Confusion And Hate For The Rules.

Fast is charity.

Fast is charity. Or caressing. Or whatever, but not fast.

Of the many questionable quirks of our Not-So-Holy Bishop of Rome, there are two that grate me again and again. Therefore, today I will write a blog post about both of them for the sake of my liver.

1. Doublespeak.

To Francis, nothing is what it is. Everything is, actually, something else. This is never this, it is always that. To love means to play the guitar; to pray means to have a walk, and the like.

You can find these absurd statements everywhere in his off-the-cuff blabbering exercises. The last example is taken from here: “fasting” is “giving someone a caress”.  Er, well, no. Fasting is fasting. If on a certain day there is an obligation to fast, giving 20,000 caresses to all the inhabitants of the favela will not cause anyone to comply with the obligation to fast. Why? Because fasting is fasting, and caressing is caressing.

This is different, but akin to, another way Francis has to confuse Catholics: Francispeak ©.

This kind of confusion may seem harmless, but it isn’t. If this is always that and that is actually that other, there are no clear obligations to do anything anymore. If “loving” is “reaching out” every adulterer is loving; if “praying” is “doing good” every atheist is prayerful; if “fasting” is “caressing” every sodomite is fasting, and so on. Again, these kind of outlandish comparisons where everything is something else are everywhere, and whilst the examples of the day might be due to coincidence, the confusion this engenders isn’t. This is, I think, worse than what Amerio called circiterisms. This is deliberate dismounting of concepts, so that the values they represent may be dismantled or at least discounted. The one just mentioned, for example, clearly discounts the act of fasting, intended as fasting. Because hey, if you fast but aren’t “charitable” (which Francis himself never is; but this is because to him “charity” means “subservience to the values of the world”) you are only a hypocrite.

2. Hating the “regular guys”.

It is evident that Francis hates regular people, who have rules and follow them, with all his strenght. At regular, but extremely short intervals he warns us against those people who “follow the rules”, and always ends up calling them “hypocrites” in one way or other. To him, the person who follows the rules just out of love for the Lord, fear of the same or even innate goodness does not exist. Such a character never appears in his examples. It’s always the “hypocrites”. They pray but they pray by rote. They follow the rules but they don’t believe in God. They appear good but they are Pelagians, & Co. On the other hand, homosexual priests are very highly regarded by him. To them, the “who am I to judge” rule applies.    

Last example is in a phrase like this: “These hypocritical people are good people, they do whatever they are told to. They seem good!”

It’s always like that with this man. If you follow the rules, he will suspect you of hypocrisy. What does this say of the way he follows the rules, I will leave to your sound judgment. 


And it’s not once, or twice. It’s again and again and again. Confusion about the most elementary concepts obviously leads to confusion about the most elementary rules; which is par for the course for one who does not like people who adhere to them.

Read the linked article, and see what kind of twisted thinking the man has: “share your bread with the hungry, this is the kind of fasting that the Lord wants!”

No! No! No! The kind of fasting that the Lord wants is the fast! the fast! What’s so difficult in that?


Confusion, and hate for the rules. Clearly two of the items on Francis’ agenda.



Posted on March 9, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Sadly, you are so right.

  2. “Confusion and hate for the rules” ….. really says it all

    Catholics except for a mere remnant have desired the type of small ‘c’ catholic Church that we have witnessed and endured for well over a half century. It is the will of God as a punishment in that we have finally arrived at the Pope we have today with his babel, confusion, ineptitude, nonsensical catechesis and the disdain for the past certainty in holiness and moral compass that was safeguarded in past centuries. Ask ten Catholics Church teaching on a given teaching and you will get diluted and wrong personal opinions.
    I have forwarded and found the following to sermons helpful in trying to make sense of our plight:

    [audio src="" /]


    [audio src="" /]


    George Brenner

  3. I agree,this is no circiterism at all.Maybe in Francis’ it doesn’t exist any more , or it’s never existed altogether . Amerio’s circiter meant -and he didn’t like to play with words- about , more or less, approximately, that is, I guess Amerio intended to say, the ‘professional’ circiterist in some way remained linguistically inside of the same order of things , even if only very partially.Francis’ Language is seditious and revolutionary.I can’t see wether he has an abysmally low knowledge of semantics,of History of the Church, and holes in other cultural areas,so he tries and tries to find these strange new metaphors to hide these lacks, or he is founding and giving sturdiness to the Newchurch. Some values of the Everlasting Church are to him a sign for counterrevolutionary madmen , in any case deemed to disappear. Ten years of Francis’ creative Mass and the result will be : ‘ the Mass is a gathering to show our respect to the ‘community’ , Papacy will become ‘the collegiality of luv ‘ . Who knows what he really thinks about Christ’s words after a miracle/exorcism, about the truth that some devils can be fought and won only by means of prayers and fasting ? I doubt he believes in this art of ‘waging war’ against Satan. Or shall he ask C.Kasper what to do ‘pastorally’about it ?

  4. There is no doubt in my mind that Francis has a planned method of destruction when it comes to obliterating the Catholic Faith. In other words, I don’t see this is as the simple meanderings of a man who just isn’t too bright or just doesn’t have an understanding of the Faith….I see it as the workings of a man who knows exactly what his purpose is. Lets face it, the college of cardinals knew EXACTLY who they were electing last year, and it had nothing to do with the “Holy Spirit guiding them”.

    • I doubt there was such an subversive intent, frankly. It does not square with Ratzinger’s election in 2005. Cardinal’s appointment probably were, on average, not worse than JP II’s.

      In my eyes, they wanted a “popular man”, but thought he would immediately fall in line with what is required of a Pope. Methinks, they underestimated his “humbleness” and “ambition”.


  5. Mundabor, I don’t think we can fault him for saying “share your bread with the hungry, this is the kind of fasting that the Lord wants!”
    It is, after all, a quote from Isaiah, from the first reading at Mass last Friday (7 March).

    • The bible is rather vast. You can always use it to twist Catholicism. Every Modernist does it, so that people then say “look, it’s in the Bible”.


%d bloggers like this: