Since the nefarious times of Pope Francis, there has been talk of the danger of “ideologies” in the Church. Surprisingly, however, when Franciscus and his henchmen spoke and speak of “ideologies,” they refer to conservative and traditionalist Catholics – among whom they do not distinguish, by the way, in that confused mentality of theirs.
And I say it’s surprising because, precisely, it is the progressives, who are politically left-wing, ideologically linked to liberation theology, pauperism, and currently to immigrationism and environmentalism, who accuse Catholics who are only trying to be such of belonging to “tendentious ideologies” that create division in the Church.
In these present days, and ideologically associated with the above, the most rancid progressives are also emerging from their caves (yes: in the Church, the et et applies; and, although it may seem a paradox, one can be rancid and progressive at the same time) who continue living in the 1970s, scared of the “Catholic turn” they observe as “conservative,” and they fear that it will end their spring and the pre-conciliar times will return. Sister Lucía Caram and the organizers of the Congress on consecrated life organized by Vida Nueva a few days ago, to cite just two examples, have been seen very worried about it.
But the progressosaurs are as blind as the aggressive media of Sanchism, who believe that Hakuna and the Sacristy of the Vendée are the same thing. Do you remember the mercenary Javier Ruiz in his “analysis” of Hakuna’s Christmas carols at the Puerta del Sol in Madrid, with Ayuso and Feijoo singing along? The analysis led these poor neocons, who are the most active group in the current Church, to be labeled as far-right. What blindness. The neocons, poor things, also very confused, are not reactionaries: they do not appreciate the tradition of the Church, they do not know it. They live perfectly happy in a post-Christian, apostate world, talking about theology of the body and similar topics; nothing about supernaturality or eternal life. They are controlled dissent for globalist agendas and wokism, although they are perceived on TelePedro as dangerous far-rightists.
The interesting thing, at the ecclesial level, is how those previously known as “Catholic influencers” and today “rebaptized” as “digital missionaries” have come to become, in a clear parallelism with the spokespeople of public television controlled by the government to build their narrative about “reality” apart from the facts, and even denying them and lying openly, mercenaries at the service of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the construction of the narrative of the so-called “Catholic turn”. To Cardinal Cobo, for example, a progressive among the progressives of the episcopate, the “digital missionaries,” who are all neocons, are coming perfectly to form a synchronized opinion team for the visit of Pope Leo to Spain in June, which spreads a message “of unity” and avoids “division.”
Another day we will deal with this issue of what has come to be known as the Catholic turn, both in figures and narrative, based on international statistics. But today I want to highlight that the great paradox that occurs when from the hierarchy of the Church they speak of “ideologies,” while the only faction of the Church – because yes, it has been ideologically fractionated for decades – is the progressive one, which is ideologically left-wing, pro-Marxist, and now woke. They are the ones who believe that Jesus Christ was, as Joaquín Sabina sings, “the first communist.” They are the admirers of liberation theology, of poor bishops from good families friends of Ibero-American Marxist dictators, the proud ones of not baptizing a single pagan indigenous person in decades. They are the ones of the Ostpolitik; those who refused to condemn communism at the Second Vatican Council. And they are, today, those who assume the 2030 Agenda, with their immigrationism and environmentalism. As Jean Madiran affirms, when they say that “the Church opened to the world,” they really mean that it opened to left-wing ideologies.
We are going to cite just a few examples, in their chronological evolution as much as possible:
- John XXIII, the Vatican Council, and Paul VI decide not to condemn communism, beginning a treacherous Ostpolitik and allowing the suffering of the faithful and pastors in the countries of the Eastern European bloc.
- Ibero-America: the bourgeois European Jesuit ideologues invent Marxist liberation theology. They no longer pray or trust in God, but take up arms. And they assume all left-wing postulates, along with the usual red practice of being friends with all communist dictators.
- Spain: after the Second Vatican Council, as we can read in “The Spanish Priestly Brotherhood,” the Spanish bishops received from Paul VI the instruction to turn their backs on Franco, who had saved the Church from extermination in the Crusade of 1936 – 1939. The Spanish episcopate became mostly left-wing. The terrorist band ETA, which has killed so many innocents and destroyed so many families, was born under the protection of Basque priests. The worst thing that could happen to a bishop, and with them already to any priest or baptized person, until today, is that they call him “Francoist.” The Spanish bishops have been living for 60 years between absolute nothingness and increasingly worldly and anti-Catholic left-wing positions.
- The infamous secret pacts with the criminal Chinese communist government signed by the nefarious tandem Bergoglio – Parolin, betraying millions of Chinese Catholics – clergy and laity – and leaving them at the feet of the horses. Leo XIV has not yet revoked them.
- The nauseating process of destruction of the Valley of the Fallen: the head of Prior Santiago Cantera served by Cobo and Parolin to the revanchist government of the PSOE, which wants to win today what it lost in 1939, and the progressive desacralization of the entire space.
The current pastors of the Church, it seems unbelievable, have not yet realized that the reds, the extreme left, so totalitarian it is, will NEVER have enough in the face of the concessions and pants-downs of their adversaries. No matter what they concede. The goal is to annihilate them. They despise the Church and want to see it disappear. And when they find themselves in front of weak, pusillanimous bishops without Catholic faith, they have it easy. They are going to give them what they ask for.