Skip to main content

Does Francis's Book "Dialogos" show that he is a Anti-American Communist?

Francis's book "Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro" presents evidence that he is pro-Communist, anti-Capitalism and by inference Anti-American because the United States is the driving force behind the global free market system.

He wrote on page 23 that there apparently could be a "convergence" of "premises" between Communism and Catholicism:

"Fidel Castro offered a... convergence or points of connection between Catholicism and the premises (los postulados) of the [Cuban Communist] Revolution."

However, later in the his book he states there cannot be a convergence of premises between Capitalism and Catholicism:

You cannot hold the premises (los postulados) of "neoliberalismo" (Capitalism) and be considered a Christian. The failures of Marxism and Collectivism don't authorize the Capitalist system (al sistema capitalista)... we find in "neoliberalismo" (Capitalism) the opposite of the Gospel... because it empties man of the economic progressivism or economic progress (los progresos economicos)."
(Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro, By Jorge Bergoglio, Copyright - Ciudad Argentina, Pages 48-49, Translation by Fred Martinez with the help of a Spanish to English dictionary)

In 2015, the Muslim global news source Al Jazeera in a article asked:

"Is Pope Francis some kind of Communist? Is he anti-American? Why is he so down on the wealth-creating engine that is global capitalism?"

The global news source answered those questions by saying "he [Francis] adhered to a diluted Argentine version of [Marxist] liberation theology."

Al Jazeera actually quoted from Francis's book without giving a source which is given above with my translation. It's translation is:

"No one can accept the precepts of neoliberalism and consider themselves Christian."

It appears that for Francis "neoliberalism" is a synonym for global Capitalism.

The global news source reported that Francis was anti-Capitalist and apparently anti-American since the driving force of global Capitalism is the United States.

Al Jazeera disclosed that in a disquieting screech, he reviled capitalism for "death and destruction" and having the "stench of the dung of the devil":

"During a trip to [Leftist Socialist] Bolivia this summer, Francis delivered his most ferocious denunciation to date. Behind all the 'pain, death and destruction' wrought by unrestrained global capitalism, there lurks 'the stench of the dung of the devil,' he told a gathering of activists. 'We want change, real change, structural change. This system is now intolerable.'"
(Aljazeera, "Liberation theology, once reviled by church, now embraced by pope," September 22, 2015)

Sadly, it appears in the unsound mental workings of Francis's mind it was not the Russian Communists and the Chinese Maoist Communists, who are still in power, that committed the holocaust of tens of millions of human "death[s] and destruction" in historical concrete reality, but instead apparently a "holocaust" was committed by global Capitalism in the imagination of the abstract brain of Francis.

Is this mania for "real change" to end "intolerable" American global Capitalism the reason Francis is allowing without a word of protest:

- the Communist Chinese regime to systematically attack the human rights of the Chinese Catholic underground Church, all the Christian denominations in China and even the Chinese Muslims?

- the human rights violations and starvation of the citizens of Venezuela by the Chinese Communist supported Venezuelan Leftist totalitarian regime?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...