Pope Francis: Vicar of Allah?

From the Fatima Center…

December 5, 2017

Pope Francis made headlines recently for his championing of the Rohingya. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it is one that Muslim refugees from Myanmar use to designate themselves. The term is rejected by the Buddhists of Myanmar, as it suggests that the Muslims are native to their country, a claim they deny, insisting that they are intruders from neighboring Bangladesh.

While in Myanmar, the Pope avoided use of the term, but readily adopted it once he had crossed into Bangladesh to meet the Rohingya of the refugee camps. For this supposed act of courage, the Pope was lauded for his shunning of diplomacy in favor of plain-speaking and justice. Apparently, it did not occur to the adulatory media that courage in this matter was only possible while the Pope was in Myanmar, where he carefully avoided its use. He was in no danger among the Rohingya.

Wearing a Yankees’ cap at Fenway Park requires courage. Wearing one at Yankee stadium makes you one of the gang.

While aboard his jet during his return trip to Rome, the Pope, as is his habit, addressed the international press corps that travels with him, chronicling his acts of courage. He explained he did not use the word Rohingya in public addresses in Myanmar because, “They already knew what I thought.” The “they” he is referring to are presumably the political and religious leaders of Myanmar, whom the Pope supposes are so familiar with his views that he need not spell them out. But, as St. Thomas More reminded the court that tried him, the maxim of the law is “Tacet consentire” — silence implies consent.

In any event, once among the Rohingya and safely out of Myanmar, the Pope was bold enough to break his silence and pronounce the term. The Pope told the press corps, “I wept. I tried to do it in a way that couldn’t be seen.” Not to presume too much, but we might suggest to the Holy Father that to keep his weeping secret, it would be best not to announce it to the media. Reporters are terribly indiscreet and very likely to, well, report.

The Pope said he wept over the suffering of the Rohingya, whom he credits as being the blameless victims of persecution, based on their self-declaration and anecdotal accounts.  In an astounding act of presumption, the Pope then appropriated the right to speak in the name of their alleged persecutors:

“In the name of all those who have persecuted you, who have harmed you, in the face of the world’s indifference, I ask for your forgiveness.”

Did the Buddhists of Myanmar commission the Pope to speak for them? Did they admit wrongdoing and confess their guilt and express a desire to seek forgiveness through the agency of the Pope? If not, why should Francis speak in their name? Indeed, why should he presume to speak in anyone else’s name unless he has permission to do so?

But the Pope not only takes upon himself the unwarranted ambassadorial role of speaking for the alleged miscreants of Myanmar, he goes on to apologize in the name of the whole world. Whatever may be happening along the borders of Bangladesh and Myanmar apparently imposes a moral obligation on the rest of mankind, an obligation we have failed to meet by our “indifference.” The Pope, then, believes it incumbent upon him to acknowledge our failure to the Rohingya and ask that they forgive us.

We might express some skepticism about the probable success of the Pope’s plea, as Muslims have not been notable for their readiness to forgive those who slight them or their religion. Mohammed was not known for his willingness to turn the other cheek, and “Live and let live” is not an attitude that informs the spirit of the Koran.

As for our supposedly sinful “indifference,” just what are we — the world — morally compelled to do, in the Pope’s estimation? We are not eyewitnesses to what is taking place. We cannot tell which stories are true, which are fabricated, whose claims are legally or historically justified and who initiated violence in particular instances. In short, the “world” — you and I — are in the dark about what is going on in this part of the world. And we are under no obligation to become informed.

Are we obliged to patrol the streets of our own cities, righting wrongs, like a superhero? The idea is absurd. How much more absurd is the notion that we must be engaged in conflicts in distant lands, deciding whose claim to justice is the more credible? And even should we become so engaged, what precisely does the Pope propose that we do? Mount crusades for Rohingya Rights?

A moment’s reflection on this Theater of the Absurd that the Pope scripted in his most recent and entirely unnecessary papal trip should make plain to anyone with common sense that nothing the Pope said or did has any connection to the governance of the Catholic Church and the safeguarding of its doctrine, which is the Pope’s designated job.
Why Myanmar and Bangladesh? The Catholic populations in these countries is marginal (about 1 percent in Myanmar; about 0.2 percent in Bangladesh). This dispute is between Muslims and Buddhists, neither of which acknowledge the authority of the Roman Pontiff in any area of life. Why should the Pope travel to the far reaches of the non-Christian world to insert himself in a regional dispute where he exercises neither jurisdiction nor acknowledged moral authority?

Both Buddhists and Muslims reject Christ and the claims of the Catholic Church. Indeed, for Muslims, the Pope is an infidel, leader of the Dar-Al-Harb – the world of war that must be conquered for allah. But the Pope has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity and is ever intent on showing compassion for Muslims. If only Francis were as eager to show compassion for members of his own persecuted Church in Muslim nations, or even Europeans maimed and killed in Paris and London to the cry of “allahu akbar!”

But the plight of the Rohingya draws the Pope halfway around the world, where he weeps and apologizes for all of us for the sufferings of a group of Muslim refugees to whom we have supposedly shown a sinful “indifference.” When will the Pope weep for us? When will he weep for Catholics who have been victims of doctrinal confusion and contradiction? When will he cry over the destruction of our liturgy? When will he tear his robes and lament the hideous perversion of his own clergy and the criminal cover-ups of his own bishops? When will he turn a tearful eye to Europe, bereft of Faith, its culture in tatters, Muslim rape gangs roaming the streets of its cities, mosques replacing churches, the bells of the Angelus being drowned out by the cry of “allahu akbar,” calling ever-multiplying numbers of Muslims to prayer – in Rome, in Paris, in Berlin, in Madrid, in Brussels, in London?

We need no apologies from the Pope in the name of supposed oppressors of the Rohingya. We are not edified by his hidden tears, later broadcast to the media, that he shed in Bangladesh. We need no empty words of condemnation or “sorrow” about the atrocities that have become a regular feature of modern life.

How wonderful it would be if useless words were no longer spoken by the Pope. How wonderful it would be if the Pope were to say: “I know little about climate change or environmental science or international economics. I cannot intervene and decide who is right and wrong in the many armed conflicts that perpetually erupt around the world, nor is it my duty to do so. I have no advice to give Buddhists or Muslims except this: turn to Christ and His Church. In our doctrine is truth. In our Lord is peace. In our worship is love. Come inside. Be with us and be saved.”

If the Pope were to do this, how many souls might be drawn to the Church? If the Pope were to use his power for the purpose intended by Our Lord, to strengthen his brothers and sisters in the Faith, the crisis in the Church would end. The Holy Father is the most powerful person on God’s Earth, but only as the Vicar of Christ, not as the vicar of the environment, or the vicar of economic equality, or the vicar of immigration, or, Heaven help us, the vicar of allah!

If the Pope really wants peace, for the Rohingya as well as for the rest of us, he has it in his power to bring it about: He can consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, along with his bishops. Were he to do this, there would be an end to much weeping, both public and private.   Source – Fatima Center

 

Comments invited…  

36 responses

  1. This is further proof of how utterly out of his depth this man is on so many issues, weighing in on anything and everything which is none of his business, while neglecting and even undermining that which he should be attending to. Another great report from the Fatima Centre website.

    • Westminster Fly,

      I couldn’t agree more – this pope is really the pits, God forgive me. But he is.

      That really is a great report from the Fatima Center website – I started meaning just to take a skim of the first bit and then could not stop, it is really rivetting.

      • Lily,

        That was my own reaction – a rivetting piece, by any standard. If only the Pope himself would read it. Just might help him to see how ridiculous is the spectacle of a pope crying over allegedly persecuted Muslims while ignoring the suffering of his own Catholic people. Crackers.

    • This is indeed an excellent piece from the Fatima Centre. The more I see of this Pope the less I understand him or why he does what he does.i wonder if he knows or cares at all about how he comes across or if ever thinks about his far more important duty as Pastor, teacher and guide of Catholic souls? He seems far more concerned with his media persona but has little insight into what he actually demonstrates i.e. An indifference to the spiritual welfare of the Church. Please God deliver us from this dreadful Pope!

    • I tried to purchase this “book” from Amazon but then I found that it is only available on “kindle”. When I want a book, I want a book with paper pages that I can turn and even turn back. Kindle is not my idea of a book. However, I most certainly would like to read it. From what I can gather there are several references in it which, to put it mildly, show the Pope to be a very unpleasant person.

      • John R,

        It seems only to be available on Kindle. Like you, I prefer the hard copy text, and I’ve only ever bought one book on Kindle (because Catholic Truth is mentioned in it!) However, I was surprised at how easy it was to read, so I wouldn’t not buy it for that reason. I am inclined to think that we will get all the information from it that we need, from various commentaries and quotes, which is why I’m not bothering to purchase a copy. I am, remember, a thrifty Scot!

        • Dear Editor,
          I am delighted that you are a thrifty Scot. This puts me in mind of the “joke” What’s the difference between a Scotsman and a Yorkshireman? The Yorkshireman is a Scotsman with the charity squeezed out of him.
          I may live in Australia but I’m still a Yorshireman.

  2. I voted that the Pope does not have the right to apologise on behalf of anyone but himself, and this fashion of issuing apologies for things that others have done or happened centuries ago, is one of the most irritating novelties of our day.

    The news media presented the reports about the Rohingya Muslims “escaping” into Bangladesh, and now we know that that is where they actually come from! I don’t remember that being said in any news reports. They are so dishonest. Sky news did a report on this for days and day, always the same footage on the news, with a special correspondent over there filming the same small group of people “escaping”. I wondered about that at the time, and now reading the Fatima Centre (excellent) report, I understand better what is going on.

    As for Pope Francis “weeping” – what nonsense, well covered by the commentary in the Fatima Centre report. He really is an attention seeker.

    • Olaf,

      I’m not sure I believe that stuff. Think of it. Putin, a former KGB agent is supposedly saying the pope should not be supporting Communism! I don’t think so!

      Also, the next video along from the one you posted, is making something of the pope blessing a disabled boy, as if the boy is terrified. Again, I don’t think so.

      Some of the quotes in the videos are also misinterpreted, as for example, where Pope Francis said that it was dangerous to have a relationship with Jesus – he was saying “outside the Church” and that is true. That has been discussed many times on this blog.

      • RCA Victor

        Thank you for that.

        Olaf,

        I’ve been very suspicious of the voice on those YouTube videos for a while now, and that is why I have never used any of those videos here. Every one that I’ve seen has been dubious. As if Putin would be complaining that Pope Francis (or any pope!) is not a man of God. He’d think that all his Christmases (or should that be Labour Days) had come at once 😀

  3. Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception everyone!

    Too late to launch a new thread (it’s been one of those days and still counting!) but I couldn’t let it pass without acknowledgment.

    This thread seems the obvious one to mark this Feast, as we need Our Lady to intercede for great graces for Pope Francis – and for our Muslim neighbours.

    A happy Feast to one and all.

    • Frankier, I have heard that the Pope wants to change the section about temptation. Also, I believe it has already happened in France. However, I haven’t had the time to check it out.

      • RCA Victor,

        Lionel, in Paris emailed me the following report from Lifesitenews showing the arrogance of this pontiff – and, personally, I can’t think of anything more arrogant than deciding to rewrite a prayer given to us directly from Christ, Himself. Incredible.

        From Lifesitenews…

        December 6, 2017 (Lifesitenews – An explosive new book is claiming not only that Pope Francis is a power-hungry, manipulative dictator, but that he celebrated the abdication of Benedict XVI.

        The Dictator Pope, by a pseudonymous author who calls himself Marcantonio Colonna, claims to describe what Pope Francis is like when his adoring public isn’t looking: “arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.”

        Despite the hidden identity of the author, the book has hit the bestseller list and received praise from seasoned Vatican watchers.

        According to the book, Francis is a master manipulator, and was fully conscious of both attempts to have him elected pope. When the 2005 Conclave elected Cardinal Ratzinger instead, the formerly conservative Cardinal Bergoglio adopted a newly progressive stance in line with the theology of his backers. And it seems that he was privy to the resurrection of their plans when Benedict cut his own papacy short. According to Colonna:

        “By the middle of 2012, a few insiders in the Curia knew that Pope Benedict was considering abdication; he had confided his intention to two of his closest associates, the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and the papal secretary Archbishop Ganswein, and he had named the exact date: 28 February 2013.

        “Cardinal Bergoglio’s communications with Rome were abruptly stepped up from this time, rising to hectic levels as the date approached. Sure enough, on 11 February 2013 Pope Benedict made his public announcement to the cardinals, and it took almost the whole world by surprise; not Bergoglio and his associates, however, as eyewitnesses discovered.

        “On the day of the announcement itself, the rector of Buenos Aires cathedral went to visit his Cardinal and found him exultant. During their interview, the telephone never stopped ringing with international calls from Bergoglio’s allies, and they were all calls of personal congratulation. One Argentinian friend, however, less well informed than the others, rang up to ask about the extraordinary news, and Bergoglio told him:’You don’t know what this means’.”

        Renowned Italian journalist and Vatican expert Marco Tosatti who writes for the Italian daily La Stampa, called The Dictator Pope “important” and “a panoramic view” of the historic events of the Bergoglian papacy so far. Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing and papal watcher for EWTN, characterises The Dictator Pope as “far more probing and detailed than anything that has previously appeared” about Francis’ papacy.

        Royal cautions that the book “sometimes stretches evidence,” but adds “the sheer amount of evidence it provides is stunning. About 90 percent of it is simply incontrovertible, and cannot help but clarify who Francis is and what he’s about.”

        The United Kingdom’s most popular Catholic weekly comments that The Dictator Pope is “at times harsh,” but praises it saying it “draws on a wide range of material including confidential sources within the Vatican.”

        The online book was made available in English on December 4. An insider’s view, it also delves into published articles and books about Francis–some of which have disappeared from Argentine bookstores–to explain the shadow side of the Bergoglio pontificate.

        The “scheming Jorge Bergoglio” presented by The Dictator Pope is a startling contrast to the “humble Pope Francis” sold to the public from the date of his election by the world media. What effect the first will have on the second will be interesting to discover. Click here to read original Lifesitenews report…

        Following on from his nonsensical commentaries about Our Lady thinking God has “lied” to her and other such baloney, this latest gaffe shows just how much of a lightweight this pope is in terms of theology and exegesis. Not a clue, springs to mind. At this rate, the publishers of the “X for Dummies” series will have to change the titles to “X for Popes” (as long as they add “such as Francis the First, and we hope, Last…) !

      • RCA Victor,

        I visited the link to Catholic Family News – the site has been given a make-over but there is no way of finding out who is running it these days, following the death of John Vennari. Do you know?

        • Editor,

          His name is Matt Gaspers. I think he spoke at the recent Catholic Identity Conference organized by Michael Matt. Apparently they didn’t have any Italians who were qualified to take up the reins!

  4. CROFTERLADY

    It seems we have to not fall into temptation, or words to that effect.

    In Scotland it will be “are ye gonnae no’ dae that?”

    I think I will just carry on with normal service.

    • Frankier,

      That’s what we were always taught it means – that God would not allow us to fall into temptation, especially if we have been lackadaisical and lacking grace.

      It has always been easy to explain that, but no, Pope Francis won’t just explain what Catholics have known for generations – he has to change it.

      If these were Our Lord’s own words, though, he is out of order, Just like Our Lady in her apparitions never says too many words and chooses her words carefully, I’m sure Our Lord did the same.

      “Lead us not into temptation” is short and to the point.

      However, so is your Scottish version, LOL!

  5. I wonder if all this Francis-fawning over Muslims is his groveling attempt to avert an ISIS attack on Rome, and his demise therefrom (since he has already identified himself as the “Bishop dressed in white.”

    Or perhaps it is just his continued deranged efforts to lay the groundwork for the “new world religion, where all religions are merely “beads on a necklace” – i.e. just different ways of worshiping the allegedly same god (or God).

    • RCA Victor,

      Or it could simply be that he wants to be in on the act, always taking the popular view on everything.

      As a friend said to me on the phone this evening, referring to Trump’s switching the USA embassy to Jerusalem, recognising that city as Israel’s capital, in keeping with longstanding (if unenforced) American policy: “I’d sooner have the Jews in charge of Jerusalem than the Muslims, given their track record of smashing everything Christian to bits”. Good point. The shrines sacred to our Faith would be gone in a flash. Predictably, of course, Papa Francis jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon, unlikely to give a toss about the smashing of Christian shrines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: