Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI

Pope’s personal secretary: Popes Benedict XVI & Francis form an ‘expanded’ papal office

To call this confusing is an understatement.

In a recent speech, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XXVI, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, said that Benedict and his successor, Pope Francis, are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative member.”

Pope Benedict XVI’s real name is Joseph Ratzinger; Pope Francis’ is Jorge Bergoglio.

In Latin, Petrine Office is munus petrinum. The word “Petrine” is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as:

  • Relating to St. Peter, the first pope who was appointed by Christ, or his writings or teachings.
  • Relating to the authority of the Pope over the Church, in his role as the successor of St. Peter.

In other words, in this context, “Petrine” means papal, which means that according to Archbishop Gänswein, although Benedict had resigned in 2013, nevertheless he and Francis are an “expanded” papal ministry, whatever that means.

Archbishop Georg GansweinEdward Pentin reports for the RCRegister that on May 20, 2016, speaking at the presentation of a new book on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Archbishop Georg Gänswein said that Pope Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

The new book, Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI (Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI), is by Roberto Regoli.

Archbishop Gänswein, prefect of the Pontifical Household and the personal secretary of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, said: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”

Archbishop Gänswein also confirmed the existence of a group who had fought against Ratzinger’s election in 2005, but stressed that that had “little or nothing” to do with the latter’s resignation in 2013.

Gänswein said the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be Pope “was certainly the outcome of a battle,” referring to Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Papal Conclave between a pro-Ratzinger group called the Salt of the Earth Party comprised of Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medin, and a liberal, pro-Bergoglio group called the St. Gallen group that included Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor — a group Cardinal Danneels jokingly referred to as “a kind of mafia-club”.

Cardinal Danneels 2015-09-26Godfried Danneels is a pro-homosexual Belgian cardinal and former archbishop of Brussels who calls same-sex marriage a “positive development“– which means he approves of homosexuality and homosexual sex that both the Bible and the Catholic Church’s Catechism abjure. Danneels   calls on the Catholic Church to recognize a “sort of marriage” for homosexuals. Despite his heretical advocacy for homosexuality and his cover-up in 2010 of a sex-abuse case involving a fellow bishop — Danneels’ uncle, Roger Vangheluwe, Bishop of Bruges — Pope Francis gave Danneels a place of honor at the all-important Synod on the Family last October.

In an interview with the RCRegister last November and EWTN Germany, German journalist Paul Badde confirmed the existence of the St. Gallen faction, and named German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as members.

But Archbishop Gänswein insists that Pope Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable,” being “aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Others, however, say Benedict had been pressured to resign. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: “Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”

Despite his resignation, Pope Benedict XVI continues to view his task as “participation in . . . a ‘Petrine ministry’.” Gänswein said: “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry” — something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ Instead, Benedict “has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry” as  “cooperatores veritatis“, which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

This is why Benedict XVI has not given up the papal white cassock or his papal name of Benedict — unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone. Nor has Benedict, according to Archbishop Gänswein, “retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy,” enriching the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Archbishop Gänswein’s extraordinary but cryptic remarks have led to speculations of a rift with Pope Francis, as well as the From Rome blog asking if the two rival factions had made a pact during the Conclave of 2005 that elected Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, in which Bergoglio and his “St. Gallen group” consented to Ratzinger’s election on the condition that after a fixed number of years, Pope Benedict XVI would resign, and Bergoglio would then be elected Pope at the next conclave.

See also “The Illegitimate Pope: Election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis was contaminated by lobbying in violation of papal laws”.

~Eowyn

Award-winning biologist says Pope Francis gave his blessing to animal-human hybrids

In Greek mythology, the Chimera is a monstrous fire-breathing animal hybrid, usually depicted as a lion, with the head of a goat arising from its back, and a tail that ends with a snake’s head.

Now, unscrupulous scientists are fashioning even worse than Chimeras — animal-human hybrids — by injecting human stem cells into animals, to grow human organs for eventual transplant.

In January 2016, it was reported that scientists in Japan successfully used human stem cells to grow a human ear on the back of a rat. (Discovery)

rat with human ear

In September 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)  announced it would not support research involving “human-animal chimeras” because of the hybrids may blue the line between species by ending up with human brain cells. But some U.S. research centers are defying the federal government with support from other funding sources, such as California’s state stem-cell agency. They are growing human tissue inside pigs and sheep, with the goal of creating hearts, livers, or other organs for transplants. (See “Defiling God’s creation: Scientists are creating animal-human hybrids“)

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, is one such research center.

Biologist Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

Biologist Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, 55, is a professor in the Gene Expression Laboratories at the Salk Institute. A native of Spain, he received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Pharmacology at the University of Bologna, Italy and the University of Valencia, Spain. In 2004, he helped establish the Center for Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona and was its Director for 10 years, from 2004 to 2014. He is the recipient of several awards and honors, including the William Clinton Presidential Award, the Pew Scholar Award, the Gold Medal of the Junta Castilla-La Mancha, and the Roger Guillemin Endowed Nobel Chair.

At the Salk Institute, Dr. Izpisua Belmonte heads a team of scientists who “discovered a new type of stem cell that allowed them to develop the first reliable method for integrating human stem cells into an animal embryo. This could help them overcome a major hurdle toward growing replacement organs for humans.” If allowed to grow after birth, the chimeric embryo creature would be an animal-human hybrid or chimera.

In a phone interview with Christine Gorman, an editor of Scientific American magazine, published on January 25, 2016, Dr. Izpisua Belmonte said the following in answer to Gorman’s question, “How far along have these human-animal chimeras developed?”:

“We are entering into an ethical [area]. Because there are some people who think that we shouldn’t mix human cells with other animals and there are others who don’t care, so to speak. Here in California, we have gone through the different committees and they allow us to have a pig embryo develop for a month. Which is one third of their gestation. At that point you can see already all of the major organ primordia.

There are other countries. I’m from Spain and Spain has been quite open to this field of stem cell research. And they have allowed us to go until the animal is born. So in theory we could have a pig born with the human organ. It was not easy. Even though Spain is quite open to this stem cell research area, at the same time, Spain is a very Catholic country, so we had to go through the Pope. He very nicely said yes. This is to help people.”

When Gorman expressed surprise and asked, “The current Pope?,” Dr. Izpisua Belmonte confirmed that indeed he was referring to Pope Francis, i.e., Jorge Bergoglio:

Yes. The current Pope. So the Vatican is behind this research and has no problem based on the idea is to help humankind. And in theory all that we will be doing is killing pigs.

Dr. Izpisua Belmonte acknowledges that animal-human hybrids could develop human brain cells:

“One problem and the major problem is that these cells could colonize the brain of the animal in which you put them. And obviously it would not be appropriate to have an animal with neurons from people. Or these cells could colonize the germline so that the sperm or the oocytes of that pig would be human. So to avoid that the government of Spain allowed us to have the pig be born and then immediately after to be sacrificed.

But I was not happy with that. People will think that still you will have an embryo maybe with some neuron contribution. And even though the pig is not born, there are people who believe that that should not be done. So we are devising genetic engineering technology so that if a cell becomes a neuron it is just destroyed in the embryo. Any cell that starts to be taught okay you are going to become a neuron at the moment of the first stages of neurogenesis, we are putting a toxin construct in it so that it will be destroyed by itself. So that will prevent any pig embryos from having human neurons so to speak.

I feel that this will still generate controversy. Many people will think one way and others will think differently, so it is impossible to have a consensus. My feeling is that we still need to better understand these issues of cell competence, of mixing cells in embryogenesis—the rules of development, so to speak. And I am a developmental biologist by background and that is my own interest. It will take a long time to have all these hopes and dreams come true.”

According to a statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic Church supports ethically responsible stem cell research and “has long supported research using stem cells from adult tissue and umbilical cord blood, which poses no moral problem.” Ethically irresponsible research is any research that “exploits or destroys human embryos,” which would include “research as currently conducted” that employs embryonic stem cells. However, the Church “welcomes” proposed research that obtains “embryonic stem cells or their pluripotent equivalent without creating or harming embryos”.

An even more relevant document is Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, which was issued in 2008 under Pope Benedict XVI by the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as the Church’s doctrinal directives on embryonic ethical controversies. No. 33 of the Instruction clearly states the following on “attempts at hybridization”:

From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man. The possible use of the stem cells, taken from these embryos, may also involve additional health risks, as yet unknown, due to the presence of animal genetic material in their cytoplasm. To consciously expose a human being to such risks is morally and ethically unacceptable.

Animal-human hybrids do exactly that by being “admixtures of human and animal genetic elements” which “disrupt the specific identity of man”.

However, according to eminent biologist Dr. Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, Pope Francis approves of research that uses human stem cells to grow human organs in animal, which may lead to the animal developing HUMAN brain cells.

But that’s okay with Jorge Bergoglio, so long as the animal-human hybrid is immediately killed after it’s born. All in the name of the end justifying the means — “doing good” by “helping humankind”.

And who’s to say there aren’t scientists, even in Spain, who disobey the rule by letting the chimera survive after birth?

See also:

UPDATE (Feb. 9, 2016):

According to the Italian-language blog Il Sismografo, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, said, “It’s absolutely untrue that Pope Francis encourages this kind of [animal-human hybrid] research.” Lombardi calls reports that claim the pope approves of such research “a disgusting lie, irresponsible and uncivilized”. I suggest Lombardi contact Scientific American and Dr. Izpisua Belmonte to set the record straight.

~Eowyn

Francis of Assisi, a saint for the Church in disarray

When former Argentinian archbishop Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, he selected Francis as his papal name — St. Francis of Assisi.

St. Francis is an unusual saint in that he is known and admired by even non-Catholics and non-Christians. Lamentably, most of his admirers know only one facet of St. Francis — his endearing closeness with birds and animals. But there is so much more to this saint.

Did you know that St. Francis was called by Jesus Christ our Lord to reform and repair the Catholic Church, which had fallen to a corrupt and heretical clergy?

History repeats itself, and we find a Church similarly in disrepair in our own time. May St. Francis be a reminder and role model for all faithful clergy and laity as we are called, as he was, to repair and reform a Church in disarray. See:

To that end, I’m republishing excerpts from joandarc’s post from a year ago, “St. Francis of Assisi – Happy Feast Day – October 4th!“.

~Éowyn

St. Francis of Assisi

Dante Alighieri, the famous poet, the author of the Divine Comedy, said of St. Francis, “A sun was born into the world.”  Francis was born at the end of 1181 or the beginning of 1182, to a rich family, his father being a successful cloth merchant and being raised by an adoring French mother.  He lived a carefree life, most interested in chivalrous ideals and chivalrous dreams of greatness and nobility.  Francis, age 20, participated in a military campaign, was taken prisoner and later released because he was so very ill.  This illness caused Francis to search his soul and look inward to his purpose in life, to determine and define what was important in life.  He had abandoned his worldly lifestyle and began to notice the beauty, purpose and virtues of God’s creatures, whom he loved and how they lived in simplicity.

One day, Francis rode the plain of Assisi and noticed a disfigured and horrible looking leper man.  Francis got off his horse, wherein the leper outstretched his hands to receive alms.  But Francis did more than give him money, he kissed the leper because he saw Jesus in Him, he saw “Jesus in disguise,” as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta would say – an event that changed Francis’ life.

After his exchange with the leper, Francis visited hospitals, served the sick and the forgotten, gave clothes and money to those who needed it.  On a particular day in or about 1205, Francis was praying at the Church of St. Damian outside the walls of Assisi when he heard a voice, an interior instruction that he took to heart, “Francis, go and repair my house, which you see is falling down.”  Francis thought that Our Lord meant to repair that specific Church, when indeed and in fact Our Lord was referring Francis to renew and repair His Church.  Pope Benedict XVI tells us, “…that at that moment, St. Francis was called to repair the small church, but the ruinous state of the building was a symbol of the dramatic and disquieting situation of the Church herself.  At that time, the Church had a superficial faith which did not shape or transform life, a scarcely religious clergy, and a chilling of love.  It was an interior destruction of the Church which also brought a decomposition of unity, with the birth of heretical movements.  Yet, there at the centre of the Church in ruins was the Crucified Lord, and he spoke:  He called for renewal, He called Francis to the manual labour of repairing the small Church of St. Damian, the symbol of a much deeper call to Renew Christ’s own Church, with her radicality of faith and her loving enthusiasm for Christ.”

Francis took clothes and supplies from his father’s storage house, selling these items, as well as selling his father’s horse.  He brought these monies to the priest at St. Damian, but the priest would not take the money, Francis leaving the money on a window sill.  Francis’ father learned what had happened and demanded that Francis return everything that he had taken from him, reporting the matter to Bishop Guido of Assisi.  The Bishop told Francis to return these monies to his father, “He (God) does not wish His Church to profit by goods which may have been gotten unjustly.”  Francis responded, “The clothes I wear are also his.  I’ll give them back.”  He stripped off his clothes and gave them to his father saying, “Hitherto I have called you father on earth; but now I say, ‘Our Father, who art in Heaven. “ Clothes of a laborer were found and given to Francis, wherein Francis made a cross upon the cloth with some chalk and left.

In 1208, Francis lived as a hermit, but then had another internal transformation, affected by the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus’ discourse to the apostles whom he sent out to evangelize and teach the nations.  Accordingly, Francis went out just as the apostles did to teach by example, living in poverty and preaching the Gospel.  He had other brothers, companions who followed his way of life.  On one particular day, Francis told the brothers they were going to preach.  Francis and his band of brothers walked through a town but said nothing.  One of the brothers asked Francis why they didn’t preach.  Francis told him that they did preach saying, “Preach the Gospel constantly, and when necessary, use words.”  It was, therefore, Francis’ example of holiness, and that of the brother companions, that taught the people of God.

Pope Benedict goes on to say that “Francis knew that the centre of the Church is the Eucharist, where the Body of Christ and His Blood are made present through the priesthood, the Eucharist and the communion of the Church.  Wherever the priesthood and the Eucharist and the Church come together, it is there alone that the world of God also dwells.”  

St. Francis of Assisi with birds and animals

Francis also had great communication skills with God’s creatures and control of them, a gift given to Him by God.  “His love for and power over the lower animals were noted and often referred to by those who knew him:  his rebuke to the swallows while he was preaching at Alvian, “My sisters the swallows, it is now my turn to speak.  You have been talking enough all this time;” the birds that perched around him while he told them to praise their Creator; the rabbit that would not leave him at Lake Trasimene; and the tamed wolf at Gubbio…”  Francis even had a pet falcon that he loved very much, who accompanied him wherever he went.

In 1224, Francis saw a vision of Jesus crucified in the form of a seraph, and after that vision, received the stigmata from the Seraph Crucifix, becoming one with the Crucified Jesus.  Francis, thus, suffered with the wounds of Christ.  Francis died humbly, on the earthen floor, on October 3, 1226, in the Portiuncula with his brother friars.

Consequently, the Universal Church celebrates the Feast Day of St. Francis every year on October 4.

Pope Benedict XVI summarized St. Francis beautifully. He said, “Dear friends, Francis was a great Saint and a joyful man.  His simplicity, his humility, his faith, his love for Christ, his goodness towards every man and every woman, brought him gladness in every circumstance.  Indeed, there subsists an intimate and indissoluble relationship between holiness and joy.  A French writer once wrote that there is only one sorrow in the world:  not to be saints, that is, not to be near to God.  Looking at the testimony of St. Francis, we understand that this is the secret of true happiness:  to become saints, close to God!”

Sources:

  • General Audience of Pope Benedict XVI, Paul VI Audience Hall, January 27, 2010, website of the Vatican, the Holy See.
  • “The Body of the Lord,” website of the Vatican.
  • One Hundred Saints, Bulfinch Press, AOL Time Warner Book Group

~Joan 

The Illegitimate Pope: Election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis was contaminated by lobbying in violation of papal laws

In 1996, then Pope John Paul II (now St. John Paul II) promulgated papal constitution Universi Dominici Gregis forbidding the canvassing or lobbying for votes by the cardinal electors in the selection of pope. Violators would be automatically excommunicated, i.e. immediately imposed, without necessity of declaration. (The Latin expression for “automatic” is latae sententiae, which means “incurred as soon as the offence is committed”.) The result of the election would be “null and void.”

St. John Paul II

St. John Paul II

Universi Dominici Gregis, which means “the Lord’s whole flock” in English, is an Apostolic Constitution of the Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II on February 22, 1996. It supersedes all previous apostolic constitutions and orders on the subject of the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Universi Dominici Gregis begins:

The Shepherd of the Lord’s whole flock is the Bishop of the Church of Rome, where the Blessed Apostle Peter, by sovereign disposition of divine Providence, offered to Christ the supreme witness of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. It is therefore understandable that the lawful apostolic succession in this See . . . has always been the object of particular attention.

Precisely for this reason, down the centuries the Supreme Pontiffs have deemed it their special duty, as well as their specific right, to establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor . . . .

While it is indeed a doctrine of faith that the power of the Supreme Pontiff derives directly from Christ, whose earthly Vicar he is,8 it is also certain that this supreme power in the Church is granted to him “by means of lawful election accepted by him, together with episcopal consecration”.9 A most serious duty is thus incumbent upon the body responsible for this election. Consequently the norms which regulate its activity need to be very precise and clear, so that the election itself will take place in a most worthy manner . . . .

[T]he College of electors of the Supreme Pontiff is composed solely of the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church . . . whose members come from every continent.

Universi Dominici Gregis then specifies, among other laws, that:

  • The cardinal electors are to vote by secret ballot (Universi Dominici Gregis II:10).
  • Anyone who commits the crime of simony — the buying and selling of church offices and votes — will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:78).
  • Cardinal electors who attempt to influence (lobby) or are influenced (lobbied) in the election of the pope will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:80-83).

Here are Universi Dominici Gregis laws 80-83:

80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

83. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.

Bro. Alexis Bugnolo of the blog, From Rome, writes:

Note that since the Papal law is wide in what it forbids, not only is it a crime to promise a vote, it is a crime to join in a conspiracy to canvass for such votes, since this is tantamount to promising to vote for one candidate and not vote for other candidates. However, note that the papal law only penalizes voting Cardinals.  Cardinals too old to vote, are not thus penalized, though they are collaborating in the solicitation of votes.

CRUCIFIX SEEN AS POPE ARRIVES TO LEAD GENERAL AUDIENCE AT VATICAN

The Papal election of 2005 that selected Pope Benedict XVI was the first papal election to be held under John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. Benedict XVI made three changes to Universi Dominici Gregis:

  1. Reinstating the traditional two-thirds vote required to elect a new Pope regardless of the number of ballots it takes;
  2. Allowing the College of Cardinals the possibility to bring forward the start of the conclave once all cardinals are present, or push the beginning of the election back by a few days should there be serious reasons;
  3. Automatic excommunication of any non-cardinal who broke the absolute oath of secrecy of the College of Cardinals during the proceedings to select the new leader of the Catholic Church.

In other words, Pope Benedict XVI kept intact Universi Dominici Gregis‘s papal laws 80-83, including law 81 that explicitly forbids the cardinal electors from lobbying each other on behalf of a candidate.

But the cardinal electors who voted Argentinian cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as pope did exactly that — they lobbied fellow cardinals and were influenced by the lobbying, in violation of Papal Law 81.

What follows are three pieces of evidence in support of this assertion.

The Advocate's Pope Francis cover

To begin, in an article for The Wall Street Journal, titled “Fifteen Days in Rome: How the Pope was Picked,” Aug. 6, 2013, Stacy Meichtry and Alessandra Galloni wrote that although Bergoglio had some support in 2005, he was “definitely a dark-horse candidate” in 2013:

Veteran cardinals who had cast ballots for Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005 saw a chance to float his candidacy again. His earliest supporters—a coalition of cardinals from Latin America, as well as Africa and Europe—viewed him as a consummate outsider. […] The challenge was getting Cardinal Bergoglio the 77 votes he needed, representing two-thirds of the conclave, to become pope.

Exhibit #1: Testimony of Cardinal Elector Theordore McCarrick

Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, D.C., was one of the cardinals in the Papal Conclave that elected Bergoglio. On October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, McCarrick said that he was lobbied to support Bergoglio whom he (McCarrick) and other cardinals had not even considered before.

Beginning at the 18:20 mark in the video below, Cardinal McCarrick said that before the cardinal electors “went into the general conversations, he was approached by “a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman.” The man then came to the seminary where McCarrick was staying in Rome. Then, this “very brilliant man, very influential man in Rome” said, “What about Bergoglio? Does he have a chance?” McCarrick said he was surprised at the question, and replied, “I don’t think so because no one’s mentioned his name.” The man said, referring to Bergoglio, “He could do it, you know, reform the church,” and spoke about how Bergoglio had reformed the church in Argentina in just five years. McCarrick confessed, “That was the first time I’d heard there were people who thought Bergoglio was a possibility in this election.”

At the general congregation of the cardinal electors, McCarrick spoke for five minutes, in which he told his fellow electors that he hoped that whoever was elected pope would be someone who, if not himself a Latin American, would “have a very strong interest in Latin America because half the Church is there . . . that’s where the people are.”

Exhibit #2: Testimony of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor

As reported by the Catholic Herald on Sept. 12, 2013, former Cardinal of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who was not an elector but is rumored to be the leader of “Team Bergoglio,” admitted that Bergoglio knew that he was being put forth as a candidate prior to the initiation of the Papal Conclave, and that Murphy-O’Connor was his lobbyist:

Murphy-O’Connor said: “All the cardinals had a meeting with him [Pope Francis] in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’ […]

The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said: “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: ‘Si – capisco’ – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.”

Exhibit #3: What The Great Reformer book says

In the recently-published book The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, author Dr. Austen Ivereigh writes (the following quotes from Chapter 9, pp. 349-367, of The Great Reformer are from Bro. Bugnolo’s blog post):

Page 355: “They had learned their lesson from 2005” – referring to Team Bergoglio learning from their failed attempt to get Bergoglio elected pope in 2005.

P. 355: “They first secured his [Bergoglio’s] assent. Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked.” Bro. Bugnolo maintains that “such a statement is morally equivalent to a sign of will giving consent, and in the context of a proposal to launch a campaign, it is also morally equivalent to a pact. This is an excommunicatable offense given the context of the offer of a campaign. A conscientious man, observant of the law of the conclave, would have added a sign that he repudiated an organized campaign, if only out of charity for the campaigners, who would thereby fall foul of the papal law.”

P. 355: “Then they got to work touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man…” 

P. 355: “… Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot.  An ancient Italian cardinal kept the tally of how many votes they could rely on before the conclave started.” Bro. Bugnolo writes that this is a violation of Universi Domenici Gregis law #81 “without any wiggle-room, because you cannot tally votes, unless votes have been promised, and if they are promised, then the ones asking have sought them, and both parties have entered into some kind of obligation or pact or agreement to vote for a particular candidate in the first ballot, while not voting for all other candidates.”

P. 355: “The Spanish cardinal Santos Abril y Castello, archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome and a former nuncio in Latin America, was vigorous in canvassing on Bergoglio’s behalf among the Iberian Iberian bloc.” 

Ivereigh then names other cardinal collaborators in the conspiracy:  Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris, Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, and U.S. Cardinal Sean O’Malley.

Pp. 356-357: “For this reason, and because the organizers of his campaign stayed carefully below the radar, the Bergoglio bandwagon that began to roll during the week of the congregations went undetected by the media, and to this day most vaticanisti believe there was no organized pre-conclave effort to get Bergoglio elected.”

In footnote 10, Dr. Ivereigh delivers the final confirmation of a conspiracy to elect Jorge Bergoglio to be Pope Francis:

In his Francis: Pope of a New Word (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013), ch. 3, the leading Vatican commentator Andrea Tornielli says that there were no “campaigns organized in advance” of the conclave for Bergoglio.  There was one.

Assuming that the above three accounts (Exhibits 1-3) are true, then Pope Francis is an illegitimate pope, which means he and his co-conspirators should be automatically excommunicated and all his acts as pope “null and void.”

To sign an international petition asking the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals to investigate whether the election of Jorge Bergoglio as pope was in violation of Papal Law No. 81, click here.

See also:

~Éowyn

The Gay Mafia and America’s aggressive homosexual agenda

One of FOTM’s faithful readers recently sent me an email of palpable frustration, a sentiment I share and no doubt by you as well. She wrote:

Is it just me or is something really in the perverted wind of this country? I turn on the TV and suddenly on a soap I have watched decades, a character who has been on there for a few years is suddenly a transgender. I watch a Sunday show on PBS, “Calling the Midwife,” and suddenly a supposedly happily married man sexually approaches a stranger in a man’s restroom. Some of my favorite shows, like “CSI” have gay characters, and the list goes on. ABC-Disney is making a sitcom about the life of a gay man, Dan Savage, who is one of the nastiest-mouthed human beings out there.

How can 4% of the population control 80% of the viewing?

I saw a couple of years ago that Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett went to Hollywood and demanded changes. A few months ago, Ulsterman wrote that Jarrett was overheard in OUR White House bragging they have so much more to do to us…. Our viewing choices are shrinking daily. Not to mention the sad world we are leaving the children.

Indeed, how can such a small percentage of the population — the percentage of self-identified LGBTs in the U.S. population actually is less than 2% — control so much of entertainment, the media, and pop culture?

Here’s how.

Ever heard of the Gay Mafia? This is Wikipedia’s definition:

The “Gay Mafia” and “Velvet Mafia” are typically associated with the upper echelons of the fashion and entertainment industries, and the terms are also used humorously by gay people themselves. The term was widely used in the 1980s and 1990s, and could often be seen in the pages of the New York Post…. “Lavender Mafia” refers to the perceived homosexual elements of life within the Catholic church.

But Wikipedia doesn’t go far enough because the word “mafia” is undefined. This is how the Oxford Dictionaries defines “mafia”:

  1. An organized international body of criminals, operating originally in Sicily and now especially in Italy and the US and having a complex and ruthless behavioral code.
  2. Any organized group using extortion and other criminal methods.
  3. A closed group of people in a particular field, having a controlling influence.

Clearly, definition no. 1 is not appropriate for the Gay Mafia because it’s not about Sicily or Italians. Definitions nos. 2 and 3 are more appropriate. The term “Gay Mafia” therefore may be defined as:

An organized group of homosexuals who use extortion and other illicit methods to exert a controlling influence over a particular industry or field.

The Gay Mafia can be found in at least three industries or fields: the media; Hollywood; and the Catholic Church.

1. Gay Mafia in The Media

Ever heard of an organization called the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA)?

Logo of National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association

According to the NLGJA’s web site:

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) is an organization of journalists, media professionals, educators and students who work within the news industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. NLGJA opposes all forms of workplace bias and provides professional development to its members.

Wikipedia says the NLGJA, based in Washington, D.C., was founded in 1990. It currently has about 700 members in the U.S. and abroad, primarily journalists and students in print, broadcast, and online media.

The NLJGA exerts its influence over journalism and the media in the following ways:

  1. From its inception, NLJGA hosts an annual convention inviting their members to participate in top-level training sessions, thought-provoking discussions, and social and professional networking events.
  2. The organization’s most noteworthy tangible contribution to the journalism industry is the NLGJA Stylebook Supplement on LGBT Terminology — a guide used by journalists when writing about the LGBT “community.”
  3. “Sexual orientation in the workplace” seminars, offered free of charge to news organizations, provides an LGBT-friendly office environment for homosexual journalists, and pushes for domestic partnership benefits at newspapers across the nation. 
  4. The seminars evolved into the Newsroom Outreach Project — meetings with broadcast, print and online newsroom leaders across the country on correct terminology and treatment of LGBT in the workplace.
  5. Rapid Response Task Force is a team of LGBT journalists who address any news piece that readers report as being offensive or inaccurate and inform writers and readers of the correct terminology.
  6. Student outreach via the NLGJA Student Central website, which provides support to young journalists in their early years with scholarships and internships, online networking opportunities, articles about LGBT issues in journalism, student project opportunities, NLGJA membership information, and links to online resources.

The video below is about a NLGJA fundraiser on April 16, 2015 in New York City’s Prince George Ballroom which featured an auction of items of the Chippendale male strippers. Attendees included ABC’s Meredith Viera (who was the main speaker), CNN president Jeff Zuckerman, and other media stars from the big networks CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

The video’s narrator, news media watchdog Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid, says that the NLGJA is subsidized by the media on both the left and the so-called right (Fox). According to the UK’s Digital Spy, in 2006, CNN donated $100,000 (!) to the NLGJA.

Kincaid warns that the next phase of NLGJA’s media campaign is paving the way for America’s acceptance of “transgendered rights,” and after that, of the sado-masochistic “leather community.”

WND also warns about a coming “media blitz” to “normalize transgenderism.” Former Olympian champion Bruce Jenner’s “I’m a woman” coming-out as a male-to-female transgender on last Friday’s ABC primetime special with Dianne Sawyer is only the beginning.

 2. Gay Mafia in Hollywood

That there’s a powerful homosexual clique in the entertainment industry is no secret. Perhaps the most infamous “outing” of Hollywood’s Gay Mafia was that by former Hollywood powerhouse Michael Ovitz, “the man who once was king.” In 2002, in a series of interviews with Vanity Fair magazine’s Bryan Burrough, Ovitz blamed his downfall on the vicious backstabbing by Hollywood’s Gay Mafia. 

Note: Ovitz is a Hollywood talent agent who co-founded Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in 1975 and served as its chairman until 1995, after which he briefly was president of the Walt Disney Company from October 1995 to January 1997.

According to Burrough, a “driving factor” in Ovitz’s decision to do the Vanity Fair interviews was his “burning need to name names, to throw light on the shadowy Hollywood cabal he believes did him in. He calls it the Gay Mafia, though several of its ‘members’ aren’t gay, and much of what he says about these men is nasty and unprintable. In Ovitz’s eyes the cabal’s demagogic leader . . . is [David] Geffen, laying waste to all Ovitz held dear, spreading rumors about his family, at the same time he was poisoning the business deals that would have saved AMG [Artists Management Group]—all things Geffen denies.” Geffen’s partners in crime, Ovitz alleges, include former Disney C.E.O. Michael Eisner, the New York Times, and Ovitz’s onetime protégés at the Creative Artists Agency, Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, and Richard Lovett.

Note: David Geffen is the openly homosexual co-founder, with director Steven Spielberg, of DreamWorks.

Michael Ovitz, David Geffen, Bernard Weinraub

According to Ovitz, “David [Geffen] tries to destroy everything close to me. He went after my kids. He spread rumors about them. The guy is totally immoral, and he paints himself like this priest.” The vehicle Geffen repeatedly used to sabotage Ovtiz’s image is New York Times’ Hollywood correspondent Bernard Weinraub, whom Ovitz called the Gay Mafia conspiracy’s town crier and who wrote a list of nasty articles on Ovitz over the years. Ovitz claimed he had twice met with the newspaper’s senior staff, including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., but “it’s been no use.” As Ovitz put it, “Geffen comes up with the spin, and Weinraub parrots it back, quoting the same people over and over. There’s no balance in their coverage of me. None. Zero.”

3. gay mafia in The Catholic Church

Even the Catholic Church has a “lavender mafia” that, while not exerting the kind of power and influence on American culture as the media and Hollywood Gay Mafia, nevertheless works to corrupt the church and undermine its teachings.

In an article for Life Site News, John Westen describes a 2012 paper written by Polish priest and Ph.D. in Philosophy Fr. Dariusz Oko, With the Pope Against the Homoheresy,” in which Fr. Oko recounted his discovery of a “huge homosexual underground in the Church.” 

Fr. Oko writes that “I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered that the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well,”

Archbishop Juliusz Paetz

Oko reveals his own run in with a homosexual clique in the Roman Catholic Church blocking justice for those abused by homosexual clergy, headed by the homosexual Archbishop Emeritus of Poznań, Juliusz Paetz. Oko learned of the archbishop “from a seminarian who told me, all trembling from emotions and terror, about his having been molested by his own ordinary. He was at a brink of losing faith, as well as mental and spiritual integrity. Our interventions at various levels of Church hierarchy were of no avail, however; we encountered a wall that could not be overcome, even in a case as self-evident as that.” What finally broke through the wall, was “a tremendous commotion in the media and reaching the Pope [Benedict XVI] himself. Otherwise, everything was blocked at lower levels of local or Vatican hierarchy.”

Describing the formation of homosexual cliques of clergy Fr. Oko says:

They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding of a clique or even mafia, aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money.

When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds.

They may actually achieve a dominating position in many areas of church hierarchy, become a “backroom elite” which actually has tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church. Indeed, they may even prove to be too powerful for honest, well-meaning bishops.

Fr. Oko also wrote about “the fear and confusion of the clergy, particularly in certain dioceses and congregations, when faced with” the topic of homosexuality. The clergy “escape into silence, unable to articulate even elementary statements on the teaching of the Church on the subject. What are they afraid of? Where does that fear in entire groups of mature, adult men come from? They must be afraid of some influential lobby which wields its power and which they may fall into disfavor with.

CRUCIFIX SEEN AS POPE ARRIVES TO LEAD GENERAL AUDIENCE AT VATICAN

Fr. Oko maintains that Pope Benedict XVI was well aware of this subculture within the Church, publicly lamented its “filth” and the damage it had caused, and “made cleansing the Church from homosexual abuse and preventing its reoccurrence in the future one of the priorities of his pontificate. He removed compromised clergymen from their offices with much energy. In the very first months following his election, still in 2005, he had an instruction issued to strictly forbid ordaining untreated homosexuals. The instruction was preceded by a letter sent from the Holy See to bishops around the world, ordering that priests with homosexual tendencies be immediately removed from any educational functions at seminaries.” Later in 2008, the Pope issued a directive forbidding even non-practicing homosexuals from becoming seminarians.

Ominously, when Fr. Oko wrote his paper in late 2012, he warned that the homolobby “represents the very centre of internal opposition against the Pope” and that Pope Benedict XVI “cannot do it all by himself.” He “needs each and everyone of us. He needs support and healthy preaching in every local Church . . . defending the truth of salvation, no matter how much it should cost us.” Fr. Oko said that “If homolobbyists are allowed to act freely, in a dozen or so years they may destroy entire congregations and dioceses,” resulting in “entire countries and nations” leaving the Church.

It is the contention of Leo Zagami, author of Pope Francis: The Last Pope?, that Pope Benedict XVI resigned because of the power of the church’s homosexual underground.

This is what Fr. Oko urges faithful Catholics to do:

  1. Recognize the priests who are homosexual: Fr. Oko warns that active homosexual priests are “devious” and “masters of camouflage.” Although members of the homolobby are a relatively small group, they often hold key positions (which they are very anxious to achieve), create a close network of relationships and support one another, “which is what makes them dangerous.” One way to recognize them is  “by their fruit” (cf. St. Matthew 7:16).
  2. The homosexual mafia in the Church must be dealt with in a very professional way. We must act like a prosecutor or an officer in the battlefield.
  3. It is important that we find a large group of people of goodwill to protect us and support what we do. That group should include clergymen, as high in the hierarchy as possible; experts in various fields; archive records specialists; lawyers; policemen; journalists; and as many believers as possible.
  4. Exchange information, documents, and evidence. The global network of homolobbies and homomafias must be counterbalanced by a network of honest people.
  5. Make use of the Internet, an excellent tool that makes it possible to create a global community of people concerned about the fate of the Church.
  6. Be mindful that we are like “sheep sent among wolves,” and so we must be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (St. Matthew 10:16). We must have the courage to stand up against evildoers, as Christ had the courage to stand up against the Pharisees of his times. “God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7).
  7. All interventions should be made with utmost respect and love for every person, including the abuser.

H/t FOTM’s Glenn47, Maziel, and Mike.

See also:

~Éowyn

St. Francis of Assisi’s end times prophecy and the two popes

St. Francis of AssisiSt. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

At the end of the book, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi (London: R. Washbourne, 1882), is a section titled “Some Prophecies of the Holy Father St. Francis.” On pp. 248-250 is the following prophecy about the Church (paragraph breaks added):

Shortly before he died in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the members of his order and warned them of great tribulations that would befall the Church in the future, saying:

Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

H/t Yahoo News commenter Sabazios for the St. Francis prophecy.

Below are 6 facts for your reflection and discernment:

Fact No. 1

“Church law says a pope’s resignation is valid only if he takes the decision in full freedom and without pressure from others.” (Reuters)

Fact No. 2

On Feb. 28, 2013, after serving 8 years, Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from the papacy. He is the first pope to resign since Pope Gregory XII in 1415, and the first to do so on his own initiative since Pope Celestine V in 1294.

Described as “the main intellectual force in the Church” since the mid-1980s, now-Pope Emeritus Benedict was originally a liberal theologian, but adopted conservative views after 1968. A genuine scholar, Benedict’s prolific writings defend traditional Catholic doctrine and values. During his papacy, Benedict XVI advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of the West. He regards relativism’s denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. Pope Benedict also revived a number of traditions, including elevating the Tridentine Mass to a more prominent position.

Fact No. 3

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and his spokesmen repeatedly deny he was forced to resign. (Reuters)

Fact No. 4

Despite the denials, speculations that Benedict had been forced to resign persist to this day.

“Two years ago this week, [Pope] Benedict’s announcement that he was stepping down for health reasons shocked the Catholic Church and much of the world. It also loosed conspiracy theorists who believe Benedict was forced to resign…. The circumstances surrounding Benedict’s decision to step down have titillated scholars and the journalists alike, especially given the fact that his resignation came not long after the ‘Vatileaks’ scandal. The release of internal Vatican memos, by some accounts, revealed how Benedict’s efforts to reform the church, like provide transparency on the global sex abuse scandal and the management of the Vatican bank, were undercut by internal politics. (The Atlantic)

Fact No. 5

Homosexuals love Pope Francis:

  • Pro-homo GQ loves the Pope
  • Pope Francis made the cover of Time, New Yorker, Rolling Stone and The Advocate, an LGBT magazine that makes no secret of its problems with previous Popes but chose Francis as “person of the year”. (CNN)

The Advocate's Pope Francis cover

Fact No. 6

The satanic pop singer who calls herself “Madonna” — she who dressed up as the Baphomet in the 2012 Super Bowl halftime show and cavorted with horned masked demons in the recent Grammy Awards show before a cheering crowd also wearing horns — calls Pope Francis “kind of groovy.” (Billboard)

Madonna with demons 2015 Grammy Awards

Draw your own conclusion!

~Éowyn

PC madness: City of Phoenix recruits lifeguards who can’t swim

drowning in debt

Pope Benedict 16th called it the Dictatorship of Relativism. He wrote:

In his futuristic novel Brave New World, the British author Aldous Huxley had predicted in 1932 that falsification would be the decisive element of modernity. In a false reality with its false truth – or the absence of truth altogether – nothing, in the final analysis, is important any more. There is no truth, there is no standpoint. Today, in fact, truth is regarded as far too subjective a concept for us to find therein a universally valid standard. The distinction between genuine and fake seems to have been abolished. Everything is to some extent negotiable.

A sub-division of that dictatorship is the Tyranny of Diversity.

Judicial Watch reports April 3, 2013, that “In a staggering case of affirmative action gone wild,” the city government of Phoenix, capitol of Arizona and America’s 6th largest city, is recruiting minorities to be lifeguards at public pools even if they’re not good swimmers. It’s all in the name of diversity.

On its official website. the city proudly declares that “diversity” is among Phoenix’s “vision and values”:

We Value and Respect Diversity
Understanding diversity helps us to work together and serve our community. Diversity is more than gender and race; it encompasses our uniqueness and individuality. By embracing our differences, we find many paths to success. We put this belief into action to provide effective services to our diverse community.

Evidently officials are willing to compromise those “effective services” at 29 public swimming pools spread throughout the city. To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.”

Kelly Martinez, a Phoenix official, explains that the pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that. The kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”

To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.

One of the recruits is high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn’t grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding. If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.

Judicial Watch points out Phoenix’s recruitment of minority lifeguards is part of a national trend to boost the minority workforce at whatever cost. Under Obama we have seen a lot of this at the federal level through a variety of specially-designed government programs that give ethnic minorities special treatment at all federal agencies as well as medical and agricultural fields, among others.

Earlier this year the administration made history by hiring the government’s first “Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity” to mastermind a multi-million-dollar effort that boosts the number of minorities in biomedical research and slashes discrimination in the federal grant process. The effort was initially launched last year after a government-sanctioned study uncovered a “disturbing and disheartening” lack of racial diversity in the field.

Before that the administration created a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies and Obama appointed a “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help advance the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs. Who could forget the race and gender employment quotas required at private financial institutions under Obama’s financial reform measure (known as the Dodd-Frank bill) to overhaul Wall Street? It’s all in the name of diversity.

screwthetaxpayer

And of course, it’s the taxpayer who gets screwed because we are paying for all these “diversity” programs.

~Eowyn