For Your Information and Reference

Regarding the current Palestinian-Israeli war, we bring, in the following lines, some numbers and a related commentary from an Israeli official. Since the numbers fit so well with his commentary, it seems that it is not just the opinion of a senior Israeli defense official speaking anonymously, but reflects the motivation and reasoning of their government as a whole.

On October 8, 2023:

“At least 300 people have died and thousands of others are wounded in Israel, officials said. Fighting continued through the day, and a fresh round of rocket attacks hit Tel Aviv and other areas on Saturday evening.” (Source)

On October 27, 2023:

“At least 7,027 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, including 2,913 children and 1,709 women. In the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, 104 people have been killed by Israeli fire. Meanwhile, at least 1,400 people have been killed in Israel.” (Source) (1)

Comment by a senior Israeli defense official in October 24th:

“This is the most important point – our deterrence”, the senior war Cabinet source said. “The region must quickly understand that whoever harms Israel the way Hamas did, pays a disproportionate price. There is no other way to survive in our neighborhood than to exact this price now, because many eyes are fixed on us and most of them do not have our best interests at heart.” (Source)

Also from the same official, who speaks on condition of anonymity:

“To all those who support a defense pact, I suggest examining how we now coordinate everything with the Americans, how we don't do anything contrary to their opinion, at least for now, and how we do all this without having a defense alliance of one kind or another with them.” (Same source)

May all the dead on both sides rest in peace and may the wounded and refugees receive aid and consolation according to God’s Will.

Regarding the argument that “Hamas must pay a disproportionate price”: As far as we know, there are no recorded statistics on how many of the 2913 Palestinian children killed (41% of the Palestinians killed) belonged to Hamas.

By modern definitions, terrorism is the systematic practice of violent and deadly acts in pursuit of political ends by causing terror. It is up to each individual to judge whether this definition applies only to the side that cast the first stone (or rocket) or to any side that plays the game of gaining the “respect” of the other side by causing terror (by definition, a high level of fear) in the other side's population.

As miguel de Portugal has pointed out many times, the solution to terrorism is not political, even less military. It will never be solved without recognizing the true root of the problem, which is religious fanaticism.

(1) Similar figures from another source: Casualty figures as of October 30: Gaza: Killed at least 8,306, including at least 3,457 children, 2,136 women; Israel: Killed at least 1,405.

Back to This Month's Index

October 30th, 2023

The manipulative power of the media by focusing the public's attention on a single concern

Did you noticed that... the media focus is now Israel-Palestine, yesterday it was Russia, the other day it was Covid, someday it was North Korea, then Iran again... as if there was only one enemy at a time, as if the rest of the world's problems and wars (1) disappeared or did not exist?

Why? Because it is a warfare of “justifications” directed at the minds of the people through controlled media. The task of convincing public opinion that “this particular one is a just war” would not work so well if people's attention were scattered over many global problems – moreover, this allows to better hide the preparations and maneuvers (and failures) that are still going on in the other fields.

Fear is a powerful tool for manipulation, but focused fear works best.

(1) For example:

War in Sudan (2023): “As of 15 August 2023, between 4,000 and 10,000 people had been killed and 6,000 to 12,000 others injured, while as of 12 September 2023, over 4.1 million were internally displaced and more than 1.1 million others had fled the country as refugees.” (Source)

Deaths from malaria: around 619,000 worldwide in 2021. (In comparison, Covid deaths that caused worldwide alarm in 2020: 2,700)

Children killed in abortions: approx. 14 millions annually worldwide

Back to This Month's Index

October 30th, 2023

All Souls Day – Is it related to Halloween and the Mexican Day of the Dead?

FROM OUR FILES: November 3rd, 2018

From Mrs. IW @ USA

I have a question regarding All Souls Day.

Everyone’s culture has different celebrations. In the Mexican Culture their is The Day of the Dead. Neither my husband, nor his siblings celebrate it in their own homes, but their mother does.

We celebrated it here (in the US) once, but I was a bit confused as to how this coordinated with being a Catholic Christian. I seems to have taken on a life of its own now.

I have seen images of people, dolls and such, dressed up in costumes and with face painting that is very elaborate and at times disturbing.

Is celebrating The Day of the Dead okay, or is their a pagan meaning behind it? Halloween has certainly taken on a life of its own also.

Have a Blessed All Souls Day,

IW

A. Thank you for asking...

According to Wikipedia (1):

This feast is particularly celebrated in Mexico where the day is a public holiday. Prior to Spanish colonization in the 16th century, the celebration took place at the beginning of summer.

Gradually, it was associated with October 31, November 1, and November 2 to coincide with the Western Christianity triduum of All-hallow-tide: All Saints’ Eve, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day.

Traditions connected with the holiday include building private altars called ofrendas, honoring the deceased using calaveras, aztec marigolds, and the favorite foods and beverages of the departed, and visiting graves with these as gifts. Visitors also leave possessions of the deceased at the graves.

It was obviously a Pagan celebration which the Spanish colonizers blended with the Catholic All Souls Day as an Evangelization tool, while allowing, as they have done so many times, the shades of paganism to remain.

One can then see how All Saint’s Eve was blended with the Day of the Dead resulting in Halloween. Instead of Christianizing the Day of the Dead it resulted in another Pagan festival – Halloween.

The same thing happened with Santería in Cuba. Among the first Africans slaves to be brought to America were the Yorubas whose religion was amazingly similar to Christianity – even in the concept of the Trinity. The Spanish colonizers used the similarities to “sell” Christianity to the slaves. What really happened is that Santeria flourished while changing the names. For example, Olofi is called now Jesus; Obatala is called now Our Lady of Mercy; St. Barbara is now called Shangó, etc., etc.

Since the Santeros have great faith in their religion and the Catholic clerics very little (some exceptions always noted), Santería flourished and is actively practiced in Cuba, while Catholicism is mostly a series of traditional rituals. If a Cuban wants to really get something done in the spiritual domain he/she goes to a Santero and not to the local parish priest.

If we did not fully answer the question to your satisfaction, let us know.

(1) Day of the Dead (Accessed on November 2018)

Back to This Month's Index

October 19th, 2023

The error of putting leaders like Gandhi on the same level as Jesus

The Salt March led by Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great man. No wonder he was called “Mahatma” – which means “great soul”. But one should be very careful about putting him on the same level as Jesus.

Without going into the Divinity of Jesus, we will you give an example – the Salt March led by Gandi:

The Salt March was an act of nonviolent civil disobedience in colonial India, led by Mahatma Gandhi. The twenty-four day march lasted from 12 March to 5 April 1930 as a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. Another reason for this march was that the Civil Disobedience Movement needed a strong inauguration that would inspire more people to follow Gandhi’s example. ...

Growing numbers of Indians joined them along the way. When Gandhi broke the British Raj salt laws at 8:30 am on 6 April 1930, it sparked large-scale acts of civil disobedience against the salt laws by millions of Indians. ... The salt tax represented 8.2% of the British Raj tax revenue, and hurt the poorest Indians the most significantly. (1)

Although it was a non-violent act, The Salt March was an act by which Gandhi and his followers specifically sought to provoke. It was an intentional and very explicit defiance of the authorities of the day.

Now, let’s look at Jesus’ reaction to a similar injustice:

When they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachma coins came to Peter, and said, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the didrachma?” He said, “Yes.” When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their children, or from strangers?” Peter said to him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Therefore the children are exempt. But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up. When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater coin. Take that, and give it to them for me and you.” [Matthew 17:24-27]

Jesus did not defy the authorities who were forcing an abusive tax. He did not respond with an act of provocation – and it is not that he did not have followers who would have seconded him [John 18:36]. Jesus turned to the supernatural —that is, to God— for a remedy, and it was given to him, so that he was able to circumvent the problem without failing in his obligation to the authorities of the day.

Please remember that, here, Jesus did not make use of His Divinity. When our Lord Jesus Christ walked amongst men, he did so as a 100% human (with the exception of being Immaculate). It is a mistake to ascribe the miracles he performed to His Divine Nature (2). Did he not say that...?

“Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.” [John 14:12]

And remember that this promise is not reserved only for the “saints”. He promised it for “he who believes in me”.

A utopia for men? He did not lie! Look at the case of John Bosco, who also had to face a political injustice and the remedy was brought to him by God – through a declared enemy of the Church at the time!

It was the important statesman Rattazzi himself [minister of the anti-clerical government in Italy at that time] who spontaneously explained to Don Bosco how to found a religious congregation, even if it was he who had ordered the suppression of religious orders through the infamous Rattazzi law of 1855. “Rattazzi” —says Don Bosco— “wishes to combine, with me, various acts of our Rule, regarding the way of behavior respecting the Civil and State Code”.

Rattazzi, with great ability, showed Don Bosco how to form a congregation that will internally, be governed by the normal ecclesiastical laws and which externally —respecting the State— be governed according to the civil laws that regulated the different mutual aid associations or other types of associations. The genial intuition in creating a religious society that according to the State was a “civil society” was given by Rattazzi in person to circumvent his own 1855 Law! The idea surprised even the Bishops themselves. It was born from the natural affection, respect and admiration that Rattazzi had, convinced anti-clerical though he was, for Don Bosco. (3)

And so it was the equivalent, for Don Bosco, of “Go to the sea, cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up. When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater coin. Take that, and give it to them for me and you.” [Matthew 17:27]

In this way, Jesus, and also Don Bosco, were able to circumvent political problems and focus on the work that really mattered: that which has to do with a Kingdom that is not of this world.

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here.” [John 18:36]

Does anyone worship the likes of Gandhi or the Dalai Lama? We do not despise all the good they may have done. But don’t forget that they, in addition to all the good moral intentions they may have had, also had a political agenda (4)(5). Those who are truly focused on being followers of Jesus do not have a political agenda:

“No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for God’s Kingdom.” [Luke 9:62]

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.” [Matthew 6:24; also Luke 16:13]

Now you can answer with more certainty the question: Who is the true Prince of Peace?

(1) The Salt March led by Gandhi

(2) It is a mistake to ascribe the miracles that Jesus performed to His Divine Nature

(3) The Miracle of St. John Bosco's Life - Love in action - A living example of True Christian Evangelization

(4) Gandhi’s political agenda: India’s independence

(5) The Dalai Lama's political agenda: Tibet's independence

(6) No One Can Simultaneously Serve Mammon and Also God - Exposing the Fallacy of the Opus Dei and others

Back to This Month's Index

October 19th, 2023

Abortion and “Just War”

Is it fair to adapt the commandment “thou shalt not kill” according to the inclinations of society?

FROM OUR FILES: April 26th, 2009

Do you wonder... what kind of theo-logic the Roman Catholic Church uses to condemn abortion under any circumstance (1) —with which we fully agree— while at the same time it appears that it accepts or justifies a “just war” (2) – considering that both are fundamented on the clear Divine Command: Thou shalt not kill?

The misconception is primarily due to the fact that the popular interpretation of “just war” has been stretched —as it is usual— beyond recognition. A review of the referred to paragraphs (2) will attest to that.

We do not approve of war under any circumstances but also recognize that to take that stand it requires a level of Faith than only a successful Evangelization effort would achieve or a direct Divine intervention in a soul.

(1) Paragraphs 2270 through 2275 in the Roman Catholic Catechism | Archived in our domain

(2) Paragraphs 2302 through 2317 in the Roman Catholic Catechism | Archived in our domain

Back to This Month's Index

October 14th, 2023

The obsession of Francis-Bergoglio with solidarity

Introduction

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, we have tried to unravel what is misleading in the concept of “solidarity”. We will expose now how Francis-Bergoglio is wanting to force a reinterpretation of Christian theology according to which solidarity would be at the very center of God and would be the greatest teaching of Jesus.

Details

Some religious leaders —particularly, the pseudo-Pope Francis (1)— are promoting so much the new keyword —solidarity— (or its companion fraternity (2)) that they are not far from saying that Jesus multiplied the loaves out of “solidarity” with those who had come to listen to Him.

Well, we were writing the above line as an irony and, while consulting the sources, we have discovered that it has been literally fulfilled by Francis!

A final element: where does the multiplication of the loaves come from? The answer lies in Jesus’ request to the disciples: “You give them…”, “to give”, to share. [...] And this tells us that in the Church, but also in society, a key word of which we must not be frightened is “solidarity”, that is, the ability to make what we have, our humble capacities, available to God, for only in sharing, in giving, will our life be fruitful. (3)

Francis is confusing the terms. “Making available what we have for sharing and giving” is generosity. “Solidarity” is acting together for a common purpose – a purpose that may include generosity or may not. Solidarity is neither good nor bad until the common purpose is defined. By itself, “solidarity” is a morally neutral word, only valid in this biblical context if it is filled in with generosity. And the reason Jesus shared the loaves is compassion. The example Jesus gave us with this was compassion and generosity, not solidarity.

Solidarity would have been, for example, to go hungry with them and not to multiply the loaves. Solidarity would also have been, for example, to raid the nearest farm together to steal loaves of bread. Solidarity can be applied through morally questionable means or can be for an evil purpose, not only for good. Therefore, Jesus did not give us an example of solidarity with the multiplication of the loaves, he gave us an example of compassion and generosity, fulfilled through prayer and faith.

This is just one of Francis-Bergoglio's “pearls” perverting the Scriptures to accommodate his “solidarity” agenda. Below we will look at some more sacrileges, even more serious.

Solidarity and The Holy Trinity

Francis-Bergoglio says:

Solidarity, cooperation and responsibility: in these days you have placed these three words at the centre of your discussions. Three words that recall the mystery of God himself, who, as Trinity, a communion of persons, inspires us to find our fulfilment in generous openness to others (solidarity), through collaboration with others (cooperation) and through commitment to others (responsibility). (4)

Indeed, Francis is suggesting that we take the Most Holy Trinity as an example of “solidarity among three Persons”.

In case some believers have difficulty in understanding the Most Holy Trinity and recognizing that God is One, even though He presents Himself in three different manifestations (5), now Bergoglio makes it worse by making a comparison that seems to reduce the Divinity to something akin to a social club where three friends have gathered (i.e., as if to imply that they previously had a separate existence as individuals and degrading the intimacy of Divine union to an attribute —solidarity— modeled on the image of the poor human society.)

Solidarity and The Holy Sacrifice

Francis-Bergoglio also says:

The Lord distributes for us the bread that is his Body, he makes himself a gift; and we too experience God’s solidarity with man, a solidarity that is never depleted, a solidarity that never ceases to amaze us (3)

Now, the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is no longer to be called the Sacrament of God's Love and Mercy towards man, it is now the sacrament of “God's solidarity with man”, according to Francis.

Even what is most sacred to Christians, the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus, Francis-Bergoglio manipulates it to make it revolve around his new queen: solidarity.

The Virtue that flows from God: Solidarity

We Christians believe that the Almighty is the source of Love, because God is Love. What is the Virtue that flows from God? Any Christian will tell you that it is Love. But, now, Francis-Bergoglio proposes that the greatest attribute of God is solidarity:

Everything is interconnected, and this invites us to develop a spirituality of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity. (6)

What can we comment on this? Could solidarity be exalted to a higher place than where Francis puts it?

What more could we except from Francis' mouth?

The Holy Trinity? Solidarity. The Sacrifice of the Son? Solidarity. The Virtue that flows from God? Solidarity. All of this according to Francis.

With such a point of view, we do not see why the following “enlightened” reading of Genesis could not come from the mouth of Francis-Bergoglio:

In the beginning, it was solidarity. And solidarity was God. And solidarity shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not receive it. ... And Solidarity became flesh, and made its dwelling among us. ... And from his solidarity we have all received, namely, a grace corresponding to his grace. [Fake John 1:1-16]

The Gospel revised according to Bergoglio would contain lines like the following:

For God so was solidary with the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever is solidary with him should not perish, but have eternal life. [Fake John 3:16]

Love? Compassion? Generosity? Mercy? Charity? Not anymore! Solidarity is the new language! These are the new commandments given to us by Francis-Bergoglio:

The first is: “You shall be in solidarity with the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is: “You shall be in solidarity with your neighbor as with yourself.” There is no greater commandment than these. [Fake Mark 12:28-31]

Confirmed by (what we imagine that could be stated by Francis within his new theology):

I give you a new commandment: that you be in solidarity with one another: so that, just as I have been in solidarity with you, you also may be in solidarity with one another. By this all will know that you are disciples of the New World Order, if you are in solidarity with one another. [Fake John 13:34-35]

(1) Index of Documents about "Pope" Francis I / Jorge Bergoglio

(2) The Fraternity of Francis-Bergoglio, a New Religion for a New World Order?

(3) https://www.vatican.va/.../2013/...omelia-corpus-domini

(4) https://www.vatican.va/.../2021/...fondazione-centesimus-annus

(5) The Most Holy Trinity - Illumination of the Secret Concept

(6) https://www.vatican.va/...2015...enciclica-laudato-si

Back to This Month's Index

October 14th, 2023

John Paul II also used the word “solidarity”

From a cooperator:

[Commenting on Part 1 of our series on “solidarity”]

John Paul II also used the word “solidarity”.

Our comment:

It is true. John Paul II (1) used that word a lot. The big difference is that Francis has gone so far as to manipulate sacred concepts such as the Holy Trinity and the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus to put them at the service of “solidarity”, as we just explained above.

For Francis (2), solidarity is not just a word to color Christianity with, it is the core of his program to formulate a new Christianity that aspires to be compatible —in the sense of “politically correct”— with other religions (3). Francis aspires to bring Peace to the world without the need for Jesus to come “from the clouds of heaven” as the Holy Scriptures predict (4).

So Francis is preparing his own way (5), separate from the hope in the Second Coming of Jesus (6). To this end, solidarity-fraternity (7) is the core and main objective of his “pontificate”, as evidenced by the choice of his religious name, Francis (a very poor and flawed imitation of the spirituality of Francis of Assisi).

(1) In Defense of Pope John Paul II - His Tragic Trajectory

(2) Francis-Bergoglio's trajectory, - his other theological errors - and - his profile

(3) Jorge Bergoglio, accepted by millions as Pope Francis, seeks prayers to achieve the One World Religion

(4) Christ's Return in Glory, on the Clouds of Heaven - Scriptural proof, from the Old Testament through Revelation

(5) The false hope in the triumph of a kingdom of this world

(6) Biblical prophecies on the Return of Christ - The False Christ, versus Christ

(7) The fallacies involved in the Francis-Bergoglio Fraternity

Back to This Month's Index

October 14th, 2023

What Dalai Lama really demands politically?

FROM OUR FILES: May 31st, 2009

Do you ever wonder... what is the Dalai Lama really up to?

Let us take a look at a summary of what he has just clearly stated as he demands autonomy from the PRC: (1)

The autonomy that he is seeking was enshrined in the Chinese Constitution, which guarantees the right of regional self-rule for ethnic minorities. Based on that, he said, the large area of western China that is predominantly Tibetan —including Tibet, but also parts of the provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan— should be united under a single Tibetan authority. Chinese officials have balked at the demand, saying it would mean turning over one-quarter of China to Tibetan governance.

and

“Tibet materially is very, very backward,” he said. “And every Tibetan wants to modernize Tibet. So for that reason, remaining within the People's Republic of China is in our own interest as far as economic development is concerned, provided we have full guarantee to preserve our own culture, our own language, our own spirituality and full protection of environment.”

As an associate commented about the real plans of the Dalai Lama – who just everyone loves (2):

Rephrasing what the Dalai Lama wants: Give us your western provinces, and help us develop. We'll take your help, and run our lands our own way.

This aspect of the Tibetan autonomy movement is not widely reported. So “autonomy” would give the Dalai Lama and his confederates the rule of much of western China, not just the province of Tibet.

Let us not forget that the Dalai Lama wrote a laudatory introduction to the book “Spiritual Politics”, a modern-day popularization of the teachings of Alice Bailey (3).

Among liberals, the Dalai Lama is revered as a man of peace and as a leader of a politically correct (i.e., non-Abrahamic) religion. Among conservatives, he is honored as an innocent victim of Communist (PRC) aggression. But the preceding items show a far more complex, and darker, reality.

(1) Report - "Autonomy Is Solution for Tibet, Dalai Lama Says" | Archived in our domain

(2) “Oh, but we know his face, don't we?” Even the French “Emperor” Sarkozy just loves him.

(3) The real nature behind Blavatsky's “Masters of Wisdom” and her Theosophy – This is the Alice Bailey of the New Age Movement

Back to This Month's Index

October 11th, 2023

The imperfection of solidarity when compared to the supreme virtue of Love

In the first part of this series of articles, we said:

The soldiers of a fighting army can, united in perfect solidarity, bloodily kill their common enemy, moved by hatred. A herd of a million lemmings can drop themselves to the edge of an abyss, in a movement of solidarity, but empty of love.

Solidarity is no guarantee of love. Solidarity can only be a Christian virtue when it is subordinated, and to the extent that it is subordinated, to love. Nothing more.

Therefore, there is no justification for making “solidarity” a new norm for Christians. It is an insult to the Christian Faith when solidarity, which is beneath Christian love, is presented as an enhancement or culmination of Christian love.

We can also observe:

Do you show solidarity for the refugees on one side of a war and do not pray for those who suffer or have died on the other side “because they are the ones to blame for the war”? Do you become a brother to those who suffer and forget to pray for the conversion of those who cause suffering? Then you may have much solidarity, but you have not understood what Christian love is.

The foundation and cornerstone for Peace and Justice is Love. True love, proceeding from God, inspired by God, in communion with God and exemplified in the highest degree by Jesus, reaches, through material and spiritual means, to believers and non-believers, to friends and enemies, even to the deceased. Pure love —not solidarity— transforms the world, because it is rooted in God, and God has the power to transform the world.

Solidarity, when it is not linked to love, does not interest us. And, when it is linked to love, it is halfway to Love, it is not destiny. It is imperfect because it is not necessarily synonymous with love:

• Remember: Love is about giving and sharing. Solidarity is about agreeing on a common behavior for a common purpose. Solidarity is neither good nor bad in itself until the means and purpose are defined.

• Solidarity —especially when defined as a virtue unrelated to God— is more attached to the things of this world. It brings prestige to the one who exhibits it and a sense of belonging to a group, which are rewards of this world, not of heaven.

• Solidarity is directed to those whom one pleases to define as “our own” in a definition that may change over time.

• Solidarity can easily lead to the stigmatization of “non-solidary” people, who, first, “will not be worthy” of the solidarity of others and, then, will be hated. (1)

• Solidarity is, many times, about uniting the oppressed in a struggle against the oppressors. Even if the struggle turns into violent activism, it is still solidarity, but now based on a common hatred. (2)

• Solidarity forgets to pray for the conversion of the oppressors, because they are not part of the community of solidarity. Christian love achieves what solidarity cannot. (3)

• Solidarity is not linked to Faith. It is agnostic, it declares itself independent of God. It depends on hope in the good will of men, not on a hope centered on God. Consequently, exalted solidarity nourishes hope in the triumph of a kingdom of this world, which is a false hope. (4)

• Solidarity is limited to emotional and moral ties, not spiritual ones. For solidarity is “politically correct love”, which avoids God and what is supernatural in love in order not to offend non-believers or those who practice different religions.

Make no mistake: Solidarity, when understood as an action or feeling of compassion towards those who suffer, is a very good thing —we are not saying the opposite— but, as we have already noted, that is not properly solidarity, it is compassion or charity. The proper word for compassion is “compassion”. And the proper word for charity is “charity”. We believe it is better to call a spade a spade. (5)

What we are warning about is that solidarity has been turned into a pivotal word that is being suspiciously promoted and that can open the door to uncharitable (or not fully charitable) behavior with the appearance of being charitable. For centuries, Christianity has not needed that word and now, suddenly, is it the solution for the Peace of the world?

When solidarity —or its companion, fraternity— becomes the new and obsessive “Christian” slogan for supposedly opening love to the world —for believers and non-believers alike— that is the same as proclaiming that Christian love has failed, that the love taught by Jesus is not enough, because it is supposedly sectarian, and that a new concept is needed that “improves” it and “can reach everyone”. That is a totally wrong idea and a wrong way. It is the opposite way to Christ. Why is this path being promoted from apparently “Christian” positions?

Part 3

Enters Jorge Bergoglio, Francis I, the false prophet. He proclaims the superiority of solidarity over Christian love, the superiority of universal fraternity over Christianity.

[Part 3 has been published on October 14]

NOTES

(1) An example of stigmatization based on solidarity encouraged by political leaders:

Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic

“Across three conjoined experimental studies (n=15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA.”

(2) Many proponents of solidarity are willing to encourage violence under certain conditions:

“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” – Gandhi, 1920

Another example:

“Violence is not a matter of principle. Violence cannot be a principle that we oppose or support. It is a tactic, a tool that can be used by anyone. In order to be for or against a tactic, we need to examine who is using it and, most importantly, to what end.” – International Socialist Organization

Compare the above with what Jesus preached and practiced:

My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. [John 18:36]

You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, “You shall not murder”; and “Whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment”. But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgment. [Matthew 5:21-22]

(3) “Christian love achieves what solidarity cannot.” – The mechanism that makes this possible

(4) The false hope in the triumph of a kingdom of this world

(5) “Calling a spade a spade” – that is part of our function

Back to This Month's Index

October 11th, 2023

The Kingdom of God has nothing to do with a human King

As related through Samuel

FROM OUR FILES: November 3rd, 2009

From miguel de Portugal

Do you wonder... why would God establish a Messianic Kingdom as Jews and many Christians expect —under a human King-Messiah— thus starting the much talked about “Golden Era” when God Himself was against the idea of setting a King above His people? To wit:

4 Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled, came to Samuel to Ramatha. 5 And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have. 6 And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee. [1 Samuel 8:4-8]

The answer is simple. Whether Jew or Christian or Muslim – Religious leaders learned their trade in the same place where they train managers for Cafeteria chains.... and the Special of the Day or Blue Plate rarely is related to the Will of God and mostly related to human agendas.

The obvious escaped most —The Kingdom of God has been amply described in the Holy Scriptures and its frequently invoked Keys have been explained in one of our documents (2)— and neither has anything to do with a human King.

One must wonder – Do the top echelons of religious institutions really believe in God? Would they act —as they have for centuries, with notable exceptions— as they do if they really believe in God?

We really do not think so. It seems that such was the case already when Francis of Assisi walked in Time. (3)

(1) The Kingdom of God according to the Holy Scriptures

(2) About the Keys of the Kingdom

(3) Francis of Assisi speaks to Innocent III

Back to This Month's Index

October 9th, 2023

Why is solidarity being promoted above charity?

Have you noticed that... solidarity is being promoted as a virtue displacing charity?

Why is there so much talk of “solidarity” on so many occasions when the appropriate term is “love”, “compassion” or “charity”?

For example:

From the United Nations: “Refugees and Migrants: A Crisis of Solidarity” (1)

From a non-governmental organization: “Solidarity can most effectively alleviate poverty” (2)

From a religious order: “Solidarity with the Poor... Charity Is Not Enough” (3)

From a Vatican agency: “The Church's solidarity with leprosy sufferers” (4)

From the Vatican's Head: “Work to build a more solidary, just, and equitable work[world]” (5)

Keep in mind that solidarity and love/charity are not the same thing. See the dictionary definitions:

Solidarity: Unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards. (6)

Charity: Generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering. Benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity. (7)

Love: Unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another. (8)

So it turns out that love is not a requirement for solidarity.

It can be summarized like this: Love is about giving and sharing. Solidarity is about agreeing on a common behavior for a common purpose (por example, in the face of a common threat).

Do not be confused: Solidarity, when understood as an action or feeling of compassion towards those who suffer, is not properly solidarity, it is charity. Thus, the aspiration of Christians should not be to “build a more solidary world”, but a more charitable one.

Love or Charity —selfless love, to love without expecting anything in return— is the greatest of human virtues [1Corinthians 13:13], inspired by God [Genesis 1:27]. Solidarity is a social bond, sometimes linked to love, sometimes not. Solidarity is not fulfilled if it does not return a feeling of “being part of a group”. Pure love is not moved by the expectation of something in return [Lk 6:35]. Solidarity, when exalted, encourages hope in the triumph of a kingdom of this world. Love transcends the things of this world.

Jesus set the standard for our aspiration to love, not solidarity:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also love one another. [Jn 13:34]

He did not say:

“Be solidary with each other. Just as I have been in solidarity with you.”

What would that be? The first point in a Bergoglian-Communist manifesto? A salutation from a new Big Brother?

Christian love, that is, the love preached by Jesus, rooted in God, reaches far beyond any kind of solidarity. Solidarity does not reach as far as loving our enemies as Jesus taught us:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you. [Lk 6:27-28]

Solidarity can very quickly and easily turn into an unconditional following of leaders who make enemies of all those who do not accept to be “in solidarity” with the majority. Human history is full of examples of this.

The soldiers of a fighting army can, united in perfect solidarity, bloodily kill their common enemy, moved by hatred. A herd of a million lemmings can drop themselves to the edge of an abyss, in a movement of solidarity, but empty of love.

Solidarity is no guarantee of love. Solidarity can only be a Christian virtue when it is subordinated, and to the extent that it is subordinated, to love. Nothing more.

Therefore, there is no justification for making “solidarity” a new norm for Christians. It is an insult to the Christian Faith when solidarity, which is beneath Christian love, is presented as an enhancement or culmination of Christian love.

Part 2

The imperfection of solidarity when compared to the supreme virtue of Love

[Part 2 has been published on October 11]

(1) Source (“Refugees and Migrants: A Crisis of Solidarity”)

(2) Source (“Solidarity can most effectively alleviate poverty”)

(3) Source (“Solidarity with the Poor... Charity Is Not Enough”)

(4) Source (“The Church's solidarity with leprosy sufferers”)

(5) Source (“Work to build a more solidary, just, and equitable work”)

(6) Source (definition of solidarity)

(7) Source (definition of charity)

(8) Source (definition of love)

Back to This Month's Index

October 9th, 2023

The promise to Abraham:

“I am making you the father of a host of nations”

FROM OUR FILES: March 29th, 2018

From miguel de Portugal

In a recent Mass we read about God's covenant with Abraham [Genesis 17:3-6]:

When Abram prostrated himself, God spoke to him: “My covenant with you is this: you are to become the father of a host of nations. No longer shall you be called Abram; your name shall be Abraham, for I am making you the father of a host of nations. I will render you exceedingly fertile; I will make nations of you; kings shall stem from you.”

Which reads the same as in the Jewish Bible

And Abram fell on his face; and G-d talked with him, saying: 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Has anyone —specially Jews— noticed that God spoke about nations in plural? If He would have been speaking of only Israel God would have used the term in singular: nation.

Obviously, Abraham was not to be the father of only one nation – Israel. God was referring to the time when Jesus had become the Messiah for all who would accept Him as such, who would obviously come from many nations.

Back to This Month's Index

For Your Information and Reference

Previous Month: September 2023

Next Month: November 2023

Current Month

Year 2023 Index

General Archive

En Español: Para vuestra Información y Referencia - Octubre 2023

© Copyright 2023 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved. However, you may freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.

The M+G+R Foundation

“Behold, I have told you all things beforehand”

Introduction for First Visit Frequently Asked Questions
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)