Saturday, March 29, 2014
Do you believe that GOD and Satin can "Get along????"
www.newchristorchaos.com Something seemed afoot in the last few months. In November, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, undersecretary for relations with states, was reported to have made a secret visit to China. The Vatican never denied the reports. In March, a Chinese delegation secretly had talks in the Vatican, sources confirmed. One precedent for baton diplomacy that comes to mind is a similar event that happened in the Vatican on February 20, 1988 when the now mostly-forgotten Cold War still existed. The then-Soviet Union’s Red Army Choir performed for Pope John Paul, singing, of all things, Ave Maria. It, too, was a shocker when it was announced. But on Dec 1, 1989, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made his historic visit to the Vatican, turning relations between the Kremlin and the Vatican on their head after some 70 years of mutual distrust. Relations between Russia and the Vatican were established in 1990 and the rest, as they say, is history. So, if music be the food of diplomacy, play on. (Can China and the Vatican make beautiful music together?) “Archbishop” Pietro Parolin played the role of “diplomat” when serving as the conciliar church’s nuncio in Venezuela, treating the Marxist tyrant Hugo Chavez with great respect as he attempted to tamp down overt criticism of the now-deceased thug on the part of some of the conciliar “bishops” in Venezuela. Parolin gave an interview last year to the “ultra-progressive” National Catholic Reporter wherein he stated his support for “liberation theology, rejecting most gratuitously, of course, any Marxist models, while downplaying he scandal of perverted clergy in his perverted and corrupted conciliar church. (See (Parolin’s last interview before taking top Vatican job.) All of this is prelude to explaining that Pietro Parolin is a fellow-traveler of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s, making it very reasonable that he would mention ObamaDeathCare only “briefly” with him yesterday. It was five years ago, shortly into Obama/Soetoro’s first time as our caesar, that Parolin came to the rescue of L’Osservatore Romano editor Gian Maria Van after the latter had written that the American president was not “pro-abortion,” just “pro-choice”: “It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue.” Those are the words of Msgr. Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s Undersecretary for Relations with States and one of the Vatican’s leading diplomats. Here is the complete text of my interview yesterday with Msgr. Parolin, in which he also discusses Pope Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. The interview will be published in the next issue of the Register. Q. There’s been some confusion about the mixed signals coming out of the Vatican regarding President Obama — that while U.S. bishops have strongly criticized his position on life issues, L’Osservatore Romano, for example, has been offering comparatively positive assessments of the administration. Why is this? Msgr. Pietro Parolin: It’s very simple. It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue. So this — in a few words — is the policy of the Holy See. Q. So bishops need to focus more on these internal issues while the Vatican is more interested on international, foreign policy issues? No, I wouldn’t say we’re not concerned about these decisions that have been taken by the administration. But this does not prevent us from having a dialogue with the administration. Is this the reason for the generally positive comments from L’Osservatore Romano on the administration? I don’t know because I was absent at that time, I was in Jerusalem when L’Osservatore Romano wrote that article. (Vatican Clarifies Obama Stance.) First of all, Gian Maria Van’s assertion five years ago that Obama/Soetoro is not a pro-abortion president was itself remarkable. I mean, what at does it take make a public official be pro-abortion? Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro supports the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. He had signed an Executive Order to restore full funding for the surgical assassination of children under all conditions by means of international “family planning” agencies outside of the United States of America with American taxpayers’ dollars almost as soon as he took office in 2009. Little babies have been killed as a result of that Executive Order, and this is to say nothing of United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s aggressive war against pro-life Americans and of the pro-abortion ObamaCare, whose implementation is being supervised by a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is not pro-abortion? No rational, sane Catholic can make such a statement, no less one who has been chosen by conciliar officials to be the editor of their semi-official newspaper. As to the Pietro Parolin himself, what was your comment that “It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue” supposed to have meant? Excuse me, “Archbishop” Parolin? The conciliar Vatican does not “share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues”? Huh? The direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn life in a mother’s womb, whether by surgical or chemical means, is a matter of God’s Law, engraved in the human heart by means of the Natural Law and explicated clearly by Him to us in the Fifth Commandment, which, along with each of His Commandments. It is not a “view” over which people of “good will” can have legitimate disagreements. Bioethical issues? Bioethical issues? The madness of conciliarism, replete with its insanity of “dialogue” and respect for errors and false religions, is a long, long way from the clarity provided us by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930: “Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.) This is the language of the Catholic Church, not “dialogue” and “toleration.” How many more babies must be killed for the conciliar revolutionaries to realize that their own soul-killing liturgies and false doctrines have made it more possible for men such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to rise to political prominence and to have the enthusiastic support of large numbers of Catholics? The apostasy of the conciliar ethos does indeed have consequences. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has, of course, granted numerous photograph opportunities (“photo-ops”) to one pro-abortion, pro-perversity world leader after another. Bergoglio has met with Argentine President Christine Kirchner, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Uruguayan President Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano, an atheist, and the pro-abortion President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, who is a former conciliar “bishop,” and French President Francois Hollande, implying that the ”better” and the more “just” world can be built upon the blood of the innocent preborn. Active support given to the execution of the innocent preborn is no impediment to receiving plaudits from Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a “champion” of “human rights” as long as they support the “poor.” As has been noted on this site so many times in the past thirteen and one-half months, Bergoglio defines this alleged “support for the poor” almost exclusively by the creation and increase of statist schemes of economic redistribution, funded by the confiscatory taxing power of the civil state, and massive programs of economic regulation that decrease legitimate personal liberties and reward donors responsible for funding the campaigns of the prevailing statists. This is what constitutes “justice” in the minds of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Pietro Parolin, et al. Bergoglio and Parolin respect Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. They only have a few differences with him on those “bioethical issues,” which must be couched in the very framework of “religious freedom” that made Obama/Soetoro’s election inevitable. Indeed, as was noted a short time ago on this site, Obama/Soetoro is the end product of Americanism.
Posted by itzik janowitz at 7:50 AM