Carlo Maria Viganò,Archbishopformer Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America released a powerful statement this weekend after Pope Leo lashed out at Trump last week for ending the notoriously wicked Iranian regime.

IT is understandable that many Catholics feel offended and scandalized by the statements made by the President of the United States regarding Leo1 , even if one certainly cannot claim that Jorge Bergoglio refrained during his “reign” from launching attacks and provocations against Donald Trump. Moreover, the latter’s intervention is contextualized by the statements orchestrated against him this week on the CBS2 , propaganda program 60 Minutes by three utterly corrupt cardinals: Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin, three prelates who are notoriously ultra-Bergoglian and ultra-progressive, part of the network of the serial abuser Theodore McCarrick, inextricably linked to the radical “woke” Left, and key electors and closest collaborators of Robert Prevost.

When asked by journalists about Donald Trump’s post, Leo replied: “I am not afraid of the Trump administration, nor of boldly proclaiming the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am called to do, and what the Church is called to do.”3 These words, apparently indisputable coming from Prevost, can however shift sharply in meaning depending on how they are interpreted. They may simply mean, “I have no fear of civil power,” thereby asserting the superiority of the Catholic Church’s spiritual authority over any earthly authority. Or, in a diametrically opposite sense, they may mean, “I have no fear of this administration” – implying that, in other instances, he deems it legitimate to feel fear and to refrain from “boldly proclaiming the message of the Gospel.” And immediately, one is reminded of how often we have seen the Vatican “fear” other administrations, both in Washington – especially when the interference of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta went so far as to block in the Vatican banking transactions via the SWIFT network – and in Beijing, where the Holy See is officially involved with the communist dictatorship, through a secret Agreement, not to “forcefully proclaim the message of the Gospel,” rubber-stamping the episcopal appointments of the Chinese Patriotic Association without them being deemed a schismatic act, unlike the Consecrations at Ecône.

In numerous other instances, Prevost, and before him Bergoglio, have seen fit to remain silent of their own accord, perhaps because their acquiescence, if not outright enthusiastic cooperation, was precisely what the Powers That Be expected from the Conciliar and Synodal Church. Indeed, no sooner had the Trump Administration cut off the stream of funds that USAID was channeling to the USCCB and various bodies of the American Catholic Church to facilitate immigration, than an open war erupted on the part of all those cardinals and bishops whom Clinton, Obama, and Biden had, until that moment, showered with money. During those years of plenty, Bergoglio and the entire American Episcopate took great care not to disrupt their idyll with the White House, thanks, in part, to the good offices of then-Cardinal McCarrick, and paid scant heed to the pro-abortion, LGBTQ+, and gender-related policies promoted by “Catholic” Democrats. The mere suggestion of excommunicating “pro-choice” politicians was deemed an intolerable intrusion by a Hierarchy that had itself made it abundantly clear it had no intention whatsoever of taking such a step.

Thus, a single phrase, extrapolated from its context – “I am not afraid of the Trump administration, nor of boldly proclaiming the message of the Gospel” – might appear entirely unobjectionable. Yet, when viewed within a broader, more coherent framework, it leaves one utterly perplexed, for it directly contradicts the very words Leo uttered on that same occasion: “We are not politicians. […] I do not believe that the message of the Gospel should be instrumentalized, as some are currently doing.” And while there are undoubtedly those who instrumentalize “the message of the Gospel” through the pseudo-messianic delusions typical of American televangelists, there are also most certainly those the within the Vatican who do not hesitate to instrumentalize that very same Gospel to lend a veneer of legitimacy and morality to the agenda of ethnic replacement and the Islamization of the West: an agenda doggedly pursued by the globalist elite through the Agenda 2030. This is an Agenda that Trump detests entirely, but which the Holy See, Leo, the USCCB, and a host of pseudo-Catholic charities have elevated to the status of a new globalist totem within their own synodal program. Nor should we forget the doctrinal ratification that Bergoglio bestowed upon the pandemic farce and mass vaccination, just as he did for climate fraud and “sustainable development goals” with his pseudo-encyclical Laudato Si, or the blessing that Prevost imparted to a block of ice specially shipped from Antarctica during a truly cringeworthy ceremony at Castel Gandolfo.

Despite his insistence that he is not a politician, Leo had no qualms about granting a private audience on April 9 to David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s chief strategist and former senior advisor at the White House. One question is more than legitimate: Did Axelrod perhaps come to the Vatican to dictate a specific political strategy to Leo, much as Hillary Clinton and John Podesta had previously interfered to pressure Benedict XVI into abdicating and then facilitate the election of Bergoglio?

The paradox is made manifest by Trump himself: “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!” Which is absolutely true, more so than President Trump could possibly imagine.

While the Democratic administrations have repeatedly and improperly interfered in the governance of the Church of Rome, untimely and inappropriate interventions by the Vatican regarding Washington have hardly been lacking either. And while nobody was surprised by the invective of the Jesuit from Buenos Aires, who labeled Trump “unchristian” for declaring his intention to repatriate hordes of illegal immigrants, the pronouncements of the Augustinian from Chicago regarding immigration, and more recently concerning the war, have certainly left observers bewildered: “God blesses no conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, never sides with those who yesterday wielded the sword and today drop bombs,” Leo said4 . Surely he could have elaborated, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did in 2003: “Given the new weapons that make possible a destruction extending far beyond groups of combatants, today we must ask ourselves whether it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war.”5 Or, better yet, Leo could have recalled the words of Pius XII: “A people threatened by, or already the victim of, unjust aggression, if it wishes to act in a Christian manner, cannot remain in a state of passive indifference; moreover, the solidarity of the family of nations forbids others from behaving as mere spectators, adopting an attitude of impassive neutrality.”6

But Prevost – and herein lies the true problem – does not speak with the voice of the Church: his words of condemnation against any war whatsoever ultimately serve to legitimize even unjust wars, thereby depriving the victim of aggression of the right to self-defense, given that even a defensive war would be deemed unjust. This error is akin to asserting that all religions are equivalent, that moral precepts must be adapted to contingent circumstances (see Amoris Lætitia and Fiducia Supplicans), or that capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel. For in these instances, too, the one who ought to serve as a point of reference in discerning Good from Evil betrays his own mandate by granting equal rights to error and to Truth, rather than assuming his moral responsibility to condemn the former and defend the latter.

According to Trump’s admonition, “Leo should get his act together as Pope […] and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” Indeed, the election of an American “pope” from Chicago, steeped in heretical doctrines acquired during his years of ministry in Latin America, devoted to the cult of Pachamama, and ideologically aligned – by his own admission – with the worst progressivism of the infamous Cardinals Bernardin and Cupich, appears to have been deliberately orchestrated to serve as a counterweight to the President of the United States. If his role was intended to be – as has indeed become evident in recent months – that of continuing the conciliar and synodal revolution, it comes as no surprise that Bergoglio meticulously paved the way for his ecclesiastical ascent, ensuring that he would succeed him and not undo the twelve years of systematic dismantling of the Catholic edifice and total subservience to the globalist establishment carried out by the Argentine Jesuit. In the face of these concrete demonstrations of continuity between Bergoglio and Prevost, the silence of the sparse, moderately conservative minority within the College of Cardinals confirms their complicity and inadequacy.

Source: The Gateway Pundit