Year of False Mercy: Bergoglio to Host a Sports Conference at the Vatican!

vatican-ii (1)

“Oh how I would like a poor church and a church for the poor,”  Francis-Bergoglio/ March 2013

First it was the satanic light show at the Vatican for the ‘Climate Change Hoax’ to kick off his year of False Mercy, now anti-pope Bergoglio will host a three day sports conference. Frankie the fake once again, shows the world his so called ‘Year of Mercy’ is all about promoting his false religion and has nothing to do with God!!

Bergoglio will “make sports a focus of his papacy’s third global initiative on education, following his efforts to highlight income disparity and climate change.”

The Vatican is reportedly getting a sports conference this year—and the world has Pope Francis to thank.

Dubbed “Sports at the Service of Humanity,” the three-day conference is slated to run in the fall and is being conceived with the help of two North American marketing firms, as first reported by the Sports Business Journal.

The conference will be invitation-only and is expected to focus on the relationship between sports and society, according to the publication. The event is Pope Francis’ third global initiative focusing on education. About 150 of the world’s top figures in sports, government and religion are expected to attend.

The Vatican has tapped Lang Marketing, which is based in Canada, to develop and run conference from Oct. 5 – 7.

Read the rest at Fortune

In other news 

EL PASO LEADERS APPROVE PLANS FOR POPE VISIT TO BORDER

Declaring it an “unparalleled high profile event,” the El Paso City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a set of plans for Pope Francis’ visit to neighboring Ciudad Juárez. The pope is expected to discuss immigration to the U.S. and poverty on both sides of the border.

Read more here.

A cautionary epistle to Pope Francis before his U.S. visit next week

Bergoglio Marxist -Socialist

Newchurch of the Poor: Pope Francis-Bergoglio enforcing his Marxist Agenda to the nations. Next stop U.S.A…

If he’s true to form, the affable leader of Earth’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics will land in Washington next week with a smile on his face and a suspicion in his heart. In addressing the 70 million Americans in his flock, and a joint session of Congress, Pope Francis may use his bully pulpit to intensify his previous critiques of free-market excesses.

He repeatedly has denounced unrestrained capitalism. His attacks on “compulsive consumerism” and industrial damage to the world’s ecology came to a head during a fiery July speech in Bolivia. He said poor nations shouldn’t be mere sources of raw materials and cheap labor, and called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil”:

“Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system,” he said, “it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.”

Like all of us, Francis is a product of his past. That past is rooted in Argentina, where some of his countrymen decry the “savage capitalism” they’ve experienced at the hands of U.S. mining and agricultural companies. The pope is making the first U.S. visit of his 78 years; he can say as much or as little as he pleases about Latin America’s experience with the world’s most muscular capitalist economy.

Some of the pope’s criticisms are warranted. We write frequently about reversing environmental perils, creating economic opportunities for the poor, and enforcing legal and ethical restrictions on global companies — including the many headquartered in Chicago.

By riveting attention on economic exploitation, a man renowned as the pontiff of the poor has wildly succeeded. But in the 30 months of his papacy, Francis hasn’t focused on a companion truth: When it functions legally and ethically, capitalism does more to uplift people from even severe poverty than has any government policy, economic ideology, or redistribution of wealth.

That rescue began with the Industrial Revolution in decades bracketing 1800 and has quickened as free-market economies blanket more of the world. A United Nations initiative to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger — the Millennium Development Goals — in July reported that over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has plunged by more than half, from 1.9 billion to 836 million today. Also since 1990, the share of undernourished people in developing countries has fallen by almost half, from 23.3 percent to 12.9 percent.

The greatest uplift to better and longer lives occurred in China as that nation embraced capitalism: Astonishingly, the extreme-poverty rate has plummeted from 84 percent in 1980 to less than 10 percent today. India has experienced a similar (if similarly incomplete) trajectory since its government liberalized regulation of the economy in 1991.

Escape from extreme poverty isn’t a high bar; critics of Western capitalism more often cite income inequality within nations. Here, too, much can be done to give more opportunities and incentives to those moored in poverty. What the critics can miss, though, is the steady rise in living, health and education standards for poor Americans. “It is true that the share of all U.S. income earned by the lowest quintile has fallen slightly since the mid-1970s, so that U.S. income inequality has risen,” writes economic historian Edd Noell of California’s Westmont College. “Nonetheless, the growth in the real earnings of the poorest quintile has been large. On average, members of the lowest quintile had dramatically more real income in 2010 than in 1980.”

Bergoglio Marxist

We would be shabby Chicagoans if we didn’t cite the late University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman’s unequivocal summary of evidence linking market freedoms to rising prosperity: “The only cases in which the masses have escaped (grinding poverty), the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.”

That said, proponents of free-market capitalism can’t boast that its effects are net positive without admitting it also sows insecurity and destroys old orders. Many people fear dynamic economies, knowing some of them will suffer harsh consequences. Which is paradoxical: Capitalism thrives on voluntary, not violent, acts, with people creating goods and services that other people want to buy.

In a 2013 report, “Toward the end of poverty: The world’s next great leap forward,” The Economist synthesized how robust growth born of competitive instincts has helped people rise: “Poverty rates started to collapse toward the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an annual rate of 4.3 percent in 1960-2000 to 6 percent in 2000-2010. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third.”

Which explains why the U.N.’s goal of cutting global poverty in half between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

Many of the 265 popes before Francis championed serious causes. Most recently, John Paul II crusaded against communism, and Benedict XVI decried moral drift that devalued human lives.

Now comes Pope Francis’ determination to help people by the hundreds of millions escape destitution. Excellent. Perhaps during his visit he’ll discuss how market economies already have let other hundreds of millions prosper, and bless capitalism for its saving grace.

Source

 

A Victory for Bergoglio

liberation theology Oscar Romero (1)

Archbishop Oscar Romero (Communist sympathizer) is favored by Pope Francis. Pope said he was hoping for a swift beatification process. “For me Romero is a man of God,” the pontiff told journalists on the plane bringing him back from a trip to South Korea. “There are no doctrinal problems and it is very important that [the beatification] is done quickly!” – August 18, 2014

The assassinated Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero is at the final milestone of a tortuous road to sainthood with his beatification by the Roman Catholic Church on Saturday. The occasion has brought celebrations of the highest order in his native El Salvador. But the event calls for much wider rejoicing — for it reveals a victory over malign influences within the church and provides further evidence of the radical nature of the revolution Pope Francis is forging in Rome.

Archbishop Romero was shot and killed at the altar as he celebrated Mass in San Salvador in 1980. His assassin was from one of the death squads propping up an unholy alliance among rich landowners, the army and sections of the Catholic Church as the country moved toward civil war. The archbishop’s crime was to order soldiers to stop killing innocent civilians. The far-right elite saw him as an apologist for Marxist revolution — a defamation that highly placed individuals in the Vatican nurtured for three decades, and that Pope Francis has now finally squelched.

The chief concern of these critics was that his canonization would be an effective endorsement of liberation theology, which they feared would allow Communism to infiltrate Latin America. This was a willful caricature of the movement that maintained that the Gospels carried a “preferential option for the poor” and insisted that the church had a duty to work for the social and economic liberation of the downtrodden as well as their spiritual well-being. This misrepresentation reached its nadir in the gross calumnies perpetrated about the archbishop, both during his life and in the years since his death.

The oligarchy in El Salvador had hoped that Msgr. Romero would be a compliant prelate when he became archbishop of San Salvador. His background was conservative and his spirituality drew on that of Opus Dei, a deeply traditional group of priests and lay-people. But he became outraged by the growing violence against the poor and those who spoke up for them.

Within weeks of his installation one of his priests — a close friend, the Rev. Rutilio Grande — was murdered for supporting peasants campaigning for land reform and better wages. A succession of priests were killed thereafter, though by 1979 they were only a small proportion of the 3,000 people reportedly being murdered every month. When a reporter asked him what he did as archbishop, he replied: “I pick up bodies.”

As the violence worsened, Archbishop Romero became more outspoken in his nationally broadcast sermons, condemning the oppression and telling the people that God was with them.

Though Archbishop Romero was no liberation theoretician, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the chief advocate for his sainthood, has called him “a martyr of the church of the Second Vatican Council” because his decision to “live with the poor and defend them from oppression” flowed directly from the documents of Vatican II.

Nor was he a Marxist. In a 1978 sermon, he said: “A Marxist church would be not only self-destructive but senseless” because “Marxist materialism destroys the church’s transcendent meaning.”

But this was a world in which anyone who raised his voice for justice was branded a Communist.

El Salvador’s social, military and ecclesiastical elites were deeply unhappy with the archbishop. The 14 families who controlled the economy and who made big donations to the church sent a constant stream of complaints to Rome. They accused Archbishop Romero of meddling in politics, sanctioning terrorism and abandoning the church’s spiritual mission to save souls. Four bishops, alarmed that the archbishop was questioning their ties to the oligarchy, began to speak out virulently against him.

Archbishop Romero’s copious diaries give the lie to all their claims. So did the dossier he gave to Pope Paul VI in a private audience that ended with the pope urging him: “Courage! Take heart. You are the one in charge.”

Yet Archbishop Romero got a very different message when he was summoned to Rome by Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, head of the Congregation of Bishops. The cardinal said he had had a quite unprecedented volume of complaints regarding Archbishop Romero. The charge sheet was full of wild allegations and pernicious distortions, but Archbishop Romero was distressed by the fact that the cardinal clearly believed them. Again he went to the pope, who again urged him to “proceed with courage.”

But the next pope, John Paul II, had little knowledge of Central America and relied on the advice of curial officials hostile to the archbishop. Cardinal Baggio sent a Vatican inspector to El Salvador who recommended that he be stripped of his duties. Archbishop Romero appealed to John Paul, who told his critics to moderate their attitude toward the besieged prelate.

After his murder, his enemies began three decades of maneuvering to prevent him being officially declared a saint. A succession of blocking tactics was deployed, led by the man who had been given the role of championing Archbishop Romero’s cause, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, a Colombian deeply opposed to liberation theology. Years passed while Vatican officials scrutinized Archbishop Romero’s writings for doctrinal errors. When they found none, critics shifted to arguing that he was not killed for his faith but for his ancillary “political statements.”

Supporters of Archbishop Romero blamed conservative popes who were antagonistic to liberation theology, but that is unfair. In 1997, John Paul II bestowed upon Archbishop Romero the title of Servant of God and in 2003 told a group of Salvadoran bishops that he was a martyr. In 2007 Benedict XVI called him “a man of great Christian virtue.” He added: “That Romero as a person merits beatification, I have no doubt.” (This last sentence was strangely cut from the interview transcript placed on the Vatican website.) Just a month before he resigned, Pope Benedict gave orders that Archbishop Romero’s canonization process should be unblocked.

It was the arrival of Pope Francis — who promptly engineered a rapprochement between the Vatican and liberation theology — that finally brought action. Archbishop Romero’s cause, he told reporters, had been “blocked in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ‘for prudence.”’ But he added, “for me Romero is a man of God.”

Following that lead, the appropriate body of theologians universally declared that Archbishop Romero had not been killed for political reasons but had indeed died because of odium fidei — hatred of the faith. Francis promptly officially declared him a martyr, and the path to sainthood was opened.

For Francis this action was self-evident. He had said on his second full day as pope that he wanted “a poor church for the poor.” And he had written in his papal manifesto, Evangelii Gaudium: “We have to state, without mincing words, that there is an inseparable bond between our faith and the poor.”

The beatification of Oscar Romero is therefore a cause for double rejoicing. It honors a man whose love for justice and focus on the poor was a direct manifestation of his faith. But it also reveals that with the arrival of Pope Francis some of the dark forces that lurked inside the Vatican in recent decades have at last been vanquished.

Source

Pope Francis Just Declared This Murdered Archbishop a Martyr. Reaganites Should Be Embarrassed?

Archbishop Oscar Romero 8

For me Romero is a man of God, but the process has to be followed, and the Lord too has to give his sign.” But there is no question where this pope’s sympathies lie. The leftist saints come marching in.

