The Conspiracy Theory Surrounding Benedict XVI's Resignation Attempts to Nullify Pope Francis' Progressive Social Agenda, while American Protestant Churches Wrestle with the Same Issues

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND RELIGION. One would think they would usually agree, but that is far from the case. • • • THE CONSPIRACY THEORY SURROUNDING POPE BENEDICT XVI'S RESIGNATION. The theory that he resigned under pressure from within the Vatican got a lot of play in the first several years after Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from the papacy in February 2013. Its focus was that Pope Benedict XVI did not, or could not, cast off his papal status, and in trying to do so, if it was under pressure, was invalid. The "conspiracy theory" is used by the traditionalist side of the Church to cast doubt on the validity of Pope Francis and his left-leaning social agenda. • In February, 2105, the Atlantic wrote an article on the second anniversary of his resignation that offered two versions of the "conspiracy theory." Noting that Benedict's announcement that he was stepping down for health reasons "shocked the Catholic Church and much of the world, the Atlantic said it also "loosed conspiracy theorists who believe Benedict was forced to resign....one of the former pope's top lieutenants defended the 87-year-old's choice." Monsignor Georg Gaenswein told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera : "Benedict XVI is convinced that the decision that he took and communicated was right. He has no doubts." • But, for the Atlantic, the mere denial of any pressure on Benecict to resign was suspect : "The statement, when read closely, could be meaningful for two reasons. That a surrogate of Benedict is still out protecting the pope emeritus in the press might speak to an inherent defensiveness....Then, there is the theory of his 'forced resignation,' which would invalidate the election of Pope Francis. 'Church law says a pope's resignation is valid only if he takes the decision in full freedom and without pressure from others,' Reuters noted last year." • VALIDITY. That is the point of the "conspiracy theory." According to the Atlantic, " the circumstances surrounding Benedict's decision to step down have titillated scholars and the journalists alike, especially given the fact that his resignation came not long after the 'Vatileaks' scandal. The release of internal Vatican memos, by some accounts, revealed how Benedict's efforts to reform the church, like provide transparency on the global sex abuse scandal and the management of the Vatican bank, were undercut by internal politics." • In The Washington Post in 2013, Jason Horowitz summed up how the leaks might affect Benedict's legacy : "It showed how Benedict, a weak manager who may most be remembered for the way in which he left office, was no match for a culture that rejected even a modicum of transparency and preferred a damage-control campaign that diverted attention from the institution’s fundamental problems." • BUT, the talk that Benedict was forced out started in the Italian media, as Reuters stated, and the "Vatileaks" itself was portrayed as proof that "that a faction of prelates who wanted to discredit Benedict and pressure him to resign was behind the leaks." The Atlantic's Paul Elie noted that Benedict still wears white -- "the papal vestments sans cape and sash"-- which others have taken as a signal that the pope emeritus still feels a bit like the pontiff....According to the AP, a retired Kazakh archbishop joined the chorus of those who say Benedict didn't choose to go. • In a letter to Vatican Insider, one of Benedict's few public statements since his resignation, he stressed again that there "is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation." Yet, Benedict's personal denial of any forced resignation led the Atlantic to end its article with this -- "Doth he protest too much?" • The "conspiracy theory" has played into the dissatisfaction with Pope Francis, led by the more traditionalist side of the Church. BECAUSE IF Benedict was "forced" to resign, the resignation was invalid and nothing Pope Francis has done has papal authority because he is an invalid Pope. • Last September, the Vatican Insider column of La Stampa published an article whose title was "And Benedict XVI wrote: Enough! There is only one Pope, and it’s not me." The article addressed Benedict's (Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming Pope) letters to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller published by “Bild,” calling them the latest attempt of so-called Ratzingerians to "exploit" the Pope Emeritus. La Stampa's Andrea Tornielli wrote : "Pope Emeritus’ letter to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller published by Bild was not just 'one' letter. Actually, they were two letters. In the first, written on 9 November 2017, Benedict XVI commented on the interview that Brandmüller had given on 28 October to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The second was on 23 November, and was written by Ratzinger in response to a letter from the cardinal. The two letters, initially presented as one, were relaunched -- with ulterior motives -- to set the pope emeritus against the reigning Pope." • That certainly sounds like "conspiracy" raising its head again. Tornielli said : "Let’s examine the first letter first. Benedict XVI responds to Brandmüller’s statements on the renunciation of the pontificate. The cardinal, a scholar of Church history, had stated that Ratzinger, in deciding to be called “Pope Emeritus”, had created a figure that did not exist in the whole history of the Church. Here’s how the interested party replies : 'You obviously know very well that -- though very rarely -- there were Popes who retired. What were they afterwards? Pope Emeritus? Or what else?' Benedict XVI introduces here an example, which has given rise to many speculations. 'As you know' -- writes Ratzinger to Brandmüller -- 'Pius XII left instructions in case of being captured by the Nazis : that from the moment of his capture he would no longer be Pope but a Cardinal again. Whether this simple return to the Cardinalate would have been in fact possible, we do not know.' Benedict here refers to the letter that Pope Pacelli had left in case of deportation : the College of Cardinals should have considered him fallen and proceed to elect his successor. 'So the Nazis will deport Cardinal Pacelli, not the Pope,' Pius XII confided to his collaborators. The example of the Pope deported by the Nazis made plotters raise their antennae : why did Benedict XVI mention precisely this example? Perhaps he also resigned because he was forced to, because he feared, etc. etc.?" • Torrnielli dismisses this "conspiracy" theory : "From what follows in the letter, it is evident that the example is cited for the part concerning the simple return of the renouncing Pope to the College of Cardinals. 'In my case it surely would not have made sense simply to claim a return to the Cardinalate. I then would have constantly been exposed to the public in the way a Cardinal is -- indeed, even more so, because in that Cardinal one would have seen the former Pope. This could have led, intentionally or unintentionally, to difficult consequences, particularly in the context of the present situation. With the Pope Emeritus I tried to create a situation in which I was absolutely inaccessible to the mass media and in which it was fully clear that there is only one Pope. If you know of a better way and thus believe that you may condemn the one I have chosen, please tell me about it.' " • With that, says Tornielli, Benedict swept away once again the absurd theories on the “shared papacy,” on the resigning Pope who has not really resigned, on the Pope who remains the true Pope, as well as the nonsense cloaked in canonical consistency about the existence of a “munus petrinus” [the ministry of Peter] detachable from his exercise...and tries to put an end to the conspiracy theories concerning his resignation. • Brandmüller replied to this letter on 15 November 2017, apologizing to Benedict for the statements made in the interview: he said he was sorry and assured that he would say nothing more about it, but in all probability, he insisted on the “pain” caused by the decision to renounce. Benedict, who had evidently been touched and wounded by Brandmüller’s words, replied on 23 November, with a further letter, thanking him for his commitment to no longer ask questions about his resignation. But, Benedict continues : “The deep-seated pain that the end of my pontificate has caused in you, as in many others, I can understand very well. But the pain in some -- and it seems to me also in you -- has turned into anger, which no longer regards only the resignation, but increasingly is expanding to my person and to my pontificate as a whole." In this manner, a pontificate is being devalued and fused into a sadness about the situation of the Church today.” • There it is again -- another phrase --"the sadness about the situation of the Church today" -- that the "conspiracy theory" could feed on. Was the Pope Emeritus’ heavily judging his successor Pope Francis? Or was Benedict referring to the crises that are roiling around the papacy of Francis -- sexual abuse, infidelity of the clergy, flaunted doctrinal disagreements. Why did the old German Cardinal Brandmüller release those two letters. La Stampa suggests this : "It is difficult to imagine that Bild 'stole' them by breaking into his home in the Vatican, since they were paper copies and therefore not present in the memory of the cardinal’s computer. At the center is the ecclesiastical-media network, with fringes in the Vatican, protagonist of the daily attacks against Pope Francis. A network that has repeatedly attempted to enroll Benedict XVI. Moreover, the discussion on the not-yet-codified [spelled out as part of canon law] figure of the 'Pope Emeritus' is a subject on which the Church will have to reflect in the future. Benedict...has intelligently decided not to codify it. There is no doubt that the decision to keep the pontifical name, the white garment and the title of 'Pope Emeritus' (where the word Pope comes before the adjective Emeritus), together with some of the statements of the collaborators, have contributed to fuel doubts, uncertainties and even, in some, the idea that the Pope Emeritus is 'still some way a Pope,' who becomes then a point of reference for the fringe of those who are disappointed with the reigning Pope." • Yet, the widely read Vittorio Messori -- “the most translated Catholic writer in the world” -- published an article in Corriera della Sera in 2015, in which he discussed a newly published study by Stefano Violi, esteemed Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bologna and Lugano. Professor Violi’s study, which includes a detailed examination of the Latin text of the Papal resignation, argues that Pope Benedict did not intend to completely renounce the Papal office, but only the active exercise thereof. His intent was essentially to split the Papacy in two, thereby transforming the Papal Monarchy into a Papal Diarchy. In Messori’s words : "Benedict did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, nor the office, or the duties, i.e., which Christ Himself attributed to the Head of the Apostles and which has been passed on to his successors. The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office....In the formula employed by Benedict, primarily, there is a distinction between the munus, the papal office, and the execution, that is the active exercise of the office itself : but the executio is twofold : there is the governmental aspect which is exercised agendo et loquendo (working and teaching); but there is also the spiritual aspect, no less important, which is exercised orando et patendo (praying and suffering). It is that which would be behind Benedict XVI’s words : 'I do not return to private life...I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.'....If Professor Violi is correct, Pope Benedict did not intend to fully renounced the Papal office, but only a portion of the exercise thereof (working and teaching). This novel act of Pope Benedict would explain why he has retained the papal coat of arms, continues to wear the white cassock, and, rather than returning to his pre-papal name Cardinal Ratzinger, has chosen the title 'His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus.'....Pope Benedict’s trusted secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, explained why Benedict retained his papal name. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, the Archbishop said the reason Benedict retained the Papal name is because 'he considers that this title corresponds to reality.' Socci then adds : 'Anyone can understand that this statement is of exceptional importance : it means that Ratzinger dresses like a Pope because ‘he is’ Pope.' " • In his article in Corriera della Sera, Messori asks the question, 'would the Church then for the first time, truly have two Popes, one reigning and one emeritus?” and then replies : "It appears that this was the will of Joseph Ratzinger himself, with the renunciation of active service only and that it was 'a solemn act of his magisterium,' to cite the canon lawyer [Professor Violi]." • • • WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT THESE NICETIES OF CHURCH LAW? Because Benedict XVI undertook a novel act, which appears to be an attempt to change the nature of the divinely instituted Papacy. It apparently has no theological or canonical foundation, and therefore raises a number of crucial questions. For one, Papal Infallibility cannot be split between two men, so which one of the two is infallible? The one who retains the spiritual dimension of the pontifical munus, or the one charged with the active exercise of the office? It should be noted that a pope can certainly delegate authority, but when he does so he does not delegate his infallibility, since papal infallibility is itself a personal prerogative that cannot be transferred to another. This may provide the answer to questions that have been on the mind of many traditionalist Catholics. The Remnant, a worldwide traditionalist journal, offers these issues -- (1) the validity of the canonization John XXIII and John Paul II by Francis when so many theologians have held that the canonization of saints is protected by infallibility. If Professor Violi is correct, the charism of infallibility may not reside with Francis, but instead be retained by His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus. (2) if Pope Benedict’s resignation was an attempt to change the nature of the Papacy by splitting it in two (which is not within the power of man to do), the Church may one day determine that the Papal events of February and March of 2013 were not what they appeared to be, and that “the Bishop in white” seen in the Vision of Fatima, is not Pope Benedict after all, but Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, coincidentally, doesn’t use the name Pope, but prefers the title “Bishop of Rome.” (3) St. Francis of Assisi predicted a time of tribulation in the Church, during which a man, non-canonically elected, is raised to the Pontificate, and who, by his cunning, endeavors leads many into error. St. Francis explains that, during this time of trial, those who hold to the faith and refuse to compromise will be persecuted and labeled as schismatics and rebels. All this they will endure because they refuse to consent to falsehood and perfidy. • The Remnant's statement of Purpose states that it has fought "against the revolution in the Church for over forty years, just as it has been fighting against the errors that infect the modern state -- Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, the New World Order, a degenerate youth culture, the abortion epidemic, euthanasia..." But, at the end of the day, Remnant insists that the Church’s legitimate pope is most certainly Pope Francis. • Canon law we leave to the canon lawyers and Church scholars. What is interesting for us is that there is apparently an inner circle in the Vatican -- composed of Chruch leaders and bureaucrats and their media network -- that is distraught at the left-leaning changes Pope Francis is making in the Church, many of them with grave social implications for Church doctrine. This inner circle is trying to use the canon law questions surrounding the extremely unusual resignation -- the first papal resignation in 600 years -- to somehow invalidate Pope Francis and his changes. They see Pope Francis as choosing consistently wrong when he faces Marxist regimes, radical Islam, and social issues. • For example, Gatestone Institute's Raymond Ibrahim reported on March 3 that 11 Christians are killed every day for their faith : "Last year, Christians were persecuted more than ever before in the modern era -- and this year is expected to be worse : '4,136 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons,' according to Open Doors USA. Additionally, '2,625 Christians were detained without trial, arrested, sentenced and imprisoned' in 2018, and '1,266 churches or Christian buildings were attacked.' Whereas 215 million Christians faced persecution in 2018, 245 million will suffer in 2019, according to Open Doors -- a 14% increase, that represents 30 million more people abused for their faith. This means that "1 in 9 Christians experience high levels of persecution worldwide.' " [Note: all quotations in this article are from the World Watch List 2019.]....Last year's WWL provided more specific numbers : 'At least six women every day are raped, sexually harassed or forced into marriage to a Moslem man under the threat of death for their Christian faith.'....Another trend, one that should send an alarm, is that, 'For the first time since the start of the WWL, India has entered the top 10' -- meaning Christians there are now experiencing 'extreme persecution.'....Islamic oppression continues to impact millions of Christians. In seven out of the top 10 World Watch List countries, the primary cause of persecution is Islamic oppression. This means, for millions of Christians -- particularly those who grew up Moslem or were born into Moslem families -- openly following Jesus can have painful consequences. They can be treated as second-class citizens, discriminated against for jobs or even violently attacked. Not only is that responsible for the persecution Christians face in seven of the ten worst nations; 38 of the 50 nations making the list are Moslem-majority....Despite the role of religion, North Korea (#1) remains the worst nation, where "never-ending pressure and violence" is directed against Christians : 'The primary driver of persecution in North Korea is the state. For three generations, everything in the country has focused on idolizing the Kim family. Christians are seen as hostiles to be eradicated.' As difficult as it is for Christians identified by the Kim regime, there may be some eventual relief for them and those in other communist nations (such as China, #27) : cults of personalities might last so long, but in the Arab and Moslem world, where, sadly, there seems to be little or no education to respect religious differences, the weight of the dominant religion continues to permeate all of society." BUT, Pope Francis is unusually quiet about the growing persecution of Christians. • • • POPE FRANCIS TRIES TO PRETEND THAT ISLAM IS NOT PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS. Again, it is Raymond Ibrahim who alerted us in February that : "The 'Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together' is being portrayed as a 'historic pledge of fraternity' and applauded as a 'historical breakthrough.' The problem is that one of the two men who signed it, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, has repeatedly contradicted -- when speaking in Arabic and appearing on Arabic media -- all the lofty sentiments highlighted in it." The new Document was signed by Pope Francis and Al Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on February 4, 2019. The two foremost representatives of Christianity and Islam, Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb -- the Grand Imam of Al Azhar who was once named the 'most influential Moslem in the world' -- signed the Document. The Vatican states that the Document 'forcefully rejects any justification of violence undertaken in the name of God,' and affirms 'respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty, as well as the recognition of the rights of women.' " Raymond Ibrahim gives several examples of the error in the Document. Here is one : " 'Freedom is a right of every person : each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action...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.' Al-Tayeb, however, is on record saying that apostates -- that is, anyone born to a Moslem father who wishes to leave Islam -- should be punished. As to the penalty they deserve, in July 2016, during one of his televised programs, al-Tayeb reaffirmed that 'Those learned in Islamic law [al-fuqaha] and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed." To underscore the point, he cited a hadith, or tradition, of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, saying, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari vol. 9 no.57) If those are al-Tayeb's views on religious freedom, what about his views concerning the 'other' -- people born non-Moslem? The Document he co-signed with Pope Francis calls for 'respect for believers of different faiths, the condemnation of all discrimination, the need to protect all places of worship, and the right to religious liberty.' Yet, many liberals and Moslem reformers in Egypt insist that the 'unprecedented persecution' experienced by Egypt's Coptic Christian minority is directly traceable to the institution al-Tayeb heads : Al Azhar, the world's pre-eminent Sunni university in Cairo....Al-Tayeb's response to all these critics has been to accuse... Israel. During a March 2018 televised Egyptian interview, he said : 'I have noticed that they are always telling us that terrorism is Islamic. All those mouthpieces that croak -- out of ignorance or because they were told to -- that the Al-Azhar curricula are the cause of terrorism never talk about Israel, about Israel's prisons, about the genocides perpetrated by the Zionist entity state...If not for the abuse of the region by means of the Zionist entity, there would never have been any problem.' This is apparently the true face of Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb -- at least as he is known in his Egyptian homeland, where he speaks Arabic freely and plainly -- as opposed to when 'dialoguing' with Western leaders who are all too eager to believe what they would like to hear." The entire Ibrahim article is available at < https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13706/pope-francis-ahmed-al-tayeb-document >. • Is the Pope who signed this Document the real Pope, or just the administrator of the real Pope Benedict XVI?? That is one possible question arising out of Benedict's "resignation." • We have often talked in our blog about the deal Pope Francis has entered into with China -- a deal that gives the Communist Chinese regime the right to select bishops for the Church and to demand that the already severely persecuted Chinese Catholics worship in churches whose liturgy and priests are created by the Chinese regime. Is this deal the deal of the real Pope, or just of the administrator of the real Pope Benedict XVI?? That is another possible question arising out of Benedict's "resignation." • • • THE SOCIALIST ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY. We are hard-pressed to find Pope Francis speaking out about these issues. He preferred to visit with the Castros in Cuba and send an emissary to the inauguration of the despot Madura in Venezuela -- the only western entity to do so. • There is some good news in America -- unlike the sad direction of many of the other mainline Protestant denominations in the US, in a historic, and what some view as a surprising, vote at their General Conference last week, faithful United Methodists, thanks in large part to African United Methodists, stood firm and rejected the LGBT agenda on sex and marriage; unlike American Methodists -- more than two-thirds of American delegates and a majority of American bishops supported the LGBT-driven "One-Church Plan" -- African Methodists overwhelmingly supported the Traditional Plan. • But, the vote did not sit well with Reverend Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe -- general secretary of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS, the United Methodist Church's controversial Washington lobby office) -- who angrily denounced the passage of the Traditional Plan. Juicy Ecumenism notes her remarks : "The 2019 General Conference chose to further deepen the divide in The United Methodist Church. The plan adopted by a slim majority is punitive, contrary to our Wesleyan heritage, and in clear violation of the mandate given to us in 1 Corinthians 12." Her comments were delivered in a GBCS press release appearing on the agency's web site using church letterhead. It was disseminated using church resources. Reverned Henry-Crowe wrote that the Traditional Plan's adoption "broke the heart of God" at the General Conference : "We will seek justice for LGBTQIA migrants. We will seek to end conversion therapy, the dangerous and discredited idea that you can change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. We will work to ensure that no one is fired from their job or prevented from access to housing because they are LGBTQIA. We will work to end hate crimes against LGBTQIA people, especially LGBTQIA people of color. We will seek a climate in which LGBTQIA children are protected and enabled to live full and flourishing lives." • American Thinker said of Henry-Crowe's outburst : "In other words, in clear contradiction to a wide array of Scripture, Henry-Crowe and her ilk will continue their war on the truth. This should be unsurprising, given that the website of the 'Christian' organization Henry-Crowe leads declares that 'What We Care About' is 'civil and human rights; economic justice; environmental justice; health and wholeness; peace with justice; women and children.' In all the items the GBCS chose to highlight as 'What We Care About,' there's no mention of Jesus, or salvation, or discipleship, or Scripture....If your moral compass is pointing in the same direction as those who say there is no God, why not simply abandon religion altogether? Nevertheless, these 'Christians' continue their charade." • We cannot blame Pope Francis for this attack on the United Methodist Traditional Plan, but we have also not heard any support for it from the US Catholic hierarchy. And, while none of us wants any LGBTQ person to be persecuted or turned away from church membership, we also do not want the Christian view of marriage or the Constitution's protection of freedom of religion to be mowed under by activists who try to force on Christianity their extreme views about the proper treatment of LGBTQ people. • American Thinker's Rick Moran said on March 2 that "social justice" is killing organized religion. Moran notes : "A fascinating article by Joel Kotkin in The Tablet describes the precipitous decline in membership to organized churches and synagogues, with a primary reason being the growing influence in these religious organizations of leftists and leftist dogma. The numbers are shocking. It's not just the decline of members that's concerning; it's the aging of the church-going population that jumps out at you. For example, attendance at conservative and reformed synagogues is declining at a time when the average age of Reform congregations is 54, and only 17% of members say they attend religious services even once a month. It's just as bad for Christians....The share of Americans who belong to the Catholic Church has declined from 24% in 2007 to 21% in 2014, a more rapid decline according to Pew, than any other religious organization in memory. There are 6.5 former Catholics in the US for every new convert to the faith, not a number suggesting a very sunny future. The mainstream Protestant churches are not exactly filling the sanctuaries either. Some, like the internally conflicted Methodists have seen their number of North American congregants drop from 15 million in 1970 to barely half that today. Since 2007 alone, America's mainstream churches have lost 5 million members, and even the once vibrant evangelical movement is losing adherents outside of the developing world. Ever more churches, particularly in urban areas, are being abandoned, turned into bars, restaurants, and luxury condos. And nothing augurs worse for the future than the fact that American millennials are leaving religious institutions at a rate four times that of their counterparts three decades ago; almost 40% of people 18 to 29 are not unaffiliated." • Moran tells us : "It's not that the young consider themselves less 'spiritual' than their elders. Millennials have eschewed traditional, mainstream faiths and, according to one author, are constantly searching for a spiritual outlet : 'For one thing, young Americans have different habits. Rather than join institutions, millennials, argued Wade Clark Roof, author of the book Spiritual Marketplace, are indulging in a kind of 'grazing,' finding their spiritual fixes in various different places rather than any one organized church. As sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell explained, those in this age group 'reject conventional religious affiliation, while not entirely giving up their religious feelings.' " • BUT, says Moran : "There is plenty of evidence that the turn by mainstream religions away from traditional beliefs toward 'social justice' causes is driving away more traditionally-minded members. In this difficult environment, many religious movements -- Reform Judaism, mainstream Protestantism, and increasingly the Catholic Church under Pope Francis -- have sought to redefine themselves largely as instruments of social justice. Although doing good deeds, or mitzvot, long has constituted a strong element in most religions, the primary motivation of the faith community traditionally focused on heritage, spirituality, and family. In their haste to be politically correct, even Catholic private schools such as Notre Dame are rushing to cover up murals of Columbus, and, in one California case, a private Catholic grammar school has gone as far as hiding statues of saints. Yet rebranding themselves as Progressive often brings religious activists into alliances with people who reject their core values. The Catholic left, for example, allying itself with the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, implicitly embraces the advocates of the most extreme abortion liberalization. Sometimes, these linkages are ironic : Faith in Public Life, for example, a strident 'religious' group advocating a Progressive anti-Trump line, gets much of its funding from George Soros, arguably the world's most well-heeled and active promoter of atheism. The Catholic Church has other problems besides embracing Progressive thought. And mainstream protestant denominations are feeling it the most. Splits between conservatives and liberals among Methodists on LGBT issues has split the church. Some denominations embrace redefining marriage and gay clergy while others push back against the tide. What seems clear is that churches that embrace Progressive causes risk alienating many of their members. There are almost certainly leaders in these denominations who sincerely believe that these causes are based in faith." • • • DEAR READERS, 'what would Jesus do' is a popular question on the left because they usually see Jesus in secular terms and describe Him as a revolutionary figure who cared deeply about inequality of wealth and the poor. They reject the argument that Christ's divine mission on Earth had nothing to do with Progressive causes or even with secular concerns. No, the Progressives say, Jesus was a man who fought for those who were less fortunate -- and they see themselves in that description. The Left doesn't care about traditional faith, largely because there are too many strictures against doing what feels good, especially the demand to treat others -- even your political opponents -- as you yourself would want to be treated. Churches and Christian leaders who embrace social justice causes at the expense of traditional faith are either too stupid or too naïve to accept the Left's disinterest in them. They are simply used as tools to further the radical agenda." • The Divine mission of Jesus was to save mankind -- humankind -- from eternal damnation, to wash their sinful souls clean of the mark of Satan and make them acceptable to God the Father. There is nothing about LGBT marriage or pastors or shaking hands with athiest Communist regimes and turning over to them the Church's 2,000-year-old mission of selecting and training priests and choosing bishops to lead the Christian flock. Nor is there anything about mixing the Christian Church and its mission of human salvation with the ideas of secular political bodies. In fact, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." He never admonished His Church to become actively involved in secular states or their political agendas. But, He did tell his followers to love God, love one another, and treat others as they would want to be treated. There's the problem -- as we are learning, if we give a Progressive a seat at the table and he will soon kick us out of the room and decide alone who should sit at the table with him. Jesus' message is not political, and it is certainly not Progressive. It is about seeking personal salvation. Pope Francis or Pope Benedict XVI, whichever is the real Pope, should be steadfastly focused on that and leave politics to the politicians.