16 Aug 2017

“To obey a false Pope is not to obey the true Peter, the true Church, or the true Christ.” (Prof. Galat)


 
Galat versus Francis
Some days ago, one Msgr. John R. Schulte addressing the writer of the article “Quo Vadis?”, made the following comments:

“...The first 25 years of my priesthood were spent (except for the first two) under a bishop who did horrible things to the diocese in which I had grown up. At times I thought of leaving the diocese or even the priesthood. I thought about some of the other things I had always wanted to do and imagined that I would get a little apartment somewhere, live quietly, and just try to be a good person. Of course, that is not what I was ordained to do. God had given me a different vocation. Now I am officially old and I am tired and all the old nonsense is being touted by all the same old crowd that held sway in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's in most dioceses in the USA. I don't really relish the job of being "Athanasius Contra Mundum" all over again, and maybe I won't be able to. You, however have a very definite role to play. The scoundrels who lied, manipulated, bullied, and co-opted Vatican II got away with what they did because there was no way for most of us to hear or read anything but what they were telling us - on their own, and through the chanceries, schools, and universities they controlled. They were the darlings of the secular media. Now things have changed. They did not get away with their plans to corrupt the last synod of bishops with impunity as they had Vatican II and it made them as angry as hell! Why was their campaign for the spreading of false information foiled? It was because of people like you! I think that somebody out there needs to tell the truth!!!! The internet is the most powerful tool for doing that. The scoundrels in high places would love nothing more than for you to give up. Yes, we need saints! There is always going to be a need for people who go off to the wilderness and live lives of holiness, sacrifice, penance, and prayer. But there is also a need for somebody to tell the truth - and that somebody is you!”

Sure, many people are beginning to wake up from their apathetic slumber. But unfortunately not the majority! The majority of priests and lay Catholics the world over still do not care about telling the truth. In fact many simply do “enjoy” the present mess. Only an insignificant few — like Prof. Galat and co — do care, and they are currently being persecuted by the infidels and heretics whose errors they oppose. 

Four days ago, Prof. Galat responded to one of such lay "Catholics" — one infidel named Alejandro Bermudez, a defender of Francis — using sound arguments from the Bible, the “catechism” and the “canon law”. Below is our rough translation of the article. Although we do not tolerate John Paul II’s FALSE catechism that promotes terrible errors — for instance we discern error even in the one single quote below, where it talks about “other Christian faithful” as if there is anything like that apart from Catholics, an idea which Galat himself also opposes! — as well as his scandalous “New Code of Canon Law” here, we relax for now as this intelligent and God-fearing man certainly knows what he’s doing. (I take it like the case of using what is written in their own books to counter them).

Hear him:

ALEJANDRO BERMÚDEZ: CHAMPION OF EMOTIONAL PAPOLATRY

by Jose Galat
Bermúdez 
Mr Alejandro Bermúdez comes against those who are Catholics and in use of the right to announce and denounce, which we are granted in the constitution of the church in its 37th paragraph, in the catechism in paragraph 907, and in the code of Canon Law paragraph 212, 3. We put in mind the serious errors against the faith which Pope Francis has incurred in his teaching. The number 907 of the catechism says:

"In accord with the knowledge, competence and pre-eminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”

Mr. Bermúdez is a regular commentator on EWTN, a television station founded and directed by an extraordinary nun, the "Mother Angelica," — she, an indescribable defender of the Catholic faith, who never allowed the means of communication managed by her to serve as a springboard for characters who propagated heresies. Mother Angelica died a short time ago, and Alejandro Bermúdez, the director of the journalistic channel of the television for Hispano-America, has placed the channel at the service of the worst heretic that the Church has today, who daily and nightly pronounces follies against the truths of the faith of our noble Catholic Church. This is Pope Francis, who with his accustomed and false teachings has produced a formidable disorientation in the Christian family.

Many of those whom Bermudez mistreats with
 his ignorance — like distinguished Mexican theologian Jose Alberto Villasana and Jose Galat — have demonstrated with reasons, not with simple affirmations, the very serious offences against the faith of Pope Francis. It was also expected that with reasons, hear well with reasons!, with especially biblical arguments and the Magisterium of the same Church, Bermudez demonstrate his opinions in favour of Francis. But no! Bermudez, like any ignorant of the ABC of our Catholic faith, resorts to emotional affirmations, typical of visceral men who cannot think. Bermudez wants us to swallow, without examination, the entire thesis of Pope Bergolio — for example:

* That “no one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel” since everyone is saved, whether or not he complies with the commandments, when, on the contrary, Jesus declared: “... If you want to enter into eternal life, keep the Commandments” (Mt. 19; 17) and therefore “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14).

* That “If the education of a boy is given by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox or Jews, I do not care. What interests me is to educate them and take away their hunger”, — against the affirmation of the Lord who tells us that “... Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4).

* That it is not necessary to proselytize because making disciples for Christ is nonsense and even a sin and injustice, while the newly resurrected Christ ordered his disciples to “Go, and make disciple of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28; 19).

* That unrepentant adulterers can quietly enter into communion, ignoring the blunt words of St. Paul “... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11: 28-29).

* That “God cannot be God without man,” ignoring that He as the Apocalypse says is the Alpha and the Omega, who is, and who was, and who is to come; and also as the same Word tells us: “Before the mountains were made, or the earth and the world was formed; from eternity and to eternity thou art God.” (Ps. 90:2).

Bermudez responds that we must accept these monstrosities and others that put in grave danger the eternal destiny of all, only because Pope Bergolio says so. But Bermudez is in default to demonstrate with reasons, with reasons!, not with adjectives, nor with sentimentality, nor with emotional verbiage, nor with personal qualifications, that the false teachings of Francis are not false, and that these do not go in opposition to the Bible or to the traditional Magisterium of the Church.

             
In fact, Bermudez does not consider the elemental delusions of papal teaching, but only in the condition of the Pope who pronounces it, and pretends that we swallow the toads Bergoglio gives us, only because they are being taught by someone who apparently has the status of a Universal Pontiff. No Mr. Bermudez! You must refute theses with arguments and arguments with arguments, or at least tell people with the Bible and the Catechism in your hand, whether we are the wrong ones or the Pope. If the "Mother Angelica" lived, she who so zealously remained in the authentic doctrine of Christ, do you think she would allow such disgraced ones against the faith of the believers?

Mr. Bermudez uses the Latin words, ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, ubi ecclesia ibi Christus, which means “where Peter is there the Church is, and where the Church is, there Christ is”, and this is true, but on the condition that it is an AUTHENTIC Pope, not a fictitious one, a false one, one who teaches heresy after heresy and who was shrewdly imposed by a “mafia of cardinals”, as Cardinal Godfried Danneels, then the cardinals’ most important leader, confessed with cynicism.
Mr. Bermudez, therefore, intends that all Catholics should obey without a word, the man who has the appearance of Pope, but is not in reality. But to obey a false Pope is not to obey the true Peter, the true Church, or the true Christ — it is to obey the lie and the devil.

The proof that finally where the appearance of Peter is is not the reality of Jesus, is given to us in Chapter 13: 11 of the Apocalypse, which undoubtedly applies to a heretical Pope, a Pope who teaches falsehoods instead of truths, and also a Pope who has the appearance of such but who in reality was not chosen by the Holy Spirit, but by a corrupt, political mafia of cardinals. Thus Francis is a figure of Peter only in appearance, not in reality, and that is precisely what our critics — like Mr. Bermudez — should distinguish.

Bermudez points out the reasons given about the plotters of Francis’ fraudulent election as “irrational”. He knows that he is not trying to ....Jose Galat or Alberto Villasana, but the same cardinals who cannot ignore his political manoeuvres, who manipulated the electoral trend in the 2013 conclave, a practice prohibited and condemned under penalty of excommunication by the non-repealed Apostolic ConstitutionUniversi Dominici Gregis of John Paul II.

Also Mr. Bermudez attacks indiscriminately — and with very serious errors — all private revelations. But, although it is true that there is no obligation to believe in them, neither can they be dispatched in a joyful and irresponsible manner in block, because the Word of God already tells us, that the voice of the Holy Spirit should not be stifled and that we must discern the wrong from the true. “Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies. But examine all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5, 19-21).

In conclusion, it is necessary that Bermudez before criticizing be informed and criticize with valid reasons, with heavy arguments, that is to say, above all with the same Word of God recorded in the Bible and taught in the Catechism. Otherwise, his critical positions will be unfounded and will not help to strengthen the life of the Church, but rather mislead the poor flock of these times, which is already quite disoriented with the guidance of the false Pope Bergolio.

José Galat.

The original article:


ALEJANDRO BERMÚDEZ: CAMPEÓN DE LA PAPOLATRÍA EMOCIONAL

Lanza en ristre se viene el Señor Alejandro Bermúdez, contra quienes como católicos y en uso del derecho de anunciar y denunciar, que nos concede la Constitución sobre la Iglesia en su numeral 37, recogido en el Catecismo en el numeral 907, y en el Código de Derecho Canónico, numeral 212, 3, ponemos de presente, los graves errores contra la fe, en que el Papa Francisco ha incurrido en su magisterio. El numeral 907 del catecismo, a letra dice:

"Tienen el derecho, y a veces incluso el deber, en razón de su propio conocimiento, competencia y prestigio, de manifestar a los pastores sagrados su opinión sobre aquello que pertenece al bien de la Iglesia y de manifestarla a los demás fieles, salvando siempre la integridad de la fe y de las costumbres y la reverencia hacia los pastores, habida cuenta de la utilidad común y de la dignidad de las personas".

El señor Bermúdez es habitual comentarista de EWTN, canal de televisión fundado y dirigido por una monja extraordinaria, la “Madre Angélica”, ella, defensora indesmayable de la fe católica, que no permitió jamás que el medio de comunicación por ella manejado, sirviera de trampolín a los personajes que propagaban herejías. Murió la Madre Angélica hace poco tiempo, y Alejandro Bermúdez, apoderado de la dirección periodística del canal, para hispanoamèrica, ha puesto éste al servicio del peor hereje que tiene actualmente la Iglesia, que diaria y nochemente pronuncia insensateces contra las verdades de la fe de nuestra noble Iglesia Catrólica. Se trata del Papa Francisco, quien con sus acostumbradas y falsas enseñanzas ha producido una formidable desorientación en la familia cristiana.

Muchos de los que Bermúdez maltrata con su ignorancia, cómo el distinguido teólogo mexicano José Alberto Villasana y José Galat, han demostrado con razones, no con simples afirmaciones, las muy graves faltas contra la fe del Papa Francisco. Se esperaba también con razones, ¡óigase bien con razones!, con argumentos especialmente bíblicos y del Magisterio de la misma Iglesia, que Bermúdez demostrara sus opiniones en favor de Francisco. Pero ¡no!, Bermúdez como cualquier ignorante del ABC de nuestra fe católica, recurre a afirmaciones emocionales, típicas de hombres viscerales que no saben pensar. 

Bermúdez pretende que nos traguemos sin examen, enteras, las falsas tesis del Papa Bergolio, como por ejemplo:

*Que “Nadie puede ser condenado para siempre, porque esa no es la lógica del Evangelio” ya que todo el mundo se salva, cumpla o no los mandamientos, cuando por el contrario Jesús declaró: “…Si quieres entrar en la Vida eterna, cumple los Mandamientos” (Mt. 19; 17) y por tanto “Muchos son llamados y pocos son los escogidos” (Mt. 22; 14).

*Que “Si la educación de un chico se la dan los católicos, los protestantes, los ortodoxos o los judíos, a mí no me interesa. A mí lo que me interesa es que lo eduquen y le quiten el hambre”, esto contra la afirmación del Señor que nos dice “…No solo de pan vive el hombre, sino de toda Palabra que sale de la boca de Dios” (Mt. 4, 4).

*Que no hay que hacer proselitismo porque hacer discípulos para Cristo es una tontería y hasta un pecado e injusticia, esto desconociendo que Cristo recién resucitado ordenó a sus discípulos “Vayan, y hagan que todos los pueblos sean mis discípulos, bautizándolos en el nombre del Padre y del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo” (Mt. 28; 19).

*Que los adúlteros no arrepentidos pueden tranquilamente acceder a la comunión, ignorando las contundentes palabras de San Pablo “…porque si come y bebe sin discernir el Cuerpo del Señor, come y bebe su propia condenación” (1Cor. 11; 28-29).

* “Que Dios no puede ser Dios sin el hombre” pasando por alto que Él como dice el Apocalipsis es el alfa y el omega, el que era, el que es y el que vendrá, y además como nos dice la misma palabra “Antes de ser engendrados los montes, antes de que nacieran la tierra y al mar, desde siempre hasta siempre, eres Dios” (Sal. 90; 5).

Bermúdez responde que hay que aceptar esas monstruosidades y otras más que ponen en grave peligro el destino eterno de todos, únicamente porque lo dijo Bergolio como Papa. Pero en mora está Bermúdez de demostrar con razones, ¡con razones!, no con adjetivos, ni con sentimentalismos, ni con verborrea emocional, ni con calificaciones personales, que no son falsedades las falsas enseñanzas de Francisco, y que éstas no van en oposición a la Biblia ni al Magisterio tradicional de la misma iglesia.

En efecto, no repara Bermúdez en los elementales embustes de la enseñanza papal, sino en la sola condición del Papa que la pronuncia, y pretende que nos traguemos los sapos que nos da Bergoglio, únicamente porque lo dijo quien aparentemente ostenta la calidad de Pontífice Universal. ¡No Señor Bermúdez!, usted debe refutar tesis con tesis y argumentos con argumentos, o por lo menos dígale a la gente con Biblia y Catecismo en mano, si los equivocados somos nosotros o es el Papa. Si la “Madre Angélica” viviera, ella que tan celosamente permaneció en la auténtica doctrina de Cristo, ¿creen ustedes que permitiría semejantes desaguisados contra la fe de los creyentes?

Utiliza el señor Bermúdez el latinajo de ubi petrus ibi ecclesia ubi ecclesia ibi christus, que significa “donde está Pedro está la Iglesia, y donde está la Iglesia está Cristo”, y esto es cierto, pero con la condición de que se trate de un Papa AUTÉNTICO y no de uno ficticio, de uno falso, de uno que enseña herejía tras herejía y que fue impuesto astutamente por una “mafia cardenalicia”, como lo confesó con cinismo el Cardenal Godfried Danneels, a la sazón, líder más importante del cardenalato de nuestra Iglesia.

Pretende pues, el señor Bermúdez que todos los católicos obedezcamos sin más, a quien tiene la apariencia de Papa, pero no lo es en la realidad. Pero obedecer a un falso Papa no es obedecer al verdadero Pedro, ni a la verdadera Iglesia, ni al verdadero Cristo, eso es obedecer a la mentira y al demonio.

La prueba de que finalmente donde está la apariencia de Pedro no está la realidad de Jesús, nos la da el Capítulo 13; 11-ss del Apocalipsis, que indudablemente se aplica a un Papa herético, a un Papa que enseña falsedades en vez de verdades, pero también a un Papa que tiene la apariencia de tal, pero que en realidad no fue elegido por el Espíritu Santo, sino por una mafia cardenalicia corrupta y politiquera. Así Francisco es figura de Pedro solo en apariencia, no en la realidad y eso es precisamente lo que deberían distinguir nuestros críticos, como el señor Bermúdez.

Bermúdez señala de “irracionales” las razones que dieron los mismos complotados en la elección fraudulenta de Francisco, sepa él que no está tratando de irracional a José Galat ni a Alberto Villasana, sino, a los mismos cardenales de quienes no pueden desconocerse sus maniobras politiqueras, que manipularon la tendencia electoral en el conclave del 2013, una práctica prohibida y condenada bajo pena de excomunión por la no derogada -Constitución Apostólica Universi Dominici Gregis- de Juan Pablo II.

También el Sr. Bermúdez, arremete indiscriminadamente y con errores gravísimos contra todas las revelaciones privadas. Pero, si bien es cierto que no hay obligación de creer en ellas, tampoco se pueden despachar de forma alegre e irresponsable en bloque las mismas, porque ya nos dice la Palabra de Dios, que no hay que sofocar la voz del Espíritu Santo y que debemos discernir lo erróneo de lo verdadero. “No extingan la acción del Espíritu; no desprecien las profecías; examínenlo todo y quédense con lo bueno” (1 Tesalonicenses 5; 19-21).

En conclusión, es menester que Bermúdez antes de criticar se informe y que critique con razones valederas, con argumentos pesados, es decir ante todo con la misma Palabra de Dios consignada en la Biblia y enseñada en el Catecismo. De lo contrario, sus posiciones críticas carecerán de fundamento y contribuirán no a fortalecer la vida de la Iglesia, sino a desorientar más al pobre rebaño de estos tiempos, que bastante desorientado anda ya con la guía del falso Papa Bergolio.

José Galat.

Related:


15 Aug 2017

Governor Obiano and the police commissioner must be held responsible for the massacre in Ozubulu!

Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Aloysius Ikegwuonu (middle)
As I stated in my last week report, Anambra State Governor, Willie Obiano, who is about to contest for a second term by November this year, following the earlier police report, said the attack on worshippers at Ozubulu Church that took place on Sunday, August 6, had nothing to do with terrorists but is “a gang war that had spilled over to the state from another African country.” — meaning the alleged feud between the two Ozubulu brothers (the alleged drug dealers). It was alleged that the attack was a spill-over of a drug related feud, between two Ozubulu brothers who live in South Africa, one of whom, Aloysius Ikegwuonu (aka Bishop) built the Church. The main matter was said to be between Chief Aloysius Ikegwuonu (rumoured to be a drug baron) and another Ozubulu man popularly known as Obrocho. It was alleged that the gunmen had traced Chief Aloysius to his house, but were told he had gone to church where he was meant to hold “a thanksgiving service”.

One blogger, Uju Ayalogu, narrated another different story altogether, alleging it was a drug war between Aloysius and his friend and secondary school classmate, Ginika Nwoke, which later became a war between Ozubulu people and the people of Mbaise (in Imo State), following Aloysius’ (alleged) murder of Ginika Nwoke (alias Giniyee), a native of Mbaise some years ago, which prompted Mbaise people to declare war on the people of Ozubulu, a war which, according to her, has already claimed many lives. So many stories! 

Of course, there may be some elements of truth in the stories but the fact is that they are many and different.

Well, at last the young man, Aloysius Ikegwuonu, is back! As someone commented, “Governor Obiano & the police commissioner must be held responsible for the massacre in Ozubulu. Why should they be alleging that a terrorists’ attack against innocent worshippers was a handiwork of drug cartel war? Every discerning mind can see, that the government is lying to us”.


Aloysius Ikegwuonu (in black) with the victims of Ozubulu church attack in the hospital.
As I stated in my last report, “my suspicion is that Obiano, the Governor, is afraid the matter may tarnish the image of his administration and consequently cost him the loss of the forthcoming governorship election — hence his hasty vindication of the police report even though there is no evidence for that, still.”

And may I add, not just the Governor but also the police and all those journalists who narrated different stories against the young man, must come out now to prove their allegations. Unless they can prove all they wrote against him—that is, that he is a drug dealer and that the killers invaded the Church because of him—they must get ready for whatever action he may decide to take against them.

Already before returning to the country, Mr. Ikegwuonu had made the following statements:

My attention has been drawn to a social media campaign where it is alleged that I am connected to the Ozubulu church killing over a drug problem.

For the avoidance of any doubt I wish to inform the general public that I know nothing about the church killings and I have never been involved in drugs.

