The Press Is Not Spinning Francis. He Is.

Look, World! No Mozzetta!

If you had any doubt about the devastating effect of Bishop Francis' senseless self-promotion at the expense of sound Catholicism and elementary truths, this one is only one of the very many articles now on the net concerning the news.

Note the usual two issues: “Francis good, Benedict bad” and “it's a beginning, but by far not enough”. You can read these narratives everywhere.

Now, someone might say “the leftist press spins the Bishop”, but I must strongly disagree.

When Francis himself does not miss any occasion to point out how different he is from his predecessor, can we really blame the press for jumping on it? Francis' and Benedict's attitude towards not only homosexuals, but even sodomites are so distant the two seem to belong to different religions. It is just plain blind to make every possible and impossible effort to try to reconcile the two. The entire planet has picked up the difference, because the difference is there.

How can any sane person expect that a Pontiff waffles the usual “who am I to judge?” Mantra without the world press picking it up? And do you really think Bishop Francis is so thick he thinks he can throw such a bomb without the explosion being heard everywhere? Come on…

Francis knew the conflagration would be huge. This is exactly why he threw the bomb. Or can anyone seriously believe this man is now systematically “misunderstood” in a way which makes him very popular with the world, and lets him appear like the good man “trying to change the Church as much as he can”?

People who don't want to be misunderstood do not insist with “off-the-cuff” comments regularly causing a pandemonium. They express themselves in public with carefully worded statements, that do not leave any space for “misunderstandings”. But this is a revolutionary… Bishop of Rome. He is interested in spreading as much confusion as he can, whilst making himself popular in the process. He says that openly, by the way, and the famous reference to the “noise” is nothing else than a further confirmation of the climate of permanent revolution he wants to create at the grassroots: in the dioceses, in the religious orders, in the universities, in the seminaries, everywhere.

I just wonder: how can a man go on doing exactly the same for four and a half months, without people believing that he does it on purpose?

Seriously? Seriously?

Does all this, then, achieve some results? Of course it does.

1. Francis is the mascot of the world.

2. The world appreciate Francis' effort, but is not satisfied. “Baby steps”, says the linked article. Tsk, tsk. Not good enough. Much more to do towards the “gays” (a term, tellingly, now used by Francis himself: first time for a Pope). Francis is good, but still not like the world; but everyone understands it's not really his fault, so he does just fine.

Maximum damage for the Church and maximum confusion for the faithful, but maximum personal advantage for the humble Bishop.

A coincidence?

Thought not…

Mundabor

 

About these ads

Posted on August 2, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 33 Comments.

  1. Read the link a few posts down on Francis’ intrigue with Leonardo Boff. This is some shocking stuff. The Catholic world will be turned topsy-turvy if Francis proceeds apace. For now, we’re holding, but for how long????

  2. Spin it as mightily as he wishes, the wicked Gene Robinson, who left his wife and children for his gay lover, will never make a case that God Is Love is equal to God is Gay Love.

    • Don’t you love how these people get all their childish self-centredness and call it “love”?
      Which Proddie “clergyman” would be forgiven by his flock for leaving wife and children and go away with another woman? Wouldn’t he be called stupid, childish, family wrecker?

      Ah, but if he is a pervert it must be different…

      M

  3. You must have a staff as big as Michael Voris to keep your finger on the pulse of all that is happening in contemporary Catholicism. ;) I can see it now, ChurchMundaborTV.

  4. Your blog is great. You say everything I feel, I really do not trust this man. Almost daily he says completely inappropriate things to obtain the praise and esteem of the enemies of the True Church. He is a heretic and so he is not a Catholic therefore not a real pope, other words he is an anti-pope, I suspect him to be the Antichrist.

    • I thank you for the kind words, but there’s a reason I never called Francis an AntiPope, much less the Antichrist.

      Unsavoury as the man is, he sits on the throne of Peter. I recognise his role and function, though I do not esteem him as a person.

      Francis was clearly validly elected, so he cannot be an Antipope. Much less he could be the Antichrist, first because the conditions mentioned by Catholic tradition aren’t there, and secondly because he is by far not smart enough.

      We are Catholics here; and if we criticise the Bishop of Rome it is because we love the Papacy.

      I kindly ask you to refrain from such rubbish. Pray for him, rather, that he may stop the unspeakable nonsense and see the light, and stop making the work of the devil.

      Peter is, admittedly, rather drunk at the moment. But he is still Peter, not Judas.

      M

  5. Bishop Francis apparently remarked that he does’t like to give interviews. So why the press conference on the plane?

    It’s almost as if he were ‘drunk’ on the success of Rio or something and wanted to bask in the adulation of the media.

    What we’re getting at the moment from the Bishop of Rome (it seems to me) is a bunch of “dog whistles”.

    I so hope I’ve got him all wrong.

    • Well, I will tell now how I see it. If you ask me, he is too lazy for the serious work of a well-planned interview, and too vain to leave the journalists without the sound of his own voice.

      As to the blunders and polemics, he truly doesn’t care.

      To him, we are a bunch of rosary-counting reactionary dinosaurs.

      M

  6. Just watched Michael Voris’ latest Vortex blaming the media for misrepresenting Francis. I found the analysis completely unconvincing. Never in our lifetime have we seen a Pope who is such a loose canon with an agenda that sows disorientation and confusion. Only a matter of weeks ago he was frothing about the homosexuals in the Vatican but notice how understanding and gentle the treatment of Ricca, and yet no such fluffy treatment for Cardinal O’Brien. It seems that Francis can do no wrong. I think Michael, though a sincere defender of the Faith has to get real about Francis otherwise the Vortex will lose credibility.

    • I perfectly agree.

      I dread listening to the Vortex now, and I think he is another one of those who think there is some good in Bishop Francis.

      It is not for me to say to him what he should do; but he speaks to an audience of Catholics who do not want to be blind.

      Catholic Neo-conservatism has no future. Francis stabs it every day. Either with Truth or with Francis: there are no alternatives.

      I think Voris should start embracing long years of waiting, and dare a sensible criticism of Bishop Francis in the meantime.

      Otherwise, the loss of credibility will be great; possibly irreparable.

      At some point, you just become a Patheos blogger rotating a pencil.

      M

    • michaeldscully

      I think you misunderstood today’s Vortex.

      Voris’ point was that the mainstream media hate the Church, and will seize on any opportunity to spin the Pope’s words to suit its anti-Church agenda. It’s what they do, and you can count on it every time. Part of the Pope’s job is to avoid giving them any ammunition. This Pope can’t be bothered; his negligence in the matter is inexcusable. And if the Pope isn’t going to be careful, then his advisers need to step up and say something to him. And so far, they haven’t been doing that.

      That’s what Michael Voris was saying. He was not letting Francis off the hook at all.

    • My point is more general, Michael, not referred to one post in particular.

      Bergoglio is just the kind of prelate Voris has been thundering on for years, made Bishop of Rome.

      Unless he starts taking account of this, I am afraid he’ll be in trouble.

      I also note you rightly point out Francis’ negligence is inexcusable. Would Voris say that, even with other words?

      If he did, I missed it.

      M

  7. Patrick JK Gray

    Excellent. Thank you.

  8. This is a FYI regarding this whole recent mantra of the “Poor Church”…. you mentioned we could post rather than email ?

    “References to this pact were made here and there in works on the conciliar “Poor Church,” under the suggestive title of the Pact of the Catacombs. The only place we have found its complete text transcribed is in the Chronicle of Vatican II by Boaventura Kloppenburg, O.F.M. He titled the document Pact of the Servant and Poor Church….” http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_036_CatacombPact.htm

    • Thanks!

      When you post your material as FYI, please do not be offended if it gets deleted.

      This one is very interesting, though, and though initially I thought it a spoof I do not think it is.

  9. Dear Mundabor. Amen re Voris. His Knee-Jerk Papal Loyalty blinds him to just how much of a jerk our Pope is. I think Voris is a good man but he has many mental barriers to cross before he allows himself to be cross with the mentally unbalanced man who is Pope.

    Just the action of him putting a friggin beach ball on an Altar is enough for any man with a scintilla of sensus catholicus to be sent into orbit and, while up there, begin praying for the Pope’s obit to appear a.s.a.p.

    The other day you noted that there is an Italian tradition of praying for the end of a bad papacy (I think I remember that being your point) and I see no reason not to pray for an end to this Papacy a.s.a.p. if that be God’s will.

    He is who he is and he ain’t going to change

    • I do not think it is an Italian tradition, I have read this on some book on Catholic doctrine, unfortunately it was years ago and I have read more than a couple of them.
      I remember the expression painless death particularly.

      By all means, if you sincerely think this Papacy is gravely damaging for the Church, pray for this burden to be taken away from Her, and us.

      M

  10. Or this: The Miserablist Church “It is a strange Church that, in name of giving money to the poor, is destroying what remains of the pomp and sacrality due to God and His ministers.” http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/026bev07-25-2002.htm

  11. I think Michael will chose his words very carefully. Should he lay into Francis he would alienate a lot of people who simply need to be catechized, who want to love the Church and do know, in their hearts, she has a lot of warts in imperfect popes. I love ChurchMilitantTV and there are millions who need to hear what Michael has to say without him excoriating the Pope. He can simply stick to promoting orthodoxy, no? Francis may make it harder for Catholics to “walk the walk”, but Michael can’t go wrong promoting the deposit of the Faith. A wise tack is for Michael to say nothing about Francis.

    • I see a fundamental problem in promoting orthodoxy without saying where the main problem lies.

      It’s like being a journalist in the Thirties criticising Nazism without ever mentioning Hitler.

      Pope Francis is every bit at the head of the Church as Hitler was at the head of the Nazi apparatus. One can’t simply ignore such a big elephant in the room.

      Besides, if the Pope has those inclinations, bad clergy will be simply seen as “following the Pope”. The issue must be dealt with, I think.

      M

  12. Fr. Roman describes Francis as a ‘loose canon’, I totally agree. I don’t think that the Pope is being ‘crafty’, I think that he speaks ‘off the cuff’ and is going to get himself into big trouble by doing so. I was very upset that he used the word ‘gay’ which is the perverts preferred term and is totally inaccurate, they are anything but (I noticed that Conte also used the term at the end of his piece).
    As for Michael Voris, his video ‘Thunder on the Right’ is absolutely brilliant whatever his claimed current views on the Bishop of Rome (a term that I never thought that I would use for a Pope).

  13. I echo Robert Mann’s comment. I couldn’t watch much of Voris’ latest Vortex once I saw where he was going with it. He seems to have his head in the sand a tad in regards to our Pope and what this man is really all about. And I agree with you, Mundabor, that if he isn’t able to muster up some honest scrutiny of our Holy Father and his antics (not the media’s), he’s going to lose a lot of well-meaning, searching Catholics. The same goes for Fr. Z, although I pretty much don’t pay attention to him anyway.

  14. Funny. I thought I read a few months back that Francis did not sing the Mass because he is tone deaf. Here, I read that he offered a little song on a guitar. I wonder which is true…

  15. No Catholic should ever use the term “gays” to describe homosexuals. To use such a term is to endorse tacitly the homosexual activist agenda.

    The same applies to the non-existent condition of so-called “homophobia”. These are terms the media like and use incessantly.. Funnily enough, everything Bishop Francis does seems to be aimed at currying favour with the media.

    He’s only been Bishop of Rome for a matter of months, but he’s already shown orthodox Catholics a thing or two, no?

    • You mean, that he isn’t?

      —-

      I agree with you: I tolerate the use of the word “gay” only in tags (so these blog posts are found in the blogosphere: “so-called gay marriage”) or in an ironic/dismissive sense (“this is so gay”; “Pope Gay The First”, “The First Gay president”).

      We must use the word “gay” against the wishes of the faggots, or not use it at all.

      M

  16. By not uttering a word about the Bishop of Rome, it will say volumes. Voris should keep plugging away at presenting the deposit of the Faith, demonstrating the beauty and integrity of all that is True, including the TLM. Francis did not invent the deposit of the Faith, whereas Hitler invented Aryanism and the master plan to exterminate the Jews and take over the world. Should Francis say something cataclysmic, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than Michael Voris

    • Dear akita-ette,

      How can Voris “say volumes” by just staying silent?

      If this were the case, Francis would be a Catholic hero concerning, say, homosexuality!

      Silence is one of the ways to be accessory to a sin, and in front of scandals I do not think Voris can afford to stay silent.

      Qui tacet consentire videtur or, if you prefer, silence implies consent.

      Voris will have to come to term with it, and I frankly think he has already begun.

      M

  17. :) Please promise to delete everything I may say that is stupid. I will be grateful – not offended. I do not have a gift for speaking or writing. AND I count my rosaries ;)

    • Ah well, if you count your rosaries I will have to publish everything you write… ;)

      Besides, nowadays one can get away with pretty much everything saying it was said “off the cuff”…

      M

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,973 other followers

%d bloggers like this: