The second paragraph mentions Pope Francis as some conniving pope who is trying to repainted the Catholic Church's saints as defenders of social justice, as calls him a demagogue (which is where i derived my opinion about the Vatican electing him to help get more converts but I could see how that may not have been the authors intent). In fact, the entire last section lays a great number of conspiratorial claims most prominently the, "willful ally," line. It's that willful part that makes it a liberal criticism of religion rather than a Marxist one as it is a notion typical of liberalism. While that has been true, it neglects the times when the church has done the exact opposite.

Perhaps the most egregious lie comes from the association of St. Theresa and by extension the Catholic Church with Baby Doc Duvalier. It neglects the context of her visit. There was tension between the Catholic Church and the Duvalier regime. Papa Doc had been excommunicated for his meddling in the Haitian church. Even more egregious is the article's mention of the overthrow of Baby Doc without mention that the Pope's visit in 1983 where he famously said in creole, "things need to change," played a major role in sparking that rebellion. The more I look into the claims in the article, the more I find they are wrong.