I have never been arrested or convicted anywhere in the world. My businesses are legitimate businesses, duly registered. Apart from warehousing and wholesale of goods I am also a contractor involved in the construction of roads and infrastructure in Nigeria.

It’s shameful that Nigerians and the media don’t verify any story before running with them.

The handwork of those who are jealous of my success and who are determined to tarnish my image is evident.

The Church killings is an unprecedented evil that deserves full investigation to unmask the perpetrators.

We await investigations and full police report of the church attack.

In the meantime I request all social media and media houses to retract my name from the defamatory stories linking me with the church killing.

Failure to do so and any further linking of my name with the church killings will force me to take legal action against the purveyors of the defamatory false story.

Aloysius Ikegwuonwu          


Photos below: Aloysius Ikegwuonu visited the victims who survived the attack in the hospital:

  


10 Aug 2017

Prof. Galat: “Francis is not pope but a heretic.” Colombian Bishops: “We excommunicate you!”

Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Galat versus Francis
Dear friends, I just read an article by one Domingo Caro, a contributor to OnePeterFive, said to be well versed in politics and the Church in South America. The article, which was incidentally published on August 2, the same day I published an article on Prof. Galat’s case with the Colombian bishops, reads partly:

“Recently, a well respected Catholic, Don José Galat, who is the founder of a TV channel (Teleamiga) and the president of a university (de la Gran Colombia), broadcast a set of TV shows in which he showed what he understands as Pope Francis’s departures from the Catholic Faith in matters of the Sacrifice of the Mass (which has been called by Francis a “memorial”) and of the respect for the Commandments (see one episode here). The bishops of Colombia have reacted by forbidding priests to appear on Galat’s channel. At this point, a radio station interviewed Galat aggressively, calling him “proud” and schismatic. His reaction went beyond his previous more meditated positions, and he stated that Francis is not pope because his election was null – and that even if he were pope, he is a heretic. The reaction of the bishops was instant: they declared immediately that Don José Galat is excommunicated latae sententiae. Would that the bishops reacted with such exemplary speed when the central teachings of our faith are denied and the central tenets of Catholic morality are questioned by priests, religious, and laity!”

Of course, the “excommunication” is absolutely null and utterly worthless because Prof. Galat did not commit any offence. On the contrary, he defends the Catholic Faith from the heresies of Francis and the diabolical attack of those who are “excommunicating” him. It is sad and indeed tragic to note that up till now, millions of Catholics the world over haven’t yet been taking this Bergoglean war against our Faith seriously. Many will do when it gets too late.

In April, 2015, shortly before his death, Father Nicholas Gruner visited Rome. According to him, “...while I was there, something happened—something soul-shaking!—that I did not expect!

“I spoke with Father Gabriel Amorth, the world’s most famous living exorcist. His words shook me as few things ever have! Father Amorth told me that we have but a SHORT TIME left before the chastisements predicted by Our Lady of Fatima begin to rip our world apart in ways we can hardly imagine!  HOW LONG? LESS THAN 8 MONTHS! Father Gabriel Amorth told me that unless the consecration of Russia is done—as Our Lady asked—by the end of October, 2015, the dark prophecies of Fatima may well come to pass any day after that.

“...There are no accidents. All is Providence! Father Amorth is, at 85, still the chief exorcist of Rome. He has performed tens of thousands of exorcisms and written several books on the subject. He was the hand-picked successor of Father Candido, his famed saintly predecessor who himself had special spiritual gifts. Father Amorth knows we are in the final battle with Satan and the time is short.”

Both Fr. Gruner himself and Fr. Amorth have now been taken away from us, and we have, since then, been living through “the dark prophecies of Fatima”. Don’t forget this.

Below is the OnePeterFive article. The writer, Domingo Caro, says that “Don José Galat has, I think, gone beyond what canonists think to be right concerning the papal election.” Please kindly ignore him. “Canonists” who, up till now, haven’t declared Bergoglio a false pope are doing so either because they are also fellow heretics or simply out of shear cowardice:

Bottom of Form
Colombia and Venezuela Burning: Is the Vatican Coddling Communists?



Editor’s note: The following comes from Domingo Caro, a contributor well versed in politics and the Church in South America.

Colombia has been terrorized and turned into a drug-dealing country by communist subversion for decades. The worst force in this regard has a name: the “Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia” (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), or FARC. After President Uribe (2002-2010) struck them hard, they decided to change their strategy and secure power through elections, as Hugo Chávez himself did in neighboring Venezuela.
Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos has played an active role in this strategy. Last year, he signed a “peace” agreement with FARC and proposed a referendum to approve it. The campaign for the approval was relentless; all the polls were manipulated to show huge support. The pope got involved in favor of the agreement, which had been promoted by him and Raúl Castro, but the people of Colombia refused to be deceived and voted “no.”
Pope Francis’s intervention was harshly criticized, and with weighty reasons, by Spanish-American Catholics. The blog El Quijote Siglo XXI pointed out the following: the 297-page agreement was the surrender of Colombia to a form of communism designed by Raúl Castro. In those pages, the State agrees to impose on children’s education and on a variety of policies the ideology of gender [1], to give a salary for years to members of the guerrillas, to forgive the abundant crimes against humanity committed by FARC, to allow FARC to own radio stations to promote “21st-century socialism,” and to have some seats in Congress and to keep the money gained from drug-dealing.

When the agreement was signed, Pietro Cardinal Parolin said, “[T]he Holy Father has followed with attention the efforts of past years in search for reconciliation and harmony, and he has encouraged such efforts, without taking part in the concrete solutions[.]” But Francis went beyond this. He declared, “I promise that when this agreement is approved and protected by the referendum, then I will visit Colombia in order to teach peace.” He was so sure that the Colombian people would approve the agreement in the referendum!

The pope had reasons to be sure. He had pressed with his papal authority for its approval, and the proposed public question was deceitful: “Do you support the Final Agreement for the end of the armed conflict and the construction of a stable and lasting peace?” Was not Francis taking part in a fraud, an attempt to drag a Catholic people into approving its own destruction?
The story does not end here. The people were not deceived by propaganda and papal cajoling. However, Santos went on with the application of the agreement, and so did Raúl Castro, FARC, and Francis. Next September 1, FARC will become a political party, and next September 6, Francis will go to bless the ensuing “reconciliation” and “harmony.” The Conference of Bishops has promoted this visit and so has accepted the papal blessing of the deception of the Colombian people.

Such has been the Vatican diplomatic line in Colombia under Cardinal Parolin and Pope Francis.
In neighboring Venezuela, the Vatican has followed exactly the same line. The Christian people in both countries are confused. But in Venezuela, where the perversity of this diplomatic line is more visible because of the genocide the people are suffering – a catastrophe Francis and Parolin have ignored – the confusion is being expressed boldly. Even José Luis Rodríguez, a famous popular singer, threw a challenge to the pope: “The silence of the pope is astonishing and turns him into an accomplice in the recent deaths and the deaths to come in this drug-dealing regime. What is wrong with you, Bergoglio?” Also: “The pope is closer to the communist left than to Christ. Define yourself, Bergoglio!”

The Vatican has criticized the opposition more than the government. Pope Francis has never condemned the tyrannical repression in Venezuela; instead, he has always called “the government and all members of Venezuelan society to avoid any new form of violence and to search for negotiated solutions.” He has therefore ignored the oppression to which the Communist government has submitted the people and has ignored the classical doctrine of the right of the people to defend themselves from tyranny. Pope Francis and the Vatican have been promoting “dialogue” and “negotiations” with a totalitarian tyranny, which has used the authority of the Vatican to gain time to overcome several crises (in 2014 and in 2016).

Does Pope Francis not know that the tyranny has full power and is oppressing a defenseless people?
In the recent crisis, the one that started in April, the Vatican followed the same path. I have already quoted a public statement made by Francis in April. In his Easter Message, he insisted on the same line. And there is indubitable evidence that Cardinal Parolin is directly responsible (as he was in 2014 and 2016) for the disastrous course followed in the last month by the opposition leaders, associated under an organization called MUD (Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, the Democratic Unity Roundtable). These leaders have tried to reach a “negotiated solution,” in the apparent conviction that Cardinal Parolin’s support will move the officials of the Venezuelan tyranny to negotiate with them. This appears clearly in a letter sent by one of these MUD politicians, Julio Borges, the president of the Venezuelan Congress, to officials in the Venezuelan government. Borges speaks of the dialogue Cardinal Parolin has proposed in a recent letter from the Vatican. Don’t the Vatican officials and the opposition leaders know that communist tyrannies do not abandon power through persuasion [2]?

On July 28, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, José Miguel Vivanco, gave some statements to the Chilean press that are worth contrasting with the Vatican’s attitude:

[T]he crisis in Venezuela is not the result of the lack of dialogue. … It is not the result of polarization and a potential clash between two equivalent forces that demand mediation. … [T]he crisis is due to a dictatorial record of a regime that commits extremely grave and massive violations of human rights with total impunity and does  not give accounts to anybody.
We are facing a dictatorship, a tyranny that concentrates the whole power, and which holds on to power. In this context, the president of Chile refuses to name things as they are and states that this regime was democratically elected[, which] is inconsistent with Chile’s position in the Organization of American States[.] …
The gravest issue is that she suggest a dialogue between government and opposition. This is a grave mistake, and at this moment, a head of state well informed of Venezuela’s situation should not make such a grave mistake. …
The 30th of July, the regime will try to protect itself with a little varnish (they cannot get more than that) of a democratic popular exercise but with a clearly fascist structure, which is going to make even harder a democratic, negotiated, and reasonable solution in the short term to this situation, in which the Venezuelan people are absolutely defenseless.

So it seems that we have come to the situation in which a popular singer and the executive director of Human Rights Watch are a moral authority more credible than Pope Francis and Parolin’s Vatican. No wonder Colombian Catholics are upset, saying Pope Francis is not welcome and that he and the bishops who support him are outside the Catholic Church.
Recently, a well respected Catholic, Don José Galat, who is the founder of a TV channel (Teleamiga) and the president of a university (de la Gran Colombia), broadcast a set of TV shows in which he showed what he understands as Pope Francis’s departures from the Catholic Faith in matters of the Sacrifice of the Mass (which has been called by Francis a “memorial”) and of the respect for the Commandments (see one episode here). The bishops of Colombia have reacted by forbidding priests to appear on Galat’s channel. At this point, a radio station interviewed Galat aggressively, calling him “proud” and schismatic. His reaction went beyond his previous more meditated positions, and he stated that Francis is not pope because his election was null – and that even if he were pope, he is a heretic. The reaction of the bishops was instant: they declared immediately that Don José Galat is excommunicated latae sententiae. Would that the bishops reacted with such exemplary speed when the central teachings of our faith are denied and the central tenets of Catholic morality are questioned by priests, religious, and laity! 

Don José Galat has, I think, gone beyond what canonists think to be right concerning the papal election. However, can one really be surprised that a good Catholic who loves divine Truth and the people of God is upset and now is stating that Pope Francis is not welcome in Colombia?

Schism is brewing in the Church, not harmony and peace. How could it not grow when the Vatican shows such partiality toward the archenemies of Catholics – no less than well known communists, FARC and Raúl Castro included?
[1] See the final peace agreement, Preamble, pp. 3; sections 2.2.4; 2.3.5; 3.4.1; 3.4.2; 4.2.1.1;  4.2.1.4; 5, p.  126; 5.1.1.1; 5.1.1.1.2; 5.1.1.1.4; 5.1.2.I; 5.2; 6; and the Protocol about monitoring and verifying the application of the agreement, p. 233, July 31, 2017)

[2] There is the belief that in the Soviet Union, the communists did relinquish power peacefully. But this is false. There was a coup d’état against Yeltsin, which failed. This failure is what led the communists out of power for a while in Russia.

Related: