And a Roman Catholic insider said, “He appears to be opposed to liberation theology and doesn’t approach ‘social justice’ from the political end.”
These quotations paint a picture of Argentina’s top Jesuit being opposed to the direction the Jesuits under him were taking, that of supporting Marxism. This was certainly how things were made to appear. In fact, so politically “right-wing” was he perceived to be that he was accused, in his native Argentina, of failing to publicly stand up to Argentina’s anti-Marxist military dictatorship when he was the leader of Argentina’s Jesuits; of doing nothing when victims of the State’s brutality and their relatives brought first-hand accounts of torture, death and kidnappings to Jesuit priests under him. And to this day many are convinced he was acting contrary to the Marxist Jesuits under him:
“There’s a wonderful picture that dates back to the 1970s – not a particularly cheerful time in the history of Argentina – of rotund Father Jorge Maria Bergoglio walking alongside lean, dapper, mass murdering General Jorge Rafael Videla. The stroll itself is hardly proof of collusion – it merely confirms that the Catholic Church and the Argentinian military regime were, occasionally, on strolling terms. But when one pairs the image with journalist Horacio Verbitsky’s devastating takedown, El Silencio, which is proof of collusion, we are able to understand the make of the man who now inhabits the Vatican.” What is El Silencio? It is an island in the Plate River, and there Bergoglio had a holiday home. And Bergoglio was accused of assisting the Argentinian navy to hide political prisoners there from the prying eyes of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. “‘The most shaming thing for the church,’ wrote Hugh O’Shaughnessy back in January 2011, ‘is that in such circumstances Bergoglio’s name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to choose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America has been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.’” Yet in 2013 the cardinals did elect Bergoglio, despite being believed, in liberal and Marxist circles, to be an accessory to murder and false imprisonment. Allowing of course for the undeniable fact that left-wing activists, media, etc., are prone to lying through their teeth to implicate those of the right in any crimes they can, it certainly is beyond dispute that Bergoglio was very intertwined with the military dictatorship.
But was he, in truth, anti-Marxist, even so? No! Please read on:
His supposedly “anti-Marxist” credentials were strengthened when in 2005 a human rights lawyer in Argentina filed a complaint charging Bergoglio with complicity in the 1976 kidnapping of two of his own pro-Marxist Jesuit priests by Argentina’s military regime. The two were found alive some five months later, but drugged and semi-naked. Bergoglio, not surprisingly, denied the charge. One of the two Jesuits, priest Orlando Yorio, accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the Argentinian death squads by declining to tell the government that he endorsed their work. The other, Francisco Jalics, refused to discuss it after he went into seclusion in a German monastery. The charge was however rejected by some other human rights lawyers. Many years later, in 2010, Bergoglio told his biographer Rubin that both men were freed when he – Bergoglio – worked behind the scenes to save them. He also told Rubin that he regularly hid people on “Church” property during the dictatorship, and that he once even gave his own identity papers to a man with similar features to his, so that he could escape across the border. Yes, well, maybe, maybe not. We only have his word to go on, don’t we? A Jesuit will readily lie if he has to. Rubin said that at the time, failing to challenge the dictatorship was simply pragmatic, and that Bergoglio’s reluctance to tell his story was simply because he was so humble. Again, maybe. Maybe not. This sounds just like the excuses made regarding the Roman pope Pius XII’s behaviour towards Jews suffering at the hands of the Nazis: that it was simply for pragmatic reasons that Pius remained so silent in the face of the atrocities he knew the Nazis were perpetrating against Jews. Human rights attorney Myriam Bregman said that Bergoglio’s own statements proved that “Church” officials knew from early on that the dictatorship was torturing and killing its citizens, and yet they publicly endorsed it. She said, “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support.” This is certainly true. Even though this was from a leftist herself, it still is all very reminiscent of how Roman Catholic leaders publicly endorsed Hitler and Nazism, but then later said that secretly they were fighting against it all along.
What is beyond dispute is that there is very damning documentation which certainly indicates that Bergoglio did betray those fellow-Jesuit priests to the military dictatorship. His own testimony in his defence is worthless, given the Jesuit tactic of lying if it will further their own ends. So no denial out of his own mouth can be trusted. He is a faithful Jesuit, under orders. Equally worthless is the Vatican’s own press office denial of the allegations against Bergoglio, issued on March 15, 2013. Of course the Vatican would deny any allegations made against its new Jesuit pope!
But when one understands how the Jesuits operate, it makes perfect sense. And none of the above means that he was anti-Marxist. What we must never lose sight of here is that Bergoglio is a Jesuit! And with the Jesuits, nothing is ever as it seems. Nothing. Remember the words of their founder, Ignatius de Loyola: “We must see black as white, if the Church says so.” And in their writings the Jesuits have repeatedly justified the telling of lies if to do so would be advantageous to the Society. Bergoglio is a Jesuit, and he is a Latin American Jesuit, who rose through the ranks of the Order in the volatile period when Latin American Jesuits were under orders from the Jesuit general to actively support the Marxist revolutionaries in Latin America. But the fact is that Jesuits are always deliberately positioned on both sides of any conflict, so that no matter who wins, they win. They were definitely in favour of Marxist revolutionaries coming to power in the 1970s and early 1980s; but just in case things did not work out as they planned, they also had Jesuits on the other side of the conflict – the side of the anti-Marxist governments against whom the Marxists were fighting!