RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

Source: RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

 

In this time of new persecutions against Christians by Islamicists, secularists, and sexual anarchists, and of a pope who so openly emboldens and gives comfort to these and other enemies of Holy Mother Church, while shirking his duty to confirm his brethren in the faith, we publish in English translation (below) the prophetic words of the Venerable Pope Pius XII, given on February 20, 1949 to the people of Rome, condemning the persecution of Christians in Eastern Europe by the socialist and communist dictatorships.

Pius XII warns of “a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it” and which would give herself over to “the shifting sands of the opinions of the day.”  He asks: “Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?” Can anyone now deny that we live in just such a time as this?

 

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS PIUS XII TO THE FAITHFUL

Sunday, February 20, 1949
Romans! Beloved sons and daughters!
Once again, in a grave and dolorous hour, the faithful people of the Eternal City has rushed to its Bishop and Father.
Once again, this superb colonnade seems barely able to embrace with its gigantic arms the crowds, which like waves driven by an irresistible force, have flowed to the threshold of the Vatican Basilica, in order to attend the Mass of Atonement in the central point of the whole Catholic world and to pour out the sentiments with which their souls are overflowing.
Among the unanimous condemnations of the civilized world, the sentence imposed upon an eminent Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church on the banks of the Danube has raised on the banks of the Tiber a cry of indignation worthy of the City.
But the fact that a regime opposed to religion has this time attacked a Prince of the Church, revered by the vast majority of his people, is not an isolated case; it is one of the links in the long chain of persecutions which some dictatorial States have waged against Christian doctrine and life.
A well-known characteristic common to persecutors of all times is that, not content with physically crushing their victims, they want also to make them appear despicable and hateful to their country and to society.
Who does not remember the Roman martyrs, of whom Tacitus speaks (Annals 15:44), immolated under Nero and made to appear as arsonists, abominable criminals, enemies of mankind?
Modern persecutors show themselves to be the docile disciples of that inglorious school. They copy, so to speak, their masters and models, if, indeed, they do not surpass them in cruelty, clever as they are in the art of employing the most recent progress in the technical sciences for the purpose of a domination and enslavement of the people which in the past would not have been conceivable.
Romans! The Church of Christ is following the road traced out for her by the divine Redeemer. She feels herself eternal; she knows that she cannot perish, that the most violent storms will not succeed in submerging her. She begs no favours; the threats and disfavor of earthly authorities do not intimidate her. She does not interfere in problems purely economic or political, nor does she occupy herself with debates on the usefulness or banefulness of one form of government or another. Always eager, in so far as she is able, to be at peace with all (cf. Rom 12:8), she renders unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but she cannot betray or abandon that which belongs to God.
Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious State requires and expects from her [the Church] as the price for her tolerance and her problematic recognition. That is, it would desire:
a Church which remains silent, when she should speak out;
a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it;
a Church which detaches herself from the unwavering foundation upon which Christ built her, in order to repose comfortably on the shifting sands of the opinions of the day or to give herself up to the passing current;
a Church which does not withstand the oppression of conscience and does not protect the legitimate rights and the just liberties of the people;
a Church which, with indecorous servility, remains enclosed within the four walls of the temple, which forgets the divine mandate received from Christ: Go forth to the street corners (Matt 22:9), teach all peoples (Matt 28:19).
Beloved sons and daughters! Spiritual heirs of an innumerable legion of confessors and martyrs!
Is this the Church whom you venerate and love? Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?
The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.
Can he [the Pope] then remain silent when in a nation the churches which are united to the center of Christendom, to Rome, are snatched away through violence or cunning; when all the Greek-Catholic bishops are imprisoned because they refuse to apostatize from their faith; when priests and the faithful are persecuted and arrested because they refuse to leave their true Mother Church?
Can the Pope remain silent, when the right to educate their own children is taken away from parents by a minority regime which wants to alienate them from Christ?
Can the Pope remain silent when a State, surpassing the limits of its authority, arrogates to itself the power to abolish dioceses, to depose Bishops, to overturn the ecclesiastical organization, and to reduce it below the minimum requirements for the effectual care of souls?
Can the Pope remain silent when the point is reached of punishing a priest with imprisonment, guilty of refusing to violate the most sacred and inviolable of secrets, the secret of sacramental confession?
Is all this perhaps illegitimate interference in the political powers of the State? Who could honestly affirm anything of the kind? Your exclamations have already given the answer to these and many other similar questions.
May the Lord God reward your fidelity, beloved sons and daughters. May He give you strength in the present and future struggles. May He make you vigilant against the attacks of His and your enemies. May He illumine with His light the minds of those whose eyes are still closed to the truth. May he grant to those hearts, which today are far from him, the grace to sincerely return to that faith and to those fraternal sentiments whose denial threatens the peace of humanity.
And now may Our lavish, paternal, and affectionate Apostolic Blessing descend upon you, the City and the World.

An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope – OnePeterFive

Editor’s Note: On 2 May, George Neumayr’s book, The Political Pope: How Pope Francis is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives, was published. OnePeterFive reached out to him, and he kindly gave us an interview. George Neumayr also gave us permission to publish Chapter One of his book, which we post here below, right after the interview itself. We strongly encourage our readers to support George Neumayr’s courageous book by buying it. It is available on Amazon.

Maike Hickson: What inspired you to write a book on Pope Francis?

George Neumayr: From the first moment I saw him, I knew that he was going to be a Modernist wrecking ball, and he struck me from the beginning as the prototypical “progressive” Jesuit. I knew it was an extremely bad sign that the Church would name the first Jesuit pope at the very moment the Jesuit Order was in its most corrupt and heterodox condition. I knew it was going to be a distressingly historic pontificate, and from the first moment of Francis’ papacy I began thinking that his pontificate would be a good subject for a book. As it unfolded, it became clearer and clearer that someone need to chronicle this consequentially chaotic pontificate.

MH: You studied at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. What was your first response when you saw and heard Pope Francis, the first Jesuit Pope in the Church’s history?

GN: Having gone to a Jesuit university, I am very familiar with the flakes and frauds that populate that order. When I heard the pope, in the first few months of his pontificate, engage in non-stop left-wing babble, it reminded me of all the nonsense that I heard as a student from similar “progressive” Jesuits. The program of Francis was so obviously set to promote political liberalism while downplaying doctrine; that was the formula of trendy and empty Catholicism that I saw on display at the Jesuit University of San Francisco.

MH: What approach did you take in order to be able to make a proportionate characterization of Pope Francis as pope in his actions and words?

GN: I went back and looked at his time at Buenos Aires, Argentina, at his formation in the Jesuit Order, I read all of his available speeches and writings – when he was a bishop, before he was pope; I read all the existing biographies about him; I talked to Latin American priests, I talked to Jesuits, I talked to Vatican officials, I talked to Catholic activists and Catholic academics and canon lawyers. Given the sensitivity of the topic, most of the people were only willing to speak anonymously with me. I tried to look at all the salient news items that relate to Bergoglio, before he was pope and when he was pope.

MH: What is the main conclusion of your research?

GN: The undeniable conclusion is that the Catholic Church is suffering under a bad pope and that the cardinals must address this crisis.

MH: How do you describe in your book the political worldview of Pope Francis? In which fields of politics does he show his left-leaning tendencies?

GN: Pope Francis is a product of political leftism and theological Modernism. His mind has been shaped by all of the post-enlightenment heresies and ideologies from Marx to Freud to Darwin. He is the realization of Cardinal Carlo Martini’s vision of a Modernist Church that conforms to the heresies of the Enlightenment. On almost all intellectual fronts, Francis is a follower of the Modernist school. He is a student of Modernist Biblical Scholarship, which can be seen in his ludicrous interpretation of certain passages from the Gospel: such as the time when he described the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes as a metaphor and not a miracle. On more than one occasion, he said that it was not a miracle but a lesson in sharing: “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.”

MH: Do you think that Pope Francis, in his more political statements, misuses his office as Head of the Catholic Church?

GN: Yes, this pontificate is a blatant example of out-of-control clericalism. Pope Francis is using the pulpit of the papacy, not to present the teachings of the Church, but, rather, to promote his personal political agenda.

MH: Are his political statements in line with Catholic teaching?

GN: Many of his statements are not in line with the Church’s teaching, as I document in the book. Pope Francis is the worst teacher of the Faith in the history of the Catholic Church. One could not trust him to teach an elementary school religion class.

MH: When describing Pope Francis as a more left-leaning man, could you give us evidence for that? Which Marxist authors for example did he admire or approve of? Which political figures of the left are admired by him?

GN: I speak about this at the beginning of the book. His mentor was Esther Ballestrino de Careaga who was a very fervent Communist. Francis has acknowledged that he had teachers who were Communists who influenced him. I point out in my book that he also met with the widow of Paulo Freire, the author of the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed which is a classic of the Socialist left in Latin America.

MH: Which practical acts as pope show that Pope Francis actively supports Marxist or revolutionary movements?

GN: I document in the book all of the liberation theologians whom Pope Francis has rehabilitated. Leonardo Boff is at the top of the list. He is an openly Socialist priest who left the priesthood but who is now in the good graces of the Vatican so much so that he was a counselor to the papal encyclical Laudato si. He also reinstated to the priesthood the Communist priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann from Nicaragua who is still in touch with President Daniel Ortega. That priest has now resumed his Communist polemics.

MH: How would you describe Pope Francis’ moral teaching in relation with his political teaching? Is there a parallel between his political and moral liberalism?

GN: He pays homage to the moral relativism and socialism that are at the heart of the global left. It is no coincidence that his signature phrases have been “Who am I to judge” and “Inequality is the root of all evil.” He is a darling of the global left because he is advancing many of the items of their agenda, such as climate-change activism, open borders, and abolition of lifetime imprisonment (a position still so far left that not even the U.S. Democrats take that position). He is a spokesman for gun control, for world government, for the redistribution of wealth by central planners. The pope is pandering to the willfulness inherent in liberalism which takes both the form of moral relativism and a form of a “virtue signaling” socialism. He gratifies the liberals’ egos by offering them a pontificate of “virtue signaling” without any teaching of actual virtue. In other words, liberals like to appear good but not be good. And a pontificate which combines political liberalism with moral or doctrinal relativism agrees with their self-indulgent politics. They also like a dash of non-threatening spirituality in their politics which a Jesuit dilettante from Latin America provides them with.

MH: You talk in your book also about Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Is this document in line with Catholic teaching as it has been always taught by the Catholic Church?

GN: Amoris Laetitia is one of the most scandalous documents in the history of the Church. Pope Francis gives an obvious wink and a nod to adulterers in footnote 329 of that document (“In such situations, many [divorced and “remarried”] people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.”). In my book, I speak about the intentional ambiguity of that document and that Archbishop Bruno Forte, who helped to write the draft of the 2014 Synod on the Family, had acknowledged the deviousness of the document and said that it was typical of a Jesuit; and that Pope Francis himself had told Forte at the time that, if they had explicitly endorsed adultery, it would have caused a backlash, and, so, they had to introduce this topic into the Synod document more subtly.

MH: Are there other fields of Catholic teaching where you would say that Pope Francis departs from orthodoxy?

GN: Pope Francis is subverting the Church’s teaching on divorce and thereby subverting teaching on many of the Sacraments such as Marriage, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders. He is subverting the Church’s sacramental theology. I chronicle in my book many of his subversions of Church teaching, from his support of the use of contraceptives with regard to the Zika virus, to his religious indifferentism and his antinomianism, which has become a hallmark of his pontificate. Pope Francis frequently pits the law against mercy which is the essence of the antinomian heresy.

MH: What do you say about the response of the prelates of the Church, especially the cardinals, to some of the problematic parts of Amoris Laetitia?

GN: The response has been feeble. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is an outstanding exception, he has spoken forthrightly about the heresy at work within that document.

MH: What should the cardinals be doing now? Are there ways for the cardinals to correct a pope?

GN: My position is that the cardinals should forthrightly confront the pope on this matter and make it clear to him that the heterodox position to which he is adhering is absolutely unacceptable. And then, if he fails to respond to the dubia, they must move to a formal correction.

MH: What are the reasons for the silence of so many prelates of the Church in the face of heterodox teachings coming out of Rome?

GN: One reason is their lack of conviction, another reason is shameful careerism, the third reason is that many of the bishops are cowards before the spirit of the age, and a lot of these “conservatives” are Modernists in slow motion.

MH: How is it possible that such a revolutionary pope could be elected as head of the Catholic Church? Do you touch upon this matter in your book?

GN: As I argue in the book, Pope Francis is the culmination of the Modernist movement which goes back over a hundred years. Modernism has been gathering strength in the Church since the Enlightenment, and it picked up speed in the 19th century and went into overdrive in the 20th century, producing the pontificate of Pope Francis. Pope Pius X’s encyclical on Modernism reads almost like a clinical description of the relativistic pontificate of Francis. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were later speed bumps in that road, inasmuch as they realized that the “Spirit of Vatican II” was wreaking havoc within the Church. But, with Francis now at the wheel, those speed bumps have been completely disregarded, and he seeks to complete the Modernist revolution.

MH: How would you describe Modernism, and what is fundamentally wrong with it?

GN: The essence of Modernism is the absorption of modern liberalism into Catholicism.

MH: So how should the Church find its way back to a strong and healthy response to any weakening and undermining of its teaching as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles?

GN: All of the reforms can be reduced to one reform: a return to orthodoxy and holiness.

