The second of a two-part series.

Until recently, Protestants were more likely than Catholics to succumb to the Gnostic temptation I described in a recent column. In a 2008 article for Modern Reformation, Philip J. Lee described how both Mainline and “born again” Protestants were becoming more Gnostic, although in different ways.

Protestants on both the right and left, he observed, had become focused on private faith rather than public faith, on the invisible Church rather than the Church visible, and on a direct personal relationship with Jesus rather than one mediated through pastors, priests, or a faith community.

Moreover, said Lee, both branches of Protestantism, albeit in different ways, emphasized the acquisition of special knowledge. Thus, they were set apart from non-Christians because, like the Gnostics, they knew things that others didn’t. Like conspiracy theorists, many evangelical Christians became addicted to the latest spiritual revelations circulating on the internet.

It’s not that these “revelations” have no basis in history or Scripture, but that they often have little connection to the basic Christian message — namely, that God became man at a specific time and place in history, went about teaching and healing, founded a Church, was crucified, rose from the tomb, and ascended to the Father.

Jesus Is Too “Meaty.” Can We Have Something Plant-Based Instead?

For Gnostics, however, the basic Christian story was too physical. Many of them insisted that Jesus, being purely spiritual, only appeared to be human. In addition, many denied that Christ died on the cross (that was far too physical!). They taught, instead, that another person had died in His place.

As with the ancient Gnostics, so too with the modern variety. In 2003, a book based in large part on the Gnostic Gospels zoomed to the top of the bestseller lists and stayed there for a long time afterward. Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code attacked traditional Christianity (Catholicism in particular) for having suppressed the truth about the life of Jesus. The truth, according to Gnostic teachings, is that Jesus was not divine, that he married Mary Magdalene, and that he avoided crucifixion, allowing someone else to die in his place.

Because it echoed many feminist themes, The Da Vinci Code was understandably popular with feminists. Ironically, a great many nonfeminist Christians also swallowed Dan Brown’s fake version of Christian history. A National Geographic survey revealed that 32% of Canadians (most of whom, we can assume, were Christians) who read The Da Vinci Code believed its theories were true.

In short, the poll strongly suggests that the Gnostic impulse had reemerged in North America.

Some Believers Push Back

Not that it hasn’t been resisted. In reaction to the Gnostification of Protestantism that Lee wrote about, many Mainline and evangelical Protestants converted either to Catholicism or to Orthodoxy. Part of the attraction was that, unlike Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox paid a great deal of attention to the physical aspect of Christianity.

For example, Peter Gillquist, a prominent evangelical, popular speaker, and editor at Thomas Nelson Publishers, converted to Orthodoxy and explained why in a book aptly titled The Physical Side of Being Spiritual.

Pope Francis Goes New Age

Ironically, as Gillquist and other evangelicals moved away from a purely spiritual form of Christianity, many prominent Catholics were moving in the opposite direction. They weren’t converting to Protestantism; rather, they were working to change the Catholic Church from within into something more adaptable to the spirit of the times.

This “movement” culminated in what might be called the “Spirit-led” papacy of Francis. Francis seemed to believe that the old rules for guiding the Church — Scripture, tradition, councils — were no longer sufficient. Instead, Church leaders had to learn to “listen to the Spirit” and “follow the Spirit.” Consequently, numerous dialogues, conferences, and synods were convened to hash over issues that most Catholics thought had already been settled.

We have Christ’s words in Scripture on topics such as marriage, divorce, gender (there are only two), the true Church (“Mine,” said Jesus), conversion (“make disciples of all nations”), and many other items of belief. His judgments are quite clear. Why then, one might ask, do we need to spend months (four years and counting in the case of the Synod on Synodality) trying to discern what the Holy Spirit wants us to do?

An End-Run Around the Scriptures

Some Protestants may have carried “me and Jesus” a bit too far. There is always a danger that a highly personalized faith can become too private and too subjective. But there were built-in limits on the subjectivism. If a born-again Christian claims that “the Lord told me to found a spouse-swapping commune,” a hundred of his brothers will remind him that the Lord says no such thing in Scripture and that, judging from what He did say, it is highly unlikely that He would ever recommend such a course of action.

Unfortunately, many in the Catholic hierarchy seem to have substituted “me and the Holy Spirit” for “me and Jesus.” For those who are set on changing Church teaching, this approach has a clear advantage. It leaves open a great deal of room for interpretation and speculation. It’s possible to check your notion of what Jesus wants of us against what He actually said as recorded in the Gospels. By contrast, it’s not at all easy to double-check a private revelation from the Spirit. With the possible exception of a few ambiguous passages in the Book of Revelation, the Bible contains no record of any spoken content uttered by the Holy Spirit.

So, if bishop so-and-so claims that the Spirit wants us to develop a more inclusive and LGBT-friendly form of marriage, you can’t gainsay him by pointing to a verse in the Bible where the Spirit expresses His approval of traditional marriage. Indeed, one can wonder if this is not the whole point of the current emphasis on following the Spirit. Does such advice reflect a genuine openness to the promptings of the Spirit, or is it simply a convenient way of following one’s own inclinations while falsely claiming the Spirit’s endorsement? As with the Gnostics of old, it’s a good way of losing touch with the visible, Incarnational Church founded by Jesus.

It’s also a good reminder of our dependence on physical things for the nourishment of our souls. Keep that in mind the next time you pick up that hefty and very solid Bible lying on your desk.

This article originally appeared in the April 16, 2024 edition of The Stream.

Pictured above: Meditation

Photo credit: Pixabay

Part 1 of a two-part series

A 2023 Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who identify as spiritual rather than religious has increased. And among Democrats, more people now describe themselves as spiritual (41%) than as religious (37%). However, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the most rapidly growing groups are atheists and agnostics, while the most rapidly declining groups are Catholics and mainline Protestants.

In a review of the survey, Jonathan Van Maren wrote, “Post-Christian America is not post-spiritual America; most still claim to hold vague spiritual beliefs of one sort or another but reject ‘organized religion.’”

There’s nothing new here, of course. History records many attempts to move from organized religion (churches, creeds, pastors, practices) to more spiritual forms of connecting with God.

The First Christian Heresy

One of the earliest examples of this tendency was the Gnostic heresy which arose during the early years of Christianity. There were numerous Gnostic sects but most agreed that matter is inherently evil and spirit is inherently good. Consequently, most Gnostics believed that Jesus was not really human. In contrast to the Apostle John’s assertion that “the Word became flesh,” most Gnostics claimed that Jesus only appeared to be human.

In reaction, Church fathers emphasized the essential goodness of the material world. They pointed out that after creating the world, “God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:25). Moreover, God then proceeded to make man in His own image, thus lifting him far above the status of other creatures.

Despite what the Gnostics claimed, Scripture proves that God loves His creation, and undertook to redeem man after he had fallen.

Gnosticism Is Back, and It’s Winning

The Gnostic heresy may seem like ancient history, but it has a way of cropping up in different forms again and again. The quest for a purely spiritual form of Christianity is a constant temptation. And, arguably, we are experiencing a powerful resurgence of Gnosticism right now.

The Gallup and PRRI surveys provide some of the evidence. An increasing number of people are rejecting organized religion and are opting instead to develop a more direct spiritual connection with God without the bother of institutional intermediaries. As it happens, this quest fits in nicely with what one critic describes as Gnosticism’s “intuitive, subjective inward, emotional approach to truth.”

The Gnostic faith also has the advantage of appealing to the woke generation’s conviction that they are more enlightened than the rest of us. The ancient Gnostics (from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “to know”) claimed that salvation comes not through faith but through the acquisition of special and secret knowledge available only to elite souls. In short, they thought themselves superior to run-of-the-mill Christians who were incapable of understanding the “higher truth.”

The Cage of the Soul

Another area in which Gnostic belief corresponds with contemporary belief is in its relegation of the body to second-class status. Although our society is obsessed with the body beautiful, it seems little concerned with what we do with our bodies, beautiful or not. In other words, our bodily actions are thought to be of far less significance than our spiritual state. Thus, if you feel good about your inner, hidden self, it doesn’t matter if you are promiscuous or if you decide to have an abortion.

The ancient Gnostics held similar views. Because they thought that the body was part of the evil material world, some chastised it by abstaining from sex or by self-flagellation. And because they thought the body was relatively unimportant, other Gnostics were sexually promiscuous. Of course, our modern Gnostics tend to align more with the second group’s belief that sex is no big deal.

We’re Not “Breeders”

Another area of commonality between the new Gnostics and the old Gnostics is an anti-reproductive sentiment. The ancient Gnostics believed that by bringing babies into the world, they would only succeed in increasing the amount of evil in the world since babies, being part of the material world, are inherently evil.

Babies are no longer looked upon as evil except by some fringe feminist groups, but many look upon them as an obstacle to self-growth (which is the modern-day equivalent of spiritual growth). Significantly, the PRRI survey found that of those who had left organized religion, 47% specifically cited religious bias against LGBTQ people as one of the main reasons for their departure. That finding is significant because, except for the “B,” LGBTQ sex is inherently nonreproductive sex.

Our New Gods Are … Ourselves

The more “spiritual” people become, the more they reject institutional Christianity, and the more they embrace unorthodox and unscriptural views. At the same time, this trajectory seems to end up — as it did for the Gnostics — in the development of an individualized and personalized faith which often substitutes worship of self for worship of God.

Obviously, these elements in the Gnostic faith are self-defeating; and when combined with the reluctance to reproduce, they end in extinction. Thus, the only thing that keeps Gnosticism alive is evangelization. Fortunately for the new Gnostics, the woke generation never ceases to evangelize. Unfortunately for them, the new Gnosticism is a very exclusive club and only the highly enlightened are eligible to join. Moreover, since the focus of Gnosticism is on the individual self, Gnostics tend to quickly lose interest in other selves.

The seeds of destruction are firmly implanted in Gnosticism, but before the latest iteration of Gnosticism dies out, it can do enormous harm to Christianity. Although it is only a counterfeit of Christianity, it looks enough like the genuine article to fool many into mistaking it for the real thing — or worse, fool them into thinking that it is a more highly evolved form of Christianity.

This article originally appeared in the April 15, 2024 edition of The Stream.

Pictured above: Moment of enlightenment

Picture credit: Pixabay

Suppose someone offered you a shiny quarter in exchange for the tattered $10 bill in your wallet. Would you bite? Silly question. But that’s the kind of exchange proffered in The Da Vinci Code, and apparently, a lot of people are biting.

Many scholars have criticized The Da Vinci Code because it’s not good history, but the story can also be criticized on the more pragmatic ground that it’s not a good deal. Because that, essentially, is what Dan Brown’s story offers — a deal, a trade.

Here’s the deal: Give up this narrow idea that the Creator of the universe has invited all people to be his sons and daughters, and heirs to glorious and immortal life, and in return you can take comfort in the knowledge that there once was this super-sensitive first-century Jewish fellow who married this very spiritual woman, and some of their descendants can still be found sunbathing at Cannes or sipping coffee in Montmartre.

What’s in it for you? Uh .… well, you can be more whole and sensitive by possessing this secret knowledge and, besides, you won’t have to bother anymore about going to church (unless you’re interested in decoding all those secret messages on the walls), and you can ignore most of those life-denying commandments. Best of all, if you ever get the chance to visit Paris before it becomes Muslimized, you can kneel over the moldering bones of Mary Magdalene.

Now this is plainly a bad trade. But many don’t see it that way. For example, a National Geographic Society survey reveals that 32% of Canadians who have read The Da Vinci Code believe its theories are true — particularly that a sacred bloodline exists. Perhaps these believers are too enthralled by the romance of secret knowledge and hidden mysteries to notice that this bloodline society is a pretty exclusive club.

They also seem to have missed the “who cares?” factor. If Jesus and Mary Magdalene weren’t divine, who cares about their bloodline? If one third of Canadians think the old beliefs are a raw deal, what are they going to think once they work through the humdrum implications of Mr. and Mrs. Jesus and the kids?

As a help to understanding just how bad this deal is, let’s consider an analogy. Instead of the New Testament, let’s give the Da Vinci treatment to America’s founding documents — the ones that tell us we are all created equal and guarantee us freedom of speech, assembly and religion. The Da Vinci version of American history would probably run something like this:

First, you have to realize that all serious scholars know that there were many competing declarations and constitutions in those days. Unfortunately, history is always written by the winners. What we call the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are fakes — hoaxes that were made up later in order to reinforce the power of the bureaucrats in Washington.

So Americans don’t really have any constitutional rights or guarantees of civil liberties.

But wait! Don’t feel bad just because this equality and representative government stuff is baseless. There’s something much better, something that until now only a few really smart people have known about. Historians have recently uncovered some very sweet love letters Thomas Jefferson wrote to his wife. It turns out that they were much closer than most people think. The relationship with Mrs. J was the really important thing; certainly more important than any ideas Mr. Jefferson may have entertained about “inalienable rights.”

Jefferson was a real human being and not just a purveyor of abstract doctrines.

Then there’s the matter of the recently unearthed will (written in an elaborate cipher), which shows that the Jeffersons bequeathed all their earthly possessions to their children and their children’s children, along with admonitions to keep the bloodline pure. As you can see, this is pretty heady stuff, and far more relevant to our lives than those supposedly “self-evident” truths about “life, liberty,” etc.

And there’s more. It’s a common misconception that the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to write a “constitution.” They were actually up to something much bigger. The government has been trying to cover up the truth about the ‘constitutional convention’ for centuries, but all educated political scientists know different. Take a look at the first five letters of “convention.”

Why five? Because five is a number of great significance in crypto-numerology, and is, moreover, highly convenient for our purposes. For example, five is the number of angles in the Pentagon—arguably the most potent building in the world. Notice that the first five letters of convention are C-O-N-V-E.

Now jiggle that around a bit and what do you have? Exactly. C-O-V-E-N.

The convention was actually a cover for a coven — an assembly of witches and wizards. Once you open your eyes to these things you’ll see that it’s all intertwined — as they were that summer in Philadelphia.

Oh, heavens! Don’t be so prudish. The fact is the founding fathers and mothers were practicing a form of ritual sex known as hi-yer-a-game-old-spouse, as well as other mysterious rites. They were all Masons, after all. They were trying to teach us something about wholeness and getting in touch with our deep feelings — not, as is commonly supposed, about the organization of free societies.

But this message was too threatening to the power seekers who succeeded them, so the true spirit of the convention (really “coven-tion”) was suppressed and replaced by all this patriarchal stuff about “separation of powers,” “trial by jury” and other life-denying dogmas.

They weren’t able to cover it all up, however. For example, think of that symbol on the back of the dollar bill — the pyramid with the eye near the top. It’s a Masonic symbol, of course, and symbologists know that the Masons were the descendants of the Knights Templar, and the Knights Templar were the descendants of — well, you know who.

Anyway, have you ever noticed that the eye is wide open? Most people don’t. They fail to see what is right in front of them. But think about it. “Eyes wide open.” Then think about this. In 1999 Stanley Kubrick produced a movie titled Eyes Wide Shut. It’s simple, really. Eyes Wide Shut is a variation of “eyes wide open.” The two exist in a yin-yang relationship. The “shut” finds its completion in the “open” and the “open” in the “shut” in a sort of eternal rhythm. And what is the movie about? Yes, that’s right. It’s about ritual sex.

Apparently our Founding Fathers were trying to leave us a message, and they were trying to leave it in the only way available to them — though arcane Masonic symbols. Luckily the message has been kept alive by a few brave souls like Stanley Kubrick and Tom Cruise, who plays the character of Harford in the film. By the way, the name “Harford” — are you ready for this? — is a contraction of Harrison Ford, and the name “Ford” is an anagram of “frod.” F-R-O-D. Now, if you read it from left to right, and add “O”, the universal symbol of completion, what do you get?

Yes, indeed, Frodo — someone who also belonged to a secret brotherhood charged with a dangerous mission. Coincidence? My dears, there are no coincidences. Let those who have eyes to see, see, so to speak.

So while the uptight powers-that-be want to convince people that they are all sons and daughters of liberty, the really good news is that there are actual blood descendants of Adams and Jefferson and Jay living among us to this very day.

If you’re lucky you might get a glimpse of them on Beacon Hill or in an upscale bistro in Georgetown. And remember, good breeding and good bloodlines always tell.

This article originally appeared in the July 9-15, 2006 edition of the National Catholic Register

Pictured above: U.S. Constitution

Photo credit: Pixabay

Pope Francis has frequently claimed that Islam and Catholicism share much in common and he has often drawn a moral equivalence between the two faiths. For example, after the murder of French priest Father Jacques Hamel by two Islamic terrorists, he compared the murder to violence in Italy: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law…and these are baptized Catholics!… If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.”

But this is quite misleading. There is no moral equivalence between the two faiths. Instead, there are vast moral differences.

To illustrate, take the recent horrific attack on a concert hall in Moscow by a branch of the Islamic State known as ISIS-K. Armed with automatic weapon, and Molotov cocktails, the terrorists managed to kill 137 and injure dozens more.

The world was shocked at the news, but perhaps a bit less shocked when Islamist terrorist took credit for the attack. There is a long history of jihad attacks on concert halls and other public gatherings both in Russia and in several European nations

Now, for some contrast, consider this hypothetical event. Suppose you saw a headline or a TV report to the effect that Catholic terrorists had stormed a concert hall in a large city and had brutally murdered and injured hundreds of innocent people. That would be shocking, of course, but it would also be quite surprising. Who knew that there were any Catholic terrorist groups?

This is not to say, however, that there are no terrorist groups made up of Catholics. We can assume for example that the murderous Mexican drug cartels number a great many baptized Catholics among their ranks. Yet the gangs are never referred to as Catholic cartels. And rightly so. They are motivated not by Catholic principles but by criminal gain. Their activities are obvious violations of Catholic teachings. Likewise, a Catholic “who has murdered his girlfriend” (to use Pope Francis’s faulty comparison) can’t justify his actions by appeal to the Catholic faith. The commandment against murder does not make an exception for girlfriends.

On the other hand, it seems appropriate to call Islamist terrorist attacks “Islamist,” because the terrorists justify them by reference to Islamic beliefs.

Among these scripture-supported justifications are the following:

• Muslims are commanded both in the Koran and the Hadith to spread Islam by force if necessary and by use of terror. The Koran urges Muslims to “slay them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them “(2: 191) and Muhammad boasted “I have been made victorious through terror “(Bukhari 4: 52: 220).
• A high value is placed on jihad in Islamic scripture. In fact, it is the highest value. The man who “fights for God’s cause” is more worthy than “he who gives a drink to the pilgrims and pays a visit to the Sacred Mosque” (Koran 9: 19). Moreover, “If you do not go to war, He [Allah] will punish you sternly (9: 39).
• Muhammad, who is considered to be a model for all Muslims, engaged in terror. Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad, one of the three main sources of Islamic belief, shows us that Muhammad was a long-time practitioner of terror. Two-thirds of the 800-page book are taken up with accounts of Muhammad’s jihad raids, his beheading of captured prisoners, his slave trading, his endorsement of rape, and his use of torture.
• Jihad terror is richly rewarded in paradise. Those who kill or are killed in battle are guaranteed entrance into paradise where they will enjoy “gardens and vineyards and high-bosomed maidens for companions” (78: 31-34).  In short, it appears that Allah sanctions terror.
• Jihad terrorists are highly honored on earth as well. In the West Bank, for instance, streets, squares, parks and schools are named in honor of “martyrs” even if they had “earned” their martyrdom by torturing and murdering innocent civilians including women and children. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority pays a handsome lifetime stipend to the terrorist’s relatives. This “pay to slay program” acts as an incentive to further jihad attacks and also acts to reinforce the indoctrination that most Palestinians receive in school—namely, that killing for the sake of Allah is life’s highest calling.

Contrary to what Francis believes and teaches, Catholics and Muslims do not share the same moral values. This is because, despite what many Catholics believe, Catholics and Muslim do not worship the same God, nor do they “revere” the same Jesus as the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, claims.

There are, of course, surface similarities between the two faiths, but below the surface are deep divisions that Catholics need to know and understand.

Why do Catholics still believe in the rose-colored version of Islam pedaled by Pope Francis? Perhaps because they want to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Otherwise, they might be forced, as John Foster Dulles said in a different context, to make “an agonizing reappraisal” of their comfortable illusions.

Those who keep these illusions alive are only guaranteeing that we can expect to see many more murderous attacks like the one that happened in Moscow last week.

By the way, don’t be fooled by the prayer that Francis offered up on Palm Sunday for the perpetrators. He prayed that God may “convert the hearts of those who plan, organize, and carry out these inhuman actions, which offend God who commanded, ‘You shall not kill.’” As is quite evident by what he has said and written elsewhere, Francis is not asking that they be converted to Christianity, but to “true” or “authentic” Islam which, he has written, “is opposed to every form of violence.” Furthermore, contrary to what Francis seems to believe, there is no Islamic commandment against killing unbelievers. His knowledge of Islam seems to be based largely on what his imam friends tell him.

Pictured above: empty concert hall

Photo credit: Pixabay

Are the Similarities Mere Coincidence or Something More?

Many commentators have noted that there are a remarkable number of similarities between President Joe Biden and Pope Francis.

A partial list would include the fact that one man is the leader of the Western World, and the other is generally conceded to be the world’s most important spiritual leader. Significantly, both men set about reversing the policies of their predecessors upon assuming office. Both men are, of course, Catholics. And beyond that, both adhere to a “progressive” version of Catholicism. Biden’s habits of making the sign of the cross during public appearances or fingering his rosary beads during interviews is meant to convey the impression that he is a pious traditional Catholic. However, a recent report sent to the American bishops identifies at least 32 times that Biden has violated fundamental Catholic moral teaching since being inaugurated. The most recent example, delivered during his State of the Union address, is his promise that “I will restore Roe V. Wade as the law of the land again.”

Unlike Biden, Francis is not often seen fingering his rosary. On the other hand he, like Biden, has been accused of violating Catholic teaching on several occasions. One might think, however, that there would be no similarity between Biden and the pope on the issue of abortion. Yet, despite his assertion that abortionists are “hit men,” Francis has refused to sanction or criticize pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi. In fact, shortly after San Francisco bishop Salvatore Cordileone informed Pelosi that she should not present herself for communion, she popped up in Rome and received communion in St. Peter’s presumably with the blessing of Francis. On another occasion, Francis praised notorious abortionist Emma Bonino as one of Italy’s “forgotten greats.”

More similarities between the two leaders? Well, it’s been credibly alleged that both men may have benefited from rigged elections—Biden from a surfeit of mail-in ballots, and Bergoglio from the machinations of the “Saint Gallen mafia.” But many consider it impolite to dwell on the topic. So, let’s move on.

Both Biden and Bergoglio are men of the left, and are quick to embrace whatever new schemes emanate from the left. Both endorse radical climate change doctrine of the type that would destroy most third world economies; and both promote ideas about gender that are anti-reproductive and destructive of marriage and the family.

 Both also believe strongly in diversity. That’s what they say, anyway. But when it comes to making appointments, the only diversity they allow is diversity of skin color and hair style.  In several cases Biden’s appointments to high office seem to have been made solely on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity with no regard to any actual aptitude for the job. Thus, Karine Jean-Pierre is now the Presidential Press Secretary, Pete Buttigieg is Secretary of Transportation, and openly transgender Rachel (formerly Richard) Levine is Assistant Secretary for Health.

In like manner, Francis has promoted pro-LGBT clerics to numerous high posts in the Church. Several of these have been “in-your-face” appointments—people who are not only unsuited for the job, but have actively worked to subvert the mission of the organization to which they were assigned. Thus, Cardinal Vincenzo Paglia, a connoisseur of erotic homosexual art was put in charge of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family, while Cardinal “Tucho” Fernandez, a connoisseur of erotic poetry, was put in charge of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Biden, of course, has done the same thing. Some of his appointees seem to have been chosen for the sole purpose of sabotaging the mission of the departments which they now head. A prime example is Alejandro Mayorkas whose open borders policies ought to have immediately disqualified him from leading the Department of Homeland Security.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s concern with keeping the borders open is matched by Francis’s insistence that we should build bridges, not borders. The only difference between the two is that while Biden focuses on erasing the Southern U.S. border, Francis seems intent on destroying all of Europe’s borders. Francis is particularly keen on mass Muslim migration into the continent—a migration that may well spell the end of Europe as Europe. But, as Francis sees it, that’s a small price to pay for the added diversity.

Finally, both men are enablers of tyrannical ideologies. Biden has shown himself to be a good friend to China and Iran, and so has Francis. Indeed, Francis has become a defender not only of Iran, but of Islam itself, and he has frequently drawn a moral equivalence between Catholicism and Islam.

But what does this all mean? What do all these commonalities between Biden and Bergoglio signify? One could argue, of course, that the similarities signify nothing: that they are nothing more than coincidence. And in some instances, that’s true. For example, one should probably not read much significance into the fact that both men have the same initials—J.B. (Joe Biden, Jorge Bergoglio). Hmm. Did the respective parents have a glimpse into the future? Did they conspire with one another? That’s highly unlikely. Sometimes, as Freud once said, a cigar is just a cigar.

Of course, if both men smoked the same brand of Cuban cigars smoked by Fidel Castro, that might be cause for concern. Some coincidences are worth looking into. And most of the issues that unite Biden and Bergoglio are non-trivial. They concern world-changing shifts that challenge our basic concepts of human nature and of right and wrong. It’s quite feasible that powerful men might be tempted to conspire together to achieve such historic goals.

Moreover, the possibility of a conspiracy between a pope and a president is not at all far-fetched. How do we know? Because it has already happened. In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II plotted together and worked together to put an end to Soviet communism in Western Europe. Both men shared many things in common including a record of fighting communism and “strikingly similar” assassination attempts just 6 weeks apart.

In A Pope and a President, historian Paul Kengor reveals that Reagan and John Paul II developed a spiritual bond and a conviction that the Cold War struggle with communism was a spiritual war to which God had called them. According to Kengor, Reagan spoke privately of the “DP”: the Divine Plan to take down communism.

So, there is a striking historical precedent for the bond that has developed between President Biden and Pope Francis. It’s not surprising that President Reagan and Pope John Paull II should work together toward a common goal. And it shouldn’t be surprising that President Biden and Pope Francis would support each other in the pursuit of common goals. For example, when the American bishops were debating whether pro-abortion politicians such as Pelosi and Biden should be sanctioned, Francis stepped in and put an end to the debate in order to save Biden from possible embarrassment. Moreover, according to Biden (who keeps a photo of Pope Francis in the Oval Office), Francis has vouched that he is a “good Catholic.” It’s not difficult to imagine the two sharing ideas and strategies about immigration, climate change, and peace initiatives.

On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine Biden and Francis working together to defeat the evils of communism or to warn about the threat that same-sex “marriage” poses to natural marriage.

What differentiates the Biden-Bergoglio plan from the Reagan-John Paul II project is the objective. Reagan and John-Paul strove to eradicate an evil, while the Biden-Bergoglio “campaign” seems to be geared toward unleashing evil. Progressive Catholics may argue that it is good for us to become more open-minded, more tolerant, and more accepting, but when tolerance is not guided by history, scripture and natural law, it often turns into moral relativism, and an excuse for sin.

It’s frequently said that Francis has sown moral confusion, and he surely has. But after receiving mixed messages for the past 11 years, many are less confused. They’ve discovered that it’s better to pay less attention to what Francis says, and more attention to his actions and appointments. For example, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently said he now supports same-sex “marriage” and attributes his change of mind to Francis’s endorsement of blessing same-sex couples in Fiducia Supplicans. Defenders of Francis say that the document does not permit the blessing of same-sex marriages but, as an astute politician, Christie understands that this is only hair splitting. Francis has already signaled his approval of same-sex marriage in a hundred different ways.

It doesn’t take an Einstein to notice Francis’s permissive attitude toward sin. One of the main objectives of his “reforms” is to lessen the sense of sin—especially sexual sins. But this is an extremely destructive goal. The more you downplay the gravity of sin, the more you get. Moreover, in de-emphasizing sin, Francis takes away the whole rationale for the Christian faith—the belief that Christ came in order to save us from our sins.

Indeed, nearly all of the Biden-Bergoglio project is destructive in nature. Opening a nation’s borders to all comers inevitably results in the loss of its sovereignty and its security. Snuggling up with communists instead of standing up to them as Reagan and JPII did only ensures that they will eventually rule over you. And appointing saboteurs to head your most important agencies only guarantees that departments and dicasteries will be subverted and turned toward evil ends.

Planning in itself is not a bad thing. The “Divine Plan” that President Reagan and John Paul II put into action was highly successful and brought freedom to tens of millions of Europeans.

By contrast, the Biden-Bergoglio pact might well be dubbed the “Satanic Plan.” Instead of setting people free it traps hundreds of millions in slavery to sin, and exposes millions more to sex-slavery –a practice that is now widespread thanks in part to Biden and Bergoglio’s wrongheaded ideas about immigration. It’s the type of plan that Satan would devise if he got the opportunity—a deceptive strategy to sow confusion and chaos and, above all, to destroy his enemy’s Church and the civilization that sprang from it.

Fortunately, the plan has an inherent flaw that becomes more apparent with time. Both the plan and its promoters are detached from reality. Having rejected God’s law and the natural law the planners easily drift into crackpot territory, asking us, among other things, to deny both the evidence of our eyes and the evidence of biological science. They ask us to follow the science, but their own ideas are based not on science but on wishful thinking.

 Moreover, the incoherence of the plan is reflected in the incoherence of the planners. For example, as I have suggested in a previous article, Joe Biden’s mental confusion might well be a heaven-sent sign that the policies he embraces are also deeply confused.

This might not seem to be the case with Francis. He does not suffer from dementia, and he seems of above average intelligence. Yet history teaches us that even some of the world’s most brilliant thinkers could on occasion be quite naïve. They were not above consulting astrologers, holding seances, and embracing occult theories. Although Francis seems quite shrewd when it comes to political matters, in other matters he seems to resemble the stereotype of the sentimental old fool who puts his trust in all the wrong people. Francis is suspicious of Latin Mass Catholics, but he seems to believe that if you are nice to communists and Islamists, they will be nice to you.  In short, for all his shrewdness Francis is in some respects dangerously naïve.

What St. Paul said about the pagans in Romans seems to apply here:

“So they are without excuse; for although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1: 20-22).

On the other hand, it could be that Francis/Bergoglio is not the least bit naïve. It may be, for instance, that he is fully aware that his encouragement of mass migration into Europe has resulted in a steep rise in crimes and violence. It may be that he fully realizes that the probable end result of mass migration will be civil war in Europe or else an Islamic takeover. It may be that he clearly understands that his “modernizing” efforts will have the effect of destroying the Church. If that’s the case, then the situation is worse than most imagine. If that’s the case, then we may well be witnessing the unfolding of the “SP”—the Satanic Plan.

Joe Biden clearly suffers from dementia. But perhaps we are being naïve in assuming that Francis is naïve.

Pictured above: Pope Francis

Photo credit: Pixabay

Back in January, Bezhani Sarvar, a Muslim security guard attacked The City Hall in Edmonton , Canada with a firearm and Molotov cocktails. In a four minute online video, he explained to his “brothers and sisters before I do my mission” that he was taking revenge for the “genocide” in Gaza:

“Salam-Alaikum, brothers and sisters. Inshallah. I’ll succeed with my mission. If I don’t succeed, I know somebody else will succeed for me. Salam-Alaikum.”

What was his motive? In a brief piece about the attack, Daniel Greenfield noted, “According to the CBC, “Edmonton Police continue to investigate the motive for the attack.”

This brought back memories of another jihad attack that occurred on July 14, 2023 in Fargo, North Dakota, which left one dead and three wounded before the assailant, Muhamad Barakat, was killed by a policeman. Since the trunk of Barakat’s car contained explosives, a small arsenal of firearms and 1,800 rounds of ammunition, it looked as though he had a much larger jihad in mind. And sure enough, his cell phone revealed that he had been searching for “mass shooting events”–a search that ended with the headline “Thousands enjoy first day of Downtown Fargo Street Fair.”

What was his motive? The Star Tribune reported that “the motive for his actions remains unclear,” the U.S. attorney for the district of North Dakota said that “if there was clear evidence of a motive we would share it,” and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley asserted that “the shooting was not motivated by religious beliefs.”

Not motivated by “religious beliefs?” In a Marcel Proust-like moment of remembrance it came back to me that I had written a whimsical piece on the topic of the missing religious motive seven years ago. Have things changed since then? It doesn’t seem so. If anything, the authorities have learned that they can avoid the issue of motive with complete impunity.

Here’s the original piece:

Groundhog Day – Jihad Version

I think I’ve seen this movie before. The plot goes something like this: a man drives a car into a crowd of people, gets out of his vehicle, shouts an Arabic phrase, begins to stab bystanders, and is shot by police.

You probably know the rest of the story. Ordinary people immediately understand that it’s another jihad attack. But the police and the media are baffled. They spend hours and sometimes days looking into the possibility that it might be an act of terrorism. By the time they finally decide that it is terrorism, most people have moved on to the next news cycle.

Then there’s the question of identity. Who did it? At first the assailant is simply identified as a “man.” Then, after a suitable interval, he’s identified as a “London resident” or a “resident of Marseille,” or whatever the case may be. Next we learn that he’s an “Asian man” (if the incident occurs in England) or a “North African man” (if in France). Finally, we are told that it is a Muslim man, but by this point many have lost interest.

Next comes the matter of motive. Of course, the average citizen already knows the motive: the jihadist did it for the sake of Allah and the seventy-two virgins. But for some reason the Kabuki ritual must be played out to the end. Very often there is no end – that is, no motive is ever found. The authorities decide that the perpetrator acted irrationally. He was mentally ill or emotionally disturbed, or other kids bullied him in school.

As Governor John Kasich said after a Muslim student at Ohio State University perpetrated a car and knife attack on fellow students, “we may never totally find out why this person. . .snapped.” One sometimes gets the impression that the authorities never want to know. That would explain why the motivation behind the crime is usually left hanging.

At any rate, the mystery-motive motif is a recurrent plot feature. After Khalid Masood’s car and knife rampage, which left several dead and forty wounded in London recently, a senior police official said, “We must accept that there is a possibility we will never understand why he did this.”

One thing you can be sure of in the official version is that whatever the motive, it has nothing to do with Islam. The authorities are uncertain about everything else, but they are always quite certain of that. The denial comes in several variations: “this has nothing to do with Islam,” “this is a perversion of a great religion,” ”No religion condones terror,” and even, “this is a betrayal of Islam.”

The latest iteration comes from Digby Jones, a former Minister of State for Trade in the U.K. In regard to Masood’s jihadi-style attack, Jones said, “I think the fact that the man is a Muslim is utterly and completely irrelevant.”

Another predictable plot feature is that much time is spent determining whether the jihadist is a “lone-wolf” or a card-carrying member of ISIS. The authorities and the press seem to favor the lone-wolf scenario, perhaps because the terror threat seems less ominous when only one person is involved. Another possibility is that the authorities bear less blame for not preventing the attack since there’s no way of predicting when and where a lone wolf will strike.

As it turns out, however, the lone wolves are often “known wolves” – known to the police, that is, for various previous crimes. Moreover, the lone wolves are not that lonely. They usually have family and friends who know what they’re up to, and, not infrequently, they have made contact with terrorist group operatives prior to the attack. In addition, they share a common belief system with jihadists everywhere. What belief system is that? Well. . .let’s move on.

The final act of this ritual theater is a statement – by a governor, a president, or a prime minister – to the effect that we won’t change who we are to suit the terrorists. As U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May said after the Westminster Bridge attack, “Let me make it clear today. . .any attempt to defeat our values through violence and terror is doomed to failure.”

Apparently, one of those key values is tolerance. U.K Home Secretary Amber Rudd put it this way:

The British people will be united in working together to defeat those who would harm our shared values. Values of democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law.

“Tolerance?” Isn’t that the value that got England into this mess in the first place? Well, never mind. No one but the media pays attention to such statements of resolve.

We’ve been hearing that sort of thing for a dozen years, and the jihad attacks keep multiplying. On the same day as the London terror attack, a Muslim migrant in southern Italy tried to run down police with a car. He then attacked and injured an officer with a knife. The next day in Antwerp, a Muslim man drove a car loaded with assault rifles and knives into a crowd on a busy shopping street.

I haven’t seen the follow-up stories, but presumably both men were mentally ill, the incident had nothing to do with Islam, and the police will be searching for a motive for a long time to come.

That’s the routine. And it seems that we are expected to get used to it. Prime Minister May said that people should just continue to act normally because that’s “the best response to terrorism.” Meanwhile, London Mayor Sadiq Khan said that despite the attack, London would return to “business as usual.” But business as usual now includes the ritual re-enactment of the jihad terror cycle.

In a way, the “movie” we are in resembles the plot of Groundhog Day. Like the main character in the movie, we seem doomed to witness the same ritual day after day, week after week. There’s still hope, of course. After he finally gains some wisdom, the hero of Groundhog Day breaks out of the cycle.

Will we?

Postscript: Seven years have passed and we still haven’t broken out of the loop. It’s still considered impolite to mention jihad. And for an officer of the law, departing from the script can mean demotion or job loss.

“Groundhog Day– Jihad version” originally appeared in the April 4, 2017 issue of The Catholic Thing.

Pictured above: Groundhog (Ai generated image)

Picture credit: Pixabay

And its causes. 

Although Mark Steyn writes knowledgeably about a great many topics, he keeps returning to what he calls the biggest story of our time—the planet’s demographic death spiral.

The decline in population is a global phenomenon, but it’s happening faster in the West and in Japan.  For a description of where it all ends, Steyn recommends P.D. James dystopian novel, The Children of Men.

Published in 1992, the story is set in 2021 in a world that has become literally sterile:  human beings have lost the power to reproduce.  Steyn points out that James’s description of a childless society is uncannily prescient:

“In Lady James’s speculative fiction, pets are doted on as child substitutes, and churches hold christening ceremonies for cats.  In contemporary Japanese reality, Tokyo has some forty ‘cat cafes’, where lonely solitary citizens can while away an afternoon by renting a feline to touch and pet for a couple of companionable hours.”

Likewise:

“In Lady James’s speculative fiction, all the unneeded toys are burned, except for the dolls, which childless women seize on as the nearest thing to a baby and wheel through the streets.  In contemporary Japanese reality, toy makers, their children’s market dwindling, have instead developed dolls for seniors to be the grandchildren they’ll never have.”

Moreover, in James’s novel, contrary to modern expectations, sex becomes less frequent, not more, once it has no consequences. Indeed, the authorities set up state-sponsored porn shops “in an effort to reverse the populace’s flagging sexual desire just in case man’s seed should recover its potency.” But the tactic doesn’t work.

Coincidentally, the New York Times recently published a report on the declining rate of teenagers who are sexually active. According to the report, one reason for the decline might be the widespread availability of online pornography. Some teens may even come to prefer online sex to the real thing since it is considerably less complicated than going through the awkward business of meeting and getting to know another person. One consequence of the porn habit is that it can impair one’s ability to form genuine relationships. As Jonathan Van Maren observes in LifeSite News, “It is undoubtedly true that porn addiction is impacting real relationships, and that the net effect of a generation rewiring their minds to respond to digital sexual toxins are just beginning to become clear—we are facing the highest rate of erectile dysfunction in males under the age of thirty in recorded history.”

The people in The Children of Men are caught up in a biological event beyond their control, but many today seem to be opting for what Steyn calls a “voluntary societal self-extinction.” This societal death wish is evidenced not only by record levels of abortion, but also by government promotion of euthanasia in many parts of the world including in Canada and Western Europe.

And then there’s the growing spread of the LGBT ethos. It only takes a moment’s thought to realize that LGBT sex is (with the exception of the “B”) sterile sex. It is the perfect example of “voluntary societal self-extinction.” The chief obligation of every society is the reproduction of the species; yet, increasingly, societies celebrate sexual lifestyles that have little to do with reproduction.

Take the trans craze. In the UK, the number of children and young adults who identify as transgender increased by 4,000 percent between 2009 and 2018. Moreover, according to a recent report, 8,000 teens are now seeking puberty blockers and trans hormones from the UK health system. As is now well-known, these treatments often result in permanent sterility. Sadly, today’s cultural elites and social influencers rarely bother to remind youngsters that they might one day want to become fathers or mothers. And so, the demographic death spiral continues.

There is one other factor to consider. Birth rates are declining all over the world. At current rates, most societies will eventually face extinction. But some will face it sooner than others. Societies that began the reproductive decline many decades ago will be increasingly vulnerable to defeat or replacement by societies that entered the decline only recently. For example, by some projections Islam will become the dominant religion in many parts of western Europe by mid-century or shortly thereafter. Indeed, some Muslim leaders have boasted that they will triumph over the West because their women are more fertile. But that is a subject for another time.

Another subject for another time is the possibility that governments in collusion with the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have deliberately embarked on a global sterilization program through the use of Covid vaccines. For more on that topic, see Naomi Wolf’s carefully researched articles and interviews in Front Page.

In the meantime, consider investing in pet supply companies and manufacturers of lifelike baby dolls.

This article originally appeared in the January 12, 2023 edition of Front Page.

Picture above: A Cat Cafe?

Photo credit: Pixabay

If the Church is doing the Devil’s will, why does he attack it?

In case you didn’t know, the Internet is full of videos bashing the Catholic Church. Most of these are produced by fundamentalist or born-again Christians, some of whom are ex-Catholics. They insist that they do not hate Catholics. Their only concern, they say, is to help Catholics learn the truth.

You probably know most of their complaints: the Catholic Church is unbiblical; it elevates tradition over scripture; it encourages Catholics to worship Mary; it teaches that we are saved by works not by faith; and it falsely posits the existence of purgatory.

While watching one of these videos it struck me that the presenter seemed to have no idea of what’s been happening in the Catholic Church over the last 10 years. And this seemed to be the case with other such presentations. Either they were ignorant of recent events in the Church or they didn’t quite know how to handle them.

Instead, they merely rehash criticisms that go back to the reformers—criticisms that have been thoroughly rebutted by Catholic scholars and apologists over the years.

So, it was refreshing to come across a video that was actually up-to-date about what’s wrong with the Catholic Church. The video which is entitle “The Pope Francis End-Time Apostasy,” is produced and narrated by Jonathan Cahn who is described as a Christian pastor and a messianic Jew.

The occasion for his observations was the publication of Fiducia Supplicans, the controversial document that allows for the blessing of same-sex couples.

Along with many Catholics, Cahn sees the document as representing a complete break with the Church’s teaching and traditions. It’s a “prophetic sign,” he says, “when the Vatican reverses itself,” and falls away from its own biblical stand.

Moreover, says Cahn, this reversal has “massive implications” because the Roman Catholic Church is “intimately connected to the health of Western civilization and much of the civilized world is now at risk.”

More specifically, he says, the Catholic Church has acted as a restraint on sinfulness through much of history. For example, the Catholic Church played a major role in ending paganism and the various sinful practices that went with it.

Even in the modern world the Church has been looked upon as the only institution that could be counted on to hold the line. Long after other Christian Churches had thrown in the towel, the Catholic Church did not yield on contraception, divorce, abortion, and same-sex “marriage.”

In addition, the Church played a major role in trying to keep popular culture wholesome. Largely because of pressure from the Catholic Church, the Motion Picture Production Code (The Hays Code) put limits on Hollywood’s penchant for sex and violence. According to film curator Chelsey O’Brien, “the code prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape.”

What Cahn calls the “Protestant Mainline Apostate Churches” were largely unable to hold the line. They capitulated to secular culture on several fronts. But the Catholic Church, despite pressure to get with the times, did hold the line (although with difficulty.) However, as Cahn argues, with the coming of the Francis papacy the restraints were loosened considerably, and then, with the publication of Fiducia Supplicans, the “floodgates were opened.” Among other things, the Church which had done so much to eradicate paganism is now presiding over a “rebirth of paganism” (witness the Pachamama ritual in the Vatican Garden, Pope Francis’s participation in a North American Indian smudge pot ritual, and the recent sacrilegious funeral service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral for a transexual prostitute who was eulogized as the “Mother of the Whores” and who also happened to be an atheist.)

Cahn ends his presentation by advising Catholics to separate themselves from the institutional Church (and from any other religious institution that has drifted away from the Gospel.)

I can’t go along with that, of course. Humans need institutions to keep them on the straight and narrow. For example, attempts to replace the institutional justice system— courts, police, prisons– with the spirit of justice never seems to work. Campaigns to eliminate bail, defund the police, and hire more social workers only result in more crime.

So, the choice is not between an institutional church and a spiritual church. There is no such thing as a purely spiritual church. The question is, to which institutional church should we turn. In the course of his presentation, Cahn makes such a good case for the Catholic contribution to the health of civilization, that the logical conclusion is not that Catholics should separate from the Church, but that Catholics should stay with the Church, throw out the apostates, and strive to bring the institutional Church back in line with the will of God.

To his credit, Pastor Cahn appreciates the Catholic Church’s historical role in Christianizing society. And judging by his video presentation, he locates the point at which the Church really goes off the rails, not in the distant past but in recent times—specifically during the papacy of Francis when the Vatican suddenly reverses itself on key moral issues.

The implication of his analysis is that, contrary to the standard Catholic-bashing view, the Church has been a faithful guardian of the Gospel of Christ up until very recent times. By contrast, some of the Catholic-bashing school of Protestants seem to locate Satan’s “takeover” of the Church as having happened in the reign of the emperor Constantine.

Of course, many Catholics also believe that Satan would like to take over control of the Church, and they believe that his attacks have been escalating in recent years. Why? Because Satan, being a highly intelligent creature, also understands the important role that the Catholic Church has played in restraining sinful impulses. Now, that the “floodgates” have been opened by Francis and others within the Church, he sees the opportunity for a final all-out assault on the Church.

But, if that’s the case, it raises an urgent question for anti-Catholics to ponder. If, as some say, the Catholic Church has been doing the work of Satan for centuries why would he continue to attack it? If the Church has been serving Satan, even if unconsciously, why not leave it alone?

I’m not suggesting that Satan doesn’t attack other Christians and other denominations, but much of his ire seems focused of the Catholic Church.

As Cahn seems to suggests, the Catholic Church has, until recently, offered much more resistance to Satan’s campaign of temptation than the mainline Protestant Churches have been able to muster. Moreover, many of the non-mainline denominations are having trouble resisting the lure of popular culture.

Christ predicted that the powers of Hell would attempt to overthrow his Church. What is happening now in the Church certainly seems like just such an attempt. It looks very much like the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. This may be taken as a sign that the Catholic Church has been rejected by God. But it may also be taken as a sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church, the ultimate bulwark against the wickedness and snares of the Devil, and the chief target of his hatred.

Pictured above: The Archangel Michael defeating Satan

Picture credit: Pixabay

Satan’s Role in Sowing Chaos

The publication of the Vatican declaration on same-sex blessings has generated a great deal of resistance within the Catholic Church. Numerous bishops in various parts of the world have refused to comply with its directives, and the African Bishops Conference has rejected it outright, forcing Pope Francis to grant an exemption to the whole continent on the basis of cultural differences.

Many Catholics take this resistance as a sign that things are about to change for the better in the Church—that the fog of confusion created by Francis will soon dissipate. Some have hope that Francis himself will come to see the error of his ways. After all, for a number of years many Catholics have been praying for his conversion. Maybe the prayers are beginning to have an effect. Others take solace in the occasional attempt by the Vatican to present itself as a defender of tradition. Thus, some Catholic theologians have praised the latest DDF document, Gestis Verbisque  (“Deeds and Words”), for its concern with protecting the validity of sacraments and eliminating liturgical abuse.

But such optimism seems premature. The harm done to the Church by Francis and his clerical allies is not just their work. It’s also the work of Satan. The undermining of Catholic teaching and morality has been carried out with such efficiency that it’s difficult to avoid the impression of an intervention by dark spiritual powers.

It’s disturbing, of course, to think that the spiritual underworld is actively seeking to destroy the Church. It’s more comforting to blame the Church’s troubles on human folly and venality—something that can be dealt with given enough time and effort.

But keep in mind that Jesus was deeply concerned about the activities of Satan. He frequently warned his disciples about the fires of Hell, the deceptions of Satan, and the necessity of keeping watch. He made it clear that Satan would attack his Church and that even the elect would be led astray.

Likewise, Saint Paul warned the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord’s return would not come unless the rebellion [or apostasy] comes first, and “the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2 Thess 2:3). Moreover, “The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception” (2 Thess 2:9-10). Paul also describes the lawless one as taking “his seat in the temple of God.”

Theologians are not agreed upon the identity of the lawless one, nor about which temple is referred to. But according to one school of thought, the lawless one is a human ruler whose appearance comes after, perhaps long after, the time of Paul. Some believe that the temple refers to the Jerusalem Temple, while others believe it is a reference to the Church. This suggests that the lawless one will be a person who holds authority within a religious institution.

 Could Francis be the lawless man? He sits in the “temple of God.” He disregards the laws of the Church and he flouts the moral law, particularly those rules that govern sexuality. He believes not in a fixed moral law but in a fluid morality that is relative to time and place (e.g., Western priests must give the same-sex blessing, but African priests are exempt). In many respects, the term “lawless” does seem to fit him.

Francis, however, may be just a warm-up. Although the situation in the Church seems very bad, it could get much worse. The future tribulations that Jesus describes in Matthew 24 are far worse than anything that is currently happening in the Western Church. Moreover, the wars, famines, and earthquakes that will signal the last days, says Jesus, are “but the beginning of the birth-pangs.”

So, it may be that the papacy of Francis, bad as it is, is just a prelude to something worse. He could be succeeded by some one far more destructive. After all, Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with men who think as he does. And they will elect his successor. Instead of waiting to see what happens next, Catholics would do well to resist him and those who support him. Just because Francis and Fernandez seem to be making some concessions to traditional Catholics, now is not the time to sound the all-clear signal.

The point is that prophecies about false prophets and antichrists yet to come are present in the Bible. And you don’t have to search far to find them. Some of the prophecies are quite frightening. Moreover, in Matthew 24, Jesus does not say that these things may happen, but that they will happen. Indeed, he says, “This must take place” (Mt 24:6).

Consequently, these prophecies should not be ignored in favor of explanations of the current chaos that are more in tune with “modern” thinking than with the repeated warnings in scripture.

Something strange has happened in the Church and in the world. We should not try to explain it away with familiar observations such as “nothing has changed” and “we’ve seen all this before.” On the contrary, we seem to be witnessing something altogether new.

Pictured above: Depiction of the Prophet Daniel

Picture credit: Pixabay

I’ve written frequently about the great harm that Pope Francis has done to the Catholic Church as the result of his subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Catholic teaching, Catholic tradition, Catholic morality, and Catholic liturgy.

But it’s also important to realize that his misguided views on world affairs have a similarly harmful effect on the lives of Catholics and non-Catholics all over the globe.

This is most obvious in regard to Francis’s encouragement of an open borders immigration policy. His campaign has been aimed for the most part at wealthy Western nations—particularly European countries. Francis regularly reminds Europeans that they have a duty to “welcome the stranger” and provide him or her with all the benefits that natural-born citizens enjoy.

Admittedly, some of the slogans that Francis and other advocates of open borders employ are hard to resist: “build bridges, not walls,” “the holy family were once immigrants,” “if you close the door on the immigrant, you are closing the door on Jesus.”

Of course, this “let-them-all-come-in” approach didn’t start with Francis. The majority of Catholic bishops have long been pro-immigration. In America, for instance, the welcoming attitude that Catholics extended to waves of European immigrants was bolstered by the fact that many bishops were themselves sons or grandsons of immigrants.

The story of immigration into Europe is a more complex tale, but by the end of the 20^th century, most Europeans had bought into the idea that immigration was a good thing: it supposedly increased cultural diversity and added to the labor supply, thus keeping the European welfare state afloat.

But things have changed. Recent polls show that Europeans now have mixed feelings about the wisdom of admitting people who do not share their values into their countries. They are particularly worried about the influx of millions of migrants from Muslim countries. In fact, the polls show that a majority of Europeans want a complete halt to Muslim migration.

As might be expected this change of attitude doesn’t sit well with Europe’s bishops. After a meeting with Pope Francis, Bishop Mariano Crociata, the president of the Bishops Conference of the European Union, expressed concern about the upcoming European Parliamentary elections. He was worried about polls which forecast major gains for the “far-right” in the ballot.

“Far-right” is, of course, code for anti-immigration. As Bishop Crociata put it, “[ it is ] unthinkable that Europe, with a rapidly dropping birth rate fails to recognize the need for a contribution such as that of immigrants for its survival.”

His statement echoes the views of Francis on immigration and it also reveals the dangerous naivete of those views.

It’s quite true that the European birth rate is dropping rapidly. At the same time, the Muslim birth rate is rising rapidly. So, the most likely candidates for filling the birth rate gap would be Muslim migrants. But it’s precisely the Islamic culture that these migrants bring with them that worries the “far-right.” And the enormous rise in crime, terrorism and antisemitism—not to mention the widespread vandalism and torching of Christian churches—bears them out.

Moreover, many Muslim leaders, including President Erdogan of Turkey, have made it known that because of its high birth rate and refusal to assimilate, Islam will eventually dominate Europe both culturally and politically.

The only way that Bishop Crociata’s (and Francis’s) idealistic vision could possibly work to the benefit of Europeans would require the mass conversion of Muslims to Christianity. And that is highly unlikely, not only because Islam considers Christianity to be a false religion, but also because the Christian Faith is at a low ebb in most of Europe. If any converting is to be done it will likely be the other way around.

To top it all off, Pope Francis doesn’t believe in conversion. Rather, he believes that all religions share the same basic beliefs and values. Thus, there is no point in converting from one faith to another.

Unfortunately, the naïve view that Islam and Christianity are close cousins is not confined to Francis but is widely shared by Catholic educators across the world. Long before Francis informed us that “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” young Catholics in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and elsewhere had been led to believe that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God and venerate the same Jesus.

The inculcation of this sentimental view of Islam probably accounts for the fact that many Europeans were totally unprepared for the encounter with the reality of Islam that came with the 2015-2016 mass Muslim migration. Among many other unpleasant surprises, the encounter included a sexual assault by North African Muslims against over a thousand women not far from Cologne Cathedral.

Although Francis is quite shrewd about Church politics, he is alarmingly naïve about other matters. For example, his rose-colored view of Islam is matched by an equally simplistic and uninformed view of communism and the dire consequences of embracing its ideology. It’s quite likely that if Francis rather than John Paul II had been pope at the end of the 20^th century, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe would still be communist. It’s also likely that many young Catholics of today would respond to that scenario with a “What’s wrong with that?” shrug of the shoulders.

Pictured above: Pope Francis blesses children

Photo credit: Pixabay