All Signs Point To Antichrist
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" have decided to hold firm on automatic "sequestration" that went into effect five days ago, that is, on Monday, March 1, 2013, that mandated a "whopping" eighty-five billion dollars of budget cuts in a budget in excess of three trillion dollars that is a trillion dollars in excess of the pirated revenue collected out of the citizens of the United States of America. They held "firm," huh?
Well, the money, the money, and the money is all that motivates the naturalists. It always has been. All talk of what are called the "social issues" has disappeared. The false opposites of the naturalist "left" and "right" are doing their best, each in their own way, to pave the way for One World Governance, which suits the purposes of the recently retired "pope emeritus" and the agenda of most of these in the running to succeed him very well.
WASHINGTON — Conservative governors are signing on to provisions of what they once derisively dismissed as Obamacare. Prominent Senate Republicans are taking positions on immigration that would have gotten the party’s presidential candidates hooted off the debate stage during last year’s primaries.
Same-sex marriage has gone from being a reliable motivator for the conservative base to gaining broad acceptance.
Republican lawmakers are so fearful of social issues, in fact, that House leaders ignored intense objections from conservatives last week and allowed the passage of Democratic legislation on domestic and sexual violence against women.
All of which helps explain why Speaker John A. Boehner and Congressional Republicans have been so intent on facing down President Obama in their budget dispute. Aware that conservatives could never accept a second round of tax increases this year — and that compromising with Mr. Obama on his terms would lead to party divisions far deeper than those that have emerged so far — Republicans judged that the better course was to take on the economic and political risks associated with the automatic spending cuts that took effect on Friday. (G.O.P., Lacking Unity, Clings to Budget Goals.)
"Social issues?"
Well, that's so "yesterday," man.
The naturalists look at the polling data. This is what governs their decisions.
What does the polling data show?
The polling data shows (I know that data is the plural case of datum, no letters please) that most voters, including most Catholics, do not care.
What do they care about?
The money, the money, the money and the money.
That is what?
What do they want?
Money, money, money, money and more money and a "Catholic Church" that soothes their consciences on birth control and perversity and even baby-killing in at least some instances:
Three-fourths of those polled said they thought it was a good idea for Benedict to resign. Most wanted the next pope to be “someone younger, with new ideas.” A majority said they wanted the next pope to make the church’s teachings more liberal.
With cardinals now in Rome preparing to elect Benedict’s successor, the poll indicated that the church’s hierarchy had lost the confidence and allegiance of many American Catholics, an intensification of a long-term trend. They like their priests and nuns, but many feel that the bishops and cardinals do not understand their lives.
“I don’t think they are in the trenches with people,” said Therese Spender, 51, a homemaker in Fort Wayne, Ind., who said she attended Mass once a week and agreed to answer further questions after the poll. “They go to a lot of meetings, but they are not out in the street.”
Even Catholics who frequently attend Mass said they were not following the bishops’ lead on issues that the church had recently invested much energy, money and credibility in fighting — artificial birth control and same-sex marriage.
Eric O’Leary, 38, a funeral director in Des Moines who attends Mass weekly, said: “I would like them not to be so quick to condemn people because of their sexual preference or because of abortion, or to refuse priests the right to get married or women to be priests. I don’t think the church should get involved in whether or not people use birth control.”
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted on landlines and cellphones from Feb. 23 to 27, when many Catholics were still absorbing news of the first resignation of a pope in 600 years. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points for the 580 Catholics, who were oversampled for purposes of analysis in the survey of 1,585 adults.
Benedict, a soft-spoken scholar and a church traditionalist, had apparently made little impression on American Catholics in his eight years as pope. Half of those in the poll said they either had no opinion of him or had not heard enough about him. Nevertheless, 4 in 10 had a favorable opinion, and only one in 10 unfavorable. . . .
The poll suggested, however, that the papacy no longer occupies the exalted position it once did. Asked whether the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morality and faith, 40 percent said yes, 46 percent said no, and 14 percent said they did not know. Nearly 8 in 10 Catholics polled said they would be more likely to follow their conscience on “difficult moral questions” than to follow the teachings of the pope.
When asked which “one thing” they would “most like to see the next pope accomplish,” the most common responses that respondents volunteered were, in order: bring people back to church, modernize the church, unify the church, and do something about sexual abuse.
A spate of new information about prelates hiding the misdeeds of pedophile priests appeared to have taken a toll. A higher percentage of Catholics said the pope and the Vatican had done a poor job of handling reports of past sexual abuse recently (69 percent) compared with 2010 (55 percent), when the abuse scandal flared in many European countries. This is despite the church’s many reforms in the last 10 years and reports of abuse by priests in the United States declining drastically.
Majorities said they wanted to see the next pope maintain the church’s opposition to abortion and the death penalty, even though they themselves were not opposed to them. Three-quarters of Catholics supported abortion under at least some circumstances, and three-fifths favored the death penalty. . . .
“I can understand how the Catholic Church stands against it,” said Geri Toni, 57, of Fort Myers, Fla., who attends Mass weekly. “We are not supposed to kill. That is one of our Ten Commandments.”
But as a woman,” she said, “I have to make sense of it, and I believe choice comes down to the individual.”
On every other hotly debated issue, Catholics wanted the next pope to lead the church in an about-face. Seven out of every 10 Catholics surveyed said the next pope should let priests marry, let women become priests and allow the use of artificial methods of birth control. Nine out of 10 said they wanted the next pope to allow the use of condoms to prevent the spread of H.I.V. and other diseases.
Sixty-two percent of Catholics said they were in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Catholics approved of same-sex marriage at a higher rate than Americans as a whole, among whom 53 percent approved.
John Sadel, 28, a supervisor in a plastics production facility in Bethlehem, Pa., said, “I’m not saying change everything the church stands for, but you need to evolve with the times if you want to remain a viable religion.”
The American bishops also appear to have lost ground among their own flock in their campaign to fight the White House rule that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives — a campaign the bishops say is about religious freedom.
One year ago, two-thirds of Catholics polled said that religiously affiliated employers, like hospitals or universities, should be allowed to opt out of covering birth control for their female employees because of religious or moral objections. In the most recent poll, only about half of Catholics questioned said they agreed.
The issue has become a political litmus test, with Catholic bishops and religious conservatives saying that their religious freedom is being threatened by President Obama’s policies. But when asked what the debate is about, only 40 percent of Catholics polled said “religious freedom,” while 50 percent said “women’s health and their rights” — an indication that Mr. Obama’s framing of the issue is holding sway even among many Catholics. (Poll Finds Rift Between U.S. Catholics and Church.)
His Apostateness, Benedict XVI, a "traditionalist"? The shallowness of the so-called mainstream media's coverage of what they think is the Catholic Church is remarkable to behold. Simply remarkable. Obviously, those who write such absurd things are not reading the articles on this site.
Over one hundred eighty years of Americanism under the true bishops of the United States of America helped to pave the way for most Catholics in this country to view what they think is the Catholic Church through the eyes of the world, through the lens of democracy and egalitarianism, in other words, through the eyes of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. Another fifty-five years of conciliarism under a forty-five year procession of one false bishop and false priest, each intent on implementing the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism, have convinced most Catholics in this country believe that almost every aspect of Faith and Morals is as subject to change as the the liturgy itself.
The poll results published last night in The New York Times are good news for the statists in the administration of our own version of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez Ortega, Executive Secretary Barack Hussein Obama and his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic Vice Secretary Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and they are good news for the careerists in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" as they can simply proceed to emphasize "the money, the money, the money and the money" as their beloved voters enjoy an endless array of bread and circuses.
Who cares that, no matter his differences with Chavez on some policy matters, is governing along the style of that now dead Latin American dictator by making "recess appointments" when the United States Congress is in session, issuing executive orders to bypass troops, ordering the execution of American citizens abroad suspected of being involved in various terrorist networks, dispatching military troops in social engineering missions where the national security of the United States of America has not been at stake and thus feeding Mohammedan "liberation" movements that have opened the way to murders of Americans and state-sponsored persecution of Christians, engaging in the most crass and grotesque forms of class warfare at home and, of course, using a constant stream of fear-mongering lies designed to cease all opposition, which he deems is illegitimate in se?
Who cares about all of that?
Very few people.
Most people care about the money, the money and the money, differing with their fellow citizens only the extent to which their money and goodies should come from the "largesse" of Federal, state and local government programs or from the private sector, so that they enjoy more and more and more and more bread and circuses?
Orestes Brownson explained in 1845 that the logical end in a country steeped in materialism would be a forgetfulness of and then a disbelief in the supernatural order. Although he was speaking of the effect of America's materialism on Protestants, his words of one hundred sixty-eight years ago apply very much to most Catholics throughout the world today, including here in the United States of America:
What, then, is true national greatness? We answer,
that nation is greatest in which man may most easily and effectually
fulfil the true and proper end of man. The nation, under the point of
view we here consider the subject, is in the people. Its greatness must,
then, be in the greatness of the people. The people are a collection or
aggregation of individuals, and their greatness taken collectively is
simply their greatness taken individually. Consequently the greatness of
a nation is the greatness of the individuals that compose it. The
question of national greatness resolves itself, therefore, into the
question of individual greatness. The greatness of the
individual consists in his fulfilling the great ends of his existence,
the ends for which Almighty God made him and placed him here. No man is
truly great who neglects life's great ends, nor can one be said in truth
to approach greatness any further than he fulfils them.
In order, then, to determine in what true national
greatness consists, we must determine in what consists true individual
greatness; and in order to determine in what true individual greatness
consists, we must determine what is the true end of man; that
is, what is the end to which Almighty God has appointed man, and which
he is while here to labor to secure. What, then, is the end of man? For
what has our Maker placed us here? To what has he bidden us aspire?
Were we placed here merely to be born and to die,-to live for a moment,
continue our species, toil, suffer, drop into the grave to rot, and be
no more for ever? If this be our end, true greatness will
consist in living for this life only, and in being great in that which
pertains to this life. The greatest man will be he who succeeds best in
amassing the goods of this world, in securing its honors and luxuries,
or simply in multiplying for himself the means of sensual enjoyment. In a
word, the greatest man will be he who most abounds in wealth and
luxury.
We mean not to say, that, in point of fact, wealth
and luxury, worldly honors and sensual gratifications, are the chief
goods of even this life; but simply that they would be, if this were our
only life, if our destiny were a destiny to be accomplished in this
world. It is because this world is not our home, because we are merely
travellers through it, and our destination is a world beyond it, that
the life of justice and sanctity yields us even here our truest and most
substantial pleasure. But confine man to this life, let it be true that
he has no destiny beyond it, and nothing could, relatively to him, be
called great or good, not included under the heads of wealth and luxury.
Nothing could be counted or conceived of as of the least value to him
that does not directly or indirectly minister to his sensual enjoyment.
No infidel moralist has ever been able, without going out of his own
system, or want of system, to conceive of any thing higher, nobler, more
valuable, than sensual pleasure.
But this life is not our only life, and our destiny is not accomplished here. The
grave is not our final doom; this world is not our home; we were not
created for this world alone; and there is for us a life beyond this
life. But even this, if we stop with it, does not answer our question.
We may conceive of a future life as the simple continuation of our
present natural life, and such the future life is conceived to be by not
a few among us, who nevertheless flatter themselves that they are firm
believers in the life and immortality brought to light through the
Gospel. Every being may be said to have a natural destiny or
end, which its nature is fitted and intended to gain. The Creator, in
creating a being with a given nature, has given that being a pledge of
the means and conditions of fulfilling it, of attaining to its natural
end. Man has evidently been created with a nature that does not and
cannot find its complete fulfilment in this life. He has a natural
capacity for more than is actually attainable here. In this capacity he
has the promise or pledge of his Maker that he shall live again.
The promises of God cannot fail. Man therefore must and will live
again. But this is only the pledge, so to speak, of a natural
immortality, and reveals to us only a natural destiny. It is only a
continuation of our natural life in another world. The end we are to
labor for, and the means we are to adopt to gain it, must be precisely
what they would be in case our life were to terminate at the grave. Our
future life being still a natural life, what is wisest and best for that
portion we are now living would be wisest and best for that portion we
are hereafter to live. Hence, what is wisest and best for time would be
wisest and best for eternity.
Hence it is that we find so many who, though professing belief in a future life, judge all things as if this life were our only life. They look to the
future life only as the continuation of the present, and expect from it
only the completion of their natural destiny. They agree in all their
moral judgments, in all their estimates of the worth of things or of
actions, with those who believe in no future life at all. They profess
to hope for a future life, but live only for time; because their future
life is to be only a continuation of time. Hence they say, as we
ourselves were for years accustomed to say, He who lives wisely for time
lives wisely for eternity; create a heaven here, and you will have done
your best to secure your title to a heaven hereafter.
Hence it is that the morality of many who profess
to be Christians is the same which is adopted and defended by infidels.
This is so obviously the case, that we not unfrequently find men who
call themselves Christians commending downright unbelievers in
Christianity as good moral men, and who see no reason why the morality
of the infidel should not be the same in kind as the morality of the
Christian. Hence it is supposed that morality may be taught in our
schools, without teaching any peculiar or distinctive doctrine of
Christianity. Morality, we are told, is independent of religion, and not
a few regard it as sufficient without religion. So common has this mode
of thinking and speaking become amongst us, that we heard the other day
a tolerably intelligent Catholic, who would by no means admit himself
to be deficient in the understanding or practice of his Catholic duties,
say, that, if a man were only a good moral man, he did not care what
was his distinctive religious belief. Many who go further, and
contend that religion is necessary to morality, contend for its
necessity only as a sort of police establishment. It is necessary, because the natural sanctions of the moral law are not quite sufficient to
secure obedience, and religion must be called in by its hopes and fears
to strengthen them. (National Greatness)
It was just about just a little under nineteen years after Brownson published these words in the Brownson Quarterly in January of 1846 that Pope Pius IX wrote very much in the same vein:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the
best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social government
they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its
effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think
and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that
"if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there
will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in
the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very
teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and
wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And, since where religion has been removed
from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that
some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and
clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of
religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
Writing in 1900, Pope Leo XIII echoed the voice of his immediate predecessor, Pope Pius IX:
A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man
of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the
merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use
of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But
though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and
even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our
Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself
eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as
a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him
into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not
shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much
evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine
faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the
masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil
is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to
help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of
Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public
administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces
of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political
life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority
of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must
necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and
these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society.
Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken
away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man
will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy,
jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism.
There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is
stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
As I have tried to explain so many times on this site, including a great deal during the 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 election cycles, the farce of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic naturalism in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world is simply a sideshow to permit the incremental building of an interlocking system of bureaucracies to provide us with a One World Governance that would be supported wholly by the One World Ecumenical Church, which has made its "official reconciliation with the new principles" of that "new era" "inaugurated in 1789? Inaugurated in what? Catholic blood, that's what!
Among those who are funding such an establishment is the billionaire socialist and New World Order engineer by the name of George Soros, one of whose front organizations invited none other than one Peter "Cardinal" Turkson, Focolare's man-of-the-hour (see Giving A Little "Push" To "Getting To Know You"):
With African Catholic Cardinal Peter Turkson in the running as the next pope, the media have noted that he carries the fancy title of the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, an arm of the Vatican. But they have failed to note the existence of a left-wing lobby in the U.S. working feverishly on his behalf. It is the same group of radicals, with connections to billionaire hedge-fund operator George Soros, who backed Obama for president by claiming he shared their Catholic values.
One of Turkson’s chief supporters in the U.S. appears to be Stephen Schneck, an associate professor of politics at the Catholic University of America (CUA) and a top official of “Catholics for Obama.” He runs CUA’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies and holds conferences featuring left-wing and liberal speakers.
Former AFL-CIO boss John Sweeney, a member of Democratic Socialists of America, told one of Schneck’s conferences that Jesus Christ was pro-union. Another speaker was socialist Harold Meyerson.
When Turkson’s Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued a controversial 2011 document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Political Authority,” Schneck called it “breathtaking” and a “Catholic way forward” from the present crisis.
A “global political authority” was endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI’s “Charity in Truth” encyclical in 2009.
Schneck, who served on the board of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a group funded by Soros, is so important a figure in progressive Catholic circles that there is speculation that Obama will appoint him as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. A writer noted that Schneck “has worked hand-in-glove with different offices at the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops], with Catholic Relief Services, with the Catholic Association of Latino Leaders and the Catholic Coalition for Climate Change, and with other Catholic groups, organizing conferences that call attention to important issues.”
He wrote that “Schneck’s range of political and media contacts, his organizational capabilities, his ability to distinguish a central from a peripheral issue, all are vital to making these conferences a success. He brought Cardinal Peter Turkson to CUA two years ago for a conference on Rerum Novarum.”
Rerum Novarum is a papal encyclical in which, as William Mayer notes, “the Church proclaimed itself competent to speak on economic matters, establishing a justification for governmental control, to a greater or lesser degree, of the marketplace and by extension, players within the economy, including everyday citizens and businesses.”
Rerum Novarum is the basis for many “social justice” theories promoted by leftist and Marxist operatives in the church.
Turkson, who is from Ghana, has taken “social justice” to the global level, arguing for a “global financial authority” to solve the world’s economic problems.
For this reason, left-wing “progressives” backing Obama hope Turkson will be the next pope and use the Vatican in a global campaign against capitalism.
Vatican Radio said the Turkson document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Political Authority,” had “proposed the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy and a new world economic order” with the United Nations “as a point of reference.”
Crisis Magazine, a conservative Catholic publication, said it contained “some downright frightening prescriptions for reshaping the worldwide economy” and could be seen as “a blueprint for a George Soros agenda.”
Turkson spoke at the May 2, 2011, conference organized by Schneck at CUA on the subject of Rerum Novarum. He appeared with Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Alexia K. Kelley, deputy director of the Obama White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
He was scheduled to speak at this weekend’s 30th Anniversary conference of the Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) at Notre Dame.
The event, held in collaboration with the far-left Institute for Policy Studies, included workshops and panels on such topics as:
· Examining International Aid to Africa in the Light of Catholic Social Teaching
· Climate Change and Its Impact on the People of Africa
· The expansion of U.S. military activities in Africa
The group says about itself: “AFJN works primarily with the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government to advance our message of social justice, though we are also registered as a UN-DPI [Department of Public Information] organization at the United Nations.”
It counts the Department of Social Development and World Peace, the national public policy agency of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, as one of its “collaborating organizations.” (Black Socialist Pope to Follow Black Socialist President?)
Whoever William Mayer is, he has no idea of what Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, issued on May 15, 1891, taught as it was a balanced, measured treatment of the "new things" that had arisen in the world's industrialized economy, stressing the Natural Law right to private property, which Socialists for the most part reject, and at the same time the duty of those blessed with a surfeit of this world's goods to share them generously with others and for employers and employees to work collaboratively. Rerum Novarum condemned Socialism's resort to class warfare and to the Protestant Judeo-Masonic brand of unbridled capitalism's concern only for profit even at the expense of true justice to workers (points covered my Living of the Shadow of the Cross video lecture program).
As to Peter Turkson, however, suffice it to say he did his duty well to provide some "flesh and bones" to the "global fiscal authority" that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI envisioned in Caritatis in Veritate, June 29, 2009.
What follow first are the "pope emeritus's" "vision" and then an except from Turkson's own madness:
In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there
is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a
reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance,
so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.
One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing
the principle of the responsibility to protect and of
giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This
seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and
economic order which can increase and give direction to international
cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage
the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any
deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that
would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food
security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and
to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true
world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII
indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated
by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized
and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all,
regard for justice, and respect for right. Obviously it would have to
have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all
parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various
international forums. Without this, despite the great progress
accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being
conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The
integral development of peoples and international cooperation require
the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked
by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require
the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral
order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to
the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as
envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. (Caritas in veritate, June 29, 2009.)
In economic and financial matters, the most significant
difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in
addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy
and international finance.
What can be said about this prospect? What steps can be taken
concretely?
With regard to the current global economic and financial systems,
two decisive factors should be stressed. The first is the gradual decline in efficacy
of the Bretton Woods institutions beginning in the early 1970s. In particular, the
International Monetary Fund has lost an essential element for stabilizing world
finance, that of regulating the overall money supply and vigilance over the amount of credit
risk taken on by the system. That is, stabilizing the world monetary system is no
longer a “universal public good” within its reach.
The second factor is the need for a minimum, shared body of
rules to manage the global financial market which has grown much more rapidly than
the real economy. This situation of rapid, uneven growth has come about, on the
one hand, because of the overall abrogation of controls on capital movements and the
tendency to deregulate banking and financial activities; and on the other, because of
advances in financial technology, due largely to information technology. . . .
Under the current uncertainties, in a society capable of
mobilizing immense means but whose cultural and moral reflection is still inadequate with
regard to their use in achieving the appropriate ends, we are urged to not give in. We
are asked above all to build a meaningful future for the generations to come. We should
not be afraid to propose new ideas, even if they might destabilize pre-existing
balances of power that prevail over the weakest. These ideas are seeds thrown to
the ground that will sprout and hurry towards bearing fruit.
As Benedict XVI exhorts us, agents on all levels – social,
political, economic, professional – are urgently needed who have the courage to serve
and to promote the common good through an upright life. Only they will succeed in
living and seeing beyond the appearances of things and perceiving the gap between
existing reality and untried possibilities.
Paul VI emphasized the revolutionary power of a “forward-looking
imagination” that can perceive the possibilities inscribed in the present and
guide people towards a new future. By freeing their imagination, humans free their
existence. Through an effort of community imagination, it is possible to transform not
only institutions but also lifestyles and encourage a better future for all peoples.
Modern States became structured wholes over time and reinforced
sovereignty within their own territory. But social, cultural and political
conditions have gradually changed. Their interdependence has grown – so it has become
natural to think of an international community that is integrated and increasingly
ruled by a shared system – but a worse form of nationalism has lingered on,
according to which the State feels it can achieve the good of its own citizens in a self-sufficient
way.
Today all of this seems anachronistic and surreal, and all
nations, great or small, together with their governments, are called to go beyond the
“state of nature” which would keep States in a never-ending struggle with one another.
Globalization, despite some of its negative aspects, is unifying peoples more and
prompting them to move towards a new “rule of law” on the supranational level,
supported by more intense and fruitful modes of collaboration. With dynamics similar to those
that put an end in the past to the “anarchical” struggle between rival clans and
kingdoms with regard to the creation of national states, today humanity needs to be
committed to the transition from a situation of archaic struggles between national entities,
to a new model of a more cohesive, polyarchic international society that respects
every people’s identity within the multifaceted riches of a single humanity. Such a
passage, which is already timidly under way, would ensure peace and security, development,
and free, stable and transparent markets for the citizens of all countries,
regardless of their size or power. As John Paul II warns us, “Just as the time has finally come
when in individual States a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the
rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international
community”.
The time has come to conceive of institutions with universal
competence, now that vital goods shared by the entire human family are at stake,
goods which individual States cannot promote and protect by themselves.
The conditions exist for going definitively beyond a
‘Westphalian’ international order in which States feel the need for cooperation but do not seize
the opportunity to integrate their respective sovereignties for the common good of
peoples.
It is the task of today’s generation to recognize and
consciously to accept these new world dynamics for the achievement of a universal common good. Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced
transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority and to regional
Authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and
the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already
very eroded in a globalized world.
The birth of a new society and the building of new institutions
with a universal vocation and competence are a prerogative and a duty for
everyone, without distinction. What is at stake is the common good of humanity and
the future itself. (Reform of the
international financial system with a view toward a general public Authority, " October 24, 2011. Readers will note that this apologia for One World Governance was issued three days before Assisi III, about which Turkson himself had some observations of the apostate kind. See Processing Along The Path To Antichrist. See Finishing Off The Overthrow of the Papal States.)
How is this not perfectly in line with the likes of what George Soros and his American stooge, Barack Hussein Obama, desire?
This is insanity. Each of the problems that Ratzinger/Benedict listed in Caritatis in Veritate and that Peter "Cardinal" Turkson has attempted to address, including the rise of the unbridled marketplace
that is defined by the pursuit of profit at all costs and the
outsourcing of jobs, is
the direct and inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of
Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized
by the rise of Judeo-Masonry. The multifaceted and interrelated problems
and massive injustices that have arisen as a result of the overthrow of
the Social Reign of Christ the King cannot be resolved by some kind of
utopian "world political authority" that is going to have "teeth" while
at the same time respecting the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity
enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931,
as it respects the right to life and the rights of families and promotes
"integral human development." In all Charity, my friends, the truth of
the matter is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is stark raving mad to
believe that such a One World Government could provide a structure for
order and justice in the world, and that is putting the matter mildly
and as charitably as is humanly possible. Need one point out that one of
the chief goals of Talmudic Judaism has been to create such a One World
Government?
All signs point to Antichrist, ladies and gentlemen. He has figures walking abroad in both of the major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America and related "families" throughout the world, and he has agents aplenty working for him in every nook and cranny of the Occupy Vatican Movement.
Mr. Michael Creighton, who has written that marvelous summary of the errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and was kind enough to permit me to publish his very study on Modern Problems of Marriage, provided some material, purely speculative in nature, that is certainly timely given the prominence of Focolare's chosen "pope," Peter Turkson, who would be Obama on Conciliar Steroids:
Mr. Creighton's Speculative Comment: Old Italian Prophecy: "When the White Pope and the Black Pope shall die during the same night, then there will dawn upon the Christian nations the Great White Day."
If this prophecy to be taken literally, then we may speculate that the white pope (Joseph Ratzinger) and black pope (Peter Turkson is expected to be elected) may die on the same day and Christendom will be restored. They are not true popes but called pope.
This fits with prophecies about restoration after calamity:
Ven. Elizabeth Canori-Mora (d. 1825)
"St. Peter then chose the new pope. The Church was again organized..."
"... the sky was covered with clouds so dense and dismal that it was impossible to look at them without dismay... the avenging arm of God will strike the wicked, and in his mighty power he will punish their pride and presumption. God will employ the powers of hell for the extermination of these impious and heretical persons who desire to overthrow the Church and destroy it's foundation. .... Innumerable legions of demons shall overrun the earth and shall execute the orders of Divine Justice... Nothing on the earth shall be spared. After this frightful punishment I saw the heavens opening, and St. Peter coming down again upon earth; he was vested in his pontifical robes, and surrounded by a great number of angels, who were chanting hymns in his honor, and they proclaimed him as sovereign of the earth. I saw also St. Paul descending upon the earth. By God's command, he traversed the earth and chained the demons, whom he brought before St. Peter, who commanded them to return into hell, whence they had come.
"Then a great light appeared upon the earth which was the sign of the reconciliation of God with man. The angels conducted before the throne of the prince of the Apostles the small flock that had remained faithful to Jesus Christ. These good and zealous Christians testified to him the most profound respect, praising God and thanking the Apostles for having delivered them from the common destruction, and for having protected the Church of Jesus Christ by not permitting her to be infected with the false maxims of the world. St. Peter then chose the new pope. The Church was again organized..." (Prophecy of Ven. Elizabeth Canori-Mora (d. 1825) as recorded in Fr. Culleton's book The Prophets and Our Times, 1941 A.D. Imprimatur)
"After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will come back to the Church and the face of the earth will be renewed. Russia, England, and China will come into the Church." (Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837 A.D.) who was Beatified by Pope Benedict XV in 1920.)
Yes, purely speculative.
However, in light of Peter Turkson's prominence these days, such speculation may be in order. Imagine what kind of invective will be hurled at anyone who dares to criticize an African "pope" as he "works the room," if you will, in behalf of George Soros and in full partnership with Barack Hussein Obama, and Catholics in the United States of America will love every minute, basking in the "progress" represented by a Communist "pope" and a Communist president.
Americanism helped Catholics in the United States of America to be softened up for the kill when the other anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity combined into one at the "Second" Vatican Council and spread like wildfire thereafter, proving anew the prophetic nature of these words written by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, to James Cardinal Gibbons, the Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore from 1877 to 1921:
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there
is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic
doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty,
according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the
Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense
lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more
freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper
activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in
the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation
of almost every secular state. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolical Letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)
Pope Leo XIII explained near the end of his Apostolical Letter to James
Cardinal Gibbons that he feared that at least some of the
American bishops did indeed desire the American model of the religiously
indifferentist civil state, which was so praised by His Apostateness, Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus, during his nefarious tenure in office as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, to be adopted by the Church herself universally as the means
of "reconciling" herself to the "modern" world:
For it [an adherence to the condemned precepts of Americanism] would
give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive
of and desire the Church in America to be different from what it is in
the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolical Letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)
When are Catholics, no
matter where they fall on the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical
divide, going to recognize and accept the truth written over five
hundred years ago now and cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929?
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the
spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much
the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it
is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual
means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end
and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good
citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a
civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are
absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of
those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can
produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make
for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence
say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce
true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to
the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
Ah, you, see men such as Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Turkson are not Catholics. They expect that the very financiers who fund their delusional dreams of One World Governance to create "justice" in the world while those same financiers promote one sin after another in the name of "universal human rights." And this is because men such as Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Turkson, both of whom violate the first three of the Ten Commandments on a daily basis, do not have any understand of the horror of personal sin, which means they are rationalists who really have no understand as to Who God is as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves ever more deeper in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Father Charles Arminjon related the attitude that
Catholics have in the midst of the storms of the present world, a world
that will pass away soon enough, by contrasting the worldly man with the
man of Faith:
One thing is certain: there has never been, and
never will be, moral sublimity, heroic holiness, or virtue worthy of the
name that does not have its principle or draw its growth and strength
in suffering freely accepted or dauntlessly undergone.
How is it that our will is often wavering and
undecided, that our life is strew-n with such strange fluctuations and
such unhappy fickleness, that we are so dejected by insignificant
things, that an inconsiderate word is said to us, or a change in the
serenity of the sky, is enough to make us go from the height of joy to
the depths of gloom? The cause of these fluctuations and changes is
simply the repugnance and instinctive horror we feel toward suffering.
By the assiduous care we take to refuse the
slightest hardship and the least injury, and to keep away from us
anything that seems even in the smallest degree demanding, we create for
ourselves a state of abject bondage. Our heart falls under the sway of
as many tyrants as there are impressions, each of which in turn grips us
in its influence. No virtue can subsist in such fickle souls, no high
position is compatible with a character that drifts along with ever
current and turn of fortune.
Thus, the man in this state turns aside from stern
duties and becomes a slave to the most futile fantasies. Forgetting that
human life is a reality and not fiction, he seeks diversion in
frivolous amusements, squanders his best years in pleasures and idleness
and boredom, and consumes fruitlessly the talent that God had entrusted
to him. In this enfeebling frame of mind, a man need only come before
him with threatening words and the power to interfere with his repose,
interests, or pleasures, and that man will at once be his master, will
have full power to subject him to a degrading bondage or to unspeakable
tortures.
How far removed from the inexhaustible pettiness of
these flabby, effeminate souls is the firm, high-minded attitude of him
who, by dint of doing battle with suffering, has become, as it were,
insensitive to its wounds and blows? How fine it is to see him serene
and majestic amidst storms and the agitation of passions, fulfilling the
words of the wise man: "Whatsoever shall befall the just man, it shall
not make him sad."
Calmly he [the man of Faith] hears the noise of
revolutions, and sees republics and dynasties pass; it is as if the
scene of men's vain and conflicting interests lay in the nether regions
beneath his feet. No disturbance on this earth moves him, because he had
learned to see events in the infinite wisdom that governs all thing by
its providence, and which permits evil only in order to draw good from
it by a striking manifestation. He carries within himself a kind of
sanctuary of peace and happiness. Mankind and the elements combined are
powerless to offend or harm him. Is he sent into exile? he will reply
with a great bishop" For me, the whole earth is my native land and my
exile. Is he stripped of his goods? He has learned how to possess them
without permitting them to enthrall his heart. Is he put to death?
Death, for him, is the transfiguration to a better life, emancipation
from his sufferings.
Such was the serenity and heroic constancy of St. John Chrysostom, banished by Eudoxia, Empress of Constantinople:
When I was fleeing the town, I did not feel my
misfortune at all, and I was interiorly inundated with the most
indescribable consolations. If he Empress sends me into exile--I said to
myself--I shall consider that the earth and all that it contains is the
Lord's. If she has me thrown into the sea, I shall remember Jonah. If
she orders me to be stoned, I shall be the companion of St. Stephen. If
she has been beheaded, I shall have the glory of St. John the Baptist.
If she strips me of what I possess, I shall reflect that I came forth
naked from the bowels of the earth, and must return to it naked and
stripped of everything. (Father Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, translated by Susan Conroy and Peter McEnerny. Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2008, pp. 282-284.)
Let us, therefore, trust in
Our Lady, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by Seven Swords of Sorrow,
to help us to promote Catholic dogmatism over the madness of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, remaining perfectly calm in the storms around us as we pray as many
Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, eager to suffer and to
suffer even some more as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King
through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, she who is Our
Immaculate Queen.
