THIS BEGINS THE REVEALING OF THE HARLOT OF BABYLON

WHICH IS THE POPE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Palace: Catholic lawmakers now lack 'basis' for rejecting same-sex unions backed by Pope

•Oct 22, 2020

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pope Endorses Same-Sex Civil Unions in New Documentary

Wednesday, 21 October 2020 12:09 PM Pope Francis endorsed same-sex civil unions for the first time as pontiff while being interviewed for the feature-length documentary “Francesco,” which premiered Wednesday at the Rome Film Festival. The papal thumbs-up came midway through the film that delves into issues Francis cares about most, including the environment, poverty, migration, racial and income inequality, and the people most affected by discrimination. “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. “You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.” While serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages. However, he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions as pope. The Jesuit priest who has been at the forefront in seeking to build bridges with gays in the church, the Rev. James Martin, praised the pope's comments as “a major step forward in the church’s support for LGBT people.” "The Pope’s speaking positively about civil unions also sends a strong message to places where the church has opposed such laws," Martin said in a statement. Catholic Church teaching holds that gays must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” A 2003 document from the Vatican’s doctrine office stated that the church’s respect for gays “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” That document was signed by the then-prefect of the office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI and Francis’ predecessor.

One of the main characters in the documentary is Juan Carlos Cruz, the Chilean survivor of clergy sexual abuse whom Francis initially discredited during a 2018 visit to Chile.

Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018 after they patched things up, Francis assured him that God made Cruz gay. Cruz tells his own story in snippets throughout the film, chronicling both Francis’ evolution on understanding sexual abuse as well as to document the pope's views on gay people.

Director Evgeny Afineevsky had remarkable access to cardinals, the Vatican television archives and the pope himself. He said he negotiated his way in through persistence, and deliveries of Argentine mate tea and Alfajores cookies that he got to the pope via some well-connected Argentines in Rome.

“Listen, when you are in the Vatican, the only way to achieve something is to break the rule and then to say, ‘I’m sorry,’” Afineevsky said in an interview ahead of the premiere.

The director worked official and unofficial channels starting in early 2018, and ended up so close to Francis by the end of the project that he showed the pope the movie on his iPad in August. The two recently exchanged Yom Kippur greetings; Afineevsky is a Russian-born Jew now based in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Afineevsky's 48th birthday, the director said Francis presented him with a birthday cake during a private meeting at the Vatican.

But “Francesco” is more than a biopic about the pope.

Wim Wenders did that in the 2018 film “Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,” which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. “Francesco,” is more a visual survey of the world’s crises and tragedies, with audio from the pope providing possible ways to solve them.

Afineevsky, who was nominated for an Oscar for his 2015 documentary “Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom,” traveled the world to film his pope movie: The settings include Cox’s Bazaar in Bangladesh where Myanmar’s Rohingya sought refuge; the U.S.-Mexico border; and Francis’ native Argentina.

“The film tells the story of the pope by reversing the cameras,” said Vatican communications director Paolo Ruffini, who was one of Afineevsky’s closest Vatican-based collaborators on the film.

Ruffini said that when Afineevsky first approached him about a documentary, he tried to tamp down his hopes for interviewing the pope. “I told him it wasn’t going to be easy,” he said.

But Ruffini gave him some advice: names of people who had been impacted by the pope, even after just a brief meeting. Afineevsky found them: the refugees Francis met with on some of his foreign trips, prisoners he blessed, and some of the gays to whom he has ministered.

“I told him that many of those encounters had certainly been filmed by the Vatican cameras, and that there he would find a veritable gold mine of stories that told a story," Ruffini said. “He would be able to tell story of the pope through the eyes of all and not just his own.”

Francis' outreach to gays dates to his first foreign trip in 2013, when he uttered the now-famous words “Who am I to judge," when asked during an airborne news conference returning home from Rio de Janiero about a purportedly gay priest.

Since then, he has ministered to gays and transsexual prostitutes, and welcomed people in gay partnerships into his inner circle. One of them was his former student, Yayo Grassi, who along with his partner visited Francis at the Vatican's Washington D.C. embassy during the pope's 2015 visit to the U.S.

The Vatican publicized that encounter, making video and photos of it available, after Francis was ambushed during that same visit by his then-ambassador, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who invited the anti-gay marriage activist Kim Davis to meet with the pope.

News of the Davis audience made headlines at the time and was viewed by conservatives as a papal stamp of approval for Davis, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Vatican, however, vigorously sought to downplay it, with the Vatican spokesman saying the meeting by no means indicated Francis’ support for her or her position on gay marriage.

However, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was fervently opposed to gay marriage when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. Then, he launched what gay activists remember as a “war of God" against Argentina's move to approve same-sex marriage.

The pope's authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, said at the time of his 2013 election that Bergoglio was politically wise enough to know the church couldn’t win a straight-on fight against gay marriage. Instead, Rubin said, Bergoglio urged his fellow bishops to lobby for gay civil unions instead.

It wasn’t until Bergoglio's proposal was shot down by the conservative bishops’ conference that Bergoglio publicly declared his opposition, and the church lost the issue altogether.

Francis, in the new documentary, confirms Rubin's account of what transpired. Of his belief in the need for legislation to protect gays living in civil relationships, he said: “I stood up for that."

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an organization of LGBT Catholics, praised Francis’ comments as a “historic” shift for a church that has long seen as persecuting gays.

“At the same time, we urge Pope Francis to apply the same kind of reasoning to recognize and bless these same unions of love and support within the Catholic Church, too," he said in a statement.

However, more conservative commentators sought to play down Francis’ words and said that while secular civil unions are one thing, a church blessing of them is quite another.

In a tweet, conservative U.S. author and commentator Ryan Anderson noted that he and some of his colleagues had gone on record a decade ago saying they would support federal civil unions for any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities. Such an arrangement, Anderson said, would leave churches the option of refusing to recognize these unions as marriage.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pope-endorses-civil-unions/2020/10/21/id/993033/?fbclid=IwAR2mpVDi0lwou60Mtz89kTrs-2--2zSwmEZ0F0oR689NxaXVkPs-c48LpxI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE JESUIT OATH EXPLAINED

The article below was taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Charles Didier, translated from the French and published in New York in 1843. Dr. Alberto Rivera escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, and he describes his Jesuit oath in exactly the same way as it appears in this book. After reading this, ask yourself the question: Is this REALLY the church of Jesus Christ???

"When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"

Superior speaks:

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.

You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me---

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:

"1, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.

I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.

I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

(Pope Francis took this oath!!)

Introduction by Leo ZagamiArchbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States until 2016, wrote an unprecedented open letter to U.S. President Donald Trump stating there is an ongoing war between “the children of light” and “the children of darkness.” __________OPEN LETTER by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò_______________

June 7, 2020

Holy Trinity Sunday

Mr. President,

In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are held hostage by the wicked and by those who help them either out of self-interest or fearfulness.

These two sides, which have a Biblical nature, follow the clear separation between the offspring of the Woman and the offspring of the Serpent. On the one hand there are those who, although they have a thousand defects and weaknesses, are motivated by the desire to do good, to be honest, to raise a family, to engage in work, to give prosperity to their homeland, to help the needy, and, in obedience to the Law of God, to merit the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, there are those who serve themselves, who do not hold any moral principles, who want to demolish the family and the nation, exploit workers to make themselves unduly wealthy, foment internal divisions and wars, and accumulate power and money: for them the fallacious illusion of temporal well-being will one day – if they do not repent – yield to the terrible fate that awaits them, far from God, in eternal damnation.

In society, Mr. President, these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies, just as God and Satan are eternal enemies. And it appears that the children of darkness – whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans.

They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions. 

The investigations already under way will reveal the true responsibility of those who managed the Covid emergency not only in the area of health care but also in politics, the economy, and the media. We will probably find that in this colossal operation of social engineering there are people who have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations.

We will also discover that the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances, because they would be followed by repression which, although legitimate, could be condemned as an unjustified aggression against the population.

The same thing is also happening in Europe, in perfect synchrony. It is quite clear that the use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction. It will not be surprising if, in a few months, we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches.

Although it may seem disconcerting, the opposing alignments I have described are also found in religious circles. There are faithful Shepherds who care for the flock of Christ, but there are also mercenary infidels who seek to scatter the flock and hand the sheep over to be devoured by ravenous wolves. It is not surprising that these mercenaries are allies of the children of darkness and hate the children of light: just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God. Thus the Invisible Enemy, whom good rulers fight against in public affairs, is also fought against by good shepherds in the ecclesiastical sphere. It is a spiritual battle, which I spoke about in my recent Appeal which was published on May 8.

For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship.

Your participation in the March for Life, and more recently your proclamation of the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, are actions that confirm which side you wish to fight on. And I dare to believe that both of us are on the same side in this battle, albeit with different weapons.

For this reason, I believe that the attack to which you were subjected after your visit to the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II is part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops – such as those whom I recently denounced – who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.

Pope Warns That Rising Populism Could Produce a New Hitler

Pope Francis blesses the faithful during traditional Sunday prayer in the Vatican City on Sunday.GIORGIO ONORATI / EPA

Jan. 23, 2017, 9:02 PM CST / Updated Jan. 23, 2017, 9:22 PM CST

By Claudio Lavanga

ROME — Pope Francis has warned against growing populism in Europe, saying such movements could result in the election leaders of like Germany’s Adolf Hitler.

“In times of crisis, we lack judgment, and that is a constant reference for me,” the pontiff said in an in-depth interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais. “The most obvious example of European populism is Germany in 1933. After the crisis of 1930, Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, a leader, someone capable of restoring its character, and there is a young man named Adolf Hitler.”

Pope Francis blesses the faithful during traditional Sunday prayer in the Vatican City on Sunday.GIORGIO ONORATI / EPA

“Hitler didn't steal the power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people,” the pope added.

Pope Francis’ warnings come as a wave of populism washes over Europe, and as voters angry with traditional political elites throw their weight behind nationalist, anti-immigrant leaders. During the same interview, the pope said he was reserving judgement on President Donald Trump. “I don't like to get ahead of myself nor judge people prematurely. We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will have an opinion,” he said.

FROM DEC. 31, 2016: Pope Francis Urges Action Tackle Youth UnemploymentJAN. 1, 201701:08

Immediately after Trump’s inauguration ceremony Friday, the Pope sent him his best wishes, with prayers “that your decisions will be guided by the rich spiritual and ethical values that have shaped the history of the American people and your nation’s commitment to the advancement of human dignity and freedom worldwide.” Francis has not struck such a conciliatory tone in the past. When asked about Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall alongside the U.S.-Mexico border on his way back from a trip to Mexico in 2016, the pope said that a “person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

Related: Trump: It's 'Disgraceful' for Pope to Question My Christianity

He was flanked at the altar by two of his most senior international representatives: the secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, who outraged many Americans last month by expressing "pity" and "compassion" for the captured Saddam Hussein.The congregation included the heads of all the diplomatic missions accredited to the Holy See. In his homily, the Pope said the new world order he wanted "would be able to provide solutions to the problems of today ... based on the dignity of human beings, an integrated development of society, solidarity between rich and poor nations, and on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress."The Pope believes that not enough of these goals are being achieved with the present system of international organisations that emerged in the late 40s, including the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. But the central issue, seen from the Vatican's point of view, is the growing irrelevance of a painstakingly constructed body of international law which is being ignored by the US administration during its "war on terror".

Cardinal Martino first signalled the Pope's disquiet last month when he presented a document written by the pontiff to mark the World Day of Peace. Without naming the US, the Pope warned: "Peace and international law are closely linked to each other: law favours peace". He also pointedly observed that "democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law".

The Pope acknowledged that current international law was ill-suited to dealing with rebels or terrorists and called for new treaties and reform of the UN. But yesterday's appeal was for an altogether more sweeping change. With observer status at the UN and a network of diplomats covering 174 countries, the Holy See is in a strong position to lobby for its goals.

Its concerns over US attitudes are unlikely to be assuaged by the latest statement of policy from President George Bush's secretary of state, Colin Powell. In an article for the New York Times yesterday, Mr Powell said: "President Bush's vision is clear and right: America's formidable power must continue to be deployed on behalf of principles that are simultaneously American, but that are also beyond and greater than ourselves."

Senior members of the Catholic Church of England and Wales endorsed the Pope's comments. "We welcome the words of the Vatican and fully support what the Holy See says in this," said Ollie Wilson, a spokesman for the Catholic media office.

They cast doubt however on whether he had meant to imply that the UN had had its day and should be replaced.

Peter Jennings, press secretary to the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, said: "The Pope is a great advocate of the UN." 

“The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism which neglects the common good,” Pope Francis continued.“There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015,” he told members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.SDGs: eliminating poverty or children?Many are concerned that some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while billed as aimed at eliminating poverty, are really about eliminating children. “Reproductive health services” for example, which are referred to in the SDGs, are often a euphemism frequently employed to mean abortion in UN debates. As Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute, explains:Developing nations who adopt the SDGs will be pressured to legalize abortion, even though the word abortion never appears in the document. They will be told, falsely, that there is an “international consensus” that reproductive rights includes a right to abortion. They will be instructed that laws protecting the unborn violate this consensus and must be replaced with new laws permitting abortion on demand. And they will be threatened with the withholding of international aid unless they comply.

Pope Francis did give some recognition to concerns about “ideological colonization” of socially and morally conservative countries in the developing world in his remarks:

Multilateral bodies were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home. Of course, these bodies must ensure that States are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disregarding the identity, customs and traditions, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of such tendencies is weakening the multilateral system, with the result of a lack of credibility in international politics and a progressive marginalization of the most vulnerable members of the family of nations.

Pope Benedict XVI, affirming his predecessor John XIII, also called in Caritas et Veritate for a “true world political authority” to “manage the global economy,” “guarantee the protection of the environment,” “regulate migration,” and “bring about integral and timely disarmament” and work for the “common good.”

In the same encyclical, however, Benedict XVI denounced “practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.” He also openly condemned ecomonic bodies for their lending policies which tie aid to “family planning,” writing: “There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures.”

‘Supranational common good’

LifeSite spoke with Dr. Alan Fimister, an internationally renowned authority on Catholic social teaching and Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Union.

Dr. Fimister explained that, according to traditional Catholic social teaching, the temporal community or “State” is created by man’s natural needs and search for perfection in this world, and is the community that contains within itself everything required to attain that temporal perfection and security.

But if it can no longer do so, then the logical result would be the creation of a larger unity, he said. “Obviously national states are held together by history and culture and not just economics and military necessity, so such amalgamations can be very delicate and sensitive, giving rise to potentially explosive tensions.”

Fimister went on to say that the most obvious way in which the imperfection or inadequacy of a temporal community is manifested is defeat in war, such as the nations of Europe experienced between 1939 and 1945 “with the obvious exception of Britain,” he added.

“On the other hand,” he continued, “the heavenly destiny given to man on the Cross is the cause of the universal assembly or Catholic Church, so that new needs and priorities of the natural order are only accidentally supranational, whereas the common good of the Church is essentially supranational and universal.”“In other words, the Gospel is for every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev 7:9). But the material needs of South America or Europe or the Far East will differ from each other quite naturally.” Fimister said the danger is that an accidentally supranational body created to deal with temporal problems which transcend the resources of traditional nation-states will correspond to no common political culture or language, no “demos.”“Without the ‘demos’ there is only the ‘kratos’ — or power answerable to no one and serving its own private good as an oligarchic bureaucracy, a sort of FIFA (International Federation of Football) on steroids,” he argued.Fimister expressed sympathy with some of Pope Francis’s aims but raised a note of caution:Pope Francis is commending and defending the kind of regionalized supranational entities exemplified by the EU which was indeed established under Catholic inspiration in the nineteen fifties. Robert Schuman the founder of the EU wanted to create a “generalized democracy in the Christian sense of the word” and warned that an anti-Christian democracy would end in “tyranny or anarchy.” Schuman thought the only force capable of truly transcending national egotism was supernatural charity. Without this, these institutions would become monsters of “supranational egotism” worse than the nation states that preceded them because not even rooted in nature there would arise “a new supranational Leviathan superimposing itself upon the little national monsters.”

Fimister added that secularizing eugenicists like the International Planned Parenthood Federation “greatly favor a supranational bureaucracy” because it “allows them to advance their agenda without doing so under the scrutiny of national political culture with shared language and history, which is far more likely to expose and scrutinize their objectives than a distant bureaucracy that is answerable to no one in particular.”

In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Pope Francis appeals to the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas in his conception of the national state and its role. However, his predecessor Pius XI, in the 1920s — unimpressed with the League of Nations — the predecessor of the United Nations, pointed out that only the Gospel has the resources necessary to unite the nations of the world.

In his 1923 encyclical on St. Thomas Aquinas, Studiorum ducem n. 20, Pius XI wrote:

[St. Thomas Aquinas] also composed a substantial moral theology, capable of directing all human acts in accordance with the supernatural last end of man. And as he is, as We have said, the perfect theologian, so he gives infallible rules and precepts of life not only for individuals, but also for civil and domestic society which is the object also of moral science, both economic and politic. Hence those superb chapters in the second part of the Summa Theologica on paternal or domestic government, the lawful power of the State or the nation, natural and international law, peace and war, justice and property, laws and the obedience they command, the duty of helping individual citizens in their need and co-operating with all to secure the prosperity of the State, both in the natural and the supernatural order. 

If these precepts were religiously and inviolably observed in private life and public affairs, and in the duties of mutual obligation between nations, nothing else would be required to secure mankind that “peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” which the world so ardently longs for. It is therefore to be wished that the teachings of Aquinas, more particularly his exposition of international law and the laws governing the mutual relations of peoples, became more and more studied, for it contains the foundations of a genuine “League of Nations.”

The issues raised by Pope Francis’s remarks to Pontifical Academy of Sciences reflect the controversy that has raged throughout his pontificate as to whether he is substituting secular rationalistic goals for the supernatural ideals of the Church.

Here below is a LifeSite translation of Pope Francis’s address to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which was delivered in Italian.

Dear brothers and sisters, I welcome you and thank your President, Prof. Stefano Zamagni, for his kind words and for accepting to preside over the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Also this year you have chosen to discuss an issue of permanent relevance. Unfortunately, we have before our eyes situations in which some nation-states implement their relations in a spirit more of opposition than of cooperation. Moreover, it must be noted that the borders of States do not always coincide with the demarcations of homogeneous populations and that many tensions come from an excessive claim to sovereignty by States, often precisely in areas where they are no longer able to act effectively to protect the common good.

In both the Encyclical Laudato si’ and in the Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps this year, I drew attention to the global challenges facing humanity, such as integral development, peace, care of our common home, climate change, poverty, war, migration, human trafficking, organ trafficking, the protection of the common good, and new forms of slavery.

St. Thomas has a beautiful notion of what a people is: “The Seine river is not ‘this particular river’ because of ‘this flowing water,’ but because of ‘this source’ and ‘this bed,’ and hence is always called the same river, although there may be other water flowing down it; likewise a people is the same, not because of a sameness of soul or of men, but because of the same dwelling place, or rather because of the same laws and the same manner of living, as Aristotle says in book III of the Politica” (On spiritual creatures, a. 9, ad 10).

The Church has always exhorted men to love their own people and homeland, and to respect the treasure of various cultural expressions, customs and traditions and right ways of living rooted in peoples. At the same time, the Church has warned persons, peoples and governments about deviations from this attachment when it is about excluding and hating others, when it becomes conflictual nationalism that builds walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism. The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism which neglects the common good. 

There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.

It is a common doctrine that the State is at the service of the person and of the natural groupings of people such as the family, the cultural group, the nation as an expression of the will and profound customs of a people, the common good and peace. All too often, however, States are subservient to the interests of a dominant group, mostly for reasons of economic profit, which oppresses, among others, the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities who are in their territory.

From this perspective, for example, the way in which a nation welcomes migrants reveals its vision of human dignity and its relationship with humanity. Every human person is a member of humanity and has the same dignity. When a person or a family is forced to leave their own land, they must be welcomed with humanity. I have said many times that our obligations to migrants are articulated in four verbs: to welcome, to protect, to promote and to integrate. The migrant is not a threat to the culture, customs and values of the host nation. He too has a duty, to integrate into the nation who receives him. 

To integrate does not mean to assimilate, but to share the kind of life of his new homeland, even though he himself as a person the bearer of his own biographical story. In this way, the migrant can present himself and be recognized as an opportunity to enrich the people who integrate him. It is the task of public authority to protect migrants and to regulate migratory flows with the virtue of prudence, as well as to promote reception so that local populations are formed and encouraged to participate consciously in the integration process of the migrants being received.

The issue of migration, which is a permanent feature of human history, also enlivens reflection on the nature of the Nation-State. All nations are the result of the integration of successive waves of people or groups of migrants and tend to be images of the diversity of humanity while being united by common values, cultural resources and healthy customs. A state that arouses the nationalistic feelings of its own people against other nations or groups of people would fail in its mission. We know from history where such deviations lead.

The Nation-State cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island in relation to its surroundings. In the current situation of globalization not only of economy but also of technological and cultural exchanges, the Nation-State is no longer able to procure by itself the common good for its population. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit. When a supranational common good is clearly identified, there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation. Think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new slavery and peace.

While, according to the principle of subsidiarity, individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can reach, on the other hand, groups of neighboring nations — as is already the case — can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.It is to be hoped that, for example, we will not lose in Europe the awareness of the benefits brought by this path of rapprochement and harmony between peoples undertaken after the Second World War. In Latin America, on the other hand, Simón Bolivar urged the leaders of his time to forge the dream of a Great Homeland that knows how to welcome, respect, embrace and develop the riches of every people.

This cooperative vision among nations can move history by relaunching multilateralism, which is opposed both to new nationalistic pressures and to hegemonic politics.

Humanity would thus avoid the threat of recourse to armed conflicts every time a dispute arises between Nation-States, as well as evading the danger of economic and ideological colonization of superpowers, avoiding the tyranny of the strongest over the weakest, paying attention to the global dimension without losing sight of the local, national and regional dimensions. Faced with the plan of globalization imagined as “spherical,” which levels differences and suffocates localization, it is easy for both nationalism and hegemonic imperialism to re-emerge. 

In order for globalization to be of benefit to all, one must think of implementing a “multifaceted” form of globalization, supporting a healthy struggle for mutual recognition between the collective identity of each people and nation and globalization itself, according to the principle that the whole comes before the parts, so as to arrive at a general state of peace and harmony.

Multilateral bodies were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home. Of course, these bodies must ensure that States are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disregarding the identity, customs and traditions, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of such tendencies is weakening the multilateral system, with the result of a lack of credibility in international politics and a progressive marginalization of the most vulnerable members of the family of nations.

I encourage you to persevere in your search for processes to overcome what divides nations and to propose new paths of cooperation, especially with regard to the new challenges of climate change and new slavery, as well as the excellent social good that is peace. Unfortunately, today the season of multilateral nuclear disarmament seems outdated and no longer stirs the political conscience of nations which possess atomic weapons. 

On the contrary, a new season of disturbing nuclear confrontation seems to be opening, because it cancels the progress of the recent past and multiplies the risk of war, also due to the possible malfunctioning of very advanced technologies that are always subject to natural and human imponderables. If, now, offensive and defensive nuclear weapons are placed not only on earth but also in space, the so-called new technological frontier will have raised and not lowered the danger of a nuclear holocaust.

The State is therefore called upon to assume greater responsibility. While maintaining the characteristics of independence and sovereignty and continuing to pursue the good of its people, today its task is to participate in the construction of the common good of humanity, a necessary and essential element for world equilibrium. This universal common good, in turn, must acquire greater legal value at international level. I am certainly not thinking of a universalism or a generic internationalism that overlooks the identity of individual peoples: this, in fact, must always be valued as a unique and indispensable contribution to the greatest harmonious design.

Dear friends, as inhabitants of our time, Christians and academics of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, I ask you to collaborate with me in spreading this awareness of renewed international solidarity in the respect for human dignity, the common good, respect for the planet and the supreme good of peace.

I bless all of you, I bless your work and your initiatives. I accompany you with my prayer, and you too, please, do not forget to pray for me. Thank you!

Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.

This article was updated at 11:45am on Friday, April 3, 2019.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-new-supranational-authorities-to-enforce-UN-goals

_________________________________________________________________________

Pope Francis Calls for End of Sovereignty & Establishment of Global Government

May 12, 2019 Pam Barker

Pope Francis Calls for End of Sovereignty and Establishment of Global GovernmentJOE WOLVERTON, II J.D.

At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis (shown in white) advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”

“When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.

Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”

He moved onto immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.

Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.

Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create “a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect,” and must stop what “hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations.”And the hits just keep on coming.Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. “The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit,” Francis said.For our own benefit? Who benefits from global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations’ existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression?

Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.

His holiness suggested that governments around the globe should “strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.”

“When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority that is legally and concordantly constituted and capable of facilitating its implementation,” the pope concluded.

Apparently, the pope has pondered our awful situation and found that small nation-based governments are the cause of great suffering, so the obvious solution to the problem of government is bigger government.

Pontifical politics, it seems, makes for strange bedfellows, as explained in a recent article by Steve Byas published in January in The New American:

“Of course, those who favor world government can be expected to praise the 2015 encyclical and the pope’s remarks this week, condemning ‘nationalism.’ But other positions of the Roman Catholic Church, such as opposition to abortion, are regularly belittled by many of the same globalists who are praising Francis now.”

Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.

That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.

In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable? Could it be that those who are in the shadows of this scheme are pleased by the pope’s support for their sinister aim, regardless of whether he appreciates the implications of the fulfillment of their plans? Of course!

When it comes to convincing Catholics and the rest of the world that their only hope for peace, prosperity, and planetary salvation is found in the surrender of sovereignty, the hands pulling the strings believe that the only bad publicity is no publicity. They may loathe Pope Francis’ steadfast opposition to abortion, but they can hold their noses long enough to make effective use of his global influence.

What Pope Francis likely does not understand is that in the United States, the people are — were — sovereign, meaning that ultimately there is no will above the will of the people. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of all people to “alter or abolish” a government if that government ceases to perform its only legitimate function: to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.

That the entire foundation of the Anglo-American concept of self-government, liberty, and popular sovereignty is annihilated by even the theory of global government is revealed in one question: Would the UN (or whatever the global government would be called) be subject to alteration or abolition by the people of the United States of America?

There is no space for doubt. Should the pope’s plan be brought to pass, there would be no liberty as it has been understood by Englishmen and Americans for over 1,000 years.

Americans are blessed in that time yet remains for us to resist the subjugation of our military to multinational commanders, to resist the surrendering of the legislative power to supranational congresses populated with lawmakers unaccountable to the American people, to resist the eradication of state sovereignty and the protection of republican government provided thereby, and, finally, to resist the chronic disregard of constitutional principles on the part of our elected leaders.

https://www.europereloaded.com/pope-francis-calls-for-end-of-sovereignty-and-establishment-of-global-government/

May 16th 2020 rev - 3