The Humble Pope Likens Trump to Hitler, Praises “Freedom of Worship” in Communist China

The Humble Pope Likens Trump to Hitler, Praises “Freedom of Worship” in Communist China

Written by Christopher A. Ferrara

The Humble Pope Likens Trump to Hitler, Praises “Freedom of Worship” in Communist China

Fawning over Fidel, Carping over Donald

The Pope Who Cannot Stop Talking really must. At age 80, his rambling, semi-coherent replies to leading questions from reporters are routinely dropped like bunker-busters by the mediatic bombardiers of the New World Order that Bergoglio serves so well.

This time, in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais (the newspaper’s own English translation is here) the endlessly loquacious man from Argentina, with a little coaxing, obligingly likened the duly elected Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. This is the same Pope who fawned over Fidel Castro, a communist dictator who (together with his murderous brother) seized and maintained power by force for over half a century before his death, committing war crimes and genocide against Catholics who resisted his tyranny or attempted to escape the island prison he created.

In response to the first loaded question concerning Trump—“Donald Trump has just become the president of the US, and the whole world is tense because of it. What do you think about that?”—Bergoglio did not immediately lunge at the bait, professing a wait-and-see attitude: “I think that we must wait and see. I don’t like to get ahead of myself nor judge people prematurely. We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will have an opinion.” This was followed immediately by a meandering, incongruous reference to the gnostic heresy and “spray religiousness, a non-specific religiousness. Yes, me, spirituality, the law… but nothing concrete. No, no way. We need specifics. And from the specific we can draw consequences. We lose sense of the concrete.”

The point, apparently, was that Bergoglio needed specifics before he could issue an opinion on Trump. One could pray for the miracle that he will keep his opinion to himself, but perhaps there are weightier petitions with spiritual priority, such as the merciful end of this pontificate. But of course Bergoglio will have an opinion, which he will of course trumpet to the world. Pope Bergoglio has an opinion on all manner of political subjects about which he knows little or nothing, including even the Scottish independence movement, which he opposed with dreary predictability, being a reliable ally of EU and globalist elites.

One might ask: What happened to Bergoglio’s declaration concerning his refusal to speak in opposition to the legalization of “homosexual unions” in Italy: that “the Pope does not place himself into the concrete politics of a country. Italy is not the first country to have this experience.” Experienced Bergoglio watchers know the answer to that question: his continuous public polemic is rife with expedient self-contradiction according to the rhetorical needs of the moment, precisely in the manner of a politician.

In this case, the self-contradiction came immediately during the same interview, when Bergoglio abandoned his pretense of a suspension of judgment regarding Trump in response to the next loaded question on the subject:

El Pais:Both in Europe and in America, the repercussions of the crisis that never ends, the growing inequalities, the absence of strong leadership are giving way to political groups that reflect on the citizens’ malaise. Some of them —the so-called anti-system or populists— capitalize on the fears in face of an uncertain future in order to form a message full of xenophobia and hatred towards the foreigner. Trump’s case is the most noteworthy, but there are others such as Austria or Switzerland. Are you worried about this phenomenon?

Swallowing the bait along with the hook, the line, the sinker and the fishing rod, this time Bergoglio exceeded even his leading questioner’s expectations by explicitly likening the rise of Trump and other anti-NWO populists to the rise of Hitler:

Pope Francis:…. When I started to hear about populism in Europe I didn’t know what to make of it, I got lost, until I realized that it had different meanings. Crises provoke fear, alarm. In my opinion, the most obvious example of European populism is Germany in 1933. After [Paul von] Hindenburg, after the crisis of 1930, Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, a leader, someone capable of restoring its character, and there is a young man named Adolf Hitler who says: “I can, I can.”

And all Germans vote for Hitler. Hitler didn’t steal the power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people. That is the risk. In times of crisis, we lack judgment, and that is a constant reference for me. Let’s look for a savior who gives us back our identity and lets defend ourselves with walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other peoples that may rob us of our identity.

…. But the case of Germany in 1933 is typical, a people that was immersed in a crisis, that looked for its identity until this charismatic leader came and promised to give their identity back, and he gave them a distorted identity, and we all know what happened….

The man who lives safely in luxurious surroundings behind the high walls of the Vatican, surrounded 24/7 by armed guards, continued his belittlement of the common people who have to live with the effects of Muslim immigration, including mass murder, and who favor “erect[ing] walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other people who may rob us of our identity.” It took a Protestant politician, Mike Huckabee, to remind Bergoglio that God Himself told Nehemiah to build a protective wall around Jerusalem to protect His people from invasion and a loss of identity in the midst of the Persian Empire. Portions of the very walls protecting Bergoglio and his collaborators from what Italy has to endure were built by Leo
IV for the very purpose of preventing another Muslim sack of Rome after the one in 846.

With characteristic self-contradiction, Bergoglio went on to say that “each country has the right to control its borders, who comes in and who goes out, and those countries at risk—from terrorism or such things—have even more of a right to control them, but no country has the right to deprive its citizens of the possibility to talk with their neighbors.” But how does a country control its borders without a physical barrier of some kind, like that behind which Bergoglio himself resides in the sovereign Vatican City State whose borders are impenetrable? And what does talking with one’s neighbors have to do with border control? Evidently conflating metaphor with reality, Francis proposes that border walls or fences literally prevent international conversation.

During the course of the interview, the reliable friend of communist and socialist dictators, as we see here, here and here, even went so far as to declare that in Communist China “the churches are packed. In China they can worship freely.” Pope Bergoglio thus blithely betrayed the persecuted members of his flock in China, who have been driven underground because they refuse to worship in the “packed” churches of the schismatic, government-controlled, pseudo-church called the “Patriotic Catholic Association.”

So, yet again, Bergoglian demagoguery blends seamlessly with the narrative of the globalist Left: the frightened, ignorant, “fundamentalist” Christian masses are being stirred up by radically nationalist, crypto-neo-Nazis who are inciting them to kick against the goad of the established order of state secularity, pluralism, multiculturalism, multilateralism, “free trade,” “open borders,” environmentalism and world government under the United Nations, with whom Bergoglio’s Vatican is intimately allied.

Bergoglio’s endless rhetorical assault upon his own subjects also helps pave the way for governmental persecution of their “fundamentalism” on grounds that it constitutes “hate speech.” A prominent recent example is the conviction of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders (raised a Catholic, though now lapsed) merely for advocating a restriction on Moroccan immigration in the Netherlands.

The El Pais interview also features the inevitable Bergoglian twisting of the Gospel into an anti-Gospel, this time with yet another false and misleading reference to the elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: “So the eldest child syndrome is the syndrome of anyone who is too settled within the Church, the one who has clear ideas about everything, who knows what must be done and doesn’t want to listen to strange sermons. That is the explanation for our martyrs: they gave their lives for preaching something that was upsetting.”

So, according to Bergoglio, those who are actually defending today what the martyrs died for centuries ago—the truth of Christ, including the indissolubility of marriage—are to be condemned because they will not listen to “strange sermons” that contradict what the martyrs died for! In the mind of Bergoglio, then, the faith would seem to be an endless series of “strange sermons” based on the latest gnostic inspiration concerning what the Gospel means today as opposed to what it meant before.

Are we dealing with an increasingly addled octogenarian, a deluded visionary, a cunning change agent bent on willful destruction, or some combination of these? Who knows the mind and heart of the man? Only God knows. But this much we do know to a certainty: Seated in the Chair of Peter, Pope Bergoglio, unlike any Pope before him, has served as the ultimate useful dupe of the powers that be. And the more he speaks, the more apparent it becomes that his pontificate is a clear and present danger not only to the common good of the Church but also the common good of civil society, in whose affairs he selectively meddles with an effect that seems always to favor the movement of our once Christian civilization toward what Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical on “evils of society,” called “final disaster.”

Get AQ Email Updates

6 comments on “The Humble Pope Likens Trump to Hitler, Praises “Freedom of Worship” in Communist China

  1. Even John Allen at KofC-Crux is a tad taken aback.
    Parsing Pope Francis’s puzzling take on religion in China

    Although most reaction to Pope Francis’s latest blockbuster interview has focused on his comments on political populism and Donald Trump, religious freedom advocates may find his words about China distressing, especially the suggestion that one can “practice religion” there.

    There is, of course, a big difference between saying religion can be practiced someplace, which can imply despite difficulties and dangers, and claiming that one can “worship freely” there.

    Nevertheless, the fact that Pope Francis appeared to suggest that the climate for religious freedom in China is basically positive likely will irritate, even outrage, people who know the reality, and who have been working on behalf of the country’s religious minorities.

    On what Francis said about the ability to practice one’s religion, however, the situation is considerably more complicated than the pope’s simple statement suggested, and it is a bit puzzling that he didn’t at least acknowledge the challenges.

  2. Are there two ways to save one’s soul in China? One way is living in a warm government-furnished chancery, the other is languishing in a cold government-operated torture chamber. God will not be mocked. Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and now Bergoglio have all supported the lie, and will spend eternity with the Patriotic bishops and priests.

  3. Whether a useful idiot or senile neo-gnostic modernist lost in the confusion of dissembling Marxist dialectic, the effect is the same. On Castro, a hardened Communist who has actually murdered people, we hear no condemnation or admonishment. Trump talks about border security and national security issues, and he goes back to Berlin in the 1930s. It’s a well-known fallacy ( a variation of the reductio ad absurdum or argumentum ad absurdum) which used to be taught in courses in Aristotelian formal logic in Jesuit schools and the Pope studied enough philosophy in his day that he should know that. To make matters worse for the pope’s analogy, Trump’s own daughter is a convert to Judaism and Trump just reversed Obama’s executive order to fund Malthusian eugenic population control which adds to the offensive effects of this sloppy papal rhetoric. The current immigration controversies have nothing to do with the historical allusions the Pope projects into the brouhaha over Trump and its Leftist talking points. The Pope is gaslighting here and the disorientation, confusion, and dementia of this progressive pontificate are jumping the shark. That the advocate of Malthusian population control Paul Ehrlich has been invited to the Vatican (without admonishment or chastisement for the evils of that anti-Catholic agenda from the Holy Father) just adds to this modernist hypocrisy.

    The Pope is protected behind a walled city with armed security. So why does he gaslight Europeans and Americans with that stupid smile for wanting similar protection and security from real threats and dangers? It’s the hypocrisy which is so appalling.

  4. This article, if only for the heart-rending photos, is worth a look. Even a first year seminarian steeped in Kantian ModChurch errors and heresies could not fail to see what is going on. And a pope cannot?

    Last I looked, calling evil “good” was still an oxymoron, in caelo et in terra.

    China’s Catholics: ‘Rome may betray us, but I won’t join a Church which is controlled by the Communist Party’

    Villagers attend an underground Palm Sunday service in Youtong village, Shijiazhuang

    By Neil Connor, Shijiazhuang, China
    4 APRIL 2016

    In the backyard of a rundown house, a Chinese priest stood before his congregation and conducted an unofficial Catholic Mass.

    Father Dong Baolu’s flock were gathered outdoors beside a row of foul-smelling lavatories. They had no choice but to worship in this furtive way, as China does not recognise these so-called “house churches”.

    Even so, the congregation stayed for two hours, singing hymns and clasping their hands in prayer.

    The service is run by Dong Baolu

    China and the Vatican may now be edging towards a thaw that could see Beijing recognising the illegal church, but only on terms that many local Catholics would condemn as a betrayal.

    “It’s possible that Rome may betray us,” said Fr Dong, before he said Mass in the city of Shijiazhuang in Hebei province. “If this happens, I will resign. I won’t join a Church which is controlled by the Communist Party.

    “We are suffering like Jesus on the cross. We fight for religious freedom and follow the Gospel – but we are not supported by either Rome or China.”

    Villagers pray at the service

    In the past, agreement between the Vatican and China has always been prevented by the question of who would ordain the clergy.

    Beijing insists on controlling any recognised church, mainly by appointing its hierarchy.

    Some official Catholic bishops have been appointed by Beijing – only to be excommunicated by the Vatican.

    Meanwhile, the authorities have locked up priests who were ordained by the Vatican before the break in relations in the Fifties.

    But there are signs that Rome may be willing to compromise. Pope Francis has publicly praised China and voiced the hope that he will visit the country.

    Across China, Catholics are choosing to worship in house churches

    This warming in relations resulted last summer in the consecration of Joseph Zhang Yinlin as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Anyang. He had been nominated for this role by Beijing – and accepted by the Vatican.

    Cardinal Joseph Zen, who formerly led Hong Kong’s Catholics, is concerned about the possibility of a deal where bishops will be formally agreed by both sides, but the Vatican will be able to veto candidates proposed by Beijing.

    “It is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist government who cannot possibly judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop,” Cardinal Zen wrote.

    Catholics fear that any agreement along these lines would compromise the independence of the Church.

    Bob Fu, the director of the US-based campaign group ChinaAid, said that any retreat by Rome would “constitute a betrayal of the Chinese Catholic Church, especially those who have suffered even martyrdom”.

    Mr Fu added: “It will be like a father’s betrayal of his own children, a saddest day for the independent Catholic Churches in China because the move will legitimise the Communist Party’s persecution, past, present and perhaps future.”

    China does not recognise the so-called ‘house churches’

    Across China, about six million Catholics have refused to join churches sanctioned by the Communist Party and chosen instead to worship in house churches, where they remain loyal to the Vatican.

    In Shijiazhuang, a Catholic bishop who is unrecognised by the authorities, Jia Zhiguo, lives under strict surveillance.

    The regime has escalated its suppression of house churches, toppling crosses from places of worship and forcing followers deeper underground.

    Meanwhile, another six million people are members of the Catholic Patriotic Association, a Communist Party-controlled body which does not display images of Pope Francis.

    The Vatican is pursuing friendly relations with Beijing as it believes it can do more to protect Chinese Catholics if it increases its involvement in the country via a unified Church.

    An agreement between the two sides could also see diplomatic relations re-established between the Holy See and Beijing, which would be considered a breakthrough in Rome.

    Fr Dong has been detained “many times” by authorities, and the open air Mass that was visited by The Telegraph was moved into his home the following week, amid fear that it would be shut down by authorities.

    Standing next to the outside lavatories, with rubble and litter at his feet, a migrant worker who gave his surname as Pei said it was vital for the Vatican to stand up to Beijing’s demands.

    “If the independent church is no longer allowed, I will just go home and pray,” he said. “There is only one road for us Catholics.”

    • To see these saintly souls puts me to shame. What have I done that can remotely be recognized as Catholic? I drove an extra 15 minutes to get to a decent Mass? I slept soundly on my soft pillow? I shed a drop of blood shaving last week?

      And I’ll bet anything I can afford that they pray for us! True friends of Christ!

Leave a Reply