It takes a village idiot…

United Nations in the Classroom: Bergoglio’s “Global Compact on Education” Examined

No matter what problems rattle our globe, the man with all the answers is “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio). That, at least, is what he thinks, and he behaves accordingly.

On Sep. 12, 2019, the Vatican had announced a forthcoming initiative to be spearheaded by Bergoglio “to shape the future of humanity by forming mature individuals who can overcome division and care for our common home”. A conference to sign the so-called “Global Compact on Education” was originally set to occur on May 14, 2020, but due to the Coronavirus lockdowns, the event was postponed and finally took place in curtailed and improvised fashion on Oct. 15, 2020, at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. Vatican News released a video of the conference:

Francis participated virtually by means of an 18-minute video message he had recorded and which was shown during the conference. A stand-alone video of just his address is available in the original Italian here.

The French Novus Ordo site La Croix International summarized Francis’ message thus: “Pope Francis called on all people of goodwill and every sector of society to support the Global Compact on Education, a pact to encourage change on a global scale, so that education may become a creator of fraternity, peace, and justice.”

Not surprisingly, Francis’ goals match those of the godless United Nations, an organization the Modernist Vatican has a real fondness for: “His message echo’s [sic] that of the Director General of UNESCO Audrey Azoulay who joined the pope at the virtual relaunch of the education pact”, La Croix writes.

In his address of Sep. 12, 2019, announcing the start of the educational initiative, Francis had called for an “educational village” to be created, echoing Hillary Clinton and her revolutionary ideological mentor, the Luciferian Saul Alinsky. The commentary we offered at the time is perhaps worth a fresh glance:

We will now go ahead and examine certain portions of Francis’ new message, delivered this past Thursday. A full transcript in English and other languages has been made available on the Vatican web site:

As always, and as is the case throughout his new encyclical Fratelli Tutti, Bergoglio’s message contains plenty of so-called ipse-dixits. These are assertions that are made without evidence, yet are treated as though they were incontrovertibly true.

For example, he claims: “Faced with this dramatic situation [of children falling behind in their schooling due to Coronavirus lockdown measures, etc.], we know that necessary health care measures will prove inadequate unless accompanied by a new cultural model.” This is typical for “Pope” Francis: He makes a potentially far-reaching claim but gives absolutely no indication as to why it should be true — and its veracity is certainly far from manifest.

Why should we need a “new cultural model” to assist with health care measures and/or education? What is a new cultural model? What is the old one? One looks in vain for answers in what follows: “We have become more conscious of the need to change our model of development”, he says in his very next sentence.

Speaking of a “need” that “we” have become “more conscious” of, is always a favorite tactic to introduce all kinds of novelties and errors, as it is very easy to do and usually successful to boot. It’s what Francis did with his doctrinal change on the death penalty, for instance. The Bergoglian edition of the Novus Ordo Catechism states: “Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state” (n. 2267; underlining added). Isn’t it amazing what can happen when we “become aware” of a “new understanding”?!

Returning to Francis’ message on education, he states: “In order to ensure that the dignity of the human person is respected and protected, development ought to start from the opportunity that global interdependence offers to communities and peoples to care for our common home and to foster peace.” Oh yeah? Read through this a few times and try to make out what is actually being said. Even if you can, the statement is so vague as to require lots of clarification and concretization. He might as well have said nothing.

Then comes another ipse dixit: “We are experiencing a comprehensive crisis that cannot be reduced or limited to any single sector. It affects everything.” That may sound great, but not only is it offered without evidence, what is said does not even follow. It is one thing to say that a crisis cannot be reduced to a single sector, and quite another to say it affects everything — just as saying you can’t decide on a particular car to purchase isn’t the same thing as saying you’d like to buy the whole lot.

Next comes what is perhaps the most hilarious contention in the whole text: “The pandemic has led us to realize that what is really in crisis is our way of understanding reality and of relating to one another.” No doubt, that’s it: We have been deficient in “understanding reality”, so Jorge to the rescue! No, thanks.

There is no reason whatsoever to maintain, as the false pope happily does, that Coronavirus has allowed us to see that our “way of relating to one another” is in crisis. If anything, the opposite is the case: If people now have to take protective measures and maintain distance and this seems unnatural or problematic, then that shows that we’d been relating to one another just fine, namely, quite naturally, with the very “closeness” Francis always likes to harp on. If there is now a crisis, it’s because of all the distancing and ridiculous “protective measures.”

In any case, Francis is happy to join other globalists in speaking a crisis into existence so he can propose a “solution” for it by means of this new education initiative which he is now cheering. This will allow him to inculcate his apostate Masonic-Modernist principles into unsuspecting youthful souls. If there is a crisis of relating to each other, it’s because of original sin — and the remedy is, as always, the supernatural grace of God and the supernatural truth of the Gospel, not “processes that consciously work to overcome the existing fragmentation and the conflicts that we all bring with us”, as he says in his message later on.

Before long there comes another doozy: “If our educational systems are presently marked by a mindset of replacement and repetition, and are incapable of opening up new horizons in which hospitality, intergenerational solidarity and the value of transcendence can give birth to a new culture, would this not signify that we are failing to take advantage of the opportunity offered by this historic moment?”

New horizons! Transcendence! New culture! Already in his 2019 message for the educational alliance with the secular world, the antipope had called for a “new humanism”, and at World Youth Day 2016 in Poland, he commended the “dreaming” youngsters for supposedly “believ[ing] in a new humanity”. Alas, the new horizons, culture, and humanity Bergoglio is after is not “in Christ a new creature” (2 Cor 5:17), the “new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth” (Eph 4:24). Rather, it is the New Man of Freemasonry — a “new humanity” in which all are united not in supernatural Faith, hope, and charity through the grace of Christ but in a Naturalist brotherhood that seeks its end in this temporal world, rather than in the Eternal Creator: “Our response to a world at war has a name: its name is fraternity, its name is brotherhood, its name is communion, its name is family”, the Jesuit apostate blathered at the young in an address on July 30, 2016; and of course his new encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, is filled with this false notion of brotherhood.

The only “historic moment” to be taken advantage of here is that announced in Holy Scripture: “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). True repentance and return to real Catholicism is the answer: “Let us search our ways, and seek, and return to the Lord” (Lam 3:20).

In addition to new horizons and what not, Francis also wants “new paradigms capable of responding to the challenges and problems of the contemporary world” — all, of course, for “the flourishing of humanity now and in the future.” Of course it never occurs to him that humanity cannot truly flourish for as long as its supernatural end (the Beatific Vision) is ignored. Pope Pius XI warned: “Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 60).

The supernatural is entirely missing from Francis’ message on education, but then that’s not surprising. He is a Naturalist through and through, he just periodically throws a few supernatural bones to the gullible.

Further on in his message, Francis gets more aggressive:

At certain moments in history, it is necessary to make radical decisions that can shape not only our way of life but above all our stance in the face of possible future scenarios. Amid the present health crisis – and the poverty and confusion it has caused – we believe that it is time to subscribe to a global pact on education for and with future generations. This calls for a commitment on the part of families, communities, schools, universities, institutions, religions, governments and the entire human family to the training of mature men and women.

(underlining added)

What the garrulous apostate is proposing is a kind of one-size-fits-all basic education for the entire globe, regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity, sex, etc. It would obviously have to be of the secularist lowest-common-denominator type, which means it would necessarily be Naturalist because divorced from the Faith. The rights of God would be eclipsed by the “rights of man.” But, as Pope Leo XIII warned 120 years ago: “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God” (Encyclical Tametsi, n. 13).

The kind of education Bergoglio proposes would easily harmonize with Freemasonry and Communism, which are both godless and claim to care only for humanity.

But the Frankster is just getting started:

Today, we are called to have the necessary parrhesía [candor] to leave behind superficial approaches to education and the many short-cuts associated with utility, (standardized) test results, functionality and bureaucracy, which confuse education with instruction and end up atomizing our cultures.

But of course! Until now, we’ve had no idea how to educate children, and it’s time therefore to blow up the whole system and start afresh with an über-enlightened approach dictated by Bergoglio! What could possibly go wrong?!

Here’s what the false pope has in mind:

Instead, we should aim to impart an integral, participatory and polyhedral culture. We need the courage to generate processes that consciously work to overcome the existing fragmentation and the conflicts that we all bring with us. We need the courage to renew the fabric of relationships for the sake of a humanity capable of speaking the language of fraternity. The value of our educational practices will be measured not simply by the results of standardized tests, but by the ability to affect the heart of society and to help give birth to a new culture. A different world is possible and we are called to learn how to build it. This will involve every aspect of our humanity, both as individuals and in our communities.

Whenever a Modernist talks about the “courage” that is supposedly needed for something, beware. It is a shrewd way of getting people to accept revolutionary ideas. After all, who wants to be considered a coward? The Modernist or liberal will appeal to your emotions by framing his revolutionary proposal as requiring “courage” to accept. However, accepting Bergoglio’s revolutionary thoughts would not be courageous, it would be foolhardy.

When an exhortation to “courage” is followed by the proposal of ideas veiled in metaphors (figurative language), beware all the more. Francis says we “need the courage to renew the fabric of relationships for the sake of a humanity capable of speaking the language of fraternity.” Now what in the world could that mean? What is a “fabric” of relationships? What is a “language” of fraternity? Furthermore, what exactly does it mean to “affect the heart of society”? Why use such vague and ambiguous concepts and not speak clearly and concretely? Is it so that these terms can later be defined at will and exploited accordingly for the sake of a new world order, albeit perhaps disguised as a “new culture”?

Francis adds that “[a] different world is possible and we are called to learn how to build it.” For a Catholic, that different world was ushered in with the coming-in-the-flesh of the Messiah, our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is why we divide all time into the eras of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, “Year of the Lord”). There is no need for a different world — we just need to apply all the spiritual and supernatural means at our disposal, which have been lovingly merited and generously given to us by Christ. Transforming the world into one of true peace and genuine fraternity is a supernatural task that requires God’s help — through grace and the true Faith. Of this Francis says nothing.

Like the French Sillonists of the early 20th century, Bergoglio brazenly holds that the true Catholic Church “after nineteen centuries … has not yet been able to build up in this world a society on true foundations; She has not understood the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human dignity….”, an outrageous and laughable position Pope St. Pius X condemned in his 1910 Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique.

So Francis maintains not only that a “different world is possible” but also that “we are called to learn how to build it.” Really? By whom? Who is “calling” us to do that? The false pope doesn’t say, and it’s easy to see why. Because no one is; certainly not our Blessed Lord. It’s just useful to his nefarious cause to act as though “we are called” to be doing what he proposes. If anyone is calling for that, it’s the Freemasons or similar subversives whose goal St. Pius X identified as “the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer” (Notre Charge Apostolique).

True, Francis always rails against the oppression of the weak and the suffering, etc., especially in Fratelli Tutti. But that is mere window dressing in order to obtain his goal of what will essentially amount to world Communism. Under Communist or even socialist rule, the entire population is oppressed, precisely through “legalized cunning and force”, under the pretext of the common good. Under such Marxist governments, truly all are equal economically — equally poor, that is, with no chance of improving one’s condition.

The building of Bergoglio’s new utopia is to “involve every aspect of our humanity”, as he himself threatens in his message. What exactly that means is, as usual, anyone’s guess, but one thing is clear: Francis means business. He is ready to get those “processes” started and move ahead at full throttle. Nothing is to remain as it was. And this nightmare is what he is selling the world as a dream (see Fratelli Tutti, n. 8)!

At the end Francis lists seven points to which he and all who participate in his Global Compact on Education commit themselves. It’s the usual blather about man, dignity, the marginalized, and the environment. It is to be noted that he threw in a few crumbs for his conservative adherents: He identifies the family as “the first and essential place of education” (although with Amoris Laetitia and his drive-thru annulments, he has opened the floodgates as to what a family even is); and he gives a quick nod to “the revealed word of God and Christian humanism” as inspiring the social doctrine he recommends as the “point of reference” for “creative and transformative processes” regarding an educational plan. Whatever.

In spite of whatever flowery language Bergoglio may use to fool the masses, the result will be a thoroughly Christ-less education inculcating the principles of Freemasonry and organized Naturalism into unsuspecting souls, under the pretext of fraternity and human dignity.

This is reminiscent of what Pope Pius XI condemned in 1929:

…[T]he so-called “neutral” or “lay” school, from which religion is excluded, is contrary to the fundamental principles of education. Such a school moreover cannot exist in practice; it is bound to become irreligious. There is no need to repeat what Our Predecessors have declared on this point, especially Pius IX and Leo XIII, at times when laicism was beginning in a special manner to infest the public school. We renew and confirm their declarations, as well as the Sacred Canons in which the frequenting of non-Catholic schools, whether neutral or mixed, those namely which are open to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is forbidden for Catholic children, and can be at most tolerated, on the approval of the Ordinary alone, under determined circumstances of place and time, and with special precautions. Neither can Catholics admit that other type of mixed school, (least of all the so-called “ecole unique,” obligatory on all), in which the students are provided with separate religious instruction, but receive other lessons in common with non-Catholic pupils from non-Catholic teachers.

For the mere fact that a school gives some religious instruction (often extremely stinted), does not bring it into accord with the rights of the Church and of the Christian family, or make it a fit place for Catholic students. To be this, it is necessary that all the teaching and the whole organization of the school, and its teachers, syllabus and text-books in every branch, be regulated by the Christian spirit, under the direction and maternal supervision of the Church; so that Religion may be in very truth the foundation and crown of the youth’s entire training; and this in every grade of school, not only the elementary, but the intermediate and the higher institutions of learning as well.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, nn. 79-80; underlining added.)

The Naturalist global education pact Francis is advocating for the sake of “fraternity” is highly subversive of the true Christian understanding of society, family, education, and the ultimate end of man — and that is precisely why he’s introducing it. Coronavirus is just another most welcome excuse to shove it down everyone’s throats.

What good does a natural bond of fraternity do when there is no bond of that which enlightens intellects and moves wills toward that goal for which man was created?

Therefore we earnestly exhort your faithful, although of various regions and tongues, to preserve that far more excellent kinship which is born from the communion of faith and common sacraments. For whoever are baptized in Christ, have one Lord and one faith; they are one body and one spirit, insofar as they are called to one hope. …[T]hat kinship of souls which comes from Christ must constantly be inculcated in the faithful and all partiality must be eradicated. “For greater indeed is the paternity of Christ than that of blood: for the fraternity of blood touches the likeness only of the body; the fraternity of Christ, however, conveys unanimity of heart and spirit, as is written: One was the heart and one the spirit of the multitude of believers” [St. Maximus].

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Reputantibus, n. 5; underlining added.)

What this world needs is not some godless polyhedral education to “fraternity” based on human dignity, as though original sin had never entered the world; it needs what Pope St. Pius X prescribed in 1903: “We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that ‘of restoring all things in Christ’ (Ephes. i., 10), so that ‘Christ may be all and in all’ (Coloss. iii., 2)” (Encyclical E Supremi, n. 4).

What a contrast that is to the program of the Jesuit squatter who’s been occupying the Vatican guest house since 2013.

Image source: (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.