The Progressive Medusa The hard Left believes its mission is so critical, so morally superior, that all means can be justified to achieve its noble ends. And so almost every institution that the Left has in its line of vision is now petrifying. By Victor Davis Hanson   September 27, 2020 There was once a tradition of Democratic liberalism. But that wing of the Democratic Party no longer exists and died sometime in the 1990s. Old-style liberalism has been absorbed by Progressivism at best and unapologetic socialism at worst — in a journey on the supposedly predetermined arc of history that bends toward 1984. The new-old leftist aim is not to operate within either the existing parameters of the Constitution as written or the customs and traditions of America—a 150-year-long nine-justice Supreme Court, the Electoral College, a 50-state nation, a Senate filibuster, two senators per state, and a secure border. All are obstructions to the drive for power.  Given its redistributionist creed, socialism cannot afford to be patent and honest. If socialism were transparent, it never would gain majority support. Joe Biden cannot talk about the Electoral College or court packing, unequivocally condemn the violence in our urban centers, discuss the Green New Deal, name his likely Supreme Court appointments, be honest about his plans for fracking, or explain his views on the borders, because he is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the hard Left whose agendas were rejected even in his own Democratic primaries. The Left seeks to transform America into something never envisioned by the founders, a huge all-encompassing, panopticon state, one run by anointed Platonic guardians. Our elite watchmen will use their unlimited power to force upon us an equality of result society — with themselves properly exempted. The hard Left’s defense is that its mission is so critical, so morally superior, that all means can be justified to achieve its noble ends. And so almost every institution that the Left has in its line of vision is now petrifying. Urban Utopia? Large swaths of the downtowns of America’s large cities—New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland—are becoming unhygienic, unsafe, and uninhabitable. Substantial corridors swarm with the homeless. Crime is increasing but commensurately redefined as a sort of cry of the heart, no-bail social activism. The cities are broke and yet demand more bailouts to spend more money that will ensure things get worse. The summertime scenes of looting, arson, rioting, and random violence are contextualized away by both mayors and governors. They see the anarchy and chaos as a “chickens-coming-home to-roost” useful tool in this election year. We do not know fully yet the lasting effects upon city living from the virus, the quarantine, Zoom and Skype telecommuting, and urban violence. Certainly, millions are questioning the wisdom of living in high-rises, predicating their existence on constant elevator use, and riding on crowded mass transit in this age of globalized viruses. Add in filth, crime, high taxes for terrible services, and the chance to work at home—and home can become far, far away. Thousands of urbanites also know their taxes will only rise in relation to declining public services—and they will be collectively demonized for having the “privilege” to pay the escalating taxes from their own “you didn’t build that” careers and businesses. Stepping over human excrement, accepting that if mugged the assailant will either rarely be caught or if so, released shortly without bail, and resigned that “brick and mortar property” is not properly one’s own are all no way to go through life. Since the 1960s, the hard Left has demanded to run America’s cities. They have had their way for decades. And the fruition is what we see now in Portland and Seattle, or on a weekend night in Chicago. In other words, they made a desert and called it social justice. Professor LeBron Sports was once a place to escape work, politics, and family tensions—a unifying experience where grudges, feuds, and vendettas disappeared for a few hours. Not now. Franchises became self-acclaimed woke ministries, in which poorly educated athletes—almost exclusively multimillionaires and without much knowledge or appreciation of where their seemingly limitless salaries derive—have become preachers. And they are poor preachers at that. The more a LeBron James remonstrates with America, the more NFL athletes refuse to honor the national anthem, the more all professional sports display glitzy politicalized logos, so all the more fans who pay their salaries tune out. The problem is not just that half the country is at odds with the politics of professional sports, but also that it watches them to see athletic excellence and root for favored teams—not to hear adolescent rants about their own moral shortcomings from supposedly victimized elites, some of whom have less than sterling characters. Worse still, the monotonous anti-American fantasies of half-educated players are cynically predicated on their own careerist realities—and more than just constructed to appeal to woke 20-something consumers with cash for sneakers and downloads. China, for all practical purposes, now owns not just the NBA name but the players as well. We know that because for all the loud social commentators in the league who weigh in ad nauseam about American pathologies, none would dare mention Chinese racism, the systematic and ongoing attack on the Uighurs, the absorption of Tibet, or the strangulation of democracy in Hong Kong. The NBA is increasingly writing off America, mostly because it dreams of replacing trickling domestic revenue streams with an envisioned torrent of 1.4 billion Chinese consumers. Professional rich athletes wanted to be even more relevant. So they tried, ruined their brand, and are becoming as irrelevant at home as they are fawning embarrassments abroad. Reeducationing College has long ceased being a sheltered place to acquire the inductive method of thinking and disinterested empiricism, along with mastering a body of general, shared knowledge to equip the student to be aware of his past and present world. Instead, higher education seeks to teach millions of American youth how to think “correctly.” In 21st-century America, “correctness” centers around memorizing unquestioned near-religious commandments—identity and racial politics, redistributionist government, affirmative action, abortion on demand, anti-Westernism, climate change, transgenderism, open borders, police defunding, iconoclasm, and agnosticism or atheism. All that cannot be queried without being socially ostracized, professionally hounded, or sometimes even physically threatened. The Left sought to make the university woke and loud. It succeeded beyond its wildest dreams and so ensured that it is now increasingly mocked and bypassed, its graduates both abjectly ignorant while zealously arrogant. Life on campus was supposed to be an unforgettable, irreplaceable educational experience—a Socratic odyssey of free thought, unconventional ideas, and constant reexamination. But it is not, and outside of the sciences and professions, undergraduate liberal education has turned instead into a sort of summer camp bore for prolonged adolescence, a chorus of nodding and chants. The virus and lockdown reminded America that going into hock for a collective $1.4 trillion in student debt while offering the nation millions of unskilled and poorly educated activists could be bypassed with online replacements at ten cents on the dollar. If universities do not have real core education, unleash ranting ideologues on their classes, and the campus experience is dreary indoctrination, what, then, is exactly lost by distance learning? Democracy Dies in Wokeness The new globalized media promised us real-time coverage of breaking news from around the world, spiced with televised graphics and supposedly learned insight—all part of their mission to keep a democratic populace informed and thus capable of self-governance. But while always liberal, the media at least once knew that half the population turned on the news or read the papers not to be swayed, lectured, or insulted, but simply to get facts, occasional opinion editorials from both Left and Right, and enough information to draw their own conclusions. Yet journalists always dreamed of becoming more than just reporters, in the sense of evolving into activist movers and shakers of politics, culture, and society. And now they, too, have gotten their wish as pop ideology replaced meritocracy. The most boringly woke journalist is deemed the most successful, and the result is that Americans are going elsewhere for their daily information. Just as no one turns on a basketball game to hear the crackpot morality of Steve Kerr, so too few wish to learn from Brian Williams, Don Lemon, or the editorial staff of the New York Times that Americans are moral pygmies. The hard Left finally got its monopoly over the media, and predictably has destroyed its profession to save it.Gone With the WindHollywood was always left wing, but usually sufficiently subtle to insert that message within good drama, top-flight scripts, and brilliant acting. Not now. “Casablanca,” “The Best Years of Our Lives,” “High Noon,” “On the Waterfront,” “Ben Hur,” “Hombre” and “The Wild Bunch” were all dramatically engaging films with lessons about fascism, imperial autocracy, appeasement, American callousness and corruption—morality embedded within, not superimposed upon, plot, action, dialogue, and characterization. Like the indentured NBA, for all practical purposes China and its huge market now own Hollywood. We can see this both in the way that they are tailoring films for the Chinese market and delighting in their anti-American propaganda. Political correctness, the insular world from the Hollywood Hills to Malibu, and the appeasement of China explain why films cannot be critical of, or even neutral about, Chinese Communism, why light-skinned American actors are sometimes favored over their dark-skinned counterparts, and why Hollywood now focuses on comic-book action heroes, poor remakes of past classics, and psychodramas rather than tragedies. The now-gray lions of the 1960s got their wish and took over Hollywood, and they did to it what they had done earlier to the campuses. Seven Days in MayOur retired military once stayed out of politics. The few who weighed in to attack a sitting president usually were vilified by the press, and written off as right-wing nuts—whether it was Douglas MacArthur, Curtis LeMay, or Edwin Walker. Hollywood films like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Seven Days in May” purported to remind Americans that their liberty was always only a military coup or stand-down away. At the height of the McCarthy period, in paranoia about coups over “Who Lost China?” and “Why not bomb Manchuria?” liberals pushed through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in which even retired high-ranking officers were forbidden to use language disparaging their commander-in-chief. How the worm turns. The Left once demonized retired four-star admirals and generals as warmongers, revolving-door grifters who became insider lobbyists, and corporate board cronies courted for their contacts with active Pentagon procurement officers rather than any demonstrable business acumen. A Pentagon billet was once seen as a sort of dead-end assignment among the swamp of Washington. Not now. The Left discovered that, unlike clumsy government, the military could streamline social change by fiat. And so it did, once they got control of it. Lethal Islamic terrorism at home was reduced to “workplace violence.” Women in front-line combat units were fast-tracked. Man-made and thus correctable global warming became a military gospel. The transgendered posed no problems in combat efficacy. Promotion and evaluation had to encompass far more than combat readiness, strategic and tactical insight, and natural leadership but instead reflect diversity and proportional representation due to disparate impact. No wonder then that by 2020 former top brass were appearing on television to brand the commander in chief a Russian “asset,” a veritable traitor based on the fables of the Steele dossier, the yarns of a likely Russian spy ensconced in the Brookings Institution, and the demonstrable rogue operations of the FBI. The president was not just unfit, but according to those who recently ran the U.S. military, was a fascist “Mussolini” who emulated “Nazi”-like tactics to divide the country, and who built cages on the border in the fashion of the death camps of the Holocaust—and thus should be removed “sooner the better.” Joe Biden was so enthralled at the military resistance to the president that he boasted he would win, Trump would resist leaving, and his newfound retired four-stars would help remove him from the White House. At last, political activism finally “woke” the military. And the result is that the reputation of its once hallowed retired class is in shambles. If the Left convinced the military that sex and race could adjudicate promotion, then why not further recalibrate the military as the guardians of progressive democracy, ready to step in and remove any president deemed a right-wing nut in a just and noble “resistance”? Indeed “coup porn” is now the media’s new obsession, endlessly dreaming how their newfound beloved brass might frog march the evil Trump out of the White House. Again, the Left finally got what it has always wanted, and thus with its anti-Midas touch and Medusa glare turned gold into dross, and flesh into stone. Email Link   https://conta.cc/3i9fOwp RIP MCINTYRE

HERE’S HOW JOE BIDEN IS CHEATING (AND IT’S NOT A TELEPROMPTER) BY: THE LEAGUE OF POWER September 25, 2020 Color me surprised. I’ve been predicting for months now that Joe Biden would bail out on the debates, due to his inability to string two sentences together without a teleprompter. But it now looks like Biden will attend the first debate tomorrow night. His team has figured out a technological workaround to help control him in public appearances and keep up the charade that Biden has most of his faculties. After all the years that I worked in TV news, I’m kind of kicking myself that I didn’t spot this trick earlier. Keep in mind that Democrats are willing to do just about anything to cheat in a presidential election. This includes grade-school level cheating, such as then DNC head honcho Donna Brazile handing CNN’s debate questions to Hillary Clinton prior to the debate. But it also includes much more sophisticated, technological methods Think back to the first debate in 2016 between Trump and Crooked Hillary. That’s the debate where she wore the red pantsuit that she stole from Kim Jong Un’s wardrobe. Literally everyone on the right noticed the square box under Hillary’s jacket that was taped to her back, and the wires running up toward her head. The device sparked a lot of theories about what it was, with some thinking it was some type of medical device to control Hillary’s seizures. But having worked in TV for so many years, I instantly recognized it, because I used to wear one at work every day. It was a power source and wireless receiver for Hillary’s IFB (her earpiece). Someone within close enough proximity was able to relay information to Hillary during the debates to make it look like she just has so many obscure facts and figures floating around in her big brain. The funny thing is: Trump knew. If you re-watch that first debate, when Trump shakes Hillary’s hand at the very beginning, he reaches over with his left hand and taps Hillary on the back – directly on the wires. He was signaling to her, “I know you’re cheating, you wretched villain, but I’m going to beat you anyway.” After that first debate, the media went out of its way to not do any close-ups on Hillary from behind, because everyone knew she was wearing a gadget to help her cheat. Fast forward to 2020, and here is how Joe Biden’s team plans to cheat. They’ve already tested this method out in several public appearances. Is Joe Biden using a teleprompter part of the time? Yes, absolutely. We’ve all seen it. He’s using handwritten notes, a teleprompter, his computer screen and any other resource they can to prop him up and make it look like he’s not a really old man with really bad Alzheimer’s. But this… this is an inspired piece of evil genius. This is going to sound like something out of a science fiction movie but bear with me. This is totally real, and I’ll prove it to you. Joe Biden has a medical device implanted in his skull. It’s called the Esteem Hearing Implant which you can learn about HERE. It’s an implant that goes into the skull above the ear and it has two micro-wire probes that are injected into the nerves inside the ear canal. It’s FDA-approved and it uses bone conduction to enhance hearing (sound waves vibrate off the bones of the skull, and the wire probes send the signal directly into the ear, basically). It’s wireless and it’s controlled by the push of a button, so the user can turn it on and off with a little device… that fits in your pocket. And that’s how the experts at Bombards Body Language spotted this trick. Joe Biden gets really addled during unscripted, public appearances and interviews. It happened during the CNN Town Hall recently. When someone starts talking to Joe Biden, there are times when he gets that “addled old man” expression of sheer terror and confusion on his face. He’s totally lost and doesn’t have a clue where he is or what’s happening. But then – every single time – Joe Biden does what he’s been trained to do in these situations. His right hand goes into his pocket. Then he smiles that big Joe Biden politician smile that we all recognize after 47 years of this guy being in office. Then he answers the question. When Joe Biden gets confused, he reaches into his pocket and turns on the implant. Whoever is talking to him on the other end instructs him to smile and then starts relaying answers to him until he gets back on track. Joe hears it because the implant receives a wireless signal and vibrates the bones in his skull. The body language experts have also noticed that whenever Biden is receiving instructions through the implant, he cannot make eye contact with the person asking him a question. This is a natural response. Even a young, healthy and spry young mind like Donald Trump’s cannot receive communication input from two sources at once. Joe Biden has to look away from the speaker in order to listen to his handlers, which is why he always looks down when he’s being asked a question. He’s not thinking or listening intently; he’s receiving instructions from his handlers on which set of talking points to rattle off. Now we know. And now you know what to watch for during the debates. If Joe Biden looks terrorized and completely lost and confused, he’ll reach into his pocket to turn on his skull implant and then he’ll smile. Every time. We also know why Joe Biden completely vanished from the campaign trail during July. He wasn’t just hiding in his basement. He was getting his implant installed and recovering from surgery. Email Link  https://conta.cc/2GjDaCa RIP MCINTYRE

The Real Threat Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Poses to Democrats

By Don Purdum,

Freelance Contributor(RightWing.org) – 

September 28, 2020

On Saturday, September 26, President Donald Trump selected his third Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. This nomination has all the trappings of a major meltdown by Democrats.

The media is portraying the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as life and death.

If confirmed by the Senate, and that’s almost a certainty, she will change the court from leaning conservative to fully conservative for decades to come. That could ruin the hopes and dreams of liberals and the far left who won’t have the court to protect them.

However, that may not be the real reason Democrats are in an uproar. 

Despite claims of fairness and waiting until after the election, that’s not the real issue. Yes, some in the media and on the left want to make a case against her foundation of Catholicism for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s just a part of it.
There’s one major issue that’s driving her nomination that has them in a stir.
Judge Barrett’s feminism.

Ginsburg’s Feminism Paths the Trail

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a feminist trailblazer who pushed America to reevaluate the roles men and women played in society. She challenged discrimination in the workplace. Ginsburg helped make it possible for women like Amy Coney Barrett to find avenues of professional success.

However, in Ginsburg’s form of 1970’s feminism, she also equated abortion as a central issue regarding gender equality. Much of that has purveyed to this day. What the feminist movement did, according to some, was distort the shared responsibilities for children between men and women and promoted a perspective that pregnancy was a consumer choice.

Some argue that abortion wouldn’t need to be so readily available if society were more favorable to workplace accommodations and the government was financially supportive of families. Ginsburg often argued that abortion was necessary because of these inequalities.

New Type of Feminism Could Replace the Old

Barrett changes that perception and reality. She’s a happily married 48-year-old mother of 7 children, 2 of whom are adopted. She has managed a full-time job as a busy appeals court judge who ascended to be a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. Her life is the epitome of the one that the pro-choice movement said isn’t possible, yet claimed to be fighting for.

Instead of fighting against her, perhaps they should be evaluating her success and ask how she did what they said for so long wasn’t possible.

Her Husband Is the Key

The nuclear family is widely given credit for the rise in America’s strength. For decades, left-wing feminists and politicians have tried to destroy that reality. Yet, Barrett is the living example that can’t be ignored or denied.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court nominee credited her husband and their family for her success. She talked about how he helps take care of their children, and that they work together to establish family responsibilities. As they did so together, their family and professional lives thrived.

The Barrett’s demonstrate, not talk about in theory, how their shared responsibilities empower their family life and careers.

The Barrett’s Life Exposes Feminism and Abortion

The message the Barrett’s are sending is a direct threat to liberalism. Yet, without Ginsburg’s idea of feminism, it would not have led to Judge Barrett’s. Her story proves that society can move beyond the old conversation of abortion.
In the future, America may no longer even be talking about abortion. It won’t be relevant. Instead, America may be evaluating how to reconsider the way we work, structure family, and raise children in a shared environment between moms and dads.

Liberals will fight to preserve their political power even though the outcome is the one they have desired for decades. It’s sad but true. The hearings will likely be contentious.

In the end, this could be the beginning of the end for today’s brand of liberalism. Listen closely to what’s said and not said in Judge Barrett’s hearings, and it may become self-evident.

Email Link   https://conta.cc/33dsjmC

Rip McIntosh

Christian School Board Membership: A Tale of Two Supreme Court Candidates

By ED WHELAN

September 28, 2020 1:00 PM

A Politico article finds it newsworthy that the Christian school to which Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her husband send their older kids, and on whose board she sat for two years before becoming a judge, espouses orthodox Christian beliefs:

The school publishes a “cultural statement” laying out its views on social issues. It articulates a clear, conservative Christian set of values, including discouraging sex before marriage and cautioning students who experience same-sex attraction from “prematurely interpret[ing] any particular emotional experience as identity-defining.”

The article even makes the preposterous claim that the school “appears to have been at odds with American law while Barrett served on the board” because, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s imposition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the school continued to profess that “marriage is a legal and committed relationship between one man and one woman.”

Earth to Politico: The “American law” of religious freedom entitles religious institutions and religious persons to profess their religious beliefs.

As it happens, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is on lots of lefty short lists (including that of Demand Justice) for the Supreme Court if Joe Biden is elected president, servedas an advisory board member for a Christian school that proclaimed these beliefs:

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation . . . .

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. . . . In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.…

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. 

September 28, 2020

News     Audio Insights     Inner CircleNEWT’S WORLD PODCAST

Newt’s Latest Podcast How the Bidens Worked With China to Get Rich — at America’s Expense By Newt Gingrich When then-Vice President Joe Biden took an official trip to China in 2013, he brought along his son, Hunter Biden. Ten days after the trip, Hunter’s small investment firm partnered with the state-owned Bank of China to establish Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), a private equity fund. The new company ended up raking in some $1.5 billion from the deal. Curiously, Hunter had no background in private equity and no relevant expertise. Moreover, Hunter had no serious experience in China. We now know from newly released travel records that Hunter traveled to China five times between 2009 and 2014, but that’s it. Hunter did have one important qualification, though: He was the son of a sitting vice president. Even more striking, then-President Obama had effectively made Joe Biden the administration’s point man for dealing with China. It would be willful blindness to ignore this fact.This is just one piece of the remarkable — and largely hidden — story of the troubling financial relationship between the Biden family and the Chinese government. This relationship led to shady business deals that enriched the Bidens, in some cases at America’s expense. I delve into the details of the Bidens’ dealings with China on this week’s episode of my podcast, “Newt’s World.”My guest is Peter Schweizer, the executive producer of the new documentary, “Riding the Dragon: The Bidens’ Chinese Secrets.” Peter is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute and a best-selling author.Joe Biden wants us to believe he’s so close to his son. It boggles the mind to imagine he didn’t notice some of these deals and trips that Hunter was taking. Did he never ask his son about his work and travels when they talked? Did he not notice any change in his child’s lifestyle?It’s difficult not to draw some connection between Hunter’s business dealings and his father’s consistent rhetoric downplaying the threat posed by China. I hope you will listen to this week’s episode to learn the detailed truth about the Bidens’ dealings with China that the Democratic nominee doesn’t want you to see .Click Here to Listen JOIN TODAY!

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

28 set 20 

All the “Nos” of Pope Francis to the Progressives. The Last and Toughest Is on the End of Life

*

To the general disinterest of the dominant media – for which the “right” to decide how and when to die and make die is now seen as inviolable – Pope Francis has once and for all reiterated the Catholic Church’s radical “no” to euthanasia.

He has reiterated it through the letter “Samaritanus bonus” signed by Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, and approved by him on June 25 this year, made public on 22 September.

In presenting the letter, Ladaria justified it “in relation to today’s situation, characterized by an ever more permissive civil context worldwide.”

But the letter also states that its publication was deemed necessary “in order to rule out once again any ambiguity regarding the teaching of the [Church’s] magisterium on euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

“Samaritanus bonus” is therefore also the latest of the “nos” that Pope Francis has been uttering for some time against the unruly forays of the progressive sectors of the Church, which had staked a great deal on his support and now are not concealing their disappointment.

This is, in fact, the sequence of the “halts” ordered by Jorge Mario Bergoglio for two years now, although not all of them have been crowned with success:

– the May 25 2018 letter to the bishops of Germany against Eucharistic “intercommunion” between Catholics and Protestants, a letter also written by Cardinal Ladaria and countersigned by the pope;

– the September 18 2020 letter that, once more against intercommunion and with an accompanying doctrinal note, Cardinal Ladaria again wrote to the German bishops, evidently not brought to heel by the previous warning but on the contrary more determined than ever to move forward on the basis of a September 2019 document of understanding with the Protestants;

– the silence imposed by the pope at the October 2018 synod on young people regarding the “paradigm shift” in judging homosexual couples, a silence observed in the assembly discussion, in the final document, and in the post-synodal pontifical exhortation “Christus vivit”;

– the severely cautionary letters sent to the Church of Germany by the pope himself or in his name by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the congregation for bishops, to bar the way on schismatically shaded decisions in support of married priests, women priests, and new sexual morality still on the agenda of a national synod that began on December 1 2019;

– the complete silence of Pope Francis, in the final pontifical exhortation of the synod on the Amazon, made public on February 12 2020, regarding the admission to the priesthood of “viri probati” with wives and children, even though this had been approved by a majority in the synod.

Francis was intent on justifying this last silence in a note he wrote and had published by “La Civiltà Cattolica” on September 5, attributing it to the “bad spirit” of the discussion in the synodal assembly, divided “into dialectical and antagonistic positions” as in a profane parliament, and in his opinion devoid of “discernment.”

But in this same note the pope also wrote that “I like to think that, in a certain sense, the synod is not over.”

And in fact, in the Amazon and elsewhere, the proponents of married priests do not at all think that the question is closed, thanks in part to the signs of approval for their intentions given by Pope Francis himself on various occasions before the synod.

This last is a consideration that also concerns other of the “halts” mentioned above, also preceded by the pope’s words and gestures which in fact encouraged the proponents of change.

Just go back, for example, to the video recording of the unforgettable answer given by Francis to the Lutheran woman who asked him if she could receive communion at Mass along with her Catholic husband:

> Yes, no, I don’t know, work it out yourselves…

Or, concerning homosexuality, that “Who am I to judge?” which has universally become the “brand” of Francis’s pontificate.

*

So then, the letter “Samaritanus bonus” – by its own admission – was also preceded by unclear statements from Church leaders on the subject of euthanasia. And it is also for this reason – one reads there – that “the Church is convinced of the necessity to reaffirm as definitive teaching that euthanasia is a crime against human life.”

Francis himself has suffered the consequences of these previous ambiguities of language. In the ruling of the high court of justice in London of February 20 2018 which decreed the death of little Alfie Evans, Judge Anthony Hayden cited and twisted for the sake of justifying the ruling none other than a passage from the message on the end of life that the pope had sent on November 7 2017 to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the pontifical academy for life.

The passage was the one in which Francis spoke of the ever more “insidious temptation to insist on treatments that produce powerful effects on the body, but sometimes do not promote the integral good of the person” and defined as “morally licit” the forgoing or suspension of the application of therapeutic means “when their use does not correspond to that ethical and humanistic criterion which will later be defined as ‘proportionality of treatment’.”

Beyond the misleading inaccuracy of the citation, it should be kept in mind that the papal message was in fact made a target of criticism as soon as its appeared, on account of some of its unclear formulations.

But the true champion of ambiguities regarding the end of life has been, on multiple occasions, the recipient of that message, Archbishop Paglia.

In that same incident centered on the fate of little Alfie Evans, Paglia agreed in everything with the high court of justice in London, in an interview with “Tempi” on March 8 2018. And like him the London ruling was also approved by the bishops of England and Wales, led by Cardinal Vincent Nichols.

In the press conference for the presentation of “Samaritanus bonus”, on September 22, Cardinal Ladaria answered this question from Settimo Cielo:

Q. – Where the letter affirms the Church’s “duty to rule out any ambiguity regarding the teaching of the magisterium on euthanasia and assisted suicide,” do the “ambiguities” also refer to various types of statements from some Vatican offices or officials, such as Archbishop Paglia?

A. – [Smile] I would go back to what Vatican Council II also says in the constitution on the Church “Lumen gentium,” and then to various explanations that the congregation for the doctrine of the faith has given. […] The Council says there are three elements [to be taken into consideration]: the frequency of a statement, the tone of this statement, the nature of the document. A Council is not the same as a statement to a journalist. This must be very clear. It is not the same as an encyclical, a speech the pope makes, or if I now say something in front of you. […] It may also happen that at certain times, in certain types of declarations, which are not infallible, the Catholic may find himself in difficulty. In these cases the documents of the Church also provide for a moment of silence, without public opposition, but this does not […] mean that when a bishop opens his mouth he speaks in an infallible way or deploys the magisterium of the Church. No. The Church has the elements of discrimination, of judgment, because the magisterium is highly divaricated and is exercised at many levels.

*

It is difficult to predict what effect this “halt” by Pope Francis will have, within the Church, on ambiguous statements about the end of life by ecclesiastic representatives who are also close to him.

Outside the Church it is obvious. Indifference will prevail, or in any case the mere acknowledgment of opposition by the Catholic hierarchy to the dominant canons.

What is certain is that for a long time such clear and unequivocal words have not been heard in a pronouncement of the magisterium of the Catholic Church on a subject that is so delicate and divisive.

Here is a small anthology. Taken from a letter that is nonetheless to be read in its entirety and of great biblical and theological depth, for example in the splendid second chapter on “the living experience of the suffering Christ and the proclamation of hope.”

*

FROM THE LETTER “SAMARITANUS BONUS”

The complete text:

> “Samaritanus bonus”

The judgement that an illness is incurable cannot mean that care has come at an end. The contemplative gaze calls for a wider notion of care. The objective of assistance must take account of the integrity of the person, and thus deploy adequate measures to provide the necessary physical, psychological, social, familial and religious support to the sick. The living faith of the persons involved in care contributes to the authentic theologal life of the sick person, even if this is not immediately evident. […]

The Church affirms that the positive meaning of human life is something already knowable by right reason, and in the light of faith is confirmed and understood in its inalienable dignity. […]

The uninfringeable value of life is a fundamental principle of the natural moral law and an essential foundation of the legal order. Just as we cannot make another person our slave, even if they ask to be, so we cannot directly choose to take the life of another, even if they request it. […]

The Church is convinced of the necessity to reaffirm as  definitive teaching that euthanasia is a crime against human life because, in this act, one chooses directly to cause the death of another innocent human being. […] Euthanasia is an intrinsically evil act, in every situation or circumstance. […]

Any formal or immediate material cooperation in such an act is a grave sin against human life. […] Those who approve laws of euthanasia and assisted suicide, therefore, become accomplices of a grave sin that others will execute. They are also guilty of scandal because by such laws they contribute to the distortion of conscience, even among the faithful. […]

The medical personnel and the other health care workers – faithful to the task always to be at the service of life and to assist it up until the very end – cannot give themselves to any euthanistic practice, neither at the request of the interested party, and much less that of the family. In fact, since there is no right to dispose of one’s life arbitrarily, no health care worker can be compelled to execute a non-existent right. […]

To precipitate death or delay it through “aggressive medical treatments” deprives death of its due dignity. […]

Nutrition and hydration do not constitute medical therapy in a proper sense, which is intended to counteract the pathology that afflicts the patient. They are instead forms of obligatory care of the patient, representing both a primary clinical and an unavoidable human response to the sick person. Obligatory nutrition and hydration can at times be administered artificially, provided that it does not cause harm or intolerable suffering to the patient. […]

The sometimes obsessive recourse to prenatal diagnosis, along with the emergence of a culture unfriendly to disability, often prompts the choice of abortion, going so far as to portray it as a kind of “prevention.” Abortion consists in the deliberate killing of an innocent human life and as such it is never lawful. The use of prenatal diagnosis for selective purposes is contrary to the dignity of the person and gravely unlawful because it expresses a eugenic mentality. In other cases, after birth, the same culture encourages the suspension or non-initiation of care for the child as soon as it is born because a disability is present or may develop in the future. This utilitarian approach—inhumane and gravely immoral—cannot be countenanced. […]

The Church nonetheless affirms the moral liceity of sedation as part of patient care in order to ensure that the end of life arrives with the greatest possible peace and in the best internal conditions. This holds also for treatments that hasten the moment of death (deep palliative sedation in the terminal stage), always, to the extent possible, with the patient’s informed consent. […]

Governments must acknowledge the right to conscientious objection in the medical and healthcare field, where the principles of the natural moral law are involved and especially where in the service to life the voice of conscience is daily invoked. Where this is not recognized, one may be confronted with the obligation to disobey human law. […]

The right to conscientious objection does not mean that Christians reject these laws in virtue of private religious conviction, but by reason of an inalienable right essential to the common good of the whole society. They are in fact laws contrary to natural law because they undermine the very foundations of human dignity and human  coexistence rooted in justice. […]

The pastoral accompaniment of those who expressly ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide today presents a singular moment when a reaffirmation of the teaching of the Church is necessary. With respect to the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, the confessor must be assured of the presence of the true contrition necessary for the validity of absolution. […] Thus a person who may be registered in an association to receive euthanasia or assisted suicide must manifest the intention of cancelling such a registration before receiving the sacraments. […]

Those who spiritually assist these persons should avoid any gesture, such as remaining until the euthanasia is performed, that could be interpreted as approval of this action. Such a presence could imply complicity in this act.

—————

(s.m.) For those who want to make something of the headline news of recent days, issued at 7:59 pm on Thursday September 24 with a terse statementfrom the Vatican press office that Pope Francis had “accepted” the “resignation” of Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu from his position as prefect of the congregation for the causes of saints and from “the rights connected to the cardinalate,” this background could be informative:

> Francis, the Good Boss “Who Doesn’t Want To Fire Anyone.” But the Facts Say the Opposite (May 12 2020)

While concerning the self-defense presented by Becciu the day after his ouster, any of the various accounts will do.

It’s not surprising that President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are both pursuing Catholic voters in earnest in the hopes of getting their votes. The nation’s roughly 51 million Catholic adults (1) constitute the largest single religious institution in the United States and the parties have equal shares of Catholic registered voters (2) in recent years – 47% vs. 46%, respectively.   

     The work before all voters should be picking candidates in the light of a “fully formed conscience,” a task that has always been a challenge. For Catholics, the Church’s guidance is principled, not partisan, and rightly understands various political opinions can be compatible with faith and the natural law.  

    Catholics must weigh prudential judgments when applying moral principles to specific policy issues in areas such as war, housing, health care, immigration, and others. It is not uncommon for two people of faith to agree on principles while disagreeing on policy. But with certain issues, there is far less room for disagreement. For Catholics, these foundational issues encompass policy pertaining to what is described as “intrinsic evils.” Among these are “issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and ‘marriages,’ repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.” (3) 

    Among these all-important issues, Trump and Biden differ on greatly on life and religious liberty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. (CCC 2270)” 

    Biden has said he is personally prepared to accept that life begins at conception;(4) however, he “tolerates” abortion out of “respect” for the consciences of others. It could be this “tolerance” which Biden displayed when he defended China’s horrific one child policy. This policy, which involves mass sterilization and forced abortion, was something Biden said he “understood” and does not “second guess.” (5) It is currently being used to exterminate China’s Uighur Muslim population. (6)

    Even before he decided to support forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions,(7)  Biden was no moderate. While in the Senate, he voted against numerous pieces of pro-life legislation including protecting unborn children who are harmed or killed during the commission of a violent crime, (8) parental notification of minors who get out-of-state abortions(9), and defining the unborn child as eligible for federal healthcare.(10) During that time he voted for taxpayer funding of abortions on military bases (11)as well as for significantly increasing the funding to abortion-giant Planned Parenthood. (12)

    Regarding destructive embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (13) says, “direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. (p.23)” 

    Biden was one of 58 senators who insisted President George W. Bush expand federal funding of human embryonic stem cell experimentation.(14) When the president refused, Biden voted (15) to support funding for additional lines, which would have meant the destruction of more human embryos. On what has been a bipartisan issue – human cloning – Biden actually voted against banning the artificial creation of human life. (16)

    But Biden has been the most duplicitous on the issue of religious liberty. The USCCB document, Faithful Citizenship, (17)makes it clear that “Government bodies should not require Catholic institutions to compromise their moral convictions to participate in government health or human service programs. (p.78)” 

    As vice president, Biden repeatedly and publicly  (18) defended the Obamacare mandate that required Catholic institutions – most famously the Little Sisters of the Poor (as well as non-secular organizations like the March for Life) – to violate their consciences. Following the Little Sisters’ victory at the Supreme Court this year, Biden said given the chance he would reinstate the policy that forced the sisters to defend their religious liberty in the first place. This came after he claimed that nuns inspired him to run (19) in a campaign ad. 

    And Biden’s running mate hasn’t hidden her disdain for Catholics and Catholic organizations. As a senator, Kamala Harris made it clear she thinks there should be a litmus test to serve in our democracy – and that faithful Catholics need not apply. In 2017, Harris aggressively questioned a nominee to a federal judgeship about his association with “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.” (20) Harris made clear her position that the nominee’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a charitable organization serving the most vulnerable among us – including the unborn – was incompatible with holding public office. 

    The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics should participate in civic life as “faithful citizens.” This applies especially when it comes to voting, a right we must exercise with the teachings of the Church foremost in our minds. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained that, “Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” (21)

    As Catholics, we know the foundational importance of life and religious liberty – which is why we ought to think twice before pulling the lever for a ticket so hostile to Catholics and what we hold dear. 

Tom McClusky

UP NEXT: NOW READING: BIDEN’S LONG HISTORY OF VOTING AGAINST CATHOLIC VALUES 

Biden’s Long History of Voting Against Catholic Values

By Tom McClusky
September 25, 2020(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

It’s not surprising that President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are both pursuing Catholic voters in earnest in the hopes of getting their votes. The nation’s roughly 51 million Catholic adults constitute the largest single religious institution in the United States and the parties have equal shares of Catholic registered voters in recent years – 47% vs. 46%, respectively.  

The work before all voters should be picking candidates in the light of a “fully formed conscience,” a task that has always been a challenge. For Catholics, the Church’s guidance is principled, not partisan, and rightly understands various political opinions can be compatible with faith and the natural law.  

Catholics must weigh prudential judgments when applying moral principles to specific policy issues in areas such as war, housing, health care, immigration, and others. It is not uncommon for two people of faith to agree on principles while disagreeing on policy. But with certain issues, there is far less room for disagreement. For Catholics, these foundational issues encompass policy pertaining to what is described as “intrinsic evils.” Among these are “issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and ‘marriages,’ repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.” 

Among these all-important issues, Trump and Biden differ on greatly on life and religious liberty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. (2270)” 

Biden has said he is personally prepared to accept that life begins at conception; however, he “tolerates” abortion out of “respect” for the consciences of others. It could be this “tolerance” which Biden displayed when he defended China’s horrific one child policy. This policy, which involves mass sterilization and forced abortion, was something Biden said he “understood” and does not “second guess.” It is currently being used to exterminate China’s Uighur Muslim population. 

Even before he decided to support forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, Biden was no moderate. While in the Senate, he voted against numerous pieces of pro-life legislation including protecting unborn children who are harmed or killed during the commission of a violent crime, parental notification of minors who get out-of-state abortions, and defining the unborn child as eligible for federal healthcare. During that time he voted for taxpayer funding of abortions on military bases as well as for significantly increasing the funding to abortion-giant Planned Parenthood. 

Regarding destructive embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) says, “direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. (23)” 

Biden was one of 58 senators who insisted President George W. Bush expand federal funding of human embryonic stem cell experimentation. When the president refused, Biden voted to support funding for additional lines, which would have meant the destruction of more human embryos. On what has been a bipartisan issue – human cloning – Biden actually voted against banning the artificial creation of human life. 

But Biden has been the most duplicitous on the issue of religious liberty. The USCCB document, Faithful Citizenship, makes it clear that “Government bodies should not require Catholic institutions to compromise their moral convictions to participate in government health or human service programs. (78)” 

As vice president, Biden repeatedly and publicly defended the Obamacare mandate that required Catholic institutions – most famously the Little Sisters of the Poor (as well as non-secular organizations like the March for Life) – to violate their consciences. Following the Little Sisters’ victory at the Supreme Court this year, Biden said given the chance he would reinstate the policy that forced the sisters to defend their religious liberty in the first place. This came after he claimed that nuns inspired him to run in a campaign ad. 

And Biden’s running mate hasn’t hidden her disdain for Catholics and Catholic organizations. As a senator, Kamala Harris made it clear she thinks there should be a litmus test to serve in our democracy – and that faithful Catholics need not apply. In 2017, Harris aggressively questioned a nominee to a federal judgeship about his association with “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.” Harris made clear her position that the nominee’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a charitable organization serving the most vulnerable among us – including the unborn – was incompatible with holding public office. 

The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics should participate in civic life as “faithful citizens.” This applies especially when it comes to voting, a right we must exercise with the teachings of the Church foremost in our minds. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained that, “Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” 

As Catholics, we know the foundational importance of life and religious liberty – which is why we ought to think twice before pulling the lever for a ticket so hostile to Catholics and what we hold dear. 

Tom McClusky is a writer from Alexandria, Virginia.

CNN – Are They Pushing the United States Into Civil War? By Theodore Wilson September 25, 2020 Does CNN have a political agenda that will alter the future of the United States and the media that will sacrifice our country’s future to obtain it?  Take a peek at the past. De Bows Review before the Civil War published article after article about the economic differences between the North and South, inequities like the miles of railroad track, canals, and the National Bank created by Congress and owned privately by northerners, Northern congressmen pushing for higher tariffs, all in the interest of “cheating the South out of their commerce,” De Bow declared, whether the economic capital would be in New York City or New Orleans. The suggestion of succession originated in the magazines and newspapers as early as the 1840’s. The press continued using their power to curb Washing politics. The Spanish American War, often called the Hurst War, because their owner, William Randolph Hurst saw Cuba as the next new state. He sent a reporter there to take pictures for the New York Journal and he suspiciously organized events to drive Americans to demand the war. He got what he wanted. Again, during the War in Europe of 1914, American companies loaded passenger ships with war supplies for England and the German dock workers in New York kept the Kaiser informed of those ships leaving our harbor to their enemies. The German submarines sunk those ships. The American press deliberately kept citizens in the dark, campaigned Congress to declare war, and to the bewilderment of many citizens, they declared war. During that vote, Jannette Ranken, our first female Senator, said, “I want to support my country, but I must vote No.” On other issues, they supported McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, and most recently, burning of our cities by anarchist. You see, Yellow Journalism, a term used to describe the New York Journal at the end of the 19th Century, has guided American politics for generations, and they are at the heart of our problems today. They slant, misrepresent, distort, and even make up false news to control the minds of the readers. In the Twentieth Century, information was delivered to us mostly through literature, radio, and motion picture clips, then television and computers took over, and now, small presses have disappeared and a handful of monopolies control the media Anarchism, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism have been in our shadows since the last half of the 19th Century, they reappear during difficult times, leave their marks on our government, and slip back out of our sight, but not empty handed. Unemployment compensations, food stamps, crop subsidies, welfare are just a few of the socialistic policies we practice. Fascism on the other hand, socially engineers the behavior of citizens to achieve the goals or philosophy of one group over another through government control. It appears in ways that are contrary to common sense, logic, and sometimes the convictions of religion. So many times, list’s surface on the internet that humorously point out contrary government policies that don’t make sense, we read them for amusement, but they are not funny.  Title Nine, enacted in 1972 and fortified in 1978, shows how fascism altered the future of a multitude of young people. Supported by the Supreme Court, it requires all federally funded colleges to offer women the same number of sports as men. That decision wiped out hundreds of men’s teams in minor sports, and today, no collegiate conference in the United States has a compliment of teams in any minor sport outside of cross country. Swimming and wrestling shrunk by 50%, water polo and gymnastics all but disappeared, because women don’t have the same desire to compete in sports as men. Forty years later, countless numbers of American have lost their opportunity to compete in these collegiate sports. Reverse discrimination is the by-product of fascism, we see it in every facet of life, and the victims have no recourse, and most of them are white males. Our forefathers believed that laws should not be oppressive, harsh, or unjust, and legislation should follow the rule of reason. So, we ask ourselves, how does CNN fit into this picture. Well, their empathetic support of anarchist burning our cities day after day caused mayors and governors to be afraid to take action to protect the innocent victims who hopelessly watched their property being destroyed. The Democrats followed suit with CNN. Does CNN hate President Donald Trump? Fascist do not rely on common sense, they forbid freedom of speech, and destroy the opposing positions. CNN will not stop at anything until Trump has been deposed. Will they fuel violence if Trump is re-elected? The proof already is in the pudding, but the fierceness will accelerate, and the number of Americans who are likely to die will sky rocket.     Conservatives already know this. They fear it, talk about it, write about it, but what will they do to protect the constitution? Nothing! Conservatives by their own philosophy, live within the law and rely on the government to keep order. Liberals, on the other hand, re-write or bend law to suit their own needs, thus not surprising that most attorneys are Democrats, the farther they can stretch a statute, the bigger the salary.  As soon as fascist liberals have gained control of the government, they will disarm citizens. People who resist will be shot and buried in massive graves, an event not covered by the media. The United States will become perfectly “straight.” Words like Colonial, Mediterranean, Country French, Italian, and Oriental will disappear from our language. All of the woodwork in the houses will be white, the furniture and cabinets will match the stove, refrigerator, washer and dryer, and the walls decorated by kitsch décor. Our grandchildren will be socially engineered, programmed strategically by media strategist who dictate government policies, free thinking will disappear, and the nation will exist as a state of socio biological clones. (E.O.Wilson’s Social Conquest of Earth) Email Link  https://conta.cc/3j5HjZc

Home » News » Vatican

New details emerge about Cardinal Becciu’s management of Vatican finances

19The then Archbishop Angelo Becciu blesses the Pilgrimage Information Center for the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy on Dec. 1, 2015. Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.2d7d9a6d04538bf11c7b23641e75738c.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=hannahbrockhaus&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&size=m&time=1601137206226By Hannah Brockhaus

Vatican City, Sep 25, 2020 / 08:00 am MT (CNA).- Following his resignation yesterday, new reports reveal details of how Cardinal Angelo Becciu managed Vatican financial affairs, developing a story CNA first broke last year.

Portfolio statements show that Becciu used millions of euros of Vatican charity funds in speculative and risky investments, and that he directed Vatican and Italian bishops’ money to go toward “loans” for projects owned and operated by his brothers.

Becciu resigned as prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints and from the rights extended to members of the College of Cardinals Sept. 24.

The cardinal previously served as “sostituto,” or second-ranking official at the Secretariat of State, from 2011 to 2018.

After his resignation, Becciu told the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero he was “shocked” and “troubled.” He called his resignation “a blow for me, for those who know and respect me, and for my family.”

CNA has reported that during his tenure as “sostituto,” Becciu used loans from several Swiss banks, including BSI and Credit Suisse, to at least partially finance the controversial purchase of a building at 60 Sloane Avenue in London. 

Becciu said Friday that the Vatican “found nothing” on him regarding the London building transaction, and other accusations “have no criminal offence.”

“Out of a spirit of obedience and out of love for the Church and the pope, I accepted his request to step aside,” he said. “But I am innocent and I will prove it. I ask the Holy Father to have the right to defend myself.” 

A new report by the Italian weekly L’Espresso showed that Becciu gave financier Enrico Crasso, a former manager of Credit Suisse, control over millions of euros of Vatican investment funds from the Secretariat of State and from the papal charity Peter’s Pence.

Crasso is also the manager of Centurion Global Fund, an investment fund used by the Secretariat of State, with links to two Swiss banks investigated or implicated in bribery and money laundering scandals. As CNA reported, this is the same fund in which the Vatican Secretariat of State invested millions of euros, including with money donated to Peter’s Pence. 

Reports show that the fund’s investments lost money while its managers, who include Crasso, recouped millions in fees. Centurion investment fund has been under investigation by Vatican authorities since December 2019.

According to L’Espresso, Crasso directed Vatican money into highly speculative funds with low return margins and based in tax havens.

The weekly said that Becciu also used Peter’s Pence money and funds from the Italian bishops’ conference to finance projects owned and operated by three of his brothers.

L’Espresso reported that Becciu obtained two loans from the Italian bishops’ conference to pay out two non-repayable loans of 300,000 euros each to Spes Cooperative in 2013 and 2015.

Spes Cooperative is the operational arm of the diocesan Caritas of Becciu’s former diocese of Ozieri in Sardinia. The owner and legal representative of Spes Cooperative is Becciu’s brother, Tonino.

In 2018, Becciu gave a third sum to Spes Cooperative of 100,000 euros from Peter’s Pence, of which he had control as “sostituto.” 

There appear to be questions around whether these funds were used for their ostensible charitable purposes.

The bishop of Ozieri and president of the diocesan Caritas, Corrado Melis, said in a statement addressed to Becciu Sept. 24 that the diocesan Caritas “has never been the beneficiary” of undue or illegitimate favor, and that it has “never used a single penny” of funds given for charitable works for other purposes.

Becciu himself denied any guilt, saying that he “may have made a mistake out of too much love for my diocese, but I do not see the crime. I am ready to shout the truth,” Il Fatto Quotidiano reported.

A second instance of Becciu working in the favor of a brother reportedly occurred when he was papal nuncio in Angola and later in Cuba, when the carpentry company of Becciu’s brother, Francesco, was hired to furnish and repair several churches in the two countries.

Becciu also reportedly helped to bring in customers for Angel’s srl, a specialty food and beverage distributor, of which another brother, Mario, is majority partner and legal representative.

The Becciu family put out a statement Friday saying that news reports that members of their family received financial favors from their brother, the cardinal, were “unfounded and maliciously false, in particular for the imaginative and unprovable references to alleged donations from Peter’s Pence.”

Reportedly, the large proceeds of the companies of the Becciu brothers were later reinvested in low-risk safe-haven equity, holding and financial packages. Income generated from these investments was then reinvested in funds previously invested in by the Secretariat of State, such as the Centurion Fund. 

Through Crasso, Becciu also became acquainted with Lorenzo Vangelisti, CEO of Valeur Group, an asset management, advisory, trading, and real estate company.

Vangelisti was involved in the Vatican’s purchase of the Sloane Avenue property in London, together with the director of Valeur capital, Alessando Noceti, who used to work for Suisse Credit in London.

This was not the only time that Becciu has faced accusations that he used his position to benefit family members. CNA reported last year about the hiring of Becciu’s niece, Maria Piera Becciu, as the personal secretary of Fr. Franco Decaminada, the former president of an Italian hospital, also linked to a Vatican financial scandal.

Decaminada had approached Becciu in 2011, shortly after he started his role at the Secretariat of State, asking him for support on a proposal that the Vatican supply the failing Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata (IDI), with 200 million euros.

Decaminada was then a senior member of the Sons of the Immaculate Conception, the order which then owned and oversaw the IDI. He was arrested in 2013 and sent to prison for his part in the massive fraud and corruption around IDI’s collapse, and eventually laicized.

As reported by CNA in 2019, Becciu has also been accused of attempting to disguise millions of euros in loans on the Vatican balance sheets by canceling them out against the value of the London property, an accounting maneuver prohibited by financial policies approved by Pope Francis in 2014. 

The loans, acquired through Swiss banks, triggered an internal dispute between the Secretariat of State and Vatican financial authorities, in particular, with Cardinal George Pell, who was then responsible for the Secretariat for Economy.

In a statement following Becciu’s resignation Thursday, Pell said he hoped that “the cleaning of the stables continues in both the Vatican and Victoria.”

“The Holy Father was elected to clean up Vatican finances. He plays a long game and is to be thanked and congratulated on recent developments,” he said from Sydney, Australia.

Tags: Vatican Finances, Catholic Church, Cardinal Angelo Becciu, Vatican news