The National Security Implications of a Marxist Pope

Sharing Cocaine Tea with Banana Republic Commie Dictator Further Complicates Matter


July 26, 2019 – San Francisco, CA – - The Catholic Church is in the news again today and again the narrative should prove disquieting not only for Catholics and Christians, but for what is left of the Western free world, as Judeo-Christian religious principle is the sole reason we continue to enjoy the benefits of a system that we take for granted.

What makes the matter topical again is the revelation that the Jesuit order - which has historically served as the Church's SS - is now publicly "making the case" for what those in the order boldly calls "the Catholic Case for Communism."

The Jesuits do so within their periodical, America, the Jesuit Review.

Please note the cloying nature of the portraiture that "correspondent" Dean Detloff draws as he uses and misuses some of the most simple terms in the vocabulary of political science in hope of justifying a system that is truly evil, monstrously so considering it was responsible for the daths of over 100 million souls in the 20th Century alone.

Detloff is a charlatan and his piece should send chills up the spines of the few holy ones who still hold genuine Christianity and Catholicism close to their hearts.

"Communism has provided one of the few sustainable oppositions to capitalism, a global political order responsible for the ongoing suffering of millions. It is that suffering, reproduced by economic patterns that Marx and others tried to explain, and not the secret plot of atheism...that motivates communists. Contrary to the fear that communists simply want everyone’s “stuff,” the abolition of private property, for which Marx and Engels called, means the abolition of privately owned ways of generating wealth, not taking the clothes off your back or your dad’s tie collection. As the popular saying in communist circles goes, communists do not want your toothbrush. Some of the standard proposals in the programs of communist parties include things like providing free health care, abolishing private profit from renting property and the creation of truly democratic institutions in which politicians are not millionaires and are subject to recall.

In fact, although the Catholic Church officially teaches that private property is a natural right, this teaching also comes with the proviso that private property is always subordinate to the common good. So subordinate, says Pope Francis in a truly radical moment in “Laudato Si’,” that “The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.”

But rather than read the twaddle of someone who is clearly a true believer, but one so poorly grounded in the Marxist-Leninis dialectic [or one simply unwilling to go there] this is what Lenin actually said about Communism in a piece published, as a sort of official Op-Ed in the ever reliable communist newspaper, Pravda, on April 9, 1917:

"What is this dual-power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing - the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America.” [V. I. Lenin Pravda No. 28, The Dual-power…” [source, Marxists Internet Archive

Suddenly Marxism-Leninism loses all of the touchy-feelines that Detloff attempted to breath into this corpus of pestilence, death and misery.

And so with this salvo across the bow of Western Civilization, something we know the Jesuits hold in low repute, we offer what is now a 4-rear old piece [almost] to the day dealing with the national security ramifications of having what is undoubtedly now a Marxist heterodox "Pope."

Pope Francis, who assumed the Chair of St. Peter on March 13, 2013 - amidst curious circumstances, the abrupt, some say forced retirement of Pope Benedict XVI - has in two short years stunned traditional Catholics, issuing a series of pronouncements which seem to indicate that he is not only heterodox but a Marxist.

The fact that he has had to deny it so many times reminds one of Shakespeare’s classic line on self-incrimination, that “he doth protest too much.”

Over the last two weeks Francis has undertaken a tour of South America, visiting Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay. The trip took place immediately after his issuance of the controversial Papal Encyclical Laudate, Si - On Care For Our Common Home, which deals with the supposed negative environmental impact caused by capitalism.

Throughout the tour, Francis has spoken in the street language of Marxism

“Do we realize that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farmworkers without land, so many families without a home, so many laborers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?...Do we realize something is wrong when the soil, water, air and living creatures of our world are under constant threat?.. let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change. This system is by now intolerable: farmworkers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable … The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable.”

Francis’ call for communitarianism was also in evidence.

“Many people are hoping for a change capable of releasing them from the bondage of individualism and the despondency it spawns.”

More perplexity here, individualism is a basic tenet of Christian theology, for without the right to freely choose one’s path how then could an individual be held responsible for his sins? The Pope's use of language elevating group rights over those of the individual is another demonstration of his affinity for Marxist doctrine.

Though Catholic laity should be used to it by now, the Pope once more skewered capitalism – in particularly graphic terms - as being evil:

“Time, my brothers and sisters, seems to be running out; we are not yet tearing one another apart, but we are tearing apart our common home. Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.”

Upon closer examination, despite what one may think of Francis’ crass rabble-rousing activism, it’s not difficult to detect - in what to this writer sees as perhaps the most problematic aspect of his South American broadside – an unethical and deliberately misleading use of holy scripture in support of his assertions.

Looking at just one example we see no attempt whatsoever made by Francis to hew to any semblance of authentic exegesis, when his scholarship above all should be beyond reproach:

“This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22).”

The problem here is that the complete verse and the context within which it appears makes clear that the “groans” refer to the pain caused by the expectation of redemption which is far off – a yearning.

22 “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”

23 “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.”

It has nothing to do with literally causing the Earth pain and grave injury, a clear demonstration of the Pope materially misrepresenting the meaning of text with which he is thoroughly familiar. Though it should go without saying, it’s also unsettling to read the Holy See using the pagan and therefore unseemly representation of the Earth as Gaia, as if it were the godhead itself instead of a ball of dirt cast adrift in space.

We use the term “deliberate” here with great precision, after all he is the Pope and unless this pastoral letter was ghostwritten [perhaps by the Holy Spirit?] he should have some idea of the meaning of the Biblical text he is using to make his case.

The Encyclical is replete with similar examples.

There is one aspect of the Papal letter in which Francis acquits himself honorably, that being though he is particularly bold in his teachings regarding “economic and social justice,” it was his predecessors who set the tone of the current party line. Such precedents certainly aren’t established just over the span of one or two Pontificates. The point being that though Francis is certainly at least a cultural Christo-Marxist, his theology is derivative and based upon an irreducable foundation of previous teachings in this area.

The takeaway is that the Church has been in trouble for quite some time.

What marks Francis’ short pontificate is his directness, not the linkage which he constructs between “environmentalism,” “social justice” and “economic theory,” and dogma, the combination of which has been percolating through Catholic theology for at 40 years, as Francis states, 1971 during the reign of Pope Paul VI.

We would and have argued [see, William Mayer, Bitter Harvest – How Marxist “Progressives” Have Infiltrated the American Catholic Church, The Religious Left Exposed ] that the leftist rot started with Leo XVIII in the now pivotal Encyclical Rerum Novarum, On Capital and Labor which was issued in the closing days of the 19th century, a clear attempt to reconcile the Church with the revolutionary critique of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

Understood in this light, Francis is not unique - though his energy and messianic nature make him appear larger than life – his predecessors certainly set a fine table for his theological/ideological meandering.

This is the aspect of his Papacy which is so genuinely threatening.

As leader of over 1B Catholics, the impact of his actions and pronouncements are beyond comprehension. Additionally, since the West was built on capitalism - still the fairest and most equitable method for distributing goods and services yet devised - having a religious leader of this stature engaging it in a never-ending Inquisition, attacks the liberty initiative - which defines the West - at a time when it is already under serious attack not only by Muslim fanatics but their fellow allies in the “Unholy Alliance,” the Marxist/Progressives hints at fifth-columnism.

If the Pope insists on continuing his political witch hunt he better get comfortable with attendance at Mass continuing to plummet in the one nation upon which his desire to actually feed and clothe the poor and hungry ultimately depends.

The alternative, and certainly not a lasting one, would be for the Pope to sell the Vatican and its precious artifacts at auction to help sustain the needy, thereby providing some sense that he is actually authentic in his increasingly bothersome anti-Western invective.

Francis’ revisionism of traditional Catholic dogma aside, we come to the obscenely bizarre spectacle of Bolivia’s Marxist Comandante Morales presenting him with a hammer and cycle crucifix. While there is quite a bit a controversy as to what the Pope said as he was handed the twisted cross, there can be no doubt that Morales thought Francis enough of a kindred spirit that such a gesture wouldn’t be out-of-line.

If Morales had tried that kind of stunt with John Paul II, the last virulently anti-Communist Pope, the Bolivian dictator would probably still be at his proctologist undergoing a crucifix-ectomy.

Final, final…lastly we can’t afford not to deal with an aspect of the Bolivian trip about which few are showing much interest. While in Bolivia the hipster Pope actually drank a couple cups of cocaine laced coca leaf tea [with his host, Morales] the custom of some native Bolivians to ward off the effect of hard work at high altitudes.

Yes you read that correctly – Pope Francis drinks coca leaf tea on South American tour.

Now there are numerous and effective legal drugs to combat altitude sickness, the most common of which is Diamox, and the taking of that pharmaceutical would have been entirely appropriate.

However the idea of the ingesting [in the understatement of the year Francis said the tea made him "feel good"] one of the most dangerous street drugs on the planet – cocaine – is the Vatican equivalent of pouring napalm on what is already a conflagration, the use of highly addictive illegal narcotics.

It’s difficult to watch the leader of the most numerous sect of the largest religion on earth being manipulated like some sawdust-for-brains marionette by a genuinely evil man, Bolivian president Evo Morales, who unsurprisingly is also the leader of the global “cocalero” movement, the Bolivian coca growers “union.”

The harm Francis is doing to Catholicism – turning it into a secular joke – may prove fatal. What is of more concern however is the fundamental damage this gravely flawed individual is doing to Western Civilization as his slash and burn campaign against its founding precepts continues unabated.

©2015 LLC. A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.