Pope Francis And The Confused Mind.

The more I read him, the more I am persuaded that we are punished with a Pope that doesn’t know very much what he thinks, but seems determined to say it anyway.

Things have come to such a level of confusion and embarrassment, that most recently a Vatican spokesman, Father Rosica, had to clean some of Francis’ mess, and to say very clear those who die in their atheism will go to hell.

Obvious, you will say. Christianity 101. Every child of six knows it. Well, apparently some doubts about whether the Pope’s understanding of Christianity is as good as a five years’ old are justified enough to force Father Rosica to intervene. The brutal fact is that the Holy Father expresses himself in such a confused way you never know whether the problem is in his utter inability to express himself properly – which should be reason enough not to improvise – or, more worryingly, in his inability to think soundly.

Recently, the Pope told us that Christ died even for atheist, which in itself is true: antecedently, Jesus died for everyone; but this does not mean everyone is saved, then subsequently Jesus saves some and condemns others. Therefore, Jesus died for the atheist doesn’t mean those who die in their atheism escape hell. To think so would mean to completely reinvent Christianity, transforming it in a sugary new age cult in which not even believing Jesus is our Saviour is necessary to save us.

“Do good”, says the Pope to the atheist, after talking of Salvation; “we will meet there”, and you don’t understand whether it means “we will have at least some common ground, hoping you avoid hell repenting of your atheism by the efficacious grace of God”, or whether he means “we will meet in Paradise, because don’t you know, nowadays works without faith suffice for salvation”; which last is, I assure you, just the way it sounds and can’t be what the Pope meant merely because the scale of heresy would be too much even for a South American Jesuit, much less a Pope.

So much so, in fact, that Father Rosica had to intervene and explain to the atheists – the Christians already know – what is what. Now when someone is forced to explain the very first truths of Christianity because as the Pope explains them they seem the opposite, you know a Jesuit was made Pope.

It is difficult to know what goes on into the mind of this man. I have always been of the opinion that when people think clearly, they speak clearly and, conversely, when they are confused in the way they talk is because they are rather confused in the way they think. “Chi parla male, pensa male”: he who talks badly, thinks badly. I do not think the Holy Father should be an exception, because he isn’t an illiterate south American campesino.

My impression of the Pontiff after reading the excerpts of a couple of dozen homilies of his – which is a lot to understand how a man thinks – is that this is a man not in possession of clear thinking, possibly never formed correctly in the first place, and constantly oscillating between the will to talk straight and the seemingly irresistible desire to please the audience and make everything “easy”, which actually means “convenient”. This is, by the by, the first mark of the Vatican II priest.

This here is also a Jesuit, meaning that to him ambiguity is a way of life. Before reading Pope Francis, you know already he will either run with the hare or hunt with the hounds, and the only uncertainty is which of the two is going to be on the day. The banality of much of what he says is the result of this way of thinking, and it won’t be long before millions discover they have to do with an intellectual Pygmy.

This isn’t pastoral, or even decent. It sows confusion to the point of forcing his officials to explain the obvious. It can’t be right, and must be amended if the Holy Father is to avoid making an embarrassment of himself.

It would be enough to be conscious of his (obvious) limits and prepare drafts of his homilies beforehand, that he would give to someone like Father Rosica or Bishop Gaenswein to ensure they are sound; but it is very obvious the humility necessary to do so is just not there.

Unless something substantial changes, we must prepare ourselves for a very sad Papacy. I blame Pope Benedict; not for resigning, but for choosing the Cardinals who then picked, rather predictably, one like the majority of them.


Posted on May 29, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. radjalemagnifique

    Cannes Film Festival – The “Palme d’Or” Award

    I’m sorry, I’m in a hurry, so I won’t add a commentary to your article. But in the meantime you may be interested in knowing the comment of Radio Vatican for the attribution of the “Palme d’Or” to a film praising lesbianisme, even with a minor girl, with apparently some crude scenes.

    I came there trough different blogs which I will list here :


    Article « Nouvelle Palme », see the N. B. (in French)

    (in French, with link to the following site 🙂

    (in Italian)

    I don’t know where the vice in the Church will stop. Nor who will stop it.

    Radja le Magnifique

  2. You and Ann Barnhardt, Mundabor! Read what she says about Pope Francis:

    Just a sample, to whet your appetite:


    In the continued spirit of fulfilling my apparent vocation of being the person who faces and then clearly explains the unpleasantries of life, let’s have a little talk about Pope Francis.
    The incident precipitating this essay happened last week, but this has been building for a while. Pope Francis has acquired the habit of saying daily Mass in a chapel on the grounds of the Vatican (and, of course, the chapel is ugly, often described as looking like a particularly cheap set piece from the original Star Trek series, because, you know, ugliness equals poor and dazzlingly humble, or something … don’t get me started).

    In these near-daily Masses, Pope Francis has been delivering what are being called “sermonettes”. They are delivered off-the-cuff, and are breathlessly reported by the global press after being picked up from the original reportage by the Vatican Press Office. And, as is expected, and as is very easy to do, the press sensationalizes Francis’ words and frequently scandal and error regarding Church teaching is the result. Last week Francis made headlines with one of his sermonettes that was widely interpreted as implying the possibility of salvation for atheists qua atheists through good works.

    Double facepalm.

    Believe it or not, the point of this piece is NOT to pillory the press. In fact, I will offer a defense of the press, which even I am having a hard time getting my head around. Here’s the deal. Pope Francis, while the Vicar of Christ gloriously reigning, is not a terribly bright man. What brings Jorge Maria Bergoglio’s intellectual shortcomings into even starker relief is the fact that his predecessor, Benedict XVI Ratzinger is not only a bona fide genius, but also … still alive. Francis is a mediocre intellect, poorly educated, and a member of an order (the Jesuits) that is so far-gone that it should be suppressed. Layer on top of this the generation of which Francis is a product: perhaps the most godless, evil, blind generation in human history, and add in the fact that while being poorly educated in the age of the hippy, he has also lived his entire life in South America, which has been more steadily and overtly influenced by Marxism, both in the secular world as well as in the Church, than either Europe or North America over the last fifty years.

    Jorge Maria Bergoglio is the first “affirmative action” pope – which is a different thing entirely from nepotism. The College of Cardinals, again, not exactly a collection of the smartest men in the world – remember Tracksuit Timmy Dolan, dinner host of antichrists and celebrant of “gay” Masses, a man whose capacity for intellectual nuance is on par with a box of hair, is not only a cardinal, but the head of the U.S. Bishop’s conference – went into the conclave wanting to elect not the best man, not the brightest intellect, not the most competent manager. No. The criteria were racial and geographical. “Um, we need to have a pope from the Western Hemisphere. We need to have a pope from a Spanish-speaking country. We need to make the Latinos feel good and keep the Latino money flowing, because they are the only ones not contracepting themselves into extinction.”

    And, if this culture of stupidity persists, then mark my words: they will elect a black African next time for no other reason than “affirmative action”.

    Now, back to Francis’ sermonettes, and defending the press. There is a tremendous uproar on the internet with people cursing the Vatican Press Office for not releasing the full transcripts of Francis’ sermonettes but instead only piecemeal summaries consisting of brief quotes from Francis with press-written prose between the quotes to give context. “Give us the full transcripts!”

    The reason they aren’t releasing the full transcripts is because Francis’ sermonettes are so rambling, so incoherent and sometimes so embarrassing in their delivery (verbal ticks like, “eh?” and “right?”) that the Vatican Press Office is trying to protect both Francis and the dignity of the Holy See by taking Francis’ stream-of-consciousness rhetorical sausage and presenting it as something that could maybe pass as steak. And remember, we are coming off of the pontificate of Ratzinger, who was and is a rhetorical genius, and who routinely delivered not just steak, but super-prime rhetorical filet mignon with the care and precision of speech that one would expect from the Vicar of Christ – and even then could still be quoted out of context or have his words twisted by the press and the world.

  3. “For a Jesuit, ambiguity is a way of life”…classic! I seemed to have fallen into the habit of reading your blog everyday. Keep up the good work!

    But isn’t ambiguity also the mark of the Vat. II priest? I’m a traditionalist priest but I know many priests of this ilk…they couldn’t convey a clear thought if their lives depended on it but this is what we’ve had to contend with for the past forty or so years and it goes on…usquequo Domine!

    • Yes, it is. Since I was a child, the unwillingness to be a priest is what strikes me most of many V II priests.
      I am honoured in being read by traditionalist priests. I am an emotional chap, not very slow to anger; but I must be doing something right then…


  4. Mundabor,
    but that atheists go to heaven is in no way a radical thought in the conciliar Church. It is, rather, an obvious logical consequence of the “hell is empty” nonsense, the proponents of which, such as von Balthasar, were admired by John Paul II and form a large part of the theological mainstream since the Council.
    First premise: We may hope that hell is empty.
    Second premise: Atheists exist and will face judgement after death.
    Conclusion: Therefore we may hope that all atheists will escape hell (and therefore go to heaven).
    Of course this kind of thinking is complete idiocy as all of Scripture and Tradition teach otherwise, but it follows rather logically from the premises of the New Theology that inspired not just the Council but every single Pope since then (not excluding Francis’ predecessor).

    “Atheists (insofar as they are atheists) go to heaven” is not radical anymore. Because, you know, every religion is a “means of salvation” now, and if Buddhists do not need Christ for salvation, why should atheists? This kind of thinking is implicit in ecumenical and interreligious “dialogue”. Now we have a Pope who is unwilling (or unable) to sugarcoat the conciliar revolution. But with sugar or without, slow and steady (Benedict) or fast and furious (Francis), the revolution remains the same. The “clarification” is rather obfuscating because it hides the fact that what Francis said isn’t really out of line for the modern Church, not even in style, as he leaves open enough holes to crawl back into, if a “clarification” should become necessary.

    • Ah yes, of course V II was plagued with heretics and heretical thinking. But I do not remember any Pope as confusing – or confused – as this one.
      He is in fact the first son, rather than maker, of the Council.
      From their fruits you’ll recognise the trees.

  5. Mundabor, you are absolutely right regarding Pope Francis, and its good we have people like you to enlighten us on what is going on. By the way, did you hear the Patriarch of Lisbon finally resigned? This is the best news we’ve had in a while.

  6. I didn’t like the tone or the veiled offence, @vivificat, so your message had to die. Sad, because it had some interesting thoughts.

    Assuming your good faith, I will allow you to try again if you so wish.


  7. Orthodoxy looks better every day.

  8. Reblogged this on Mundabor's Blog and commented:

    The Waffle Reblog

  1. Pingback: Przez Niepokalaną do Przenajśwętszego Serca Jezusa {2} – św. Maksymilian Kolbe | forumdlazycia

%d bloggers like this: