Perplexing Pope … IS Francis Actively Waging War Against Truth Itself?


Pope Francis’ history of causing mayhem in the Church is neatly, and painfully amusingly,  summed up in the above video. Select your own “favourite” and tell us why, in your view, it is so bad – that is, if you can , in fact, “select” from the scandals of which we are reminded in that satirical  “interview”.  

48 responses

  1. My answer is yes. The Pope is a product of modernism which emerges from the ideology that truth is subjective, and that any notion of absolute objectivity is outmoded.

  2. I have to say that something about this video did not sit well with me. I did not find it funny at all,and to be effective satire should be funny even if irreverent. Perhaps it was the creepy attempt at an Argentinian accent or maybe the putting of words into the mouth of Francis? Fair enough he has said a lot of those things and I am not at all in favour of this Pope, but even so I found it more cringe worthy than anything else.

    • Elizabeth,

      I see everything in the video as factual. the satire comes in the pope’s reactions to criticism and that is well logged by top sources in the Vatican, according to the author of the Dictator Pope. I take it that’s what you mean by “putting words into the mouth of Francis”. He was heard yelling at a cardinal (one who voted for him to become pope! LOL!) so whatever is words were, doesn’t matter – the point of the satire is to reveal his bullying tactics. It worked for me! Not as hilarious as the Christmas song, but it made the point well, IMHO.

      • Fidelis

        I agree with you. The point of the video is to highlight clearly the numerous grave scandals and dangers to faith Pope Francis is responsible for. It puts flesh to his words and actions, if you like, albeit in a satirical and possibly exaggerated way. The only caution with the video is that it proceeds from a belief on the creator’s part that Pope Francis is acting against faith with deliberate malice. I think we would have to be careful with that one, but otherwise the video reminds us again of the grave nature of this Pope’s words and actions.

    • Elizabeth,

      I am very surprised at your response to the video, given that the Pope has, in fact, not only denied the existence of absolute truth, but has denounced Catholics who adhere to that essential moral truth as “fundamentalists”, calling us “evil” for spreading such “disinformation”. Clearly, he has no problem attributing malice to souls. Detailed reports abound across the internet about this shocking admission – I copied this extract from one well known and reliable source:

      BOARD THE PAPAL PLANE, November 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — On the plane returning from his journey to Africa today Pope Francis made his clearest remarks in condemnation of ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics.

      “Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” Francis said, as reported by the National Catholic Reporter’s Vatican correspondent, Joshua McElwee, and similarly by other journalists on the plane. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.”

      “They do evil,” said the pope. “I say this because it is my church.”

      “We have to combat it,” he said. “Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like the idolatry of money.”

      Personally, I found the video exceptionally funny – not because I wanted to laugh at this Pope (or any pope), but because satire is all about highlighting the sheer nonsense of something in order to throw it into sharp relief with the truth. It seems to me that this video succeeds spectacularly in doing so, although I accept that not everyone shares the same sense of humour. It definitely appealed to my sense of the ridiculous.

      You mention words being put into the mouth of Francis. An example, would perhaps be the cartoon Pope’s remark about not trusting anyone called Raymond; perhaps he has never said those words, but it is the author’s very clever and comical way of reminding us that Cardinal Raymond Burke has still not had any response to his dubia – and of course we know that Pope Francis was livid with him for daring to submit the dubia and then to ask for a response, and we know from other examples that Pope Francis dislikes being challenged and has even been known to punish those who dare to question him.

      The authors of jokes, and various types of humour including satire do not expect literal interpretation of their work, and thus it seems to me that the video is a terrific expose of this scandalous pope. It is exposing, not necessarily his every literal word, but the sense of what he is saying and doing. All of which, almost without exception, is anti-Catholic.

      “I am not at all in favour of this Pope” doesn’t quite cut it, Elizabeth. We must be vehemently opposed to this Pope, to his false teaching and dictatorial mis-management of the Church. With bells on. I hate ending sentences with a preposition but “with bells on” is one of my favourite emphases, so excuse the bad grammar 😀

      In summary, a Catholic may “not be in favour of” the Bishops cancelling various Holidays of Obligation or the Friday Abstinence rule; but we must detest false teaching and public scandal – especially when it comes from a pope.

      To underline my point, nobody would take the Les Dawson jokes seriously published on another thread. Especially the mother-in-law jokes. Not only would Les never have stood by and watched his mother-in-law being punched and kicked by six attackers and replied “no, I think six will be enough” when a neighbour asked if he was going to help 😀 – not only would he not have behaved in such a way or made such a statement seriously, least of all because, as he revealed in more than one interview, he did, in fact, enjoy a wonderful relationship with his mother-in-law. The joke merely throws into sharp relief that fact that “in-laws” CAN be problematic! As an aside, I was amazed on Christmas day when I told that Les Dawson joke to a married acquaintance only to find that she didn’t find it funny at all. Reading between the lines, I sense “in-law” trouble, but the author of the joke really, I think we can all agree, wasn’t meaning to be taken literally, just poking fun at the well known phenomenon of not always getting along too well with the “in-laws” and seeing the mileage for humour therein.

      So, while you are correct in that we cannot take every word put into the mouth of Francis in the cartoon as literal truth, it is also true to say that the author communicated the nature of this pontificate with expert insight.

      Indeed, in my view, the only thing cringe-worthy about this video, is the fact that we have a pope who has left himself open to be the subject of such damning satire. The fact is … the line in the video, which forms the headline of this thread, is – literally – true: this pope IS actively waging war on Truth itself, and there is no need to agonise over whether we can make that judgment, he may not mean it, may not be malicious. We don’t need to wonder about any of that. He’s said, loud and clear, and very deliberately, that he does not believe in the existence of absolute truth. He was brought up in the Faith before the crisis in the Church set in – a crisis which he, now, personifies. That deliberate and very public denial of the existence of absolute truth alone, is an example of a pope who is “waging war on Truth itself”.

      • Ed as I have said before this man is a Legend. He spouts untruths about Faithful Catholics at every chance he gets . Usually on board that Airplane of his which uses no fuel . One of the first things taught to reasonable people in Power is to take Counsel before one speaks . As Francis being a very humble individual ( I think not ) never takes or needs to take counsel of all his practically now daily rants against Catholics who don’t follow him but Follow Christ is the one you speak of .Us fundamentalists who go around terrorising people throughout the World just like fundamentalist Muslims . Of course I never read nor heard of one atrocity committed by fundamentalist Catholics in the last few years . Am really at a loss now with this Man and his embarrassing sayings. I know you point out past bad Popes but he really takes the Biscuit. I mean going to that Pagan Festival of the Heretic Luther in Lund . Celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and having a Vatican Stamp put out with Martin Luther at the foot of Our Lords Cross . What stunt will the man pull next .

        • FOOF

          Pope Francis definitely takes the biscuit – you are absolutely correct about that – and he will be recognised as the worst ever pope in the history of the Church in due course.

          Until then, we soldier on. Oops! Who created these spot-on quotes to end with a preposition?!

      • Editor,

        Obviously I did not make it clear enough that I am as appalled as anyone else here on this blog at the behaviour and scandal given by Pope Francis. Especially with regard to his antics with the Lutheran anniversary celebrations. I have no time for him.

        However I never particularly liked the Spitting Image type of satire either. A matter of taste and I simply did not like the video or find it clever. I suppose maybe because it underlined that we have a pope who can be lampooned in this way and that is awful. Not the sort of thing I wanted to see on a very happy peaceful Christmas evening. That is all I meant.

        • Elizabeth,

          I’ve never watched Spitting Image although I get the point. I love satire, although, as previously intimated, I’d prefer a pope who does not invite the kind of damning satire as depicted in the video above. However, my considered opinion is this; if we have to have such a dreadful pope and we enjoy satire, well, no harm in marrying the two… Sorry you don’t like this thread, but why not, then, devote your considerable talents to helping us recruit for our Marriage Seminar (see the Match-Making thread!)

          In the meantime, satire isn’t all bad – surely?

  3. Only listened really to the A.L bit that was enough. One thing that Francis is certainly not is humble his complete arrogance in all things shines through. No more so than onto Catholics. Am no Saint and don’t profess to be but I do know right from wrong. At Mass on Christmas Eve I was trying to strum up some support for the T.L.Mass that is said every Thursday in Our Parish and was both surprised and appalled at some of the statements of the People I spoke to . They all said that they would have nothing to do with it as it was against Francis Will so to speak . I obviously have lost something because then one went on about how good a Pope and a man Francis was . I asked him to explain and he said A. L . was long overdue and in fact it should be up to the Man and Woman in the Adulterous relationships Conscience if they attend The Holy Eucharist or not . I then said to him ” so you want to do away with the Sacrament of Confession ” no said he ” But I have already told couples living in Sin that it’s up to their own Conscience whether they receive The Eucharist or not ” . By the way the man in question is not a Priest he just obviously thinks he’s a little Pope Francis. And that to me is the biggest problem and let’s face it Francis knows that he is the master of Double Meanings . Ed you said on here a few posts ago that by the Law of Averages Francis was bound to talk about Catholics. He’s an Environmentalist he’s an Immigration Officer he’s a Salvation Army Man he’s a Lutheran Champion all these he has spoken of recently. Of Faithful Catholics NOTHING that sums up the man and the real question must now be asked and not in jest . Is The Pope a Catholic.

    • FOOF,

      Please, however, do not blame Pope Francis alone for the responses of your parishioners. Pope Francis did not appear out of nowhere. We’ve had almost 30 years of Pope John Paul II undermining the Faith and then Pope Benedict’s loose relationship with the morality of condoms, before Francis. Never forget that. This sudden “traditionalism” sprouting because we are now suffering the “fruits” of the previous pontificates, requires, in my humble estimation, repeated correction.

      And that question, now being asked about Pope Francis, was also fairly regularly asked of his predecessors in the pages of Catholic Truth.

      You, literally, heard it here first!

  4. Athanasius wrote: The only caution with the video is that it proceeds from a belief on the creator’s part that Pope Francis is acting against faith with deliberate malice.

    I think that is spot on. Francis’ war against truth (which is indeed what it is) proceeds from hubris, not deliberate malice. That is, he actually believes that his version of the faith – which even surpasses Modernism in its depravity and corruption, having now fully embraced the satanic UN agenda – is actually superior, far superior, to the real Catholic Faith. He seems to regard Catholicism, as the world has always known it, as a useless, sclerotic museum piece which is no longer applicable or useful in any human situation, and which must therefore be torn down as quickly as possible and replaced with new “truths.”

    Having said that, however, I think this pontificate is truly a product of malice: the Devil’s malice. Francis is merely his useful idiot, an emperor with no clothes (like his “Gay-tivity”), and a Jesuit marinated to the point of intoxication in 1970s and 1980s liberation theology.

    I do admire one thing, though, and that is how well Our Lord designed this Judas for the Passion of His Mystical Body. And just like Judas, Francis does not really care about “the poor” or the environment or Muslim “immigrants” or anyone or anything else alleged to be welcome in his field hospital – he is merely a narcissistic thief.

    (Malachi Martin, in The Jesuits, exposes the identical hypocrisy of the 1970s and 1980s Jesuit “liberators” in South America, who mouthed endless paeans to the poor and oppressed, whilst they themselves lived in the lap of luxury and privilege.)

    • RCA Victor,

      I fail to see how Pope Francis can be innocently guilty of hubris (defining as prideful over self-confidence) when he was brought up in the old Faith (and morals) prior to Vatican II. He had to make a decision somewhere along the line, possibly at some clergy in-service course where he accepted, uncritically, the theories and false theology of the latest dissenter on the block. I can’t excuse that as “hubris”.

      That he now clearly believes his version of the Faith (and I agree with that) is irrelevant. He will be called to account, surely, for his failure to respond to the graces readily available to us all, to remain faithful to the truths of the Faith and the moral order.

      • Editor,

        Innocently guilty? Is that like being hungrily satisfied? 🙂

        Anyway, I don’t think our Faith renders us immune from hubris – or from any other sin or fault, for that matter. And the Church was apparently chock full of clergy, not just Francis, brought up in the old Faith who subsequently abandoned it for the “new, improved version” unleashed at Vat. II.

        I would hazard a guess, not knowing anything about Francis’ formation (i.e. solid or weak), that his faith was never strong enough to resist either the siren call of worldliness, or his palpable hunger for power, human respect and adoration.

        The question, as far as I understand it, is whether his human weaknesses constitute willful malice against the truth. My amateur guess is that his malice is not willful against the truth. However, it is most definitely willful against those who oppose his agenda (aka his perverted version of truth), which he, like all liberals, imagines to be the unimpeachable and unassailable spiritual, moral and ecclesiastical high ground.

        Speaking of adoration, I know of one other being who hungered for adoration, as he tempted Our Lord in the desert….

        • RCA Victor,

          By “innocent guilt” I mean “culpability” and, including myself in this, I would argue that all of us who were taught the Faith and attended the old Mass prior to Vatican II, ARE culpable at some level for following, even for a short time, the new, “Tradition-free” Catholicism-Lite. Those still following it, phew! Pray!

          I agree about the numbers of clergy who did (and continue to do) this, but – given that we are assured of the necessary graces to keep the Faith/save our souls – they must, surely, be guilty at some level for what has since happened in the Church because of their… well… hubris!

          I know you’re probably thinking I’m just being difficult, nit-picking “hubris” – not the case. You are simply not understanding me. You’re a man, after all, and men just don’t understand women. End of…

          • Editor,

            The light bulb went on! Not sure how many watts it is though….

            I agree that anyone who fell for the new religion is culpable at some level. However, my original post was to agree with Athanasius, who pointed out that Francis has not been accused of acting with deliberate malice… far, that is, I hasten to add….maybe if certain Cardinals with the weight of the world allegedly on their shoulders would do their jobs, we peons would know whether the Church still has the power to exorcise herself from her enemies, or whether she will just continue to drift helplessly into the twilight.

            In short, it was a case of two men agreeing with each other! What can I tell you – apparently we men had too many ribs to begin with, since you women stole one! What did you do with that rib, anyway?????

            • RCA Victor,

              I think it’s a bit of a red herring to talk about “deliberate malice” – the word “malice” requires insight into the soul, motivation, and we can’t – obviously – do that so we can’t make that judgment. But we can comment on whether or not someone says or does something “deliberately”.

              For (an obvious, simplistic) example – something which happens in the day to day running of law enforcement – if someone is caught on camera (or otherwise eye-witnessed) furtively looking around in a shop, say a jewellery shop to make it more exciting 😀 and is then observed lifting diamonds worth 10 million quid, we can reasonably accuse them of deliberately stealing from the shop. The cops do it all the time. It’s not easy, I imagine, to accidentally find yourself in possession of that many priceless jewels. Well, not priceless, if they’re valued at 10 million quid, but you’ll get my drift, so excuse my dramatic licence 😀

              Similarly, those popes, bishops and priests who were brought up to know the history, nature and purpose of the Church, liturgy, religious and moral teachings and then fell prey so readily to Modernism (in the light of Pascendi which they knew about – I remember one of our “liberal” lecturers at teacher training college mentioning it and mocking it, so they knew…) THEY can, fairly, I think, be accused of deliberately abandoning the old Faith for the new. Whether they did so maliciously I don’t – and can’t – know. It’s irrelevant, in the context of this discussion, anyway.

              Just like the jewel thief who caused all sorts of bother by deliberately stealing those diamonds, which he may have pinched to donate to the nearest homeless charity (!) so these negligent popes, bishops and priests have been complicit in potentially leading countless souls to Hell, whatever their misguided motivation.

              And so Pope Francis by his clearly deliberate rejection of the traditional Faith, which he dismisses as “fundamentalism” (and much more) is causing untold scandal, for which he will be called to account one day. Different if they had never been taught about the Faith in its entirety – although, always, we are culpable for not educating ourselves continuously in the Faith, an obligation of our Baptism and Confirmation – not to mention ordination.

              As for that rib…

              NOT to be used as a justification for transgenderism!

  5. RCAVICTOR, I’m glad you mentioned Judas.

    A few weeks ago I was watching Fr. Andrew Apostoli (+ R.I.P.) on EWTN’s ‘Sunday Night Prime’. Fr. Andrew was lamenting about those people who leave Mass before it’s finished. He said something really profound when he compared them with Judas, the very first person to leave Mass before it was over.

    • Lionel,

      Not sure if you are referring to the video above, or to the comment about Judas being the first person ever to leave Mass early!

      Clarifiez svp!

  6. OK Ed (a female Ed!), I surrender my obscure male thinking – and all this “ribbing” – to return to the topic at hand. Yes, Francis is actively waging war against Truth itself. However, the psychological crux of the matter is that he doesn’t think so. In fact, he thinks the complete opposite: that he himself is teaching truth, in order to replace an allegedly obsolete truth, and that people like us, faithful Catholics, are the ones waging war against his new, improved truth.

    If this complete inversion of reality isn’t a sure sign of where this rubbish has come from, I don’t know what is.

    Meanwhile, there is the disturbing matter of the fate of Francis’ precious soul. Faithful Catholics do have Truth – Tradition – to cling to, in order to prepare ourselves for a happy death and eternal life. But what does Francis have to cling to? Nothing but his megalomania and a pack of lies.

    • RCA Victor,

      I do agree with that, because, once giving the Devil an inch (by entertaining heretics at in-service courses etc, reading their rubbish, etc) he takes a mile and before these “liberal” types know it, they actually DO believe the false teaching, falling for it hook, line and sinker. I think it’s the spiritual blindness of which we were warned at Fatima, the diabolical disorientation which is afflicting the hierarchy, right to the very top at this time, and which will not end until the Consecration of Russia.

      It just amazes me that anyone taught the Faith before the Council, could go so far astray and so quickly, with that warning from St Paul ringing in their ears: “Even if I, or an angel from Heaven, brings you a different gospel, do not believe it.” End, as they say, of discussion, Hans Kung & Company…

      • Editor,

        Not having been in the Church during the revolution, that is the very question I keep asking myself: how could an allegedly healthy Church fall apart so quickly when attacked? I know we’ve discussed that before and chalked it up to (a) Our Lord’s Will regarding the necessity of a Passion of His Mystical Body, and (b) the diabolical disorientation (aka the DD).

        And how about (c) Our Lord’s response to the failure of John XXIII to consecrate Russia; (d) the satanic enthronement ceremony that took place, according to Malachi Martin, on June 29, 1963, in Charleston, South Carolina and by phone with a group of satanist prelates and clergy somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican?

        It seems that the DD descended on the Church, for her disobedience, much like Original Sin descended on the human race for Adam’s disobedience: a pervasive disorder, a cutting off of grace. Mankind senses vaguely, as Pascal put it, his loss of grace and nobility, yet that doesn’t induce us to get off the treadmill of sin. Likewise, I think perhaps at least some of these disoriented clergy vaguely sense the loss of Faith, yet that does not prevent them from trying to adopt (and enforce) a different faith…which is nothing more than a treadmill to sin.

        The Church ate the forbidden fruit of aggiornamento, and fell.

  7. Meanwhile, I notice that Athanasius, having inspired me to agree with his stirring male rhetoric, has disappeared. Is he off looking for his missing rib?

    • RCA Victor,

      If you ask me, which I know you pointedly did not, he’s got more than a rib missing, but then, heck, who am I to judge? 😀

      • Editor

        Someone was told me it was a shilling I was short, but I checked my change and all was accounted for!

        • Athanasius,

          Well, just to be sure, check your local builders’ yard because there’s a rumour doing the rounds that you are a few bricks short of a bungalow… 😀

          Worry not, I’ll defend you on that one. A few sandwiches short of a picnic, maybe, but not bricks & bungalows. That’s very low… !

          • Editor

            The only safe way to remain sane these days is to be crazy, or turn to drink. The latter sounds more inviting, the old adage being: “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy”.

            • Athanasius,

              I wouldn’t turn to drink – because then you find yourself saying daft things like “I’m not so think as you drunk I am” or….

    • RCA Victor

      I’m still here, just working in between times. You’ll be pleased to hear that I haven’t lost a rib at this time, and believe me when I say I keep count!

      The question of malice on the part of a religious heretic always comes back to whether or not said heretic is guilty of formal or material heresy.

      Formal heresy becomes obvious when the heretic is confronted with his heresy yet refuses to recant it. Such heretics, following various censures and other attempts to bring them to their senses, will ultimately be excommunicated by the Church’s authorities. We are then free to declare these people formal heretics in the sure knowledge that having thoroughly examined their doctrines and motives, the Church’s authorities have sufficiently proved the existence of malice on the offender’s part.

      The material heretic, on the contrary, is one who is open to correction and will recant when confronted with irrefutable proof of his error. Pope John XXII, for example, was a material heretic for a long time, believing and teaching that the Blessed would not see the face of God until the end of the world. He recanted this error shortly before his death but had previously taught it with vehemence as both Cardinal and Pope.

      Where does this leave Pope Francis? Well, given the number and nature of his offences against orthodoxy, offences that stab right at the heart of faith and morals, it is very difficult for any true Catholic to refrain from declaring outright malice on his part.

      The problem is we don’t know what kind of upbringing he had, what kind of seminary education he received or what other influences may have been brought to bear on his formation. Just because he appears to be malicious doesn’t mean he is. It could be that in his misguided view he considers himself to be a true disciple of truth, a reformer enlightened by God. The Third Secret of Fatima referred to this as a “diabolical disorientation”. At any rate, we subordinates are not at liberty to declare him a formal heretic under any circumstances.

      The problem here is that there’s no authority on earth above the Pope. The Cardinals could get together and confront him with his errors, as exemplified by St. Paul with St. Peter, but they are likewise infected with Modernism, perhaps not to the degree of Francis but sufficient enough to demonstrate that the devil has infiltrated his ideas right through the hierarchy of the Church. They were destroying the faith before Francis appeared. His crusade is to now go after the morals, yet we don’t know if he does so with malice aforethought.

      It’s a difficult situation that can only be met with respectful resistance and a lot of prayer that Our Lord will finally expel the smoke of Satan (Modernism) from the Church. Our Lord is still in charge, despite appearances!

      Does that make sense in the context of the discussion? If not, you are free to “rib” me!

      • Athanasius,

        Yes, that makes sense. I do think, as I posted somewhere above, that Francis’ behavior is partially malicious: not towards the Faith (for which he sees himself on a messianic mission of reform), but towards the underlings who resist his agenda. But that lesser malice is not relevant to a possible trial for heresy, it is just grist for the mill of “The Dictator Pope.”

        As for one or more Cardinals publicly correcting him, and then calling a Council to try him if he continues, I agree this is unlikely, given the spiritual and mental state of the hierarchy, not to mention the climate of fear which, we are told, has enveloped them.

        I’m afraid that leaves ISIS, and the “Vision of the Third Secret,” to do the job, or some other hopefully less violent form of Divine Intervention.

        • RCA Victor

          Yes, I agree, there is a harshness in this Pope towards those who in any way oppose his programme or dare to criticise him. That’s indicative of pride. But then pride is at the root of the entire Vatican II revolution. Being blinded by pride is particularly worrying as there is usually no way back from that state of mind and/or soul barring a special miracle.

    • RCA Victor,

      I’m looking forward to reading that and since many of our newsletter readers are not online, I may include it, or extracts from it, in the forthcoming February edition. Many thanks for posting it.

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