Pope Francis kisses up to the Grand Imam of al-Azha
1,711 words
For centuries, Islam had no greater foe in the West than the Catholic Church. While the secular princes warred among themselves and focused on their narrow interests, the Church was there to harangue Christendom’s rulers about the real threat to their civilization and go on Crusade.
The rapid ascent of Turkish power in the Early Modern era spurred a particularly anti-Islamic vigor in the Church. When Constantinople was lost, Pope Callixtus III sold off precious artifacts of the Vatican and halted a renovation program in Rome to fund a military operation to take the city back.
One of the most successful pontiffs rallying Europe against the Muslim enemy was Pope Pius V. St. Pius V pushed for the rescue of Malta from Turkish invaders and organized the multinational fleet that defeated the Turks at Lepanto.
Pius browbeat rulers such as Philip II of Spain to aid in Christendom’s defense. The pope’s letters always emphasized that Muslim invaders were Europe’s “common enemy” and there was nothing more important than Europe’s defense.[1] Pius V was a great man of the West, but the Church he led no longer upholds his legacy.
That was then: Pope Pius V and the victory at Lepanto
Pope Francis signified this in a recent meeting with the Grand Imam of al-Azhar. Francis and the influential imam signed a document affirming “human fraternity” between their two faiths and an appreciation for religious pluralism.
“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings,” the document reads. “This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept.”
The imam and the Holy Father capped their meeting with an on-the-lips smooch, a fitting image for Pope Francis’s conciliatory stance toward Islam. The whole meeting would have horrified Pius V and the other pontiffs who spent so much blood and treasure in fighting the Muslim menace. Francis himself sees no threat in Islam. He once said: “Muslim terrorism does not exist . . . there are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions.”
Francis has harsher words for European nationalists who wish to keep Muslims out of their countries. “Extremist and populist groups are finding fertile ground in many countries,” he said in 2017. “They make protest the heart of their political message, without offering the alternative of a constructive political project.”
Pope Francis has long called for Europe to welcome Muslim immigrants with open arms. “All of us together, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Copts, Evangelical [Protestants] brothers and sisters — children of the same God — we want to live in peace, integrated,” Pontifex declared in his homily at a foot washing ritual in 2016. The Bishop of Rome cleaned the feet of Muslim migrants at the event, signaling his subservience to their cause.
This is now.
Francis’s behavior follows that of his predecessors. Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades and kissed the Koran. Islamic outrage at Pope Benedict XVI’s mild criticism of Islam in the famous Regensburg lecture forced the pontiff to apologize to Muslims. At a later meeting with Muslim leaders, Benedict made sure he showed “all the esteem and the profound respect that [he has] for Muslim believers.”
Nationalists are familiar with the current pope’s issues and his hostility to our cause. What is less discussed is that Francis’s amiability to Islam is shared by the institutional Church. Church leaders throughout Europe have repeated the Pope’s call to welcome Muslim migrants and avoid nationalist solutions. The Church in Italy is particularly focused on this orientation.
The Bishop emeritus of Casserta, Monsignor Raffaele Nogaro, is ready to turn all churches into mosques in service to mass migration. “Morally and as a man of faith I would be willing to turn all churches into mosques if it were useful to the cause and if it helped to save the lives of poor and unhappy men and women, because Christ did not come to earth to build churches but to help men regardless of race, religion, or nationality,” Nogaro said last July.
The Church is one of the primary housers of Italy’s migrant surge, deploying several Church-owned properties for that purpose. One of the Catholic groups most active in settling migrants in Italy is, hilariously, the Order of Malta — the successor to the Knights Hospitaller who defended Europe from Muslim invaders for centuries. The current grand master of the order, Albrecht von Boeselager, has said Europe’s soul will be gravely affected if it does not take in more migrants crossing the Mediterranean.
That’s quite a different opinion from the Knights who died at the Siege of Malta and the Battle of Lepanto.
The Vatican’s Migration and Refugees office has continually berated Italy to take in more non-Europeans, deploying such messages as: “Immigrants make it possible to solve a problem that the current social security system is not able to face, namely the reduction in the number of Italian workers,” and “Migrants, the poor are a thermometer for our faith. Not accepting them, above all by closing our hearts, is not believing in God.”
Many Italian clerics have raised their voices in protest against the nationalist policies of Matteo Salvini. The Guardian even claims Catholic priests comprise the strongest opposition against Salvini. One priest forbade “racists” from entering his church. Others have led protests against the government. The powerful Archbishop of Milan has continually refused to meet with Salvini or any other officials from the Lega. Several priests vow to practice civil disobedience “like Martin Luther King” against a new law that rescinds “humanitarian protection” for many migrants. One of those priests told Salvini supporters that they shouldn’t display nativity scenes at Christmas because they’re not real Christians.
America’s Catholic institutions also play a major role in bringing Muslim immigrants to our country. Church-affiliated charities are one of the leaders in resettling refugees in the U.S., 40 percent of whom were Muslim in 2014. Catholic charities led the way in turning Minneapolis into Little Mogadishu. In the fiscal year of 2016, for instance, Catholic Charities of St. Paul-Minneapolis settled 317 Somalis into the Minnesota metropolis. The group touts its work as the perfect expression of Catholic Social Teaching and says concerns about the threat of these new arrivals are misguided.
Minneapolis is the epicenter of Islamic radicalism in America thanks to the Somali community brought to the city by Catholic charities.
It’s unlikely that the American church will change its ways. Federal aid for refugee resettlement makes up a substantial portion of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ income, with the conference receiving over $2 billion for this purpose from 2008 to 2015.
The institutional Church is not an obstacle to Islam, and it’s not just the crazy liberal priests who welcome their old religious foes. Many trads see Muslim migration as a good thing for the West because they are people of faith and believe in God, unlike most white Europeans.
This argument was made by the influential integralist priest, Edmund Waldstein. Waldstein is the editor of the popular integralist outlet, The Josias. The priest argued in a 2017 essay that no nation has the right to frame its immigration policy exclusively on “what benefits us.”
One reader replied with his concerns about the mass migration of Muslims to the historic Christendom. Waldstein dismissed those concerns with this reply: “As to current Muslim immigration to Europe — Europe, or at least Austria, has become so secularized that it is a bit late in the day to worry about de-Christianization. Young Muslim men at least believe in God, which is a step up from most young Austrian men.”
Waldstein responded to further criticism of his stance with assertions that contact with Muslims persuade Europeans to return to the faith and that many Muslims convert to Christianity once they come to Europe. Both assertions are dubious as European church attendance continues to dwindle as the Muslim population soars, and the number of new converts appears negligible.
This may be just one priest, but The Josias does have significant influence over American Catholic intellectuals, and this opinion reflects the church’s current position. Other traditionalist Catholics like devout Muslims because they constitute a front against liberalism and see Islamic fundamentalism as a potential ally against secularism.
Many nationalists look to the Catholic Church as an institution that could unite Europe against Islam. It has in the past and will do so again if the right leaders take charge, so these right-wingers argue. However, there is no real militant movement against Islam in the Church. The Papacy was once a fierce enemy of liberalism. But ever since Vatican II’s rapprochement with the modern world, the Church has come to terms with liberalism.
The same appears to be happening with Islam. Islam is on the march, while Catholicism is on the decline. The Church wants to come to terms with this ascendant force in order to survive, albeit in a weakened and submissive state. Francis’s agreement and smooch with the grand imam allowed Catholics to celebrate mass in the Gulf States. The pope was the weaker partner in these negotiations, which is how they will be in the years to come.
Pius V, this pope is not. It’s highly unlikely Francis’s successor will demonstrate a more militant position against Islam — the church no longer has the will to make such a stand. Rather than an ally to resist Islam and other threats to the West, the Church is more likely to serve as an ally to these enemies.
Resistance to Islam will not come from the institutional Church, but the laity. Everyday Catholics will be the ones to force the Church to stand up against Islam and make no compromises the foreign threat. That role was once played by the popes; it’s now up to secular rulers and movements to carry on that mission
Note
[1] Roger Crowley. Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World
21 Comments
As a white nationalist I believe in the right of every human group defined by race and culture to live in freedom and dignity in its own living space. Therefore I have no problem with these words of Pope Francis :
“…The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings,”… “This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives…”
But “respect for others” should not mean granting to aliens the right to invade our living space, outnumber us and ultimately destroy us. That would mean the end of “pluralism” this Pope pretends to honor so much.
Whether the RCC church has been infiltrated or has itself succumbed to moral degeneration (probably both), it is no more a bulwark against foreign invasions as it used to be. The other Christian denominations are little better.
I don’t think Christianity can be “regenerated” any more. With its complicity in the White Genocide Project it has forfeited any allegiance of Whites for ever. It will become a majority non-white religion in the near future anyway. Expect a non-white Pope soon.
Robert Sarah is a favorite to replace Bergoglio. He is also backed by more “conservative” factions so he would be a bone the organization could throw to them to pretend the whole organization hasn’t gone full on marxist-progressive.
Much as I would love to see Cardinal Sarah (or even better, Cardinal Burke) as the next Pope, I can’t see this happening. Pope Francis has stacked the college of Cardinals with like-minded progressives so that’s the kind of man they will elect. I can’t see things in the Church getting any better in our lifetimes, short of Divine intervention.
Christianity is not the solution to atheism or Islam.
Christianity was the stepping stone which led to Islam.
Christianity was atheist towards the hundreds of deities that existed in traditional Europe, and this atheism was eventually supplanted by an even stronger atheism, one which denied the existence of the Christian god in addition to the various historical gods that Christianity denied thousands of years prior
So, going by this essay, I guess I can figure the most accurate answer to the question, “Is Catholicism A Bulwark Against Islam?” is “Depends on whose in charge”.
I think what needs to be shown is whether or not the church can redeem itself for Europeans by being infiltrated by white nationalists like how it was infiltrated by pedophiles and Marxists.
But it may very well be that the values of Christianity are hostile to essential European-ness in-and-of-themselves.
So, going by this essay, I guess I can figure the most accurate answer to the question, “Is Catholicism A Bulwark Against Islam?” is “Depends on whose in charge”.
If the election of Trump should have taught people anything, it’s that bureaucratic institutions are structurally protected against a reformer at the head actually changing its major policy goals.
The complete reversal of the historical attitude on behalf of the RCC and most other Christian denominations to the threat of Islam appears incomprehensible, but in reality the new policy is a knowing and willing alliance with evil. We can guess political pressure was exerted on the churches to align them with the globalist paradigm, but the choice to accept or resist was ultimately theirs, and they chose not only non-resistance but enthusiastic acceptance and servile compliance.
The hierarchy of the Churches can with vanity comfort themselves they will be admitted to the highest councils of some future World Government and will have a hand in shaping global policy. Meanwhile these churchmen have consigned the descendants of faithful Christians to a future of dispossession, servitude and probable genocide.
“Resistance to Islam will not come from the institutional Church, but the laity. Everyday Catholics will be the ones to force the Church to stand up against Islam and make no compromises the foreign threat. That role was once played by the popes; it’s now up to secular rulers and movements to carry on that mission”
What is more likely is that the madness of liberalism/leftism (e.g., all that ‘LGBTQ’ stuff) will drive masses to Islam. It almost seems like that is the plan. I mean, the high-level globalists might have in mind Islam as a neat political formula to manage the masses, long-term.
I would like to add to this excellent, important essay a few thoughts.
Christendom was once quite synonymous with Europe, and the defense of Christendom was once quite synonymous with the defense of the white world, but this is no longer the case. Shouldn’t the millions upon millions of non-white Christians be viewed as a part of Christendom now, more so even than the millions upon millions of non-Christian or anti-Christian whites? Shouldn’t white racialists be glad that so many of the non-whites of the world, especially those on Europe’s periphery, were/are Muslim or some other non-Christian religion, so as to help block racial miscegenation?
The case for banning non-white Christians from entering white lands, or, even more, for expelling them from white lands, seems to me highly difficult to make under traditional Roman Catholicism. I would also add that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible and binding on Roman Catholics in it’s teachings on doctrine and morality, and the Pope, in unity with virtually all of the world’s Roman Catholic Bishops, seem to me quite clear and unified in teaching that white racialism is immoral (i.e., this should fall under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium).
Mike,
Greg Johnson has written on this subject. Christianity was only accidentally “white” and “European.”
“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.” – St Augustine of Hippo, commentary on Galatians 3:27-28.
The Church Fathers were never so foolish to believe that following Christ eliminated racial differences (in fact, they seemed to have an implicit disdain for Africans). Nor, in fact, were most Christians, until several decades ago. Similarly, the existence of distinct nations (or ‘ethnes’ in the Greek) with defined boundaries is taken as a given. There is simply no basis for any kind of multicultural melting pot in the Scriptures, and the contrary is actually more likely, given the scattering of the nations at the Tower of Babel, and the use of foreign invaders and ethnic displacement as God’s favoured means of punishing sinful nations.
Just because millions of Africans have embraced Christ (or more accurately, have put a Christian veneer on their primitive witch-doctoring), this does not override national political boundaries.
I’d say Christianity is a bulwark against Islam, but the Roman Catholic Church most definitely is not. The structure and size of the church has made it an incredibly effective vehicle for the dissemination of heresies and degeneracy, unfortunately.
Let the Church rot; an association of sexual degenerates and sell-outs. Christianity is a corpse and we’re better off without. Our virtues existed before the Christ cult and will ultimately outlive it.
“Pope Francis kisses up to the Grand Imam of al-Azha.”
Well, you are judged by with whom you associate with.
I ask you to dedicate 1 hour (just that, not full 2 hours) of your time and watch this video (it will not be a wasted time):
Allah & Muhammad had nothing to do with the Quran or Islam – Islam is founded on Lies & Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ySbW-btfK8
This is the world we live in …
You’re all a bunch of bunch of saps. Sorry for sounding harsh but you are. It is now, right on the dot, the minute as we speak in this day and age that we really live in the era of Christendom. The words of Jesus is finally fully put in practice. All kinds of political correctness and Cultural Marxism is the Sermon on the Mount par excellence and the rest of all absurdities and sadomasochism in the New Testament.
( Here I hear Christians yelling; “Hey! That is just a metaphors! It is taking out of context! It is just an allegory! That’s not real Christianity! Read Thomas Aquinas! Bla bla bla..”. Heard It all before. Just like college communists: “Real communism hasn’t been tried!”)
As much as I admire the courage of the knights and Templars ( I love to read about medieval warriors, the crusades and the holy warrior monks). As much as I defend the hierarchical and traditional society before the French revolution. As much as I love to take strolls and contemplative walks in old cemeteries and graveyards. Visiting and enjoying the silence in old churches, majestic cathedrals with their sublime architecture. Enjoy the beautiful sounds of Georgian chants and old Orthodox psalms. The magnificent old art , sculptures, paintings with Christian motives its not Christianity I see, I see the genuine mind and the superior soul and gene pool of the European white man and the pagan spirit. All of this is manifestations and expressions of the white western spirit, aestheticism, intelligence and bravery. Got nothing to do with Christianity.
Christianity is not dead or rotting. It is fully alive, it just have different names. It is the first and only religion where a all knowing , almighty God takes a human form and demanding fundamental pacifism, love the ones who is abusing and destroying you (“Hey! That is just a metaph….! Vatican II! Me: Shut up!”) and wants you to break away from kin, blood, folk and just follow him.
Twist and turn. Rationalize and avoid. Change the subject if you wish. But facts is facts. Nuda veritas.
Everything good with “old Christianity” is pagan. Everything bad with” modern liberal cuck Christianity” is real authentic Christianity just what Jesus preached.
Still to this day. Nobody has been able to rip this apart. To counter this and smash it philosophically to pieces with sharp argument based by the teaching of Jesus, not some theologian who came one thousand years after Jesus and based everything on pagan philosophy.
Nobody. Because this is the essence and the true face of Christianity;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKQzyNr7b4
That was an interesting video; the Christian was spouting incoherent gibberish and the Muslim was not properly explaining what Muslims really believe about the crucifixation, which to Christians is absolute heresy.
Islams perspective on the crucifixion was never the issue. The debate was about “Who is the true Jesus?” And Christianity was taken to school and humiliated by their own account. The Muslim was simply quoting and mentioning what the Christians believe. He was clam and very confident. The thing with Christianity is that they never have straight answer for anything.
Christians often don’t have a “straight answer” because the concepts involved are complicated and rely on having a relatively informed audience who are prepared to listen in good faith (a very rare thing).
In this video the Christian gave a very garbled response, although I think it contained some elements of truth (C S Lewis gives a much clearer and fairly basic explanation in ‘Mere Christianity’).
However, the Muslim in the video just illustrated that Islam is essentially heretical Christianity for low-IQ brown people that have no hope of ever understanding the intricacies of Christian philosophy. He can’t understand the basic premises of the Christian position, and just ends up providing a bunch of entry-level objections (“if God dies, who runs the universe?)” Of course, they don’t believe in free will and how it relates to ideas such as evil, sin and forgiveness, so the Christian position makes utterly no sense to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0
“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Buddha
Maximus is correct. Everything good about Catholicism was pagan, everything weak and destructive is Christian. Protestants hated the RC church for being pagan. They were the first judaizers. Now, since Vatican II, the Church is Protestant.
Hail Ođin, hail Freyja, hail Thor!
More indicative is the inability of sentimental intellectuals without a virile foundation to their activity, and other pro-Catholic polemicists who sympathize with the Dissident Right to understand that even if conditions were more favourable, that is to say, if Catholicism stuck to some kind of status quo which usually converges with the most provincial type of Conservatism, it would still be a quite lame foundation for anything else but the same old regime of moralistic mediocrity. Some even see that quite unapologetically as the ideal state of mankind.
We have ample examples where “witty” intellects, not lucking at all in the subtle art of casuistry and irony lent themselves to this and other futile causes, because belonging to a party is such a fundamental aspect of their sense of identification.
Catholicism is and always has been a Bulwark Against White Western Aryans. Now we see the results.