Posted on 10/14/2025 2:22:43 PM PDT by ebb tide
One of the most blasphemous lines in Dilexi Te comes under the chapter heading titled, “Accompanying migrants.” It reads: “Mary and Joseph flee with the child Jesus to Egypt. Christ himself, who ‘came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him’ (Jn 1:11), lived among us as a stranger. For this reason, the Church has always recognized in migrants a living presence of the Lord…”
The author then misappropriates the Holy Family to argue for open-borders. Clearly, the Bible and the Catholic Church have always opposed chaos on national borders, as the true God is a God of order. But manipulating the Holy Family’s desperate flight to Egypt is also a trick of the leftists so predictable that I wrote against it even months before Dilexi Te was released.
In US Bishops and Their Moneymaking Borders, I wrote: “Liberal ‘Catholics’ might even describe Jesus and Mary and Joseph as ‘refugees,’ purposely ignoring the fact the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt crossed the Roman Empire legally. They also ignore the fact St. Joseph was obedient enough to the State in registering with the census as seen in Luke ch. 2.”
Another misleading line in Dilexi Te is: “For Augustine, the poor are not just people to be helped, but the sacramental presence of the Lord.” Fr. Kevin Cusick exposed this goofy idea by writing: “Saint Augustine was neither a modernist, nor a heretic. He sought clarity, for the sake of truth, not confusion to plant a false gospel. The poor are sinners as are we all, and all in need of sacraments, without the grace of which none can be saved.”
Frank Walker then added on his Rumble channel: “Think about how arrogant this is to say ‘The poor, the poor, the poor!’ and that’s what they do to all sorts of victim groups… Everyone is victimizing them constantly… But to call them ‘God’ is such a terrible thing to do.”
Frank is correct. Marxists always pretend to deify the poor without evangelization or sacraments. Leftists always use this fake-deification to treat the poor as slaves. Obviously, this causes chaos and keeps them out of the Catholic Church, for they are seen as “projects” instead of immortal souls who need Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church to get to heaven. And trust me as someone who has served on five continents: The poor know when they are being treated as projects instead of people.
Msgr. George F. Dillon was an Irish priest living in England in the second half of the 19th century and he wrote extensively about freemasonry infiltrating Europe in his celebrated book, The War of the Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. It is also called “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked” and I highly suggest reading either of those. Of course, Msgr. Dillon never could have imagined such evil possessing the Vatican back in the 19th century. But he did already see in the 19th how freemasons were weaponizing the poor for their own advance.
Msgr. Dillon wrote in War of the Antichrist with the Church about how Italian freemasons viewed the poor: “In Italy, for instance, this class of Freemasons have had supreme power in their hands for over a quarter of a century. They obtained it by professing the strongest sympathy for the down-trodden millions whom they called ‘slaves.’ They stated that these slaves—the bulk of the Italian people in the country and in the cities—were no better than tax-paying machines, the dupes and drudges of their political tyrants. Victor Emmanuel, when he wanted, as he said, ’to liberate them from political tyrants’ declared that a cry came to him from the ‘enslaved Italy,’ composed of these down-trodden, unregenerated millions.”
What he describes Victor doing there is the narcissist DARVO technique. That is: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Similarly, leftists (including liberation theologians like the author of Dilexi Te) deny trying to use the poor for violence but then attack anyone who stands against open-borders. This reverses the victim and the offender. DARVO is an especially effective tactic if Marxists can frame themselves as the real victims—simply there—trying to help the poor fight against an open-market.
We see something of that socialist DARVO technique in Dilexi Te here:
“We must continue, then, to denounce the ‘dictatorship of an economy that kills,’ and to recognize that “while the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is being born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.”—Paragraph 92.
The author then implies that communism is better for the poor than capitalism. Yet we have 100 years of communist regimes killing over 100 million of their own people to disprove this. Yes, literally over 100,000,000 people have been killed under their own communist regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries. Such destruction has taken place from Cambodia to Cuba. Is this what Our Lord means when He says “I have loved you” (Dilexi Te)? Obviously a call to communistic destruction in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of both blasphemy and gaslighting.
But the above paragraph #92 from the “exhortation” is also schizophrenic. The author can’t decide if he wants to be an old fashioned liberal from the 1970s or a new leftist of the 21st century. The old big-tent liberalism from the 1970s comes through in framing the wicked bad boy as Donald Trump, not Bill Gates, with that “dictatorship of an economy that kills.” But then we see a DARVO switch by projecting those spooky words of “a new tyranny being born.” This reflects that militant leftism that has popped up in the USA and Europe only over the last twenty years. It allows for no “open discussion” on its diabolical dogma to rule the globe with leftist totalitarianism.
The solution is that we Apostolic Catholics must reject that tired, old false-dichotomy that being a traditional Catholic means choosing between good liturgy and helping the poor. Besides tens of thousands of missionary priests caring for the souls of the poor over 20 centuries without condescending them (a condescension we see all through Dilexi Te) it was also the Catholics who built the greatest system of hospitals, grade schools and orphanages for the poor all over the world. At least, they did this project before Vatican II.
So now what do “leftist Catholics” do for the poor? They simply talk about them and write about them. They cooperate in saving neither their souls nor their bodies (the one thing they claim to do.)
This is why more than half the poor of South America left the Catholic Church for Protestant communities. It’s not because the latter had money (as we were all taught to repeat as good little modernist bots.) But rather this happened because the poor of South and Central America were sick of liberation theology condescending them as objects. They only wanted Jesus Christ, not to be treated as projects. I suppose that half-gospel of the evangelicals cropping up form Managua to Rio De Janeiro (above) is better than that anti-gospel of liberation theologians in those same locations.
But better for the poor to have both Jesus Christ and the sacraments, side-by-side with the rich as found in traditional Catholicism. True Catholicism found in past centuries saved the souls (and bodies) of the poor without condescending them as dumb-slaves to be used for a socialist open-border project.
Ping
They’re all for immigrants as long as they aren’t white Jews moving to Israel.
Jesus and/or His family traveled within the same empire. There were no laws he broke.
The flight into Egypt was indeed fleeing persecution; ithad the character of refugee, but it didn’t cross what would have been an international border. It was more like fleeing from California to Arizona or Texas to avoid persecution.
Yes:
Yes, fleeing from Herod was a protective measure, not an act of crime, and both King Herod Antipas and later Pontius Pilate declared Jesus had done nothing worthy of death. In the biblical narrative, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to Egypt to flee King Herod’s threat to his life, a decision prompted by an angelic warning. The flight was an act of preservation, not evasion of justice for a crime.
Yes, the analogy would be if he had moved from Ohio to Indiana.
The people arguing that they were refugees are depending on the ignorance of the listeners.
“Dilexi te” shows the hands of both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV mixing the dough. Pope Leo tends to be a touch more traditional than Pope Francis who seems to swim in the marxist jargon (which is total gibberish) of ‘liberation theology’.
The apostolic exhortation completely missed the mark in my humble opinion. There seemed to be little concern for the spiritual poverty that causes material poverty, and will result in many failing to find the road to salvation. Sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.