Reaganites Should Be Embarrassed. After all, a number of prominent Reaganites and religious leaders in the U.S. embraced the man responsible for Romero’s death!

(New Republic) – Pope Francis has declared Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was murdered while celebrating Mass in 1980, a martyr. Like much of what Francis has done and said since ascending the papal throne, the decision could anger American conservatives. After all, a number of prominent Reaganites and religious leaders in the U.S. embraced the man responsible for Romero’s death.

In 1979, moderate military officers overthrew El Salvador’s strongarm ruler Carlos Humberto Romero. The archbishop was initially supportive of the government before realizing that the military’s abuses and the persecution of the poor would not cease. Seen as a hero within Latin America’s liberation theology movement, which sought to align the Church with the poor and oppressed, Romero grew concerned after reading reports that the U.S. was planning to send support to the Salvadoran military. He wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter urging him to not intervene, arguing that U.S. aid, “rather than favoring greater justice and peace in El Salvador, will make injustice and repression against the organization of the people, who have been struggling for the respect of their most fundamental rights, even more acute.”

Romero was assassinated the following month. One week after his killing, the U.S. approved $5.7 million in emergency military aid, just as El Salvador’s bloody twelve-year civil war was getting underway.

The U.S. embassy had evidence that Roberto D’Aubuisson, an anti-Communist former army major whom Reaganites considered a Cold War ally, was behind the killing. The embassy handed this intelligence over the CIA, which kept it buried so that Congress would continue providing military aid to the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments. A U.N.-sponsored truth commission found in 1993 that D’Aubuisson “gave the order to assassinate the Archbishop and gave precise instructions to members of his security service, acting as a ‘death squad,’ to organize and supervise the assassination.”

It was eventually revealed by The New York Times that the Reagan administration knew more about the Salvadoran regime’s complicity and participation in atrocities than it had led Congress to believe. Soon after the truth commission published its findings, the Times reported that the “Reagan Administration withheld its own evidence of Mr. D’Aubuisson’s death squad activities from members of Congress who argued that Washington should have no dealings with terrorists.”

Suspicion that D’Aubuisson was involved in Romero’s death didn’t stop U.S. officials and other conservatives from praising him.

After D’Aubuisson entered politics in 1982, then-U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador Deane R. Hinton called D’Aubuisson a “fine young Democrat,” later declaring him “an intelligent man” and a “dynamic leader.” Senator Jesse Helms was an unabashed supporter, suggesting that D’Aubuission’s credentials as “free enterprise man” who was “deeply religious” weremore important than accusations that he murdered civilians. Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, told a congressional committee that the former army major was not an extremist because one would have to be “involved in murder” to earn that designation.

Members of the Religious Right also offered their support to D’Aubuisson in the 1980s. Pat Robertson claimed to have gone to dinner with D’Aubuisson, calling him a “very nice fellow.” D’Aubuisson was honored at a 1984 dinner at the Capitol Hill Club by a number of conservative groups, including the Moral Majority, the National Pro-Life Action Committee, and The Washington Times. He was presented a plaque for his “continuing efforts for freedom.” On another visit to Washington, D’Aubuisson was chaperoned around the city by Young Americans for Freedom.

One notable voice of dissent during this period was Robert E. White, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador from 1980-1981, who passed away last month. While serving as ambassador, he denounced the Salvadoran government and right-wing death squads, famously calling D’Aubuisson a “pathological killer.” White was dismissed from his post, but that didn’t quiet him: In 1984, he accused the Reagan administration of attempting to cover up D’Aubuisson’s involvement in Romero’s murder.

Source: New Republic

Related: Is being Catholic a prerequisite for sainthood?!

Francis unblocks: No doctrinal obstacles to beatification of liberation theology hero, Oscar Romero

Pope Francis Honors Óscar Romero, Salvadoran Archbishop, as Martyr!

Archbishop Óscar Romero timeline

Archbishop Oscar Romero (Communist sympathizer) is favored by Pope Francis. Pope said he was hoping for a swift beatification process. “For me Romero is a man of God,” the pontiff told journalists on the plane bringing him back from a trip to South Korea. “There are no doctrinal problems and it is very important that [the beatification] is done quickly!” – August 18, 2014

ROME — Pope Francis has formally ratified the martyrdom of the Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero, who was shot to death at the altar as he was saying Mass in 1980 in an act of “hatred for the faith,” the Vatican said on Tuesday.

The step opens the way for Archbishop Romero to be beatified — a process that had been blocked under Francis’s predecessors, Vatican watchers say, because of the archbishop’s leftist political stances.

The archbishop, a man of the poor who often denounced social disparities, violence and repression in his own country and throughout Latin America, remains much beloved among Catholics in the region, and Francis, the first Latin American pope, has been outspoken in his appreciation of the archbishop.

At the beginning of the civil war in El Salvador, Archbishop Romero angered the country’s right-wing military government by calling on soldiers to disobey orders to murder political opponents. He also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter pleading with him to cut off American military aid to El Salvador. The archbishop was killed by a right-wing death squad.

According to a 1993 United Nations commission, the murder was planned by former members of the security forces who had ties to Roberto D’Aubuisson, the former army major who founded the Nationalist Republican Alliance party, known as Arena. The party ruled El Salvador from 1989 until 2009.

The Vatican began considering Archbishop Romero for beatification in 1997, but his cause made little progress during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because of his perceived association with liberation theology, Vatican watchers said. That movement, popular among some Catholic clergy in Latin America, called for the church to work for the social and economic liberation of the poor; some conservatives in the church rejected it as akin to communism.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family and the chief advocate for Archbishop Romero’s cause, acknowledged in a telephone interview on Tuesday that Archbishop Romero had been viewed by many over the years as a “bishop of the revolutionary left, of the Marxist culture.”

But “meticulous research erased all doubts and prejudices that many had within the church and in El Salvador,” Archbishop Paglia said, and “it was clear to us that killing a priest on the altar is a message for the whole church, a political message against a religious man.”

Archbishop Romero’s message stemmed directly from the Bible, he said, and “today Romero is an enormous help to Francis’s vision of the church — their voices sound like one, a poor church for the poor.”

Pope Francis unblocked Archbishop Romero’s cause in 2013, immediately after he succeeded Benedict, and he has spoken admiringly of the archbishop since then. In a general hearing in early January, Francis quoted one of Archbishop Romero’s last speeches, saying: “Giving life doesn’t only mean to be killed. Giving life, having the martyr’s spirit, means giving while doing our duty, in silence, in prayer, while we honestly fulfill our duty.”

Other Christian denominations have already honored Archbishop Romero; Lutherans celebrate him as a saint on the anniversary of his death, March 24, and Anglicans consider him a martyr.

Source: New York Times

Unusual Meeting at the Vatican: Communism: A Friend of the Poor?

communism a friend of the poor - Newchurch Bergoglio

Message to Vatican’s World Meeting of Popular Movements: ‘Detestable’ Communism is the Worst Enemy of the Poor!

It is not uncommon to hear that communism was “a good idea poorly implemented.”

In spite of its actual experiences – all ending with catastrophic results – the idea that communism contains a “positive core” and is “friendly to the poor” reemerged at the World Meeting of Popular Movements organized at the Vatican from October 28 to 30 by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. It was held in the presence of Pope Francis and over one hundred representatives from movements often linked to the extreme left.

Besides being doctrinally questionable, this thesis is historically false. On the Catholic side, it was enunciated by Jacques Maritain, the ideologue of Catholic Action’s turn to the left. He applied it indiscriminately to both socialism and communism: “In the nineteenth century, socialism has been a protest of human consciousness and its more generous instincts against evils that cried out to heaven…. Socialism has loved the poor.”[1]

In this lyrical vision, Maritain included Soviet Communism: “For the first time in history, Maxim Gorky recently wrote about Soviet communism, the true love of man is organized as a creative force and sets as a goal the emancipation of thousands of workers. We believe in the profound sincerity of Gorky’s words.”[2]

This was also the thesis of Uruguayan Alberto Methol Ferré, philosophical mentor to an entire generation of Latin American churchmen of the “populist” line. According to Methol, the evil of Marxism lies only in his atheism: “The Church essentially rejected Marxism on account of the atheism it contained.” However, the system of Karl Marx had a valid element: “Marxism’s more valid [aspect] was its critique of capitalism.”[3]

his “valid” element leads the Uruguayan philosopher to defend aspects of the so-called liberation theology, of Marxist origin: “The theology of liberation can also be viewed as an attempt to assume the best of Marxism…. This theology has rendered an invaluable service by rethinking policy in light of the common good and therefore in close relationship with the preferential option for the poor and [for] justice.”[4]

It is amazing to see personages from the Catholic world exalting a system which the Magisterium of the Church defined as “detestable sect,”[5] “abominable sect,”[6] “intrinsically evil” system,[7] “shame of our time,”[8] the result of a “fundamental error;”[9] a system with which, in the words of Pius XI, “no collaboration can be admitted in any field.” Indeed, by a decree of the Holy Office of 1949, any collaboration with communism would lead to excommunication latae sententiae.

Continue reading: http://americaneedsfatima.blogspot.ca/2014/11/unusual-meeting-at-vatican-communism.html

Vatican says bishop’s dismissal not the result of sex abuse!

Bishop Rogelio Livieres

Spokesman Fr. Lombardi on Bp. Livieras: ‘There were serious problems with his management of the diocese, the education of clergy and relations with other bishops’…

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican denied Pope Francis had dismissed a controversial Paraguayan bishop because of his mishandling of sex abuse accusations, attributing the decision instead to other failings of governance and friction with fellow bishops.

Meanwhile, the bishop described his dismissal as a case of “ideological persecution” because of his opposition to liberation theology.

Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano, 69, was told to step down as head of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este effective Sept. 25, a Vatican statement said, citing unspecified “serious pastoral reasons.”

News reports at the time noted the bishop’s vocal support for Msgr. Carlos Urrutigoity, whom he appointed a high diocesan official even though the priest had been accused of molesting seminarians before coming to Ciudad del Este.

Coming two days after the Vatican’s arrest of former Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, pending a criminal trial on charges of paying for sex with boys during his time as nuncio to the Dominican Republic, the dismissal of Bishop Livieres appeared to be the latest step in a Vatican crackdown on sex abuse.

But the Vatican says sex abuse was not a significant factor in Bishop Livieres’ dismissal.

“Let’s not confuse Wesolowski and Livieres; one is a case of pedophilia, the other is not,” Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told Catholic News Service Sept. 27.

“Livieres was not removed for reasons of pedophilia,” Father Lombardi said. “That was not the principal problem.”

“There were serious problems with his management of the diocese, the education of clergy and relations with other bishops,” Father Lombardi said.

The spokesman declined to enter into detail, but mentioned differences with other bishops over seminary education and alluded to Bishop Livieres’ remarks, in a television interview earlier this year, describing one bishop as homosexual.

Father Lombardi noted that the Vatican’s Sept. 25 statement said the bishop’s dismissal was for the “greater good of the unity of the church in Ciudad del Este” and among Paraguay’s bishops.

Bishop Livieres, speaking with CNS in Rome Sept. 27, agreed that the case of Msgr. Urrutigoity was “completely marginal” to the pope’s action, though he said other Paraguayan bishops had used the priest — whom he insisted was entirely innocent of sex abuse — as a “weapon” with which to attack Bishop Livieres.

He said his conflict with fellow bishops centered on his opposition to liberation theology, a movement that emerged in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, and which the Vatican later criticized for the use of Marxist methodology by some of its practitioners.

Bishop Livieres said he was appointed to the diocese by St. John Paul II in 2004 with a mandate, communicated to him by the nuncio at the time, to oppose Paraguayan bishops’ “monolithic” support for liberation theology. He said Pope Benedict XVI personally told him in 2008 that liberation theology was “the problem in all of Latin America.”

But Pope Benedict “had a very different orientation from the present pontificate,” the bishop said. “This is a pontificate opposed to the previous pontificate.”

Father Lombardi characterized the bishop’s analysis as “naive,” calling it “absolutely reductive to interpret this decision in a way limited to an argument over the theology of liberation.”

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/27/vatican-bishops-dismissal-not-sex-abuse-paraguay-rogelio-livieres-plano/?s_campaign=crux:rss

Socci – “DARKNESS IN ROME: Liberation Theology Triumphant as Work of John Paul II & Benedict XVI is Completely Wiped Out.”

The Last Supper, with Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and others outside a Caracas school (2007)
THE “D’ESCOTO CASE” AND THOSE WHO WANT TO WIPE OUT THE WORK DONE BY JOHN PAUL II AND BENEDICT XVI

Antonio Socci – Libero

In the era of Bergoglio, the Vatican has practically rehabilitated Liberation Theology, which came into existence in the 1960s and has caused untold disasters, mainly in Latin America, by fostering the Church’s subordination to Marxist thought.
Over the past months there have been startling occurrences, such as the “landing” of Gustavo Gutierrez (“the father” of Liberation Theology) in the Vatican itself. A year ago, “L’Osservatore Romano” published large extracts from one of his books praising his attacks against neo- liberalism. This summer there was another highly symbolic gesture, which went almost unnoticed, in relation to Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann.
DEEP RED
D’Escoto was the son of the Nicaraguan ambassador for the United States. Ordained to the priesthood in 1961 he became involved with Liberation Theology in October 1977, and publically declared his support for the Sandinista Front, a revolutionary group of Marxist inspiration, which took power in Nicaragua in 1979.
D’Escoto was the Foreign Minister in the Sandinista government from 1979 to 1990. In the same government-regime, the Jesuit Fernando Cardenal was the Minister of Education and his brother Ernest was the Minister of Culture.
John Paul II harshly condemned the three priests’ involvement with the Sandinista government. Immediately after his election Pope Wojtyla had previously thundered against Liberation Theology, and during his visit to Mexico in 1979 he stated: “The idea of Christ as a politician, a revolutionary, as a subversive from Nazareth, does not coincide with the catechesis of the Church.”
In 1983 John Paul went on a pastoral visit specifically to Nicaragua where he publically rebuked Father Ernesto Cardenal for his involvement with the government. This caused quite a stir and the Sandinista regime organized a public protest against the Pope during the celebration of Mass.
However Pope Wojtyla was not one to be intimidated and, from the altar he shouted louder than the protestors and raising the Crucifix high in the air, showed the only true King of the Universe.
Despite this public rebuke the three priests responded negatively and D’Escoto was suspended a divinis with the others in 1984.
The Sandinista government fell in 1990, but D’Escoto continued being involved with politics. In 2008 we even find him presiding over the annual session of the General Assembly at the United Nations. Once Bergoglio was elected, D’Escoto, ‘smelled the air’ and wrote to the new Pope asking for the end of his suspension “a divinis” so that he could begin again celebrating Mass.
The request was immediately granted.
On the 1st of August this year Bergoglio signed the revocation. As the Curia explained on the 4th August 2014 “times and contexts have changed and most of all, he has changed”. D’Escoto – they said – understood he had been wrong and the Pontiff recognized the sincerity of his amendment.”
The title of the report: “D’Escoto: Fidel Castro is chosen by God”. The priest and ex-minister, just readmitted to celebrating Mass by Bergoglio, declared: “The Vatican may silence everyone,(but) then God will make the stones speak, and they will spread his message. Yet God hasn’t done this – He chose the greatest Latin-American of all time: Fidel Castro.”
According to “La Prensa”, D’Escoto, who is the current director for border issues and international relations for the Government of the President of Nicaragua, the Sandinista, Daniel Ortega” (hadn’t he abandoned politics?), also added: “It is through Fidel Castro that the Holy Spirit sends us the message. This message of Jesus, of the need to struggle to establish, firmly and irreversibly, the kingdom of God on this earth, which is His alternative to the empire”. After this theological praise of the Cuban tyrant, who has been oppressing an entire population for decades with a communist dictatorship, D’Escoto then expressed his joy at Pope Francis’ revocation of his suspension.
ANNIHILATE THE GOOD
The kid-glove treatment Bergoglio used on the powerful and famous “companion” D’Escoto, contrasts with the iron-clad-fist used to hit a holy, humble religious – Father Stefano Manelli, Padre Pio’s spiritual son and founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Father Manelli had written to the Pope too, but his letter wasn’t even taken into consideration.
His orthodox, disciplined religious family, full of vocations, has been annihilated by the will of Bergoglio himself, in so far as he had applied Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on the liturgy. He was just too orthodox.
Father Manelli has never been disobedient to the Church, has never deviated from sound doctrine, has never thrown himself into politics like D’Escoto and has never praised Communist tyrants.
It is also no coincidence that it was Cardinal Braz de Aviz (Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes for Consecrated Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) who signed the punitive measures. This Brazilian Cardinal – strangely enough, comes from Liberation Theology himself and in some of his interviews, referring to the Liberation Theology, said that it is not only “useful”, but even “necessary”. He added: “I remain convinced that something great anyway happened in the Church with that movement.”
Yes, in fact – a great disaster. Some “companions” in cardinal red today hold top places in the Vatican and are punishing those who have always been faithful to the Church.
Cardinal Braz de Aviz blithely snubbed the unforgettable condemnations of Liberation Theology made by Joseph Ratzinger (and John Paul II) with “Libertatis Nuntius” (1984) and “Libertatis Conscientia” (1986).
They think they they’ve won now: Wojtyla is dead and they believe Ratzinger has lost.

The return of liberation theology: Pope reinstates suspended pro-Sandinista priest

Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann liberal theologian

The Sandinistas, who supported the “popular church” of liberation theology

Pope Francis has reinstated a Nicaraguan priest suspended by the Vatican in the 1980s for participating in Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

The 81-year-old Rev. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua’s foreign minister from 1979-1990, recently wrote to Francis asking to be allowed to celebrate Mass again before he died. The Vatican said Monday that Francis had agreed and asked D’Escoto’s superior in the Maryknoll order to help reintroduce him into priestly ministry.

The Vatican suspended D’Escoto and three other dissident priests in 1985 for defying a church ban on clergy holding government jobs. The sanction was also a reflection of St. John Paul II’s broader crackdown on liberation theology in Latin America.

The Sandinistas, who supported the “popular church” of liberation theology, overthrew the pro-American regime of Anastasio Somoza in 1979.

       Archbishop Óscar Romero timeline

Francis, who was a young Jesuit provincial in Argentina at the time, shared John Paul’s opposition to the perceived Marxist excesses of liberation theology. But as pope, he has also called for a more merciful church and has indicated that another symbol of liberation theology, slain Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, will soon be beatified  

D’Escoto was ordained a priest in 1961 and remained a member of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers religious order throughout the 29-year suspension. He simply couldn’t exercise his priestly duties. A brief statement issued by the Maryknolls, known for their missionary work around the globe, announced Francis’ Aug. 1 decree lifting the suspension and noted that D’Escoto can now resume those duties.

In recent years — from 2008-2009 — D’Escoto served as president of the United Nations General Assembly.

Liberation Theology is Back!

Liberation Theology is back as Pope Francis holds capitalism to account

Amid accusations of Marxism, Pope Francis has turned the Vatican into the spearhead of radical economic thinking

Pope Francis gestures as he speaks during the weekly general audience in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican

Pope Francis shows no signs of backing off, and his focus is turning to Europe Photo: Reuters

Unfettered global capitalism has met its match at last. Ever since Bishop Bergoglio picked St Francis of Assisi to be his guiding inspiration and lead a “church for the poor”, all his actions have been in the same direction.

Liberation Theology is taking over the Vatican a quarter of a century after Jean-Paul II systematically sought to stamp out the “singular heresy” in the radical parishes and dioceses of Latin America, a task carried out with dutiful efficiency by Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The “preferential option for the poor” is back. The doctrine that so inflamed controversy in the 1970s and 1980, famously wedded to Nicaragua’s Sandinista cause, now has a Papal imprimatur. It is close to becoming official doctrine for the world’s 1.2bn Roman Catholics under “Evangilii Gaudium”, the Pope’s first apostolic exhortation. This will have consequences.

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by the happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation,” Pope Francis says.

Read more:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10559802/Liberation-Theology-is-back-as-Pope-Francis-holds-capitalism-to-account.html