Pope Chamberlain The First: A “Judgemental” Blog Post.

Clearly, Neville Chamberlain has a new admirer.

And so we are, the day after, reflecting on the latest antics of a man who is frankly surpassing every limit of Catholic decency.

Before we examine in detail some of what has emerged, I would like to make some preliminary consideration.

1) Do yourself a favour, and read (or re-read) first what Pius VI had to say about heretics – and those who would like to become such – in Auctorem Fidei. Know how heretics – both formal and material – think, and learn to detect the heresy even when sprinkled with affirmations of orthodoxy. This is vital, because no heretic or “revolutionary” Catholic – much less a Pope – would ever dare to be unceasingly intent on his work of demolition, without feeding his unknowing pigeons with some convenient orthodox bird food whenever necessary to keep them well-fed and reasonably happy. True, Francis up to now has been very stingy even with the orthodox bird food, but I attribute this to his excess of demolishing zeal. This might well change in the future, if and when the flak grows stronger or the criticism threatens to seriously damage Francis’ media icon. Then you will see the bird food being distributed more abundantly. The pigeons will eat it enthusiastically, whilst swallowing all of the heretical one with it, without a second thought.

2) Read what Francis says not in isolation, but within the greater frame of what he has kept saying in these last six months. One misunderstanding is one misunderstanding, and two misunderstandings can be a painful coincidence; but thirty misunderstandings are not even carelessness; they are not of this world.

3) Bear in mind that I have not – nor do I intend to – read all the 12,000 words. If you think this does not qualify me for a credible exam of the papal enchilada, I ask you not to say a word of criticism of Marxism before reading Das Kapital, of Nazism before reading Mein Kampf, and of the mad nuns before reading their books. Realise that Francis does not give a 12,000 words interview in order for 1,1 billion Catholics to read all of them. He gives a 12,000 words interview in order for 1,1 billion Catholics and countless non-Catholics to read the headlines and the quotes. In case you still don’t get it (but I am sure you do) the 12,000 words are there merely to muddy the waters, so that the orthodox parts – that obviously do not make any headlines, as desired – can be used against those who dare to criticise Francis for the scandalous bits. Again, the text mentioned on 1) is your friend.


Let us, therefore, examine some of his words. Not the comments, not the attempts of the press to spin him and make him even worse than he is – and they do it, incredibly; they do it big time. Liberals are always so hard to please… – but what he has himself said. Again, let us keep in mind that what is expected or old does not make it in a newspaper article, what is unexpected or new does.Yes, there will be many expressions of orthodox faith. Of course there will be many of them. In 12,000 words there’s plenty of space, eh, ah, no?

“Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks.”

He refers here, I think, to the sensus fidelium. He uses an extremely dangerous phrase, “infallible in matters of belief”, without the proper context within the phrase; making of them, so to speak, a new infallible Magisterium for those who read – as desired – the snippet. Of the sensus fidelium Ratzinger already said: “It is certainly not a kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium would be unthinkable, since the sensus fidei cannot be authentically developed in believers, except to the extent in which they fully participate in the life of the Church, and this demands responsible adherence to the Magisterium, to the deposit of faith.” Of course, theologians and priest bloggers will run to tell us that Francis did not say that the majority of poorly instructed Catholics decides about “changes” in the deposit of the faith. But the use of such charged words without the necessary explanation (that is: without the explanation of what this infallibilitas in credendo most certainly is not), it’s either not there or it did not make the newspapers. I can’t be bothered to look if it’s there, so sure I am the part already mentioned is the one meant for picking up by the press. Why am I so sure? Because I have been reading all the nonsense of this man for six months now.

We must all train ourselves to read Francis through Francis. When we do, we discover that what he wants to say is clear enough.

“Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible.

I see two and a half huge problems here. The first is the concept of “actualising” (forgive the English spelling) the Gospel. If it sounds stupid, it’s because it is. If it sounds Presbyterian, it’s because it’s stupid. Christ did not die on the Cross so that Francis may “actualise” His Truth. And please make no mistake here: it is clear enough from the entire Francis-planet that by “actualising” he does not mean “tweeting Bible verses” or “having a Vatican Youtube channel”. He means changing attitude, which can only cause a shifting in values. You can judge (yes, judge!) for yourself how Catholic such “dynamic” is; that is, you can do it if you have paid attention to what has happened in the last 50 years. The other problem is the attempt to remain blind in front of the catastrophe, a “Francis moment” already examined here. The third, but lesser problem, is the attempt to depict V II as someway infallible and certainly irreversible. Bollocks, of course, but the leitmotiv of the last decades and therefore, in itself, not new.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’

Here, my dear readers, we need to be strong, and stay calm.

In all centuries past, the answer of the Pope (of every Pope. No exception. No, I really mean no one) would have been:

No, of course I don’t!

Fairly easy, right? Doesn’t challenge anyone. Of course, the fact itself that the question could be posed without everyone exploding in a roar of laughter is highly disturbing. Still, it would have been so easy.

But you see, then the image of the “who am I to judge”-Pope as the Dalai Lama In White would have been compromised. Therefore, Bergoglio does not even muster the courage to give such an easy answer as that, but he boasts of his reaction instead. I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all.

“When I went through my lung disease at the hospital, the doctor gave me penicillin and streptomycin in certain doses. The sister who was on duty tripled my doses because she was daringly astute; she knew what to do because she was with ill people all day. The doctor, who really was a good one, lived in his laboratory; the sister lived on the frontier and was in dialogue with it every day. Domesticating the frontier means just talking from a remote location, locking yourself up in a laboratory. Laboratories are useful, but reflection for us must always start from experience.”

Another very dangerous comparison, potentially explosive and actually, already exploded. I can’t avoid reading in this a very simple message: theory (doctrine, orthodoxy) is fine and good, but when you dig deep in the belly of the favela (put here your favourite social cause) other rules apply. The “dialogue” with the “frontier” makes you intrinsically better at understanding reality, whilst the theoretical clergyman or layman (that is: the orthodox people who don’t know the reality of the favela) are talking from a “remote location”. Again, this links to what he said about the shepherd that must smell like his sheep. I smell filth here, and cannot see how one with this thinking can have any real determination in stopping it. The corrupted priests are like the “sister on the frontier”, you see, and all that jazz…

““The young Catholic churches, as they grow, develop a synthesis of faith, culture and life, and so it is a synthesis different from the one developed by the ancient churches.”

What is this? Seriously, is this a Pope? Or the Circus Bergoglio? Do I have to pay a ticket for this?

Please, please, do not say “taken out of context”, “in reality he wanted to say the contrary”, and the like. Can’t you see all the elements of, ahem, Bergoglism? The “young” churches “grow”, and they grow in a different way than the ancient churches.

You are the past, Baby Jesus. Say hello to a new “synthesis of faith culture and life”; a “synthesis” that cannot but be, if you are honest with yourself, a new religion.

Then from here:

The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently,” Francis said. “We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

“Church” is not capitalised. Very bad, and hopefully a typo. It is not clear why there should be a “multitude of doctrines”. On the contrary, Catholicism is so beautiful because so divinely logical, coherent and wonderfully held together by a superior, unifying wisdom. If the young Jorge Bergoglio had been paying attention at school, or in seminary, he wouldn’t talk such rubbish now. The “new balance” smells of Neo-Modernism like an Argentinian favela smells of canalisation, or lack thereof. The idea that it be bad to “impose doctrine insistently” is worse than stupid. For many centuries, doctrine has been hammered into the head of people since they were little children. It did them a lot of good. It would have done Bergoglio a lot of good, too. I seriously doubt he knows the Ten Commandments, or the works of mercy, by heart. If he does, it’s even worse, because then it’s clear he doesn’t care for them.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” he lamented. “The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.”

The Jesuit alarm went on big time here. Seriously, how can he say to an undetermined, planetary mass of readers “Jesus has saved you?”. Who is he, God? Or could you say, who is he to judge? I thought I will only know when I die whether I am saved or not. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross only makes this salvation possible, but in no way achieved. If this were the case, the Pope would be the first who has made himself redundant. As to the “ministers of mercy”, again, if he knew that to admonish the sinner is a work of mercy he would not talk this rubbish.

I must be wrong, though. We are saved. My bad. I just didn’t know we are Protestant now. Actually even more “saving” than Protestant, because this is addressed to everyone, not just Christians.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” he said. “The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Insist only? Insist ONLY? When has Francis ever mentioned abortion, condemned so-called “gay marriage” (no “so-called” for him: marriage it is, clearly) or contraception? Isn’t he not the chap who said there’s no real need, people know already? His first half-courageous words I have read from his concerning abortion are of today: no doubt, the result of the brutal flak against the new icon of the humble quasi-non-Pope.

And what is that is not possible? Did the Church not expand the most when it seemed impossible? I write about these issues incessantly and my readership expands faster than the Church does in every country you could care to mention. I am not even a priest, just an angry amateur blogger layman writing in a foreign language! Can you imagine what would happen if the Pope were to start doing the same and “insist” on the core issues? People have a desperate need for sound words! Desperate! What is this man’s priority: gossip?

Dulcis in fundo, let us repeat the last part of this astonishing statement.

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

This is 100% Grima Wormtongue when Gandalf meets Theoden, and is utterly, utterly disturbing. Surrender to the new times, is what he is clearly and simply saying. Yes, you don’t have to formally approve of them; just shut up – most of the times, at least – and live with all the abominations of the day. Adapt, because if you don’t do it your moral edifice will collapse like a house of cards.

How can the moral edifice of the Church, of obviously divine origin and scope, collapse unless it get “adapted”? Is this some kind of sick joke? Is it the First of April and I haven’t noticed it?

Here, it can only be that the link between the “balance” and the “collapse” was taken completely out of context. I have no other explanation. Otherwise, it would be unprecedented even for Francis. A Presbyterian on steroids. Disturbing. Still, one must realise with some alarm that the phrase has “Bergoglio” written all over it. Again, I do not want to believe it. I merely point out to how easy he made for the press to make the utterly stupid and utterly brutal link: adapt or collapse. Certainly, this happened because of his unguarded expressions.


The sum total of all these assertions – all of them, word for word quotations – and of all that Francis has said, and omitted to say, since the beginning of the pontificate – is clear: don’t fight it. Francis espouses a defeatist line somewhere between Chamberlain and Quisling, with some very worrying streaks of Grima Wormtongue.

I do not think Jesus on the cross – or any time before, or after – was very worried about adapting his message to the times, or having the moral edifice of His church fall like a house of cards (that Francis would use such an image of speech referred to the Church, which is indefectible, is in itself a scandal as it suggest an organisation that could be wiped out, though this is not explicitly said). Actually, if one does not believe that Christ’s message is, in its entirety, valid independently of the times and the concrete situation, I question his right to call himself a Catholic rather than, say, a Presbyterian. The same I allow myself to think if, in a similar way, one should think the way the Church has dealt with the message of Christ – with such abstruse initiatives like evangelisation, and staunch defence of orthodoxy – were now past “sell before” date. We see here, again, Neo-modernism at work. Neo-modernism, I add, of a particularly brutal kind.

Or perhaps does Francis think that these are bad times for a staunch defence of orthodoxy, but there have been much better times in the past? Was it easy to defend Catholicism when the French Revolution ravaged Europe? Was it easy to defend Catholicism when Hitler sent thousands of priests in concentration, or even extermination camps? Was it easy to defend Catholic orthodoxy when the Communist siren lured the poor all over Southern Europe? Was “liberation theology” of any kind whatsoever an option then? And if not, why? What about the Cathars? What about the Saxons? What about the Hussites, the Lutherans, the Calvinists?

No. Defending Catholicism has never been easy, though at times this has been done better, at times less well, and at times very badly. Catholicism is, be it sodomy today or communism yesterday, uncomfortable, countercultural, never looking for the easy answers. Again, Popes have varied greatly. But what we have now on the sea of Peter is no Gregory the Great; rather a cowardly Liberius, suggesting that we do not insist on such stupid things as putting orthodoxy before all else, or being so “uncharitable” as to say to a sodomite that – bar an always welcome repentance – he is surely on his way to hell.

This man doesn’t even have the guts to say that God is against homosexuality. He suggests we focus on gossip instead. Because you see, other than the battle against institutionalised sodomy, the battle against gossip can certainly be won, right?

Francis must wake up, and I mean he must really wake up. He has been playing the populist provincial Peronist Archbishop for too long; he must see, surely, that this attitude will cause immense damage to the Church and the Papacy, at least as Church and Papacy have been understood for 2000 years, before the populism of the favela prophets entered the corridors of the Vatican.

Time to wake up for us, too, and stop pretending nothing is happening here.

The man is bombarding us with his revolutionary nuCatholicism like it’s Dresden in February 1945. We can’t pretend it’s carnival.


Posted on September 20, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.

  1. “infallibility” of all the faithful sounds a lot like Modernism’s concept of immanence and the Church as a democracy.

  2. I dread to think what ten years of this man’s “ministry” will do to the Church. When the Son of man comes will he find any Faith on earth?

  3. I was bereft reading yesterday’s news. I pray for the right response to it. I pray for you, M., for Michael Voris, for Cardinal Burke, for Pope Emeritus Benedict, for all the foot soldiers in the trenches. I’ve invoked the Virgin, Edmund Campion, Robert Southwell, Edith Stein, Blessed Franz Jagerstatter and the Pearl of York to pray for us lost and battered sheep at this moment in history.

    Can the man not see that from charity flows a hatred of something so squalid and disease producing as sodomy? Are the unborn to be forgotten entirely!? In 40 years I’ve heard just two tepid sermons on the tragedy of abortion! Who is he speaking of when he said the church is obsessed with abortion and contraception? My family and friends are contracepting their brains out and attending Mass, receiving Holy Communion and admitting they’ve not been to confession for years. No clergy cares to preach against any of that. They are only atwitter about “immigration reform” in these parts.

    • What you say is truly shocking, Akitaette. From what I can see – but I might go around in conservative circles – people here are more conservative, at least the practicing ones.

      I might be wrong, mind.


  4. A Pope as the vicar of Christ must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Love, charity and compassion have been the buzzwords of the entire VCII era of Church history. Does Pope Francis even remotely understand that love, charity and compassion without truth are all but worthless. It can be worse then worthless because it can imply or be seen to condone the sin or the need for conversion by all to the one true Church. Of course Jesus showed love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness but that went hand in hand with repentence and the resolve to go and sin no more by the sinner. The emperor has no clothes and we must fight and pray to restore our Catholic Faith. When Pope Pius XII said that it is if many would reduce, No Salvation to a meaningless formula.’ I never thought that I would be living in the very times when loose lips can sink Ark’s if only they could…. but as we know, the gates of hell shall not prevail. And in that we can take great solace.


    George Brenner

  5. He appears to have “retracted” his provocative statements. Just like you said, the pigeons are swallowing the orthodox fodder. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-condemns-abortion-in-strongest-pro-life-comments-to-date-day-after-con

    • I have read it yesterday, and might write about it.
      My impression was his contradiction in saying “we can’t always talk about abortion” when he had never taken a clear position (instead saying “hey, you know already”) was too blatant to ignore.
      Methinks, he thought that a bit of pigeon fodder is in order now.
      If he makes thirty such interventions, well of course this will mean something very different.


  6. Mundabor,
    what an excellent analysis! This is why your blog is among the very few I read daily. (This, and your usual, shall we say, fiery style… ;))

    At one point, however, I have to disagree. You write:
    “Francis must wake up, and I mean he must really wake up.”
    He is already awake. That is the problem.

    “He has been playing the populist provincial Peronist Archbishop for too long”
    If only! Instead he is a hardened revolutionary out to destroy as much of the Church as he possibly can. I do not see any other reasonable interpretation of his words and actions.

    “he must see, surely, that this attitude will cause immense damage to the Church and the Papacy”
    Of course he sees it. That’s why he does it.

    • Thanks Catocon.

      As a blogger read by now more than a couple dozen people, I try to make a constant effort to think this man might in fact be “merely” badly instructed and blinded by a sort of misguided zeal. I might be wrong of course, but I prefer to be in such cases in error on the side of naïveté. These people are truly badly instructed.


  7. Please just keep on blogging Mundabor. You are the sane voice among the throngs of enablers/explainers.

    • Thank you, Sir!

      I have read elsewhere Italian bloggers would be at the forefront of the reaction to this attack to Orthodoxy. It’s a cultural matter, you see. We Italians speak more openly and freely than the average Anglo-Saxon, and no halfway educated Italian thinks the Holy Ghost picks the Pope. Too many people who know History for that, too…


  8. Mundabor,
    I completely understand this. I’m trying to be naive, too. I desperately want to ascribe positive motives to the actions of Francis. But when I see someone running around for six months, madly torching every house he can find, I have a hard time believing he does not know fire burns…

  9. I just can’t understand what all the fascination is about with this snake enchanter that calls himself bishop of Rome… Is this planet’s infatuation with all things ugly, impious and disgusting (like sodomy, poverty, illiteracy) gone so far as to make HEROES of people like this uneducated, populist charlatan? a family with the wrong members in control, that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing the current Catholic church in a phrase.
    Good God have mercy on us all!

    • Yes, we live in times where people boast of their vicinity to perversion, at least here in England. Millions will either have a “gay friend” or desire to have one; newspapers once considered prestigious like “The Times” have openly sodomitical employees on their rolls. Trash newspapers like the “Evening Standard” and “Metro” are just extreme.

      The entire West is becoming a favela. Francis is just the man for it.


    • The fascination of the MSM with Francis is precisely for the reasons you question. The liberal masonic press is propping him up for speaking exactly like that. They know the damage this brings to the Church. They know it because it is already the result of CVII. They want empty seminaries and churches. They want the relativization of morals and religions. They want dumb sexualized people watching TV easy to control. They want the Church destroyed. In the best case scenario Francis is a useful idiot, in the worst he might well be a Mason. I am more inclined to the latter.

    • I personally do not think he is a mason. But I can’t deny he talks and thinks like one. The scandal of last week (this is the rhythm now, more or less) shows in my eyes the thinking of a mason. On the other hand, this is also the thinking of an ignorant man who wants to be liked and popular, so it’s difficult to say…


  10. Dear Mundabor,
    You speak true words. This man is indeed Dresdenizing the Catholic church brick by brick.
    However you are bit naive when you say:
    “And what is that is not possible? Did the Church not expand the most when it seemed impossible?”
    If Francis suddenly started talking like Pius XII, or like you for the that matter, all the liberal left press from the NYT down will immediately ignore/silence him or openly attack him. Don’t you remember how they treat Benedict XVI?
    Dark Henry

    • I don’t follow you, Henry.
      The Church grows even when she is persecuted.
      Should she not grow because the NYT attacks her?

      The Church never grows by trying to be popular. She grows by trying to be unpopular.


  11. What I meant to say is that if this Pope, or any Pope, spoke as a traditionalist instead of telling vapid liberal platitudes he would have all power of modern media against him. The immense majority of papers, TV channels, radios is controlled by people ranging from mildly hostile to radically hostile to the Church. Benedict was moderately traditionalist and they made life very difficult for him.
    I agree that if a Pope had “coglioni” to speak like Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk did, described in a previous post, I am sure many people would be confirmed in their faith and others attracted to the Catholic faith. At the same time many liberals would officially leave the Church and there might be a schism from great parts of the liberal clergy. Maybe that is good, but who has the “coglioni” to do that? I would also think that an openly traditionalist Pope in the modern world is at risk of being murdered. I suspect foul play in the way Benedict “resigned”.

    • Well, without using the word you have used (which is in fact fact more vulgar than you probably think) I’d say every decent Pope would have the … attributes to do that. I never understood, or cared for, the risk of “schism”.
      Orthodoxy never cares for the risk that schismatic go away; if they are, they will.
      But really, most people are just poorly instructed and lazy. When they find someone who tells it as it is, many will be receptive, a few will be angry, many more will be indifferent.
      Liberal Schism, in Catholicism, is self-defeating and a contradiction in terms. What shall these “rebels” do, make some mad nun “bishop” and elect an anti-Pope? Even their dogs would laugh at them.

  12. To say that Bergoglio is a Mason is to overestimate him a lot, to “understand” Bergoglio one has to understand Peronism and the war between classes that such doctrine have waged here in Argentina for 70 years. It’s almost impossible to properly scrutinize his style from european points of view, Bergoglio is a 101% argentine provincial demagogue, forged under the doctrine of envy, hatred and resentment for anyone who dares to have a certain education , refinement or strong morals values, that Juan Domingo and Eva Peron installed in this country and now he is trying to spread all over the world, I would not be startled if tomorrow he quotes his friend Hugo Chavez and said: Europe and its people are tje source of all evil… I repeat: to understand Bergoglio one has to put on the rubber boots and come down to the moral swamp from whence he comes. I think only we Argentines, accustomed to Peronism umorality, could see the vitriolic envy and hatred that Bergoglio vomited through his eyes when he said the “renaissance princes” remark, it’s the essence of Peronism to viciously destroy anyone who is better than yourself.

    • I would rather say you are underestimating him. This man has been around for a while, has seen many things, in Buenos Aires has had for years connections with the liberal jewish establishment and masonic lodges as well.
      He might be mediocre in philosophy and theology and even have little faith, but he is very smart and conniving. You don’t get to be Cardinal is you are dumb and naive.
      He is a chameleon, but not is showing his true colors.

    • It can be. It can be.

      Please allow me though, as I criticise him every day, to at least believe he is not evil in his intent.


  13. Mundabor,

    I understand why you take the position of a “naive Bishop of Rome”, but I think your observation that the man is simply “stupid” is more accurate. This is a man whose intellectual wherewithall is that of an infant, and his survival instincts are those of a lemming. What strikes me though, is his blind HATRED for sound Catholic doctrine. This hatred combined with his “thickness” is so immense that he can’t even bring himself to hide it. And this phenomenon can’t be explained away by his possession “of a sensitivity” to romanticism for the 1960’s and Evita. It’s far too extreme and I think it goes way beyond that. Personaly, I think the guy is a functional subversive. And what’s more, his subversive nature is so extreme that a part of the College of Cardinals that elected him are starting to panic. Think Imam Dolan. What I think we should all pray for is that the Roman equivalent of “men in grey suits” show up at the Ricci’s place, and the sooner the better. After all, Benedict did set the precedent.

    • My reading is that many Jesuits, particularly in South America, are like him. I see him as the representative of an ilk, rather than as a kind of one-off mad priest.

      I have lost hope he might be what is called an intelligent man. Probably to define him a mediocre intelligence, not helped by a mediocre level of education, describes him best.

      This makes him, of course, the more dangerous.


    • As an argentine I can confidently say that Evita and her actions have been greatly glamourized, edulcorated and romanticized, especially after the famous musical, but she was a woman whose ego was only matched by her envy, hatred and resentment for the tradional societyand its values, she believed that she incarnated the revenge on all those she perceived as privileged enemies of the poor and the country, she really believed in the phrase l’ etat ce moi, just like Bergoglio thinks “l’eglise ce moi”. Many argentine and southamerican priests (jesuits in particular), like Bergolio, who defines himself as Peronista, have been brooding for ages the sourest envy and hatred for their european counterparts whom they perceive as privileged “renaissanse princes” who know nothing about the harshnes of life, now Bergoglio and his friends (sodomites, feminists, lesbians and other perverts from all over the world who need an avenger) want to make them pay big time….Just like Eva he thinks he’s the avenger. Think of Eva Peron sending the most distinguished ladies of the high society to the filthiest jails with prostitutes and murders… sheer revenge and hatred.
      Peronism cannot be reduced to a romantic, inocous, banana republic and ultimately endemic doctrine, one could have said so one year ago.. but now I see its dangerous pestilence spreading all over the world from the Vatican, and it worries me a lot. Forgive my poor english please.

  14. Thank God for Tradition, the Magisterium and the doctrine of Papal infallibility and the protection these afford the Church.

    What concerns me most about Pope Francis is not so much his stance towards evangelising those Catholics who are outside the Church genuinely looking for a way back – or agnostics seeking God. It is his ambiguous message to those who are still in the Church who, in reality, by their unrepentant behaviour, excommunicate themselves and still receive the Eucharist. To any in a state of objective mortal sin the consequences are fearsome and any priest, let alone the Bishop of Rome, has a duty to tell them this.

    His message confuses. Yes, teach that Christ’s sacrifice offers the possibility of salvation to all who accept the gift of Grace whatever their state. However, walking with Him means leaving past behaviour behind and accepting the moral teachings of the Church. God, of course, is available to all people. To be in union with Him means accepting homosexuality, abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and kill Grace.

    What is complicated about this?

    • It has the problem that it “excludes” those who exclude Christ from their life, or thing they can make their own rules.
      Francis does not want to “alienate” either.
      So he forgets Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and invents Christ as One Way, the Optional Truth and the Life given to anyone anyway.


    • Dear Maria
      Maybe your statements about Peron, Evita und Pope Francis make sense.
      I’m not familiar with argentinan history, but it it seems as if you give us a key to understand the not-to-be understandable.
      Pope Francis feels like the hero of the poor and on the other hand he hates culture and money.
      How will he feed the poor, when he has no bread?

  15. To Henry Aston, I know Bergoglio since 1991 and tried to like him, I really tried to.. but after some years I felt obliged to desist from the attempt in despair… of course he’s no dumb but he’s not brilliant either, he’s cunning not intelligent. And yes, he had good friends among the jewish community in Buenos Aires (many joked calling him Rabbi Berg). And it was not a surprise here that he was elected as new Pope. As son as Ratzinger resigned many of his friends, like his extremly close friend the odious journalist Alicia Barrios, were telling everybody that he would be elected because he had the right “connections and insiders” (this included the infamous gay lobby) in Vatican, this was being told a few days after the resignement of Ratzinger.
    Bergoglio is like an illiterate football player from a slum that make invisible suited men earn millions… but I’m afraid that in some point his panderers will find a new pet. We argentine conservative Catholics have been resisting Bergoglios for a long time.

    • María Victoria,
      You are overemphasizing the Peronism issue with Bergoglio. He does not hate “rich” Europeans. Bergoglio identifies with the liberal clergy of Europe. He loves them. He is inspired in them. He has stated that before. The Danneels, the Martinis, the Kungs, the Kaspers of these world. It is a false dichotomy pretending that there is a rich vs poor issue here. The real dichotomy is progresism vs tradition. The South American left clergy is marching at the same step than the “rich” European left clergy. Creatures like Carlo Maria Martini or Godfried Danneels would do the same as Bergoglio is doing, and they are the “creme de la creme”.

    • Could it be that a Danneels would emphasise the liberal issue, without the extreme pauperism Bergoglio shows?

      Things like refusing to go to the Beethoven concert, the noise about the car, the shoes, the mozzetta, the holidays in Castel Gandolfo, and the like, seem to me a “us vs them” issue; a stance that says “poverty is the truth and I will not be corrupted by you, the Beethoven-listening, praline-eating, poor-oppressing bourgeoisie”.

      I wonder whether even a Mahony would show such a hatred for everything middle-class, or refined, or even beautiful.


    • Maria Victoria,
      You have filled in many of the blanks which I had about Bergoglio. Many thanks. I see you being spot on about the class warfare aspect of Bergiglio’s charachter, i.e. the “hatred of the better off/more educated/bourgeoisie”. He even hates the way they dress. Can’t wait to see how he “undresses” them at Assisi:-). But I digress. Back to the class warfare bit, and I must admit being quite sensitive in this area, I sensed that there was an underlying theme to his daily ramblings, but couldn’t put my finger on it. But now I see that Bergoglio “showed his cards” when he spoke about one of the monastic orders whose “mission was ending” but they did not want to hand over the real estate. I thought it was a bit odd for the HF to lament about the lost income of not being able to dispose of the order’s real estate holdings rather than the losing of the order itself. And what he did to the FFI appears to be sabotage. He’s got N.O. orders (not to mention about the post VII Church) dieing off (including ones who don’t want to give him the real estate) and the one thriving order that promotes the LTM, he forces to use the N.O., and put it in the same boat with the rest. This could not have been an accident. Given the above, it would appear that this sabotage of the Church could be intentional. And the lingering question in my mind is that when Bergoglio speaks of a “poorer” Church, could this be what he has in mind? Does Bergoglio have a track record of disposing of Church property in Argentina? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
      BTW, your English is very good.

  16. Frankly, I don’t care about the alleged differences in musical tastes between Bergoglio, Danneels, Martini and Mahony. I do care about the end result for the Church that would be the same with them and others of their ilk: Empty Churches, empty seminaries, no faith, apostasy, souls to hell for ever.
    Rich vs poor was never a real issue. It is an invention by trendy bourgeois Europeans by the way. Liberalism vs Tradition, that is the key. Pope St. Pius X was on spot.
    A St Francis Assisi Pope may not listen to bourgeois music or wear fancy shoes, yet I believe he would be a good Pope. On the other hand Bergoglio antics are just the tip of the iceberg of his liberalism.

    • I hear what you say, but whist St. Francis would possibly not listen to Beethoven, he would not create an ideological divide between himself and those who do.

      In the sum, I think you are right. Francis is a Neo-modernist with a populist on top of it.


  17. I don’t even think Mahony would go this far..though he would have ditched the red shoes, and papal Liturgies would have gone from approaching good, to an absolute and total disaster (think Religious Educaiton Congress gone mad)…At least Mahony shows his heretical cards up front…not so much with Pope Humble 😉

  1. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › The Papal Enchilada

%d bloggers like this: