Beatification of Oscar Romero: Is the Church Atoning for its Sins?

by

 

I know what you're up to and I want it to stop.

I know what you’re up to and I want it to stop.

The hard-left “Progressive” has a glowing story of beloved new ‘martyr’ Archbishop Oscar Romero, chastened by the Church for radical Liberation Theology and soon to be blessed in the new FrancisChurch.

While in the capital, leading the church, he gained incredible spiritual strength to defend the poor and the voiceless. Millions would listen to his homilies on radio.

The people who truly embraced Romero were the poor campesinos who attended his mass and those who had the privilege to get to know him when he would visit their villages. Romero came from a middle-class background but he purposely chose to live a humble life.

Every priest makes humble choices and many sacrifices, unless of course they rise into the new hierarchy.  Then they must make token visible gestures, like selling off residences and discretely living in apartment buildings, carrying old suitcases, wearing brown shoes, and driving Fords.

Romero was not afraid to die. He was a valiant man who did not accept bodyguards. He consciously chose to give his life for the poor.

But he was very afraid of the demons that were being unleashed upon the Salvadoran populace. He knew much blood would be spilled. He even risked his life by having a dialogue with the guerrilla leaders, asking them to avoid using violence. He tried everything in his power to stop the oncoming bloodbath.

What is a demon?  Is it an actual demon or someone who’s not ‘the poor’ and kills?  Did you know ‘having a dialogue’ risked one’s life?  I thought that was always a peace thing?

Before his assassination, Romero visited Pope John Paul II, who snubbed Romero. Romero was deliberately made to wait an inordinate amount of time and relegated to a long line to meet the pope. The pope chastised Romero and ordered him to stop speaking up for the rights of the poor and involving himself in political issues.

Romero returned heartbroken to El Salvador. But he still continued to denounce the regime’s human rights abuses and killings. He made up his mind that he would give his life for the persecuted Salvadoran people, even if the Vatican refused to acknowledge the atrocities.

It’s important to remember that the Liberation Theology pro-Communist front hates the Catholic Church establishment and everything it represents.  Who did Pope John Paul think he was to correct Oscar Romero when all he did was love the poor and offer them his life!  Romero was heartbroken!

Who was right, the Pope who told Romero to stay out of politics, or the one who is canonizing him and calling him a martyr because he died for those politics?  It can’t be both.  What kind of NewChurch is this?

Even if Romero did die because he cared about the oppression of the poor, is that a martyr, or is it just a so-called good deed doer?  St. Stephen died for Christ.  Romero died supposedly at the hands of those ‘demons’ in the government.

Ironically, the same church that turned its back on Romero is all set to venerate him. The Catholic Church formally beatified Romero on May 23 in San Salvador, one step short of sainthood.

He fed the poor, clothed them, and he spoke up for them, knowing that he would possibly be killed. In fact, the miracle is that Romero has been now recognized as an international hero by the Catholic Church, when before he was demonized by many of his fellow clergy. Finally, the church is atoning for its sins toward him.

Everything is a miracle: feeding the poor, clothing the poor, speaking about them a lot – all miracles, and the biggest miracle is that the notorious Catholic Church is calling Romero a hero and ready to canonize him?!

In the new ‘ever forward’ FrancisChurch, it’s Oscar Romero who is a saint and the Catholic Church who is the sinner.  “We must atone,” the Progressive magazine rants, and we are.

 

 

Is This Noam Chomsky Catholicism?

by

Don’t let us down this time

There continues to be considerable back and forth about a disorientation in the Church, about the heretical character to the new FrancisChurch and what to do about it.  It doesn’t wane because it’s constantly prompted and rejuvenated by the Pope.  For what purpose did Pope Francis give yet another interview to his atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, where we now hear that the Pope is one of those who believes there is no Hell, just annihilation?  Will the Pope retract?  Will this also be placed among the Pope’s other interviews at the Vatican website?

Why do these things keep happening?  Is there some point or mission to this Pope, placed rather abruptly at the head of the Church when a faithful Pope astoundingly stepped down due to a lack of energy?  It’s fascinating how the Leftist media was in full-gushing hype mode the moment he emerged on the balcony in 2013, and they haven’t stopped.  Why do they care?  Why do atheists feel the need to comment and applaud?  Why do Communists?

Why does shrill anti-Catholic dissident Garry Wills sing praises of Pope Francis, telling us he chose the name of St. Francis because he was a ‘subversive‘ and a ‘radical’; and why in the world is Noam Chomsky so interested?

I think there are a few clues in this video of Chomsky.  In it he gives a rendition of history and unfortunately, ‘geopolitical’ perspective on the Catholic Church, Vatican II, Latin America, and Francis.  It’s becoming increasingly apparent that hard-Leftists like Chomsky, despite the fact that they are generally atheists who hate the Church, seem to have a certain understanding of Pope Francis.

To summarize: In the mind of Chomsky Vatican II was a sort of ‘liberation’ of the Gospel from elitists who captured and suppressed it since the time of Constantine.  Jesus himself was a ‘radical pacifist,’ but that true Jesus has only now been revealed.  As an immediate result of VII, Liberation Theology was born in Latin America, where armies of new Catholic clergy and religious went among the poor and the rural organizing peoples’ rebellions.  According to Chomsky, this was the natural result of the now-liberated Gospel.

Next, the U.S. right-wing anti-Communists, through vehicles like the “School of the Americas”, moved to crush these rebellions, creating “a long bloody list of religious martyrs” like Abp. Oscar Romero.  These Americans lined up with the Vatican against these new Catholics because they “didn’t want the true Gospel to be taken seriously.”

There are two things we can say about this Noam Chomsky idea of ‘c’atholicism.  It’s radical.  It’s also very Protestant, co-opting Christian purity by claiming to reach deep into history beyond a time when the Church was not persecuted.

Citing an account in the New York times, Chomsky agrees that Pope Francis did not side sufficiently with the people in what was a losing fight.  So, Catholics need to ask ourselves in light of this Latin American reality, “To what degree does the Pope align with this vision of the Church?”  If he wisely played things safe in the brutal environment back then, what does he have in mind now that he’s Pope and, America being what it now is, he rides powerful tail winds and faces much weaker opposition?

A Church for the Poor

This weekend Pope Francis corralled homeless people again to circulate among the crowds in St. Peter’s Square and distribute pocket Gospels.  Message: The neediest bring us the word of God.

This latest stunt is the thousandth iteration of the ‘poor are the center of the Gospel’ theme the Pope pounds home, but is that true?  Are the poor at the center of the Gospel?  This ‘preferential option for the poor’:  is that truly Church teaching?

I know Our Lord teaches us charity and that certainly includes love for the poor.  I know He also teaches (and St. Francis reinforces) a love for poverty, for the discipline and the holiness which can be gained through it, through unselfishness and generosity.

The problem is there is really much much more to the Gospel than that.  To elevate concern for the poor to the center is to skew and twist it, to make the Gospel only something material just like the Communists do to everything.

 

 

 

 

 

Do Communists Think Pope Francis is a Communist?

by
The Peoples' Pope

The Peoples’ Pope

Why is it considered unsophisticated and hysterical to write about Communism these days when totalitarian statism has never been more accepted?  Why is it so difficult to see the effects of it’s influence, of it’s backers and their patient efforts, even inside the Church?

Communists see traditional Catholicism and the Ancient Mass as products of an oppressive elite?  Why not?  They see everything else that way.  Communists think of the new vernacular Mass as the “people’s” Mass.  So does Pope Francis, the same Pope who sees the difference between Catholicism and Communism as only one of semantics.

Take Communism and add some God and you’ve got the Catholic Church according to Francis; you know, a Church where the ‘poor are the center of the Gospel’ and all that, where if you don’t help the poor on the peripheries it doesn’t matter what ‘religious observances’ you follow.

Just as Communists praise Francis today, I suspect that Communists were quite happy with the Paul VI Mass.  Why?  What do they care?  It is because Communists are atheists who cannot realize their goals without thwarting the graces of the Church, causing widespread rejection of God, and a depraved rootless people.

Pope Francis is entirely wrong when he links Communism to Catholicism, but he’s not wrong when he links his own concept of the Church to it.  FrancisChurch, moving “forward” from Paul VI, is entirely compatible with Communism because it enables it quite well.

At Breitbart, Austin Ruse follows up on what Communists, and Reagan Era Communist-fighting men see in the New Pope of the People.

A largely overlooked column by human rights advocate Armando Valadares raises questions about the initiative of Pope Francis toward the “island-prison” of Cuba.

In early January, Valladares, who spent 22 years in Castro’s prisons and went on to write a highly influential book about it, says the recent opening to Cuba by the West is part of an “Obama-Francis axis” that he calls a “spiritual-political axis which… will now provide the repressive apparatus of the Cuban regime with rivers of money and favorable publicity.”

He says Pope Francis and President Obama are merely replacing the Soviet Union, then Venezuela, and finally Brazil as Castro’s financial enablers.

Two days after the simultaneous December 19th announcement by Rome, Washington, and Havana of the diplomatic rapprochement, Valladares reported a Cuban Coast Guard boat “began ramming a boat fleeing Cuba with 32 people on board, including seven women and two children, to sink the frail craft.” Valladares called it “a brutal action by a regime that feels back up by powerful allies. A criminal event so seriously damning for the Castro regime would deserve a worldwide outcry of repudiation but was hardly noticed…”

He said the event wasn’t even notice by “churchmen who should imitate the Good Shepard by being ready to give their lives for their sheep.”

Valladares, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission under Presidents Reagan and Bush, charges that the “most serious and tragic aspect of this agreement” between the US and Cuba, “falls upon Pope Francis, its most eminent architect and mediator.”

But, he says, “This is not the first time that Francis takes measures that objectively favor the political and ecclesiastical left in Latin America… For example, he personally attended the World Meeting of Popular Movements held in Rome from October 27 to 29. It gathered 100 revolutionary world leaders, including well-known Latin American professional agitators.” Valladeres called the meeting a kind of “beatification of these Marxist-inspired revolutionary figures…”

Valladares also points to Francis’s overturning the suspension of the Nicaraguan priest Miquel D’Escoto who had been the Foreign Minister of the revolutionary Sandanista regime, “a leading pro-Castro figure in liberation theology.”

Where Valladares might be described as a man of the right, a man of the farthest left sees the same thing in Francis and approves.

Despite the continual refrain that now ‘martyr’ Oscar Romero was not a Liberation Theologist, just ‘used’ by them; Romero is their hero, and the Pope has backed his cause despite years of it’s being blocked.  (Note the similarities between the populist ‘art’ surrounding Romero and the material produced by the Pope’s Vatican artist, Chinese propagandist, Shen Jiawei.)

Richard Greeman, a writer for the Marxist website New Politics, wonders if “Catholicism is the new communism.” He describes his years, after the Second Vatican Council, working in Latin America, participating in the rise of “liberation theology.” He says, “Liberation theology Catholics were consistently more revolutionary than Leftists of all stripes.”

Read the rest here.  The ties between Communism and the modern radical revolution in the Church must be revisited, not shamefully hidden, in the new Francis Era, if only for the fact that a disabled Church is key to the success of statism.

Ruse closes with a chilling reality that we must squarely face.

Greeman asks, “How did such an openly radical priest manage to get elected.” Valladares may be asking the same question.