Is Cardinal Parolin Trying To Patch Up a Bergoglian Disaster?

Is Cardinal Parolin Trying To Patch Up a Bergoglian Disaster?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
August 7, 2017

Pope Francis and Evo Morales, Socialist President of Bolivia.
(The Pope took the hammer-and-sickle “crucifix” back with him to the Vatican.)

The always provocative Antonio Socci has just posted a column in which he details what he believes are efforts by elements in the Roman Curia to defend the Church against what he describes as the “calamity, disaster, and scourge” of the current pontificate. The leader of this “self-defense of the Church,” in Socci’s view, is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State.

Socci refers, first of all, to the “heavy defeat” Pope Francis has suffered in his inexplicable support for the ruinous socialist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro, the “red despot” of Venezuela, who has single-handedly reduced a wealthy nation to ruin, provoking the collapse of the economy, widespread famine, riots in the streets and coup attempts.

Francis, writes Socci, “was close to Maduro (he is always ‘tender’ with all the red tyrants, from Fidel Castro to the Chinese, while demonizing Trump and democratic leaders).” Francis, Socci notes, even staged a Vatican photo op for Maduro in July of 2013, during which he blessed Maduro on the forehead. But Cardinal Parolin, in the face of the Venezuelan disaster, has joined with the bishops of Venezuela in a statement that “repudiates the red despot Maduro.” The statement against Maduro, Socci observes, is part of an effort “to patch up the incalculable damage caused by Bergoglio and his court.”

Socci further cites the example of Parolin’s statements this past July on the “wave of immigration” into Italy, statements viewed as “a correction if not a repudiation of Monsignor Galantino, therefore implicitly of Bergoglio, who has made immigration-ism a dogma of the faith… and also the obsessive Bergoglian hammering on welcoming everybody… which has pushed the [government] to lower all defenses and allow the country to be overwhelmed by invasion.”

Parolin had to apply “a colossal patch,” however, to an “international gaffe” arising from “the latest surreal interview with [Eugenio] Scalfari” on July 8 in La Repubblica (the Pope’s favorite Leftist newspaper, and the only one he reads). Therein, “among other enormities,” Francis declared: “I fear that there are certain rather dangerous alliances between powers that have a distorted vision of the world: America and Russia… Putin and Assad in the war in Syria.”

The notion that an alliance between the United States and Russia in Syria is dangerous, whereas conflict between the two powers would be desirable, is not only bizarre, but is fraught with the potential to worsen U.S.-Russia relations, already poisoned by the United States Congress in service of the hysterical claim that Russia “hacked our democracy” and “colluded” with the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, which is precisely the line of Obama, Clinton and the American warmonger faction. Most ironically, Francis’ reckless remark lends itself to a U.S.-Russia conflict that could end in a global catastrophe, despite his constant demands for peace in the world (but certainly not the peace of Christ under the Social Kingship of Christ).

“There is not a person of good sense,” Socci writes, “who does not look with favor upon peaceful discussions between the two great powers.” This is quite apart from the question of Russia’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart and her consequent conversion, as to which the current state of flux in that nation, with a seeming religious revival on some level (although abortion is still legal), seems to involve a remote preparation for the historical turning point of Russia’s reunification with Rome.

As a patch for the Bergoglian blunder, Cardinal Parolin issued a statement, quoted by Socci, which notes the historic role of Eastern Europe “in civilization, culture, and Christian faith,” and recalls the appeal by John Paul II not for a merely political “Western expansion,” but rather the reunification of all of Europe according to its Christian roots, which is certainly in line with the Message of Fatima, even if the failed Vatican policy of Ostpolitik [the politics of East, calling for accommodation of communist regimes] is not.

Socci writes that Parolin is also reportedly involved in “putting the brakes on the ‘revolutionary projects’ of the Bergoglian court on the liturgy (the liberation of the [Latin] Mass is on shaky ground on which there is a risk of the eruption of schism).”

Socci concludes with this observation: “Parolin’s activism is garnering ever greater consensus among those who are disconcerted by Bergoglio’s work of demolition. But how much longer can this situation continue?”

How much longer indeed? Only God knows the definitive answer, which will come on the day that Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Get AQ Email Updates

Leave a Reply