Why Does Francis Demand Mass Muslim Immigration Despite Its Obvious Dangers?
Antonio Socci’s Provocative Answer
by Christopher A. Ferrara
February 23, 2017
Francis shows no signs of dropping his demand for a seemingly limitless accommodation of “refugees,” the vast majority of whom are military-age Muslim males, while he resides in a walled enclave surrounded by a small army of security guards. Meanwhile, as Robert Spencer notes, the consequences in both Europe and the United States have been deadly. To borrow from his summary of recent events, on his important Jihad Watch website:
- Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian;
- Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey;
- Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington;
- Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud [Minnesota] while screaming “Allahu akbar”;
- Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University;
- 72 jihad terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s immigration ban;
- All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. [paragraph breaks and bullet points added]
And that is just the tip of an Islamic terrorist iceberg. As Spencer further notes: “In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees,” while the “Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country,” and Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said last May “that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.”
Yet, seemingly impervious to any rational argument for strictly limiting the immigration of Muslim “refugees,” especially military-age males, Francis continues demagogically to attribute such restrictions, including those initiated by the Trump administration, to a malign attitude of “rejection, rooted ultimately in self-centredness and amplified by populist rhetoric…”
Antonio Socci has taken notice of this seeming Bergoglian obsession with the question of immigration:
“Bergoglio constantly speaks about one subject: immigration. At Easter and Christmas, at Santa Marta, and in the speeches he gives to the whole world. Even at the University [of Rome] there were hints of the umpteenth discourse on immigration.
“By now, in Bergoglianism God has been replaced by migrants. The Body of Christ, dead and resurrected, by that of the migrant.”
Socci argues, however, that this is not an obsession but “a new ideology” and “also a new religion that ends by substituting for Catholicism, from which — de facto — Bergoglio removes the foundations, such as sacraments and doctrine.”
That we are dealing with a quasi-religious ideology rather than rational thought, Socci continues, is shown by the fact that “there is no cultural elaboration in his discourse, not even a sociological development. There is only barroom chatter, a mixture of Peronist demagoguery and sentimentalism. Bergoglio speaks in slogans, pat phrases (always the same), banality without any foundation.”
So what is this really all about? Socci cites the analysis of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, whom Pope Benedict XVI made head of the IOR, the so-called Vatican Bank (a position from which he was ousted in 2012). Tedeschi maintains that the motive behind the “open borders” ideology is a desire:
“to modify the social and religious structure of our civilization, in practice to reframe Catholicism, an absolute, dogmatic, fundamentalist religion as judged by the dominant ‘politically correct’ culture of today, which in the globalist world demands a homogenous culture and, perhaps, one sole universal religion, a religion that is very secular, a type of Lutheranism, or even better, a very gnostic religion, a sort of environmentalism.”
These elements, Socci contends, are prominent in what he calls Bergoglianism. They are essentially elements of “the New World Order, which had its imperial ideological center in the Obama/Clinton administration and the UN,” including “a fanatical environmentalist religion” and the “customs clearance of Islam (with the Obama prohibition of speaking about ‘Islamic terrorism’ always respected by Pope Bergoglio).”
Socci concludes: “It is easy to see that precisely these are the ideological pillars of the pontificate of Pope Bergoglio, initiated precisely in the Obama epic.” Strong words in support of a serious accusation. But does not Socci’s indictment have the ring of truth, given our experience with a pontificate like no other in the history of the Church?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!