Lotus Flowers In The Mud: Francis’ Papacy From A Blogger’s Perspective

First, let us see some numbers. March 2013 (conclave month, with all the hype) was my all-time record at 65,000 page views during the month. The next record came in July at 75,000, followed by August at 77,000 as Francis' strangeness grew disquietingly stranger with every passing week. September saw little activity in the first week, but Bergoglio's exploits with the 14,000 words interview and the letter to Scalfari still pushed the pageviews at 85,000, solidly a new record. At the beginning of October the mother of all scandals to date, the interview with Scalfari, hit the newsstands and caused a surge in my – and, I am sure, everyone else's – pageviews. The month ended yesterday at 128,000 pageviews, eclipsing all previous records.

The pattern is always the same: every bout of Bergoglism causes a big wave of pageviews. After some days the wave goes by, and the pageviews stabilise at “normal”; a normal, though, that is now higher than the “normal” level of before the wave.

What happens is, in my eyes, very clear: Francis causes scandal, and this moves people to google, or google more, or get information beyond their usual channels. They discover new sites. Some of them stumble here. After some days the wave of new visitors has ebbed, but some of them stay and keep reading the site more or less regularly according to their interest in Catholic matters, their Catholic orientation and, obviously, whether they like the, ahem, refreshingly blunt style of this blog.

At first sight, therefore, one might think that the “Bergoglio effect” is good, as it causes many people to confront themselves with Catholicism and to be put in contact – on my blog or on countless others – with sound Catholic thinking. Alas, the reality is, I am afraid, very much different.

Firstly, consider that it is very difficult to land on my blog during one's Internet navigation unless one is following, so to speak, a conservative route in his navigation. My blog posts are tagged “Catholicism”, “conservative Catholicism” and “traditional Catholicism”, and most of those who chance to moor on my little blogging island already know what they are after and what they can expect. Much, much bigger must be the number of those who search the news about the Pope in a neutral or progressive way (say: “Pope Francis + Gay”), and are served with links to all the major faggot newspapers, invariably followed by the Patheos-style blogs who must be even more dangerous and confusing to them. Most of these people will, it is licit to suppose, only be on the Internet looking for reassurance about their own home-made Catholicism, and three or four clicks will rapidly persuade them the Pope “doesn't judge” the “gays”, or “it is fine if you follow your conscience”, or “good atheists will be saved”.

The damage will be big and durable here, because after being so assuaged these people will simply put the information in their drawer of convenient slogans, to be cherished forever and be used whenever necessary. The same reasoning obviously applies to the atheist and anticlerical troops of all colours and shades.

Then there is what must be the vast majority of the recipients of Francis' ramblings: those who are satisfied with the article they read on their favourite newspaper, or with the headlines, or with the ten-seconds radio report, or even with what they hear everyone is talking about: the global narrative of the “Pope who doesn't judge gays”, & Co.

In the end, it is reasonable to assume for one who finds his Catholicism strengthened by Francis' heresies and assorted stupidities there are very many, probably dozens, perhaps more still, who are confused or led astray. You can easily infer from this what damage many years of Bergoglism will inflict to Holy Mother Church. This, even before considering his appointments to Cardinal, Bishop, etc.; a field on which, if the Golpe against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is anything to go by, we will see Francis' subversive activity at its worst.

Summa summarum, it can be safely said the Catholic blogger's perspective seems encouraging at first, but is in the end merely the tale of beautiful but rare lotus flowers growing in the lake of mud Francis is creating. Very many are those who will be helped by Bergoglism to drawn in the mud, and the beautiful lotus flowers we can clearly see cannot distract from the desolated landscape in front of us.

This papacy is an unmitigated disgrace. A papacy made for the Obamas, the Scalfaris and the Elton Johns of this world.

We can't avoid the lake of mud. Let us try, then, to grow in Catholic faith so that we may become, and die as, lotus flowers offered to God in the midst of the “who am I to judge” lake of stupidity.



Posted on November 1, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. CNA report that Franciscus is concerned that he has been misunderstood regarding his Scalafari interview! Ho, Ho, Ho! There is a quote in the New Testament concerning what comes out of the mouth, which appears most appropriate.

  2. I have made a point of posting daily on the disgraceful National Catholic Reporter in support of the few there supporting orthodox Church teaching. And the abuse one receives …! And, you are correct, the vast majority are heretics who gleefully (mis)quote Pope Francis.

    We have become a laughing stock with Lutherans too – The Hippy Pope

    • Well done, Sir!

      You should follow me more closely, though ;). I have made a blog post about the Proddie video already…

      It’s fair to say even they are more a Catholic than the Pope.


  3. Dear Mundabor. I was first learnt about you by Mr. Werling’s great Blog and I am quite happy that he provided a link to this site. You are a no-holds barred man whose yes is a yes and whose no is a distinct no.

    During this time of feminism and sodomy, yours is a refreshing and bracing voice of Catholic Tradition. With you and Werling and Mr. V. at Harvesting…I am always well-supplied with the reliable opinions (sourced in catholic Tradition) of like-minded men whose courage is without question.

    Soldier on and kick-ass (I mean that i a nice way)

    • Thanks, Sir!

      Just for the sake of completeness, by lotus flowers I mean the readers, not the bloggers.

      The readers like you, in fact, and all others who perhaps do not comment, but fight in their daily life against the omnipresent mud.


  4. Says Socci, “…critics of Pope Francis for his view on conscience are double-dealing.”

    “Would you really believe Pope Francis thinks that everybody can have his own idea of good and evil and thus justify what he does?” he asked.

    Well, yes… If the statements are enclosed in direct quotation marks, and it has been repeated in major journals around the world, and it fits with the revolution Francis appears to be accelerating.. and neither he nor his Curia has ever corrected the heretical statements and confirmed the faithful. So now, rather than a major interview by the Pope with a leading Italian journal, we’ve stepped back to an informal chat between clever men where no record was taken or kept and nobody reviewed and assured the content before publication (not even La Reppulica’s likely horde of lawyers) and the Pope was wholly misrepresented on one of the most critical of his questionable statements – in which he forcefully repeated earlier heretical remarks – and there’s not one word of correction but he’s unhappy and he mentioned this to someone quietly and as Socci says how could you bad Catholics believe Francis would say something heretical (again) because he mentioned the devil once? And what exactly does Francis regret: the statements, their publication by Scalfari or their reception by Catholics (and protestants alike)?

    Thanks Mundabor for the excellent blog, and to the commenter above for the reference to CNA. Stumbled there on this gem: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesus-continues-to-pray-for-us-from-heaven-urges-pope/ which reads as just a little confusing to this poorly catechised Catholic.. Our Divine Lord prays for us to Himself with courage? But then he has probably been misquoted, no? And it’s not like he was making an infallible dogmatic statement – so what’s the fuss, eh?

    Apologies for the extended comment.

    • Some people truly are blind.

      Francis’ answer to Scalfari’s atheism question is (and I quote the Italian) “e qui lo ripeto”, an emphatic way of saying “and I repeat it here”.

      One truly isn’t surprised there are people who don’t believe in extermination camps. Some people will persuade themselves of whatever they want to believe.


  5. Mr. M

    About your blog…

    Just because I don’t comment often doesn’t mean I don’t read it. I’m, in fact,a daily reader of your wonderful blog but the thing is, with my many duties as a (traditionalist Catholic)priest, I am prevented from commenting as I would like….oh well!
    I,like many others, come here to get it the unadulterated and blunt truth about the Bergoglio disaster papacy.

    Keep up the great work and keep us grazie mille!

    • Thanks you, Father!

      Would there were were more priests like you!

      I obviously would not want any priest to get in unnecessary trouble because of me. Actually, reading priests’ blog around it is rather clear which ones are written by priests who would be far more explicit, if they were not priests…

      Someway, it seems priestly very rightly do not trust the inclusiveness and tolerance of the present hierarchy towards… Catholic priests.


  6. You deserve all the readers you get. You are one of very few who speak the truth with regard to the Faith. Don’t be tempted to turn off the comments though unless things become impossible. I don’t visit Rorate so much since they stopped taking comments. There are other sensible people out there who contribute to blogs but do not have their own and it is good to read them and realise one is not alone in the fight.

    • Many thanks. I see my blog as not a micro blog anymore, but certainly a very minor one in the sea of Catholic blogging around. Father z wrote in August in a good month he has 750,000 pageviews, and I suspect the Patheos bloggers hover on much higher pageviews levels than Father Z’s. I do not doubt there is a great number of blogs out there that utterly dwarf my pageviews count.
      Again, the reality is that I am a feeble, albeit already audible, voice in the middle of the deafening cacophony of the V II, all-is-fine, Thank-God-for-Francis troops.
      I think we will only fully see in ten or twenty years the devastation the man is causing.


  7. I’m just grateful that you ‘tell it like it is’. If it weren’t for the internet, I would be a very lonely orthodox Catholic.

    • Thanks. I feel exactly like you concerning the Internet. Without it and the Brompton Oratory I would still be a lapsed, extremely confused Catholic.


  8. Thank you for your blog. I found you by entering ‘Pope Francis’ and ‘heresy’ into Google. Please explain ‘Patheos style’.

    • Patheos is a site dedicated to bloggers of all religions and none. The structure self of the site makes it unsuitable for Catholic bloggers. Catholicism is not a product you offer on a supermarket shelf, giving the impression it is an option among many.

      The Catholic bloggers writing on Patheos are correspondingly weak, and tend to subscribe to the Pollyanna mentality, big time, besides being heavily infected with the ecumenical bug in V II style.

      Google Mundabor + Patheos or search this blog for Patheos + Pollyanna and you should find all more in detail.


%d bloggers like this: