Bishop Schneider: Aspects of Second Vatican Council Might Be Corrected in the Future; Priests Must Also Come to Resist at Times

On 16 February 2017, Rorate Caeli published an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, conducted in Mexico by a very polite and grateful Mauricio Ponce for Rorate Caeli and its Spanish partner, Adelante la Fe. John-Henry Westen from LifeSiteNews has already presented the bishop’s important words concerning the question as to whether, and under which conditions, Catholics might publicly criticize a pope. There are other statements from Bishop Schneider which are of great moral weight within the context of our current doctrinal and moral crisis in the Church.

With respect to several topics, the prelate spoke about the nature and status of the Second Vatican Council and whether some of its elements still might come to be corrected in the future; about the duty and right of priests to resist their own bishops when the Faith is clearly in danger; and about the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and their duty to preserve their integrity and identity for the sake of the Church.

When asked about the Second Vatican Council, Schneider showed that “the Council was primarily – as repeatedly stated even by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI – a pastoral council; not a doctrinal or dogmatic council;” and he added “so it was the intention of the Church not to give with its documents a definitive teaching.” Schneider continues: “And so when there is no definitive teaching, there can be some development of these issues still, or even some corrections. And this is normal.” [my emphasis]

Bishop Schneider then gives us an example from the Church’s history concerning the Ecumenical Council of Florence which decided that the matter of the sacramental ordination of a priest was the actual handing of the Chalice to the candidate, according to St. Thomas’ teaching. However, says Schneider, there were in the Middle Ages other theologians who held that the matter of the act of priestly ordination was the laying on of the hands upon the future priest. Schneider explains:

But it was an Ecumenical Council. But, actually, after the Council, the Church permitted discussion, even against this position. They were theologians, and the popes never prohibited it. […] And so it was 400 years or more, until [Pope] Pius XII, in 1947, definitively established that the materia [matter] of the ordination is only – only! – the laying down of the hands.

It is after giving this historical example that Bishop Schneider goes on to say:

So, and therefore, even at the Second Vatican Council, there are texts and formulations which can be even changed – in a similar manner as the Council of Florence – because they are not definitive. And so we should create an atmosphere of discussions even on the issues of Vatican II. It is not against the authority of the Magisterium [to do so]. [my emphasis]

In Schneider’s eyes, we have had, in the last 50 or 60 years, “a very unhealthy, extreme attitude to accept or to interpret and look at Vatican II and its documents almost as infallible, ex cathedra. And this is not true.”

It is in this context that Bishop Schneider gives consent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s criticism of some elements of the Council:

And, therefore, I think that the just critics [i.e., criticism] of Monsignor Lefebvre and of the Society of St. Pius X to [concerning] some – not to the entire Council, no! – but to some expressions is really a help, will be a help for the Church. And when the Society of St. Pius X will be completely integrated as a canonical institute of the Church they can really officially give to the Church a good contribution to a necessary theological discussion and deepening some aspects of the Council which only had a temporal [temporally limited] character – it was only fifty years ago.

These comments of Bishop Schneider are important in two respects. First, he supports the idea that there might be aspects of the Second Vatican Council that will be proportionately corrected in the future; secondly, he praises the Society of St. Pius X for its differentiated criticism of that Council and he hopes that they will contribute more in the future to the Church’s discussion about this larger matter.

It might be helpful to also see what Bishop Schneider in general has to say about the SSPX and the possible danger of Pope Francis – or any pope in the future – pressuring it to makes changes after it has received the status of a personal prelature. If that were to happen – as a “hypothetical possibility” –

it would be on them [the SSPX] to resist and to preserve their identity […] they have to say “this is unjust, it is against our intentions to accept the prelature and it will destroy our charism,” and so then they have to resist and then, in my opinion, they have to say with all respect to the Holy See: “You can take away from us the prelature. We do not need this prelature, the most important [thing] is to preserve our identity for the benefit of the Church – for the benefit of the Church, not of us [ourselves], but of the Church.” And so, in this hypothetical case, they have to renounce again the prelature and continue [to be] as they are; and so they will lose nothing. It is upon them to preserve their identity. [my emphasis]

Thus Bishop Schneider opens up the possibility of a just resistance against the attempt of the Vatican to suppress the SSPX’s work, and he thereby indirectly seems to justify their past resistance, by which they were able to build up their work and organization as it stands now, to include the formation of traditional priests.

That Bishop Schneider defends the idea of a morally justified disobedience toward Church authorities can be seen in his discussion of two important cases: the case of Communion in the hand itself, and the case of handing such a Communion to the “remarried” divorcees. In both of these situations, Bishop Schneider explicitly proposes that priests may resist the orders of their superiors, for the sake of preserving the Catholic Faith.

With reference to the question as to whether a priest may refuse to give out Holy Communion into the hands of the faithful, Bishops Schneider quotes John Paul II’s Instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum (2004). According to this document, a priest has a right not to give Communion into the hands when he sees “a danger of profanation” (or worse!), explains Schneider. As an example, the prelate mentions that fragments of the Holy Eucharist can be lost on the ground or that there is a danger that the Host might be stolen. A priest, in such a case, “can refuse it [to give Communion in the hand].” [my emphasis] Schneider proposes that the priest should also then proceed to give a good Catechesis to his parish, explaining his decision. And he believes that the majority of the faithful would follow that priest’s instruction.

With regard to the question of the “remarried” divorcees and whether they may, after their own decision of conscience, go to Holy Communion, Schneider says:

No, this is against the constant teaching of the Church. It is the principle of subjectivism, ultimately of Luther, of Protestantism. […] No, the conscience is not the [ultimate] judge; one has to hear the voice of God: this is the real conscience. […] There is the Commandment of God, it is clear, and the teaching of the Church not to commit adultery and to be in the state of Grace – even objectively, not only subjectively – and in this manner to receive Holy Communion because the Sacraments are not a private action of everyone. The Sacraments are public, the most public action of the Church.

Schneider mentions that there are “objective criteria” with regard to the Sacraments, based on Holy Scripture (St. Paul) and the constant Sacred Tradition. When asked about the recent threats to be suspended a divinis addressed to priests on the Island of Malta if they were to refuse to give Communion to the “remarried,” Schneider has some clear words to say:

When a bishop does this [pressuring priests to give Communion to the “remarried”], he commits a grave abuse of power; he is ordering to sin. And when a bishop – or even a pope – commands me to sin, I have to refuse these [commands] because I have to obey God. And therefore, in this case, the priest has to say: “You Excellency, dear Bishop, you order me to commit a sin, and I cannot [do] this, I have to obey God. And I cannot obey you in this case.” [my emphasis]

With concern, Bishop Schneider adds that he hopes this [pressuring of priests] “will not spread in the Church […] such drastic and abusive norms.” The German prelate from Kazakhstan, who himself as a child had to live under Communism in the Soviet Union, then gives all of us some important advice and strength: “He [such a pressured priest] has to resist even to the extent that he will lose his office. Better to lose all, but not to commit sin against the Commandment of God in this case.” [My emphasis]

Here it might be helpful to remember Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s words as written in his new book The Pope – Mission and Mandate:

Even the highest ecclesial authority could not intervene into the “substance of a Sacrament.” [A quote from the Council of Trent] The Church has preferred, and still prefers, severe disadvantages rather than to dissolve only one single valid sacramental marriage – as in the case of the disputes with Christian rulers (e.g., the split of the Catholic Church of England from Rome through Henry VIII of England) or with the prevailing public opinion. The Church has to obey here God more than man and may not sacrifice the Truth of the Gospel – which surpasses mere natural reason – to a mere human calculation. [my emphasis]

Moreover, the German cardinal also said, as I recently recorded:

Müller then gives an illustration and says that a pope could not change the “inherent criteria of admission to the Sacraments” and “give sacramental absolution and allow Holy Communion for a Catholic who is in the state of mortal sin without repentance or firm resolve to henceforth avoid that sin without thereby himself sinning with regard to the Truth of the Gospel and the Salvation of those faithful who are thus being led astray into error.” [my emphasis]

The criteria of resistance against a bishop – or even a pope – are the Truth of the Gospel and the Salvation of Souls. Here, Cardinal Müller and Bishop Schneider are defending the same truths. Which is to say that, when it comes down to it, we, at such times, have to obey God more than man. St. Joan of Arc comes here to mind as a saintly example of this.

To return to the role of the SSPX in our current Church crisis. Bishop Schneider explicitly says in this new interview that “in the time of crisis, we have to join [together] all the good forces.” That means that “the word of Archbishop Lefebvre will be able to do their contribution to the edification of the Church, to the preservation of Faith, and to the education of priests, especially.” As we reported on 12 December 2016, Bishop Schneider regards the suppression of the work of the SSPX by the Holy See in the past as an act of injustice. He then also proceeded to say, with regard to the possibility of the SSPX becoming a canonical prelature: “This would only be an act of rendering justice – quite belatedly – to the unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 on the part of the Holy See.” [my emphasis]

Furthermore, we would like to remind our readers of another important initiative earlier taken by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), in August of 2016. He then said in an interview, with regard to some of the Vatican II documents which are not dogmatic, but pastoral – Nostra Aetate about interreligious dialogue; the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism; and the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty:

They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. On can [thus legitimately] continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the [proposed] canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further [and acceptable] clarifications.

It is to be hoped that statements such as these recorded again now in this article may give more spiritual and intellectual scope for the Catholic Church’s discussions on matters of Faith and Morals, which seem to be so much under siege at the moment, and which, at the same time, are demanding from us our own loyalty to Christ’s Own Words and Teaching, not only on marriage, but also on the nature of the Church and its relations to other religions which seem to have been conflated and confused in the recent past. Encouraged by Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s strong truth and charitable witness, let us be faithful, persevering witnesses of the Faith ourselves, and, if possible, everywhere.

Watch the full interview with Bishop Schneider here: 

Last month, we recounted the long and sordid story of the toppling of the Knights of Malta. Three particularly troubling events stood out at the conclusion of that story:

First, the resignation of Fra’ Matthew Festing, Grand Master of the Order, forced by Pope Francis with an alleged demand that he state for the record that Cardinal Raymond Burke was responsible for what had transpired. Also, the subsequent nullification of his previous acts and decrees to such an extent that a number of important pieces of historical information on the Order’s website were erased.

Second, the Vatican-ordered reinstatement of Abrecht von Boeselager as Grand Chancellor, despite evidence that during his tenure as Grand Hospitaller for the order, he oversaw programs that distributed contraceptives as part of the relief services and aid that the Order provides.

Third, the imposition of a “papal delegate” — Archbishop Becciu —  who would act as liaison and “exclusive spokesman” between the Vatican and the Order — a task which should have fallen under the purview of the Order’s Cardinal Patron, Raymond Burke.

These are not the only troubling elements of the story, but are perhaps the most noteworthy for our purposes, all under the larger umbrella of papal interference in the governance of an entity that has sovereignty under international law.

In a January 7, 2017 report — before Festing was forced out but after Boeselager was dismissed — Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register asked Cardinal Burke what happened with regard to Boeselager’s removal from the Order:

Cardinal Burke told the Register: “I can’t make any comment on these decisions because I was never consulted. I was present at the dismissal.” But he added that what concerns him “very much” in the entire “unfortunate reaction to the grand master’s just action is the loss of the heart of what is at stake, namely, a grave violation of the Church’s moral teaching and, indeed, of the natural moral law by a high profile and historic Catholic institution.” [emphasis added]

This story did not, however, come to an end with Festing’s “resignation”.

On January 29, Vaticanista Sandro Magister wrote a column entitled, After the Grand Master, Another Head Is About To Fall: That of Cardinal Burke. If the headline were not descriptive enough, Magister made plain what was coming:

What reversed the fortunes within the Order, to the point of driving it to this act of total submission to the bidding of Pope Francis, were three acts carried out in rapid succession by the pontiff himself: the summoning of the Grand Master on January 24 with the order given to him to resign; the letter on the following day from secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin with the specification of the pope’s wishes; and finally two letters on January 27 from the pope himself, with a further specification of the role to be performed by the “special delegate” whose arrival has been announced: “for the spiritual and moral renewal of the Order.”

And it is this last element that is the most newsworthy in the statement released this evening by the Order. As Settimo Cielo had correctly reported, Pope Francis has in effect granted the Order the faculty of proceeding according to its constitutions concerning its interim regency – now assumed by the Grand Commander of the Order, Fra’ Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein – and the appointment of the new Grand Master. So the pope’s “special delegate” will neither replace nor overlap the legitimate governance of the Order, as many had hoped or feared. Instead he will accompany it with the task of “spiritual” guide. A task, that is, very similar to the one that already belongs by statute to the cardinal patron.

The decapitation inflicted by Pope Francis on the Order of Malta is therefore twofold. Because what is falling is not only the head of Grand Master Festing, but also, de facto, that of cardinal patron Raymond Leo Burke.

Within days, Festing’s formerly quiet indignance exploded in a report from Christopher Lamb at The Tablet, known colloquially as “The Bitter Pill” for its hard-edged liberal bias. Why Festing, himself an Englishman, would give an interview to Lamb, who seemed eager to dig up dirt on the former Grand Master, remains a subject of mystery. But on February 3, Lamb had an exclusive featuring combative quotes from the man who had fallen to the Vatican’s coup:

The Knights of Malta’s former leader has come out fighting saying the saga involving him, the Vatican and his leadership of the order is “by no means finished”

Matthew Festing resigned as Grand Master last week after a meeting with Pope Francis, a move that signalled his capitulation in a very public battle between the knights and the Holy See.

But speaking to The Tablet, Festing has stressed the complex dispute is far from over, raising the possibility of him trying to make a comeback as Grand Master or even a legal challenge to the validity of his resignation.

“This is an extremely complex situation, it is extremely fluid, and by no means finished” he said in a brief telephone conversation. “Given all this it is not appropriate for me to say anymore.”

[…]

Festing’s resignation was formally accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order last Saturday in a meeting that he chaired where, according to sources inside the Order, he described the Pope as his “enemy.”

On February 15, as Cardinal Burke was preparing to leave for Guam to conduct depositions in a sexual abuse investigation regarding the Island’s Archbishop, Anthony S. Apuron, Ludwig Hoffman von Rumerstein, the Knights of Malta’s former Grand Commander, now acting Grand Master, gave an interview to the Austrian daily Der Standard in which he blamed Cardinal Burke for Boeselager’s ouster. In an English-language piece on that interview, papal biographer and Crux contributing editor Austen Ivereigh related Rumerstein’s accusation:

Journalists’ accounts that sourced the cardinal have described Festing asking the German to resign, while Burke sat silently present. Burke has elsewhere denied Boeselager’s account that the cardinal invoked the pope’s authority for the dismissal.

But in an interview with an Austrian newspaper, Hoffman-Rumerstein presents a very different picture.

“The conversation took place in a normal conversation form,” he told the Austrian daily Der Standard. “Boeselager said no to Cardinal Burke’s call for him to stand down. And I followed the cardinal to the car.”

Asked for the cardinal’s reaction, Hoffman-Rumerstein said: “He shook his head. He was displeased, one could say. He would have expected Boeselager to resign.”

Later in the interview, Rumerstein confirms that the December 6 meeting “was actually a conversation between Cardinal Burke and Boeselager.”

Sources in the order have long insisted that the cardinal was behind the dismissal, but until now no one has claimed on the record that Burke actually made the request.

The revelation will also prompt fresh questions about statements made by the order in December in response to letters from the secretary of state calling for Boeselager to be reinstated.

The statements, which insisted that the Order of Malta was sovereign and had no need to give an account of itself to the pope, are said to have been at Burke’s instigation.

But if Hoffmann-Rumerstein’s account is accurate, it was Burke, not the pope, who may have violated the Knights’ sovereignty: a decision to sack a member of the Sovereign Council can only be made by the order’s General Chapter, not by the pope’s chaplain, or patronus, who represents the Holy See.

Burke’s own words from Pentin’s January 7th report stood in immediate contrast to Rumerstein’s account: “I can’t make any comment on these decisions because I was never consulted.”

Pentin, therefore, reached out to Burke in Guam to ask for a comment, and received an incredulous reply:

“The account given by Fra’ Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein is not accurate. I had no authority to ask the Grand Chancellor to resign. I simply stated that the person who knowingly permitted the distribution of contraceptives in the Order’s works should take responsibility, and then the Grand Master once again asked the Grand Chancellor to resign which he refused to do. Then the Grand Master proceeded to his dismissal without my involvement at all. The account of the Grand Master and myself stands.

To be frank, I am stunned by what Hoffmann von Rumerstein states in the article. I consider it a calumny.” [emphasis added]

Pentin indicated, in his brief report on the matter, that there would be more on the story this week. Thus far, however, no additional details have emerged. One source told me that Burke was unusually difficult to reach over the past few days, though his work in the sex-abuse investigation in Guam may well explain that. Burke is reported to have left Guam earlier today, so it is possible that more information will be forthcoming as he returns to Rome.

Faced with directly contradictory statements about what transpired, important questions are raised. Cardinal Burke is known as a man of strict integrity, and not even his opponents can credibly accuse him of dishonesty. Rumerstein’s account on its own would, therefore, be odd; in conjunction with the pope’s alleged insistence that Festing put the blame for Boeselager’s dismissal at Burke’s feet in his apparently involuntary resignation letter adds weight to questions of a conspiracy against the American cardinal.

Now, in a new report, Boeselager himself has indicated that Burke has been superseded by the papal delegate in his duties at the Order of Malta:

In comments translated by The Tablet, Von Boeselager told the Archdiocese of Cologne’s website, domradio.de, that delegate Archbishop Angelo Becciu is now fulfilling Cardinal Burke’s role.

Becciu “has the full confidence of the Pope and is his spokesman,” von Boeselager said. “That means that Cardinal Burke as Cardinal Patron of the Order is now de facto suspended.”

As the most visible leader of the resistance to Amoris Laetitia via the dubia, opposition to Cardinal Burke has become very ardent indeed. It would be a worthy thing to pray for his safety, before another trap is sprung.

This post has been updated to reflect Boeselager’s comments about Burke’s “de facto” suspension. 

The focus is back on the Maltese bishops this week after it was revealed that in a meeting with the priests of his archdiocese, Archbishop Charles Scicluna had said that he had no choice in issuing the deeply controversial Maltese bishops guidelines on Amoris Laetitia, because in his conscience he could not oppose the wishes of Pope Francis.

The National Catholic Register‘s Rome Correspondent, Edward Pentin, reports:

At a meeting with Malta’s priests on Feb. 14, Archbishop Scicluna appealed for understanding, saying he had no choice in co-signing the guidelines. According to sources present, he said in conscience he could not go against the wishes of the Pope. He admitted it was a mistake not to consult the nation’s clergy on the Criteria before they were released, alluding to the fact that they wanted to be the first Bishops’ Conference to do so.

However, he also expressed “shock” at the fact that the C9 felt they had to pledge their allegiance of full support for the Pope. He asserted that to be Catholic, one is with the Pope. He also criticized the fact that people are questioning the Pope’s mercy. Such criticism came to a head earlier this month when 200 posters critical of what they viewed as unmerciful actions of the Holy Father appeared across Rome.

This same accounting of events was given to me by a source in Malta last week. The person then said:

So the logical conclusion is that they were told to issue those Guidelines from the very top.

My source then pointed me to a tweet from papal biographer Austen Ivereigh, who reiterated that the Maltese guidelines are according to the pope’s “authoritative” interpretation of the exhortation:

While Scicluna signaled his distaste that Catholics were questioning the pope’s “mercy,” my source said to me, “It has become unbearable here. We are living under the tyranny of mercy.”

We reported last month that strongarm tactics were alleged to have been used by Bishop Grech of Gozo to enforce compliance with the new guidelines. Pentin’s report gives evidence that the hard edge of the Dictatorship of Mercy is, in fact, being applied across the whole of Malta:

The Archbishop of Malta has confirmed to the Register that he told the country’s seminarians earlier this month that if any of them do not agree with Pope Francis, “the seminary gate is open,” implying they are free to leave.  

Archbishop Charles Scicluna’s remarks are the latest in what Church sources in Malta say is a heavy-handed crackdown on any ecclesiastic unwilling to subscribe to the Maltese bishops’ interpretation of the apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia — an interpretation the bishops say is identical to the Holy Father’s.

[…]

Since the Criteria were published Jan. 13, a number of clergy sources in Malta have contacted the Register alleging the bishops won’t tolerate any clergy having a different interpretation of Amoris Laetitia than the one presented in the Criteria among the clergy. 

According to the sources, three priests are allegedly intimidating anyone who does not agree with the Criteria. The three had been opponents of the previous bishop, Archbishop Paul Cremona, but have now become the present bishops’ allies. One of them reputedly attacks any priest who shares critical stories on the Internet.

“This group of priests, with a few others, have been hogging the conversation for decades,” said a Maltese priest on condition of anonymity. “No one else seems to be allowed to contribute to the debate and they have done untold damage to bridge-building since they brook no opposition.”

He said they “fall on any dissent like a ton of bricks” and “no other priests are given any opportunity to contribute to the conversation” except for priests who are “like-minded.”

When he was appointed Archbishop of Malta in 2015, many of the island nation’s clergy were initially hopeful that Archbishop Scicluna would reset the theological and pastoral agenda, but now feel these priests have “hijacked” the local Church completely.

“There is a lot of discontent in the rank-and-file clergy, for they see that after holding so much promise, Scicluna’s episcopacy has become one of bullying and betrayal,” the priest said. [emphasis added]

On 17 February, Pope Francis released a letter written for those gathered for the World Meeting of Popular Movementsheld in California from 16-19 February — a meeting organized by the Vatican. Such meetings regularly take place in the Vatican and are initiated by Pope Francis himself in his attempt to work together with a variety of grassroots movements world-wide.

In the letter, which is dated 10 February, Pope Francis publicly praises the organization PICO — People Improving Communities through Organizing — which was one of the promoters of this Vatican event. Francis writes:

I would also like to highlight the work done by the PICO National Network and the organizations promoting this meeting. I learned that PICO stands for “People Improving Communities through Organizing”. What a great synthesis of the mission of popular movements: to work locally, side by side with your neighbors, organizing among yourselves, to make your communities thrive. [my emphasis]

What Pope Francis does not mention here is that PICO is heavily funded by George Soros. Leftist watchdog website Discover the Political Networks describes PICO as a group that “uses Alinsky-style organizing tactics to advance the doctrines of the religious left.” As John-Henry Westen, editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews reported in August of 2016, leaks from the Soros Foundation have shown how Soros funded PICO and other organizations in order to influence the Vatican in favor of certain policies and agendas. Westen reports:

Leaked emails through WikiLeaks reveal that billionaire globalist George Soros — one of Hilary Clinton’s top donors — paid $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA with a view to “shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign.” The funds were allocated in April 2015 and the report on their effectiveness suggests that successful achievements included, “Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.” […] Grantees were PICO, a faith-based community organizing group, and Faith in Public Life (FPL), a progressive group working in media to promote left-leaning ‘social justice’ causes. Soros has funded left-wing causes the world over and was  just found to have been funding an effort to eliminate pro-life laws around the globe.

That there are already well-established ties between the Vatican and this progressive, often subversive, Soros-funded organization PICO can also be seen in this part of Westen’s report:

In order to seize on the opportunity provided by the Pope’s visit to the US, says the report, “we will support PICO’s organizing activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice issues, including using the influence of Cardinal Rodriguez, the Pope’s senior advisor, and sending a delegation to visit the Vatican in the spring or summer to allow him to hear directly from low-income Catholics in America.”

In 2013 Cardinal Rodriguez endorsed PICO’s work in a video during a visit from PICO representatives to the cardinal’s diocese. “I want to endorse all the efforts they are doing to promote communities of faith,” he said, “… Please, keep helping PICO.”

This same network is right now taking steps to oppose President Donald Trump’s policies with regard to immigration questions, specifically the so-called Immigration Ban. It is organizing protests an different locations in the U.S. As one statement on PICO’s website regarding “Organizing for the Resistance” says:

This morning, PICO National Network, United We Dream, and Church World Service declared together on a media conference call that faith communities in America are taking a prophetic stance against President-elect Trump’s promised persecution of immigrants, Muslims and people of color by providing Sanctuary in more than 800 congregations. And this is just the beginning. […] Now is the time for us to create empathetic space for uncommon encounters across difference, building bridges and disrupting patterns of isolation and fear in our communities. This is a moment for multi-racial, multi-faith communities to reimagine the Beloved Community, taking bold and prophetic action to realize it.

This is part of the managed chaos we have been witnessing in the U.S. for some weeks now. And it seems that Pope Francis, in his own 10 February letter, encourages such crises:

As Christians and all people of good will, it is for us to live and act at this moment. […] The direction taken beyond this historic turning-point—the ways in which this worsening crisis gets resolved—will depend on people’s involvement and participation and, largely, on yourselves, the popular movements. We should be neither paralyzed by fear nor shackled within the conflict. We have to acknowledge the danger but also the opportunity that every crisis brings in order to advance to a successful synthesis. [sic. The dialectical method.] In the Chinese language, which expresses the ancestral wisdom of that great people, the word “crisis” is comprised of two ideograms: Wēi, which represents “danger”, and Jī, which represents “opportunity”. The grave danger is to disown our neighbors.

Pope Francis himself calls for resistance, and implicitly seems to encourage the self-proclaimed “chaos managers”:

But here we also find an opportunity: that the light of the love of neighbor may illuminate the Earth with its stunning brightness like a lightning bolt in the dark; that it may wake us up and let true humanity burst through with authentic resistance, resilience and persistence.

In reiterating some themes discussed before, Pope Francis adds:

Here are the roots of the authentic humanity that resists the dehumanization that wears the livery of indifference, hypocrisy, or intolerance. I know that you have committed yourselves to fight for social justice, to defend our Sister Mother Earth [sic] and to stand alongside migrants. I want to reaffirm your choice and share two reflections in this regard.

The pope adds the importance of protecting nature and his plea for religious tolerance, namely that “no people is criminal and no religion is terrorist. Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist.” [my emphasis]

Does it surprise us that this Vatican meeting in California “criticizes Trump orders“? As the Miami Herald reports:

Speakers at a Vatican-sponsored conference in Northern California — including an archbishop — denounced President Donald Trump’s orders on immigration and travel and vowed to fight them at a meeting Friday. Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez said President Barack Obama deported a high number of people, but the harsh tone and cruelty coming out of the new administration was prompting mass fear and panic. [my emphasis]

In this context, this conference now called the Catholic Church to investigate its own “racism”:

The gathering of more than 600 clergy and social justice activists also included a session on racism Friday, where speakers encouraged religious people and institutions, including the Roman Catholic Church, to confront their own racism. [my emphasis]

In November of 2016, the Italian historian Professor Roberto de Mattei had informed us that, after Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election, Pope Francis might very well now become the world leader of the Left. De Mattei then wrote:

On his return flight from Mexico on February 18th of this year [2016], in commenting Trump’s plan to build a wall between the United States and Mexico in order to slow down the migratory surge the Pope had said that “a person who thinks only of building walls and not bridges, is not a Christian.” […] Yet, no matter how strong the reservations towards Trump can be, for a Catholic it would be difficult to imagine a position of equidistance between him and Hillary Clinton, who had officially inserted a massive implementation of abortion and the LGBT agenda into her programme. [That is,] Unless self-defence against the migratory invasion is considered a graver sin than the legalization of abortion and so-called homosexual marriage.

De Mattei is to be commended for his far-sightedness. He not only predicted Pope Francis’ role as the leader of the Left world-wide, he also pointed to the increasing danger of incited and practiced violence in this regard:

For his part, after Clinton’s defeat, Francesco now remains the only point of reference for the international left, [now] lacking a leader. On November 5th at the conclusion of the Third World Meeting of the so-called “Popular Movements” in the Vatican, in the presence of revolutionary agitators from the five continents, Pope Francis turned to them saying: “I make your cry mine”. But the cry of protest, that is raised by the movements gathered in Paul VI’s audience hall, is, unfortunately, characterized by ideological fanaticism and incitement to violence. [my emphasis]

Not two weeks ago, major newspapers in this country came out with stories as to how Donald Trump’s closest advisor, Steve Bannon, now tries to influence the Vatican, with the help of Cardinal Raymond Burke. OnePeterFive’s author Christian Browne responded some of these attacks on Cardinal Burke with charitable indignation. However, if we are concerned about Trump’s advisor trying to influence Vatican policies, we might be just as concerned about Pope Francis trying directly to influence U.S. politics and supporting groups that are funded by George Soros, supporter of Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood. Worth noting in this context is the request made by The Remnant, on 20 January 2017, that the Trump administration should investigate “what appears to be a collusion between a hostile [Obama] United States government and a pope who seems to hold as much ill will towards followers of perennial Catholic teachings as he seems to hold toward” Trump himself.

As to the strategic and tactical networks of “revolutionary agitators,” we might recall the gifted Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) in nineteenth century revolutionary France, and why Vladimir Lenin himself so greatly admired him and learned from him. Pope Francis himself would probably agree that Louis Blanqui was a greater revolutionary agitator and organizer than Saul Alinsky.

This post has been updated.