FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What Cardinal Bergoglio really did
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
For those who think that Cardinal Bergoglio was a sympathiser of the military regime, think again.

During the years of the Argentine military dictatorship, the future Pope Francis, then a Jesuit provincial, “built a clandestine network to protect the persecuted … and organize escapes abroad,” the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire reported.

Avvenire interviewed Jesuit Father Juan Manuel Scannone, the author of the forthcoming book Bergoglio’s List: Those Saved by Pope Francis; Stories Never Told. Father Scannone, now 81, recounted how the future Pope offered him advice to avoid being kidnapped by police.

“According to the various testimonies gathered together in the volume, the future Pope made sure no one knew who was part of a clandestine network that sheltered or shuttled to safety dissidents, unionists, priests, students, intellectuals, Catholics and others,” Catholic News Service reported.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=19024
The question is, what would be so bad in being a sympathiser of the military regime. After all, Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were 'regimes' too.
(09-13-2013, 03:54 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]The question is, what would be so bad in being a sympathiser of the military regime. After all, Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were 'regimes' too.

Systematic murder.  That's what's "so bad."
And of course it would be better for him to co-operate with left-wingers.
(09-13-2013, 04:31 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]And of course it would be better for him to co-operate with left-wingers.

No.  It is better to be Catholic.  Do you understand the difference?  This is the real world -- not the world of Fox News and Sean Hannity.  The Catholic Church has a social teaching that is based squarely on the natural law and on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is neither "right" nor "left," neither "conservative" nor "liberal."

Try not to get caught in those political dichotomies.  It is a thoroughly secular mindset and you will make yourself an enemy of the Gospel.
And where exactly did I write about tortures being OK? Also, I don't know who Sean Hannity is, sorry for that, but what's called conservative in the US, rarely is such.
The thing is that St Paul wrote in Romans, 'Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.' And while before coup d'état the people's allegiance should be to the Peronist rule, it was better to stay by junta that, while imperfect (and cruel, I agree), was a government, than continue civil war.
Next, I didn't write that the Church is 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' or 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Although the right is usually pro-Catholic.
(09-13-2013, 03:54 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]The question is, what would be so bad in being a sympathiser of the military regime. After all, Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were 'regimes' too.
Being in sympathy with a regime that routinely made people disappear on a large scale? A regime that put in an order with General Electric for the same type of ovens that the Nazis used to dispose of concentration camp victims? While the order could have been lucrative for GE they turned it down when they realized that the only purpose could have been the large sccale disposal of political prisoners. A regime that arrested and sentenced large numbers of political prisoners to death without the benefit of a trial?   
I've always understood the allegations against then-Jorge Bergoglio as referring to selling two priests out in 1976, the year that the coup d'état took place. Now, assuming that this were only calumnies, it wouldn't be incriminating for him to sympathise with a government that could put an and to left-wing guerilla terror. I haven't heard of any charges against Bergoglio about activities after 1976.
(09-13-2013, 04:31 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]And of course it would be better for him to co-operate with left-wingers.

Sure it is, just ask any leftie." Better Red than dead."

(09-13-2013, 04:23 AM)guacamole Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-13-2013, 03:54 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]The question is, what would be so bad in being a sympathiser of the military regime. After all, Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were 'regimes' too.

Systematic murder.  That's what's "so bad."

"Systematic murder"?? I can't believe anyone here buys this leftmongering. Honestly I cannot put my hands on fire for the Argentinean Junta -as you know, several of its members were actually freemasons-, but the case of Franco and Pinochet should be clear for everyone here: they were catholics who did their duty by saving their countries (including the very survical of the Church) from the communist revolutionary aggression and the savage religious prosecution. There was no "systematic murder", besides the predictable excesses during a civil war. On the other hand, their opponents, then and today, are the perpetrators of innummerable atrocities against churches and the clergy and the savage pursuit of hedonism, divorce, abortion, sodomy, prostitution, etc. Ask any tradicional priest in these countries (I mean ANY, i.e. SSPX, FSSP, IBP, diocesan, etc) and they will tell you the same. Besides, the numbers of the so called "systematic murder" are, in all cases, grossly exaggerateed.
Pages: 1 2