Saturday, December 9, 2017

the new evangelization in Australia

Thanks to the reader who wrote, telling us to view the videos from the Australian Catholic Youth Festival (ACYF).  We couldn’t distinguish the ACYF from a protestant tent revival other than grown men dressed as bishops making fools of themselves and a priest with face paint on for adoration because the novus ordo’s adoration isn’t cool enough unless it has an aboriginal flair to it.  What passes for the faith in the Novus Ordo is an emotional laded experience with the participants dressed immodestly as they make a mockery of sacraments of the Church with their new, man-made, and ‘improved’ post-Vatican II versions.  How sad...

If one so wishes to watch this monstrosity in its fullness they can by clicking on the following links:

...otherwise one can watch the toned down highlight video and the two bishops videos below to get an idea of this travesty of the Catholic faith.

lowlights of the Australian Catholic Youth Festival

tsunami of grace

the present reality of the novus ordo mess 

Thursday, December 7, 2017

dancing in the new evangelization

Jerusalem & ‘the status quo’

Frankie the Yid

“I wish to make a heartfelt appeal to ensure that everyone is committed to respecting the status quo...”

— Don the shabbos goy

“In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo..”

‘the status quo’

Jerusalem’s population broken down by religion: Jews, Moslems, and Christians (1910-2005)

Israel persecutes Christians by confining them to concentration camps and replacing them with Noahide approved Moslems


The demon possessed going crazy over Christians

 — Theodor Herzl’s promises on Jerusalem —

The excerpts below are from The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volumes I-V (1960) edited by Raphael Patai & translated by Harry Zohn. (click here to read online) They were brought to our attention by Phillip Weiss in his article, Republicans want Jerusalem? Herzl promised pope, kaiser and sultan to leave it outside Jewish state.

• May 7, 1896 • Herzl’s intermediary to Sultan Abdulhamid II of the Ottoman Empire
 Volume I, pp. 345-6

• May 19, 1896 • Herzl to papal nuncio, Antonio Agliardi
 Volume I, p.353

 • June 17, 1896 • Herzl recounting meeting with a Turkish official
 Volume I, pp. 371-2

• October 7, 1898 • Herzl meeting with German ambassador, Count Philipp Eulenberg
Volume II, p. 691

• October 9, 1898 • Herzl recounting promise to the Grand Duke of Baden
 Volume II, p. 698

• October 31, 1898 • Herzl about his only visit to Jerusalem
 Volume II, p. 747

• May 8, 1901 • Sultan Hamid’s envoy says to Herzl
 Volume III, p. 1093 

• August 11, 1903 • Herzl meeting with Count Witte
 Volume IV, p. 1532

• January 23, 1904 • Herzl meets with the Holy See’s secretary of state, Cardinal Merry del Val
Volume IV, pp. 1593-4

 • January 26, 1904 • Herzl meets with Pope Saint Pius X
  Volume IV, p. 1604 

So much for keeping their word...

...however Israel celebrated Trump’s recognition by 
maintaining ‘the status quo’ as they shelled the 
Gaza Strip (aka concentration camp) like 
they have done so many countless times!

Bombs away!

 Don’t worry though, the Israelis will continue to scapegoat their goy Judas goats for carrying out their machinations for Talmudists are the eternal victims.

The mind of Bergoglio

Jorge Mario Bergoglio Una biographia intellettuale (Jorge Mario 
Bergoglio An Intellectual Biography) by Massimo Borghesi

excerpts from

After the many narrative biographies of Pope Francis, here is the first one that rightly bears the title of “intellectual biography.” Its author, Massimo Borghesi, is professor of moral philosophy at the University of Perugia and has been very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio since long before he was elected pope, on a par with that circle of friends whose best-known name is that of the vaticanista Andrea Tornielli, all of them belonging to the Roman branch of Communion and Liberation that was headed by the priest Giacomo Tantardini.

But in addition to coming from Borghesi’s pen, this book is also the offspring of the spoken word of Pope Francis himself, who on four occasions - the two most recent being on March 13, 2017, the fourth anniversary of his pontificate - sent to the author audio recordings that are repeatedly cited in the text and all aimed at identifying the sources of his formation.

It is a biography, therefore, that is in part an autobiography as well. And it is motivated precisely by a revelation made here for the first time by Bergoglio himself, according to whom at the origin of his thought is the French Jesuit theologian Gaston Fessard - a brilliant scholar of Hegel without being a Hegelian - with his 1956 book on the “dialectic” of the “Spiritual Exercises” of Saint Ignatius.

It is in fact above all from Fessard - as Borghesi confirms and substantiates - that Bergoglio got his markedly antinomian thinking, so fond of contradictions. But then came other prominent authors to reinforce this way of thinking, Erich Przywara and Henri de Lubac, both of them also Jesuits, Alberto Methol Ferré, an Uruguayan philosopher, and above all, but belatedly, Romano Guardini, with his youthful 1925 essay entitled “Der Gegensatz,” “Polar opposition,” on which Bergoglio wanted to base his doctoral thesis during the few months he spent studying in Germany in 1986, a thesis that was quickly dropped and never written.

Borghesi deftly illustrates the thinking of these great theologians and philosophers. To them he adds, among the inspirations to whom Bergoglio himself says he is a debtor, other first-rate stars like Michel de Certeau and Hans Urs von Balthasar. And he does all he can to demonstrate how in the writings of Bergoglio both far and near in time, before and after his election as pope, the genius of his teachers lives again.
The little known, Fr. Gaston Fessard was a friend of Teilhard de Chardin 
whom he corresponded with as well as Gabriel Marcel, Raymond Aron, 
Emmanuel Mounier, Claude Levy-Strauss among others.  Cardinal Henri 
de Lubac was an admirer.

It is true that Francis himself revealed three years ago, to the Argentine authors of another biography of his, that the chapter of “Evangelii Gaudium” with the four postulates is the transcription of a piece of his uncompleted doctoral thesis on Guardini.

But to see how this student exercise of his - an exercise now upgraded as pontifical magisterium - inevitably falls apart if its is subjected to the slightest elementary analysis, one gets the impression that the gap between Bergoglio and his celebrated teachers is truly very profound:


As for the nature of the Church as "complexio oppositorum,” meaning a combination of institution and event, of mystery/sacrament and word, of individuality and community, of interiority and public worship, the pontificate of Francis shows how he does not at all love this reciprocal enrichment between opposites, but on the contrary wants to suppress or disregard that which in one or the other opposition he sees as static or obsolete. His coldness toward the liturgy is plain for all to see, as is his insensitivity to the category of the beautiful and his underappreciation of doctrine and institution.

It must be said - and Borghesi recognizes this - that Bergoglio has never studied and assimilated the entire work of his teachers, but has only read a few isolated things, taking pointers from them in his own way.

And this explains the nonhomogeneity of his writings, magisterial as well, in which he combines the most diverse materials.

But it explains even more the gaping discrepancy between his illustrious teachers and the concrete figures of whom Pope Francis avails himself as his confidants and ghostwriters: from the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, a rhetorical yarnspinner, to the Argentine Víctor Manuel Fernández, a theologian with a less than mediocre reputation, who revealed himself to the world with a first work entitled “Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar,” and yet was encouraged by his friend who had become pope to go so far as to transcribe into “Amoris Laetitia” whole sections of his confused articles from a dozen years before, on family morality.

Another sign of confusion is the equal “preference” that Francis reserves for the two French theologians dearest to him, de Lubac and de Certeau, showing that he is unaware that de Lubac broke with de Certeau, his former pupil, and leveled harsh criticism against him: he accused him of being a “Joachimite” infatuated, like the visionary medieval friar, with a presumed golden age of pure spirit, free from any constraint of the ecclesiastical institution.

Moreover, in the “intellectual biography” of Bergoglio written by Borghesi, there are glaring omissions. There is total silence on Walter Kasper, in spite of the fact that Francis declared himself to be a reader and admirer of his from his first “Angelus” after being elected pope, and then rewarded him with boundless praise - for knowing how to do “theology on one’s knees” - and also promoted him as theologian-guide of the turning points on the matters of marriage and divorce and the primacy of the local Churches over the universal Church.

Nor is there so much as a word on Rodolfo Kusch, the Argentine anthropologist whose concept of people Francis recently said he had assimilated. And this in spite of the fact that in Borghesi’s book there are many pages on Bergoglio’s “populism.”
source: L’Espresso: Settimo Cielo di Sandro Magister, All Bergoglio's Teachers, Even Though He Goes His Own Way

We at Call Me Jorge... would add that this book also leaves out the influence of Chasidic philosophy from which Francis draws heavily.  This shows up most strongly in his regular inversions of the Gospels due to his reading them through Talmudic lenses and when he chastises the common Catholic pewsitter with a verbal barrage (Neopelagian!, Pharisee!, spiritual mummy!, petitioner for certainty in all things! creed reciting parrot Christian!, etc...) for dare resisting his revolutionary changes.  If one is ever confused at what Francis has said, from that he wants “shepherds living with the smell of the sheep” to “But Lord, throw a banana peel in front of them, so that they will take a good fall [into sin]” the place to begin is with the extreme depravity of Hasidism.

More on Francis and Hasidism:

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Francis receives a tongue lashing from a Cardinal

‘We elected you to make reforms, not to destroy everything.’

Francis had a private audience with this cardinal 
three days after the incident was reported in the media.

Last Friday, Italian Marco Tosatti reported on his blog (bold is ours for emphasis),
“And, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, perhaps it is an annoyance also shared in the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, an ex-diplomat, and one with an important curriculum as the head of Congregations and other important offices in the Secretariat of State, has reproached the Pope for his actions, saying in essence: ‘We elected you to make reforms, not to smash (destroy) everything.’ The news spread itself around the Vatican because the conversation, if it can be called a conversation, took place at high decibel levels, which overwhelmed the fragile barrier of the doors and the walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.”

 Cardinal Leonardo Sandri like Francis hails from Argentina.

Today the German website,, identified the mystery cardinal as none other than Francis’ fellow countryman,
“Francis received his compatriot Leonardo Cardinal Sandri. The cardinal, born like Francis in Buenos Aires, is the son of Italian immigrants but seven years younger than the pope. Ordained priest in 1967, he was secretary to the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires and sent to Rome in 1971 to attend the Diplomatic Academy of the Holy See. He joined the State Secretariat in 1974 and served as Apostolic Nuncio in Venezuela from 1997 to 2000, then in Mexico for a few more months, to be appointed as a substitute to the State Secretariat by John Paul II at the end of 2000. As such, he announced in April 2005 the death of the Polish Pope.
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI appointed him. became Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and elevated him to the cardinal's office in the same year. In 2013 he was in the conclave to the voters of his compatriot Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio. One of not a few cardinals who supported the archbishop of Buenos Aires, contrary to the legend, that Bergoglio's election was an uprising against the Roman Curia.”
source:, Franziskus! Wir haben dich nicht gewählt, damit du alles zerstörst

Francis can’t seem to help but sow discord and chaos as he continues on with his revolutionary program.

Who knew that Amoris Laetitia and its fall out would be so entertaining?

Monday, December 4, 2017

The Pope Video — Season 2 Episode 12

The ‘humble’ hypocrite blathers once again...

...which is why Francis said of the Tridentine Latin Mass
“I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.
and later further explained,
“we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
So much for Francis ‘honoring his elders’ by transmitting the Faith entrusted to him from previous pontiffs.  Instead Francis brainwashes his pewsitters with a man-centered humanistic Noahidism, honoring the type of elder which Jesus warned us not to follow.

John Selden — the Noachide Laws as the basis for International Law

John Selden lived in Renaissance England (1584-1654) during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I, King James I, King Charles I, the Protector’s Privy Council, and Oliver Cromwell. He was a polymath with a specialty as an English jurist, a Member of Parliament, a scholar who knew Hebrew and possessed a keen interest in rabbinical exegesis.  When he was arrested on charges of conspiracy and sedition against King Charles I and imprisoned in the Tower of London, John chose to pass his time by studying the Babylonian Talmud.  Interestingly, Selden was strongly opposed to Cromwell’s attempt to readmit the Jews into England.  He had a negative attitude toward the Jews, despite being pro-usury and his near obsession with and appreciation of Talmudic rabbinics.  In his six works he often cited Maimonides, Nissim ben Reuven of Girona, Onkelaus, Rabbi Moses Cotzensus, Obadiah ben Abraham Bartenura, etc...  Selden used the Seven Noahide Laws as the basis for international law.  Sir Isaac Newton had copies of John Selden’s works in his library.  Even though he wasn’t a Catholic, his contributions towards the movement and adoption of the anti-biblical and anti-Christian Noahide Laws were so significant we decided to post about them.

John Selden (1584-1654) was, among the men of Renaissance England, the most educated expositor of rabbinic literature. At a time and in a country in which the average man believed Jews to be misanthropic, usurious and dishonorable, John Selden set out to research the sacred texts of rabbinic Judaism with sympathy and interest. He wrote no less than six full-length treatises on rabbinic law. The third of these works, De Jure Naturali et Gentium Juxta Disciplinam Ebreorum (1640), was an examination of the concepts of natural law and the ius gentium as they were taught in the rabbinic tradition.

At the heart of Selden’s presentation is an analysis of the rabbinic concept of the Noahide laws, a code of seven laws which God purportedly gave to mankind at creation. Legend has it that these laws were transmitted to posterity by Noah and his sons after the flood and that they have served ever since as the fundamental moral code that governs all humanity. The laws include six prohibitions and a duty. They are a ban on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and a specific form of animal cruelty – the eating of a limb of an animal that is still alive. The one duty included in the list is the injunction that every community should establish a court of law. Selden extrapolates much from these laws and in the course of a digressive work of research into rabbinic lore generates a template for ethics, family law, government, international law and religion (for a rabbinic source on this material see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkot melakim u-milhamot 8:9-10:12)

This last point – that the Noahide law provided for the religious life of non-Jews – leads to one of the most interesting discussions in the work. Selden believed that the Temple of Jerusalem was designed to permit the children of Noah, that is, the mass of mankind who observe the Noahide commandments, to participate in Temple worship alongside the children of Israel.
source: Library of Congress, John Selden As An Early Modern Maccabee

(click images to enlarge)

 pages 28-29

 page 30

 page 32

 pages 34-35

page 36
source: Jewish Political Studies Review 6:1-2 (Spring 1994), John Selden and the Biblical Origins of the Modern International Political System by Abraham Berkowitz


Talmudic Jewish Supremacism II

the schizophrenia of the Talmudic mind


Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s sacrilegious prayer service celebrates sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance

Schönborn’s sacrilegious sodomy service

Keep in mind as you peruse through the video above that Francis said of Schönborn,
“[He] is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well.” 

The faith which Francis speaks of isn’t the Catholic faith, for nothing in Schönborn’s behavior even comes close to resembling Catholicism.  There’s a simple reason for this, both Francis and Schönborn are modernists.
This shouldn’t be a surprise as the zionist, Christoph Schönborn, “is a descendant of old nobility of the Holy Roman Empire known for its sheltering of usurers, rabbis, intelligencers and the Talmud itself (see: Judaism Discovered) and peddling of alcohol on credit via Judaic front-men to the poorest of Christian peasants.”  The Schönborn family are experts at keeping “the Christian common folk as mystified, dumbed down, docile sheep for shearing by themselves and their fellow rabbi and banker mobsters.”  Essentially, the freemason Cardinal Schönborn is carrying out what his family has done for centuries.”
source: Call Me Jorge..., Francis spoke about ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in Colombia. Was it because the “Filial Correction” was weighing on his mind?

Many would object to the above quoted observation of the Schönborn family and say that  Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is different from them.   That he is a conservative.  NovusOrdoWire has documented more instances of Schönborn’s support and advocacy of sodomy.
“This is the same Schonborn, by the way, who overturned a pastor’s decision barring an openly-practicing sodomite from sitting on the parish council, and who has encouraged and participated in the wildest liturgical chaos imaginable (yes, including flame throwers, pornography, and stage diving — we are NOT kidding!). This is also the same Schonborn who allows his cathedral rector to give “blessings” to homosexual “couples” every year on St. Valentine’s Day, and who allowed an open atheist, Communist, sexual deviant, and blasphemer to exhibit his “artwork” that displayed the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy, right there in the cathedral’s museum. To top it off, Schonborn later granted, through his cathedral rector, a “Catholic” (i.e. Novus Ordo) burial to the Communist blasphemer, complete with a red casket and a pornographic sculpture for a tombstone (see video here). Schonborn is also on record lauding as “exemplary human behavior” sodomite couples who “faithfully care” for one another.
Let’s face it: “Cardinal” Schonborn is satanic, and this “homo liturgy” he just conducted in the cathedral of Vienna is simply the latest offense in an ever-growing heap of crimes against the Most Holy Trinity, the saints, and the souls our Blessed Lord came to save.”
source: NovusOrdoWire, “Cardinal” Schönborn celebrates Homosexual Prayer Service with blasphemous Transvestite

There’s a reason that Dante Alighieri put blasphemers, sodomites, and usurers together in the seventh circle of hell.  They are all unnatural and sterile actions.  They are all inversions.  Sadly, Schönborn has all these sinful qualities in spades and he is leading the pewsitters entrusted to him down the road to perdition. Christ said in the Gospel of Matthew 7, 15:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

Christoph Schönborn is nothing other than a rabbi/banker in bishop’s clothing.

Schönborn receiving an award for all the souls he has led and is leading astray.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Francis asks seminarians, “Do you play soccer?” before ordaining them


Francis shares his mundane thoughts for 
58 minutes on flight back to Rome 

 ‘Humble’ Francis poses with the ‘broken cross’ and his Bangladeshi soccer team.

Greg Burke: Thank you, Holy Father. First of all, thanks. You have chosen two interesting countries to visit. Two very different countries but with something in common, that is, in each of these countries is a small but very active Church, full of joy, full of young people and full of the spirit of service for all of society. We certainly have seen a lot, we have learned a lot, but we’re interested also in what you have seen and what you have learned.

Francis: Good evening, if we think of here, or good afternoon if we think of Rome, and thank you so much for your work… as Greg said, two very interesting countries, with very traditional, deep, rich cultures. For this, I think that your work has been very intense. Thank you so much.

Greg Burke: The first question is from Sagrario Ruiz de Apodarca, from Spanish National Radio.

Sagrario Ruiz (Radio Nacional Espanola): Good evening, Holy Father. Thank you. I’m asking the question in Spanish with the permission of my Italian colleagues because I don’t yet trust my Italian, but if you would answer in Italian, that would be perfect. The crisis of the Rohingya has tempered a large part of this trip. Yesterday, they were called by name finally in Bangladesh. Do you wish you would have done the same in Burma, named them with this word, Rohingya? And, what did you feel yesterday when you asked forgiveness? 
Francis: It’s not the first time. I had said it publicly already in St. Peter’s Square, in an Angelus, in an Audience… and it was already known what I thought about this thing and what I had said. Your question is interesting because it brings me to reflect on how I seek to communicate. For me, the most important thing is that the message arrives and for this I seek to say the things, step by step, and listen to the answers so that the message may arrive. An example in daily life: a boy, a girl in the crisis of adolescence can say what they think but throwing the door in the face of the other… and the message doesn’t arrive. It closes. I was interested that this message would arrive, for this I saw that if in the official speech I would have said that word, I would have thrown the door in a face. But I described it, the situations, the rights, no one excluded, the citizenship, to allow myself in the private conversations to go beyond. I was very, very satisfied with the talks that I was able to have, because it is true that I haven’t, let’s say it this way, had the pleasure throwing the door in a face, publicly, a denouncement, but I did have the satisfaction of dialoguing and letting the other speak and to say my part and in that way the message arrived and to such a point did it arrive that it continued and continued and finished yesterday with that, no? And this is very important in communicating, the concern is that the message arrives. Often, denouncements, also in the media, but I don’t want to offend, with some aggressive (tactics) close the dialogue, close the door and the message doesn’t arrive. And you who are specialists in making messages arrive, also to me, understand this well.

Then, something I heard yesterday… This wasn’t planned like this. I knew that I would meet the Rohingya. I didn’t know where or how, but this was the condition of the trip and they were preparing the ways, and after so much management also from the government, with Caritas… the government allowed this trip, of these who came yesterday. Because the problem for the government who protects them and gives them hospitality - and this is big. What Bangladesh does for them is big, an example of welcoming. A small, poor country that has received 700,000. I think of the countries that close the doors. We must be grateful for the example that they’ve given us - The government must move through the international relations with Burma, with permits, dialogue, because they are in a refugee camp with a special status. But in the end they come scared, they didn’t know. Someone there had told them, “You greet the Pope, don’t say anything,” someone who wasn’t from the government of Bangladesh, people who were working on it. At a certain point after the inter-religious dialogue, the inter-religious prayer, this prepared the hearts of us all. We were very open religiously. I at least felt that way. The moment arrived that they were coming to greet me, in a straight line, and I didn’t like that. One, the other... but then they immediately wanted to send them away from the scene and there I got mad and a chewed them out a bit. I’m a sinner. I told them so many times the word “respect, respect. Stay here.” And they stayed there. Then, having heard them one by one with an interpreter who spoke their language, I began to feel things inside, but (I said to myself) “I cannot let them go without saying a word.” I asked for the microphone. And I began to speak. I don’t remember what I said. I know that at a certain point I asked forgiveness, twice. I don’t remember. Your question is what did I feel. In that moment I cried. I tried not to let it be seen. They cried, too. And then I thought the we were in an inter-religious meeting and the leaders of the other religious traditions were there. “Why don’t you come too?” These were all of our Rohingya. They greeted the Rohingya and I didn’t know what more to say. I watched them. I greeted them. And I thought, all of us have spoken, the religious leaders, but one of you must make a prayer and one who I believe was an Imam or let’s say a “cleric” of their religion, made that prayer. They also prayed there with us, and seeing all that happened and the whole path, I felt that the message had arrived. I don’t know if I satisfied your question but part was planned, but the majority came out spontaneously. Then, I was told that today a program was made by one of you, I don’t know if they’re here or… from the TG1, a really long program, who did it…

Greg Burke: TG1 is still there in Bangladesh. 
Francis: Because it was replayed by TG4 and - I don’t know. I haven’t seen it, but some who are here have seen it - it’s a reflection that the message had arrived not only here. You have seen the front pages of the newspapers today. All have received the message and I haven’t heard any criticism. Maybe they are there but I haven’t heard them.

Ruiz: Thank you.

Greg Burke: The next question is from George Kallivayalil, an Indian who has made the trip for the Deepika Daily.

George Kallivayalil (Deepika Daily): Holy Father, your trip to South Asia was huge success, we know that you wish to go to India, too, in this trip. What exactly was the reason not to visit India in this trip? Indians in India, millions of the faithful still hope that Holy Father visit India next year. Can we expect you to be in India in 2018? 
Francis: The first plan was to go to India and Bangladesh, but then the process to go to India was delayed and the time was pushing so I chose these two countries: Bangladesh and next door Myanmar. And it was providential because to visit India, you need one single trip, because you’ve got to go to the south, the center, the east, the northeast, to the north for the different cultures of India. I hope to do it in 2018 if I’m alive! But the idea was India and Bangladesh, then the time forced us to make this choice. Thanks.

Greg Burke: And now from the French group, Etienne Loraillere of KTO, the French Catholic Television.

Etienne Loraillere (KTO): Holiness, there is a question from the group of journalists from France. Some are opposed to inter-religious dialogue and evangelization. During this trip you have spoken of dialogue for building peace. But, what is the priority? Evangelizing or dialoguing for peace? Because to evangelize means bringing about conversions that provoke tension and sometimes provoke conflicts between believers. So, what is the priority, evangelizing or dialoguing? Thanks. 
Francis: First distinction: evangelizing is not making proselytism. The Church grows not for proselytism but for attraction, that is for testimony, this was said by Pope Benedict XVI. What is evangelization like? Living the Gospel and bearing witness to how one lives the Gospel, witnessing to the Beatitudes, giving testimony to Matthew 25, the Good Samaritan, forgiving 70 times 7 and in this witness the Holy Spirit works and there are conversions, but we are not very enthusiastic to make conversions immediately. If they come, they wait, you speak, your tradition… seeking that a conversion be the answer to something that the Holy Spirit has moved in my heart before the witness of the Christians.

During the lunch I had with the young people at World Youth Day in Krakow, 15 or so young people from the entire world, one of them asked me this question: what do I Have to say to a classmate at the university, a friend, good, but he is atheist… what do I have to say to change him, to convert him? The answer was this: the last thing you have to do is say something. You live your Gospel and if he asks you why you do this, you can explain why you do it. And let the Holy Spirit activate him. This is the strength and the meekness of the Holy Spirit in the conversion. It is not a mental convincing, with apologetics, with reasons, it is the Spirit that makes the vocation. We are witnesses, witnesses of the Gospel. 'Testimony' is a Greek word that means martyr. Every day martyrdom, martyrdom also of blood, when it arrives. And your question: what is the priority, peace or conversion? But when you live with testimony and respect, you make peace. Peace starts to break down in this field when proselytism begins and there are so many ways of proselytism and this is not the Gospel. I don’t know if I answered.

Greg Burke: Thank you, Holiness. And now the Anglophone group. Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter.

Joshua McElwee (National Catholic Reporter): Thanks so much, Holiness. A change of theme. During the Cold War, Pope Saint John Paul II said that the world policy of nuclear deterrence was judged as morally acceptable. Last month, you said to a conference on disarmament that the very possession of nuclear arms was to be condemned. What has changed in the world that led you to make this change? What role have the episodes and the threats between President Trump and Kim Jong Un had on your decision? What would you say to politicians that do not want to renounce their nuclear arsenals nor decrease them? 
Francis: I would prefer if the questions on the trip were done first, I say this to everyone, but I'll make an exception because you asked a question. Now we'll do the questions on the trip, then I'll say something about the trip, and then the other questions will come. What has changed? Irrationality has changed (has increased). The encyclical Laudato Si comes to mind, the care of the created, of creation, from the time of John Paul II to all this many years have passed. How many? Do you have the date? (82) 82, 92, 2002, 2012...34 years. In the nuclear field, in 34 years it has gone beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, and today we are at the limit. This can be a matter for discussion, it's my opinion, but I am convinced of my opinion: we are at the limit of liceity to have and use nuclear arms. Because today, with the nuclear arsenal so sophisticated, we risk the destruction of humanity or at least a great part (of it). This with Laudato Si.

What has changed? This: the growth in nuclear armament, it has also changed in that they are sophisticated and even cruel, they are also capable of destroying people, leaving...without touching structures, but we are at the limit, and because we are at the limit I ask myself this question: and this not as a pontifical magisterium, but it is the question a Pope makes. Today is it licit to maintain the arsenal of nuclear weapons as they are, or today, to save creation, to save humanity, is it not necessary to go backward? I go back to something I had said from Guarini, it's not mine, (but) there are two forms of culture:

First, the inculturation that God has given us, to create the culture through work, through investigation. We think of medical science, so much progress, so much culture, so many mechanical things. And man has the mission to create the culture received by the inculturation, but we arrive at a point where man has in hand with this culture the capacity to make another "inculturation," we think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This 60/70 years ago, the destruction and also this happened when also atomic energy can not have all the control. Think of the incidents in Ukraine. For this returning to arms, that are to conquer and destroy, I say we are at the limit of liceity.

Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Now they have given me the signal that the questions that we have about the trip are others. So, if you’d like to say something about the trip… 
Francis: I would like some more about the trip, because (otherwise) it would seem that the trip wasn’t that interesting.

Greg Burke: (Come, come) We’ve found another about the trip. Come now, Delia Gallagher of CNN.

Delia Gallagher (CNN): Holiness, I don’t know how much you’d like to respond, but I’m very curious about your meeting with General Haling because I’ve learned a lot about this situation being here and I’ve understood that, well, apart from Aung San Suu Kyi, there is also this military man that is very important in the crisis and you have met him in person. What type of meeting was it? How are you able to speak with him? Thanks. 
Francis: Clever the question… eh.. good, good. But I would distinguish between the two meetings, two types of meetings. Those meetings during which I went to meet people and those in which I received people. This general asked me to speak. And I received him. I never close the door. You ask to speak and enter. Speaking you never lose anything, you always win. It was a beautiful conversation. I couldn’t say because it was private, but I didn’t negotiate the truth. But I did it in a way that he understood a bit that the path as it was during the nasty times renewed again today isn’t viable. It was a good meeting, civilized and also there the message arrived.

Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. I think that Gerard O’Connell.

Gerard O’Connell (America Magazine): Mine is a bit of a development of the questions from Delia. You met Aung San Suu Kyi, the president, the military, the monk who makes a bit of difficulty and then in Bangladesh you met the prime minister, the president, the Islamic leaders there and the Buddhist leaders in Myanmar. My question: what do you take away from all of these meetings? What prospects are there for the future of a better development in these two countries, in the situation also of the Rohingya? 
Francis: It won’t be easy to move ahead in a constructive development and it will not be easy for someone who wishes to go back. We are at a point where they have to study things. Someone - I don’t know if this is true - has said that the Rakhine state is one of the richest in precious stones and that possibly there are interests, being a land a little without people to work… but I don’t know if it’s true. These are just hypotheses that are said, also about Africa they say so many… but I believe that we are at a point where it won’t be easy to go ahead in the positive sense and it won’t be easy to go back, because of the awareness of humanity today… the fact of the return of the Rohingya, which the United Nations have said that the Rohingya are the most persecuted religious and ethnic minority in the world today. Well, this is a point that whomever has to go back must do so quickly. We are at a point there… that that dialogue… beginning with a step, another step, maybe a half step back and two ahead, but as human things are done, with benevolence, dialogue, never with violation, never with war. It isn’t easy. But is a turning-point. Is this turning-point being done for the good? Or is this a turning-point to go back? But yes, I don’t lose hope! But why? Sincerely, if the Lord has allowed this that we’ve seen yesterday, that we’ve experienced in a very reserved way, except for two speeches… the Lord promises something to promise another. I have Christian hope. And it’s known….

Greg Burke: Something yet about the trip? Valentina.

Valentina Alazraki (Televisa): On the trip, a question that we wished to asked before and then it didn’t go. We would like to know: a Pope that speaks about asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants every day… did you want to go to a Rohingya refugee camp? And why didn’t you go? 
Francis: I would have liked to go. I would have liked to go, but it wasn’t possible. The things are studied and it wasn’t possible for various factors, also the timing and the distance… but other factors as well. The refugee camp came with a representation, but I would have liked to, that is true. But it wasn’t possible.

Greg Burke: Enzo?

Enzo Romeo (TG2): Holiness, thank you. I would like to ask you two things quickly. One is on globalization: we’ve seen especially in Bangladesh, and it is a reason for the question tied to the trip, that the nation is trying to get out of poverty but with systems that seem for us quite tough. We saw the Rana Square, the place where the building that was used for industrial textiles fell. 1100 people dead. 5,000 wounded. For 60 Euros per day they worked and in our restaurant to eat a plat of pasta and a pizza cost 50 Euro. No this seems incredible, right? In your opinion, from what you have seen and what you have heard, is it possible to get out of this mechanism? And then another thing is this that we’ve all thought: on the issue of the Rohingya, it seemed that there was also the will to intervene by jihadist groups (Al Qaida, ISIS) who right away, it appears, tried to make themselves the tutors of this people, of the freedom of this people. It’s interesting that the head of Christendom has shown himself more a friend in some way than these extremist groups. Is this sensation right? 
Francis: I’ll go from the second. There were groups of terrorists there who sought to take advantage of the situation of the Rohingya, who are a people of peace. This is like all the ethnicities, in all the religions there is always a fundamentalist group. We Catholics also have them. The military justify their intervention because of these groups. I try not to speak with these people. I try to speak with the victims, because the victims were the Rohingya people who on the one hand suffered that discrimination and on the other were defended by terrorists - and the government of Bangladesh has a very strong campaign, this is what I was told by ministers, of zero tolerance for terrorism not only for this, but to avoid other points - But these who are enrolled in ISIS are not Rohingya, but a fundamentalist, extremist, little group. But these make the ministers justify the intervention that has destroyed the good and the bad.

Greg Burke: Globalization, the first question…

Enzo Romeo: Bangladesh is seeking to go out from globalization, but at a very high price with the people exploited for little money. 
Francis: It’s one of the most serious problems. I’ve spoken about this in the private meetings. They are conscious of this. They are also conscious that liberty up until a certain point is conditioned, not only by the military, but also by the big international trusts and they have put focus on education and I believe that it has been a wise choice. And there are plans for education. They’ve shown me the percentages for the last years of how illiteracy has decreased. Quite a bit. And this is their choice, and I hope it goes well. The believe that with education the nation will go ahead.

Greg Burke: Thank you, Holiness. Jean Marie Guenois from Le Figaro.

Jean Marie Guenois (Le Figaro): So, today Burma is the nation from which you come… before this you went to Korea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka. It gives the impression that you are going around China. So, two questions on China: is a trip to China being prepared? And, second question, what have you learned from this trip of the Asian mentality and also in light of this project from China? What is the Asian lesson for you? 
Francis: Today, the lady chancellor of the State of Burma has gone to Beijing. It can be seen that they are in dialogue there. Beijing has a great influence on the region, it is natural. I don’t know how many kilometers of border Burma has with (China)... also at the Masses there were Chinese who had come and I believe that these countries that surround it, China, also Laos, Cambodia, have a need for good relations. They are close and I see as wise, politically constructive, it can move ahead. It is true that China today is a world power. If we see it from this side it can change the picture, but it will be the political experts to explain it. I can’t and I don’t know. It seems natural that they would have good relations.

The trip to China is not being prepared. Be calm. For the moment, it is not being prepared. But, returning from Korea, when they told me that we were flying over Chinese territory, I wanted to say something: I would so much like to visit China. I would like to. It is not a hidden thing. The negotiations with China are at a high level, cultural. Today, for example, in these days there’s an exhibition of the Vatican Museums there. Then, there will be one or there has been one, I don’t know, of the Chinese museums in the Vatican. There are cultural, scientific relations, professors, priests who teach in Chinese state universities. Then, it’s mostly political dialogue for the Chinese Church, with that issue of the Patriotic Church, the underground church, which must go step by step delicately, as it is doing, slowly… I believe that in these days, today, tomorrow a sitting will start in Beijing of the mixed commission. Patience is needed. But the doors of the heart are open. And I believe that a trip to China will do well. I would like to do it.

Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Now a question more or less about the trip, if we remain on the trip. ABC News.

James Longman (ABC): My apologies, I don’t speak any Italian. Thank you very much for having me on your-- I just want to ask if you have seen how much criticism Aung San Suu Kyi, and if you think that she received not having spoken enough about the Rohingya is fair. 
Francis: I heard all that, I heard the critics, also I heard the criticism of not being brought to the province of Rakhine, then you went a half day, more or less. But in Myanmar it is difficult to evaluate a criticism without asking, was it possible to do this? Or how will be possible to do this? In this I don’t want to say that it was a mistake to go or not to go. But in Myanmar the political situation… is a growing nation, politically in growth, and a nation in transition, (made up) of so many cultural values, in history, but politically it is in transition and because of this the possibilities should be evaluated also from this view. In this moment of transition would it have been possible or not to do this or that other (thing)? And to see if it was a mistake or it was not possible? Not only for the State’s Chancellor, but also for the president, for the deputies, the parliament. In Myanmar, you always have to have the construction of the country in front (of you), and from there you take, as I said at the beginning, two steps forward, one back, two forward, two back…History teaches us this. I do not know how to respond in another way, (this is) the little knowledge that I have on this place and I would not want to fall into what that Argentinian philosopher did who was invited to give conferences to countries in Asia one week and when he returned he wrote a book on the reality of that country. This is presumptuous.

Greg Burke: Thank you, Holiness! On the trip, Pullella.

Phil Pullella (Reuters): Yes, I would like to return to the trip if it’s possible. The meeting with the general was originally scheduled for Thursday morning. Instead you had to first meet Aung San Suu Kyi. When the general asked to see you first, the day of your arrival, it was a way of saying: I am in charge here, you have to see me that moment did you feel that he or they wanted to manipulate you? 
Francis: The request was because he had to travel to China. If these things happen in every case, if I can move an appointment I do it...I don’t know the intentions, but I was interested in dialogue. A dialogue asked for by them and which they came to, it wasn’t scheduled in my visit. And I think that the most important’s clear that the suspicion is exactly what you said: we are in charge here, we are the first.

Pullella: Can I ask if -- you said that you cannot tell what is said in private encounters, but can I ask you if during that encounter you used the word Rohingya, with the general? 
Francis: I used the words to get to the message and when I saw that the message was accepted, I dared to say everything I wanted to say. ‘Intelligenti pauca’ (Editors note: this refers to a Latin phrase meaning “few words are enough for the one who understands”).

Greg Burke: Thank you, Your Holiness. 
Francis: The lady asked me first. It’s the last.

Alicia Romay (Gestiona Radio): Good evening Holiness! For my part I have a question because yesterday when we were with the priests who were ordained, I thought about whether they are afraid to be Catholic priests at this time because of the Catholic life in the country, and whether they had asked you, Your Holiness, what can they do when fear arrives and they don’t know what to do? 
Francis: It’s your first trip, eh, you are the friend of Valentina. I always have the habit that five minutes before the ordination, I speak with them in private. And to me they seemed calm, serene, aware. They were aware of their mission. Normal, normal. A question that I asked them: do you play soccer? Yes, all of them. It’s important. A theological question. But I didn’t perceive that fear. They know that they must be close, close to their people, that yes, they feel attached to the people and I liked this. Then I spoke with the formators. Some bishops told me, before entering the seminary, that they make the presbytery so that they learn many things, and they also learn perfect English, to say something practical. They know English and they start seminary. I learned that ordination doesn’t happen at 23-24, but at 28-29...they seem like children, because they all seem so young, all of them, even the older ones...but I saw them secure. What they had...close to their people. And they care a lot. Because each one of them comes from an ethnicity and this...

I thank you, because they tell me that it’s past time. I thank you for the questions and for all that you have done. And what does the Pope think about the trip: to me the trip does me well when I am able to meet the people of the country, the People of God, when I am able to speak, to meet with them and greet them, the encounters with the people. We have spoken about the encounters with the politicians. Yes, it’s true, it must be done, with the priests, with the bishops...but with the people, this...the people, the people who are truly the depth of a country. When I find this, when I am able to find it I am happy. I thank you for your help. And thanks also for the questions and the things that I learned from your questions.

Thanks, and have a good dinner.

 We are surprised no one asked him about this incident!

Aleksandr Dugin

(click image to enlarge)

Who is Alexander Dugin?  Is he Putin’s brain, Putin’s court-satanist, or simply an agent of chaos?  While we do not agree with everything said or written by Sean Jobst, this video is good as a basic introduction to the subject.  Topics covered include;
Dugin’s connections to:
  • the oligarchs
  • Israel
  • the alt-right (Matt Heimbach, Richard Spencer, Nina Kouprianova) & the Charlottsville’s protest
  • Zionism
  • Avigdor Eskin
  • the kabbalah
  • Aleister Crowley
  • Freemasonry
  • Talmudic Judaism
  • René Guénon
  • the occult
  • separatist movements world-wide
Dugin’s thoughts on:
  • Roman Catholicism
  • Eurasia (Soviet Union 2.0 with Judeomasonic British ‘Israel’ Eurasian ethos supplementing communism)
  • chaos

Saturday Night Trad: Sean Jobst on the Errors of Duginism

BONUS: An Alexander Dugin Primer

Friday, December 1, 2017

More video messages! the participants in the International Symposium 
Laudato si’- The care of the ‘common home’

For video transcript in Italian & Spanish (click here)

I greet all of you who are participating in this Symposium organized by the Catholic University of Costa Rica with the collaboration of the Ratzinger Foundation. I thank the President of the Republic for the support given to this initiative, which promotes a cause close to my heart.
With the Encyclical Laudato si’, I drew the attention of humanity and the Church to the most urgent questions relating to the care of our common home and the present and future of the peoples who inhabit it. The problems of the destruction of the natural environment are increasingly grave and the consequences on the lives of people are dramatic.
To face these, we need to have a broader vision of the causes, the nature of the crisis and its various aspects. No, a negationist attitude in the face of this world problem is not legitimate. It is essential for there to be collaboration among scientists, sociologists, economists and politicians, as well as educators and formers of consciences. Without a true conversion of our attitudes and our everyday behavior, technical solutions will not save our home.
As Pope Benedict XVI said, a “human ecology” is needed, placing at the center the full development of the person and appealing to his or her responsibility for the common good, for the respect and good administration of the creatures God has entrusted to us.
I hope with all my heart that this Symposium will provide a strong impetus for collaboration between the Catholic Universities – in particular in Latin America and in the Caribbean – for the study of these problems, the development of the situation and possible solutions; and also to suggest concrete proposals, to inspire greater responsibility for the care of our common home, not only by individuals by also in political, social and ecclesial communities, and finally, in families.
There is a need for solidarity and for efforts by all. The Encyclical Laudato si’ is an appeal to each and every one of us. There is a need for collaboration by everyone, in order to receive the message of Laudato si’ and translate it into real life, for the good and the future of the human family.
source: ZENIT, Pope Affirms Need to Care for Our Common Home the participants in the Conference on 
lay Catholics engaged in politics

For video transcript in Italian & Spanish (click here)

Good morning! First of all, I want to greet and thank the political leaders that accepted the invitation to take part in an event that I myself encouraged from its genesis: “The Meeting of Catholic Laymen that Assume Political Responsibilities at the Service of the Peoples of Latin America.” I also greet the Lord Cardinals and Bishops that are accompanying you, with whom you will surely have a very profitable dialogue for all.
Since Pope Pius XII and up to now, successive Pontiffs have always referred to politics as a “high form of charity.” It could also be translated as an inestimable service of dedication for the achievement of the common good of society. Politics is, first of all, a service. It is not the slave of individual ambitions, of the arrogance of factions or <interest groups>. As service, it is not either a master that pretends to rule all the dimensions of people’s lives, including falling into forms of autocracy and totalitarianism. And when I speak of autocracy and totalitarianism I’m not talking about the last century, I’m speaking of today, in today’s world, and perhaps, also, of some country of Latin America. It could be affirmed that Jesus’ service – who came to serve and not to be served — and the service that the Lord exacts from His Apostles and disciples is analogically the type of service that is asked of politicians. It’s a service of sacrifice and dedication, to such a point that at times politicians can be considered as “martyrs” of causes for the common good of their nations.
The fundamental reference of this service, which requires constancy, commitment and intelligence, is the common good, without which the rights and the most noble aspirations of people, of families and of intermediary groups, in general, would not be able to be fully fulfilled, because the ordered and civil space in which to live and operate would be lacking. It is about conceiving the common good as an atmosphere for the growth of the person, of the family, of the intermediary groups — the common good. Vatican Council II defined the common good according to the patrimony of the Social Doctrine of the Church, as “the whole of those conditions of social life with which men, families, and associations can attain their perfection with great fullness and facility” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 74). Clearly, one must not oppose service and power — no one wants an impotent power! However, power must be ordered to service so that it does not degenerate. That is, any power that is not ordered to service degenerates. I’m referring, of course, to “good politics,” in its noblest sense, and not to the degeneration of what we call “politicking.” “The best way to attain a genuinely human politics – once again the Council teaches — is to foment an interior sense of justice, of benevolence, and of service to the common good and to strengthen fundamental convictions regarding the true nature of the political community and, finally, the correct exercise and limits of public powers” (Ibid., n. 73). You must all have the certainty that the Catholic Church “praises and esteems the work of those who, at the service of man, dedicate themselves to the res publicaand accept the burdens of this office” (Ibid., n. 75).
At the same time, I’m also certain that we all feel the need to rehabilitate the dignity of politics. Referring to Latin America, how can one not observe the popular discredit that all political entities are suffering; the crisis of the political parties; the absence of lofty political debates geared to national and Latin American projects and strategies, which go beyond sabotaged policies! Moreover, frequently open and respectful dialogue, which seeks possible convergence, is often substituted by those stormy mutual accusations and demagogic relapses.  Lacking also is formation and replacement by new political generations. That’s why people look from afar and criticize politicians and see them as a corporation of professionals that have their own interests, or denounce them angrily, sometimes without the necessary distinctions, as tainted with corruption. This has nothing to do with the necessary and positive participation of the peoples, passionate about their life and destiny, which the political scene of nations should encourage. What is clear is that they need political leaders that live passionately their service to peoples, that vibrate with the profound fibers of their ethos and culture, solidary with their sufferings and hopes; politicians that put the common good before their private interests, that don’t let themselves be intimidated by the great financial and media powers, that are competent and patient in face of complex problems, that are open to listening and to learning in a democratic dialogue, that combine the quest for justice with mercy and reconciliation. Let us not be content with the meagreness of politics: we need political leaders capable of mobilizing vast popular sectors in pursuit of great national and Latin American objectives. I know personally Latin American political leaders with a different political orientation, who come close to this ideal figure.
How much we need today “good and noble politics” and its protagonists in Latin America! Do we not have to address problems and challenges of great magnitude? First of all, we need protection of the gift of life in all its stages and manifestations. Latin America also needs industrial, technological, self-sustaining and sustainable growth together with policies that address the drama of poverty and that are geared to equity and inclusion, because there is no true development, which leaves multitudes helpless and continues to fuel scandalous social inequality. An integral education cannot be neglected, which begins in the family and is developed in schooling for all and of quality. The family and social fabric must be strengthened. A culture of encounter – and not of permanent antagonisms – must strengthen the fundamental bonds of humanity and sociability and lay strong foundations for social friendship, which leaves behind the pincers of individualism and massification, polarization and manipulation. We must point ourselves to mature, participatory democracies without blemishes of corruption, or of ideological colonizations, or autocratic pretensions and cheap demagogies. Let us look after our common home and its most vulnerable inhabitants, avoiding all sorts of suicidal indifference and unbridled exploitations. Let us raise very high again and very concretely the need for the economic, social, cultural and political integration of our brother nations, to build our Continent, which will be even greater when it incorporates “all races,” completing their miscegenation, and be a paradigm of respect for human rights, of peace and of justice. We cannot resign ourselves to the deteriorated situation in which we frequently find ourselves today.
I would like to take one more step in this reflection. In his address in Aparecida for the opening of the 5th General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, Pope Benedict XVI pointed out “the notable absence in the political realm […] of voices and initiatives of Catholic leaders of strong personality and abnegated vocation, which are coherent with their ethical and religious convictions.” And the Bishops of the whole Continent wished to incorporate this observation in the conclusions of Aparecida., speaking of “disciples and missionaries in public life” (n. 502). In truth, in a Continent with a great number of baptized in the Catholic Church, of Catholic cultural substratum, in which the Catholic tradition is still very actual in the peoples and in which great manifestations of popular piety abound, how is it possible that Catholics appear somewhat irrelevant in the political scene, even assimilated to a worldly logic? It’s true that there are testimonies of exemplary Catholics in the public scene, but one notes the absence of strong currents that open the way to the Gospel in the public life of the nations. And this doesn’t mean at all to engage in proselytism through politics. There are many who profess to be Catholics — and we are not allowed to judge their consciences but yes their acts –, which often manifest little coherence with the ethical and religious convictions proper of Catholic teaching. We don’t know what’s going on in their conscience, we cannot judge it, but we see their acts.  There are others who are so absorbed in living their political commitments that their faith is relegated to a second plane, impoverishing themselves, without the capacity to be a guiding principle and to leave their footprint in all the dimensions of a person’s life, including his political practice. And there is no lack of those who feel they are not recognized, encouraged, accompanied and sustained in the custody and growth of their faith, on the part of Pastors and Christian communities. In the end, the Christian contribution to the political event appears only through the statements of the Episcopates, without perceiving the peculiar mission of the Catholic laity to order, manage and transform the society, according to the evangelical criteria and the patrimony of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Hence, I wanted to choose, as the theme of the previous Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, the theme: “The Indispensable Commitment of the Catholic Laity in the Public Scene of the Latin American Countries” (March 1-4, 2017).  And on March 13, I sent a letter to the President of that Commission, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in which I warned once again about the risk of clericalism and posed the question: “What does it mean for us Pastors that the laity work in public life?” ‘It means to look for the way to be able to encourage, accompany and stimulate the attempts, efforts that are already made today to maintain hope and faith alive in a world of contradictions, especially for the poorest. It means for us, Pastors, to commit ourselves in the midst of our people and, with our people, to sustain the faith and their hope, opening doors, working with them, dreaming with them, reflecting and especially praying with them. We need to recognize the city — and therefore all areas where the life of our people unfolds — from a contemplative look, a look of faith that discovers the God that dwells in their homes, in their streets, in their Squares.”
And, on the contrary, “we have often fallen into the temptation of thinking that the so-called “committed layman” is one who works in the endeavours of the Church and/or in the things of the parish or of the diocese and we have reflected little on the way to accompany a baptized person in his public and daily life, and how he commits himself as a Christian in public life. Without realizing it, we have generated a lay elite, believing that, only those that work in the things “of priests” are “committed laymen, and we have forgotten, neglected the believer that often burns his hope in the daily struggle to live his faith. These are the situations that clericalism can’t see, as it is very concerned with controlling areas more than with generating processes. Therefore, we must recognize that the layman, because of his own reality; because of his own identity; because he is immersed in the heart of social, public and political life; because he is in the midst of new cultural ways that are continually gestated needs new forms of organization and celebration of the faith.”
It’s necessary that Catholic laymen be not indifferent to the res publica, or withdraw inside the churches, or expect ecclesiastical directives and orders to fight for justice, for more human ways of life for all. “It’s never the Pastor who tells the layman what he must do or say; laymen know it better than we do . . . It’s not the Pastor who must determine what the faithful must say in the different ambits. As Pastors, united to our people, it does us good to ask ourselves how we are stimulating and promoting charity and fraternity, the desire for the good, and for truth an justice. What are we doing so that corruption won’t nest in our hearts,” including in our hearts as Pastors.  And, at the same time, it does us good to listen very carefully to the experience, reflections, and anxieties that laymen can share with us, who live their faith in the different realms of social and political life.
Your sincere dialogue in this Meeting is very important. Speak freely. It must be a dialogue that is between Catholics, Prelates and politicians, in which communion between persons of the same faith is more determinant than the legitimate oppositions of political options. For some reason and for something we take part in the Eucharist, source, and summit of all communion. From your dialogue illuminating factors can be drawn, orienting factors for the Church’s mission at present. Thank you again and good work!
source: ZENIT, Pope: Politics is a Service