The Power Behind the Throne

(PASO ROBLES, Calif.) - The Holy See is the power behind the pope, and the passive voice of the Church; the pope is the active voice who reflects the decisions of the Vatican, the official residence of the pope and the administrative center of the papacy.

The Evangelical Holy See is comparable to the other as the political “Decider” behind the scene of the Republican Party. Its object is to control the Party through the Office of the Presidency, as it did using Geo. W. Bush who referred to himself as the “decider,” an echo of Evangelical desire.

Both Sees tend to operate behind the scene doing what is best for Church or Party over the long run according to their lights. The Nature of each is related to religious concepts, the one Catholic, of course, and the other Protestant and Evangelical. The Democratic Party has control of the Presidency now, not under the control of organized religion, but subject to the consent of its members who often are jealous of their seniority. It’s the way political systems work, and they can be deceivingly subtle.

The power of each derives from its organization and its characteristic. The Holy See of Rome considers itself to be infallible. Recently, the Republican Party has become more a controlling Oligarchy than a secular-democratic leadership. It operates secretly, has robbed the people of Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and makes enemies as an excuse to use the power of Commander in Chief to achieve the Evangelical end of turning America into a Theocracy under its control.

Across the sea, an incident has occurred that illustrates how subtle and far reaching the Catholic Holy See can be. During WW-II, Joseph Ratzinger served for a time in the Hitler Youth corps, eventually became a Roman Catholic priest, and is now Pope Benedict XVI. He seems an honest and sincere pope who recently said he was in “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews against any denial of the horror of the Holocaust. Seems clear enough, so what’s the rub? The specifics and numbers are wrong. The pope and Vatican admit the horror, while implying the number killed is far less than the six-million of which none were gassed. Lack of specificity and truth by a German born pope caused outrage among Germany’s Catholic leaders and the Nation’s Chancellor because it is against the law in Germany to deny or minimize the horror of Shoah [the Holocaust].

Richard Williamson a British born Episcopal priest was consecrated bishop by ultra-conservative Archbishop LeFebvre [deceased] without the consent of the Vatican, and immediately was excommunicated. On July 2nd 1988 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the excommunication calling the consecration an act of “disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church.” Rome never fully conceded to schism with the Church of England [and vice versa] so why did it decide to rehabilitate the errant Williamson who claims that up to “300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber . . . as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”

300,000 is far short of the six million who German’s insist were gassed in the camps, so one might reasonably suspect the lifting of excommunication was because The Holy See prefers Williamson’s numbers to those of Germany’s Roman Catholic leaders and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who consider them a serious distortion in a country where denial or reductionism of the Holocaust is a crime. The Vatican has countered Merkel’s suggestion “that sufficient clarification has not been made,” in a response long on verbiage but short on specifics, the object of which is to minimize the magnitude while denouncing the horror and omitting the obvious.

The Evangelical Holy See, guided by Karl Rove, seems a veritable copy-cat of the Vatican in its maneuvering of the Republican Party toward its intended, if distant, goal.

It is disruptive and outspoken in its desire to see President Obama fail, so it can regain power and continue its malevolent and determined advance at the people’s expense.

The mechanism is sufficiently installed of people appointed to offices where the art of disruption and delay can take its toll on Barack Obama’s good intentions, and he and the nation will be fortunate if he and his Party can overcome most of them. It might require him to hold his plans closer to the chest, and to become as devious as the enemy if he is to succeed.

Pope Innocent VIII provides an example of how the system works. The Rev. Montegue Summers wrote the two Introductions to the Malleus Maleficarum [The Witches Hammer] and tells how the pope agonized over what The Holy See required him to do in spite of his reluctance and doubts. He, as are so many in every walk of life, was the donkey on which was heaped the responsibility for decisions not his, or their, own.

Geo W. Bush, and God knows how many others, was in a similar position, but his philosophy conformed to that of his Holy See that prevented him from suffering regrets until late into his presidency when he seemed to lose enthusiasm for his job. Hopefully, Barack Obama can withstand the pressure, and overcome the odds.

------------------------------------------------
Kenneth G. Ramey was a 79-year old "writer without a Website" who is generating excellent, provocative articles on the subject of religion and world affairs. We are pleased that Ken's "lone wolf" presence as a writer in the world has been replaced by a spot on our team of writers at Salem-News.com. Raised in Minnesota and California during the dark years of the Great American Depression, Ken is well suited to talk about the powerful forces in the world that give all of us hope and tragedy and everything in between. You can write to Ken at: kgramey@sbcglobal.net

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark February 8, 2009 3:25 pm (Pacific time)

Friedn JW: Hastily, due to work situation here -fighting deadline for content due Monday a.m. See previus Op Eds (dates to come later); will also pick up issue with details and PDF sources for ID-to-editor queries soon. Believe bill needs passage to offset huge, continuing, predatory corporate drive to finish off what union strength still exists, knowing well that it was and can be again heart of what occurred for all of us and the economy during the New Deal years. That should give you full-target until we can continue dialog, do not mind headstart-thus since circumstances and commonsense so strong on union-side of this one !!

JW February 8, 2009 8:10 am (Pacific time)

Henry on further reading of your 4:29 pm post, are you against the secret ballot for union membership? If you are, then how different is that type of voting from regular political election voting? Or are you for secret ballots, including when unions come into a company and ask workers to say yay or nay about having unions represent them? or vice versa? And why? Would appreciate your view as it does deal with identification. Maybe you have some research on this also? Thanks

JW February 8, 2009 8:04 am (Pacific time)

Henry can you link us to the research you have? It does appear that the vast majority of internet posters are not on the same wavelength as you re: ID. Could we all be so wrong? Or...?

Henry Ruark February 7, 2009 4:29 pm (Pacific time)

JW, Vic: DO appreciate your concerns, friends, but cannot avoid the commonsense and research proven fact that WHO says WHAT to WHOM --and how it is done-- shapes up much of everyone's reaction to any message. That's my point. I note also that both of your responses, on careful reading, reveal some concerns about possible retaliation or other unlikely consequence in rational, reasonable circumstances which, unavoidably, simply proves up point about WHY one must know the communicator prior to making full judgment re its meaning and its impact on one's own life. That is especially true of the reference to communications re membership efforts for union association; the "secret vote" syndrome is simply cover for more concentrated and consequential corporate pressures to prevent a human right already well established: Association as individuals choose to set it up. Given safeguards built into any process for such selection of association, it is at least as possible to provide safety for anyone as it is under the so-called "secret vote". The flaw there goes directly to all human association, the truth that via many signs, clues, behaviors and verbal actions, anyone in working situations will soon know, very accurately, where any other one stands. If that were NOT true, on any human characteristic, it would prove impossible to manage efficiently and well what is demanded in practically all working situations these days, and is extremely difficult, if not realistically impossible, to conceal in close working relationships. Yet many persons do not (yet) understand that practical consequence of pragmatic close relationships demanded, and fall for the anti-union action set forth in opposition to the forthcoming law which should ameliorate the existing very large and costly corporate drive to kill off any change while there is still any possibility to do so, by any means, and at any dollar cost, recouped rapidly simply by maintaining the strangling posture re unionism achieved since the early Reagan attack set up the existing war-lines.

JW February 7, 2009 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

Vic, re: ID, your brevity is admirable. What do you think about the secret ballot for unions and the attempt by unions to make potential member's votes public on whether to join or not? I wonder if this will be signed into law during the "Dog Days" of August, or some other slow period? Or even during a time of some major activity so as to minimize it being made law? Remember it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.

Vic February 7, 2009 10:25 am (Pacific time)

I can't say I share the concern over identity that Henry does. I have read some very insightful opinions/comments here from people who did not ID themselves, and I have read some flat out BS by people who signed their names..(or appeared to). I imagine some of the posted names are not real names anyways. I post my name because I have nothing to lose, but also have gotten into trouble for my posts...I am self employed, so I do not have to worry about putting my job at risk if I write something that angers people. Not everyone has that luxury and it would be a shame if people had to hide their true feelings or not post at all because they are afraid of repercussions.

Henry Clay Ruark February 6, 2009 7:11 pm (Pacific time)

JW: Your points miss the point on nearly every point. Re dailies, many until recently DID confirm prior to use of Letter, as I know from having done so on several myself, had to confirm for others. Re Alinsky, his points so potent re opposition that long ago Far Right issued special materials stating them, giving same points you have used to oppose them. Wonder why, if he so doubtful ? Note you never answered questions re any experience in Chicago or with his work elsewhere either. He makes very convenient stalking horse now, esp. since death prevents his continuation vs enemies he surely earned since he was so well received in his time, with record to prove reasons. Re Pentagon vs jrnlst sources, if I read your jargon correctly, you feel protecting source is questionable practice. Yet police, other agencies do so constantly, as you should know. For jrnlsts it is ethical judgment, open to same question for anyone else if providing undue cover. Do you think political pander experts do any better ? Re "cover"-sought and why, ID is basic data for any possible credibility in any source, and when concealed is almost sure proof of reason forcing it. THAT was one of first principles taught us at I.U. via "four gentlemen from Virginia}, years ago, in one of first propaganda-analysis courses so taught, used ever since, supplemented by content analysis methods learned same time. Pays off, too, as you may have noticed. Fact remains flat and final:IF your source refuses full, open, ethical ID, better you should question than listen --as you should have learned by now. How come you question that universal fact of common sense ? Welcome your participation but find it useless to try to satisfy your continued diverting questions, waste of time to supply facts, further futility to ask pointed questions. So, sadly, will wave goodby with friendly blessing, which I will refrain from translation here; you can supply your own as may please you most.

JW February 6, 2009 1:06 pm (Pacific time)

Henry do you (maybe someone else does?) know what percentage of posters take you up on posting their full identification to you, and this site? How does that compare to other websites? I realize newspapers require what they do, which you covered below (too bad they don't verify veracity), but the world wide web is a bit different. Possibly when congress has the time, when they are no longer appropriating our hardearned money, they can enact the Fairness Doctrine (also called other things) and create new laws for America's internet also, though the international net may not participate. I wonder how the Chinese like their government's oversight? Cuba's? Russia's? Bet they're big on posting ID, kinda like all those who were on Radio Free Europe, they always ID'd themselves along with their home addresses. Same as those unknown Pentagon sources of those writers from papers like the NY Times and Wash Post, oh that's right, they're "unknown." Not much different than saying anything you want and not being held accountable? New laws ought to really make things efficient, more government oversight. Of course one could require email addresses (easy to disguise for the informed) before posting, then do a "hit response" comparison on viewer counts. Maybe there is already research on that, but of course it depends on the website don't you think? I wonder what Alinsky would think of applying his methods to the internet? Well, I believe they are in use, and you see their application in many websites already. And that is a crying shame.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2009 9:25 am (Pacific time)

To all: Convincing proof of reliance on "anon" and synonymous-name for protecting real intent is found in fact that, despite our standard principle of offering confidentiality to ID to Editor, for direct contact and further dialog with solid sources exchanged, those who continue this "hide behind tree" practice never accept that open invitation. Surely it cannot be from fear of professional, proper, and courteous consideration here, since we demonstrate that by the very fact of invitation. SO they seek to hide true ID for solid reason: It reveals them for what and WHO they are, and who they represent.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2009 8:40 am (Pacific time)

D.B.: Thanks for your effort to check out the link(s) from here. 90% of those I have so checked turn out to be moreofsame old biased stuff, not nationally noted honest, open publication with authoritative statement by professional journalists. Heavy-reliance on such proves up broad participation by "noise machine" as often stated by many others checking too. Appreciate your participation and share your rising fears re retaliation, with some small indications here of interest already underway. BUT that is price of freedom we all must pay; and should still further motivate and guide our continuing effort to call the actual count on those who pander and, perhaps, are even paid to do so. One of great channels for free public expression --Letter to The Editor-- in every decent daily has always demanded real ID to discharge responsibility and accountability for those who declared publicly. We will find,sooner rather than later, the complete irresponsibility given by "anon" and synonymous on Internet will wreak such damage on public comment that it will be regulated and controlled. Danger there is no more than we have survived for two centuries of newspapers in this nation, with name-signed and ID the overwhelming pattern from early times. So "sign your stuff", and if you have reason to conceal what you try to sell to others don't bother to clutter up the clear, open, honest and very democratic channel at S-N. Be prepared to ID-self after second or third comment, when asked via civil request, our usual pattern, demanded by publisher legal responsibility to all others depending on our channel for truth, supporting the wit, wisdom, will of the people. See upcoming Op Ed re real threatening situation.

Dorsett Bennett February 5, 2009 10:27 pm (Pacific time)

Hello Chris Jones--Okay, I ‘bit’ on your post and googled HR 645. Knowing what those malignant, bullying, goofballs, at Homeland Security sometimes do, after reading the text of the bill, I got a very queasy feeling. Especially given my outspokenness regarding those people and the other neo-Nazi types that seem to be lurking around in Homeland Security, the DEA and other such organizations. Witness this comment! :-) If you don't hear from me for more than two weeks, you'll know that they took me away.

Henry Ruark February 5, 2009 8:32 pm (Pacific time)

Swimmer: Perhaps you've found yourself in the wrong river, friend... Your reference to Tourette's Syndrome is extremely awkward, insensitive, totally out of place here, and reflects badly on your possible Christian intention if such there be somewheres, surely not well expressed here towards a well-educated Christian seeking still further opportunity with others, in public sharing surely itself reminiscent of Himself.

ChrisJones February 5, 2009 2:55 pm (Pacific time)

This brings to mind the CURRENT house resolution H.R. 645 which will set up the framework for the same to happen here.

qui vivi February 5, 2009 12:31 pm (Pacific time)

Swim: If reading your paper before I read mine makes it OLD news, you win. Why assault the messenger for reporting the news? At last you are not bitter, and that's important. Have a nice day.

Vic February 5, 2009 8:26 am (Pacific time)

The 900lb gorilla in the room is the Red Cross figures, which show a total of 373,468 total concentration camp deaths. The Red Cross were allowed into the camps, and also made no mention of gas chambers. I am not taking a position on this, but think it is incredible the difference between the two figures...14 million vs 1/3 million. Are the Red Cross lying to make the Nazis look better? What would be their agenda or reason for doing so? What group of people would want to use the holocaust for their benefit?

Swimming in the Tiber February 5, 2009 7:53 am (Pacific time)

This is OLD news! Pope Benedict demanded Bishop Richard Williamson recant is statements. Don't you think, at 79 you ought to be contemplating the afterlife instead of spewing this hogwash? Stop Bashing the leader of 1/4 of the worlds Christians. Or maybe there is a medical reason for your curmudgeonly tirade ... maybe it's time to see a Dr. about your Turrets Syndrome?

[Return to Top]

The Power Behind the Throne

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News