MH: You are of the younger Catholic generation, born in 1972. What is and was your own response to the Catholic Church as it presented itself to you in the Novus Ordo Mass, but also in the Catechesis and in all the other aspects of Catholic life? What went wrong and what is missing?

GN: I belong to a generation of Catholics that asked for bread and only received stones.

MH: What do you intend to effect with your book, and what would you say that we Catholic authors and journalists should and could do in this current situation of confusion in order to help the faithful?

GN: My hope is that a book like this would contribute to the restoration of orthodoxy and holiness in the Church, and I think it is the duty of journalists to speak the truth without fear or favor.

Source: An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope – OnePeterFive

RORATE CÆLI: Fr. Rutler: In this presidential election, we cannot be indifferent – one side is flawed, but the other is EVIL

 

October 30, 2016

by Fr. George W. Rutler

On the Election
Exactly eight years ago I wrote a column titled “The One We Were Waiting For” in which I referred to a book by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, The Lord of the World. That dystopian novel has been cited by Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis said he has read it several times. The protagonist, if one can apply that term to an Anti-Christ, imposed a new world religion with Man himself as god. His one foe was Christianity, which he thwarted in part by using “compromised Catholics and compliant priests to persuade timid Catholics.
Since then, that program has been realized in our time, to an extent beyond the warnings of the most dire pessimists. Our federal government has intimidated religious orders and churches, challenging religious freedom. The institution of the family has been re-defined, and sexual identity has been Gnosticized to the point of mocking biology. Assisted suicide is spreading, abortions since 1973 have reached a total equal to the population of Italy, and sexually transmitted diseases are at a record high. Objective journalism has died, justice has been corrupted, racial bitterness ruins cities, entertainment is degraded, knowledge of the liberal arts spirals downwards, and authentically Catholic universities have all but vanished. A weak and confused foreign policy has encouraged aggressor nations and terrorism, while metastasized immigration is destroying remnant western cultures, and genocide is slaughtering Christian populations. The cynical promise of economic prosperity is mocked by the lowest rate of labor participation in forty years, an unprecedented number of people on food stamps and welfare assistance, and the largest disparity in wealth in over a century.
In his own grim days, Saint Augustine warned against nostalgia: “The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now.” The present time, however, might try even his confidence. Sands blow over the ruins of churches he knew in North Africa where the Cross is virtually forbidden. By a blessed irony, a new church is opened every day in formerly Communist Russia, while churches in our own formerly Christian nation are being closed daily. For those who bought into the seductions of politicians’ false hopes, there is the counsel of Walt Kelly’s character Pogo: “It’s always darkest before it goes pitch black.”
It is incorrect to say that the coming election poses a choice between two evils. For ethical and aesthetic reasons, there may be some bad in certain candidates, but badness consists in doing bad things. Evil is different: it is the deliberate destruction of truth, virtue and holiness.
While one may pragmatically vote for a flawed candidate, one may not vote for anyone who advocates and enables unmitigatedly evil acts, and that includes abortion. “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it’” (Evangelium Vitae, 73).
At one party’s convention, the name of God was excluded from its platform and a woman who boasted of having aborted her child was applauded. It is a grave sin, requiring sacramental confession and penance, to become an accomplice in objective evil by voting for anyone who encourages it, for that imperils the nation and destroys the soul.
It is also the duty of the clergy to make this clear and not to shrink, under the pretense of charity, from explaining the Church’s censures. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are dangerous, but worse are wolves in shepherd’s clothing. While the evils foreseen eight years ago were realized, worse would come if those affronts to human dignity were endorsed again. In the most adverse prospect, God forbid, there might not be another free election, and soon Catholics would arrive at shuttered churches and vacant altars. The illusion of indifference cannot long be perpetuated by lame jokes and synthetic laughter at banquets, for there is handwriting on the wall.

Teilhardian Claptrap from the “Preacher of the Papal Household”

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 fruitThis consciousness was finally attained when “the human phenomenon,” as Teilhard de Chardin calls it, appeared in the universeBut now that the universe has reached this goalitexpects 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.

Source: Fatima Perspectives – Perspective No.887

The Remnant Newspaper – The Money Trail: Why Catholic Bishops Are Silent on Hillary

Written by  Elizabeth Yore

Crickets…….

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

$91,132,305 

According to the USASpending.gov, the top programs carried out by the USCCB, on behalf of the Obama Administration were:

Program NameFunds   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.

Catholic Charities

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

Total Award:
$202,247,624 FY16

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

Source: The Remnant Newspaper – The Money Trail: Why Catholic Bishops Are Silent on Hillary