greater Colombia in 1819, Venezuela, Mexico and Peru in 1821. The independence of the Central American isthmus was then quickly, bloodlessly accomplished. Ecuador and Brazil followed in 1822, Brazil receiving its independence from the Portuguese. Then came Uruguay in 1825. The island nation of Cuba, where Columbus made his landfall after the Bahamas, finally gained its independence in 1898.

After decolonization, political instability, border disputes, economic ruin and rising national debt plagued Latin America. (These problems continue in many regions to this very day.) This produced a climate ripe for the rise of demagogues. Through most of the 20th century, a rash of dictatorships arose — and much of the continent of South America and the isthmus of Central America turned to leftist politics.

The situation changed in the 1990s as free-market capitalism, encouraged by Western economists, was tried in many Latino countries. What followed was a flirtation with more conservative social, economic and foreign policies, heavily influenced by late-20th century thinking within U.S. academia.

However, what did not change within Latin America were the deeply rooted systemic problems, which in many instances hearkened back to colonial times. Entrenched hierarchies, institutionalized corruption, and the stratification of Latino society based upon race all combined to restrict any real and positive economic progress of a lasting nature. This was heavily overlaid in countries such as Peru, Colombia and Mexico by the illegal drug trade.

Taking advantage of America's benign neglect of its Latino neighbors, China has moved aggressively in to Latin American trade over the past decade. Though many of China's promises to supply capital for the development of industry and infrastructure in Latin American countries have yet to materialize, Chinese-made goods are flooding into Latin America, supplying extremely stiff competition to homegrown industry. This has provoked a groundswell of concern that China may just be taking advantage of the Latinos, exploiting them in what are increasingly seen as one-sided trade deals in China's favor.

It was amid this atmosphere of volatile change that Latin American leaders met at a three-day summit, May 11 to 13, 2006 in Vienna, with other leaders of nations more closely attached to their old colonial roots — the leaders of the European Union. The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso called for a "convergence of interests, not only of values" between Latin America and the EU (Deutsche Welle, May 12, 2006).

However, the climate was far from one of real unity. Presidents Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Evo Morales (Bolivia) clouded the situation by touting their closed-market approach against other nations, particularly against the nations of Central America who seek more open international trade relations. But the tide swung against this leftist duo as, in the summit's final statement, the EU and six Central American states — Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador — agreed to open negotiations on setting up a free-trade zone.

Commentators missed the real news in their observations on this EU/Latin America summit. They failed to see that despite the posturing of petty despots such as Chavez, Morales and their aging mentor, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the trend is fixed.

Currently there are three collectivist (socialist) ideologies extant in the world: communism, pan-Islam, and the socialist universalism of the Catholic religion. Ultimately, there is an authority to which the masses, be they right- or left-wing in their political leanings, really do pay attention within Latin America. It overrides all other influences, economic, political and ideological. That power is religion. South America is the only continent bound together by one predominant language and one dominant religion. The language is the second-most-spoken language in the world: Spanish. The religion boasts more adherents, globally, than any other single religion: Roman Catholicism. It is the national religion of all Latin American nations and the predominant religion of the member nations of the European Union.

All the pontificating and blustering of demagogues such as Chavez and Morales will pale into so much pallid stutterings in the mind of the masses when their papa speaks from Rome! And speak he will. That fact was made clear when Chavez visited, cap in hand, Pope Benedict XVI on May 11, 2006 at the Vatican. Not only did the pope extend additional time to get his points across to Chavez, giving him 15 more minutes than the standard 20 due such political leaders, but, as he turned to leave, Benedict broke protocol to personally hand him a stern letter counseling him to have second thoughts about the direction in which he was taking his country. Catholic World News called it "an extraordinary step" and a "challenge" (May 13, 2006).

Chavez left Vienna with real food for thought. He knows that Fidel Castro, on whom he has largely modeled himself, has twice over the past year invited Benedict to visit Cuba. He will not buck this pope. He knows it was Ratzinger who routed the liberal priests from their posts in Latin America during John Paul II's reign. Now that Ratzinger has the papal title himself, Chavez would be unwise to press further for endorsement of his populist political platform by the church in Venezuela.

Other leaders in Latin America will sit up and take note. They know the power of this man, Ratzinger.

It was Ratzinger, working behind the scenes, who contributed to the wave of political change that rippled through Latin America in the 1990s under John Paul's papacy.

The ideology that actually reveals where Latin American loyalties are headed, though, is religious.

With 500 million Roman Catholics in Latin America, no matter what happens in Latin America politically, religion will be the predominant factor in foreign policy in the time ahead. Ultimately, the biggest benefactor of Latin American wealth will be Europe

Many would view the Roman Catholic Church as being a right-wing institution. The Vatican is powerfully anti-liberal. But at its core, the church of Rome is socialist. The very name catholic speaks of a universal collective. Ideologically, the main difference between Catholicism and communism is that one claims to worship a god, while the other worships the state. In practice the two have much in common. This explains why nations can swing so violently from one to the other. Whether Latino countries are democratic, socialist, communist states or monarchies will ultimately be overwhelmed by one factor: Every country in Latin America is overwhelmingly Catholic.

St-Peters Basilica in the Vatican City

Pope Benedict XVI lit a fuse in Bavaria, a fuse destined to fire the flames of ancient hatred between two great religions, each striving against the other for the same universal goal!

Religion is back on the agenda of international relations. The latest example of this reality occurred in Bavaria in September, with the visit of the pope to his home state — a visit that ignited a fire sure to burn for a long time to come.

For three centuries, religion was shoved to the background as children of the Age of Enlightenment strove to develop a scientific approach to creating peace between nations. But their best efforts climaxed in the 20th century with the most devastating wars in mankind's history.

Political scientists still largely regard religion as passe. But it is now clear that, while they were looking for the formula for world peace, religion was working behind the scenes for a mighty comeback! That comeback was to be sourced within, and stimulated by, two great religions: Roman Catholicism and pan-Islamism.

The great revivals of these two historically clashing religions began for the religion of Rome with the convening of its Second Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, from 1962 to 1965, and for the Islamists with their June 1967 war against Israel.

While Rome chose the way of dialogue and diplomacy to revive its universalist goals, Islam chose the way of war and terrorism. Since 1962, the Vatican has worked through diplomacy, by employing its excellent international intelligence network, and by exercising more open dialog with its wayward Protestant and Orthodox daughters to achieve its goal of the universal conversion of mankind. At the same time, since the Israelis withdrew from the territories they occupied in 1967, Islamists have been blowing up airplanes, blowing up embassies, blowing up their enemies by blowing up themselves, in their efforts to achieve the universal salvation of mankind in the name of Allah and their prophet Mohammad.

Four decades on from those events of the mid-1960s, we see religion back with a vengeance as a real power in international relations.

To the casual observer, the pope's numerous speeches during his six-day visit to Bavaria, September 10 to 15, 2006, were a litany of homilies from a well-intentioned, if aging, religious leader. To the careful observer of history and to any student of the lifetime machinations of Joseph Ratzinger's clerical career, they spell out an agenda. The ongoing effects of the pope's visit have shown how powerfully he used that occasion to clarify his papacy's future direction on matters destined to have a most significant global effect on religion and the international political order.

In Bavaria, the pope strove to establish a middle ground from which to speed the opening up of the ecumenical dialog with Protestant and Orthodox Christians that was initiated at Vatican II. After having a private audience with Edmund Stoiber, the devout Catholic prime minister of Bavaria who has lobbied for the Sudetenland to return to German control, Benedict promised to visit the Czech Republic in the near future. His audience with Chancellor Angela Merkel gave Germany's present government head the opportunity to assure the Roman pontiff that injecting "Christianity" into the European Constitution would be a top priority on Germany's agenda during its six-month presidency of the European Union commencing in January 2007. The papal audience with Germany's President Horst Kohler extracted support from the pope regarding presidential concerns about the impact of Islamic penetration into German society.

Whether it be ecumenism, pan-Islamism, the traditional connection between Germany and Rome, religion versus secularism, the need for Europe to return to its Roman Catholic roots, the juxtaposition between the Vatican's view of Christ and of the virgin Mary, or be it politics in general, the pope covered it all in just six days. It was his most concentrated series of public addresses of real consequence in the whole of his reign thus far. As Benedict himself proclaimed September 17, 2006, his visit to Bavaria was a "deep spiritual experience." Deep indeed! The results are still reverberating around the globe months later!

Experiences such as the Bavarian visit are progressively revealing this pope as a man for all seasons. Though he did indeed address some issues purely by allusion, others he addressed quite confrontationally, principally his pet theme of adjuring Europe to return to its religious roots and, most particularly, the burning issue of Islamic extremism!

A Challenge to Islam

Intriguingly, Benedict chose to address the quite separate and distinct challenges that secular rationalism and Islamism pose to the church in one powerful speech he delivered at the University of Regensburg. That speech has been the source of many a commentary since.

With few exceptions, opinions in the world media and press have ranged from the proposition that the pope was ill-advised to use such inflammatory words, to the prospect that he did not really mean what he actually said. Few analysts have really come to grips with the pope's true intent in his deliberate choice of the quotation he used that upset Islamists worldwide, neither why he chose that particular quotation, nor why he chose that particular time to use it in the manner he did.

At the university where he once taught theology, before a group of scientists and scholars, Benedict spoke on a theme consistent in his writings: that Christianity welcomes intellectual inquiry and deeply values truth.

What is fascinating is how the pope introduced this subject of the dichotomy between reason and faith. He opened his lecture by really going for the Islamic jugular! In his opening remarks, he clearly identified the divide that to his mind separates Islam from Christianity by quoting two documents: first the Koran; then a scholarly argument of the 14th-century Catholic emperor of Byzantium, Manuel II Paleologus, which attacked the "holy war" concept of Mohammad.

Thus, rather than come out publicly with a direct papal condemnation of pan-Islamism (the greatest present threat to Roman Catholicism), this calculating pope chose a quote from a well-documented historical occasion, one that came out of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire — one that was bound to stir Islamic ire.

Speaking on the question of faith versus reason, Benedict referred to

"part of the dialogue carried on—perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara [Turkey]—by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both" (Catholic World News, September 12, 2006).

It is important to note here that in the course of his speech the pope indicated that Christianity — to his mind, Roman Catholicism — "always reveres the truth" (ibid.). So what was he really saying about Islam's approach to truth?

Continuing his speech, Benedict reasoned:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' … [H]e addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. … Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats …. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature" (ibid.).

Benedict concluded his nearly-4,000-word speech with a reinforcing, for effect, of that latter statement:

"'Not to act reasonably … is contrary to the nature of God,' said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is … to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

That is really throwing down the gauntlet to the Islamists! Reading between the lines, the pope is endorsing the notion that Islam is an irrational faith. He would not view Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a rational being! He is clearly inferring that his own god is the only rational one, and that dialogue between Islam and Christianity can only be within the framework of the reasoning and reasonableness of this god of the world's Christian [Catholic] religionists alone.

Surely the pope knew such comments were bound to light the fires of protest in every Islamic country throughout the world!

Think on this. This pope is known for his brilliant intellect. This was a well-thought-out speech, prepared in advance of the event. These remarks about the Islamic faith were not off the cuff. The choice of Manual II's statement was both deliberate and calculated — calculated to get a reaction!

And what a reaction it received! Public demonstrations broke out in Turkey, in Iran, in the Islamic communities in Britain and on the continent of Europe. Effigies of the pope were burned in the streets and al Qaeda was reported as calling for the pope's death. Vatican City stepped up security within and around the papal state.

Demands that the pope retract his remarks and make a public apology to Islamists were many. The Vatican released a prepared statement by the pope in which he carefully claimed he regretted the reaction his speech caused, but avoided apologizing for the remarks themselves.

Why would this pope, this German pope, choose this moment — in this, his own home state of Bavaria, the very heartland of Catholicism in Middle Europe — to draw his verbal sword against Islam?

Reflect on the nature of the Germanic peoples. They hate disorder. They are expert at creating a crisis then initiating a solution, as that inveterate watcher of Germany Rodney Atkinson has often observed.

The pope knows that if Rome is to return to its former glory (a vision he shared with his predecessor Pope John Paul II), given the present disordered state of the world, he needs urgently to unite his over 1 billion faithful who have suffered for decades from the impact of divisive secular thinking on their religion. He knows the best way to do this is to unite Catholics at their historic cultural base, the European continent! He knows that Islam poses the greatest threat to Catholicism in Europe. He sees this as his greatest cause — that he has been chosen for this moment!

What better way to unite Europe and return it to its former imperial days of glory than to provide people with a single common cause that overrides all else and counteracts all tendencies for division?

So, in his own very Germanic way, Benedict, this Bavarian pope, has simply lit the touch tape to an already smoldering issue of concern to all Europeans, the threat of Islamic jihad.

The following analysis, from Dr. George Friedman, gets to the very essence of Benedict's speech.

Speaking on the pope's choice of the quotation from his 14th-century source, Friedman observed:

"The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. … Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history.

"… Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. … [T]here is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. …

"[E]ven the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. …

"As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion ….

"Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician—and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics" (Stratfor, September 19, 2006).

So, what are this pope's true intentions?

In his analysis of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech, Dr. Friedman hints at a prospect. Dr. Friedman expressed it this way:

"From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. …

"The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response."

Students of history will recall that Benedict has simply taken a leaf out of Pope Urban II's book. In 1095, Urban called for the knights of Europe to stop fighting each other and to join a holy war against Islam. Referring to the Ottoman Islamists as "a race … which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God," he declared it was a Christian duty to "exterminate this vile race from our lands" (Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana). Upon purging the eastern empire of the followers of Mohammad, the knights were to liberate Jerusalem from Islam.

Similarly, Pope Benedict has set himself the task to unite the fractious nations of the European Union, and he proposes to rally the leaders of these disparate nations to stop squabbling with each other and direct them to make common cause against the spreading tide of Islam that threatens the very continuity of the EU.

It was thus most significant that, when the United Nations called for the EU to provide troops for an international peacekeeping force in Lebanon, following the Hezbollah/Israeli imbroglio earlier this year, that the papal newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, publicly aired concern at the slowness with which nations responded. The papal organ called for nations to rally with a heightened sense of the urgency of the moment to the UN call. Shortly after, they did. EU nations soon promised more troops and military hardware. Most significant was the German contribution — naval and air force — notwithstanding Germany's publicly declared reluctance to enter the fray when first asked to do so. What started off with the offer of a few hundred military personnel by Germany soon escalated to the thousands!

Most do not even begin to comprehend that which is now building in the Middle East, the tensions greatly exacerbated by Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech.

One who does, an ex-Catholic nun, well versed in the history of the Crusades and their significance to the present-day situation, claims that abundant evidence exists to prove that "the irrationality and hatreds of crusading are far from dead." Her views are remarkably similar to the point Benedict made in his Regensburg speech:

"[W]e must not take these religious passions lightly or dismiss them as the crazed fantasies of an eccentric minority that cannot long survive in our enlightened world," she says. "There is no purely rational explanation or solution to this problem" (Karen Armstrong, Holy War).

But it is Armstrong's conclusion to her detailed analysis of the connection between the Crusades of old and the rising reaction to jihad, such as what was sparked by Pope Benedict XVI, that are worthy of note.

Pope Benedict has lit the fuse to that tinderbox. Islam will reap the whirlwind.

We have all seen the images of rage-ridden Muslims rioting in the streets, torching churches and demanding and re-demanding an apology from the pope. This anger is unifying the Muslim world. Largely underreported, however, was the number of Catholics and Europeans who rushed to Benedict's defense after his speech in Regensburg.

In many ways, the effects of the pope's remarks upon Catholic Europe are as important, if not more so, than those in the Muslim world.

Pope Benedict XVI's remarks were carefully considered and calculated. But why? Analyst George Friedman pointed out that

"the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe" (Stratfor, September 19, 2006).

"There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. … [W]ith his remarks, [the pope] moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community — without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church" (ibid.).

Benedict's remarks were largely designed to put some fire under Europeans and Catholics and rally the Continent around the Vatican.

This is precisely what is happening. Islamic rage is igniting a deeper respect and loyalty among Europeans and Catholics for the Vatican.

On September 18, 2006, EUobserver.com reported on the European Commission's reaction to the pope's comments and the Muslim uproar.

"The European Commission has said it was wrong to pick out quotes from the pope's controversial speech in which a link between Islam and violence was suggested and deliberately taking them out of context."

A statement from Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger was pointed and unapologetic:

"… I can also say that reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable, and let me conclude with this: Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the EU's order as is the freedom and respect of all religions and beliefs …" (ibid.).

In Germany, where the pope made his remarks, the daily Die Welt said that

"anger in the Islamic world about the quote used by Pope Benedict XVI is groundless because it merely expressed a 'historically documented fact'" (BBC News, September 18, 2006).

The paper condemned Muslims for exploiting the opportunity to start a clash of cultures.

Edmund Stoiber, a prominent German politician and friend of the pope, insisted that there were

"no grounds for criticism" in the pope's comments. Switzerland's daily La Tribune de Geneve reported that "Islamists are again showing they are 'the worst enemies of Islam'"—and, regarding the murder of a nun in Somalia, said, "If fundamentalists were trying to confirm Benedict XVI's declarations, they could not have done better!" (BBC News, op. cit.).

El Mundo in Spain linked the Muslim backlash to the cartoon crisis episode from earlier this year.

"The pope does not have to apologize for expressing an opinion," it wrote. "He upheld an idea we fully share: tolerance." The article grew stronger as it progressed. "To bow to Muslim protests and accept that Benedict XVI must apologize is tantamount to questioning freedom of expression and of thought, which—however much Islam dislikes it—is the main conquest of our civilization" (ibid.).

Polish President Jaroslaw Kaczynski defended the pope, condemned Muslims as being a "little too easily offended," and asked, "Where is the line that a Christian or Catholic cannot cross and say what they think?"

The message out of Europe is clear and definite: Muslim rage, no matter how vehement it might grow, will not stain the reputation of the pope among Catholics, nor will it cow the Continent into a defensive posture.

The fact that Europe is beginning to stand up to Muslim war-mongering is the real story.

This is a deeply significant event in Muslim/Catholic relations. The obvious fault line between Muslims and Catholics has been exposed. Catholics and Europeans see the danger rising against them. This controversy has evolved into a rallying cry for Europeans, as well as the 1 billion Catholics scattered across the globe.

Even as far away as Australia, Catholic leaders stood behind their beloved patriarch. Head of the church in Australia, Cardinal George Pell, defended Benedict and went further to say that the Muslim reaction "justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears" about Islam.

The pope is also receiving support from other Christian religions. In Britain, former head of the Anglican Church Lord Carey not only defended the pope and praised his speech as being

"extraordinarily effective and lucid," but also warned, according to the Times, that the "'clash of civilizations' endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole" (September 20, 2006).

Palace of Governorate (Governors Palace) of Vatican-City

In contrast to the pope's obvious call to Europe to step up to the battle against extremist Islam that he broadcast from Bavaria in September, Pope Benedict XVI has been far less overt in publicizing the revolutionary changes he is making within the Vatican bureaucracy.

Commentators have mentioned the frailty of old age that inflicts this pope. They in turn note his thin and reedy voice and his comparative lack of charisma compared to his predecessor, John Paul II. But all seem to agree on one thing: the power of this pope's tremendous intellect.

So it is that, having bided his time, Benedict has recently begun, with typical German thoroughness — one could even say administrative brutality — trimming the fat in the governing body of the Catholic Church, the Curia, and placing hand-picked troops in his front line. This is a pope gearing up for battle. Benedict is preparing to wage war with any who would challenge his word on dogma, on liturgy, and on any of his initiatives at promoting a great religious revival within Rome's collective global congregation of over 1 billion souls. With the benefit of John Paul's papacy having laid the groundwork, Benedict XVI is even now preparing for his clarion call to revive the church's mission to catholicize the world.

Consider the wide-ranging changes Benedict has already enacted over the past few months, with no sign of these changes slowing down.

Starting with his own replacement in the office of prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict turned to an interesting choice by appointing then-archbishop of San Francisco, William J. Levada, in May last year. The two had worked closely together during John Paul's pontificate. Benedict would know full well that Levada, known as shy and retiring in demeanor, would not challenge the pope on any matter of theological consequence. Thus Benedict guarantees that he remains sole and final authority on Catholic doctrine.

Then this March, the pope started his downsizing program by first eliminating two senior positions in the Curia. He accepted the resignation of Japanese Cardinal Stephen Fumio Hamao, who had been president of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, and reappointed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald from president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue to apostolic nuncio to Egypt. In the process, Benedict merged four existing pontifical councils into two.

There followed a change in the post which is key to Vatican relations with the developing world. The office of the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples, formerly held by Italian Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, was given to the archbishop of Bombay, Indian Cardinal Ivan Dias.

In July, the Vatican's longstanding press officer, Opus Dei layman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, was replaced by Jesuit priest Federico Lombardi, director general of Vatican radio and television.

In September, with the retirement of Cardinal Edmund Szoka from the post of president of the Vatican City governate, the Vatican's secretary of relations with states, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, moved into that role, thus leaving the Vatican's key foreign-policy office vacant. That position was later filled by French Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, a Moroccan native with an understanding of the Muslim world.

Also in September, following the papal visit to Bavaria, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, having served for the past 15 years in the powerful position of Vatican secretary of state, was replaced by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Ratzinger's prior trusted deputy in his former position as the head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is believed the pope considers that Betone will more effectively serve Benedict's goals of changing the Curia into an administrative body better tuned to facilitating his global mission to catholicize the masses.

All these moves are, according to a recent report, designed to help achieve the pope's vision of enabling the Vatican as a "church headquarters to be both a more holy and a more efficient entity" (Time, September 11, 2006). This certainly bespeaks a "holy" Roman imperial vision, underwritten by typical German motivation for thoroughgoing efficiency.

Dual posts now under consideration by Pope Benedict for review and change are that of vicar of Rome and head of the Italian Bishops Conference, both currently held by the veteran Cardinal Camillo Ruini.

Benedict is also mulling over the need to place a man in charge of the Vatican purse strings whom he can trust. Although it may come as a shock to some, particularly in Italy, the fact that Benedict is currently considering a fellow German for this position should surprise few who have watched his power plays. The Italian magazine Panorama recently reported that Benedict has in mind appointing the former head of the German Central Bank, Hans Tietmeyer, to that key treasury position. As Time observed, should that appointment become a reality, it "would shake things up almost as much as a German pope" (ibid.).

Pope Benedict certainly lit the fuse to the Middle East tinderbox during his now infamous speech in Regensburg, Bavaria. Islam will soon reap the whirlwind, Iran having pushed its foreign policy to the point of stimulating a powerful papal response. The pope is busy assembling his war cabinet within the Curia in Rome.

While so many fixate on the rise of Islamism, another major religion is rapidly gaining ground in terms of its appeal to youth in particular, and, more worryingly, its political clout.

A powerful force is rising across the Atlantic, destined to pale all religious competition into relative insignificance. It is centered around a highly intelligent and articulate personality holding an office of increasing political significance. It has a collective budget and assets that make it the richest institution in the world. It has greater command of media than any single one of its competitors. It is the mother of all Christian religions.

A record number of incoming stories on current events involving the Vatican can be seen. In March 2007, Pope Benedict XVI commented publicly on the power of the mass media to move the masses. Publicity and mass communication are so important to the Vatican that it has a high-profile department specifically devoted to its effective exploitation, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

"Speaking on the theme of this year's plenary meeting for the Pontifical Council for Social Communications — the role of the media in the formation of young people — the pontiff said that the media have a grave responsibility for the attitudes they foster among youth. The proper education of children, he said, can be enhanced by the mass media 'only to the extent that they promote fundamental human dignity, the true value of marriage and family life, and the positive achievements and goals of humanity'"

Having witnessed the powerful influence of Nazi propaganda during his days as a member of the Hitler Youth, Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of the mind-controlling power of effective communications psychology. Under John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI, hundreds of thousands of youth have turned out at the annual Roman Catholic youth festivals. The pope knows that herein lies the future of the effort of the church to captivate and hold the minds of the upcoming generation — and the future of Roman Catholicism.

"During his Friday audience the pope took note of the important changes in the media industry, including the rising power of the electronic media and the waning influence of print. He pointed to the concentration of media ownership as a matter for concern, and the spread of the Internet, which 'has opened up a world of knowledge and learning that previously for many could only be accessed with difficulty, if at all'".

The Vatican is winning the religious media war hands down! From the time of the record-breaking audiences that tuned in to see Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger conduct Pope John Paul II's funeral, to the massive media coverage of his investiture as Pope Benedict XVI, the small, slight figure of this Bavarian pope has become the most recognizable of personalities across the globe. Pope Benedict XVI enjoyed total audiences in 2006 greater than the annual audiences of any single previous pope, and far greater than any other single religious leader in history!

What makes the Vatican's dominance of the mass media most intriguing is where it is all leading.

Pope Benedict XVI is rapidly seizing the initiative across the Atlantic in a determined effort to ensure that the secular materialistic liberalism destroying the moral fiber of Anglo-American society is arrested on the continent of Europe.

Benedict sees clearly that the power of the British and American peoples is rapidly waning. He sees their increasing lack of political will. He witnesses the sham of their pseudo-religiosity. He perceives their youth to be directionless, their minds increasingly perverted and exploited by a multiplicity of forces that are both character- and soul-destroying. And he sees the power of the primary force that is bending their minds: the power of mass media, via the music, film, video, Web-based and telephonic sources so freely placed at their disposal.

Witnessing this denigrating effect of the media-driven attack on the morals of Western society, in particular its youth, Benedict has taken up the challenge to stem the evil tide from overflowing his European pastorate. Even before he gained the papal crown, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, railed against that child of Anglo-American sub-culture that has had such deep effect on the morality of Western youth. In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, published in 2000, he declared that

"'Rock' [music] … is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe."

Two years later, in an observation on the spiritual and moral state of Western society at large, Ratzinger said,

"It is true that the Muslim world is not totally mistaken when it reproaches the West of Christian tradition of moral decadence and the manipulation of human life" (Zenit, March 3, 2002).

Then, shortly before ascending the papal throne, commenting on the spiritual challenge that the Vatican faced in respect of the European Union, Ratzinger wrote,

"In the hour of its greatest success, Europe seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed by a life-threatening crisis to its health and dependent on transplants" (Values in a Time of Upheaval, 2005).

During a 2005 mass one month before becoming pope, in a declarative statement about even the moral decline in the condition of the Catholic Church itself resulting from the impact of "liberation theology," Ratzinger exclaimed, "How much filth there is in the church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him. How much pride, how much self-sufficiency!"

That same year, during an interview with a German journalist, Ratzinger officially declared war on the secularism that he sees as the root cause for the evils of a society in moral decline:

"There really is an ideological, secular aggressiveness that gives cause to worry. … Laicism [secularism] is not any longer that element of neutrality that opens fields of freedom for everybody. It's now turning into an ideology, which — with the help of politics — forces itself into the public and leaves no space for the Christian and Catholic conception — thereby turning it into a merely private and essentially mutilated concern. In this sense, a fight has really begun in which we have to defend the religious freedom against the pretension of an ideology that acts as if it were the only voice of reason — whereas it is only the expression of 'a certain' rationalism. … A society that is not at all concerned with God destroys itself. We saw that in the totalitarian experiments of the last century" (Die Welt, April 20, 2005).

Of the fact that Benedict is up to the fight, there can be no doubt. He proved that by his tenacious rooting out of liberation theologians during his term in office as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the ancient office of the Inquisition, now with its sanitized, politically correct name), under the papacy of John Paul II. Now he has revealed that he will meet the mass media industry head on in the quest for the moral high ground globally!

With Pope Benedict having just roundly challenged the mass media to change their largely destructive tune — destructive of basic family values and all that he sees as being fundamental to a good, "Christian and Catholic conception" of society — the Vatican announced March 12, 2007 that it will go on the offensive in the media war. The pope is about to build a global television audience to add to the rapidly growing global Web-based audience currently attracted to the Vatican's well-developed online portal. The Vatican is on the verge of launching not just its own television station, but a global television network! With the call sign H2O, the network is due to be launched by the end of the year, offering a mix of news and original entertainment in seven languages.

The day will soon dawn when that network will air shows of a nature that will leave the public absolutely spellbound! In time to come, the Vatican will produce religious entertainment that will make Hollywood box-office hits on religious themes look more like Disney cartoons by comparison. The visions coming down the tube from Vatican-networked tv will literally hypnotize their global audience with their out-of-this-world, mind-shattering imagery.

England's King Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. The Anglican Church has been England's church since that time. Some of Britain's kings, queens and parliamentarians sacrificed blood to establish England's own church. Britain suffered some of its worst nightmares when the Catholic Church reigned over it. However, the people have forgotten that oppressive history. Now, they are about to embrace the Catholic Church again.

The Times of London reported February 19, 2007:

"Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the pope are to be published this year, the Times has learned. The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches. In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the pope."

A key paragraph in the draft document, titled "Growing Together in Unity and Mission," reads:

"We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our communions to grow toward full, ecclesial communion."

Additionally, the Times revealed:

"Anglicans are also urged to begin praying for the pope during the intercessionary prayers in church services, and Catholics are asked also to pray publicly for the archbishop of Canterbury."

This is a shocking development, considering the history of the Roman Catholic Church and England.
Anglicans are embracing the bitterest enemy against the British throne!

While both Catholic and Anglican leaders have downplayed the contents of the document, such efforts toward church unity nevertheless indicate a clear direction and intention. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the chairman of the Catholic side of the commission that prepared the document, Australian archbishop John Bathersby, said that

"it was a significant step forward in an attempt at unity that began 35 years ago" (February 20, 2007).

He said the relationship between Catholics and Anglicans was the closest it's ever been. Dozens of Anglican married priests, in revolt against women's ordinations, have already been accepted into the Catholic priesthood.

The Protestant Reformation was a rebellion against Catholicism. Today, however, the Protestants are in the process of being reunited with the Catholic Church under the pope's rule.

The Vatican has redefined "terrorism." The label, which typically refers to the use of violence or threats of violence in order to intimidate or coerce others, has been pinned on some anti-pope comments made by an Italian comedian, according to the Vatican's official newspaper.

In a strongly worded editorial, L'Osservatore Romano wrote,

"It's terrorism to launch attacks on the church …. It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man" (May 2, 2007).

The supposed terrorist, Andrea Rivera, spoke out against the pope's stand on a number of issues. He told his audience,

"The pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the church has never evolved."

He criticized the church for refusing to give a Catholic funeral for a man who campaigned for euthanasia while giving one for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

Rivera made these, in L'Osservatore Romano's words, "vile attacks" in front of an "excitable crowd" at a televised May Day rock concert, which is held every year in front of the Saint John in Lateran basilica.

Though seemingly a small matter, the Vatican's statement gives a glimpse at the type of thing coming for those who oppose the Roman Catholic Church in the future.

In September 2006, the pope offended Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor from the 14th century. Here is what the emperor said:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

The pope apologized for offending Muslims, but didn't retract what he said. And it was a shocking statement.

But here is something far more shocking: I didn't notice anyone reminding the pope of his own church's history! He discussed Mohammed's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," but the truth of history is that no church has spread its faith by the sword more than the Catholics!

The Vatican and Germany primarily comprise the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Six resurrections of that empire have come and gone. I defy anybody to show me a religious empire that has shed more blood in man's entire history!

In spite of this bloody history, the pope is doing most of the criticizing and condemning.

That empire has had a history of converting people to Catholicism with the sword for about 1,500 years. Bloodshed has repeatedly followed its strong criticisms.

The greatest hero of the Holy Roman Empire is Charlemagne. He waded through a sea of blood to win converts to Catholicism. Still, the last two popes have continually instructed Roman Catholics to remember and resurrect that "glorious" past! That is the opposite of repenting for past sins! Some European Union leaders even discuss how they are waiting for a new Charlemagne to get the Holy Roman Empire moving again. And nobody seems to be alarmed.

Have people forgotten the history of the Holy Roman Empire?

How about the Catholic crusades?

Most religious (and even secular) people are reluctant to criticize the Vatican. But the pope is hurling some scathing criticisms at others — especially other religions.

Since the Vatican is so critical, surely it can stand a little criticism too.

If we fail to learn from history, the bloodshed is going to get a lot worse. This world desperately needs to know where the Vatican's aggression is leading. All religions have their faults. However, the Vatican acts like it is innocent.

In July 2007, London's Telegraph reported,

"Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism are either defective or are not full churches of Jesus Christ, the Vatican has reaffirmed. A 16-page document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI once headed, described Orthodox churches as true churches, but said they are suffering from a 'wound' since they do not recognize the primacy [state of being first!] of the pope.

"The document, approved by Pope Benedict, went on to say the 'wound is still more profound' in Protestant denominations. 'Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress … it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of "church" could possibly be attributed to them,' it said. …

"While there was nothing doctrinally new in the document, it nevertheless prompted swift criticism from Protestants, Lutherans and other Christian denominations" (July 11, 2007).

But the criticism was anemic compared to the pope's scathing condemnation of their religions. The reason Protestants revolted in the first place was the corruption inside the Roman Catholic Church.

The pope can't see how the Protestants could even have the title of "church" attributed to them! Quite an outrage coming from a church with such a bloody history.

This document criticized Orthodox churches almost as severely.

Also in July 2007, the Observer newspaper wrote,

"Jewish leaders and community groups criticized Pope Benedict XVI strongly yesterday after the head of the Roman Catholic Church formally removed restrictions on celebrating an old form of the Latin mass which includes prayers calling for the Jews to 'be delivered from their darkness' and converted to Catholicism. …

"However, the older rite's prayers calling on God to 'lift the veil from the eyes' of the Jews and to end 'the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ' — used just once a year during the Good Friday service — have sparked outrage.

"Yesterday the Anti-Defamation League, the American-based Jewish advocacy group, called the papal decision a 'body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations.'"

Still, the Vatican continues to allow use of the ceremony, and Jewish criticism is becoming muted. The Vatican is certain that it sees Jewish blindness, but what about its own blindness?

We all remember that the Nazis killed millions of people including Jews in World War II. There is an abundance of proof that the Vatican helped more Nazis escape at the end of the war than any other institution by far!

How could that happen if the Vatican hadn't been allied with Adolf Hitler? Is that history a prophetic insight, showing that history is about to repeat itself? Is this the kind of "light" the Vatican wants to give the Jews? Does the Vatican think it was following Christ in those evil deeds?

Is this the voice of a church that has repented of its sins? These are mind-numbing facts that we can't ignore! And yet the Vatican goes around castigating all other religions and acting like it is the repository of all righteousness. It is a deadly sign of where the European Union is headed!

The Catholic Church has over a billion members and wields frightening power within the European Union and in this world.

Vatican-City from the top of St-Peters Basilica
The Egyptian Obelisk which now stands in the middle of the square used to be in the Circus Maximus.
The 23 meter tall obelisk reputedly built in 1300 BC was taken from the Sun Temple
in Heliopolis in 10 BC by Roman Emperor Augustus to commemorate the conquest of Egypt.

Since taking office in 2005, the current pope has been accused of sending mixed signals on the theory of evolution.

In November 2005, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Cardinal Paul Poupard, said, in the words of the British Times Online,

"that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin's theory of evolution were 'perfectly compatible' if the Bible was read correctly" (April 12, 2005).

Besides being a priest and a cardinal, Paul Poupard is a scientist. He is powerfully influential within the Catholic hierarchy. Benedict XVI would have full understanding of his views. There was no public attempt to correct what Poupard said.

However, in 2006, the pope fired his chief astronomer, George Coyne,

"after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in the Tablet," the Times reported. "The sacking was interpreted by commentators as a clear endorsement for intelligent design" (ibid.).

Intelligent design refers to the belief that the origin of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, had openly criticized intelligent design. In a lecture at Palm Beach Atlantic University last year, Coyne stated,

"Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

He directly criticized Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn for an attack he had made on neo-Darwinism and for supporting intelligent design. Coyne emphasized that intelligent design diminishes God into

"an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover." He explained, "God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. … God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves."

Coyne supported his comments by pointing out that in John Paul II's declaration that

"evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis" is "a fundamental church teaching."

The Times observation that the pope firing Coyne was an endorsement of intelligent design may not be totally accurate. It is more likely that he was fired as a show of support for Schonborn — a fellow Teuton and personal friend of Benedict — rather than a support for intelligent design. Putting any interpersonal conflicts aside, it is still clear that there is major disagreement within the ranks of Catholic leadership on the subject of origins.

The pope definitely holds his own views on origins. In April 2007, he made international headlines with the publication of Creation and Evolution. The book, published in German, features this pope's (and other Catholic theologians') comprehensive thinking on creation, Darwin, faith and the role of science. The work is the result of a meeting conducted by the pope at the papal summer estate, Castel Gandolfo, in September 2006. What this pope has to say is quite revealing.

The Times reported that, referring to the origins of human life, the pope has written for the record that

"Evolution has not been 'scientifically' proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation" (op. cit.).

On the surface it appears the pope wants to put science in its place — to give all scientists a good spanking. Scientists have been working feverishly to prove evolution in the laboratory; yet the pope says,

"We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory." Associated Press reporter Melissa Eddy explained, "Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory" (April 11, 2007).

If evolution is impossible to prove, is the pope saying science should stop its useless effort?

Reflecting on the differing views of his predecessor, Benedict stated,

"[John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

It could appear that the pope has committed himself to an anti-evolution position, but careful analysis tells us otherwise.

It is interesting to note that the pope's book was released while American conservative Protestants do battle with science educators over the teaching of evolution in public schools. The pope is fully aware of what is taking place in the United States. Protestant leaders have fought hard and failed to win the legal right to have intelligent design taught alongside evolution in secondary schools. Some commentators understood the pope's views as an aid to keep the fight going in the United States. But the pope has not actually given his spiritual cousins much support.

Eddy reported, "He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith" (ibid.).

The pope may have had conservative Protestants drooling over his anti-evolution statements. Yet, in effect, the pope let the Protestants know that they are going to have to cook their own meal. Essentially, he wants creationists and evolutionists to work together — as long as evolutionists don't hurt people's faith!

The pope stated, "The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

Isn't it impossible to understand what the pope is actually saying? Is he truly opposed to evolution? Is he for creationism? He is throwing his support toward both. Let's be honest. The pope is guilty of classic fence-straddling.

His solution to soothe the debate between creationism and evolution reveals his true position on the whole matter. The Times reported that the pope advised Catholic theologians

"not to choose between creationism and evolutionary theory but to adopt an 'interaction of various dimensions of reason'" (op. cit.).

This may sound good to the scholarly, but where is the clear direction from the leader of the largest Christian denomination?

When we cut through the rhetoric, we must conclude that this pope gives his full support to the Renaissance theme that human beings must look to human reason to finally decide the issue.

Here is how the Times summed up what the pope is teaching:

"The comments of this pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted — openly or tacitly — by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations" (ibid.).

In essence, this pope is sticking to traditional Catholic thinking that has been established for decades — that God used the process of evolution to create life. As the Times noted, traditional Protestant denominations embrace the same doctrine.

Here is the point. Any person who believes in theistic evolution is still an evolutionist. Theistic evolution basically states that God was not directly involved in the origin of life. Those who accept this belief may think God created the building blocks. God may have established the natural laws that govern life. God may have even considered that organic life would emerge from inorganic matter, but at some point God withdrew His hand and let evolution take over. Some theistic evolutionists may believe that God stepped in miraculously at certain points, but Darwin's view of the path life took from the primordial simple to the current complex stands firm.

Essentially, the pope — the supposed vicar of Christ — leaves the door wide open for evolutionary science to proceed unchallenged. Could it be that Benedict, with all of his seemingly strong anti-evolution words, is simply working the crowd — appealing to as many as possible?

How should religious leaders speak on the subject of creation and the origin of human life? A religious leader should be able to give a clear, easily understood answer on the subject. It is not a difficult question if human beings go to the correct source. Human reason alone will never be able to deliver the answer. Here is the crux of the problem.

Theistic evolutionists view the Genesis account of creation including Adam and Eve as allegory. This means that they downright exclude the Bible as the source of knowledge on the subject.

We should not be surprised that the pope embraces theistic evolution. Catholic doctrine dictates that the Bible takes a back seat to the authority of the ruling body of the church when it comes to doctrine. Catholic theologians as far back as Thomas Aquinas warned "against the danger of literal interpretation of the Bible" (Time, March 12, 1984).

This is why the pope put so much emphasis on human reason. Without the Bible, that is all one has left to rely on.

Yet human reason cannot answer the question. In fact, the very nature of the question of origins requires that the answer be revealed by a source from outside of human experience. Human beings can dig in the dirt and gaze at the stars for lifetimes on end but still cannot come up with more than supposition, speculation or superstition. Only the Bible can give the answer all humans want to know. The Bible alone holds the missing dimension in knowledge men desire most. It tells us clearly how God created the universe, the Earth and human life — and why.

In our time, a religious leader has given us clear and inspiring answers to the questions related to creation and the origins of human life. Herbert W. Armstrong wrote,

"The two subjects — or, rather, the two sides of the same subject of origins — should be unprejudicially and objectively studied together, yet seldom are!"

Mr. Armstrong knew most people accept blindly what they are taught without proving it. To prove the truth takes hard work. Mankind is known for preferring the easy way. He stated:

"Most believers in the Bible and in the existence of God have probably just grown up believing it, because they were reared in an atmosphere where it was believed. … [F]ew ever studied into it deeply enough to obtain irrefutable proof" (ibid.).

He saw great danger in this kind of attitude. Lacking real understanding and proof of what the Bible actually says opens the door to become easily biased against it when it is challenged.

In a similar vein, he stated: "Likewise, the educated … have, in the main, been taught the theory of evolution as a belief. They have accepted it … without having given any serious or thorough study of the biblical claims" (ibid.).

The Bible is the most important textbook written during the age of man — yet it is purposely cut out of public education. Mr. Armstrong recognized at the very beginning of his ministry that college - and university - trained men and women had succumbed to the intellectual notion that study of the Bible is a sign of ignorance. This has been and still is the greatest and gravest error in modern education. Mr. Armstrong knew there could be no compromise with evolution. Why? Evolution makes it impossible to believe the Bible.

Let's get this straight. When a religious leader sets out to harmonize a work on evolution with the Bible, the Bible will always be thrown out !

For over 50 years, Herbert Armstrong challenged millions to truly educate themselves and prove the Bible.

"Isn't it about time — and the point of rational wisdom — that you prove this important question once and for all? Because if the Bible is in fact the inspired, authentic Word of a living, all-knowing, all-powerful God, then your eternity will be judged by it."

When we study the press's coverage of Benedict XVI's comments on creation, evolution, science and faith, we cannot find even the slightest reference to the Bible! That fact should be telling, shocking and alarming!

Mr. Armstrong recognized religion's failure to see the dangers of evolution. He wrote:

"We have simply failed to realize the deep-rooted nature of the doctrine of evolution. And so we left wide open the door of our own children's minds to an easy acceptance of evolution as truth—and a consequent rejection of fundamental [meaning true] Christianity" (Tomorrow's World, October 1969).

Let us be frank. Religion, of all things, has paved the way for the easy acceptance of evolution as truth. Let's not be naive; evolution is true religion's greatest enemy.

Historically, England has been distinct from mainland Europe in a number of ways besides just the geographic separation provided by the English Channel. One of the most crucial, in terms of establishing and maintaining British sovereignty and independence, has been the existence of the Church of England. From the time of England's break from Rome in the 16th century, the British monarch has been the titular head of the church, heading an ecclesiastical structure entirely separate from the pope-centered Roman Catholicism that has dominated continental history.

The Act of Settlement, passed in 1701 and still in effect, preserves this independence by requiring that the person assuming the throne be Anglican and specifically excluding a Catholic or anyone who has married a Catholic. The present queen, when she was crowned in 1953, swore an oath "to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed religion established by law." Upholding this oath factors heavily in Britain's independence from Europe because, since the pope claims authority over all Roman Catholics, a Catholic British monarch would owe primary allegiance to Rome over and above that owed the British crown.

And Rome would like nothing more.

"The Protestant constitution of the United Kingdom has long been a strong defense against Rome's desires for the 'evangelization' of Britain, which the pope refers to as 'Mary's dowry' — hers by right," explained Adrian Hilton in The Principality and Power of Europe. "The Vatican recognizes that the defeat of Protestantism here would weaken it throughout all Europe, and this has been its aim since the Reformation."

Of course, to many Brits today, this is all nonsense. Secularism has Britain by the throat; the percentage of practicing Christians there is in the single digits. The Church of England has lost moral authority, loosening its standards on issues such as the ordination of women as priests, premarital cohabitation and homosexuality. In the meantime, in conflict with her coronation oath Queen Elizabeth II has made unprecedented moves to reconcile with the Vatican: among them, visiting Pope John Paul II in Rome; hosting his visit to Britain in 1982 — the first pope to do so since the Reformation; allowing him to hold joint services with the archbishop of Canterbury; and appointing a Roman Catholic as her chaplain. Unsurprisingly, debate within Britain roils over whether the Act of Settlement should be trashed.

In other words, the historic fortifications safeguarding Britain's national strength and sovereignty have been significantly compromised. What is left in this nation is a spiritual vacuum — a vacuum that provides the Church of Rome the perfect opportunity to move in. For as Britain has become more liberal, Roman Catholicism has grown more conservative, increasingly presenting itself as a rock of stability in an uncertain world.

It is against this backdrop that this headline appeared in late October 2007:

"Traditional Anglicans ask for full communion with Catholics."

The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is a group of churches with a worldwide membership approaching half a million people. It formed in 1990 from a dozen Anglican churches that broke away from the 80-million-strong Anglican Communion (of which the Church of England is the heart), mostly to protest the liberalism creeping into that organization.

From its beginning, the TAC has had a spiritual affinity with Roman Catholics. Shortly after it formed, it began informal consultations with the Vatican on how to gain formal recognition as part of the Catholic Church. The primate of the group, Archbishop John Hepworth, has said, "We have no doctrinal difference with Rome."

This is quite a stunning statement coming from an Anglican archbishop. Set aside the many smaller differences the Protestant Reformed religion traditionally has with Roman Catholicism, and still there remains a very large elephant in the middle of the room: government.

The churches of the Anglican Communion are resolutely decentralized; each is independently governed. Though the most visible religious head of the Anglicans, the archbishop of Canterbury (who, under the monarch, presides over the Church of England), symbolizes the unity of the communion, he is still considered merely a "first among equals." His authority does not extend outside his own diocese. Individual synods interpret matters differently, and as a result, as one Episcopal bishop put it, "the Anglican churches are messy and often disagree with each other."

Authority within the Roman Catholic Church, by stark contrast, emanates from one man, traditionally called "the Vicar of Christ," the one and only "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" — the pope.

The TAC is willing to swallow that pill. Archbishop Hepworth says,

"Unity with Peter is a biblical imperative," referring to the pope's claim to be the rightful successor to the Apostle Peter. "What is important, and we are having to learn as a community," he says, "is to ask not what we think, but what the church says, and five centuries of bad habits are going to die hard."

Thus, in October 2007, the TAC sent a letter, the text of which was unanimously agreed upon by the communion's bishops and vicars-general, formally requesting "full, corporate and sacramental union" with the Roman Catholic Church.

It is now the Vatican's call. If Rome accepts the proposal, it will open the way for hundreds of thousands of Anglicans to return to the Roman Catholic fold en masse — the largest such move since the Reformation. Half a million instant converts.

And those in the Traditional Anglican Church (England) will thus formalize the transfer of their allegiance from the sovereign of England to the bishop of Rome.

The significance of this event is destined to grow with time. The TAC, though now separate from the Anglican Communion, appears to be in the vanguard of a movement among many Anglicans who view the liberalization in the church as heading in the opposite direction from where they want to go. The Anglo-Catholicism that found earlier expression in the present queen's overtures to a former pope is coming into fuller and fuller flower.

This extraordinary move puts the Vatican in the position not of converting people through force, as it often has in the past, but of coolly arbitrating and deciding upon the precise terms by which this half a million souls may consider themselves officially part of the world's largest organized religious body.

Quadriga on top of the Brandenburg-Gate in Berlin, Germany. Quadriga currently faces East.
Image by (Aleph), http://commons.wikimedia.org
(click to enlarge)

A distinct trend has emerged in international relations during this early 21st century. It's a phenomenon as ancient as the Holy Roman Empire, as the Ottoman Empire of old. In fact, it tracks right back to ancient Babylon.

It's the phenomenon of religion.

Despite all of the efforts of the post-Enlightenment secularists, of the rabid socialists who swamped our university campuses during the latter half of the 20th century, despite the aggressive efforts of that godless religion — communism — to trample the religious masses underfoot, competing theisms are back with a vengeance, strutting the world stage in a fashion not witnessed since, yet powerfully linked to, the First Crusade launched by Pope Urban II in 1095.

To the historian, the history we are writing today has an all-too-familiar ring to it.

When al Qaeda hit New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, that historic reality brought 3,000 souls to their fiery deaths.

Ever since, religion has dramatically escalated its status in international affairs. Jew and Gentile, Christian and pagan, Islamist versus the infidel and "the great Satan" — all of these ideas have triggered movements of zealots who would seek to take over the world to install their version of world peace by imposing their religion.

The tragedy of 9/11 was a powerful witness to the resilience and strength of the undying nature of this zealotry and the hatred it breeds. Indeed, the holy wars of old still roil today.

The Nov. 1, 2007, issue of the Economist was devoted to an analysis of the phenomenon of the return of religion influencing world affairs. That edition led with the statement,

"Not long ago most politicians, intellectuals and even some clerics assumed religion was fading from public life. Now it is everywhere.

"From Sri Lanka to Baghdad new wars of religion have appeared; from Washington to Delhi there are huge arguments about faith's role in the public square. Religion has returned … it is hard to think of a subject that seems more relevant to politics this century."

By way of example, a recent announcement from Rome, the old spiritual capital of the religion that spawned global Christianity, brought into fuller perspective the link between religion and politics. It came from the mouth of that arch-Europhile, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi.

Back in July, Prodi, a devout Catholic and ardent devotee to the great European unification dream, declared:

"The pathways of our ancestors are a great heritage …. It really makes me angry that we do not have pilgrims walking towards Rome any longer. To rebuild the great pilgrims' path we do not need great investments, but heart. I am pressing everyone to make it happen" (Independent, July 31, 2007).

Prodi spoke of the old Canterbury road made famous in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

Then, in October, Prodi declared the dream of restoring that old Canterbury road, the Via Francigena, one step closer to fulfillment.

"Premier Romano Prodi on Monday unveiled the first of 1,544 signposts which will soon show modern-day walkers the paths used by medieval pilgrims traveling from Canterbury to Rome. … 'It's about the rediscovery of our identity: We need to revisit the itineraries of the past,' the premier said at a ceremony held outside the gate of the Monteriggioni castle, which overlooks Sienese hills" (Italy Magazine, Oct. 30, 2007).

Now, let's put this in perspective. The Via Francigena was a pathway used by Roman Catholic pilgrims who trekked from the city of Canterbury in southern England (site of the cathedral of the same name) to Rome, before the Protestant Reformation.

Under Henry VIII, Britain became a Protestant nation, refusing to bow to Rome. Its religion then centered around the Church of England, not the Church of Rome. Thus Canterbury, long a religious center in Britain, whose Protestant religion calls its head the "archbishop of Canterbury," from then on became a focus of the practice of a religion in opposition to Rome.

So what is Prodi doing indicating that the revival of this route established by Roman Catholic pilgrims traveling from England to Rome is about the "rediscovery of our identity"? And why should this devout Roman Catholic be angered that "we do not have pilgrims [presumably from Britain] walking towards Rome any longer"?

Is there a hidden agenda here? This is the very man who, during his term as head of the European Commission, oversaw the slicing up of the European Union into regions ignoring national boundaries. On the EU map of Britain, England does not exist as a nation. The United Kingdom is simply carved up on the map into several innocuous regions, having no national identity! It's just a component part of an empire, that which is progressively morphing into a literal resurrection of the old Holy Roman Empire!

Sooner or later, the British public must become aware that this EU monolith is intent on swallowing their nation whole and reclaiming "Mary's Dowry," as the Vatican has traditionally viewed the British Isles.

It is said that all roads lead to Rome. The very fact that the old Via Francigena, which starts in England and ends in Rome, is in process of being revived suggests that Britain is considered part of the European Union's (Rome's) imperial heritage. It is one further step toward Rome fulfilling its universalistic agenda to impose its religion from the British Isles to the Ukraine plain; from the Nordic nations to Africa and beyond, and, especially, given the Vatican's diplomatic overtures to Israel, in Jerusalem!

The world's eyes remain fixated on the rhetoric, the bullying and the carnage created by pan-Islamism.
Yet the religion possessing the bloodiest history of all is resurrecting its power right before our eyes, and few there be that see the danger in it !

Under the papacy of John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Church took on a new life not witnessed since John XXIII convened the council of Vatican II back in 1962.

Karol Wojtyla, elected pope on Oct. 16, 1978, gave the Church of Rome a kindly, human face, one with which the public could readily identify, that of a shepherding patriarch who desired the best for all mankind. It helped that he had experience as an actor on stage in his more youthful years. This pope was schooled in how to project a persona to the media.

The sense of theater surrounded John Paul II's papacy right up to his death, when his body lay ensconced in the most simple of wooden coffins — a peasant's box for the burial of the leader of the wealthiest institution in the world. Karol Wojtyla became one of the most revered popes of all time. But he was more than an actor, a personality with great public appeal. He was a quintessential politician.

From the outset, he was determined to achieve two major milestones during his papacy: Root out the liberalism that had pervaded the priesthood since Vatican II, and motivate the Catholics of Eastern Europe to turn their gaze from their atheistic Soviet masters to their religious and cultural roots in Rome.

Appointing his confederate of Vatican II, Josef Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern name for the old Office of the Holy Inquisition), John Paul readily achieved his goal of silencing the most influential of liberal voices within the priesthood. That done, he turned his attention to his main political goal.

John Paul II first used this "two lung" analogy in reference to the Roman church regaining its eastern lung during a speech in his native country, Poland, in 1991. He declared at that time, in reference to the Soviet Union's collapse, that "the church in Europe can now breathe freely with both lungs!"

To John Paul II, Europe could not function as a united entity without its "eastern lung."

The fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union on Dec. 31, 1991, paved the way for that eastern leg to be joined to its already functioning western counterpart.

The Vatican and Germany deliberately moved in 1991, through the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as nation-states separate from greater Yugoslavia, to trigger a domino effect of Balkan states falling into the EU grasp.

John Paul II's political goal was fulfilled through the unification of Europe's eastern and western "lungs." Since his death, his successor has launched a religious blitzkrieg to draw the Orthodox churches back into union with Rome and to unite Europe religiously. Rapid progress is being made on that front, as we have reported in past issues.

As to Benedict's overtures to the Muslim world, that is a two-edged sword. He knows that the two religions, Roman Catholicism and Islam, are incompatible. Indeed, his speech given at his old university at Regensburg in September 2006 contained condemning words against Islam to the point that Islamic leaders were highly offended. The pope was careful in his response to the offended to not apologize for the words that created the offense. He only stated that he was sorry they had caused offense.

The most discerning Muslim clerics are reading this pope's clever diplomacy. They know he meant what he said. Hence the letter that a collection of 138 Islamic clerics and academics sent to Pope Benedict in October seeking inter-religious dialogue, a dialogue that in fact they know cannot effectively take place. Notwithstanding the statements in their letter as to common beliefs and teachings that each of these proselytizing, universalistic religions share, there is, by clear admission of Islam's central book, the Koran, simply no platform for dialogue.

But these Muslims know full well the history of crusading Rome. The most astute can already deduce the globalist crusading vision that was shared by Karol Wojtyla and his chief confidant, now Pope Benedict. They have seen the power of that vision drawing a host of Eastern European nations back into the very imperial configuration that threatened Islam at the time of the Crusades of old.

The Islamic clerics are simply playing for time, and time is all that their efforts to court Rome are likely to gain them. They run a high risk of going too far in taunting this rising superpower, an emerging united European power that possesses nuclear technology and already has the capacity to field the world's second-largest combined military force against any enemy that provokes it to aggression.

The fact is that since John Paul II's election in 1978, the papacy has elevated its political profile dramatically. Over the past almost 30 years, statesmen and community and religious leaders have flocked to visit the occupant of the papal throne as at no other time in history.

Speaking of John Paul II's adroit international diplomacy and its powerful effects in changing the world balance of power, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared,

"I think that there has never been such an outstanding defender of the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden in various cases and in various situations, either historically speaking or in terms of ongoing conflicts." He also said of John Paul II, "[H]e did a lot to prepare for the end of the Cold War, for the coming together of peoples. He was a man who used his high position" (RVE/RL Newsline, April 8, 2005).

Reviewing the brief history of Pope Benedict XVI, if ever there was a man who is demonstrating the power to use his "high position," it's this pope. The plethora of writings he has produced since gaining office — let alone before — leaves one breathless. Benedict's vision is well advanced in its rhetorical form. All that remains is the action to follow the words. That will come once Benedict deduces that united Europe is in a mood to hear and respond, yet once more, with the collective voice of the crusader. And the very thing that may cause that great reaction is Islamic provocation.

It's about time we sat up and truly listened to the rhetoric of Rome. Increasingly, it carries a political edge. It's an edge that history has witnessed before—the edge of the crusading sword, most recently seen in the Balkan wars and honing itself right now for a future whirlwind reaction to the major thorn in its side, pan-Islamism.

Truly, religion is back with a vengeance on the world scene! A formidable force is gathering to the north. An ancient crusading empire is rising steadily to power into a position of global dominance economically, militarily and religiously. When this power is challenged to jihad by the collective force of the Muslim nations in the future, it will not draw back as America has.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II expressed the hope that at the dawn of the 21st century,

"Jerusalem will become the city of peace for the entire world and that all the people will be able to meet there, in particular the believers in the religions that find their birthright in the faith of Abraham" (Parade, April 3, 1994).

Vatican City — formally known as the State of the Vatican City or Vatican City State (Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanæ and Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano) — is a sovereign landlocked enclave surrounded by Rome, Italy. The modern-day home of the popes, it is the smallest independent state in the world in terms of area and population. Its borders are coextensive with the Holy See, the ecclesiastical seat of the Roman Catholic Church and its Eastern Rite.

The Head of State is the Pope; the Heads of Government are the Secretary of State and Governor of Vatican City (sometimes referred to as the President of Vatican City). Currently, they are Pope Benedict XVI of Germany, Angelo Cardinal Sodano of Italy and Edmund Cardinal Szoka of the United States, respectively. The governance of the Holy See is separate, consisting of the Roman Curia in turn consisting of members of the College of Cardinals. The Heads of Government are concurrently agents of the Roman Curia.


The city takes its name from Mons Vaticanus, also known as Vatican Hill. Mons Vaticanus and the adjacent Vatican Fields upon which St. Peter's Basilica and its Sistine Chapel, Apostolic Palace and museums were built, predates Christendom.

It is supposed that this originally uninhabited part of Rome (the ager vaticanus) had always been considered sacred, even before the arrival of Christianity. In 326 the first church, Constantine's basilica, was built over the supposed site of the tomb of Saint Peter, and from then on the area started to become more populated.

Popes in their secular role gradually extended their control over neighbouring regions and, through the Papal States, ruled a large portion of the Italian peninsula for more than a thousand years until the mid 19th century, when most of the territory of the Papal States was seized by the newly united Kingdom of Italy.

In 1870, the Pope's holdings were further circumscribed when Rome itself was annexed. For the next 59 years, the Popes refused to leave the Vatican, in order to avoid any appearance of accepting the authority wielded by the Italian government over Rome as a whole. Disputes between these self-imposed "prisoner" popes and Italy were resolved on February 11, 1929 by three Lateran treaties, which established, under Mussolini, the independent state of the Vatican City and granted Roman Catholicism special status in Italy. In 1984, a new concordat between the Holy See and Italy modified certain provisions of the earlier treaty, including the primacy of Roman Catholicism as the Italian state religion.

Vatican City is considered a non-hereditary elective monarchy with a sovereign that wields absolute authority. The monarch exercises supreme legislative, executive and judicial power not only over Vatican City but also over the coextensive Holy See. The monarch is the Pope, elected for a life term in conclave by cardinals under the age of 80.

The Pope appoints cardinals to seats in the Roman Curia with specific authority to administer Vatican City. The chief executive is the Governor of Vatican City (often called the President of Vatican City). He is given the duties normally assigned to a premier or prime minister in other countries. The chief executive of the larger Roman Catholic Church is the Secretary of State, specifically responsible for the foreign relations of Vatican City. Legislative power is given to the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State — members are appointed by the Pope to terms of five years.

The term "Holy See" refers to the composite of the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisors to direct the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. As the "central government" of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See has a legal standing that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state. The Pope delegates the internal administration of the Vatican City to the Pontifical Commission for the State of the Vatican City. The legal system is based on canon, or ecclesiastical, law; if canon law is not applicable, the laws of the city of Rome apply.

During a sede vacante (papal vacancy), the Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church, former Secretary of State, and former President of the Pontifical Commission form a commission that performs some of the functions of the head of state; while another made up of the Chamberlain and three cardinals (one being chosen by lot every three days from each order of cardinals), performs other functions of the head of state. All decisions of these commissions must be approved by the College of Cardinals.


Created in 1929 to provide a territorial identity for the Holy See in Rome, the State of the Vatican City is a recognized national territory under international law. On this basis, the Holy See enters into international agreements and both receives and sends diplomatic representatives. Due to the very limited territory of the Vatican state, foreign embassies to the Holy See are located in the Italian part of Rome; Italy actually hosts its own Embassy of Italy! The Holy See is a permanent observer in the United Nations, and in July, 2004, gained all the rights of full membership except voting. According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Holy See Permanent Observer,

"We have no vote because this is our choice." He added that the Vatican considers that its current status "is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it."

The Pope delegates the internal administration of the Vatican City to the Pontifical Commission for the State of the Vatican City. The Vatican City maintains the Swiss Guards - a voluntary military force, as well as a modern security corps. It has its own post office, commissary (supermarket), bank, railway station, electricity generating plant, and publishing house. The Vatican also issues its own coins and stamps and controls its own internet domain (.va). Radio Vatican, the official radio station, is one of the most influential in Europe. L'Osservatore Romano is the semi-official newspaper, published daily in Italian, and weekly in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French (plus a monthly edition in Polish). It is published by Catholic laymen but carries official information.

The Pope rules the Holy See through the Roman Curia and the Papal Civil Service. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State, nine Congregations, three Tribunals, 11 Pontifical Councils, and a complex of offices that administer church affairs at the highest level. The Secretariat of State, under the Cardinal Secretary of State, directs and coordinates the Curia. The current incumbent, Angelo Cardinal Sodano, is the Holy See's equivalent of a prime minister. Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary of the Section for Relations With States of the Secretariat of State is the Vatican's foreign minister. Sodano and Lajolo served in their respective roles under Pope John Paul II and were then reappointed to those same roles by Pope Benedict XVI.

Among the most active of the major Curial institutions are the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees church doctrine; the Congregation for Bishops, which coordinates the appointment of bishops worldwide; the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which oversees all missionary activities; and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which deals with international peace and social issues.

Three tribunals are responsible for judicial power. The Apostolic Penitentiary deals with matters of conscience; the Sacra Rota is responsible for appeals, including annulments of marriage; and the Apostolic Signatura is the final court of appeal.

The Prefecture for Economic Affairs coordinates the finances of the Holy See departments and supervises the administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See, an investment fund dating back to the Lateran Pacts. A committee of 15 cardinals, chaired by the Secretary of State, has final oversight authority over all financial matters of the Holy See, including those of the Institute for Works of Religion, the Vatican bank.


Almost all of Vatican City's 921 citizens live inside the Vatican's walls. The Vatican citizenry consists mainly of clergy, including high dignitaries, priests, nuns, as well as the famous Swiss Guard, a volunteer military force. There are also about 3,000 lay workers who comprise the majority of the Vatican work force, but who reside outside the Vatican.

The official language is Latin, the otherwise extinct language that originated in Rome and has remained in use in the Roman Catholic Church. Italian and, to a lesser extent, other languages are generally used for most conversations, publications, and broadcasts. German is the official language of the Swiss Guard.

A separate Vatican City citizenship exists, enabling Vatican officials to travel on Vatican passports, and giving them diplomatic status in countries to which they are accredited. At the end of 2003 552 persons held Vatican citizenship, of whom 61 were cardinals, 346 were other clergy, 101 members of the Pontifical Swiss Guard and 44 were other lay persons. Nearly all these people were dual citizens, retaining citizenship of their own countries while working at the Vatican. Most Italians employed in the Vatican do not have Vatican citizenship.

by Ron Fraser, columnist, October 25, 2010
In a startlingly blatant declaration, the Vatican has challenged Israel to justify its very existence!

One does not have to read too closely between the lines to deduce that Pope Benedict XVI has one overarching goal in mind for his papacy: the evangelization of the globe.

Recently, CatholicCulture.org reported that

"With the October 12 promulgation of a motu proprio entitled Ubicumque et Semper, Pope Benedict XVI has established a Pontifical Council for New Evangelization.

"The new Vatican office is charged with coordinating plans to renew the vigor of the faith in regions where it was once dominant, but has lost ground to the forces of secularization — notably Europe …."

Perhaps nothing has revealed what is really at the heart of this papacy more than the recent Synod on the Catholic Church in the Middle East, convened on October 10, 2010 and concluded on Sunday.

This particular gathering of Catholic bishops in Rome was in fact a watershed event in the pope's program for evangelizing the world. For Benedict, the fulcrum around which his global project revolves is, as it has always been with the Vatican down through the ages, the city of Jerusalem. To this end, the Vatican is ramping up its involvement in the Middle East peace process.

"[I]f there is a place in the world today where ideas and plans are being hammered out to create the conditions for a possible peace, and not wars, in the Middle East, it is here. In Italy, in Rome, in Vatican City, in the Paul VI audience hall, in the Synod and even in the streets and trattorias of Rome. … The Vatican — so attacked, so reviled, so vilified — has erected a 'school of peace' in the heart of Rome, in the heart of the world, in these October days" (Inside the Vatican, October 20). So wrote Dr. Robert Moynihan in recent observations on the mood in Rome surrounding the special Synod of Bishops on the Middle East.

When I read that my mind went to a great prophetic warning that ought to ring in our ears every time we hear of Rome or Berlin, or for that matter Moscow, Tehran or Beijing, speak of "peace" — "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

What is most profound in relation to the "peace" spoken of at this recent synod in Rome is the stance it has taken on the tiny, embattled, fighting-for-its-own survival, Judaic nation of Israel.

Reuters reported that in their concluding statement, the bishops declared:

"Israel cannot use the biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify … territorial claims ….

Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said: "We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people. The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel …. The justification of Israel's occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures."

The synod's concluding message repeated a Vatican call for Jerusalem to have a special status "which respects its particular character" as a city sacred to the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

While recognizing "the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live" and the need for Israel to enjoy peace within internationally recognized borders, the document was much more expansive and detailed on the situation of Palestinians.

It said Palestinians "are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation: the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio-economic life and the thousands of refugees."

The imbalance of the Vatican's perspective on the situation of Jerusalem, the Jews and Palestinians is obvious. Peel aside the sophistry masking the reality of Rome's stance on the Middle East peace process, and it is obviously biased against the Jews and Israel's birthright claim to the city of Jerusalem and the biblical land of Israel, which were gifted by God to the nation of Israel in perpetuity. This, from a religion that claims to speak for all Christendom, indeed, claiming, albeit falsely, that its own religious roots lie in the birth of the land of Israel.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch said it all in a recent piece in Commentary magazine, under the headline, "The Aim Is to Make Israel a Pariah":

"Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOS. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

The result is the curious situation we have today: Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran — a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel's destruction — pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.

Murdoch, who received an award from Pope John Paul II for his contributions to the media, made no reference to the Vatican's stance on the nation of Israel, his statement coming before this latest startling declaration of the Vatican Synod on the Church in the Middle East.

But he did round on the European Union for its blatant bias against Israel and the fact that this EU slant against Israel is but grist for the mill for the rising anti-Zionism prevalent across the Continent:

"We saw a recent outbreak when a European commissioner trade minister declared that peace in the Middle East is impossible because of the Jewish lobby in America. Here's how he put it: "There is indeed a belief — it's difficult to describe it otherwise — among most Jews that they are right. And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."

This minister did not suggest the problem was any specific Israeli policy. The problem, as he defined it, is the nature of the Jews.

This is the exact same argument that ex-German central banker and politician Thilo Sarrazin makes in his bestselling book Germany Does Away With Itself to underpin his thesis that Jews are unsuitable for residence in Germany.

Murdoch also hit out at the anti-Zionism prevalent in Islamic communities in Europe, and the degree of tolerance that Islamic-inspired anti-Zionist attacks are given by European authorities:

"In Europe today, some of the most egregious attacks on Jewish people, Jewish symbols, and Jewish houses of worship have come from the Muslim population.

Unfortunately, far from making clear that such behavior will not be tolerated, too often the official response [suggests] Jews and Israel were partly to blame themselves.

When Europe's political leaders do not stand up to the thugs, they lend credence to the idea that Israel is the source of all the world's problems — and they guarantee more ugliness. If that is not anti-Semitism, I don't know what is.

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews."

The reality is that this "war against the Jews" is just one part of an insidiously spreading anti-Semitic mindset. In reality it extends out to embrace the Anglo-Saxons. For unbeknown to the greater part of society is the fact that the Promised Land was gifted to the nations of Israel — plural ! For proof of just who these nations are, read the eye-opening book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

The Eternal Creator of humankind promised the territory from the Nile River to the Euphrates to the descendants of Abraham, through his son Isaac and, in turn, the descendants of Jacob (Genesis 15:18-21; 28:13; Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 1:8). These are the true Israelites. Believe it or not, they include 11 other nations in addition to the Jewish people.

Since the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) — despite what Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros falsely maintains — and the Eternal God never changes (Malachi 3:6), His promise of the perpetual inheritance of that piece of Middle Eastern real estate by Israel is binding to this day and beyond.

It is certainly not conditional on the utterances of the Vatican. In fact, Israel is least accountable to that particular Babylonish institution, of all institutions.

Those who seek to refute the claim on the Promised Land by Israel will one day have to swallow their own words. Jerusalem is destined to be the capital of a new society, a whole new civilization to be established by the very King of Salem (Hebrews 7:2), the King of kings (1 Timothy 6:15), Jesus Christ Himself. It will remain the capital of that globe-girdling kingdom for over a thousand years. Then it will become the very site of the eternal throne of Almighty God Himself! (Revelation 21:1-3).

Those who falsely claim that "there is no longer a chosen people" will one day eat those words. For the very "peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9) chosen by God to do so, will soon claim their rightful inheritance of the Promised Land, and not long after, the whole world will learn to truly rejoice in the reality of that inheritance!

by Ron Fraser, columnist, November 15, 2010
In his latest treatise, Pope Benedict XVI reverts to medieval teaching.

Hard on the heels of the recent Vatican statement declaring that the Jews have no scriptural claim to the Promised Land comes another papal shocker.

It is contained in the pope’s most recent “apostolic exhortation,” Verbum Domini (“The Word of the Lord”), issued on November 11.

In this lengthy “exhortation,” the pope “has issued a lofty and impassioned plea for everyone in the church to rediscover the Bible” (CNA/EWTN News, November 11). But it’s more than an “impassioned plea” from this pope to his parishioners. It’s a direct attack on all who believe the inerrancy of the literal Scriptures as inspired by God!

In direct relation to the study of the Bible, Pope Benedict has “criticized ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘literalist’ interpretations and urged renewed appreciation for the symbolic and spiritual interpretation techniques used by the ancient fathers of the church” (ibid.).

In a most outlandish pontification, Benedict declared,

“An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church.”

This latest declaration by the pope tracks right back to his double endorsement of the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.

At the time that the pope made that startling claim, Fox News, among other sources, reported,

“For the second time in a week, Pope Benedict XVI has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and saying other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches” (July 10, 2007).

Thus, having declared all Christian denominations other than Roman Catholicism illegitimate, having endorsed recently a Vatican statement that the Jews have no valid scriptural claim to the Promised Land, the pope now has reasserted the medieval stance that only the interpretation of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church has authenticity.

That is a blatant papal lie that the very Scriptures themselves oppose !

Your Bible clearly declares, first and foremost, that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).

It further declares that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). There’s no instruction here to resort first to any “symbolic and spiritual interpretation techniques used by the ancient fathers of the church” !

Those “interpretation techniques” as applied over the centuries have led to many contradictory interpretations of Scripture, even within Roman Catholicism. But Jesus Christ plainly said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The Bible does not contradict itself !

It is not for the pope, it is not for any of his priests, it is not for man at all to interpret the Scriptures based on any particular religious ideology!

There’s only one power that can unlock the plain, straightforward meaning of Scripture. That is the power of the mind of God alone, exerting His influence directly on the mind of an individual by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ Himself, the Word of God personified, declared that when the Holy Spirit comes into the mind of an individual, it reveals all things. He called it “the Spirit of truth, [which] the world cannot receive, because it seeth [it] not, neither knoweth [it]” (John 14:17).

Christ called the Holy Spirit the “Comforter” (John 16:7). It is a revelatory Spirit, the Spirit of truth — actually a portion of God’s own supreme intellect embedded in the mind of a converted Christian. Christ declared that when it is given by the Father to a servant of God, it “will guide you into all truth … and [it] will shew you things to come” (verse 13).

CNA/EWTN News describes “The heart of Verbum Domini” as comprising “a long and often technical discussion of ‘hermeneutics,’ or the proper method for interpreting the sacred texts.”

The reality is that Jesus Christ, the very Author of the Word of God, gave us the proper method for understanding the Bible. We read of the direct experience of His original disciples, from which the original apostles were ordained who in turn formed the very foundation of the one true Church. Of their experience with the resurrected Jesus Christ, they intoned, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

It is thus the living Jesus Christ, the true Head of His one true Church, who opens up the Word of God to us by the power of God’s Holy Spirit!

Yes it takes dedicated study to grow in understanding the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15; Isaiah 28:10, 13). But, in reality, the Bible interprets itself!

Why do men insist on trying to interpret the Bible?

A quarter of a century ago, Herbert Armstrong gave the answer (Plain Truth, November 1983):

"The Scriptures are profitable for the purpose of reproving and correcting us. But we resent being reproved and corrected. How many people do you know who are even willing to be corrected where they are in error — to be reproved for the wrong things they do?

People do not like to be reproved and corrected. They love praise and flattery. But reproof and correction they surely hate.

That’s why it is so hard for so many people to understand the Bible and to agree on just what it says. The Bible is God’s great spiritual mirror. It shows up every flaw in our thinking and reveals every spot on our characters. It pictures us as we really are — as God sees us, not as we like to think we are or to have other men look upon us."

“For the word of God,” we read in Hebrews 4:12, “is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” — it cuts deep, both ways — “and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Yes, it opens up and lays bare the inner man."

That’s the plain and simple truth.

Using the Scriptures to underpin his argument, Herbert Armstrong further stated:

“For the word of God,” we read in Hebrews 4:12, “is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” — it cuts deep, both ways — “and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Yes, it opens up and lays bare the inner man.

Too often men have applied some different meaning to the scriptures that reproved them. They have passed right over some scriptures that corrected and rebuked them. Instead they studied diligently to find some other scripture into which they could read a meaning that would justify their course of action.

That is how men began, centuries ago, to interpret the Bible. And so God’s Word has become perverted, twisted, wrested, distorted. And almost every false and counterfeit meaning imaginable is read into it instead of seeing the natural meaning — the plain, simple meaning God intended.

Today we have hundreds of interpretations of the Bible. But you never hear of hundreds of interpretations of a biology textbook. Why? Because biology textbooks do not rebuke and correct men.

Instead of acknowledging the truth, repenting of the sin, having it legally justified by the blood of Christ, men seek to justify their own acts by perverting the sacred and holy Word of God."

As Melanie Phillips recently mused, the Vatican today, under this pope, may be taking “a giant step backwards into a darker age” — an age when the Vatican dictated that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the sole authority for interpretation of the Bible!

Could it be that this pope is in reality seeking to hide what inerrant Scripture reveals as to the true nature of the religious body he leads, its true beginnings, and its prophesied end? Hide the truth by insisting on the application of the interpretation techniques imposed by the “ancient fathers of the church” and thus interpreting, or rather wresting, the Scriptures to suit the whim and the will of the Vatican? (2 Peter 3:16).

You need to allow the Bible to interpret itself on this burning question and all others.

Background:

Blue

Green

Brown

Yellow

Purple

Pink

None