October 30, 2016
by Fr. George W. Rutler
October 30, 2016
by Fr. George W. Rutler
by Christopher A. Ferrara
September 6, 2016
During Vespers on the “World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation,” Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the aged Modernist who has been “Preacher of the Papal Household” for the past 36 years, uttered this gibberish during his so-called homily:
How long has the universe had to wait, what a long run-up it has had, to reach this point! It took billions of years during which opaque matter evolved toward the light of consciousness like the sap that slowly rises from under the ground to the top of the tree to flow into its leaves, flowers, and fruit. This consciousness was finally attained when “the human phenomenon,” as Teilhard de Chardin calls it, appeared in the universe. But now that the universe has reached this goal, itexpects that human beings perform their duty and take on the task, so to speak, of directing the choir and to intone, in the name of all creation, “Glory to God in the highest!”
This, of course, is rank pantheism: the “universe” gave rise to human consciousness, not the personal Triune God by the special creation of Adam and Eve with their rational souls. So much for the Genesis account of creation and the infallible teaching of the Church on the descent of the whole human race from two first parents who fell from grace in Paradise. No, according to “the preacher of the papal household,” human consciousness just sort of bubbled up from “opaque matter” — a crude superstition worthy of pagan idolaters in the jungle.
And now, declares the “preacher of the papal household,” the universe
“expects” that man will lead the way in “caring for creation,” thus giving glory to “God.” Note the confusion between the universe and God, redolent of the heresy of Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) which earned him excommunication even from the synagogues of the Netherlands. As Spinoza declared in his Ethics: “God, or Nature”, Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists.”
“The preacher of the papal household” is spouting the evolutionary nonsense of the infamous Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, whose theology is warmed-over Spinoza dressed up in pseudo-Catholic, semi-poetic musings disguised as a bold reconciliation of Scripture and the supposed “science” of neo-Darwinian evolution.
One need only recall the Holy Office Admonition of June 1962 regarding the writings of this theological and scientific fraud, who was implicated in the “discovery” of two fake fossils: Piltdown Man and Peking Man. As the Holy Office warned only weeks before the commencement of Vatican II:
Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin… abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.
For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.
After more than three years of the “Francis revolution,” however, it should come as no surprise that Francis, a liberal Jesuit formed in the Sixties, is also a devotee of de Chardin’s heretical babbling. In fact, it was Francis who rehabilitated de Chardin with a favorable reference in his “recyclical” Laudato si’, as I have shown here.
But such is the crisis in the Church today: yesterday’s condemned heretic is today’s “authority” in Catholic theology. This is what Lucia of Fatima meant by “diabolical disorientation.” Heresy is in, orthodoxy is out. The Vatican pursues worldly projects while ignoring man’s eternal destiny. We are exhorted to “care for creation,” but no one in Rome is exhorting us to care for the immortal soul, which even the pagan philosopher Plato knew is man’s most precious possession.
The Church is upside down and only God, through the intercession of His Blessed Mother, can set it right again — as the world will see in the light of Fatima.
Written by Elizabeth Yore
The silence about Hillary Clinton is deafening. One hears nothing but crickets from the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals about the democratic presidential candidate’s radical pro-abortion stance, but for the banished Cardinal Raymond Burke.
Why are they sitting mute on the sidelines? How could they be conflicted between an abortion laden democratic platform and the most prolife republican platform ever? Seems like an obvious choice for Catholics. After all, St. John Paul II described life as “the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights.” What’s going on?
When in doubt, follow the money. This ecclesial trail is flush with cash.
Could it be that the bishops don’t want to anger their federal piggy bank by squealing about that rabid abortion loving democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton?
Could it be that the USCCB enjoys and wants to continue to be awash in Obama cash?
Did the democratic Obama Administration buy the election silence of the Catholic episcopacy by bestowing millions of federal dollars into the coffers of Catholic institutions?
Do the Bishops believe that a President Hillary Clinton is preferred because she will continue to fund their plentiful federal grants for Muslim refugee resettlement?
Oh, the irony! This is the same Obama Administration that has forced lawsuits by the Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic schools, Catholic businesses and Catholic lay organizations for mandating compliance with Obamacare rules in violation of Catholic doctrine. Yet, the Bishops stand ready, willing, and able with their hand in the federal cookie jar to implement the Muslim refugee resettlement agenda.
While the Little Sisters of the Poor battled Uncle Sam, the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals were lining the Church coffers with blood money from Uncle Sam.
This isn’t about conscience, folks. It’s about their checkbook.
Take a look at the jaw dropping beneficence from the federal fairy godmother government deposited into the bank accounts of the Catholic hierarchal institutions. It’s all on display at USASpending.gov.
During the most anti-Catholic administration in the history of the U.S., the Catholic bishops have enjoyed enormous financial benefits carrying out the mission of the Obama administration.
Here’s the Church, here’s the steeple, open the doors and see all the federal dollars.
This is only a partial list of federal government grants to Catholic groups, but the USCCB, Catholic Charities, CRS and the International Catholic Migration Commission received jaw dropping grants to carry out the Obama agenda in FY16.
These grants cover fiscal year 2016 only:
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
During FY16, the USCCB received federal grants totaling a whopping
According to the USASpending.gov, the top programs carried out by the USCCB, on behalf of the Obama Administration were:
|Program Name||Funds Awarded|
|1. U.S. Refugee Admissions Program||$53,405,755|
|2. Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Voluntary Agency Programs||$21,714,000|
|3. Unaccompanied Alien Children Program||$9,240,908|
|4. Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program||$5,249,661|
|5. Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Discretionary Grants||$1,366,158|
Clearly, the U.S. Bishops are fully supportive of the Obama Administration mass refugee resettlement program. It’s been a very lucrative venture for the USCCB. Donald Trump seeks to suspend the Muslim Refugee migration program into the United States. Supporting a Donald Trump candidacy would halt all Syrian Muslim refugee migration into the U.S. His policy of suspending Muslim refugees would be quite costly for the Bishops and deplete their coffers. The present day Money Changers aren’t willing to relinquish their federal revenue flow.
And then there’s the Catholic Church’s golden calf of federal funds, Catholic Charities. According to USASpending.gov, the federal government’s website of federal contracts and grants, the Catholic Bishops around the U.S. garnered some hefty contracts. Overall, for FY16 Catholic Charities collected:
$84,339,422 as Total Prime Recipient
$118,008,202 as a Total sub-award transaction
But there’s More!
The Catholic Bishops landed even more federal goodies to carry out the massive refugee migration resettlement agenda of the Obama Administration. Mass migration of Syrian refugees provides a lucrative business model for the Catholic Church but they might want to ask the Catholics in the pews about this highly controversial policy of putting Muslim refugees in U.S. towns.
The International Catholic Migration Commission(ICMC)
The International Catholic Migration Commission(ICMC) headquartered in Boston also joined in on the federal refugee goodies. In FY 2016, according to the USASpending.gov, the International Catholic Migration Commission was awarded:
$17,715,636 Total as Prime Recipient
The U.S. Department of State doled out $17+ million to ICMC grants. The sole purpose of the grants is stipulated for U.S. Refugee Resettlement.
Wake up, Catholics! The USCCB and its partners are quietly assisting the Obama administration in resettling into the United States, tens of thousands of Muslim Syrian refugees. Where are the photos? Why the secrecy? Curiously, only a tiny fraction of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians are included in the refugee population. Perish the thought that the Catholic Church would demand that Christian refugees be given priority over Muslims. That controversial stance might jeopardize their federal contracts.
There are thousands of other federal grants and contracts to the Catholic Church stored in the Obama administration piggy bank, but these 3 grant recipients demonstrate the ongoing fiscal relationship with the Democratic Obama Administration.
Following the lead of Pope Francis and his globalist agenda, the American Catholic hierarchy are relegating the prolife ministries to the doctrinal ash heap and committing funds and personnel to promote environmental and migration issues. Catholics are witnessing the bureaucratic deconstruction of the prolife movement in chanceries and the elevation of migration and immigration in its place. Catholic children are learning about the sin of littering, the importance of tree hugging and sexual hugging in the latest Vatican sex education curriculum.
Why? It’s simple: Follow the greenbacks in the environmental “green” movement. The global environmental and migration movements are overflowing with cash. For decades, the Catholic Church has been the odd man out, battling the United Nations and its abortion infused agenda under the guise of faux climate change. In previous papacies, the Catholic Church leaders were mocked as unenlightened dinosaurs and misogynists for fighting for the protection of the life of the unborn. Alleluia! The Church is no longer the outsider under the hip and relevant Francis papacy.
Along comes mega billionaire George Soros, as the global architect of an international mass migration policy that fills the Catholic Church coffers and floods Europe and America with Muslim refugees. Pope Francis and his minions now are welcomed and celebrated on the global stage as elite players. This unholy alliance is exposed in the leaked Soros Open Society documents and the embedded Vatican presence of Soros operatives, like Jeffrey Sachs and many others.
As the DCLeaks Soros documents reveal, Soros fosters, foments and implements internal chaos and disruption through organizations which he funds. The Syrian refugee crisis is being funded by George Soros through left wing groups to generate support for Obama’s plan to surge thousands more Syrian refugees into American towns and cities.
George Soros accurately and cleverly identified the Francis Vatican as a sympathetic ally for the many Open Society initiatives. Together with President Obama, whose federal contracts and grants implement Soros’ reckless refugee policy, the unholy alliance emerged with the Catholic Church participating in the Soros global vision of a massive global refugee chaos.
With the upcoming election, Soros is taking nothing for granted. He has already poured $25 million into the Hillary Clinton campaign to ensure the continuation of the flood of refugee migration into Europe and the U.S. Shockingly, the Catholic Church facilitates the Soros vision and is paid handsomely by the Obama administration.
It’s no surprise that the Catholic Bishops remain silent about the abortion loving Hillary Clinton. They wouldn’t want to endanger their lavish federal contracts. After all, Hillary has promised to dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees into the U.S., to the delight and insistence of her financial backer, George Soros.
It’s no surprise that New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, criticized Trump by writing that, “Nativism is alive, well – and apparently popular!”
It’s no surprise that Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas, condemned what he called the “déjà vu of immigrant bashing” reminding his diocesan Catholics of Trump’s words.
It’s no surprise that LA Archbishop Jose Gomez opined that Trump’s stance on immigration “is not right.”
It’s no surprise that the Catholic Bishops, under Vatican orders are promulgating the migration of Muslim refugees into the United States. The Bishops have made a calculation that migration trumps (‘scuse the pun) the pro-life issue. Migration pays very well, pro-life pays nothing.
With millions of federal funds to support the Obama administration’s mass refugee resettlement program, it is expected that the Bishops will remain silent about Hillary Clinton, and criticize Donald Trump who seeks to halt Syrian refugee migration into the U.S., so that vetting for terrorism can be ensured. The Bishops’ silence comes at a big price…. hundreds of millions from Barack Obama.
We hear much about vote your conscience. Catholics, take note of the cozy blasphemous financial arrangement between the democratic abortion- promoting Obama administration and the Catholic hierarchal money changers as you inform your conscience.
It’s no wonder that the Bishops’ Conference won’t bite the hand that feeds it.
Photo Credit: Matt Foran
By Raymond Ibrahim
When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the new Catholic pope in 2013, he chose the name of Francis to indicate that his pontificate would be one of mercy and compassion for the poor and needy. Such is the reputation of his eponym, Saint Francis of Assisi: “the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation,” said Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, as to why he chose that name.
St. Francis (1182-1226) is indeed known for all those qualities. But he was known for something else his modern-day namesake fails to live up to: unapologetically confronting Islam.
According to St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims by Frank M. Rega:
Fully aware of the dangers, Francis was determined to go on a mission to the unbelievers of the Muslim nations. The primary sources are in agreement that he was now ready to sacrifice his life and die for Christ, so there can be little doubt that the intent of his journey was to preach the Gospel even at the risk of martyrdom. (p. 43)
Along with saving souls, he sought to save lives as well – to help bring peace to the turbulent world he lived in, where Christians, responding to centuries of Islamic invasions and conquests of Christian lands, had gone to war with Islam in the Crusades:
Converting the Muslims by his preaching was the ultimate goal of Francis’ efforts, and a peaceful end to the war would be a consequence of their conversion. In the words of scholar Christoph Maier, “Francis, like the crusaders, wanted to liberate the holy places in Palestine from Muslim rule. What was different was his strategy. … He wanted their total submission to the Christian faith.” (p. 63)
In 1212, during the Fifth Crusade, Francis and a fellow
monk (actually a friar, as St. Francis himself was –ed.) traveled to the Middle East and sought audience with Sultan al-Kamil – despite al-Kamil’s vow that “anyone who brought him the head of a Christian should be awarded with a Byzantine gold piece” (p. 57). St. Francis’s contemporaries also warned him that Muslims “were a mean people who thirst for Christian blood and attempt even the most brazen atrocities,” (p. 34). The determined friar continued their journey, only to experience the inevitable:
The early documents are unanimous in agreeing that the two Franciscans were subjected to rough treatment upon crossing Muslim territory. The men of God were seized in a violent manner by the sentries, assaulted, and bound in chains. Celano reports that Francis “was captured by the Sultan’s soldiers, was insulted and beaten” yet showed no fear even when threatened with torture and death. (p. 58)
Eventually brought before Sultan al-Kamil, the friars sought to “demonstrate to the Sultan’s wisest counselors the truth of Christianity, before which Mohammed’s law [sharia] counted for nothing: for ‘if you die while holding to your law, you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you.'”
Intrigued by the cheeky friars, “the Sultan called in his religious advisers, the imams. However, they refused to dispute with the Christians and instead insisted that they be killed [by beheading], in accordance with Islamic law” (p. 60).
Perplexed, the sultan refused: “I am going counter to what my religious advisers demand and will not cut off your heads … you have risked your own lives in order to save my soul.”
During their disputation and in reference to “the centuries-old Muslim conquest and occupation of lands, peoples, and nations that had once been primarily Christian,” Kamil sought to trap the friars: if Jesus had taught Christians to “turn the other cheek” and “repay evil with good,” he inquired, why were “Crusaders … invading the lands of the Muslims?”
Francis quipped by also quoting Christ: “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
Francis then explained: “That is why it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship” – a reference to Islam’s dhimmi rules, which, along with debilitating Christian worship, make Christian lives so burdensome and degrading that untold millions had converted to Islam over the centuries to ease their sufferings.
There are more interesting aspects concerning St. Francis’s encounter with Sultan Kamil, including those who find parallels in the modern world, such as sharia’s strict bans on blasphemy against Islam and evangelizing for Christianity (often seen as one and the same) and call for the execution of apostates from Islam. They are discussed in this brief article.
For now, consider some important differences between St. Francis and his modern-day namesake, Pope Francis.
While the saint accused Islam of persecuting Christians and sought to bring them succor – to the point of putting his life on the line – Pope Francis refuses to confront Islam. When he has the attention of the world, he habitually fails to condemn or even shed light on the nonstop Muslim persecution of Christians, including millions of Catholics.
Last year, he delivered a nearly hour-long speech before the United Nations. Only once did Francis make reference to persecuted Christians – and he merged their sufferings in the very same sentence with the supposedly equal sufferings of “members of the majority religion” – that is, Sunni Muslims. In reality, of course, Sunnis are not being slaughtered, beheaded, enslaved, and raped for their faith; are not having their mosques bombed and burned; are not being jailed or killed for apostasy, blasphemy, or proselytization. That’s because the terrorists – whether al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, or ISIS – are Sunnis. And before that, Francis issued his first encyclical – an important document meant to be relayed to the world’s Catholics – with no mention of persecuted Christians.
More recently, after a journalist asked Pope Francis about the slaughter of an 85-year-old priest in France and how he was clearly “killed in the name of Islam,” the pope disagreed and proceeded to offer a plethora of absurd and silly rationalizations in defense of Islam.
Nor did St. Francis preach passivity before aggression:
A foremost expert on Francis and the Fifth Crusade, Professor James Powell, wrote: “Francis of Assisi went to Damietta [Egypt, where Sultan Kamil was] on a mission of peace. There can be no question about this. We should not however try to make him a pacifist or to label him as a critic of the crusade.” Another leading crusade scholar, Christoph Maier, was even more explicit: “Francis thus accepted the crusade as both legitimate and ordained by God, and he was quite obviously not opposed to the use of violence when it came to the struggle between Christians and Muslims.” At one time Francis had remarked to his friars that “… paladins and valiant knights who were mighty in battle pursued the infidels even to death[.]” … Francis admired the deeds of such brave men because “… the holy martyrs died fighting for the Faith of Christ.” (p.70)
This is why those who know the true biography of St. Francis deplore his modern-day transformation into some sort of Medieval “hippie” – or, in Pope Francis’s words, “the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation.”
In 1926, Pope Pius XI issued the following statement:
What evil they do and how far from a true appreciation of the Man of Assisi [St. Francis] are they who, in order to bolster up their fantastic and erroneous ideas about him, image such an incredible thing … that he was the precursor and prophet of that false liberty which began to manifest itself at the beginning of modern times and which has caused so many disturbances both in the Church and in civil society!
In the context of confronting Islam, Rega laments that “for the revisionists, the ‘real’ Francis was not a bold Evangelist, but a timid man, whose goal was to have the friars live passively among the Saracens [Muslims] and ‘to be subject to them'” (p.95).
A final important point: While St. Francis did not mock Muhammad – though apparently not enough to dissuade the pious from calling for his head – he unequivocally portrayed the Muslim prophet’s message as false. Unlike the diplomatic Pope Francis, who never seems to preach Christ to Muslims, but rather confirms them in and validates their religion, the sincere saint was actually more concerned with the souls of Muslims, to the point of putting his own life on the line. This used to be one of the concerns of all popes, the “vicars of Christ.” But apparently not for Pope Francis.
In short, there’s a fine line between St. Francis’s compassion and Pope Francis’s cowardice – or worse, complicity. When it comes to confronting Islam and standing up for the faith and persecuted Christians, Pope Francis woefully fails to live up to the brave friar whose name he appropriated.
This answers alot of questions. What could possibly go wrong? Is the Pope’s conclusions a surprise? Or did he merely get advisors who already agreed with his own beliefs? I think it is self-evident what went on here.