Breathtaking Hypocrisy

As Pope Francis talks incessantly about “legalists” who would be “hypocrites”, it is more and more clear to him the hypocrites are Catholic who try to live a Catholic life like you and I.

Preaching isn’t about correcting people. If you try to live a good life and remind others of God’s rules, you are insulted in several ways.

In the meantime, 30 out of 33 TLM in Italy have been shut down since the beginning of the Apostolic visitation. Clearly, whenever Francis insults people who believe in catholicism – which he does almost daily – he means, among others, them and those faithful who attend the TLM and care for tradition.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Fret not, though. There will be enough people ready to believe the FFI’s persecution is nothing to do with the Pope. He is not informed, surely?



Posted on January 15, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Mundabor,
    I do not see the hypocrisy. He passionately hates traditional Catholicism and believes in a modernistic one-world religion vaguely resembling some features of Christianity instead. He is quite open and honest about it, too. He has publicly denied Catholic dogma (such as “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), proclaimed his personal belief in the primacy of conscience, universal salvation, the salvific value of, among others, the Jewish Covenant, ridiculed and attacked the practices of pious Catholics all over the world, and much more.
    He has basically demolished a traditional order just because it was traditional and refused to convert to modernism. He is currently in the process of cleansing the Curia of traditional or at least non-modernist elements, as well as reshaping the college of Cardinals in his image. It is pretty well known by now that he has favored giving communion to adulterers as well as “civil unions” as archbishop of Buenos Aires.

    As I understand the word, a hypocrite is someone who publicly says one thing (insincerely) while privately doing the opposite and having no intention to change. That he does not believe in traditional Catholicism and even hates it with a passion, is known to everyone who wants to see. There is nothing hypocritical about an avowed enemy of traditional Catholicism fighting against traditional Catholicism. It may be destructive, evil and any number of things, but where’s the hypocrisy?

    • The hypocrisy is in preaching that “tenderness” that he does not practice, and that “collegiality” he only uses as a slogan, and that being “son of the Church” that is denied in practice every day.
      There can be no doubt that he is rather coherent in his theology of universal salvation for all but… us.


    • Mundabor,
      ah yes, he has got a very soft and tender stick, hasn’t he… 😉
      I think I get your point.

  2. Akita, but is not here a subject involved? I know the colloquial form would require the object, but I would prefer to avoid it.
    I’d rather, say, write “my girl and I” than “me and my girl” as in the musical. The same for expressions like “me too”, and the like.
    Sir Humphrey says “humble servants such as I”.
    Feel free to explain and correct me, of course.

    • Ahah! Dipende.

      “Catholics … like you and me”

      “Catholics who try to live a Catholic life, like you and I [do].”

      “My girl and me” (“Me and my girl” is, of course, appalling.)

      Sir Humphry was, of course, a pompous ass. (I think it’s not a sin to be rude about a fictional character.)


    • Ah, but I was told at school “my girl and I” is correct, and “me and my girl” is street English!

      You can offend Sir Humphrey as much as you like, of course 😉 But I still like him a lot.. 🙂


      (P.s. so “like” is always – I am grammatically – with the object unless the subject is repeated?)

%d bloggers like this: