Thank you Dolorus for putting this all together for me. Im getting the picture now. I guess it was naieve for me to think/ believe that the election of a Pope was more spiritual than political. What I am not surprised about at all is the soros connection especially in light of PF's political views. No wonder the liberals love him. I would love to hold to the belief that we can wait him out.....but, if he changes the liturgy into a Protestant "service" then I cannot see how we can ignore a move like that. Just trying to sort this out, but it seems that it gets worse daily. One thing for sure, I'm learning the political operation of the Vatican. There was a time when you could trust that they were always going to do the right thing, but that's history. I had my eyes open to their shenanigans by Fr. M Martin. His reference to Vatican operations go back to the late fifties and sixties. They are heart breaking. And had I not witnessed that exact behaviour in my own diocese,I might have though his accounts exaggerated for literary purposes....but everyday, we are having to face that the ugly truth of evil and corruption that reign in the church. Fr. Martin said that the Catholic Church as a organization is totally lost....that is not to be inturpreted as having anything to do with the faith. We are the one true faith....and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I also believe that the basis for the collapse of the Vatican integerty is related to the third secret of Fatima. There is too much out there on this to dismiss it. ...IMHO.
First of all I am so sorry to hear you and Dolours have The Cold. It is an appropriately horrible virus for the Annus Horribilis that this year is shaping up to be. And I do pray your knees are aching because of the virus and not because of arthritis. (I have so many friends who have gone through knee replacements. I earnestly hope to avoid this but who knows) Next, just want to say that I can imagine how wonderful it is to discuss this with friends and find out that they too are discerning the darkness that grows day by day. Again, we can pray that God's will be done and the Bride of Christ be rescued and the Reign of the Immaculate Heart comes swiftly. We must pray!!! I spent last night listening to some you tubes on the third secret of Fatima put out by Fr. Gruner's people. Very interesting, disturbing, informative, and prayer inducing. Of course Malachi Martin was very frequently quoted or actually listened to as they clipped some of his interviews. Fr. Gruner emphasized the danger of apostasy for every Catholic if these days aren't shortened but he reminded everyone that the Blessed Mother has promised that if we pray the Rosary daily with devotion she will protect us and get us safely through the storm. I knew it, but it was nice to hear it anyway. It does seem as if all the poisons lurking in the mud are coming out! Sed libera nos a malo.
First of all I am so sorry to hear you and Dolours have The Cold. It is an appropriately horrible virus for the Annus Horribilis that this year is shaping up to be. And I do pray your knees are aching because of the virus and not because of arthritis. (I have so many friends who have gone through knee replacements. I earnestly hope to avoid this but who knows) Next, just want to say that I can imagine how wonderful it is to discuss this with friends and find out that they too are discerning the darkness that grows day by day. Again, we can pray that God's will be done and the Bride of Christ be rescued and the Reign of the Immaculate Heart comes swiftly. We must pray!!! I spent last night listening to some you tubes on the third secret of Fatima put out by Fr. Gruner's people. Very interesting, disturbing, informative, and prayer inducing. Of course Malachi Martin was very frequently quoted or actually listened to as they clipped some of his interviews. Fr. Gruner emphasized the danger of apostasy for every Catholic if these days aren't shortened but he reminded everyone that the Blessed Mother has promised that if we pray the Rosary daily with devotion she will protect us and get us safely through the storm. I knew it, but it was nice to hear it anyway. It does seem as if all the poisons lurking in the mud are coming out! Sed libera nos a malo.
Yes AED, I discovered Fr.Martin over three...maybe four years ago. I've listened to almost everything I could find from him( videos) . I think he was spot on with everything except his timeline. I find myself going back to these videos and listening to them again.....they are very eye opening. I have no trouble believing that what he conveys about the Vatican and problems within it, as I have seen this exact pattern my entire life within my own diocese....maybe worse! I also agree that our weapon is the rosary! It will bring the triumph of the immaculate heart of Mary and as you said, it will be our weapon to keep us from falling into the apostasy ourselves. As I have been reading from numerous sources, that even the truly faithful are in danger of losing the faith....but it won't happen if we pray our rosary daily. We have no worry. Praying that it's graces extend to our families!
St. Peter Damian was the saint who abhorred homosexuality and wrote a good many pieces against it and why it is an abomination. Also, I know this is not the health thread, but do a little research on transdermal magnesium oil. I have ordered some for spinal issues. I heard about it on this thread from Amazing Grace. In my knees I have gotten the orthovisc shots. They are very good for knees that have bone on bone arthritis...they provide some hyaluronic acid which acts as a lubricant and causes the body to produce more lubricant....as our knees age sigh
My personal belief is that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis was spiritual and of the highest order. Many may be unaware because strangely it didn't get covered much, but Pope Benedict said he decided to retire because he had a very mystical experience and he felt it was God's will. This was no normal decision to leave the papal office because of age. He felt Divinely directed to do so. Remember God can "allow" all sorts of things. He is going to allow a great Chastisement to befall us. Though these things are being done by men they are also a means God can use for His own ends. Men cannot out think God. If we think that a group of men could scheme to put a man in the most important office in His Church without God allowing it we are mistaken. For good or ill this is a part of God's plan. God may have had a different plan if men had repented 50 or 75 years ago, but that didn't happen so now we face a Chastisement. I think this is key! Pray the Rosary. Pray it more and more as things worsen. In one of Fr. Martin's interviews he said something along the lines that the delusion that may befall the world may be so strong it could ruin even those of deep faith and we may not even realize it. He said he considered himself strong in faith but he worried that this could happen even to him and he saw things very clearly even 30 years ago. This is not a direct quote but I know it is something similar.
I had not heard this before... My personal belief is that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis was spiritual and of the highest order. Many may be unaware because strangely it didn't get covered much, but Pope Benedict said he decided to retire because he had a very mystical experience and he felt it was God's will. This was no normal decision to leave the papal office because of age. He felt Divinely directed to do so.
Pope Benedict nearly lost his election to Cardinal Bergolio's via his friends in the Vatican. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps Pope Francis was supposed to be elected instead of Pope Benedict, but at the bequest of the Blessed Mother to God, He delayed his punishment and we were given Pope Benedict as one more chance to repent (more than a few prophecies have stated that the Blessed Mother's plea was able to delay God's justice). No one knows what Pope Benedict was given, but perhaps he was told it was his time to step down and let the purification of God's house begin.
I am sorry Beth (and everyone else) please disregard my statement in post #66 above that stated Pope Benedict XVI resigned due to a mystical experience. Apparently this was a false story that was widely circulated. It's funny because I had looked this up on several occasions, but only now am I seeing the articles that state this was a false story. My apologies. In any case the rest of my post is still valid. No group of men can out-plot God and put a man in the office of Pope that God is not allowing to be there.
Oh don't worry about it Pratorian, we all get taken now and then on the Internet. It's so hard sometimes to know what you can trust. They can make it pretty convincing.
That same though occurred to me. Actually, I though that if he did see the third secret of Fatima.....and we know he did, that maybe he choose to resign when he did because of its content. No one knows for sure what was in the third secret, but if it involved something very negative about the pope, he resigned because he knew it was intended for his successor....not him.
In the Light of the Law A Canon Lawyer's Blog A small but important point is at risk {NB: This post has some unusual formatting.} The debates over admission of divorced-and-remarried Catholics to holy Communion in the wake of Amoris have focused almost exclusively on what is just one canonical problem: the public reception of holy Communion by public sinners. But there are other, canonically distinct, manners of receiving Communion and other, canonically distinct, types of would-be, if problematic, communicants. These lesser known scenarios are, however, at risk of being forgotten in the debates concerning public reception of Communion by public sinners, even though these lesser known rules might shed some light on some issues raised by Amoris. At its most basic, the canonical tradition recognizes two types of sinners (private and public) and two types of Communion distribution (private and public). Based on what canon law means by terms such as “public”, “private”, “sinner”, and so on, the rules here are: SINNER......REQUEST ........ MINISTER Private ......... Private .......... Refuses per Canon 843 Private........... Public........... Admits per Canon 915 Public........... Private ............ Refuses per Canon 843 Public............ Public ............ Refuses per Canon 915 What might impede understanding of this simple construct is: (1) ‘private Communion’ (not “spiritual Communion”!) has all but disappeared from devotional life and so, today, the vast majority of receptions of holy Communion are ‘public’, meaning that most faithful have no idea that the rules for ‘private Communion’ even exist, let alone that they might differ from the rules for public administration of the sacrament; and, (2) canon law does not regard most would-be communicants as ‘sinners’ in the first place (whether public or private), so most faithful have little or no experience of actually seeing someone not being admitted to holy Communion. In any case, we must be clear: public sinners (as the Church has always regarded divorced-and-remarried Catholics) requesting private holy Communion are always to be turned away. Consider, even: “Occult sinners who approach the Sacrament privately and are known, by the minister, to be unrepentant must be excluded from this Sacrament…” Davis, Moral and Pastoral III: 206; “Secret sinners who privately request Communion are to be refused if the priest knows that they have not repented….” Halligan, Administration 110. See also, e.g., Abbo & Hannan, Sacred Canons I: 854, and Dom Augustine, Commentary IV: 229. Note a key point about private and public sinners insofar as admission to ‘private Communion’ is concerned: a minister’s personal conclusion that an individual has unrepented grave matter on his/her conscience suffices for withholding the sacrament requested privately! That point alone helps us understand why Canon 915, which operates in the face of public sin actually increases the number of faithful eligible for holy Communion within the norms governing any reception of holy Communion. The above being understood, now, one may ask, especially of those offering the most extreme interpretations of Amoris (e.g., the Maltese), do they, in line with (as far as I can tell, an exceptionless) canonical interpretation, support the withholding of holy Communion from public sinners who might, however rarely, ask for that sacrament privately? If not, why not? Or is this small but important line of thought, too, simply being abandoned in the wake of Amoris? I am a lawyer, not a mind-reader Cardinal Vincent Nichols’ echoing of claims that Amoris laetitia changed no doctrines occasioned a question for me: Am I the only (or among the few) Amoris critics who agrees with Amoris defenders that Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris? I do not think that Francis changed any doctrines in Amoris (or even purported to change any doctrines—assuming a pope could have changed doctrines this way, which I would dispute) and thus I regard the kind of correctives routinely offered by Nichols, et al., as superfluous. But I’ll go a step further: I do not think that Francis changed any disciplines in Amoris (or even purported to change any disciplines—assuming a pope could have changed disciplines this way, which I would also dispute, though less vigorously than above). In short, I hold that the few who claim Francis changed doctrine via Amoris, and the many who claim that he changed disciplines therein, are wrong. That said, though, I still regard Amoris (or at least its eighth chapter) as seriously flawed, not because of doctrinal changes it never attempted and not because of disciplinary changes it never effected, but because of the ambiguity and incompleteness with which it discusses certain key, doctrinal and/or disciplinary factors that go into making real world, concrete, Yes-you-can or No-you-can’t decisions regarding Penance and holy Communion. All of this I have discussed many, many times. As for why the pope (assuming my characterization of his document is correct) chose to write ambiguously and/or incompletely about these factors, I do not know. I am a lawyer reading texts, not a mind-reader divining motives, and the lawyer in me has concluded that: (1) no doctrines are changed in Amoris; (2) no disciplinary norms are changed in Amoris; but (3) several factors vital to considering requests for and administration of sacraments are ambiguously and/or incompletely presented in Amoris. Even this much, though, prompts some additional conclusions, including: (1) all of the canons governing sacramental administration, notably Canon 915, remain in full force; (2) the Maltese, the Germans, and Cdl. Coccopalmerio (but, I say again, not the Argentinians, not quite) go well beyond what the pope actually wrote in Amoris, though some of his phrasings in Amoris frustrates one’s appealing to it as a corrective; and, (3) bishops such as Chaput and the Western Canadians can also invoke Amoris to justify their sacramental polices even though their policies are the polar opposite of those being pushed by the Maltese et al. That is why I say that Amoris, a papal document so framed that it really can be plausibly invoked by diametrically opposed schools of sacramental practice, is itself what’s flawed and is itself what must be addressed. more... https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/
This is one of the best articles I have read. If you know anyone who is struggling with divorce and remarriage have them read this. I have spoken about Pope Francis and liberal bishops and priests advocating the corporal works or mercy, but not the spiritual works of mercy. This article touches on this point that is so critical. Amoris Laetitia: Circumventing Church Teaching on the Indissolubility of Marriage By Jason Izolt 3/7/2017 11:00:10 AM Photo Credit: Flickr/Christine und Hagen Graf Anyone who pays even a little bit of attention to Catholic news is well aware of the controversy that continues to grow out of the promulgation of Pope Francis’ Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. For those who have been living under a rock (or do not pay attention to Catholic news), Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’ response to the Synod on the Family. One of the main points of contention during the Synod was how to handle Catholics who have been divorced AND civilly remarried without a declaration of nullity and regularization of their current union - specifically with regard to reception of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever recognized divorce as legitimate. Remember, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6). A valid and legitimate union cannot be dissolved, no matter what. In order for a marriage to be deemed invalid, one or both parties to the marriage must have some impediment which prevents them from appreciating the gravity of the sacrament ON or BEFORE the exchange of nuptial vows. This determination is made by the local Diocesan tribunal and verified by a court of second instance (a tribunal from another Diocese examines the case to make sure nothing was missed by the first tribunal). Does the Church acknowledge that situations may arise where, for the physical or financial security of one party, a civil and legal separation of assets may be necessary? Yes, of course. However, neither party to that union is free to marry again without first having that union declared null by the Church. Remember, “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18). Without a declaration of nullity from the Diocesan tribunal, those who divorce AND civilly remarry find themselves in a state of perpetual adultery - a mortal sin. Just as a quick refresher, three criteria must be met in order for a sin to be mortal. It must be grave matter. The sinner must know it is grave matter. The sinner must have full consent of the will. It is a grave sin, you know it is a grave sin, and you do it anyway. At this point, many people say, “Well, why don’t they just go to Confession? That will absolve their mortal sin.” Yes, the sacrament of penance does absolve mortal sin IF the penitent resolves, with the help of God’s grace, to refrain from committing that sin again. Remember the Act of Contrition? In the case of a divorced AND civilly remarried person, they are going to go back home to their adulterous union. As long as the irregular union exists, absolution cannot be granted. The biggest area of concern with regard to Amoris Laetitia comes from paragraphs 301 to 306 which discuss “Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment” of irregular situations. Specifically paragraph 305, which states, “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” While ignorance may lessen one’s culpability for sin, once one is no longer ignorant of the gravity of the sin, one is now “subjectively culpable” for the objective situation of sin. The famous footnote (351) about which many theologians have raised concern, including Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner (the authors of the notorious dubia) states, “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I [Pope Francis] want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’ (ibid., 47: 1039).” The Church has always made exceptions in certain situations. For instance, the Church has always allowed those who are divorced AND civilly remarried to partake in a life of the sacraments IF they live a life of continence (as brother and sister). If a couple in this irregular union, on the other hand continues to live more uxorio (engaging in sexual relations), they cannot receive the sacraments. Pope Francis mentioned in Evangelii Gaudium, as cited above, that “the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.” How is permitting someone in a state of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist (another mortal sin) merciful? I can speak from experience, having been denied absolution and the Eucharist because of my own perpetually adulterous relationship, and having gone through the annulment process, I can say that my encounter in the confessional and the annulment process was the most pastoral and merciful experience I have ever had in the Church. When I returned to the Church after eighteen years away, the priest could have simply said, “I absolve you of your sins, welcome home” and I would have probably gone on the rest of my life not knowing any better, continuing to pile grave sin on top of grave sin. The sins may not have been mortal, due to a lessened culpability because of my ignorance. However, it is not pastoral nor merciful to allow people to remain in ignorance - after all, one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to Instruct the Ignorant. Instead, I had a priest who cared about the state of my soul and told me the truth, even though he knew it was probably going to hurt. It was a long process. It took my wife and me nearly four years to go through the annulment process for my previous marriage, as well as hers. However, as I said above, it was the most pastoral and merciful experience I have ever had in the Church. Where am I going with all this? Herein lies the problem. Sexual sin is sexual sin. Any sexual action which occurs outside the bonds of a valid marriage is sinful. Also, any sexual action which is not open to procreation is sinful. The main focus of Amoris Laetitia right now is reception of Holy Communion for the divorced AND civilly remarried who do not have a declaration of nullity and who have not had their union regularized in the Church. The certain cases stipulated in footnote 351 and questioned in the dubia concern those in irregular unions who are living more uxorio. The ambiguity which surrounds this footnote, along with Pope Francis’ refusal to answer the dubia, leaves the door open for possible reception of Holy Communion for those in active homosexual relationships. more.......
Continued..... There is absolutely no way that a homosexual union can be regularized in the Church. First and foremost, marriage is the lifelong union between one man and one woman (CIC 1055 §1). Secondly, the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children (Casti Connubii 17). Any union, which is not between a man and woman and does not have procreation as its primary end cannot be a marriage. As mentioned above, the ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia leaves the door open to the possibility that a priest, in an attempt to be “merciful and pastoral” may determine, in his own opinion, that those in same-sex unions are one of those “certain cases.” The Church has always taught that those who are in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion. While I suppose it may be possible for someone to be ignorant about Church teaching regarding marriage and divorce (as the divorce rate is so high today - including in the Church), it is virtually impossible for anyone who is Catholic to be ignorant about Church teaching regarding homosexual relationships. Therefore, one who professes to be Catholic, yet is actively engaged in a homosexual relationship, is living in a state of mortal sin. He is choosing to decide for himself what is and is not sinful. Should one who is in a same-sex union choose to live in continence, then he would be more than welcome to receive Holy Communion, provided he made a full confession beforehand - just like one who is divorced AND civilly remarried. But living more uxorio in either situation is not permissible. Paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Furthermore, paragraph 2359 states, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” With regard to Church teaching, whether on marriage or homosexuality, there is no need for special stipulations. Allowing special stipulations without clearly defining what those stipulations are can and will lead to abuse of such an allowance. Throughout this article, I have emphasized AND when mentioning divorced AND civilly remarried people. The reason for that is many people think that simply being divorced is enough to bar someone from the sacraments, and that is not true. Since the Church does not recognize civil divorce, one who is divorced is still married according to the Church. So, as long as they are living in continence (not dating,“remarried,” or involved in any sexual relations), they are welcome to the sacraments. Withholding the Eucharist from someone in a state of mortal sin is not meant to be “torture.” In fact, withholding the Eucharist from someone in a state of mortal sin is a work of mercy because the Church is not allowing that person to fall deeper into mortal sin through sacrilegiously receiving the Eucharist. There is a wonderful illustration in the Baltimore Catechism regarding who can receive Holy Communion. The illustration says, “Healthy people can eat: Souls without sin can receive Communion,” “Sick people can eat, but it is harder: Souls with venial sin can receive, but get less grace,” and “Dead people cannot eat: Souls in mortal sin cannot receive.” It is not unmerciful to deny Holy Communion to those in a state of mortal sin. Receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is itself a mortal sin - sacrilege. Sacrilege has many definitions, one of them includes, “the deliberate, invalid reception of the sacraments.” By denying the sacraments to those in a state of mortal sin, the priest is being as merciful as he can be. He is doing all he can do to prevent someone from falling deeper into sin. Pope Francis talks about mercy all the time. Be merciful to the poor, be merciful to the marginalized, be merciful to the sinner. These are all great things. However, the mercy that Pope Francis emphasizes is the Corporal Works of Mercy, while putting less emphasis on the Spiritual Works of Mercy. In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis, in his quest to be merciful is forgetting about two of the seven precepts of the Church: #6 To obey the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony, and #7 To participate in the Church's mission of Evangelization of Souls. The Church’s main mission in the world is the salvation of souls. While clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and giving drink to the thirsty is honorable, none of these actions alone will get souls into Heaven. St. James said, “faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:26), but works without faith are also dead. If we are physically feeding the poor, but not spiritually feeding them, we are only fighting half the battle. Amoris Laetitia only addresses half of that battle. We are the Church Militant. We are constantly at battle with evil. Regardless of the sin, the confessional does need to be a place of healing. However, with major wounds or injuries, healing does not occur instantly. Medication may be needed, perhaps surgery, or physical therapy. Priests need to counsel and instruct the faithful when they enter the confessional. Priests have the right and duty to deny absolution if needed. After all, Jesus did say to the Apostles, “Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (Jn. 20:23). Denial of absolution is not condemnation. Denial of absolution is the first step toward reconciliation. If I break my leg and go to the hospital, I will not be able to walk as soon as I leave. But the doctors will begin treating me in order to mend my broken leg. Likewise, if one is in a state of mortal sin that requires more than just the sacrament of penance, the priest should begin treating the penitent in order to mend their broken relationship with God. The only way someone who is divorced AND civilly remarried can be admitted to the sacraments without a declaration of nullity and regularization of their union is to live in continence. There are no special circumstances. There was no need for a Synod of Bishops to discuss this topic. There was no need for a Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Paragraph 1650 of the Catechism states, “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.” Amoris Laetitia opens the door for this and other teachings of the Church to be circumvented.
Bad as it is for us, imagine being a faithful, orthodox priest having to give pastoral advice to remarried divorcees on foot of Amoris Laetitia. This priest on the Sensus Fidelium channel doesn't mince his words. Pray for our good priests. They surely need extra grace from God to strengthen them in these trying times.
Hi Dolours, after reading your response I decided to look up James Salt, from Catholics United. I also saw the video from Katherine Yore, who is investigating the link Soros - Vatican. But then I found this CNN excerpt from a few days before conclave - I felt shivers. What do you guys think? It seems too much of a coincidence. Salt states what the strategy for the Chruch should be for the future - the pope has openly stated in several interviews the exact same strategy. He also tells the reporter who he thinks will be the next pope, guess his response... Catholics United is mentioned in the Podesta wikileak emails as an organization created to change traditional views on marriage, contraception etc. It is also Soros funded. Soros also funds PICO, the main sponsor of the pope's World Meetings for Popular Movements. Without rushing to conclusions I want to be aware of these things and investigate, connect the dots.
Yes, I have seen that video on youtube. In fact, I think I posted it on another thread last year along with a link to a newspaper interview or article quoting Salt in, I think the LA Times or some similar secular newspaper. There was also a video of Cardinal Rodriguez urging people to join PICO. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was the other group which received funding from Soros and was mentioned by Podesta. I got the impression that they were a more sophisticated, possibly better educated version of Catholics United. The Soros crowd considered them very useful in reframing the abortion debate and were especially pleased with Obama's speech when Jesuit Notre Dame awarded him an honorary degree: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...tm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp Podesta didn't consider the then leaders of the Catholic Spring groups capable of achieving their objectives. Christopher Hale is the current executive director of CACG and was so inspired by Pope Francis that he gave up his job to work full time for CACG http://time.com/3744783/pope-francis-catholic-church-two-years/ some time before the hacked Podesta emails and Soros documents were released . Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall reading that Hale stopped going to Mass for about ten weeks after the US election because he was angry with God, but my memory could be wrong and, if so, I apologise. I think it was PICO, but wouldn't swear to it, that was instrumental in arranging for the Black Lives Matter crowd to meet various Cardinals in the Vatican. They didn't get to meet the Pope who had some urgent business to attend to but I think he sent them a special welcome message. It would be interesting to do a little search on the names associated with Podesta and those Catholic Spring groups to see how many of them had been involved with or employed by the US charity run by the Catholic Bishops. In answer to your question, I don't know what to think any more. I suppose it's all what might be called circumstantial evidence but there's certainly no shortage of it.
Salt is practically a prophet. Certainly a lot better than some who claim to be. A demonic prophet. I guess God wasnt ready to choose Bergoglio in 2005.
And just who is behind Catholics United? Surprise! George Soros : George Soros Funds Catholic Left By NewsMax.com October 26, 2008 An organization founded by billionaire investor and Democratic financier George Soros has funded two “left-wing” Catholic groups that support abortion rights, according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue. Soros “is connected to two apologists for abortion rights: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Catholics United,” Donohue said in a Catholic League release. “In 2006, Soros’ Open Society Institute gave Catholics in Alliance $100,000 [double the amount he gave in 2005], and in the same year, Catholics in Alliance listed Catholics United . . . as an organization with which it has a formal relationship. “John Podesta, who runs the Soros-funded organization Center for American Progress, admits that he works closely with Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United.” Donohue asks, “Why would any Catholic organization take money from a man like George Soros? . . . And why would Soros have any interest in funding Catholic groups? He doesn’t give the Catholic League any money, and if he offered, I would refuse it. “The reason Soros funds the Catholic left is the same reason he lavishly funds Catholics for Choice, the pro-abortion group that has twice been condemned as a fraud by Catholic bishops. They all service his agenda, namely, to make support for abortion rights a respectable Catholic position.” On Oct. 17, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput accused Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United of doing a “disservice” to the Catholic Church, according to Donohue, who added, “He’s right — and now we know what really makes them tick.” Chris Korzen of Catholics United sought to counter the criticism from Donohue by asserting that Soros’ organization also contributes to Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Services. But Donohue told LifeNews.com, “Unlike the three Catholic organizations cited by Korzen, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance are apologists for abortion. “Their passion for abortion rights is so strong that they refuse to endorse the legal ban on partial-birth abortion.” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/George Soros Funds Catholic Left.html And: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/gay-multi-millionaire-activist-funds-catholics-united/
Salt states what the strategy for the Chruch should be for the future - the pope has openly stated in several interviews the exact same strategy. He also tells the reporter who he thinks will be the next pope, guess his response... The Holy Spirit was obviously working through this guy...
