Pope Leo XIV has openly aligned his papacy with the globalist project of mass migration and Islamic expansion into the historic Christian West, fulfilling what John Zmirak argues was the real “campaign promise” behind his election.

In his essay, Zmirak cautions that beneath the seemingly gentle rhetoric and liturgical facades, Vatican policies under Pope Leo are intensifying their commitment to the one unwavering principle of the Francis era: promoting open borders and demographic shifts across Western nations.

A Papacy Built to Save Open Borders

According to Zmirak, the conclave, worn out by Pope Francis’s overt Marxist tendencies, scandals, and associations with Chinese Communist organ traders and clerical abusers, nonetheless decided to maintain the core agenda. They opted for an American prelate shaped by the Chicago-style politics of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and his “Seamless Garment” strategy, which provided cover for pro-abortion Democrats. Zmirak suggests this move aimed to downplay cultural conflicts while preserving the border policy.

He contends that mass migration is not merely one topic among many but serves as the primary tool for the Left. By inundating Western nations with dependent newcomers, who can be manipulated by flawed electoral systems, other progressive objectives are virtually secured. In this perspective, a pope who can placate upset donors with traditional chants while advocating for welcoming strangers fits the regime’s needs perfectly.

Leo’s Lebanon Example and the Reality of Christian Collapse

Zmirak argues that the facade was revealed when Pope Leo criticized Christians for their “fear” of Islam and attempts to restrict Muslim immigration, citing Lebanon as proof that Christian-Muslim coexistence poses “no issues.” He deems this assertion morally outrageous, comparing it to dismissing sex trafficking by highlighting the supposed outcomes for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

He reminds us that Lebanon was originally established as a Christian haven, once predominantly Christian, thriving, and renowned for its tolerance—Beirut was dubbed the “Paris of the Middle East.” Over time, demographic shifts due to higher Muslim birth rates and the influx of Palestinian “refugees,” coupled with Western clerics advocating for birth control, have left Christians as a minority. Today, many Christians live under the influence of armed Islamist groups like Hezbollah, with Lebanon symbolizing sectarian breakdown rather than peaceful coexistence. Zmirak references an embedded post about the “siege of a synagogue and a cathedral” in the West, suggesting it serves as a cautionary tale, not a success story.

Zmirak’s verdict on Leo’s stance is blunt: “As a Catholic, this is the most fundamental betrayal of my lifetime. We asked ‘Il Papa’ for bread, and he gave us a stone.”

In his view, invoking Lebanon as a success case for Christian‑Muslim harmony while Europe and North America repeat its demographic trajectory is not naivety but complicity.

Minnesota as a Preview of the Future

To illustrate what “import the Third World” looks like in practice, Zmirak turns to Minnesota. Once a dull, safe, largely Lutheran Midwestern state, it now functions as “a colony of Somalia,” where refugee networks, shielded by Democrats and diversity bureaucrats, have allegedly turned welfare systems into a pipeline for overseas Islamist causes.

He cites LifeZette’s reporting that federal officials uncovered what they describe as the largest theft of taxpayer funds in U.S. history: more than one billion dollars in public money siphoned off by at least 86 suspects, “largely within small Somali communities in the state.” Authorities say the scammers “created or operated companies that billed Minnesota for social services that were never provided,” targeting programs meant to feed children, assist the homeless, and fund autism therapy.

Zmirak frames this not as a one‑off scandal but as the predictable outcome of a system where any attempt to scrutinize minority‑run nonprofits is met with threats of “racism” lawsuits. He notes that, according to the New York Times’ account of the fraud, Minnesota’s education officials were deluged with pandemic‑era applications from “feeding sites” and began questioning clearly inflated meal counts. The largest contractor, Feeding Our Future, responded by warning that if the state didn’t fast‑track approvals for “minority‑owned businesses,” it would sue for discrimination. The state backed down; the fraud exploded.

A Program, Not a Misstep

For Zmirak, these episodes are not isolated misjudgments by a well‑meaning pope. They are proof that the current Vatican, much like the political class in St. Paul, London, or Brussels, is committed to policies that predictably weaken historic Christian nations in the name of humanitarian slogans and electoral calculus. He argues that Leo is simply doing what the cardinals elected him to do: “fulfilling his campaign promises” to keep the borders open, soothe donor anxieties with aesthetic concessions, and dismiss the mounting evidence of social breakdown and Christian retreat as unchristian “fear.”

The warning is stark: if Western Christians accept a theological reframing of “welcome the stranger” that demands our own dispossession, we should not be surprised when our cities start to look less like what they were and more like Lebanon, or the Somali enclaves now hollowing out Minnesota. In that light, Pope Leo’s comments on Islam and migration are not merely controversial soundbites; they signal a deliberate choice about who and what the Vatican is prepared to sacrifice in the name of its new global order.