The Evil Clown opened his filthy mouth once again; and, once again, what came out of it was the singular mixture of blasphemy, arrogance, stubborness and pleasure in angering Catholics that is so typical of this quite, quite remarkable individual.

When I read in St Paul that God became sin, I immediately understand that he means that God accepted to take on Himself, on His very own, literal Divine Body the punishment for our sins. I do this because the Bible is the Word of God, and can therefore never be interpreted out of context or out of the inner coherence that is its inevitable corollary. But then again I also know that St Paul could never had told me that, perhaps, the Blessed Virgin felt betrayed at the foot of the Cross. I know that he never tried to Pachamama me. I know that he never berated and insulted me as a Catholic. I know that he never tried to undermine the Sacraments, & Co., & Co.

Francis did all this, and so much more. Therefore, the interpretation of his words must not follow from an attempt to bend ourselves into a pretzel in order to find some orthodoxy in his words. On the contrary, the man must be interpreted in light of what he has been publicly saying for now almost eight years.

I think that not God, but Francis is contaminated. I think that he is deeply, deeply toxic to Catholicism. I think that he is so stubbornly vain that he enjoys angering us, just because he can, and that his thinking is so perverted, so secular, so informed by hatred for the Church which has been giving him his bread for many decades, that he just can’t avoid his vulgar brand of godlesness to show.

Watching Francis talk of spiritual things is like watching John Belushi in the restaurant scene of The Blues Brothers. But at least Jake Blues had a good mission to accomplish. Francis is on a mission from Satan; and, as he is likely every bit as atheist as Karl Marx, he might not even realise it.

Get lost, Evil Clown. Contaminate yourself as much as you like.

We know contamination when we see it.

Posted on February 16, 2021, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. The pattern of behavior you describe in Bergoglio is very typical of Marxists. It is the need to defile. There’s also an element of intentional humiliation involved. The Soviet propogandists used to brag about forcing people to acknowledge or at least sit silently through blatant, ridiculous lies. This barrage of falsehood has a corrosive effect on those who have to listen to it. Bergoglio clearly knows what he’s doing. Pity he’s “enabled” by so many who claim loyalty to the Church.

  2. Francis bashing is doing no good to the Church. He may be off message but he does say some very good things. Things to help us in our christian life.
    He is a tad misguided. He probably was not the best candidate for Pope but we have got him.
    Let’s try and do our best and try and get along with him and pray for him.

  3. catholictradition2


  4. Outstanding. 100% correct. God put that tapestry over his mouth.

  5. Haha, that tapestry. I should keep a picture of that in my purse and every time I’m in a bad mood, I should look at it. I laugh every time.
    If someone had kept a running journal of his words and actions over the last 7 years, we would see a pattern. He enjoys tormenting faithful Catholics, especially during times of increased faithful observance like Feast Days or holidays. He takes pleasure in taking whatever faithful Catholics hold dear, and putting an evil spin on it. His words and actions indicate he’s vindictive. He doesn’t accidentally poke his finger in our eye, he means to.
    I can’t understand why all Catholics can’t see it.

  6. Translated from, January 18, 2021
    The bones of Pope Francis
    Pope Francis – we have said it many times in this blog – is not a modernist any more than he is a conservative, simply because he lacks the speculative intellect necessary to define a doctrinal position; his intellect is merely practical. Therefore, he has no doctrine. His theology boils down to the catechism he learned in the ’50s and’ 60s and the occasional additional reading. Just that and no more. And because he is governed by a merely practical intellect, his decisions are not made in relation to the principles and truths of the faith – which he does not understand and is not interested in – but rather to political expediency.
    What I assert is not an unsubstantiated opinion. Those who know the biography of Jorge Bergoglio, and there are many in Argentina, even if they only speak in whispers to avoid being treated to Franciscan mercy, can confirm it. It is worth remembering, for example, that during his term as young provincial of the Society of Jesus in Argentina he was very conservative and supported the Military Junta that at that time ruled the country, even granting to Admiral Massera an honorary doctorate at the Jesuit university of El Salvador. After his period as provincial he was confined by his religious brothers as a confessor in the Jesuit Church in Córdoba. For the conservative Argentine bishops and priests – who were the majority – his figure quickly transformed into a martyr of progressivism and liberation theologians, and the best bishops, including Bishop Rodolfo Laise, made a pilgrimage to console him in his cell in Cordoba. And just as Boethius during his imprisonment sought comfort in philosophy, so Bergoglio sought comfort in those who could help him get a miter. He worked tirelessly – many testify to this – until finally Cardinal Quarracino, pushed his elevation to bishop. This was done in spite of the negative reports received from Fr. Kolvenbach, Superior General of the Jesuits. John Paul II named him auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires and immediately was appointed vicar general. This secured him the position of Argentine primate. But as the political winds shifted , Bishop Bergoglio became a progressive , which allowed him, over time, to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, boosted by the conspiratorial cardinals of San Gallen, as Cardinal Daneels confessed, .
    But these favors must be paid back, and Pope Francis has many debts to pay his constituents. And he does not intend to pay for them, because to do so they should endorse revolutionary changes in the church that he is not willing to sign off on, not because of a matter of principle, but because of a matter of survival instinct … of legacy. He would not want to pass as the Pope who allowed the female priesthood or legitimized homosexual “love”, that is, who liquidated the church. And so, when the dogs start nipping at his heels, he throws them a bone to entertain them . That was his tactic from the very beginning of his pontificate: give them what they already have; just a bone without meat. Let’s see some examples:
    1. When he declared the death penalty inadmissible by modifying the Catechism – an act that satisfied globalist progressives – the death penalty did not in fact exist in any Western country except the United States. In practice, it did not grant anything other than what already existed. A bone from Pope Francis.
    2. When in a footnote to Amoris letitiae he allowed the separated living in adultery, after a period of discernment, to receive communion, he did nothing but give what had already existed for decades. In many countries of the world this was a common practice. Once again, he did not grant more than what already existed. A bone of Pope Francis.
    3. The various allusions of his sympathies towards those who practice homosexual acts only say very quietly what has happened in the church for decades. And I am not referring only to the overwhelming presence of active homosexuals within the ranks of the clergy, but to the ceremonies of “blessing” of homosexual couples that have been done with discretion for many years in Catholic churches. And this happens all over the world. It is something that already exists and that Francisco gives it a certain legitimization. A bone of Pope Francis.
    4. The modification of canon 230, by which it allows granting the ministry of lector and acolyte to women, does nothing more than legitimize a practice that has existed since the 70s. And it was John Paul II – it must be said – who legitimized it in fact by allowing women to read the readings at the Masses he celebrated, or by law by enabling women to serve as extraordinary ministers at Mass in 2001. A bone of Pope Francis.
    Some comments on Pope Francis’ strategy:
    1. It is a mischief typical of Old Viscacha1 and has short legs2. The Germans and all the liberals who voted for him no longer eat the bones he throws at them and barely entertain themselves with them. They want the whole lamb. And the famous German synod appeared for something: to make themselves of the sheep seeing that the shepherd was delaying the matter. This did not escape Bergoglio but, in my opinion, he envisaged a shorter pontificate, which was going to avoid the problems he has now: the fuse is running out.
    2. Once again the origin of the pontiff’s Peronist underworld is confirmed. His strategy is analogous to that of those Peronist governors or presidents who inaugurate three or four times a work that has been in operation for years, or that is never finished. Everything is to get some votes and calm the passions of the poor.
    3. The serious thing about all this, of course, is that with his action, the Holy Father mortgages the entire church. It is true that the situations detailed above did in fact exist, but their legitimation through modifications in the catechism or in the Code of Canon Law commits the church in the future and sets a very dangerous precedent. As had already been alerted in 2018, the canonical empowerment to grant ministries to women makes it easier for, in the not too remote future, to access the diaconate, which confirms what we said at the beginning: Bergoglio does not care about doctrine , and that’s why he doesn’t mind changing it.
    4. In this blog we said on several occasions that Bergoglio’s brutality and vulgarity makes us forget that most of these things that traditionalists and conservatives criticize in him began years ago but that memory had been erased especially in the neocons. In 2016, for example, we talked about the Franciscan pontificate being nothing more than a fetid suppuration of the previous pontificates. The provisions of the modification of canon 230, which caused many tear their clothes in recent days, had already been granted twenty years ago by Pope John Paul II, whom many exalt as the paragon of orthodoxy, prudence and wisdom and holiness.
    Nota bene: I am often told that I am too harsh and disrespectful towards Pope Francis. I do not think I am disrespectful, although I am harsh, but I remember that Dante placed a pope in hell in his Divine Comedy and several others in purgatory, and that Michelangelo also sent a powerful cardinal to hades from his final judgment. I don’t get to that much. I pray that Francisco will repent of the terrible damage that he is causing to the church and will save his soul.

  7. Ronald Sevenster

    Every biblical scholar could and should have told Francis that his interpretation is nonsensical. That Christ was “made sin” for us is just an idiomatic way of saying that he was made a sacrifice for sin. The sections of the OT that deal with sin offerings sometimes use the shorthand “sin” for “sin offering”, and this way of speaking was known and used in the first century. One wonders why nobody informed Francis about this.

    • Come on, Ronald. It’s not that he is not informed. He is more than 80 years old. It’s that he pretends not to be. Stop extending goodwill to this guy. He does not deserve any.

  1. Pingback: Canon212 Update: How Can You Be Militant if You Can’t Find the Front? – The Stumbling Block

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: