Rorate Caeli

Socci: Why Bergoglio has been so affectionate with Chinese despots and Castro, but ferocious with Trump

Here is what might happen

Antonio Socci
‎January 22, 2017

In his inaugural speech, Donald Trump made reference a number of times to God and the Bible (on which he was sworn in as President). Christian inspiration is emblematic of American popular tradition, and Trump – who usually touches on very concrete subjects in his speeches, such as the everyday lives of people – on this solemn occasion, chose to tune in with the deep religious sense of the American people.

This is a political sign of opposition to the strongly secular ideology of the “liberal” establishment, which in recent years has ruled, and which - in that speech - has been brutally evicted from the “palace” with the slogan: let’s give the power back to the people.

In short, Trump even in his symbolic references, wanted to be united with ordinary folk and against the elite, who disdain him and [disregard] the faith of the people.

It signifies a cultural turning point. Many noted, in fact, that an indication [of this] came a few minutes after the inauguration: from the site of the White House, the pages dedicated to the LGBT battle and Global Warming were eliminated; two pillars of Obama’s “liberal” ideology.

The entire ceremony on Friday, beginning with the religious service in St. John’s Church was full of references to Christianity.


Nevertheless in the “Repubblica” yesterday, Alberto Melloni, an influential Bergoglian fan, wrote that Trump’s speech includes “a very harsh response to Francis” and conveys already “a religious policy”.

As a matter of fact it was Bergoglio who attacked Trump first, not the other way around. Actually, this Pontiff, who has shown through his actions and words his esteem for Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and the Chinese despots, he, during the USA primaries – entered anomalously into the political arena –   and ended up accusing Trump of not being “Christian”.  And in this attack it was noted the clear intention to damage him, by alienating the Catholic vote from him.

The pretext for this unusual intrusion into the political arena was Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border and to expel the illegal immigrants.  Except that it was just a pretext, since what Trump was manifesting as his intention, Obama had already done (he expelled two and a half million people) and Bergoglio wasn’t indignant at all about that.

Further, Obama and Clinton are out and out pro-abortion and supporters of the LGBT battles, while Trump is in tune with the traditional values always defended by the Church. Yet Bergoglio, while being hostile to Trump, admired and collaborated with Obama, who, in his turn, praised him [Pope Francis] in every way.

Anyway, the Catholic electorate paid no attention to him and the majority voted for Trump. Not only that, but the American Bishops, a few days after the election, chose a Ratzingerian Cardinal as their president, not Bergoglio’s “progressive” candidate.


This orientation of the American Church has always been displeasing to the Democratic Party establishment.  Around 2011, at the time of Benedict XVI, as Wikileaks revealed, progressive “revolutions” were being cultivated inside the Catholic Church (it was then discovered that also George Soros – after Bergoglio’s election and during his visit to the USA – supported those who wanted to “to sway” the American Episcopate in favour of Bergoglio, in the Church and in Clinton’s run for the presidency).

The Argentinean Pope ascended the papal throne in 2013 and in practice made Obama’s agenda his own: he set aside the “non-negotiable principles” replacing them with the “politically correct” themes of ecology, immigration and the ecumenical embrace with Islam.

Now the arrival of Trump has made the Argentine Pope an orphan. Yesterday, in fact, the Osservatore Romano commented on Trump’s speech like this: “[in it there is] strong discontinuity with the recent political past of the United States”. 

Bergoglio is [now] going to miss his great overseas point of political support.  So, according to Melloni, Francis and Trump are about to trigger off an epoch- making conflict (“we are now experiencing the first moments of a duel which will be hard-going”).


If you listen to Melloni it might even be a “theological” conflict.  Perhaps it would be better to say ideological. In effect, the social or political themes displayed by Bergoglio in his formal messages (care for the poor, hospitality [re: immigrants], are once again- purely ideological banners.

In reality, the American President’s speech was very social and supportive, so much so, as to be labelled “populist”:  he focussed on unemployed Americans, the marginalized, the impoverished middle-class families of the crisis, in total, he was on the side of the people and contra the elite.

Also his few words on international politics should have found some agreement in the Vatican: [he said] enough of (false) humanitarian wars that produce death and refugees, enough of the (false) exportation of democracy which spends on arms what should be spent on services for Americans.

But Bergoglio isn’t concerned about any of this: our people [on the other hand] are never interested in “the progressive elites” and he who has interest only in the ideological banners of “progressivism” like migrations, fanatical environmentalism and the embrace with Islam.

The conflict with Bergoglio is flaring up for this reason: Trump is bringing to an end the “politically correct” dictatorship which was the religion of the Obama and Bergoglio age.

Melloni’s article forewarns [us] then of new anathema[s] from the Vatican. Similar to the papal one delivered during the primaries, when the “Daily News” produced a cover with a photo of Trump and the headline: “Antichrist!”

Except that Trump – whether we like it or not – is only an outspoken and resolute American President, who is working in the interests of his people and has nothing at all in common with that apocalyptic figure.


In fact, being an important Christian tradition, the figure of the Antichrist (his most insidious personification) will present himself in the subtle and captivating form of kind, humanitarian, ecumenical sentiments.

For example in R.H. Benson’s famous book “The Lord of the World”, which also Bergoglio knows well and has cited: “the Great Opponent will present himself under the guise of “a humanist”, a master of tolerance, pluralism, Irenicism and ecumenism; a smiling corrupter, more than a strident antagonist of the Gospel; an annihilator from the inside more than an assailant from the outside.” (Messori)

This refers to the antique Efrem latino del “Sermo de fine mundi” according to which, the Deceiver “will cunningly please everyone, […] calm in all things, he will refuse gifts, will appear affable to his fellow man, and thus, everyone will praise him exclaiming: “Behold a just man!”

Then there is Solovev’s representation, whose relevance to the present day was highlighted by Cardinal Biffi during the spiritual exercises he preached for Benedict XVI.

The Antichrist for the Russian writer will be a fascinating philanthropist who will enchant everyone; a pacifist, a vegetarian, an animalist and an ecumenist who will gather all the religions together, deeming himself better than Jesus Christ.

The mystic, Maria Valtorta, even identifies this Great Deceiver as an ecclesiastic and places him in the midst of a terrible crisis in the Church. 

She is referring to a biblical definition:  the “Pastor Idol”, she says who “will throw “consciences into confusion” and sweep away “with his breath a third of the stars”, “this demonic harvest will be come to pass in the Court of Christ, among the great ones of His Church.”  Later, in her visions, we read these words of Jesus: “He will be someone very high up” […] “it would be less frightful to see a star of the vault of heaven shoot down […] he will make the pillars of My Church tremble in the dread brought about by his fall.”

In short, the demonization of Trump by the Vatican is completely out of place.

The insidious threat to the Church, comes, as always, from the inside. Just as all the previous popes have warned, from Pius XII to Paul VI, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI.

Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana