Subscribe via RSS Feed

Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism

September 18, AD2013 492 Comments

…or so you’d think if you got all your information about Catholicism from blog comboxes.

Not surprisingly, Pope Francis has been in the news lately. The media jumped on his offhand comments about homosexuals, breathlessly reported on a letter he wrote to an atheist, and made much hay over an interview given by the Vatican’s new Secretary of State (the media was apparently under the impression that Pope Francis is a very clever ventriloquist, and he was the one talking while the new Secretary’s mouth was moving – at least, that’s what they reported).

A common refrain I’m observing in the comboxes of various Catholic bloggers lately, when said blogger discusses one of these media reports, goes something like this:

“The Pope needs to stop making remarks like this! They’re too easily misunderstood! No one should have to write an article after the fact explaining what the Pope actually said/meant. The Pope needs to deliberate for hours on end before so much as opening his mouth! Every word must be crafted with the utmost perfection so that the media doesn’t get the wrong idea!” etc., etc.

And, my favorite:

“This kind of thing never happened when Benedict XVI/John Paul II was Pope!”

To these people, I respond:

Really? That’s some pretty amazing selective memory you have going on there. Granted, I’ve only been Catholic for the last ten years, but I remember:

The Condom Kerfuffle, in which the MSM proclaimed that Pope Benedict said condoms were perfectly okay for everyone to use (when he actually said that in certain situations, the use of a condom could indicate that someone was trying to act in a moral fashion by not spreading disease, and that trying to act morally could be a good first step on the road to repentance).

Pope Benedict’s speech at the University of Regensburg, in which (according to the media) the Pope said that Mohammed was evil incarnate and all Muslims were going to hell. (The Pope later explained that his words had been misunderstood by Muslims.)

The publication of Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, in which the MSM announced that the Pope attacked capitalism as always evil in any circumstance and wholeheartedly supported the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was, according to the media, Pope Benedict’s last ditch attempt to revive a dying church by resurrecting a dead language.

John Paul II’s release of Dominus Iesus in 2000 spawned dozens of newspaper headlines (one of which I remember seeing in my college newspaper) proclaiming that “the Pope says non-Catholics aren’t really Christians!”

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II stated unequivocally, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren [...] I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (emphasis mine). Seems pretty straightforward, but the MSM headlines in response? “Pope’s words about women’s ordination spark debate” or similar.

I’m sure I could list hundreds of examples dating back decades, if not centuries, about how the media flagrantly and deliberately misrepresents a pope’s statements, leading to a need for the Vatican et al to issue a clarification. This is not a new phenomenon. The media does not exist to tell the truth – it exists to make people rich. Juicy headlines sell newspapers and garner millions of website hits, which generate revenue. “Pope Reiterates 2,000-year-old Teaching of the Church” doesn’t make money; “Pope Declares that All Atheists Go to Heaven” does. Truth has nothing to do with it, and this type of misrepresentation for personal gain is something that’s been happening as long as the papacy has existed.

Indeed, St. Peter himself could have been speaking about the mainstream media when he said, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” (2 Peter 2:1-3)

Of course, in every combox you find at least one person lamenting that the current Pope is destroying the Catholic Church. One example:

“This is doctrinal immodesty, if I may use the phrase. Rather than clothe the precious doctrine of the Body of Christ in garments of sobriety, modesty and Prudence, the truths of the Church are being sold away [by Pope Francis, presumably] cheaply to the moral perverts and enemies of Christ.”

I’m very curious what the commenter in question would have had to say about some of the Church’s earlier Popes:

  • Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
  • Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
  • Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy
  • Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
  • Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
  • Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
  • Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony
  • Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

(The preceding examples are taken from E. Chamberlain’s book “The Bad Popes,” as summarized by Wikipedia.)

We once had a Pope who was murdered while engaging in the act of adultery – and the Church survived! After that, can anyone honestly believe that the Church will be utterly decimated and destroyed simply because the current pope made statements about atheists that were deliberately misconstrued by the media in order to boost ratings?! Perhaps the Holy Spirit is insulted by the implication that His protection of the Truth was considered so weak and ineffective.

So please, fellow Catholics, the proper response when reading a MSM headline about the Pope changing a long-held doctrine of Catholicism is not panic or rage or despair. Rather, it’s a yawn, an eye-roll, and a resigned sigh – as well as a realization that we’re once again called upon to engage in the new evangelization for the sake of the Kingdom in the realm of social media and among our friends and family.

About the Author:

JoAnna was baptized, raised, and married in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America but converted to Catholicism in May 2003, on G.K. Chesterton's birthday. She has five terrific kids here on earth, two saints in heaven praying for her, and a wonderful husband of 13 years who supports her in all things. By day, she is a content editor for a global information company; by night, she enjoys defending the Catholic faith online (in between her duties as chief cook and bottle washer for La Casa Wahlund). She blogs sporadically at

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive a daily digest of all our essays.

Thank you for supporting us!

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

  • Robbe Sebesta

    This is great Joanna! Thank you for setting the record straight. It’s maddening whenever the secular press jumps on whatever the Pope says…..but I’m glad we have people like yourself to defend and explain our Catholic faith. By the way, I recently “un-friended” Kirk Cameron on Facebook because just the other day he posted: “The Pope Says Atheists Can Get To Heaven On Their Own Consciousnesses.’ I responded, basically saying – “As a Catholic I can say…no he didn’t….” I so wish people would research what they put out there as truth. Kudos to you on a great article. And I’m praying for a safe arrival of your new little one!

    • Collin Wahlund

      Being a Protestant, he’s likely to get his Catholic news from crappy sources like that. Sadly, they also tend to believe it given what most denominations teach about the Church.

      I try to explain these kinds of things, but it ain’t easy when all the info a Protestant gets is anti-Church. Sometimes I feel that the best way to get through is by associating at joint functions such as pro-life and religious freedom rallies. You see items in common there.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Agreed. Commonalities is what we need…not more strife!


      the roman catholic church will soon be destroyed despite u guys using language of commonalities…. the city of seven hills will be destroyed specially vatican…

    • Yolanda

      Richard, I disagree. The Catholic Church will endure.

    • Jen

      Richard the gates of hell will not prevail against it!! Our catholic church has stood thru good and bad times!! Many protestant churches have closed. God bless.

    • Irene Teresa

      I agree the Catholic/universal church will endure. Pope Francis brings Christ’s message into the full light of reality especially when it comes to the poor of the world.

    • AndrewIsrael

      The best part about Pope Francis is how he riles up the Republican Religious Reichers. I love it! They need his tough love!

    • Julie

      Do you come from Portland Oregon????

      The public newspapers have comments like that all time time…sounding like silly teenagers.

    • Tom

      Nazi Tea baggers ? Republican Religious Reich? You seriously think that is a Catholic approach to disagreements with other Catholics? And you don’t need some tough love?. I would rather be a tax collector than a Pharisee.

    • Winston

      The fact he’s a Jesuit is woefully frightening and comes from a country rich in liberation theology. Read Malachi Martin’s book “The Jesuits.”

    • desertvoice

      I disagree. Jesuits are sincerely seeking the truth. I am a lay person, but have gotten a theology doctorate from the Jesuits. There is a zeal for truth in them, however imperfect!

    • desertvoice

      The liberation theology is indeed a Latin American incubation. It was
      the belief that people should not wait for Jesus to liberate them from
      economic oppression,and that they should take justice in their own
      hands. Initially, some Jesuits sided with this radical view. I mention here my good friend Gustavo Gutierrez, SJ, who wrote “La fuerza historica de los pobres.” But prof. Gutierrez eventually softened his vievs. Today, the
      Jesuits believe that armed struggle contradicts the Gospel,
      and that the conversion of hearts to justice should take priority. This
      does not mean that we should sit idle and suffer without raising our
      voices in protest. St. John Paul II was the first Pope to propose a
      universal solidarity as response to the abuses brought about by greedy
      capitalism. The liberation theology thanks to that Pope’s efforts has
      today fallen in disrepute. But the struggle for economic justice goes
      on! I myself have written about the need to confront the “structures of economic sin” that fester like parasites on the present world!

    • Micha_Elyi

      Richard doesn’t believe Jesus, eh?

    • Winston

      The gates of hell verse is speaking of Christ’s church, which is not the catholic church, which was created 300+ years after Christ’s death. Constantine was the consummate politician, not a man of the cloth.

    • Julie

      Just as the Vatican is not on 7 hills, Constantine was not a Christian, only baptized within days of his death.

      You are listening to one of those kooky American independent preacher men who can stand up to no truthful, documented historical facts.

      They need somebody to put down because they do not have enough upstairs in the head.

      Rather, note the world, that when the pope speaks it listens.

      Do yourself a favor and seek Christ in those who are well educated and can present facts and bring about the fruit of the Holy spirit. Christ did indeed institute one church, visible to the world, not one that is invisible full of thousands of sects where nobody wants to go to church with each other. I don’t like you, or etc., I will go to another church. So much of Christian charity.

      Check out the foundation of the liturgy, from the turn of the first century, less than 100 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. Note the books of Catholic Scripture are of the Septuagint tradition, same as Christ used, as well as the apostles and St. Paul’s. Then note the Church beginning with apostles and the appointed bishops. After that the tenants of the Creed found in the baptismal rites, which is Catholic.

      If you have received a Trinitarian baptism, which is a Catholic, OK, Katholic rite, — you are already baptized into the universal Church, be it West or East.

      When we mean Catholic, we are simply using the Greek work, international language then as English is today. Katholic meant all Christianity, both West and East.

    • Opinionated

      Au contraire. Christ’s Church is the one He founded when He told Peter he was the rock on which He would build His Church. Peter was our first Pope as the first Bishop of Rome. He and the other apostles spread the Church. Constantine gave the Church appeal because he ended the practice of killing Christians under Roman rule.

    • jacobhalo

      The Catholic church was created 300 yrs. After the death of Jesus? In 107 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch “Whenever the bishops shall appear,there let the multitude also be; even as, Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church.” In 155, Polycarp mentions the Catholic church
      I believe that you are talking about the Edict of Milan of 313, which allowed the Catholic Church to come out of the Catatcombs. Jesus Christ established the church. The word Catholic, which means universal, was used when it started to spread to other countries.

    • Winston

      You are bamboozled by catholic propaganda. It is a pagan institution that co-opted Christianity to achieve its temporal ambitions. It’s doctrine, its holidays and its priestly garb are all pagan. The robes and mitre are that which were worn by the priests of Mithras. The Vatican is built of its temple site. St. Peter’s Basilica sports the pregnant belly of Isis while the Obelisk represents the phallus of Osiris. Interesting how complementary Washington DC is to that arrangement. Soon you will discover how corrupt this institution has been throughout history. Wish I could remember the title of this book but it is a comprehensive but older work on the history of the papacy. These men were absolute scoundrels. The escapades are jaw-dropping. How can you respect this institution?

      Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484). According to the published chronicle of the Italian historian Stefano Infessura, “Diary of the City of Rome”, Sixtus was a “lover of boys and sodomites” – awarding benefices and bishoprics in return for sexual favours, and nominating a number of young men as cardinals; some of whom were celebrated for their good looks.[47][48][49] However, Infessura had partisan allegiances to the Colonna and so is not considered to be always reliable or impartial.[50]

      Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was allegedly a practising homosexual, according to some modern and contemporary sources (Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio). He was alleged to have had a particular (albeit one-sided) infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[53]

      Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope’s bed.[

      Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei while still a priest, but before he became pope; and by her had his illegitimate children Cesare, Giovanni Borgia, Gioffre Borgia, and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, and she gave birth to a daughter (Laura) while Alexander was in his 60s and reigning as pope.[51] Alexander fathered at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children, and did much to promote his family’s interests – using his offspring to build alliances with a number of important dynasties.[52] He appointed Giovanni Borgia as Captain General of the Church, and made Cesare a Cardinal of the Church – also creating independent duchies for each of them out of papal lands.

      Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and incest.[31][32] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he “liked to have a collection of women”. According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[24] “they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.” According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was “a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held”.[33] Some sources report that he was rumoured to have died 8 days after being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[31] others that he was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery.[34][35][36][37] (See also Saeculum obscurum)

      This is just a small sampling. You can turn a blind eye, but this is a gnostic, deceiving institution.

    • Julie

      Again you are cherry picking and with out context.

    • Chris Blackington

      All your knowledge about the Holy Church has come from hostile sources. You owe it to yourself to see what the church says about itself. At the moment you are like somebody finding out about Jews by reading nazi propaganda.

    • Julie

      The Catholic Church began at Pentecost.

      All Constantine did was sign the Edict of Milan that made Christianity legal. He was a pagan up to days before his death.

      This spin about Constantine came out this past century. Before that people had enough education within Protestantism to know this is not true.

      But evangelicals and other non denominationals have cut off the 7 sacraments except Trinitarian baptism…so when the roots are just about all cut off and as time passes, it is very hard to communicate as they have lost so much the sense of Church and the desire to learn church history.

    • BrandonR

      fact: Jesus established a church (that has BOTH visible and invisible qualities). fact: Jesus gave authority to his apostles. fact: Jesus’ apostles appointed successors. fact: there is an unbroken chain of successors that lead the Catholic Church today.

      Stop assigning your own interpretations to scriputures in Revelation.

    • Julie

      The Church is not on a hill.

      The Church is across the Tiber on low land.

      You need to get your facts straight and you can only do that when you seek the truth of Jesus Christ.

      BTW, Jerusalem and Athens are on 7 hills……and so are countless cities in the world…Seattle is on 7 hills and is up there with Portland with the most casual sex in the country…..

    • Winston



      You should do more reading and less LOL’s, you might learn something….

    • Winston

      Practice what you preach. Reading is how I garnered this knowledge–decades of it. Perhaps you only read catholic propaganda. Try the truth. Christian I am, a Bible-believing Christian. I excommunicated myself from the Catholic Church when I learned the truth.

    • Julie

      Are you an SDA?

    • Bellfri

      Much to our delight.

    • Julie

      Study geography.

    • AugustineThomas

      I’d be more worried about your forty thousand thirty-man churches constantly warring with each other and the One True Church.

    • Julie

      The 7 hills of Rome do not have the Vatican…it is across the Tiber River….and not on a hill.

      But I wonder if you live in a city or town near you that have 7 hills….there is Jerusalem for a starter, as well as Athens, Greece….a Catholic fellow got his geography book out and gave the protestant a long list of cities with 7 hills.

    • Chris Blackington

      Richard, Richard…. see my previous comment please

    • AugustineThomas

      Since the Church has emphasized “commonalities” it has emptied out.

    • Winston

      The smoke of satan entered the Vatican at Vatican II.

    • Julie

      Well, it entered actually the sanctuary, according to Pope Paul VI, when there were fallen priests who entered into satanism.

      And likewise devout Catholics retained the faith, though marginalized, including priests and bishops….Revelations 12 speaks of the stars swept by the dragon’s tail, 1/3 from the sky…consecrated souls.

      The American and Canadian seminaries were allegedly infiltrated by communists to ….their words, protestantize our faith…meaning to remove ancient disciplines, embracing one’s cross and doing penance.

      Satan was given the 20th century to destroy the Church from within. It is now being cleaned out. Things are changing. And this is also why Pope John Paul II said that the next millenium would be a new spring time for Christianity….beginning with the families.

      Check out St. Francis’ of Assisi’s letter to Catholics written in 1221.

      Be ware of easy religion that treats God commonly or has to put other Christians down or condemn them using compromised and condemning bible passages, making them speak a different message of….hate.

    • Winston

      Your faith should be in Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church. The RCC is antichristian. You will find out soon.

    • Julie

      The Church finds its life in Jesus Christ. Its deposit of faith is Christ. The members of the Church focus our entire life on the Lord.

      You should not be making such terrible judgments about the Church based on what.

      You are following false teachers. They are teaching you misconceptions…and your faith is based on hatred and not on the Lord.

      If you did, you would seek the truth in all things.

      Just because the Catholic Church is large, it is made up of human beings, not images. You have no concept of how much hurt your cult makes on innocent people.

    • Winston

      Speaking of images, have you read the real ten commandments in Exodus 20? Conveniently, the catholic church leaves this out of its version, as if it is okay for the RCC to alter God’s commandments: You shall not make unto you any graven images.

    • Julie

      Then when you get into an accident some day…I actually hope you don’t….then don’t call for an ambulance, just pray to get help.

      The Book of Maccabees was removed by Luther 1500 years later….from there so many denominations sprung up, each one following men and not Christ and His apostles and their successors.

      If you ask for someone to pray for you, you are already asking for intercessory prayers. You are not seeing that person as God but someone to also pray with you for your intentions.

      You die, you have chosen Christ, you live in Him. There is no second death. People in heaven don’t sit on clouds…they pray with the angels and saints for the perseverance of the just and the conversion of sinners, and pray with us for all our needs…afterall, Scripture says heaven watches us with a thousand eyes…….

    • Winston

      Julie, there is another lie you must overcome. The Catholic Church is not the apostolic succession of Peter. Jesus never made Peter a pope. When he was talking about the “rock,” Jesus was speaking of Himself. Read the Bible and see how many verses confirm that Jesus is the rock or the stone or the cornerstone. Further, several times Peter states in his epistles that he is only a man and an apostle of Christ. The RCC interpreted this verse in its favor. That is why there is always more than one witness in the Bible to verify context, concepts and understanding of usage. Read the Bible. It will open your eyes.

      Peter never, ever went to Rome let alone preach in Rome. Paul did. Peter was never buried in Rome. His tomb was found in Israel. Research and as the Bible states, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” — Psalms 118:8

      “Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord. He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.” — Jeremiah 17:5-6
      Julie, please read the Bible and please focus on unfulfilled prophecy. God bless. . .

    • Julie

      You are the one who is looking at man too much. Non denominationals cannot perceive our focus…which is on Christ alone. We adorn the House of the Lord, just as is reflected in the building of the ancient temple. Our altars are adorned as such because ours is the fulfillment of the inner sanctuary, which by the way had two ‘graven’ images of angels on both sides of the Mercy Seat.

      Note the Lord’s dwelling is called the Mercy Seat.

      Likewise you are not look at documented history 2000 years ago.

      You are reading certain sources…seen those claims, read those claims and read rebuttals…

      Cherry picking to support oppositional and anti-Church bias, man oriented Christianity based on one’s hang ups and bias. It is not God centered..those who seek the truth, but merciless.

      We cannot base our faith on our own self-righteousness, but on the Lord’s grace that enlightens our faith.

      If you understood the nature and mission of the Church, let alone read objective history…you would not be in the situation you are in.

      Atleast put your focus on Christ, let God be God and let God take care of the Catholic Church…me included.

    • Winston

      How is my focus not on Jesus Christ by sharing the truths of the Gospel with you? He has commanded us to do so. With all due respect, my research is extensive, not lukewarm. I pray a God opens your eyes. Be well.

    • Julie

      You are basing your anti Catholicism on misconceptions.

      You are following divisive men.

      You should go to….find the article on Catholics and Muslims….a talk was given on Palestine….but when he mentioned Catholics, the whole place reacted most intensely by the Protestants.

      You should spend your time in prayer and reflection and seek the truth.

      Shoebat is a former Muslim who became an Evangelical Christian. There is alot of time thinking about the Rapture and other things….and not seeing the reality of what is coming. He used to teach his children to throw stones at icons.

      Then he came to see what the Catholic Church teaches, its history and now he publicly repents for the slander he caused our Church.

      There is no substantiation whatever based on your opinion. Two thousand years of documented history, consistency in faith and practice, Sacred Scriptures using the tradition by the Lord Himself and His apostles and St. Paul, the bishopry and the creed…..and sacred worship….all in place by 100 AD.

      We don’t follow opinions of individual men.


      Winston you are correct he did because THIS is the Church he must destroy, he’s not to worried about the others is he?

    • Julie

      Too bad Protestant ecclesial communities cannot focus more on Christ as we do.

      Thankful we don’t hear about anybody being bad at Catholic Mass. I don’t go there to hear gossip and slander about fellow human beings, our separated brethren in Christ, but come to the Lord to receive and grow in him.

    • Winston

      The catholic mass and transubstantiation are pagan practices. There is no purgatory, man cannot atone for his sins by good works, and you can’t pay a loved one’s way out of purgatory with deceitful indulgences. Mary was not immaculately conceived, was no longer a virgin after the birth of Christ and was not assumed into heaven nor is she an intercessor to Jesus Christ. These are just a few anti-biblical tenets embraced by the pagan RCC.

    • Julie

      Another falsehood from your cult…

    • Winston

      Every day, in every church, in every city/nation globally the RCC is killing Jesus over and over and over again. Then you are eating his body and drinking his blood, concepts that are steeped in Satanism and rebuked by the Old Testament. On the cross, Jesus said, “It is finished.” Yet, the RCC is killing Him over and over everyday, through multiple masses in multiple churches. I don’t think you really know what you are involved in. Perhaps you had better make a study of the Old Testament.

    • Winston

      I am not involved in any cult. I am a simple biblical Christian. Would you prefer that I lie to you? The truth shall set you free. . .it did me.

    • Julie

      Free from what?

      The bible alone…no church, no authority, no intercessory prayers for you, no consecrated to discern truth from false in each generation where the Word of God gives Life.

      Sorry, I don’t believe in the Lone Ranger bible alone religion. Christ did not pass out bibles, the apostles didn’t and alot of people then and now cannot read. Rather it is Christ Himself Who is present in Word and Sacrament…by those chosen by Him and given authority to manifest the fullness of the Lord.’

      Sorry….no Lone Rangers accountable to no one.

    • nworder

      “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ ” St Jerome.

      “Man cannot live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD (the whole bible) that proceedeth from the mouth of God ”

      The ‘sword of the spirit” is the Word of God – ie the scriptures.

      Without this sword we cannot defeat Satan – Jesus used the words of srcripture to make the devil flee when He was tempted in the wilderness.

      The average member of the CC is woefully inadequate in scripture study – 5 minutes a week is a drop in the ocean. But even if you go to mass every day it will take years to get through only part of the bible.

    • Julie

      If you go to Mass for Cycle A – Matthew plus the Old T estament and Psalms, Cycle B which is Mark, plus OT and Psalms, and then Cycle C – St. Luke with OT and Psalms, these cycles each last one year. If you go to Mass every day for 3 years you will have heard the whole Bible…just like the ancients did rather than books in their hands.

      When we hear the Word of God — it is the Eucharist that brings the Word to life and gives it understanding and brings us in to the Eternal presence of the Lord,
      I Am Who Am, and thus to know all the pages of Scripture alone without the Church communion is different and you learn linear…one page at atime, and you cannot understand the various parts.

      You can read a book and get a certain impression of the story. You can sit face to face with the story teller and each of you can pick up where things aren’t clear or you can ask questions to ask what they mean or to clarify. That is what happens at Mass.

      The other great event that transcends individual reading of Scripture is to hear the Word of God in the assembly at Mass. The readings of the Old and New Testament come to life and it is as if we are in this great arena hearing the same Good News as our forefathers amidst the Lord’s people.

      So in this the Word becomes infleshed by the Eucharist among us, breaking open and giving life to the Word and the communion with those who have gone before us in the walk of faith, going back to the ancient Jewish people.

      So we don’t have time to put down anybody as our focus is not on people but on the Lord and His people.

    • Winston

      The RCC mass will not get you into heaven. I know how the RCC picks and chooses verses that they can manipulate and take out of context. Reading verses randomly loses the real context in that book and chapter. Read it yourself.

    • Julie

      The Mass IS heaven on earth and we commune with Jesus and that is how you go to heaven….

      I was thinking about you at Mass today….so it took 300 years with many people to assemble the Bible….and the Church has been lived out for 2000 years….but then you are want to follow those who have been around 500 years who want to pick and choose text to suit their particular way of looking at things.

      When you do that…you end up in oppositional position.

      That is partly why it is a waste of time to argue with a Catholic, even though we are not set up or even hear about anybody else at Church because we are Christ focused.

    • nworder

      A common myth – the council merely authenticated the scriptures which were already in circulation and were well known to genuine christians – it did not take 300 years – the NT scripture were all complete at the time of writing and before 70 ad at the latest.
      They were put into one Canon at the council but had been circulated for 250 years – a long time .

      There are many differences in the CC but they are hidden under one umbrella.

      There were seven “different” churches in Asia – which must have had various practices and attitudes since Jesus gave each one a different letter – a report card.
      If there had been only one church in dominion then only one letter to the Roman church would have sufficed.
      I believe in the theological position that these 7 churches are TYPES of churches but also a TIMELINE to the end .
      We are now in the Laodicean age the “lukewarm” “people power ” age .
      So we could have a philadelphian (brotherly love) church (most commended) in the Laodicean age or vice versa .

      No christian should avoid these letters which are short but have a supernatural depth. There are many excellent commentaries on this topic and you have Jesus’s blessing at the beginning for those who read and understand.

      We have different catholic churches eg the SSPX versus the “Liberal” CC
      and catholic “prophets” who have large followings but are not recognised by Rome.

    • Julie

      Sorry, try again.

      I would recommend to you, if you can handle it because it is Catholic and I don’t know if you have ever read anything defending Christ’s Church and its history…
      ‘Consume the Word’, the explains the background of the development of the Bible…by Dr Scott Hahn, another former anti-Catholic Calvinist.

      He was a most highly educated ordained minister when he slipped into a Catholic Church. He sat in the back pew and did not want anyone to know he was there.

      But he began to understand the movement of the Mass, the symbols and the ritual.

      It is just that I worked all last night on a hospice case and don’t have the energy to debate you…as well as wondering what good it would do.

      It is better to pray for people like yourself. You spend too much time being this way…you should take your energy and use it to find the Lord in a greater way. You are wasting your time.

    • nworder

      I am a catholic and have read Scott Hahn . You have said nothing of substance to debate what I have said. What “way” am I ?

    • Julie

      The problem is that these comments in response to an article are not the place to debate.

      Have you read Dr Hahn’s ‘Consume the Word’, that gives a concise history of how the Bible was assembled…and yes it did take over 300 years. It took 200 years to verify the Book of Hebrews was to be used, that it was only 4 of the apostles that would be used for the Gospels…the epistles took more time….

      I think it good the Church took the time it did to ensure what we learn is edifying and building up the universal Church.

      If you are talking about different churches….did you know there are 22 rites within the Roman Catholic Church, one most common is the Maronite, the Chaldean, the Ethiopian,….for example.

      It is your use of language.

    • nworder

      Paul’s letters to the Hebrews , Corinthians would have been read out in and copied in the churches right away – there is no way they would lie on a church shelf for 200 years – there are authenticated scripture going right back to the

      to the apostles.

      New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100)
      2nd Cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130 f.)
      less than 100 years 5600 scripts accuracy of text 99.5%

      As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

      Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30., then that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned–people who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

    • Julie

      Thank you…good post…Agree….but it took time for the Church to affirm the books…the Bible Christians know just didn’t happen over night….and who put it together….

    • nworder

      The bible is not covered in 3 years even if you go every day which only a tiny minority do – so the weekly reading must be backed up by constant reading of scripture or you will have no sword of the spirit to defeat satan’s darts.

      EG The proverbs are so important for guidance but are not in the readings.
      This is the same in many churches so bible study is the most important leg of the faith to make up for the gaps.

      Communion is essential but must be along with bible study.

      Even if your arithmetic is correct if someone goes to church once a week it will therefore take 21 years to get through some of the bible since some of the readings will duplicate – not very inspiring.

    • Julie

      Again… my post to Winston.

    • Winston

      Put on the whole armor of God. Ephesians 6.

    • Winston

      Very sad to hear your misguided position. The New Testament had not yet been written during Jesus’ ministry. It was being lived. Further, Jesus read and referred to the Old Testament as the Holy inspired Word.

    • nworder

      This is a common myth. The NT letters and the gospel were written down almost immediately after the events – not 40 years later which would be absurd.
      Luke addresses his gospel to theophilus .
      You cant live a message unless you RECEIVE the message – you might receive it in writing or orally but you have to get it .
      Paul’s letter to the corinthians would have been read out in the churches right away – they did not sit on a shelf for 50 years . It would have been copied extensively and circulated among all the churches at the TIME they were written as well as the gospels and other NT letters.

      The early Jewish Christians were steeped in the OT and they knew how to preach the NT scripture – just because the NT may not have been in one bound book does not mean the NT gospels and letters sat on shelves gathering dust.

      The NT was written before the foundation of the world and is Jesus – the WORD made flesh – Jesus being the WORD.

      Even Revelations must have been written before 70 ad since there was no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev. or any other scripture.
      Plus the destruction was predicted by Jesus showing that all the NT was written down before 70 ad .

    • desertvoice

      Those who do not love Mary, do not love Jesus! That is a wound that the Reformation had visited upon the Church of Christ!

    • Winston

      Be careful what “christ” the RCC is referring to. If truth be told, the RCC puts more focus on Mary teaching that she is mediatrix which is heresy. It is not biblically supported nor is any immaculate conception, lifetime of virginity or assumption into heaven. Does scripture not tell us to verify all gospel messages with that of Scripture like good Bereans? Gid’s Word is the authority, not the RCC and its errant gospel message.

      Do we not see most RCC churches named after Mary and the saints?

    • Chris Blackington

      I recently suggested to a protestant friend that all his information about Catholicism came from sources hostile to the church, and that maybe getting his knowledge about the Holy Church in this way was like finding out about Judaism by reading Mein Kampf….

    • Carl Grillo

      Merely natural good works make the atheist a humanitarian – not a Christian. To suggest – as Pope Francis does – that philanthropic good works are some sort of “common ground” for believers and non-believers is false…a
      meritorious good work must have the supernatural motive of love of neighbor for God’s sake. This supernatural motive is completely absent from the atheist who negates God by his very existence. His “good works” will not save
      him; any more than they will save the Protestant who does humanitarian works;
      but does not obey the precepts of the objective moral order. Do not get me
      wrong – I am not saying that Francis is preaching the heresy of universal
      salvation [i.e., apocatastasis] but he is preaching the heresy of good works alone – without supernatural faith.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Yes Carl, but Pope Francis is not preaching the heresy of good works alone. If you take what he said in context, he said that he stands by what the Church has always taught when it comes to salvation, and that is: if a person does not know the Truth, yet seeks it however he knows to, this person too has a chance at eternal life. He’s not saying, “Those who know in their heart of hearts that the Catholic Christian faith is the only way to God, and yet refuse to comply with it, they are still saved.” He is speaking to the ones of ignorance, which is what the Church has always said.

    • Carl Grillo

      Their ignorance will not save them, if they do not elicit the Acts of faith, hope, charity, and perfect contrition for their sins necessary for salvation. If they only have imperfect contrition for their sins; how can they be restored to a state of grace without Sacramental Absolution – Confession to a Roman Catholic Priest? This is what the Church has always said.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      That’s not true Carl. The Church has always spoken of those invincibly ignorant, and it was clarified with Vatican II –

      The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

      This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no
      fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

      Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

      All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all
      men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

      This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).
      But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).

    • Carl Grillo

      Jesus’ words that you cite actually increase the guilt of Jews, Pagans, Infidels, [Moslems] and Atheists; it does not “let them off,” as you say. He has in fact come in the Flesh; He has in fact spoken – therefore they have no excuse…The Council only mentions – in a non-infallible manner – the “mere possibility” of their being saved. Fr Barron – with whom I do not agree – stated this “mere possibility” about non-Christians with reference to the documents of the Council: “…the possibility [not certainty]…of sharing in the Paschal Mystery;” and, “may achieve eternal salvation,” not, “will achieve…” This is in line with the statements of Pope Pius IX in “Singulari quaedam,” and “Quanto conficiare moerere,” where he spoke of remote sufficent grace given to non-Christians who have not yet heard [Pagans] or received [Jews, Moslems] the Gospel of Christ. If they cooperate with remote grace, they will receive the proximate grace of conversion to the true Catholic faith by means of Missionaries. “Faith cometh through hearing [fides ex auditu], says Saint Paul. “But how can they believe if they have not heard, and how can they hear if no one is sent?”
      This is the “hermeneutic of continuity…”
      Take it or leave it.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      So Carl, you are arguing against the Magisterium. And I think I will keep listening the Church and what she has spoken about salvation, rather than any individual who interprets the bible on his or her own accord.

    • Paul

      Thank you! This response makes me smile :)

    • Carl Grillo

      I am not interpreting the Bible of my own accord; [Catholics do not do that] you are interpreting the Magisterium of your own accord by practically teaching the heresy that all men are saved – except those who stubbornly refuse to become Catholics, while knowing that this is the one true Church; falsely basing this notion upon “Lumen Gentium, 16 and the CEC. But the Magisterium has always taught – and still teaches – that Jews, Pagans, Infidels, Agnostics and Atheists CANNOT be saved if before death they do not elicit these acts referred to above. [scil., faith, hope, charity, and perfect contrition (in the abscence of a Priest); or imperfect contrtion (with the Sacramental Absolution of a Priest)]. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, which is referenced in the footnotes to Lumen Gentium, 16: “An implicit desire [for Baptism] is not sufficient for salvation if it is not informed by true supernatural faith and animated by charity (towards God).” Theologians add that an explicit faith in the Trinity, Incarnation and the Redemption is necessary by a necessity of means [necessitate medii]; after the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This point of dogma was not mentioned in the 1949 Letter because it was not addressing itself to this issue [cf., Monsignor Francis Fenton, The Church and Salvation, 1959]. Christ shed every drop of His Precious Blood upon the Cross to institute the Seven Sacraments which are morally necessary for salvation. Non-Christians do not have ANY of the Sacraments, and “Baptism of Desire” is difficult – if not impossible – for them because it must be informed by faith, hope, charity and explicit belief in Christ.

      You and many other “new Church” Catholics seem to suggest that there are TWO Economies of Salvation: one for Christians, and the other for non-Christians and the “whatevers” who believe in anything or nothing. The Church of Vatican II and the Roman Catholic Church; which are one and the same – for there is only one Church – does not in fact teach two economies of salvation. There is no Luther, Mohammed, or Buddha in Heaven – only Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      I am out of here: there is no use in multipling words when nobody is listening.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Carl!! Is this what is stated in YOUR Catechism? –

      The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are
      innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding
      the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting
      Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

      This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no
      fault of
      their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no
      fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but
      who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try
      in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of
      their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

      Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

      All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all
      men of
      good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since
      Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in
      fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a
      manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being
      associated with this paschal mystery.

      This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who
      innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would
      not have sin” (Jn 15:22).
      But once a person comes to know the truth,
      he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this
      in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no
      guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).

      Because, this is what I find over and over again – everywhere I’s even on the Vatican’s homepage. So, I don’t know what you are reading that is so different from mine, but I know mine is Roman Catholic. I don’t need to “interpret” anything because the Magisterium does that FOR me, and for you too. But somewhere, something is not right when you are telling me I am wrong, when I am simply cutting and pasting what is stated in every Roman Catholic Catechism. I believe what the Magisterium teaches. I would not be Catholic if I didn’t. Again I say, you have an apparent issue with Rome, not with me.

    • John Deere

      For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but hve eternal life. Simple. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Simple truth, easily understood, nothing ambiguous. My advice for you, come out from among those who would lead you astray with philosophy and vain deciet.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      John Deere…is that your real name?? Anyway, thank you for your comments. I agree, of course with the Gospel of John 3:16, as I agree with all of what Our Lord taught. It is simple too. However, problems arise sometimes with the subject of people who have never truly been exposed to Christ, yet seek the truth as best they can. This was the subject of which I was talking about with the above Carl. I appreciate what you said though.

    • ME

      So you leave no room for anyone born into a protestant faith and taught all their lives that salvation is through faith alone, and just because someone from the Catholic church tells them that is not true (again because they’ve been taught all their life that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon or some such nonsense), that they are automatically disqualified from being invincibly ignorant? I have come to realize the fact that it is a lot harder to convince someone that what they’ve been taught all their lives is not the truth than you’d think it should be. I believe there is also an element of understanding that must be taken into consideration in order for their to be true “sin”. Granted, I see a lot of people who I might think appear to be adamantly in denial of the truth, but do I know if that is truly denial or if it is invincible ignorance?

    • Maria

      We have to try and understand culpability and it’s hard for a “righteous” person to do this. Before, you think that I’m suggesting you are a righteous person – stop – I am not. Culpability is a difficult teaching to understand properly and Robbe is demonstrating a good awareness of it.

    • mia

      i’m listening, Carl. thanks for your efforts to explain. : )

    • Carl Grillo

      Thank you for listening…

    • Kelly

      “There is no Luther, Mohammed, or Buddha in Heaven – only Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

      Prove it Carl. Prove it.

    • Mar Ia

      You are so right Kelly. How true! Blessings!

    • Tom

      how do u know who is in Heaven? No one on earth does. We don’t even know if Hitler or Bin-Laden confessed at the moment of death.

      The surest way to Heaven is through the Catholic Church. However, what about the young boy or girl who dies in remote sub-saharan Africa or remote Asia. They have never had a chance to accept the Catholic Church.

      So what becomes of we who didn’t evangelize and help the Holy Spirit convert those who don’t believe and save their souls? Very few people deserve or earn Heaven. Those that do are called Saints. I am not one although we are all supposed to strive to be and all could be if we choose. as a matter of fact, I can only think of 1 woman who is in Heaven.

      We all need to pray that all souls are saved. God have mercy on us and the whole world.

    • Kelly

      What “She” has spoken about? Sheesh, you people are truly insane.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Kelly, “the Church” is made up of people. It is not a building.

    • Kelly

      Where did I say it was a building? Methinks thou doest protest too much.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Kelly, you made a comment about me calling “The Church” she. “She” is considered the bride of Christ and “she” is a living, breathing gathering of people in God’s name. Me thinks thou is not following the conversation.

    • Kelly

      Newsflash: The world doesn’t revolve around you or your writings. So sorry I misinterpreted your crazy-talk.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Newsflash: No one ever said it did. And if its such crazy talk, why do you continue to engage with me? You sound so hostile for no reason.

    • Kelly

      Well, you seem to think of yourself as ‘the one with the correct knowledge’ on this matter. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps you might be wrong, or that this entire discussion is based on myths that you (and others) were taught as children? I have a feeling you need to have the last word because deep down the more people you can try to convince that your way is the right way, the less doubt you’ll have about your belief system.

      But that’s just me. I’m sure you’ll agree we’ll have to agree to disagree. And that’s all this is…a disagreement.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Kelly, I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else what the truth is. I don’t claim to have found the truth, but I know it has found me. Only the Holy Spirit can move peoples’ hearts. All I am is a believer in the One true God. And I thank him every day I had parents who shared their faith with me. He loves us all so much and that includes you. You needn’t believe it. It just is what it is.

    • Kelly

      You proved my point. Your parents indoctrinated you, so that’s why you believe. You’re entitled to that belief, but again, that’s all it is, a belief. One that excludes billions of others around the world who believe in other gods, or question if the concept entirely. More than anything, I have a feeling you’re trying to convince yourself, but that’s just my opinion. Have a good life! :)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Kelly, I can’t speak for Robbe, but I’ve stopped to think that I might be wrong plenty of times. Then I use logic and reason and realize that the evidence that God exists is overwhelming.

      Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps you might be wrong?

    • Kelly

      Of course I have. I’m not saying I’m right — all I’m saying is that no one can say they are, and everyone else is wrong. As I mentioned above, that’s religious blackmail, a HUMAN emotion, not a ‘godlike’ one. In my opinion, there’s far more proof that man created god than the other way around, but I’m sure we’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree. :)

    • AugustineThomas

      One thing we can do is look at the fruits of peoples’ beliefs.
      The beliefs of members of the Church led to modernity and so much charity people from the barbaric ages wouldn’t have thought it was possible.
      Your secularist beliefs have only led to murder and mistreatment on a level also previously believed to be impossible.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The Catechism uses the same terminology, so why are you calling it “crazy-talk”? Why are you so hurt and angry?

    • Kelly

      I’m not sure what the ‘Catechism’ has to do with anything — you’ll find that most religions have the same terminology, the same fairy stories, etc..

      Why am I so hurt and angry? Because I grew up being harrassed, bullied, shamed, beat up and nearly suicidal because people use the Bible as an excuse for their homophobia and bigotry, just like they did with blacks, with women, etc., etc..

      Fortunately, times are changing, and more and more people (even some “Christians”) are realizing how divisive religion is, and are realizing that we’re all the same. I’m grateful for that, and am working on letting go of my anger and hurt. Thanks for asking.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Ugh… Kelly no wonder you are bitter. I am so sorry you were hurt by these people. Not all Christians are like that.

    • Kelly

      Thanks Robbe, I appreciate your comment. And agree…not all Christians are so bigoted.

    • AugustineThomas

      Secularists are far more brutal than religious folk. I think you may be upset that your favorite sin is in fact a sin and you’re projecting that on to those people. We all have others hurt our feelings. In your case you may be building these people up in your mind because, even in their wickedness, they reminded you of a truth you can’t stand to hear.
      I used to be an atheist and in my case the Christians I despised actually weren’t so bad and I was simply jealous that they seemed happier than me and weren’t as plagued by sin as me.

    • Kelly

      “Secularists are far more brutal than religious folk.”

      Hilarious, if it weren’t so untrue and sad. The bible is full of ‘god-sanctioned’ murder and bloodshed.

    • AugustineThomas

      Do you have any evidence? The bible is full of God convincing his people to defend themselves against outside aggressors.
      You guys have no argument that doesn’t derive from biblical verses taken out of context.
      Christians built modernity and gave more charity to others than any group in history by so much that secularists could never catch up even if they actually started doing charity.
      Secularism brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc.

    • Winston

      Perhaps you don’t know the truth of the Old Testament if that’s what you believe. The secret to the Old Testament is in Genesis 3:15 and 6:4, if you can interpret it accurately. It led to the reason for the flood.

    • Kelly

      “Truth”? Okay, whatever. The Bible is a book of fairy tales, bizarre stories and is filled with contradictions and multiple interpretations over thousands of years. And of course murder and bloodshed.

    • Fruitbearer

      Kelly, salvation is a free gift of grace and by faith it’s bestowed to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. To be born anew is to have your spirit made alive by the Father and that happens the moment you believe in his Son. All who believe in the Son are regenerated spiritually and instantly born into the family of God, forever. The Father will never not be your Father. All who believe will go to the place called Heaven. As children of God however, we’re now required to grow up and mature to the point of bearing fruit which means producing good deeds by his power and on his authority. This is sowing to the Spirit, not the flesh. This maturing process is by faith, and it’s at this point that repentance is required. Repentance is daily, 1 John 1:9. Jesus is our current High Priest and makes continual intercession for us as expressed in the third person of the trinity which is the Holy Spirit who is ruler and governs our lives from his throne which currently is in our hearts. This is the Kingdom of God the Holy Spirit. This means, we are required to cooperate with the leading of the Holy Spirit and volunteer to lay down our lives (self-life, selfish life, ie. human sinful mind, self-will, emotions fueled by our five physical senses) for Jesus’ Sake and follow him. We are to be lead by Spirit. Praying in Spirit. Walking by the Spirit. Sowing to the Spirit. Listening to the Spirit. God the Father is Spirit and we are to Worship him in Spirit. God is Jesus and Jesus is the Word. We are faithful to truth. Faith means to believe in the truth of who Jesus Christ is and what he taught. He modeled how to submit to his Father and he stayed under the Will of the Father regardless of how he felt. He exposed evil and did not come to earth to condemn it, but to save it. He did not come to bring social equality, he came to set the captives free so all who would believe could be saved and do the will of the Father. Not everyone does God’s will, but there’s rewards for those who obey God. God wants every child to know his Son, and to learn to imitate his Son and exhibit Christ-like characteristics. Healthy fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and necessary in order to understand the true doctrine of Works. We don’t work to get saved or to get to heaven. We work as God’s employee in his field doing his mission work and he will give rewards and pay us for our obedience to him. God’s definition of Love is that we obey him. He wants us to obey him SO HE CAN REWARD US WHEN HIS KINGDOM COMES. He’s COMING TO EARTH and all who earn the inheritance of this Kingdom with work along side of him for a thousand years in the millennium. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:1 and it is eternal. Our sowing on earth will be reaped in eternity. Thy word is forever settled in heaven. Faith is a lifestyle and it’s a life-long process of becoming like Jesus. We all must grow in grace, unto maturity because it is the fruits of the Holy Spirit that will distinguish the true believers from the fakes. Many professing Christians do not know the truth of what salvation is all about. They think heaven is the end-goal. It is not. The Kingdom of Heaven and inheriting future positions is the goal. True adult Sons of God cooperate and are continually being renewed in their minds unto Christ’s likeness and more and more humility should be exhibited as we learn to overcome the power of sin, the power of our flesh, and the power of our enemy. Everyone struggles with sin. No matter what sin, all sin is offensive to God because he is Holy. But one day soon, at his return, the struggle will be over and we truly will be free. Many Christians will be disappointed when they arrive in Heaven to realize they were deceived on the earth. Any righteous works done in the power of the flesh or for selfish ambitions or to try to GET TO HEAVEN, will be burned up in the Bema seat judgment. 1 Cor. 3:13-15. God is interested in Spiritual matters and a pre-req. is dying to our sinful selfish self. Most Christians don’t know the real creator God nor do they know anything about agape love. A free gift to heaven is unconditional for all who believe. Whether we obey is our choice. Many will be sad to discover they will be disqualified to become co-heirs with Jesus Christ and will be disinherited. To lose your soul is to be disinherited. Saul lost his inheritance due to disobedience. Lot lost his inheritance due to his love of the things of this world, Esau lost his inheritance due to his rebellion and sold his birthright for a bowl of red stew. “what would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul”. Spirit salvation is a free gift and it’s unconditional, but soul salvation requires sanctification and that requires our willingness and free will to make faith choices to choose Christ’s life over our own selfish will. Success in this endeavor is called being an overcomer and they will inherit all things. Rev. 21:7. Being an overcomer is a VERB and takes determination. No believer ever need worry about going to Hell. That’s a LIE OF SATAN. It’s the rewards at question. This reward is a Kingdom inheritance attained through faithful obedience and it’s about positions of service, prestigious status, honor, high level of glory and being in close proximity to the King in his upcoming Government on the earth. To inherit this honor, a person must die to self, pick up his cross, and imitate Jesus Christ. Giving up lusts of the flesh is not easy for any human being but it will be worth it. The bible is written to Christians and sadly, most do not heed the warnings. No one who practices a sinful lifestyle without repentance will inherit the Kingdom but there is no sin that can send a believer to Hell. You are sealed forever by his Spirit and he’s not an Indian giver. All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be spiritually and bodily redeemed and given a glorified body, but to inherit the Kingdom crowns and thrones of authority, we must live in Christ and put off the old deeds of the sinful self. While on earth, we constantly remain and abide (live) in the true vine Jesus Christ. Please read John 15. Heaven is a free gift. Inheriting the Kingdom is conditional.
      First Fruits Ministry –

    • Kelly


      I’m sure you mean well, but you don’t realize what you’re basically saying boils down to religious blackmail, i.e., “If you don’t believe in my religion, then you’ll be sorry (you’ll go to “hell”, etc..)

      If there is a “God”, he or she or it would never blackmail or threaten anyone that has different beliefs. Never.

      There’s something called ‘unconditional love’. You might want to read more about that.

    • Tom

      I am so sorry you were treated like that. However, of all the places you can go you will not find a place were you are more accepted or loved than the Catholic church. And if Catholics have bullied you than I am especially sorry for that. They are not expressing true Catholicism. The Church is not for the saints but for us sinners. No one will be bullied or harassed for thier sexual identity or practices. the church is full of fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals. Being a sinner in the church is not the same as being an untouchable in India. It is between you and God.

    • Kelly

      Thanks for your kind words, but sorry, the Catholic Church, with it’s long and continuing history of pedophilia, is the last place I’d ever want to go. But we’ll have to agree to disagree, as I don’t believe any one church or religion is “better” than another. I’ve received more love and acceptance from atheists…

    • brandonr

      Rob, Let me reason with you… there’s no reasoning with the unreasonable… trust me :) Peace be with you, brother!

    • Opinionated

      Calm down, Carl. No need to shout.

      On the sixth page of
      the introduction of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Saint John
      Paul II wrote

      “Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors
      and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of
      communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of
      proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This
      catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic
      reference text for teaching catholic doctrine…”

      Get your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Turn to Part One,
      Section Two, Chapter Three, Article 9, Paragraph 3 The Church Is One,
      Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I am cutting & pasting from the
      copy on the Vatican

      This authentic teaching reference for Catholics, and I assume you count
      yourself as one, says the following:

      “Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
      “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . .And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe
      in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

      Continue reading. Several lines later we come
      to the part that covers our relationship with the Jews.

      “The Church and non-Christians
      839″Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”325

      The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People.

      When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 “the first to hear the Word of God.”327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”329
      840 and when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and
      the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of
      misunderstanding Christ Jesus.”

      This says to me that the Jews are our spiritual ancestors and that when we interact we (you & me) should share that Jesus is the Messiah that they are waiting for. It’s like visiting your great-grandmother who has never used a computer but has been looking for the next generation in typewriters all her life –
      until you introduce her to the PC computer which has been around for
      quite a long time.

      Next it talks about, how did you put it, the “Infidels, [Moslems]”

      Our catechism, in the very next line says:

      841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.
      “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator,
      in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold
      the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful
      God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330

      Our Muslim friends profess that they know the faith of Abraham. So more information must be shared with them. Abraham knew God the Father, but not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We know that God is One God in Three Persons. We must introduce the Three Persons.

      Keep reading, Carl. The next line goes on to address your “Pagans” saying:

      “842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the
      common origin and end of the human race:

      All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and
      saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered
      together in the holy city. . .331

      843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length
      have life.”332

      OK, Carl. Roll up your sleeves because there is more teaching to do here. This is starting from the beginning with someone who has not had the opportunity to learn what you know, so go share it.

      Keep your head in the book and keep reading. Next we come to the atheists. Our authoritative teaching tool says:

      “844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors
      that disfigure the image of God in them:

      Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.”333

      Surely Carl, you cannot have harsh feelings for anyone in such a pitiful situation
      although teaching here begins before the beginning since very often this person has hardened himself against the Truth and may be not only defiant but antagonistic. So you have to love him and keep loving him because God is Love. That is why love conquers all.

      Finally in summation the catechism continues with:

      “845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father
      willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334″

      But don’t go away now! The next part of your post is addressed by the very next part of the catechism:

      “Outside the Church there is no salvation”
      846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church
      Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

      Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would
      refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

      847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own,
      do not know Christ and his Church:

      Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by
      grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337″

      Gee. That last part is the same as Robbe’s post. I guess that means instead of sitting around splitting hairs over who is and who isn’t going to be saved, we all…and that’s you included Carl…need to start loving each other a whole lot more. Because when you love the people around you, your demeanor changes and you become attractive, approachable, someone that other people want to know and want to talk to. When you leave your comfort zone and make
      connections with all kinds of other people, you have opportunity.
      Some people call it networking and use it for business. We call it
      evangelizing and let God use it and us to teach in teachable moments.



    • Robbe Sebesta

      Richard, You seem to misunderstand The Church. The Church is made up of people, period. And every one of us is sinful, which means, there are good and bad that make up everything. And you can believe whatever you want, but to say “Her judgment will soon come……” is saying that an inanimate object will have judgment – it’s impossible. People will be judged, and not any institution.

    • Joe G


    • Catherine

      Carl, should you want to make charges/comments as these, please, please, will you get the CORRECT information – look at Catholic Answers or or gee, maybe even the Catechism! Don’t assume you “know” what you are talking about – when we do that we merely show the world how foolish we can be!

    • Carl Grillo

      The Catechism is not intended to be a dogmatic treatise; but merely an “authentic norm” for catechesis. I studied Dogmatic and Moral theology before the Catechism was issued. I have no prudent fear of error – but you should.

    • Robbe Sebesta

      The Magisterium is the source of the Catechism Carl. Since you know better, maybe you should be the Pope.

    • Kelly

      Absolute nonsense. You’re suggesting, as so many other religions do, that if one doesn’t believe as you do, or as your religion has indoctrinated you to believe, then one will go to hell. That is religious blackmail, pure and simple, and blackmail is not something a loving ‘god’ would ever consider.

      So sad that so many people over the age of 10 still believe this stuff. So afraid of living in the 21st century, let alone the 19th.

    • ccmnxc

      For an (implicitly) self-proclaimed rationalist, I see a lot of knee-jerk posturing and very little thinking. First of all, I can think of maybe three religions off the top of my head that believe in anything remotely resembling the Christian conception of hell. That’s a pretty far cry from “so many other religions.” Second, you completely misrepresented what Carl said. He did not say “Anyone who does not believe in God is going to hell.” What he did say was that good works for an atheist and good works for a believer are different, so the appeal to common ground is faulty. Stemming from that, you find the notion of hell to be blackmail based on a rather childish, simplistic notion of hell. It is something along the lines of “Do what God says and wants, or you will be sent to hell.” Of course, the bigger point is that sin leads to putting of oneself before God, which is just a temporal example of hell, namely rejecting God for eternity and suffering from the separation (but still not repenting even due to that suffering).
      Then of course, there is your last sentence, which is just as dogmatic and anti-rational as any fundamentalist saying might be. I take personal amusement out of it considering just today I was writing a paper on the dogmatism fallacy. Your’s would have been a good example to include.
      And finally, since you seem to have no problem psychoanalyzing others, I’m sure you won’t mind if I do the same to you. It appears to me that your reasons for rejecting God and religion are largely emotional since affirmation of Christianity would deprive you of the lifestyle you desire. It has less to do with reason and logic and more to do with an “I’ll do what I want” mentality.

      By your standards, it seems my above assessment was entirely fair. Applied consistently, it would appear that you should have no problem with it since I simply included some of your favorite tactics. If you didn’t entirely like my tone or what I said, maybe it would be time to give up the condescending , Dunning-Kruger effect, style attitude and actually address people as if they weren’t children. Your call, though.

    • Kelly

      Sorry, but it’s not fair. I wasn’t replying to Carl, didn’t even notice his posts. I was engaged in a discussion with Robbe and JoAnna.

      The “lifestyle I desire”? Newflash: Sexual orientation is not a choice, not a “lifestyle”. That statement alone shows your monumental ignorance on the subject.

    • ccmnxc

      Not sure what you mean in saying you were not replying to Carl, since it shows your post being a reply as designated by the arrow to Carl’s name. Still, it is less who you were responding to and more what you said at all.

      Further, I never mentioned sexuality, so what you stated was a misrepresentation of what I said. But let’s run with that example. I would agree that sexual orientation isn’t a lifestyle simpliciter. However, it can certainly play a large factor in lifestyle (lifestyle being a broader range of dispositions and actions). So I’d say my comment still stands (at least as far as the validity of psychoanalyzing goes).

    • AugustineThomas

      Let me guess: you believe people can become gay, but not become straight? Or are all people who become homosexual later in life complete liars?

    • Kelly

      Your ignorance knows no bounds. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s clear, you can’t even read let alone comprehend what others have written. To spell it out for you, people are born gay, bisexual or straight. No one “chooses” their orientation.

      And no one “becomes homosexual” later in life. You might try a PFLAG meeting — seriously — or a library — so you can educate yourself on the subject. 95%+ knew they were ‘different’ when they were around 4-5 years old.

      And seriously, think about it? Who would choose to be part of a group that is so despised, so ridiculed, and humiliated? At least that negative attitude is finally changing.

      Best of luck.

    • Hegesippus

      Ignoring the irrational claims regarding ignorance (“everyone knows that!” proves nothing!), do you have any actual evidence for the claim that homosexuality is caused genetically?

      It’s just that the only sources for this I ever find are modern mainstream culture, which claims that ‘everyone knows that!’.

      So, quoting you, ‘To spell it out for you,’ maybe it’s really not true.

      And faithful Christians choose everyday to be part of a group that are addressed just as you have. But this negative attitude is only getting worse.

      God bless!

    • Kelly

      Again, I’ll end my part of this conversation by suggesting you contact a local PFLAG group in your area, where you can talk to fellow Christians, who also are gay, and know they were born that way. It isn’t a choice.

    • Hegesippus

      So no evidence, no reputable study, just the hearsay of very-interested parties, who are extremely biased and have believed the tale you have offered.

      I’ll prefer the “no proof/evidence then no claim” way of thinking, thanks very much.

      Would be good of you to treat others who do not subscribe to your opinion with some respect, rather than making out that they are stupid and ignorant.

    • Kelly

      “So no evidence, no reputable study, just the hearsay of very-interested parties, who are extremely biased and have believed the tale you have offered.”

      Are you talking about Christianity or sexual orientation?

    • Hegesippus

      Plenty of evidence for Christianity. Enough to convince a great many to give their lives for their faith. Early Church, through the ages… and the most martyrs of any century was during the last.

      Don’t believe the (modernistic, fabled) hype!

    • Kelly

      There is more evidence that man created “God” than the other way around. Anyway, I’m sure we’ll have to agree to disagree. Have a nice fairy-tale life! :)

    • Hegesippus

      Again, claiming to have evidence but failing to present it.

      Maybe the very-well-evidenced Christianity is not the fairy-tale.

      Those martyrs were and continue to be very real.

    • Kelly

      Again, claiming to have evidence but failing to present it. Are you talking to me, or YOURSELF? Sheesh.

      Show us some evidence for the story of “Jonah and the Whale”, and while you’re at it…

      Salah lived 433 years — where’s the proof?

      Peleg lived 239 years. ???

      Salah lived 433 years. ???

      The whole earth was of one language.

      Job is the brother of dragons.

      The earth is set on foundations and it does not move.

      Jesus walks on water and calms the sea.

      Jesus cures a blind man by spitting in his eyes.

      If you are sick, rely on the power of prayer. It works every time.

      Abijah spoke to 1,200,000 soldiers at one time.

      Goliath was ten feet tall (“six cubits and a span”)

      Moses hits a rock with his rod and Presto! — water comes out.

      God killed Egyptians and their livestock by smashing them with huge hailstones mixed with fire.

      Evidence please.

    • Hegesippus

      You didn’t ask for evidence. You simply demanded that everyone believes there is no evidence.

      I asked for your evidence. You still have failed to present it.

      Instead you demand the same of me (without demanding it!).

      You were the one who slated another poster as stupid but now you seem to have backed down regarding him.

      You claimed as objective fact that homosexuality was genetic alone. This claim requires scientific verification. You do not have it because it does not exist.

      So instead you claim Christianity is completely false because I cannot produce recorded evidence for specific events you demand. Buy a time machine – that’s as silly as demanding I produce evidence for Jesus walking on water (photos? film? !!!).

      The evidence I have is that 10 of the 12 guys present when he walked on water gave their lives for sticking to the claim that he is the Son of God (and thus walked on water as is recorded in Christian texts). An 11th (John) miraculously survived several attempts on his life for sticking to the same claim. Therefore, eye witnesses were convinced that he did, enough to die for. That’s very compelling evidence.

      Now offer your evidence for your claims on homosexuality or admit you have none.

      (And an apology to the poster you insulted would be fitting also.)

    • Kelly

      Again, twisting words and/or putting words in others mouths. Where did I ‘demand’ anything of anyone? Nowhere. Where did I say that “Christianity is completely false”? Nowhere.

      All I’ve been trying to point out is your hypocrisy, but you can’t see that, so I’ll leave you with this, from a recent article, and ask you again to consider contacting your local PFLAG organization to hear the perspective from gay Christians. Now keep in mind that I’m not ‘demanding’ you do this, just suggesting that it might be worthwhile.

      Here’s an article on the latest research:

      “A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.

      A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

      Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.

      Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

      Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings at a discussion event held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Thursday. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation,” he said. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were gay themselves, compared to around 3% of the general population. Uncles and male cousins on the mother’s side had a greater than average chance of being gay, too.

      The link with the mother’s side of the family led Hamer to look more closely at the X chromosome. In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, suggesting key genes resided there.

      Hamer faced a firestorm when his study was published. The fuss centred on the influences of nature and nurture on sexual orientation. But the work also raised the more dubious prospect of a prenatal test for sexual orientation. The Daily Mail headlined the story “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes findings’ “. Hamer warned that any attempt to develop a test for homosexuality would be “wrong, unethical and a terrible abuse of research”.

      The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey’s study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.

      The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother’s DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.

      While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” said Bailey. “We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”

      Again, have a good life. This is my last post.

    • Hegesippus

      If this is not a demand to cower before the demands of secular thinking then I dread to think what is, Kelly. These are your own words:
      ‘Your ignorance knows no bounds. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s clear, you can’t even read let alone comprehend what others have written. To spell it out for you, people are born gay, bisexual or straight. No one “chooses” their orientation.’

      Also, your list, which looks like a list of “impossibles” (in your beliefs) clearly demonstrates your position that Christianity is false.

      Be honest, Kelly. If these were not your intentions, what were these words there for? Why did you write them?

      As for your supposed evidence, did you actually read it? It admits it has no idea what it says, no idea what it works, no idea how it comes about and admits that in identical twins, a homosexual twin is more likely to be heterosexual even in sharing the same genetic make-up! Even the conclusion contradicts itself – ‘other multiple factors play a greater role’ but wants to claim evidence. How is this scientifically proven? It’s mere wishful thinking.

      If anyone bases their beliefs on such poor use of the scientific method, God help them!

      Science is about knowledge, not stringing together vague hopes to back-up social fashions.

    • Byron

      You sound like a man “Kelly”. Hmmm.
      Attacking then backing down. Sounds like you to a tee.

    • Hegesippus

      And now to deal with your claims in a different way, that is methodologically.

      Who has demanded that you personally accept your Judaeo-Christian statements as scientifically true?

      These are matters of faith.

      If I recall, you were insulting the earlier poster for not holding scientifically that homosexuals are genetically-determined. I asked for evidence. That is reasonable, no?

      So, faith is holding beliefs without objective evidence. Science is an empirically-based knowledge system and is repeatable in producing evidence.

      Please can we see your evidence?

    • Opinionated

      Don’t forget there are plenty of Christians becoming martyrs TODAY in the middle east and Africa.

    • AugustineThomas

      Homosexuals are the most celebrated group in the country at this time. You’re far more likely to be persecuted for orthodox Christian belief than for homosexual perversion.
      So you’re calling everyone who doesn’t claim to have been “born that way” a liar? The huge number of people who claim to have changed their orientation are liars?
      I would agree that we’re all somewhere on a continuum of sexual attraction, but the choices we make are what deepen or mitigate those lustful desires. Plenty of people have conquered homosexual lust through prayer and clean living.

    • Kelly


      How would you like it if someone called you a pervert? Or how would you like it if someone suggested that your orientation doesn’t equate with “clean” living? Would you say the same thing towards people of a different race from yours?

      To clarify, if someone ‘chooses’ to be with the opposite sex, and then at a later time ‘chooses’ to be with the same sex, then they are probably bisexual…as you say…we’re all somewhere on the continuum of sexual attraction (although I would call it ‘orientation’). The vast majority by far are certain their orientation was not a choice, but if some are claiming it was, the perhaps that’s because they’re attracted to both sexes, i.e., they’re bisexual. Some may be liars, but please, don’t put words in my mouth.

      As for your final assertion, I just beg to differ. They have tried to change their orientation, but even the most fervent fundamentalist Christian “You can change your sexuality” groups have long since admitted not only that it doesn’t work, but that it can do great psychological harm.

      To call homosexuals “the most celebrated group in the country” is just laughable. You need to get out more, and for the last time — truly — a good place to start would be at a PFLAG meeting at your local church.

      Have a good life Thomas. :)

    • Opinionated

      People are born with hemophilia or sickle cell or a number of other genetically transferred things. We call them diseases. No one is advocating for homosexuality to be recognized as a disease, are they?

    • Opinionated

      “people are born gay, bisexual or straight. No one “chooses” their orientation.”

      Hmmmmm….ok….wellllll To spell it out for you, in just as blunt a way, people are born. <—- The dot is a period and signifies the end of the statement. After people are born, they grow. When they reach the state of adulthood they reproduce so new people will be born and the species will continue. We are humans and humans do not breed like animals. Animals are actually a lot more natural than humans because they know enough to attract the opposite sex and mate with the opposite sex — because there are any litters born or eggs laid or fish hatched or any other type of sexual reproduction unless you have a male and a female.

      If a person has an attraction to a gender with whom it is impossible to mate, that is a darn shame because they have a terrible cross to bear and will have to fight desires all their life.
      If a person has an attraction to a gender with whom they certainly can mate, they still have a terrible cross to bear and have to fight desires or people like me would act like bitches in heat whenever a handsome guy is available.

      Keep your private parts private and no one will know what the heck attracts you. No one needs to know what attracts you. Quite frankly most people don't care what attracts you. Most of us don't want you to tell us what attracts you.

      If for some reason you are approached by a busy body wants to fix you up with someone, all that needs to be said is "I'm just not interested, thank you anyway." You do NOT need to disclose the fact that you have desires that run counter to the generative process.

    • Kelly

      If I were you I’d change your name to either “UnEducated”, “Ignorant”, or “In Complete Denial”. You’re basically saying “Let’s all pretend that gays don’t exist.” The entire part about procreation is common sense, but that’s why only a small percentage of animals and humans are bisexual or gay.

      Seriously, your post has to be one of the most bizarre in recent history. I truly don’t understand how some people can be so ignorant…

    • Opinionated

      Orientation may not be a choice, but acting on it definitely is. Chastity is for everybody.

    • AugustineThomas

      As an atheist you believe you’re a self-creating man-god who forgot her own self-creation and came to earth with all the theists or else one of your ancestors POOF appeared from thin air. So don’t pretend you’re more rational because you have a whacky belief system whose adherents have the highest rate of suicide of any group in history.
      You live in a world where only creation can be proved. We have ZERO evidence of any organism or anything whatsoever appearing from thin air for no reason. And you call us crazy for believing that a world full of human creations came from a Creator.

    • Julie

      Get a Catholic Catechism and then come back. Go doctrine by doctrine….to get the context and then go to the sacraments.

    • Winston

      Au contraire, the RCC is no path to salvation. In this belief, the RCC is no better than Islam which has the same belief, that it is the only path to salvation. There is only one path, a born again believer in Jesus Christ as your redeemer, the only intercessor to the Father and a contrite repentance of sins. Jesus Christ, repentance and living His Word are all that are needed for salvation.

    • Winston

      Man cannot atone for sin. No amount of good works will get man to heaven without belief in Jesus Christ as the savior and repentance. Good works are a byproduct of renewed life in Christ. Francis is a heretic. Interesting how this time in history spawns a Jesuit pope. Who is really in charge? Jesuits must take their marching orders from the Jesuit general. So is it really the general who is in charge? Know this that Jesuits coined social justice in 1843 and have been teaching liberation theology in central and south America for 100 years. They were responsible for the Sandinista revolution in the 80s as well and laid the ground work for LGBT activism which began in 70s and 80s. These are worthy research topics. Let the truth be known.

    • Julie

      Have you ever bother to read all Francis’ writings and reflections and teachings on Christ? Such a position, Calvinistic…. faulty.

      Go to http://www.calledtocommunion and read about former Calvinist ministers who are ordained and highly educated come to see that the Catholic Church is right all along.

      You are reading from your point of view and thinking it is right and everybody else is wrong. That is very dangerous. And it is partially based on anti-Catholicism….reflecting you are misjudging other people and consider yourself superior.

      Ever been to a priestly ordination? They lay prostrate on the floor, dying totally to Christ. They live 24 hours for Christ. THey give their lives for Christ and us. They preach the Word daily, they receive the Lord in sacrament.

      You do not pass judgment on that you do not understand..the saints themselves condemn any sort of judgement.

      Christ instituted His universal Church 2000 years ago. Like Israel, you will see the ordinary, the extraordinary, successes and failures because the Church is comprised of human beings who have dignity.

      What I am getting at in the last statement, is that position such as yours are so hurtful to Catholics and it is so off base because you never understood what it means to be Catholic.

      So as I advise others, seek that Christianity that does not see itself as better than others but instead places its total focus on the Lord.

    • JoFro

      You unfriended him for that? What’s wrong with you? You had the perfect chance to explain to a Protestant, who mostly gets his stories from the MSM or from Catholic-hating Protestants, how he was wrong and have a great debate with the guy! Go friend him again!

    • Robbe Sebesta

      JoFro!! What’s wrong with me?? lol!! I don’t know!! That’s funny! But okay, I will go back and “Friend” him again. But I don’t know if he will listen to some ‘person in Texas’ on his Facebook page where he has a thousand other followers.

    • JoFro

      Maybe he might not but a good debate on his page with his thousand other followers should send him glancing over at your comments, wouldn’t it? I think it’s just my policy to not unfriend someone who posts anti-Catholic stuff until of course they start becoming personally abusive to me or threaten me! I just feel you missed a golden opportunity to explain the Church’s position and the way the MSM misinterprets our Pope!

    • Robbe Sebesta

      Well before I unfriended him I did say that he received a poor interpretation of what Pope Francis said. But I like I said, I will go back and RE-friend him again…lol….you’re right you know, and I thank you for your suggestion. (I still don’t know what’s wrong with me though….lol!)

    • Zola ingram

      Defend our faith? What did Jesus teach? Pope Francis is like Jesus….it’s all about love. Jesus said”judge not”…let’s try to be more like our Savior who loved us all equally and invited everyone to join His Church. God bless you.

  • Pingback: Worst! Pope! Ever!!1!

  • Connie Rossini

    Pope Benedict said what about condoms???? No wonder the Church is in such a mess! Just kidding, JoAnna. You explained this very well. And you’re right. Popes should watch what they say, but even when they do the MSM will misreport it. It’s the Church contra mundum, a perennial problem.

    • Bill S

      For the prevention of the spread of AIDS, Pope Benedict should have said even more than he did say. The Church should have recommended condoms for that purpose and made it clear that such use is not a sin.

    • MarieS

      Church teaching is quite clear that such use is sin, as is any other artificial separation of the procreative from the unitive act. That applies both ways: IVF as well as contraception and sterilization.

    • Bill S

      Use of condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS in places like Africa is not a sin according to Pope Benedict. Do you think the Church went out of its way to spread that news in Africa? If it didn’t it is responsible for untold suffering and death among Catholics who thought it was a sin to take this simple protective measure.

    • Bob

      Did you read the article above? And actually, teaching abstinence in Catholic countries has actually been far more effective than condoms. Apparently, one million condoms sent to Africa from the UN (which had contracted with the lowest bidder) where found to be breaking because they were bought on the cheap.

    • Bill S

      Simple question. A woman tells her husband that, not that she doesn’t trust his fidelity, but the only way she will have sex with him is if he wears a condom. She is not doing it to avoid pregnancy but to avoid an STD. So they make love with him using a condom. Is that a sin? According to Benedict, it isn’t. If it isn’t, why don’t more Catholics know that it isn’t?

    • AugustineThomas

      Yes it is a sin. The safest sex is between two monogamous partners and they don’t have to wear condoms if they don’t sleep around. Again, the statistics are against you. Regions with the highest condom use have the highest rates of STDs (New York City and London for instance).

    • Bill S

      For the example that I gave you, I really don’t care if you think it is a sin. “Sin” really loses all meaning when it is used by people like you who see everything as being potentially sinful. I’ve enjoyed my life because I haven’t let people like you tell me what I should and shouldn’t do.

    • Opinionated

      Why would she be having sex with him if she doesn’t trust that he has always been faithful? Just asking. Of course, if I thought my husband were unfaithful I wouldn’t be deciding whether or not to use a condom. I’d be deciding which coffin to by for him & which non-extradition treaty country I’d be living him once he was buried. ;-)

    • Bill S

      I’m sure you could imagine a scenario where a woman might be pressured to have sex with her husband and would want him to use protection. We don’t live in a perfect world.

    • Carl Grillo

      The use of a condom by HIV/AIDS victims does not
      in any way change the morality of the act; which, according to Catholic moral doctrine, is intrinsically evil. An intrinsically evil act remains “irremediably evil;” [cf., John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor] regardless of intentions or circumstances. The Pope cannot negate the sinfulness of an intrinsically evil act by his private theological opinion stated in a book-interview. The SCDF clarified this point [cf., Note on the Banalization of Sexuality in the Book, "Light of the World."].

    • Bill S

      You people need to get real. First the Pope says it is ok then somebody else says it isn’t. It is ok.

    • David Bowman

      “Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things
      are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church’s entire doctrinal heritage?” (Paul VI, Address to Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, September 1967:
      AAS 59, 962)

    • Bill S

      That is the problem. Only the Catholic Church can be right about morality and all other views are ” relativism”. And once a pope says that something like contraception is “intrininsically evil” we’re supposed to be stuck with that opinion forever. It can never be corrected. Sorry, that’s not how it works in the real world.

    • David Bowman

      Why don’t you get off this web-site…you are not Catholic. NSA?

    • AugustineThomas

      You shouldn’t chase him away. The ones who seem the most angry and bitter are often the ones most questioning and ripe for conversion.

    • ME

      I hope you realize that what the pope says about faith and morals comes through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, right? So its really God telling us what is right and wrong, not the Pope. Oh and there’s that pesky thing about Peter being told “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

    • Bill S

      That is a Catholic tenet. There is very little chance that God speaks to us directly through the Pope. All you have to do is look at the history of the papacy to know that it doesn’t work that way.

    • AugustineThomas

      You seem to be a confused and bitter man. I’m not sure why anyone would trust your strange beliefs.
      The Church will always stand against popular sin, even if it appears to waver at times, no matter how much that upsets sin-loving secularists like yourself.

    • Bill S

      “Sin-living secularists”. Love it.

      For you to say that about me says more about the way you see life than it does about me. You don’t even know me but that doesn’t keep you from judging (and condemning) me.

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re on the record glorifying sin. I’m not condemning anyone. That’s your straw man to try to paint me as a persecutor in order to avoid real debate. You have no argument except for that you really, REALLY want sin to be ok.

    • Bill S

      If recommending condom use translates to “glorifying sin” to you, then I can’t help you. Live with your religious obsessions as best as you can. That’s the only advice I can give you.

    • AugustineThomas

      Your love of sin is making children miserable.

    • Bill S

      How does that work? Does using condoms keep children from being born thereby making them miserable? I don’t get it.

    • AugustineThomas

      Perverting children in order to try to get them to support your sin politically makes them miserable. Forcing pornography on them to “prove something” to religious folk makes them miserable. Forcing condoms on them to “prove something” to religious folk makes them miserable.
      Your satanic beliefs make them miserable.

    • Bill S

      You are taking condom use by a married man to bizarre extremes. You just can’t accept that there is nothing wrong with it. Therein lies your problem. It has to be wrong or your whole belief that the Church is always right goes up in smoke. Deal with it. There is nothing wrong with it.

    • AugustineThomas

      I think you’re enslaved by your sin. I suffer too! I’ll pray for you!

    • Bill S

      You’re not getting it. Condom use is not a “sin” anywhere except in the minds of deluded folks like you.

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re not getting it. Condom use is a sin, no matter how much you abuse sex for pleasure and tell yourself lies about the “benefits of condom use”.

    • Bill S

      Ok. According to your worldview and the Catholic Church, condom use is a sin. Let’s just say that a sin is something that the Church says is wrong and leave it at that.

    • Opinionated

      Don’t take offense at that title. Plenty of us are sin-loving Catholics. Sin always presents itself as lovable. If it wasn’t something that looked good, and sounded like a lot of fun, who would do it? Seriously. If you know that a sin is prohibited by God who made you and loves you, would you do it if you thought it was going to be something rotten, nasty and ugly? Of course not. That’s why sin is always something that looks attractive and gives momentary pleasure even as it brings about long term unhappiness.

    • Bill S

      I like you, Opinionated. You’re a hoot.

    • Opinionated

      It’s exactly the way He speaks to us, although not the only way.

    • Bill S

      No. The popes are men who make everyone think that God is speaking through them. Knowing that there are no gods, angels, demons, etc., it is plainly obvious to me that these men are frauds.

    • AugustineThomas

      BXVI told the truth, that condom use increases dangerous sexual habits exponentially and thus INCREASES all STDs and unwanted pregnancy and he was supported by many experts, including the head of the Harvard Public Health Project.
      It was the sex obsessed mob that crucified him because the demons want their sin to continue. Satan fights back hard when you threaten his grip on a huge number of souls.

    • Bill S

      It was the sex obsessed mob that crucified him because the demons want their sin to continue.

      With that kind of outlook on life, you are not someone to whom I am going to be able to have a logical and sensible conversation. You sound like one of those “more holy than the Pope” types.

      There are plenty of situations where one should use a condom. If you have a problem with that then you probably have problems with a lot of things that are just part of living one’s life the best one can.

    • AugustineThomas

      Regular condom use INCREASES one’s chances of getting all STDs, including HIV/AIDs. You’ve been sold a great lie.

    • Bill S

      I’ve used condoms for practically my whole life. Needless to say, I find your opposition to it to be silly and symptomatic of a religiously induced phobia.

    • AugustineThomas

      I get it. You love your sins more than the truth. That’s where you and me are different. I hate my sins.

    • Bill S

      Your calling my use of condoms “sins” is just plain silly. It’s also none of your business.

    • AugustineThomas

      You love your sins. I hate them. And it is most definitely my business when you and your ideological brethren destroy my society with them.

    • Bill S

      They are not my “sins”. You have a concept of sin that is based on a very narrow interpretation of life that most of us do not accept. It’s your problem not mine.

    • Opinionated

      “There are plenty of situations where one should use a condom”

      They make great water balloons.

    • Bill S

      I was thinking more utilitarian than that :-)

    • Opinionated

      No, that is not what he said. What he DID say is if a person who is a prostitute uses condoms to prevent the spread of a disease that indicates that that prostitute is moving toward trying to act morally and that should be encouraged because it is a good first step.

      That isn’t the same as saying “using condoms is a good thing”.

      So we learn…

      Being a prostitute, whether you use condoms or not, is NOT living a moral life. Recognizing that giving someone a disease that could kill him and trying to not do that is a step toward the moral life. It is that recognition and not wanting to kill someone else that is the good part – not the prostitution or the use of the condom part. Hopefully, if the prostitute is thinking about the morality of killing someone they may later recognize other problems about their behavior and correct them as well.

      p.s. AIDS was spread so widely in Africa because husbands very often leave the family to go work a great distance from their homes because there are no local opportunities. While away from home they frequent prostitutes, contract HIV, bring it home to their wives who in turn gave birth to children with this disease.

    • Bill S

      Thank you for that clarification. That was the one glimmer of hope I had that Bennecict wasn’t a complete moron. Now my opinion of him is complete.

    • Bob

      If I have The flu, I’m not going to take a sip of someone else’s coffee or a bite of their donut because that would be selfish and I could possibly make that person sick. If I have AIDS, I’m not going to have sexual intercourse with that person because I could kill them and that would be selfish. Condoms are not full proof, and your playing Russian roulette with someone else’s life.

    • Bill S

      That kind of ethical and health related decision must be made by a couple. The fact is that condom use for AIDS prevention is not a sin and the Church has not been forthcoming in informing people that the practice is allowed as per Pope Benedict’s not widely publicized statement.

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re lying. Using condoms is a sin and even Pope Francis isn’t confused about the issue.

    • Bill S

      People who are smart enough to think for themselves know that there is nothing wrong with condom use. Benedict did make a statement that has been taken to mean that condom use to avoid AIDS is preferable to not using a condom in that case.

    • AugustineThomas

      Nonsense. BXVI was frequently on the record and was even persecuted for making the claim that condoms INCREASE the number of AIDs victims. The head of the Harvard Public Health Project even came out to defend him. The statistics all point to the fact that condoms give people a false belief in invincibility which makes them have sex over and over again until the condom fails.

    • Bill S

      BXVI did give one example of when use of a condom would be less immoral (or whatever he said) than not using one. It wasn’t very helpful anyway. If what you say is true, it is just by dumb luck that the Church is right about condom use. It opposes it for a completely different reason.

    • Opinionated

      Here we go… I found it.

      “On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different
      case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always
      considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: “Flee from fornication” (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

      In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of
      AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil
      connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points
      out that the use of a condom “with the intention of reducing the risk of
      infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more
      human way, of living sexuality.” This affirmation is clearly compatible with the
      Holy Father’s previous statement that this is “not really the way to deal with
      the evil of HIV infection.”

    • Bill S

      Having successfully used condoms my entire adult life (over 40 years) I can only chuckle at a buffoon who comes up with long and convoluted explanations that have zero use or relevance. What a crock !

  • GodsGadfly

    Fantastic! Sheldon Vanauken said that the “Bad Popes” were the keys to his conversion: the Church survived them, yet Protestants are constantly splitting up over scandals. People often quote John Chrysostom that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops,” but there’s also what the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris reportedly said to Napoleon when the latter threatened to destroy the Church: “Popes and bishops have been trying to do that for 1800 years; what makes you think you’ll succeed?”
    Alexander VI not only practiced nepotism: he created his son a cardinal and was the great-grandfather of St. Francis Borgia. The infamous Lucrezia was his daughter. When sedevacantists talk about JPII “kissing the Koran,” I point out that that was, at worse, a personal sin (and I don’t think it necessarily was), but it did not amount to Heresy any more than the adulteries and murders committed by Alexander VI and others.

    • Carl Grillo

      Kissing the Qu ‘ran is an act of public apostasy. This book states that whoever believes in the Most Holy Trinity is worse than fecal matter.

    • AugustineThomas

      It wasn’t a sign of belief, it was a sign of love, which heathens especially need and deserve.

  • Patrick Catholic dad

    Well done, young lady. Well said; well written. mGrby

  • charrell

    Great article! Thanks for writing it. All it takes is a little research to find out what was actually said. But like my kids say “Haters gonna hate.”

  • Macy

    In the past, misrepresentations were usually pretexts for Church bashing by the usual suspects. Lately they seem to be pretexts for pushing liberal agenda. Quite different phenomena. I think the latter is worse, your patronizing insouciance and exaggerations notwithstanding.

    And you mistakenly cite Caritas in veritate (published in 2009); instead, the document that got the reaction you mention was NOT the encyclical (which was generally understood and well-received, having come out at a time — the wake of the 2008 financial crisis — when politicians themselves started to sound like moral theologians). The document in question was a MUCH less authoritative “note” released by a Pontifical Council in 2011; this is explained in the article to which you yourself link… Oh right: but you’re in the media, so you’re just interested in making a splash. Never mind.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Actually, Caritas in Veritate was heralded quite a bit as “the Pope hates capitalism,” from what I remember. See an example here:

      I’m trying to figure out the purpose of your comment. Do you think the media is being forthright and honest when it reports on the Pope, and you object to my viewpoint?

      “your patronizing insouciance and exaggerations notwithstanding” – care to give an example? What am I indifferent to, and what did I exaggerate?

    • paulzummo

      No, you’re completely correct JoAnna, the Encyclical garnered a lot of criticism from people who thought it was too anti-capitalist. Remember George Weigel going through the thing trying to figure out which parts were written by the Pope?

      By the way, a tip of of the hat to my fellow “media” member.

    • Bill

      Terrible comment. JoAnna is dead-on accurate.

  • Leila Miller

    Bam! Rock on, girlfriend.

  • Pingback: What it Means to be an Altar Server -

  • Anne

    Pope Francis’ actions speak beyond the headlines – showing us Jesus’ example of fraternizing with those the religious consider to be sinners, sharing Christ’s light beyond the walls of our sparsely attended churches. Most importantly he focuses on replacing greed with love and humility. By following these examples, in imitation of Christ, we would have less poverty, hunger, and war, just as God intended.

  • nannon31

    Great point Joanna…but you were frightfully nice to Pope Alexander VI. Nepotism looks nice when placed near his actual life choices.

  • Anabelle Hazard

    well done Joanna.

  • Pingback: Bed-wetting Reactionary Wusses…

  • Brian F Hudon

    So this pope is not bad because he is not as bad as other popes? That is relativism defined and exemplified.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Hey, Brian, you seemed to have missed this paragraph: “We once had a Pope who was murdered while engaging in the act of adultery
      – and the Church survived! After that, can anyone honestly believe that
      the Church will be utterly decimated and destroyed simply because the
      current pope made statements about atheists that were deliberately
      misconstrued by the media in order to boost ratings?! Perhaps the Holy
      Spirit is insulted by the implication that His protection of the Truth was considered so weak and ineffective.”

  • Jim Russell

    ***”Rather, it’s a yawn, an eye-roll, and a resigned sigh – as well as a realization that we’re once again called upon to engage in the new evangelization for the sake of the Kingdom in the realm of social media and among our friends and family.”***
    The truth of the matter is that we Catholics have to learn to realize that the “new evangelization” actually involves re-evangelizing those brother and sister Catholics who are consistently being “othered” by offensive labels such as those in the above links.
    Any of our panicked and fearful fellow Catholics who don’t yet “get” our new Holy Father often are being met with personal ridicule and contempt leveled by those of us who are actually called upon to help re-evangelize them, not by our anger and derision, but rather by our example of *charitable* and patient truth-telling.
    I would suggest that the work of evangelization is about planting seeds, seeds that are as healthy as they can possibly be–seeds not soaked in the poison of anger and personal animosity and labels and othering.
    I am actually encouraged that your post, Joanna, steers clear of this kind of othering and instead brings substance and context to the issue of the MSM coverage of the pope. Thanks for that. Now my prayer is that readers and commenters take a similar high road and speak truth charitably to one another instead of stooping to personal rancor and name-calling, something all too commonly found in the Catholic blogosphere….

    • Catholic, but not conservative

      Yet the readers of this website could certainly take heed of much of what the Holy Father has said in his interview the day after this original article was published. For example:

      In this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of
      uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total
      certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good.
      For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the
      questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a
      false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of
      God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation. Our life is not given to us like an opera libretto, in which all is written down;
      but it means going, walking, doing, searching, seeing … We must enter into the adventure of the quest for meeting God; we must let God search and encounter us.

      And also:

      We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

      The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently …

      We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

      I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching.

    • Joe G


  • Sir Mark

    Great! I have one quibble. You claim that the media exists to make people rich. It would seem to me that if this were the case, our scribes and talking heads would spend less time deliberately antagonizing the consumers of mass media. Yes, some want to get rich, but there are many others who just want a platform from which to talk down to the ignorant rabble.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Like so many aspects of Catholicism – it’s not either/or, it’s both/and :)

  • Jonathan

    Thank you JoAnna. But I’m not sure I would say the proper response is a yawn, since he’s challenging us, Catholics. He is refocusing the entire Church from moralism and orthodox triumphalism to the love of Christ! I cant yawn after that! It’s a challenge to me!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      the yawn is in response to the media twisting, not the challenge involved in evangelizing :)

  • ME

    Did you know what was coming today when you wrote this one?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I did not. Ironic, no?

  • Mark

    I used to be a Catholic for over 30 years, but I am now a born-again Christian. The reason why I left was because after I started reading the Bible and the Catholic Catechism, I discovered many serious problems and contradictions. I also believe that this transformation of the Catholic Church you are seeing with the current pope is in fulfillment of the Bible prophecy. I will leave with two points to ponder. 1.The book of Revelation speaks of two women, which represent churches in the last days. The true church shall be persecuted. Revelation 17 says that there shall be a political/church system called the Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations and she will be riding the beast, and all the wicked people will follow it. I believe this is the Catholic Church/New World Order which you see forming today, and is a revival of the Roman system. 2. Jesus says in Matthew 7:13 to enter through the narrow gate, because wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many people go there. The true church is very small, and it will be persecuted for the truth. The Catholic Church is the largest religion in the world and is also far from persecution. God bless, those that want to know the truth.

    • Frederick o

      Did someone mention “rolling eyes” and “yawn” recently?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Mark, Catholics are Christians too! It seems pretty evident that you did not know your Catholic faith when you left it. Everything you said above has been thoroughly debunked.

      The Catholic Church isn’t persecuted? Really? Tell that to the nuns living in Syria, who are in danger of their lives.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    Francis is a modernist, and a universalist: God’s mercy and grace redeems everyone… repentance, faith, and holiness are not required. This is also known as the preaching of a false gospel by a false prophet. He’s an ear-tickler… and a prophesier of pleasant things…

    “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” ~ Saint Paul (2 Timothy 4:3)

    “For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; who say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.” (Isaiah 30:9-11)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I guess the Catholic Church is also modernist and universalist, as the CCC also teaches that God’s mercy and grace redeems everyone. See here:

      Whether or not people choose to respond to God’s gift of mercy and grace is a different question entirely. Some choose not to do so and thus do not attain heaven.

    • Carl Grillo

      In his October 1 interview with “La Republicca,” Francis does in fact
      propose the heresy of universal Salvation, not Redemption: “Our Species (sic – !) will cease to exist; but in the end God will be all in all…the spark of the divine within each one of us…each one must do Good and avoid Evil as he sees it…” This is utterly unCatholic, and everybody knows it.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Sorry, I’m not seeing where that quote says that everyone will achieve salvation. It’s also not a quote in full context.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism - Christian Forums

  • Carl Grillo

    What did Benedict say?

    What did he say?

    “…he actually said that someone was trying to act in a moral fashion by not spreading disease, and that trying to act morally could be a good first step on the road to repentance.”

    Why do you have to spew forth a mouthful of rhetoric when explaining what he really
    said? This shows that Benedict is disingenuous. It would have been better if he
    said that condoms are ok for all. The use of a condom by a homosexual does not
    in any way change the morality of the act; which, according to Catholic moral
    doctrine, is intrinsically evil.

    Some moral theologians would even say that it increases the malice of the act,
    because it invites one to commit sin with impunity – without consequences,
    moral or physical. This is not what John Paul II taught the Church in
    “Veritatis Splendor.” He stated that an intrinsically evil act
    remains “irremediably evil;” regardless of intentions or
    circumstances. Benedict contradicts this teaching
    point blank.

    As for Francis, he is destroying the entire objective moral order revealed by God
    and infallibly proposed by the Church.

    It is time for a heresy trial.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I recommend a hot bath and a glass of wine. It might help you relax.

  • JoFro

    OK, I’m sorta going to ruin the party here Joana but anyhoo, I think your argument is invalid!

    There is a difference in a Pope committing a heresy and a Pope involved in other sins!

    All those bad Popes you mentioned did horrible things but they did not claim what they did was good or changed Church teaching to suit their purposes!

    The reason why so many rad-Trads are so angry with this Pope is because he continues to say things that literally lie on the verge of a heresy or atleast sound like he’s close to declaring a Church teaching a heresy!

    It doesn’t help that even before he was made Pope, he seemed to make life tough for those wanting to celebrate the pre-Vatican 2 Tridentine Mass in their parishes and now a Traditionalist group has been blocked from saying that Mass under his watch while clown Masses and other weird masses have still not been condemned by him.

    I like the Pope but noting that the media continues to completely rehash his views and misinterprets them, you’d think our dear Pope would get the message and start being a bit more careful about the way he talks and writes!

    • Carl Grillo

      private morality of any Pope is not protected by the charism of infallibility –
      Popes are not impeccable – however; the public relation of the Pope to the
      teaching of the universal Church is protected in the sense that if he teaches
      heresy as a “private theologian” – which is what Francis is doing by
      his “off the cuff” statements; he “ipso facto” loses the
      Pontificate. Cardinal Billot in his theological treatise “De
      Ecclesia” states that: “…the Roman Pontiff is the proximate rule of
      faith for the universal Church [proxima regula fidei];” if he falls into
      heresy as a private theologian [because he cannot define heresy when he speaks
      ex cathedra]; he loses the Pontificate. A heretic cannot be the proximate rule
      of Catholic faith and morals if he publicly denies this rule; which, being
      public Revelation [whether by Scripture or Tradition] is easily known by all,
      “…even in the present condition of the human race.” [cf. Vatican I,
      Const. Dog., De Revelatione; and Vatican II, Const. Dog., Dei Verbum, Proemium.]

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Please illustrate where Pope Francis has changed Church teaching to suit his own purposes. As a matter of fact, Pope Francis has never said anything that contradicts Church teaching (in fact, the entire point of the article is that the media wants you to THINK he did when in fact he did not). Oh, and regarding your second-to-last paragraph, it’s untrue. Please get your news from sources that aren’t run by uber-radical Traditionalists bordering on being sedevacantists.

    • Carl Grillo

      He said that the Word became incarnate to give an example of brotherly love. This is not Catholicism – it’s Masonry. The Word became incarnate to redeem the human race from the Fall of Adam and Eve and its consequences for all of us – excepting Jesus and Mary. He did say “…in the end, God will be all in all;” this is exactly the heresy of apocastasis taught by Origen and condemned by the Church. It is the Christological Pantheism taught by Teilhard De Chardin, and condemned by Pope John XXIII in 1962 (Holy Office “Monitum”)
      He says he does not believe in a “Catholic” God. This makes no sense. If he means by this that the Catholic doctrine on God is no better than any other religion – then this too is heresy. Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption – all consigned to the bonfire. And in the centre of this fire is God Himself.
      Your attitude and that of some on this blog is flippant to the point of mockery of Christ and His one true Catholic Church. [cf., Lumen gentium, 8, and Dignitatis humanae, Proemium.]

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Carl, I’m very happy to be able to report that the Holy Father did NOT say what you think he said. The interview in question was very badly translated into English. This is what Pope Francis actually said:
      “The Son of God became incarnate to infuse into the soul of men [could say "the human soul"] the feeling of brotherhood.” (source:

      How have I mocked the Church??

    • Aces

      You’re a sanctimonious Bitch

    • JoFro

      As I said, it’s not that he has changed the teachings of the Church but that his statements – many of them – fall on the verge of either full blown heresy or or not clear enough. Maybe it’s just his style and maybe he believes his listeners know enough of the Faith for him to not make his statements clear.

      Either way, he needs perhaps better people to manage the translation of his words because its getting really messy out there in Medialand, when every time he says something, it ends up with faithful Catholics having to desperately explain what he actually meant to say!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Please, illustrate where anything Pope Francis has said “falls on the verge of heresy.” As for being “not clear enough,” that’s also an accusation made about Popes Benedict XVI and JPII (see examples above).

  • Matthew Fradd

    First of all you’re title is ridiculous. Secondly you haven’t dealt with what Pope Francis actually said. I’m open to thinking that he is unwise, imprudent, etc. but you’re article hasn’t addressed anything he has said in his own words. Try again. I’m open to the discussion.

    • Leila Miller

      I think you may have missed the point, Matt? Her title was facetious.

    • Matthew Fradd

      Leila, you are exactly right. That’s what I get for skimming instead of reading. Thanks for correcting me.

    • Leila Miller

      No problem, Matt! I know your work, so I knew it was a mistake. I’ve done the same thing myself.

  • Bob

    Great article, Joanna! I now have a new favorite Catholic website!

  • Pingback: the Hype

  • Nathan DeParis

    And that is the Catholic Stand! Amen!

  • omar

    Why distract yourselvers with such things?? There is one thing you
    people need to do & that is to be open to the truth. I think you are
    good, well intentioned people but really, would it be so difficult to
    open up a book? Just one book!

    Inside The Holy Qu’ran there the
    last of the prophets (pbuh) has laid out the final testament, please
    people take the time, be open minded – you have only but one life and
    bismillah you need to live it right. I invite you brothers and sisters
    both, to share in this, the most beautiful poetry of life.

    • james

      Omar, unless the Sunnis and the Shiites agree on a successor and stop their honor killings, blowing up weddings and funerals and innocents, their idea of
      God isn’t worth studying. They are where we were 600 years ago and don’t deserve any respect at this time in history. Of course, the Sufi’s, persecuted
      by these two factions are the exception and the only ones who deserve to be called Muslims.

  • Pingback: Are the Pope’s Off-the-Cuff Comments Destroying the Church? | Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray

  • Ann Arbor Girl


  • Chris

    The Pope is so much like Jesus; the commentators of Jesus time also took everything He said out of context too. He did not condone what they said but carried on loving them anyway.

  • PJ


  • Filipino

    I Believe In God, Not In A Catholic God – Pope Francis

  • colonel marstellar

    Could you please expound on pope. francis’ life before he became pontiff?? Its alledged that he espouses liberation theology and conspired with mass murdering heads of south american states as cardinal in south america??

  • Maria

    Excellent post. Thank you.
    I think Pope Francis’ offhand statements and the media’s grappling of them – at least gives food for thought in mainstream media putting the Christian voice “out there” and forcing those who only read/listen to secular news to get something from the Vatican.

  • WSquared

    So please, fellow Catholics, the proper response when reading a MSM
    headline about the Pope changing a long-held doctrine of Catholicism is
    not panic or rage or despair. Rather, it’s a yawn,
    an eye-roll, and a resigned sigh.

    …or laugh! Know that God has a great sense of humor: never, ever underestimate the kind of media stupidity that can and will bring somebody to consider the Church or help bring somebody back to the Church. The condom kerfuffle was one of the signposts on the way back for me. A whole lot of stupid in the room can and will lead to confusion. But ultimately, some people will smell a rat.

    I had left the Church, but after some years, had come to respect her again, and become interested in the Catholic faith again, though I didn’t know what she really taught. In fact, I didn’t know where to look, or how to look. John Paul II had been Pope all my life, and when we got Pope Benedict, I was indifferent.

    Then came the whole condom thing– Fr. Robert Barron summed up the shenanigans in an editorial that he wrote called “Condoms, condoms, condoms!” and what he described made me annoyed and livid enough at the stupidity to make me go over to Borders to read Light of the World in one sitting in one afternoon.

    That one really dumb condom incident introduced me to both Fr. Barron and Joseph Ratzinger. Not bad, huh?

    • Opinionated

      Welcome back.

  • 1Johnny

    Pope Francis is supposedly trying to shake up the Church, but I fear is going to divide the Church similar to the division of political parties in the US. Second, all Catholic organizations, including Network, the Vatican (and the Pope) and all other organization need to stay out of politics. Politics in the US has become vile and down right disgusting. Catholics themselves need to focus on what they can do to improve the lives of others in these awful economic time. Catholic and Catholic Organizations (like Network) need stop pointing fingers and blaming others for hardships and focus on what they can do to help others.

  • Catherine

    The ONE thing NOT mentioned was what can be done when reading these defamatory remarks about the Pope is not only to yawn but to check out the truthfulness –by checking out Catholic Answers, or actually writing the Vatican for the REAL take on an issue.

    • RFISSR


  • Pope+Francis+Must+Resign

    Pope Francis is a heretic and shouldn’t be Pope in the first place

  • Joseph Hammes

    Nice piece…But you have Clement VII wrong; he was also known as the Butcher of Cesena and elected as a 2nd Pope to oppose Urban VI who was completely unhinged. This is during the 14th century, when the Papacy moved to Avignon, France. Makes for totally un-believable reading!

  • Guest

    He’s not destroyed the Catholic faith. HE is just doing what Jesus would do. You haters can say what you want about him, but that is also not following what Jesus would do either. Is it? There is nothing wrong with Pope Francis. Pape François, as the French say.

  • historian

    i love the article in general, i only can say for, my studies of history, you need to know,

    Leo X wasn’t a bad pope, he has good intentions, but he has character, and his family, the most powerful family in all italy in that moment,was pressing very hard the pope with political and monetary matters.

    Clement VII was a very clumsy politician, the “Sacco di Roma” was truly a accident, even the Emperor Charles V apologize himself to the pope for what their troops made.

    and a awful pope you didn’t name, was Julius II 1503-1513, who literally the only thing he did was rampaging across tuscan

  • Dan

    Only fellow Catholics would have something negative to say about a man urging people to embrace, love, support and be a good person. Why not follow his example and love instead of spreading judgement and hate? That’s what is wrong with this world, we preach so much hate that we leave no room for love. It’s articles like this that make this world what it is, not what Pope Francis is doing.

  • tom

    You should go fuck yourself. This pope is doing Jesus’s work.

  • David Orozco

    If Jesus came back right now and seen what you people do in his name he’d never stop vomiting. Stop trying to think like God it’s an impossiblity!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I love the irony of your first sentences when contrasted with your second sentence. Thanks for the chuckle! :) Very clever.

  • notna

    Boom, boom! Well stated. Pope JP2 stated, when asked about his role in the fall of Communism, that it was a rotten old tree that only needed a good shake to send it tumbling down. Then he immediately went on to say, with emphasis, that there was another rotten tree called Capitalism, and that it too needed a good shake. People forget.

  • Philip Maguire

    Despite your efforts I think this Pope should temper his comments and be more aware of how the media will spin them. That is, unless he is well aware in advance and perfectly happy with what he expects to be reported. Right now he is a gay icon. The gay Advocate’s man of the year as well as Time Magazine’s Choice. I doubt that St Peter, our first Pope, could have achieved that. I expect Francis to do far more harm than good?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The only reason Pope Francis is a “gay icon” is because the media is deliberately misinterpreting his words (just as they hailed Pope Benedict for saying that condoms were okay when he actually didn’t). I expect Francis to do far more good than harm, personally.

  • Walter Lauinger

    It is too soon to judge Pope Francis, one way or another. Why don’t we all just give him time to settle in?

    • Leila Miller

      Just making sure that you know that this piece is satire, Walter. Thanks!

    • Walter Lauinger


  • Overlysensored

    You are such an idiot and so many here are idiots. This man will go down as the greatest pope we ever had, We have a long and disgraceful history of people who have led the catholic church, some being among the most evil people in history yet……yet you have the GAL to call this man out. You are killing the church with you venom and intolerance. This man is filling pews like no pope has done in hundreds of years and unlike those of his predecessors he is doing it not out of fear but out of hope and love. I can only hope that he lives forever and you are smitten with many plagues only to be healed by his prayer and words you insufferable and disgustable excuse of a human being. May all your children become gay and your bloodline end here.

  • Overlysensored

    you are scum, you are filth, you are vile, you are wanting a return to pope julius the III, pope paul the III, pope john XII, pope benedict IX, pope stephen VII, pope alexander VI, pope boniface VIII, pope leo X, pope urban II, pope sergius II, or any number of other popes that I am sure you would prefer that truly ruined peoples lives, many many people. You are such scum, filth, nothing but filth

  • David Brainerd

    Are you still sticking to this as he keeps attacking Catholicism in every statement and proving himself to be a Lutheran?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Really? Do tell. I’ve yet to hear of Pope Francis saying anything that contradicts Catholic teaching. Can you give me an example?



    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Don’t be sorry. I enjoy a good joke! :) Thanks for the chuckle.



  • AugustineThomas

    The difference is that the media were actually distorting the words of the previous two popes. Francis needs no distortion for his fellow leftists–he’s more committed to Leftism than the Church.. He’s not our first bad pope and probably won’t be the last.. But let’s hope the next one is much more like Benedict XVI (having a heretic in the papacy is an extremely dangerous situation).

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a sin, FYI. Pope Francis hasn’t said anything in opposition to Church teaching, let alone heretical. I’m sorry to hear that you have rejected Catholicism, though.

    • AugustineThomas

      Let me guess.. You go to Novus Ordo and help decorate and prance around the altar like it’s a Bed, Bath and Beyond display and then you snatch at our Lord like he’s a piece of trailmix (if you even believe in the Real Presence)?

      The Pope has made many heretical statements. It’s heretical to suggest that the proper, two thousand year old Mass is a fad and dangerous.
      It’s heretical to suggest that everyone can get into heaven no matter how much they reject the Church. (JPII and BXVI constantly reminded people that they still have time to repent–this is quite a different thing than suggesting that offending our jealous God is no big deal and won’t ever matter.)
      It’s heretical to teach people with your actions that the orthodox need to be persecuted and the baby murderers left alone and even celebrated.

      You guys love him because you’re heretics.. It doesn’t matter if you’re the majority, that doesn’t change the truth. (Your belief that the majority decides the truth is yet more proof of your rampant heresy, including, but not limited to Leftism and Americanism.)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Pope Francis never said any of those things, Augustine, which I think you know since you neglected to provide proof (i.e., direct quotes in context from a reputable source). For example, it seems clear that you are ignorant of the difference between redemption and salvation:

      I love both the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form of the Mass. When I have the opportunity, I visit this community:

      I usually attend a very respectful, reverent OF mass as I happen to live right behind my parish. :) With 5 kids and a full-time job, it’s a hectic schedule! I try to be respectful of our Lord in the Eucharist at Mass, and as a Lenten practice I’m going to try and attend Adoration more often.

      I don’t know why you’re so angry, AT, but I’ll pray that you find peace and contentment during this Lenten season.

    • AugustineThomas

      I’m angry because the American Church is full of heretics. And then people like you go after the orthodox and give a free pass to the baby murderers and rampant heretics who populate 90% of NO Masses.

      And why do we need the NO Mass? The proper Mass is always more reverential and even when they’re equally reverential, the proper Mass is still much better.

      The reason for the new Mass is that modern heretics want to pretend they’re great church fathers.. But the church fathers would be more strenuous in their denunciations of heretics and their co-dependent supporters like yourself.

      Why was Christ angry when he saw the money changers’ tables?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      How have I “gone after the orthodox,” AT? I AM part of the orthodox. I fully believe in everything taught by the Catholic Church, and defend that truth regularly.

      The Church teaches that the OF mass is valid, and I submit to the teachings of the Church whether or not I believe the OF mass is “needed.” Why do you reject Church teaching in this regard?

      You are not Christ, AT. You’re raging against the Church that He gave the authority to teach in His name, and the Church that He gave the authority to bind and loose. Do you think Jesus would be happy with your behavior and attitude toward your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, not to mention His Vicar?

    • AugustineThomas

      You actually believe that the Mass that has emptied the Church is orthodox?

      The fact that there is a pope who (fine I’ll tone it down a bit) verges on heresy and a small number of cardinals who vocally support it because it’s the trend of the time means that its orthodox?

      Are you unaware that popes and cardinals have, in the past, often supported heresy only to be proven wrong, even if it was after they died?

      You really think Christ wants you telling me I’m going to Hell?

      I’ve never made any judgement on your eternal salvation, only spoken the truth.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      AT, have you studied the history of the Church at all? The OF did not exist in 1054, when the Eastern Orthodox Church split off, or in 1571, when the Protestant Reformation started. Both of these events caused the Church to “empty.” Yet, She remains. I believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, no matter what. I’m sorry you don’t share that belief.

      Did you read my article at all, AT? I wrote about a Pope who died while in the act of committing adultery. So yes, I’m fully cognizant of the fact that popes and cardinals have sinned. They have never taught heresy as doctrine, though, so Christ’s truth prevails.

      I never said you were going to Hell, AT. Can you quote where you thought I said such a thing?

      I’m alarmed at your propensity to commit libel. It certainly doesn’t speak well for your credibility.

      I never claimed you’ve made any judgement about my eternal salvation, but you have certainly told lies. For example, “And then people like you go after the orthodox and give a free pass to
      the baby murderers and rampant heretics who populate 90% of NO Masses.”

      I don’t give a free pass to baby murderers or rampant heretics. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? If not, will you please apologize for bearing false witness?

      And this: “You go to Novus Ordo and help decorate and prance around the altar like it’s a Bed, Bath and Beyond display and then you snatch at our Lord like he’s a piece of trailmix (if you even believe in the Real Presence)?”

      I do attend an OF mass but the rest of that screed is false. Again, can you provide any evidence to the contrary? If not, can you please apologize for bearing false witness?

    • AugustineThomas

      A pope hasn’t spoken infallibly and preached heresy.
      You haven’t heard of the pope who excommunicated a future saint and was later labeled to have been preaching heresy by the next pope? (Papal infallibility didn’t come around until the 1400s.)

      I’m saddened by your intense hypocrisy and pedantry. I wish you would actually learn about the history of the Church instead of making uneducated, aggressive statements about it like so many “modern” Catholics.

      By the way, where did you get your history degree? I graduated from the 12th ranked department in the world and my senior thesis was on Constantine and the Early Church.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Papal infallibility has existed since Pentecost, Augustine. That is a teaching of the Church. Which pope are you talking about?

      Hypocrisy? Pedantry? Why do you make these accusations? What have I said that is hypocritical? Why do you say I am obsessed with rules? Can you clarify?

      Can you give me your full name so I can verify your credentials? It’s odd that you claim to be such a learned historian, and yet you don’t seem to know anything about Church history. If you prefer, you can send them to me privately at my personal e-mail: jrwahlund at gmail dot com.

    • AugustineThomas

      So all the Northern European heretics were confused when they explicitly stated that their reason for leaving the Church was the formalization of papal infallibility?

      Of course, as orthodox Catholics, you and me, we believe that when the Pope spoke authoritatively he was speaking infallibly from the time Christ founded the Church, even if it hadn’t been formalized by a council of the Church.

      Pope Francis has yet to speak infallibly and won’t (thankfully). He’s not a theologian, he’s a rambler. Even BXVI, the greatest theologian in the world, never spoke ex cathedra.

      It’s odd that you’re so ignorant and think that calling other people ignorant will cover that up. You can look up anything I’ve told you. (Perhaps the problem is that you think if you haven’t heard it yet, it must not be true.)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Not sure what specific group of heretics you’re referring to, but many people leave the Church once dogma they don’t like is proclaimed infallibly. That’s why the Church does so, to make it clear that certain teachings (which have been taught since the Church’s inception) will never change. Everything old is new again.

      I said you were ignorant of Church history, AT. I never said you were ignorant, personally. If this is how you misinterpret people it’s not at all surprising that you severely misunderstand the words of Pope Francis.

      You’re the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your claim. That’s how debate works.

    • AugustineThomas

      If you’re too lazy to look up the Pope’s statements that’s your problem. The rest of the world heard the comments he made about people who attend the proper Mass being faddish, when he is the king of the fad chasers.

      You keep trying to teach me, but you don’t know anything. You seem to be quite a pedant, like most of the uneducated heretics who attend NO.

      Again, “by their fruits, you will know them”.. NO churches are full of old ladies and people who don’t even believe in the Real Presence, because they teach disrespect of the Church and self-reverence.

      Those problems do not exist at the proper Mass because it teaches reverence of Christ.

      I’ll pray for you that you get over the real fad and learn to love the tradition of the Church!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      On the contrary, if you’re too dishonest to cite sources to prove your claims, that’s your problem. Since you are unable to do so, I can logically conclude that your claim is baseless and fraudulent. Good to know.

      Why do you say I am a pedant? Because I believe in the Church and all She teaches? I thought that was being Catholic.

      My experience with OF churches is the opposite of what you describe.

      These problems do exist, and I think you’re in denial because I cited several examples of where they do. Also, see here:

      You’re in my prayers as well.

    • AugustineThomas

      [Abp. Jan Graubner speaks:] When we were discussing those who are fond of the ancient liturgy and wish to return to it, it was evident that the Pope speaks with great affection, attention, and sensitivity for all in order not to hurt anyone. However, he made a quite strong statement when he said that he understands when the old generation returns to what it experienced, but that he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it. “When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.”

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Thank you for actually providing something resembling a source. Since you did not provide a sourcelink, I Googled the quote and read its history and context. Apparently it’s a third hand report of something Pope Francis might have said in an informal setting, so I can’t say that I pay it too much heed. At any rate, I think Fr. Z has the right perspective on it:

    • AugustineThomas

      What are you talking about? It’s a direct quote from the Archbishop. Your claim is that the Archbishop is lying?

      Everyone is just fabricating all of these statements that verge on heresy?

      You’re one of those NO Catholics who, no matter what the pope says, tells us that we’re all confused and just forget about it.

      I never EVER had this problem with Saint JPII or BXVI!

      I am the biggest supporter of the papacy that I know, but that doesn’t mean I need to pretend that every pope is a good pope.

      God bless you!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The Archbishop told someone at Vatican Radio what Francis allegedly said. Since I wasn’t there, and since there is not a written transcript of the conversion they had, and since the report of the remarks have been translated to English from a different language, I have no way of knowing if it’s accurate. That’s why I deal with what Pope Francis has actually said, and not what he has only allegedly said.

      But I really don’t see anything insulting or worrisome about his comments if they are, in fact, accurate. A Jesuit who prefers the OF? Shocker! He didn’t say that the EF is wrong or illicit or evil or that it should be abolished. He also said that those with a love for the EF should be respected. So, not quite seeing what the problem is here, and Fr. Z agrees.

      My obedience is to the Vicar of Christ, whoever he may be. Jesus gave us a man who had publicly denied Him three times as our first Pope, so I can’t say that I’m too worried about Pope Francis. :)

    • AugustineThomas

      I am obedient to Pope Francis. I haven’t left the Church and I believe the teachings of the Church.

      Jesuits were once great men, but they do more harm than good now. Why doesn’t Pope Francis have a word to say about the rampant and unrepentant heresy in his own order?
      St. Ignatius would discipline or kick out most current Jesuits.

      If you don’t trust the Archbishop to tell you what Jose Bergoglio said then you must believe he’s been a mute since he’s become pope, because there is no one more trustworthy as to his words than a like-minded Archbishop.

      I think it’s just over-the-top offensive that such a fad chaser would accuse those committed to the two thousand year old Mass of being faddish.
      I understand it has changed, but the same Mass changed extremely slowly over two millennia.. No one EVER had the gall to think they could completely change the whole thing overnight.. IT wreaks of Satan’s kind of pride.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Your statements thus far are not one of someone who is obedient to the Holy Father.

    • AugustineThomas

      What statement did I make that wasn’t obedient to the Church?

      You put the pope ahead of Christ’s Church? In my eyes we only listen to the pope, because Christ gave him the keys and a vision to go to Rome.

      That doesn’t mean I’m not free to dislike the current pope and a majority of what he says. Luckily for me the chance that he will speak infallibly is as close to zero as possible so I won’t have to disobey the teachings of the Church in any way in order to not like Jose Bergoglio.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Um, all of your claims that the OF is evil and horrible? Or maybe bearing false witness against your neighbor? That’s not in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

      It’s not either the Church or the Pope, AT. It’s both/and. If you love one, you respect the other. It’s that simple. AT the very least, the Catechism instructs us to be charitable to others:

      “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.” (CCC 2477-2478)

    • AugustineThomas

      You should send a letter to Pope Francis about being charitable to those who attend the proper Mass. I don’t think God would like him persecuting the most faithful, because he’s embarrassed about his heretical beliefs.

      The Church and the pope are quite different. St. Peter denied Christ three times. Do we have to deny Christ? Wouldn’t it be to disrespect St. Peter otherwise?

      Christ leads the Church. He made promises and gave ultimate doctrinal authority to the pope. He never promised that everything every pope said would be true and he didn’t even promise that they would all be good guys. He gave him authority, that’s it. I do not deny any teaching of the Church, spoken authoritatively by any pope.
      Most people at NO Masses, on the other hand, do deny many teachings of the Church. Why don’t you spend your time educating them about the heresy they’ve fallen into while attending NO Masses?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I didn’t read his comments as uncharitable at all, if they are in fact accurate.

      We need to love St. Peter as our brother in Christ, and praise God that he repented of his denial of Christ!

      I do spent my time educating fallen-away Catholics, etc. That’s the purpose of my blog articles here, as well as my personal blog. But again, it’s not either I educate fallen-away Catholics or I educate anti-OF Catholics, it’s both/and. :)

    • AugustineThomas

      They were extremely uncharitable.
      I’m not sure if what you’re doing is called education.
      I do love Pope Francis and I pray for him everyday!

      St. Peter pray for us all!!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      You’ve got an awfully funny way of showing love, if that’s the case.

    • AugustineThomas

      Does Christ not love us when he tells us we’re sinners in need of salvation?

      This is similar to the homosexuality argument. You don’t love people suffering from homosexual perversion by starting a parade to celebrate their sin.
      You also don’t love someone who is preaching nonsense by pretending what they’re preaching is wise.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Christ doesn’t show love for us by committing libel all over the Internet.

    • AugustineThomas

      And you’re not committing libel by falsely accusing me of committing libel?

      God bless you Ms. Wahlund! I thank God for your faith and the good work that you’re doing with this website.
      St. Augustine, pray for us! St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us! St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us! St. Francis pray for us!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      It’s not libel if the accusation is true. For example, you committed libel against Pope Francis when you accused him of saying that all atheists will go to heaven, which he did not say – instead, the confusion stems from the fact that you apparently don’t understand the difference between redemption and salvation.

    • AugustineThomas

      I said that he suggested that it doesn’t matter if you go to church or not, because God will save us no matter what, and that’s dangerous since our souls are at stake.

      You accused me of spreading libel all over the Internet, so even if I granted that your one accusation is true, which I don’t, you’d still be committing libel by accusing me of doing it constantly. (As long as you don’t have me put to death, you can libel me all you want by the way! You’re free to make mistakes.)

      Would you consider removing the log in your own eye?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      False. You said, “It’s heretical to suggest that everyone can get into heaven no matter how much they reject the Church.” Source:

      You just committed libel AGAIN, because Pope Francis also never said or suggested that it doesn’t matter if you go to church or not because God will save you no matter what.

      What have I said that isn’t true?

    • AugustineThomas

      He did so suggest that. He goes after the orthodox and says “who am I to judge” and celebrates Notre Dame, aka Baby Murder University. I try not to read him because I don’t want to fall into heresy but I’ve heard from reliable sources what he’s suggested.
      You say I’ve committed libel, but I’ve only spoken the truth about what Pope Francis has suggested. You should seriously consider removing the log in your own eye.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      he has never suggested such a thing, and the fact that you cannot provide proof of your claim is more evidence that he did not. If you have heard from reliable sources (of which Rorate Caeli is not one) that Pope Francis allegedly did these things, then provide your evidence. And stop claiming I have a log in my eye when all I ask is that you back up your accusations with evidence.

    • AugustineThomas

      If you don’t accept RC as a source, you’re obviously obsessed with lying to yourself that whatever you believe is ok and anyone who supports orthodoxy is guilty of some sin.

      Please tell me what’s wrong with being committed to orthodoxy.

      Are you seriously suggesting that you haven’t heard the “who am I to judge” comment?
      If the Pope can’t judge what is right and wrong, then who can?

      (You do know that pro-abortion politicians are now using his words to justify their support of baby murder?)

      This is the problem with Novus Ordo. It makes everyone believe that whatever they like is the true definition of orthodoxy and it makes them hate real orthodox folk like the people at RC.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Nothing is wrong with being committed to orthodoxy. But if you were truly committed to orthodoxy you wouldn’t be so eager to bear false witness against the pope.

      The Pope has spoken out strongly against abortion, so if pro-aborts are using his words to justify abortion, it shows how ignorant they are of what Pope Francis has said about it. Why are you blaming him for the ignorance and malice of those who support abortion?

      RC has demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in promoting the truth, but rather promoting their own agenda even if they have to obfuscate the truth to do it. Pope Fracis had barely been elected when they declared him a heretic. The lost all respect I might have had for them when they pulled that stunt, and their eagerness to hide Michael King’s financial malfeasance at Fisher-More College by falsely proclaiming that Bp. Olsen hates the Tridentine mass is even more reason to distrust them.

      I see you have not yet provided evidence to support your claims against Pope Francis. I encourage you to read what the catechism says about lying and calumny.

    • AugustineThomas

      I encourage you to remove the log in your own eye.

      You’re a hypocrite and you’re the one who is pretending that her own quaint preferences are orthodoxy and anyone who disagrees with her is a this and a that and guilty of every kind of blasphemy.
      (It’s typical for people who are embarrassed of their heresy to accuse others to try to get the focus off of themselves.)

      All of the articles I’ve referred to are well known–so it’s you who is committing libel by accusing me of committing libel when I’m referring directly to published statements made by the current pope.
      Why are JPII’s and BXVI’s words immune to being used in support of heresy? Why was it impossible to turn their words to support heresy, but it’s so easy with Pope Francis’?

      You do seem to think that Catholicism is about getting on the majority side and figuring out who you can persecute.
      Why should the children pay for King’s supposed malfeasance? What does the proper Mass have to do with the running of a college? Listen to yourself. You’re suggesting that we should hold the proper Mass hostage over your ideological and political differences with your perceived enemies?
      Also, there you go being hypocritical again. There is no proof of King’s malfeasance, so far only unsubstantiated libel from the disgruntled professor, which you have repeated here.

      And why does the extreme commitment to orthodoxy of the Fisher More kids frighten you so much, but the rampant heresy, apostasy, and even outright support of baby murder at Novus Ordo Masses everywhere not even bother you?
      (You do realize that St. Fisher and St. More both died for the proper Mass you’re now trying to help others remove from their namesake college?)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      btw, the existence of the SSPX proves that not everyone who loves the EF is in obedience to the Church. IMO, they’re just as bad as the alleged heretics who attend OF masses.

    • AugustineThomas

      We’re addicted to orthodoxy, the ancient, proper Mass and Christ’s teachings. Pope Francis and all his NO minions are addicted to the fifty year old fad and being right and they seem to get high from persecuting the orthodox while ignoring the rampant heretics. (And that’s when Jose isn’t going around telling everyone how humble he is.)

      Thank you for your prayers! Prayers to God, even from heretics, are always a good thing! (I used to be a heretic and before that an apostate so I know all about the game!)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      We’re all part of the same Church, AT, and we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ. Satan sows division, not Jesus. And yes, prayer to God is very efficacious!

    • AugustineThomas

      Yes we are! Heretics are a part of the Church every bit as much as the orthodox. That doesn’t mean we need to start listening to heretics!

      Satan has used the NO Mass to sow quite a bit of division and heresy. The proper Mass was immune to that kind of thing for fifteen hundred years and still is.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      He didn’t use the OF mass to sow heresy. He used the people who hijacked the OF mass to sow heresy. Big difference. If the EF has been immune to that kind of thing, and still is, how do you explain the current situation with Fisher-More College?

    • AugustineThomas

      Why do you make so many accusations and then you’re outraged at being accused?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      What accusations have I made?

    • AugustineThomas

      That I’m ignorant of Church history and risking Hell if I refuse to call the NO Mass proper and support every rambling of Jose Bergoglio.

      I don’t claim to know everything, but I know that Christ said “by their fruits, you shall know them”.

    • AugustineThomas

      Since a majority of Catholics now support abortion and same-sex marriage, do you believe those actions to be graces as well and I’m going to Hell if I don’t call baby murder and homosexual perversion orthodoxy?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has said, truth is not determined by majority vote. Abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsic evils and grave sins. That is what the Church teaches, and that is what I believe.

    • AugustineThomas

      Well I agree with you that the NO Mass isn’t invalid (just as an SSPX Mass isn’t invalid, but that doesn’t mean I’ll start supporting Holocaust denying bishops)..
      I’ve just never heard anyone make a compelling argument for the existence of the NO Mass, except “that’s what a majority of people like”.

      It’s so insulting to hear Pope Francis call people who support the proper Mass faddish, when he’s made his entire career out of appeasing the majority by giving them whichever fad they desired.

      I don’t see how a preference for the unreverential, easier Mass is any different than a preference for “population control” or “equality” in this context (even though there are powerful cardinals who support both).

      Of course abortion is a clear evil, but should we not even discuss the evil effects of the NO Mass? Should we put our heads in the sand the way leftists do about baby murder?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      An OF mass is both valid and licit, however, whereas an SSPX mass is valid but illicit. I’ve never heard anyone make a compelling argument for the existence of the duck-billed platypus but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a valuable function in the world. My heart was opened to the truth of Catholicism by a beautiful, glorious, reverent OF Mass (Basilica of St. Mary Easter Vigil, Easter 2003), so that’s one good reason for it, IMO. :)

      Can you substantiate the claims you make against Pope Francis? You keep claiming he said all these awful things but you don’t provide any evidence. Can you link to his statements on where he allegedly said these things so I can read his words in context?

      Here is how it is different: the Church teaches that the OF mass is valid and licit, therefore it’s not sinful to prefer it (just like the EF mass is valid and licit, so it’s not sinful to prefer it). One who supports contraception and/or abortion as a means of population control or gay marriage as a means of equality is supporting intrinsic evil, so it’s sinful to prefer either or both of those things.

      I don’t think that the OF mass has evil effects. I think that people who are trying to hijack the OF mass to promote their own agenda are the ones promulgating the evil effects, just like the EF mass can be hijacked to promulgate evil effects — or pretty much anything in the Church.

      I am 100% pro-life, without exception, and if you read my past CS articles (as well as my personal blog:, you will see that I do not have my head in the sand re: abortion. Why do you assume that I do?

    • AugustineThomas

      You haven’t heard the Pope’s statement calling people who attend the proper Mass faddish?

      I’m glad that you were brought into the Church, even if the Mass that brought you could have been more reverential.
      It’s a numbers game.. The heresy of the NO Mass has pushed far more people away than it has brought in and I suspect you would have been won over by the presence of Christ even if it had been a proper Mass.. I’m not trying to say that NO isn’t a real Mass, just that there is absolutely no reason for it except to make “modern” people feel self-important.

      Again, I’m not calling the NO Mass itself evil. I think the intrinsic evil part comes in the way that people use it.
      Heretics are a lot more likely to commit abortion than the orthodox.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Can you provide a link from to this alleged statement so I can read the Pope’s words in context, AT?

      The mass that brought me into the church was incredibly reverential. It was beautiful and glorious and brought tears to my eyes.

      This is what you don’t seem to get. It’s not the OF mass that has pushed people away at all. It’s the people who have hijacked the OF mass to push their own agenda, the “spirit of Vatican II folks” who have never actually read the Council documents for themselves. It’s sin and Satan who have pushed people from the Church.

      When you blame the OF mass for what Satan has done, you’re playing right into his hands.

      If you want to know why the OF was implemented, why not read the document that explains why?

    • AugustineThomas

      You’ll notice that the proper Mass is immune to being hijacked by heretics.

      I’m glad the Mass that converted you was reverential.. My points still stand. Most NO Masses aren’t reverential. You would have been converted by the proper Mass just the same.. It was the Truth, the Logos, that converted you.. It strengthens my faith in Christ to hear yet another story that he speaks to people in all places, even outside of Mass, if they’ll only listen.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The EF is immune to hijacking? Um, not quite. See: the SSPX, the Old Catholic Church in America, Mel Gibson, Fisher-More College, etc.

      Most NO masses aren’t reverential? That’s odd, because I’ve been Catholic for over 10 years, and I’ve seldom been to one that isn’t (and yes, I attend Mass every Sunday and HDO unless sick or something). So, that hasn’t been my experience at all.

      I encourage you to listen to what Pope Benedict said in Summorum Pontificum: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture.”

  • yeshua



    God isn’t real lol.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      And your proof of this is…?

  • Patsy

    Surely the bible itself is your best source material. It is overflowing with examples that are not remotely worthy of a god, nevermind a benevolent one.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Such as?

  • Ella White

    Can u say false prophet….. God does not change it says that in the bible… Which the pope must not read or he would drop to his knees with apologies for trying to change GODS LAW… Well GOD did tell us about the end and he warned us about the false prophets and the antichrist. Sodom and Gomora got destroyed because of all the sin that was there ppl open your eyes THE END IS HERE PLEASE CHOOSE CHRIST.. NOT THE POPE FOR HE IS A SINFUL MAN TRYING TO TAKE PPL TO HELL WITH HIM.

  • Gretchen Bryan

    I don’t think so. He is amazing. He is breathing life into our Church!!! God bless him …in Jesus name. Amen!!! I love him. God loves us. … much… More than we can every know…God created all…God loves us ..more than we as human can ever know!!!! Thank you Lord for loving me so much!! I am your servant.

  • Deborah

    The true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:

    All scripture taken from the King James Bible.

  • Maureen

    Defending Pope Francis by revealing misinterpretations of past Popes’s comments is hardly a defense.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I don’t need to defend Pope Francis, because he doesn’t need it. What needs defending is the concept of learning about Church teaching from the Pope instead of the MSM.

  • John Schmidt

    Actually the Pope has not ruined the catholic church. Satan ruined it. Satan knew he could never abolish the church so he took it over. Rev 18:14 Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      So, your position is that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church, and thus Jesus was a liar? I assume you are atheist, then?

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Hes not an atheist its just disinfo. Please I can help you with your defense of Catholicism! The whore of babylon is Mecca. “Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater is a fascist at heart”–Henry Wallace, The Dangers of American Fascism

      Who Jew baits? MUSLIMS/Nazis! Who Catholic hates? MUSLIMS/Nazis!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Atheists are not bad people seriously like the Pope said with them going to heaven. They will if they are good. Think about all the wonderful brave Communists who fought against the Nazis? They are polar opposites but there works prove their salvation. They walk more like Jesus than most Religious Reichers (Pharisees).

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      You do realize that is by definition Mecca she is the whore of Babylon. Mystery Babylon is Mecca. Hitler was a Muslim. Its easy to scapegoat the Catholics believe me I used to fear them being Jewish and then I saw the light meeting Jesuits who were wonderful people who vote Democrat and make fun of the Pharisee Republicans.

      Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

    • Hegesippus

      Mt 16: 18.
      No, he has not and will not for he cannot.
      The Church will never fall.

  • Ben

    I’m late to this one, but what a terrific article!

  • AndrewIsrael

    Pope Francis I saved the Catholic Church! I am Jewish and I can tell you its about time the Catholic Church elected a Jesuit who has philosophical policies that not only expose the Tea Party/MoxNews Religious Reichers for who they are. He has helped to bring back Christianity to its essencial roots and regather the disenfranchised who have unfortunately scapegoated Christianity’s Hypocrisy for Capitalism.

    “The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership.”–Henry Wallace NYTimes, The Danger of American Fascism

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Somehow I don’t think Pope Francis would approve of your gross stereotypes of conservatives.

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      I have many Jesuit friends who absolutely agree with me. What they admire most with regards to the Jewish people is that we vote more in line with Christ than Religious Reichers. We believe in government having a role in protecting the people through progressive legislation. Do not forget my Catholic friends, America used to be a country for only White Male Protestant Slaveowners.

      The Republican Party is no longer the Party of Ronald Reagan. Its clearly adopted the Tea Party Corporate Fascist agenda. This is your chickens coming home to roost after 40 years of the Nixon Southern Strategy which has lead to the most extreme historical revisionism in US history.

      American Catholics must come to a realization: reject the Tea Party Nazis or repent and follow Pope Francis. I can tell you that even being Jewish I would follow Pope Francis the Vicar of Christ over any other heretic who thinks he knows better than the Pope.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      So, I’m curious. Which American political party do you think best reflects Catholic social justice teaching?

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      Democrat not because its “left-wing” but its the only sane party left. The Republicans are SOO extreme they are Fascist. They used to be Reagan but thats Obama now clearly. Obama like Reagan didnt tolerate the David Dukes. But this Republican Party does…wtf?

      Democrats are the party of Jesus. Democrats support Pope Francis I immigration reform.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      So, tell me, how do you reconcile the Democrat party’s enthusiastic support of abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts with Catholic doctrine?

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      “The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination against other religious, racial or economic groups (Social Conservatives). Likewise, many people whose patriotism is their proudest boast play Hitler’s game by retailing distrust of our Allies and by giving currency to snide suspicions without foundation in fact.”–Henry Wallace, The Dangers of American Fascism

      Pope Francis: Government Has a Role in Addressing Inequality and Injustice

      “I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots—and not simply the appearances—of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.”–Pope Francis

      You either follow the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis I or your a heretic its that simple my friend. Republican Tea Party “Catholics” are an oxymoron. Your not a “Puritan” like the Southern Biblethumpers like Westboro Baptist Church who says “G-d hates Fags” “Jews killed Jesus” or the KKK who used to own slaves–YOUR CATHOLIC! Act like it stop being a Puritan with the social issues > economic reality!!

      You may have your views of abortions, gay marriage, etc. but that should not be the “wedge issues” as Pope Francis clearly addresses. Remember when he said Catholics need to not interfere with the spiritual life of gays? He wants Catholics to focus on the Jesuit message of putting the poor > rich. Capitalism and its inherent sin of income inequality is by definition the greatest tyranny of our time as he pointed out.

      Jesus Condemns the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law of Moses

      23 Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

      2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

      RWW News: Beck Declares That “We Get Our Laws From The Laws Of Moses”

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      You call the murder of over 50 million innocent children since 1973 a “wedge issue”? Democrats have aided in the killing of many more innocents than the Nazis ever did.

      Pope Francis never called abortion a wedge issue. He merely said that Catholics shouldn’t focus on one issue at the expense of others. He has spoken out quite strongly against abortion.

      Additionally, the prohibition of contraception and homosexual acts as disordered are infallible Catholic doctrines. Democrats celebrate both. How do you reconcile that?

      What about the Democrat insistence on prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Does that bother you at all that they are forcing Catholics to pay for contraception and abortion?

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Of course you have to pay for contraception and abortions just like your paying taxes. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars! Im not debating this considering Hitler banned abortions for his “Aryan Race” while killing the lgbt community…so issues do matter when put into context!! It scares me seeing the GOP/Tea Party adopt open Neo-Nazism.

      If you dont like homosexual marriage? Dont get one! If you dont like abortion? Dont get one! “Be the change you wish to see in the world”–Ghandi!

      Just work on being the best Catholic you can be thou shalt not judge thy neighbor. Live and let live as long as were a free and open democracy then we should be fine!

      Corporations are not people! The day Hobby Lobby gets baptized by Jesus will be the day Catholics can be considered Republicans.

      Until that day comes, Catholic Republicans are an oxymoron. There is nothing Catholic in supporting the death penalty (Islam), stoning of gays (Islam), outlawing abortion (Islam), social darwinism economics of corporations righting the laws > unions (islam), gun owners (nazis/kkk)…I mean where is the “universal” love in Republican “values”?


      1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

      From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

      2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

      The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

      3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

      The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

      4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

      Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

      5. Rampant sexism

      Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

      6. A controlled mass media

      Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

      7. Obsession with national security

      Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

      8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

      Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

      9. Power of corporations protected

      Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

      10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

      Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

      11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

      Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

      12. Obsession with crime and punishment

      Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

      13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

      Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

      14. Fraudulent elections

      Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

      NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

      Does any of this sound familiar? As America sinks deeper and deeper into corporate greed will this country continue to be a democracy by the people and for the people or will it be ruled by the few? Will the trinity of money, power and greed over come one of the greatest countries in the world? Only we, the people, can keep it free. SPEAK OUT AND LET YOUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN…ONLY BY SILENCE WILL WE BE DEFEATED!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      So, you’re Protestant, then? Pope Francis teaches that abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts are all intrinsic evils. If you oppose him in this, then you are a dissenting Catholic and no better than those you decry. You can’t pick and choose which doctrines of the Church suit your fancy and ignore the rest. You can’t decry the fate of the illegal immigrant while dismissing the plight of the aborted child. It’s all or nothing.

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      No! Im more Catholic than you are since I only consider Jesuits real Catholics anyway. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat and were the greatest threat to the Nazis in Germany. Jesuits took an absolute oath to obey the Vicar of Christ > Satan Adolf Hitler. Simple logic. Now put into context:

      Rand Hitler Paul seems perfect then for you. He wants to outlaw abortion, wipe out the lgbt community…”Catholic values” ;)

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Be blessed you have a Jesuit Pope thank G-d!! Without the Jesuits Pope Francis is right Roman Catholicism would be swept away like a house of cards.

      You need a Jesuit to challenge the Religious Reich Republican Party and its takeover of America! You need REAL Christians like the Jesuits that overwhelmingly support the Democrats, Obama, Pelosi, etc.

      AND dont get me started with this picking and choosing with illegal and abortion. I CARE thats why I personally would never marry a women who would have an abortion. Im a male HOWEVER Im not going to allow the government to have WHITE PROTESTANT SLAVEOWNING MALES tell women what to do with their bodies. They deserve equal rights they are not subservient slaves! They know whats best and you know most would never abort anyway its a total wedge issue to sedduce Christians into the Republican Anti-Christ Nazi Party!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Im starting to think Communist Catholics I know at this point are the most Christian people Ive ever met in my life.

      At least they have the guts to peacefully protest at Occupy Wall Street rallies while being mocked at by SS MoxNews Channel that thinks they are “lazy”.

      What is “lazy” about protesting for a socialist democracy where the people have a say in their government and NOT CORPORATIONS? Pope Francis definitely supports Occupy Wall Street > Teabagging Puritans! They actually walk his talk of standing up to the Tyrannies of Capitalism! Amen!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Also “Capitalism”=Slavery! Its slavery to the Corporations. They are the plantation owners today. Look at sports its black men doing all the work for rich white racists! HELLO! I want to abolish Capitalism its destroying America and the PLANET!!

      We need a Catholic New Deal! We need a higher minimum wage for low income workers. We need more government jobs! We need more restrictions on corporate abuses! We need socialism so we can all come together! We need to focus on actually walking the talk of Christ!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Protestantism=Nazism. I am a DEVOUT Catholic born and raised Jewish but Pope Francis is my inspiration to convert!!

      Here is a Wikipedia learning session!!

      The Protestant Reformation, and especially the English Reformation, brought new suspicions against the Jesuits, who were accused of “infiltrating” political realms and non-Catholic churches. In England, it was forbidden to belong to the Jesuits, under grave penalties, including the death penalty. Jesuitism is the term their opponents coined for the practices of the Jesuits in the service of the Counter-Reformation.[1]

      The development of Jansenism in 17th-century France led to intra-church rivalries between Jesuits and Jansenists, and although the pro-papal Jesuits ultimately prevailed, it cost them dearly with regards to their reputation in the largely Gallican-influenced French Church.

      Many anti-Jesuit conspiracy theories emerged in the 18th century Enlightenment, as a result of an alleged rivalry between the Freemasons and the pious Jesuits. Intellectual attacks on Jesuits were seen as an efficient rebuttal to the anti-masonry promoted by conservatives, and this ideological conspiracy pattern persisted into the 19th century as an important component of Frenchanti-clericalism. It was, however, largely confined to political elites until the 1840s, when it entered the popular imagination through the writings of the historians Jules Michelet and Edgar Quinetof the Collège de France, who declared “la guerre aux jesuites”, and the novelist Eugène Sue, who in his best-seller Le Juif errant depicted the Jesuits as a “secret society bent on world domination by all available means”.[2] Sue’s heroine, Adrienne de Cardoville, said that she could not think about Jesuits “without ideas of darkness, of venom and of nasty black reptiles being involuntarily aroused in me”.[3]

      Jesuit conspiracy theories from earlier eras often focused on the personality of Adam Weishaupt, a professor of law at a Jesuit school who went on to found the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati. Weishaupt was accused of being the secret leader of the New World Order, and even of being the Devil himself.[citation needed] Augustin Barruel, a conservative Jesuit historian, wrote at length about Weishaupt, claiming that the Illuminati had been the secret promoters of the French Revolution.

      Jesuit conspiracy theories found fertile soil in Imperial Germany, where anti-Jesuits saw the order as a sinister and extremely powerful organization characterized by strict internal discipline, utter unscrupulousness in choice of methods, and undeviating commitment to the creation of a universal empire ruled by the Papacy. Citing historian Friedrich Heyer’s metaphor of the specter of Jesuitism [Jesuitengespenst] and similar imagery from other authors, Róisín Healey writes: “The Jesuit of anti-Jesuit discourse had what might be called an uncanny quality: he was both subhuman and superhuman. Jesuits were allegedly so extreme in their submission to their order that they became like machines and, in their determination to achieve their goals, drew on powers unavailable to other men. The peculiar location of the Jesuit, at the boundaries of humanity, unsettled the producers and consumers of anti-Jesuit discourse. In this sense, the Jesuit specter haunted imperial Germany.”[4] Healy observes that “Feeling themselves haunted by the Jesuits, anti-Jesuits revealed themselves to be less rational than they believed.” Their discourse, with its “skewed” perception of reality, “resembled, in certain respects, the ‘paranoid style’ of politics identified by the American historian, Richard Hofstadter”.[5]

      Anti-Jesuitism played an important part in the Kulturkampf, culminating in the Jesuit Law of 1872, endorsed by Otto von Bismarck, which required Jesuits to dissolve their houses in Germany, forbade members from exercising most of their religious functions, and allowed the authorities to deny residency to individual members of the order. Some of the law’s provisions were removed in 1904, but it was only repealed in 1917.[6]

      In the 1930s, Jesuit conspiracy theories were made use of by the Nazi regime with the goal of reducing the influence of the Jesuits, who ran secondary schools and engaged in youth work. A propaganda pamphlet, “The Jesuit: The Obscurantist without a Homeland” by Hubert Hermanns, warned against the Jesuits’ “dark power” and “mysterious intentions”. Declared “public vermin” [Volksschädlinge] by the Nazis, Jesuits were persecuted, interned, and sometimes murdered

      This proves my point! Republicans will turn on the Jesuits. What will Catholics do to stand up for the Jesuits if Rand Hitler Paul comes to power and outlaws Pope Francis and the Jesuits from challenging the dictates of the Tea Party Fascist Agenda!?!? Will you continue to bravo Rand Hitler Paul on banning abortion while he starves the poor!?! Will you be willing to convert to the Nazis and do as they say?!!? I WILL NEVER OBEY THE NAZIS!! THE JESUITS AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PEOPLE IS MY OATH!!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!



    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Also –

      “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave. Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse a child. Don’t like rape? Don’t force anyone to have sex.” Etc.thisr arguments aound pretty dumb in that context, don’t they?

      If you support abortion, you support the murder of innocent human beings. Just like the Nazis, oddly enough (who did support abortion for “undesirable” human beings).

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Correct. BUT they banned it with regards to the Whites (like were seeing with the Republican Nazi South!). Im talking about gay marriage and abortion which are issues that Republicans have become flat out Nazi over. Stop trying to be eugenicists toward my lgbt friends and telling a women who YOU dont know about why she cant have an abortion!! Thats so puritan not Catholic!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Also context with abortion matters. Pope Francis clearly says the Tyranny of Capitalism > Abortion.


    • jmarple46

      The pope said that catholics should stop talking so much about abortion. He is diminishing the gravity of the murder of children. You are a bit naive in your understanding of this pope.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Actually, I’m happy to inform you that Pope Francis did NOT say what you think he said! You are listening to the media’s interpretation of what he said as opposed to what he actually said – which was that Catholics should not focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others, regardless of what issue (so it also applies to Catholics who, say, obsess about immigration reform while ignoring abortion). And PF has spoken out very strongly against abortion. I can provide quotes if you wish.

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      The Tea Party and Catholic social teaching don’t mix – See more at:

      Tea Party Nazi Libertarian (Pink Floyd “The Wall”):

      Libertarian “Tea Party” Individualism = Free to individually starve, get sick, go broke and die, alone, ‘individually’, if you’re too “weak”, so nobody has to give a damn or have any responsibility to you, as a fellow citizen.
      Nothing about Libertarians is pro-Liberty or pro-Individual except Liberty for the individual millionaires and billionaires, wealthiest top 10% protecting their ill gotten wealth and hoarding it while killing the Middle Class and weakening people so they barely hang on financially and either on the poverty line or below it so they’re poor, uneducated, fearful and demoralized but brainwashed with Alex Jones, Aaron Russo, Lou Dobbs and Ron Paul conspiracy propaganda to keep them suspicious of conspiracies everywhere.
      Libertarians are “Anti-Financial Independence” by shackling people with debt, high prices, industry monopolies, oppression of workers’ rights (to reasonable pay and safe working conditions normally protected by regulations), anxiety, ill health and poverty in the name in “individual responsibility” and “individual liberty” (liberty to be “on your own” with zero Civil Rights protections to keep the wealthy and the corporations from exploiting your as cheap labor or no government enforced protections of YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to be financially independent of corporate monopolies, high prices and a inhumane wages).

    • JoAnna Wahlund


      Just a word of advice — paragraph breaks are your friend.

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      k…did you watch the video seeing the parallel connection between “libertarians” and nazis? Catholics I know hate Nazis thats why they vote Democrat.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      No, I didn’t watch it. Also, see here for why no Catholic should vote Democrat:

      (One could also argue that no Catholic should vote Republican, also, but let’s limit the discussion to Democrats for now.)

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Catholics are centrists right? If I had to choose between Reagan and Carter I would go with Reagan by definition because he is a better uniter. Obama vs Mormon Cult SS Mitt Romney? Obama! Obviously since he is a Christian and Romney is a Nazi Occultist…but beside the point Obama is clearly more Reagan since he is a better uniter than Mormon Cult SS Romney.

      Catholics need to wake up and realize the Religious Reichers have conned you! Catholics are Obama. Catholics are Nancy Pelosi even Harry Reid. They are true men and women of character who have their heart for the common good. Republicans dont. They are Pharisees who put on a spectacle but are just Donald Trump fat cats–people who Jesus despised!!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Please note I am only trying to help you. I can tell you have a good heart and mean well with the morality issues. I get it it matters…but its the big picture Catholics need to pay attention to. Pope Francis is giving them what they need: “tough love”

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      “When Hitler attacked the Jews
      I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
      And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
      I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
      And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
      I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
      Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church —
      and there was nobody left to be concerned.” –Pastor Niemoller


    • JoAnna Wahlund

      From the CCC:

      2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”97

      Just FYI.

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      Fighting Fascism is not being violent its standing up against Satan’s army. Nazis are Satanists. Jesus stood up for the oppressed people, the homeless, the disenfranchised. “It is far easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”–Yeshua

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Even hating Fascists and Nazis is a sin, according to Jesus. Opposing their beliefs and actions is not the same as hating them. “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” – Yeshua

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      I dont hate Nazis I feel sorry for them because they are clearly going to hell if they dont repent.

    • toft roger

      Judging by the length of life the main Nazi criminals seem to have, they are putting things off as long as they can !

  • melanie

    As a mother Iof a large family, I learned to ignore the bad and praise and give attention to what my children did that was good. Shouldn’t that be our focus as Catholics ? Surely that would give more honour to our Lord than allowing false media headlines to seduce us into bashing a pope who is trying to live the gospel

  • Pingback: Him: Pope Francis and a Year in the Modern Imagination | Nosmerca

  • Jacob Snell

    He will be the detriment to Roman Catholicism and should be excommunicated from the Roman Rite and be tried in the Church for heresy and unorthodoxy teachings.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Really? Can you give me an example of a heresy that Pope Francis has committed?

    • NOTalibaniTeabaggers!

      The heretics are those who reject the Vicar of Christ aka Pope Francis. He saved the Catholic Church because him being a Jesuit brings the walking the talk of Jesus. He’s truly the best Pope because its about time the world had a leader that can denounce the heresy of Reagonomics and the Tyranny of 21st Century Global Capitalism that has marginalized the poor who are at the forefront of Christianity and the Gospel.

    • AugustineThomas

      We’ve had heretical popes before and the Holy Spirit protected the Church. The same protection will endure Pope Francis’ love of heresy.

  • mark

    Long live ignorance.
    If child molestation is good enough to carry on protected for hundreds of years with the flock believing that it was just lies and enemy’s of the church to then see it was not lies from outside of the catholic church but lies from within.
    This disgusting un natural organisation will live on as long as the ignoramus faithful embrace its teaching as a divine prophecys and keep their head in the sand to reality

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The irony of your first line is KILLING me. Thanks for the chuckle!

  • Rationalist

    Until Catholics can get past grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), everything else is a side issue…

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Get past how, exactly? You don’t think Catholics should believe in Christ? That’d pretty much negate the entire point of Catholicism…

  • Micha_Elyi

    …the MSM proclaimed that Pope Benedict said condoms were perfectly okay for everyone to use…

    I failed to notice that the mainstream media outlets had gone that far in their distortion of what Pope Benedict had said. Your example itself fails to demonstrate your claim because it is an example of a major Establishment Media outlet pointing out that non-media issue advocates had proclaimed erroneous claims.

    All your other examples fail as well.

    The bottom line is that the Establishment Media doesn’t have to turn their Reality Distortion Fields to max when Pope Francis opens his mouth. I’ve come to suspect that his refusal to wear the traditional red shoes has nothing to do with humility but instead he detests their taste in his mouth.

  • AugustineThomas

    You’re confused. JPII and BXVI “got in trouble” with secularists for preaching the truth. Francis causes problems by babbling nonsense and appearing to be more committed to leftism than the One True Church. (Hopefully I don’t offend any Novus Ordo heretics with that term.)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Still haven’t learned that bearing false witness against one’s neighbor is a sin, I see.

    • AugustineThomas

      You still haven’t learned that so is heresy Ms. Wahlund!

    • Bill S

      Yeah. Just as I thought. You are more Catholic than the Pope.

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re more heretical than Nancy Pelosi.

    • Bill S

      Heretic is a word for religious zealots.

    • AugustineThomas

      ‘Heretic’ is a word that drives heretics like you crazy, I know.
      You should stop putting your desires above truth.

      God bless you! Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus!

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      Leftism? You mean Pope Francis being a Jesuit is a problem? The Nazis used to spread the same conspiracy theory crap about the Jesuits for being “leftists”. Nazism is a Far-Right Wing ideology that happens to seduce Puritans who think they are better than the Pope instead of listening and humbling themselves to the Vicar of Christ who’s giving “tough love” to the Catholic and Christian world. Its a breath of fresh air and I can tell you as a born and raised Jew Pope Francis makes me want to convert to Roman Catholicism because its about time I hear a Catholic stand up to the Religious Reichers/Pharisees in America that keep Jews from taking Jesus seriously. If you want to know why Jews don’t like to accept Christ it really goes back to the Grandi quote “I like your Christ I don’t like your Christians”…its true. Walk the talk like Francis. Government has a role in social justice. Capitalism is the greatest tyranny of the 21st century, etc.

    • jmarple46

      Nazism is right wing? Do you know that it refers to the National Socialist Workers Party? Since when is socialism a right-wing ideology?

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re insane. I’m sorry that Catholic orthodoxy offends you so greatly. (That makes sense, you being an apostate.)

  • Anonymous

    Catholicism is a cult, the Vatican and Catholics are the same level of secrecy and corruption as the Church of Scientology, the Pope is just a man, he has no higher value than the rest of us, you don’t need to pray to him or kiss his ring or bow to him. He is just a man. He does not have a right to tell me whether i go to Heaven or Hell, he is not God, nor the Son. He can not “bless” you, he can not choose your fate, he can not make true Christians bow to false idols such as a man named “Pope”. Because, he is just a man. He is not my God, he is not my Savior, he is not an Angel, he is a man, and he is a false idol. If you praise the Pope so be it, “but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”-Joshua 24:15

    • NONAZITeabaggers!

      What is cult about saving 850,000 Jews from the Nazis? Name one other supposed “cult” that did more to save the Jews than the Jesuits and the Catholic saints? There is none! They walk their talk and have currently the greatest Pope ever especially since hes a Jesuit whos exposing the Religious Reichers (especially in Amurica). Jesus was a Catholic Communist who today would be by definition an Occupy Wall Street Protester Amen!

      “THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

      THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
      and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

      THEN THEY CAME for me
      and by that time no one was left to speak up.”–Pastor Niemoller, German Lutheran Anti-Nazi Protester Holocaust Museum Favorite

    • Lawrence

      And all Gods people say AMEN! Well said

  • NONAZITeabaggers!

    President Obama issues statement on papal canonizations:

    President Barack Obama has issued a statement on the canonizations of St. John XXIII and St. John Paul II.

    “The work and witness of both Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II shaped not only the Catholic Church but the world,” he said. “Pope John XXIII articulated powerful roles for the Church in the cause of global peace and justice, and by convening the Second Vatican Council he revolutionized not only aspects of worship but the Catholic Church’s relationship with other faith communities.”

    “Pope John Paul II helped inspire the Solidarity movement in Poland, a movement that spread and eventually helped to end communism in Eastern Europe, and he spoke out forcefully against apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Rwanda, President Obama continued. “He had a special rapport with young people, drawing many of them to the Church’s work and teachings.”

    “We celebrate these Saints and the leadership of His Holiness Pope Francis, and we look forward to continuing to work with Pope Francis and Catholics around the world to advance peace and justice for all people,” he concluded.

    Obama/Democrats=Jesuit Pope Francis Approved Catholic; Republicans/Teabaggers=Nazi/KKK Puritan Southern Racist Hatemongers who cannot accept that a Black Man is in the White House so they make up BS excuses to hate Catholic Values which are by definition Progressive.

  • Lawrence

    You Catholics are all nuts, Jesus is the way, the truth, the life nobody comes to the father but through Jesus. Everybody else on this earth to include Popes and Mary all fall short the glory of our Lord. You all pray to Mary and say the rosary and confess to Priest, all for not.
    Matthew 6:7
    7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.) This is where the Rosary fails, it does nothing. You praise Mary 53 times and the lord only 6 while saying the rosary, sounds crazy to me.

    1 Timothy 2:5
    5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, Mary is not a mediator, no one is.

    • Mark G

      Christ also said BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER. For those that believe those words were not eternal (if you do believe you can pick and choose which words are eternal and which are not then you are mislead down a wrong path) then we can affirm those words are eternal in Revelation 12:17.

      Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring–those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

      Now combined those words affirmed in Revelations wiith what our Lord says when He says BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER. He did not say BEHOLD MY MOTHER. No, He said…Behold YOUR mother.

      There is ONE God and there is ONE Lord. The Lord said BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER. I suggest you do, and suggest you stop passing along false teachings, false doctrine, and a false Christ. You are with out understanding, and you are on dangerous ground when you pass on such lessons.

    • Lawrence

      I do believe in God so I guess I am lost on this mother thing. I accepted Jesus into my life when I became a Christian at around 25 years old. I guess I started of wrong calling Catholics nuts for that I apologize. I guess my question for anyone would be why do Catholics pray to Mary and or Saints. If you believe in Prayer you can’t get it to the Lord any faster if you do it through Mary or the Saints. I never said that Mary was a nobody, but she was a sinner like you and me. The scripture I stated clearly say what I mean, Mary cannot be a mediator, so why pray to her.
      Catholic doctrine is confusing being it can change with every Pope, but God never changes. My Friend you can go through life doing the Catholic thing, but if you don’t confess with your mouth and mean it with your heart you will not be joining me in the next life. You cannot be saved by works and good deeds, that’s where Catholics get confused like I did when I was a catholic my first 24 years of life.
      Side note:
      Also, if you like Music tune in to K-love in your area it has great Christian music, I listen to it 24/7 and I am filled with the spirit of God. Give it a try and tell me what you think.

  • Mark G

    The simple fact is the Church, like Christ cannot be pigeonholed into one particular ideology or another. Christ far more than our view points.

    Here is what did not happen at calvary that we get very confused about as Christians (Catholic or protestant). One, Christ did not take away our free will. Two, Christ did not give man the last word.

    While Christ is the only gate we all pass through to heaven, it is not man who decides. ALL judgement has given unto Him and He will be the one who decides. That, is what it means when Christ NO ONE comes to the Father but through ME.

    For it does say NOT all those who say LORD LORD will enter into the kingdom of heaven but ONLY those who do the Father’s will.

    As for which Church is the true Church, well would it not be the one that represents the kingdom on earth as it is in heaven? How, ( I am confused by this too) would a protestant call the Church the whore of Babylon and yet accept the bible as it was put together by that very whore of Babylon? The canon was not really put together until the 4th century. Christians (the 1% of them that even knew how to read) did not have pocket bibles with addresses on them to quickly refer to. They did not have any of those things. Nothing like it. So, what did most Christians have? The oral tradition, which Paul refers to when he says repeatedly to HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS as we have passed them on to you.

    On earth as it is in heaven. The words of the prayer from the Lord. A prophecy and showing how the Holy Spirit shapes the Church the faithful. The SAINTS. For those who insist we are not to refer to Mary as our mother, ignore what Christ proclaimed from the cross when He said, “Behold YOUR mother.”

    It is then affirmed in revelation 12:17 where it says, “The devil went off to wage war with the rest of her offspring, those who bear witness to Christ and keep God’s commandments.” Combine that with what Christ is saying to His beloved disciple and you see how even those words were eternal.

    On earth as it is in heaven. Read revelation and all of the images in there. Saints and angels sending prayers to the throne of God in the form of incense (Revelation 5:8). Elders gathered around the alter in lengthy white robes. Golden cups, the blood of the LAMB. All of these heavenly images being seen as the heavenly mass. Which is the one on EARTH as it is in HEAVEN? Which one of the 30,000 interpretations am I to follow? My own?

    The bottom line here is the Pope will often say things that step on the toes of the proud. Such is the way of Christ. Now, is it concerning to me that there is a socialist angle that will be taken from the words? Yes, it ought to concern all followers about the direction the church is guided. Faith, that the gates of hell will not prevail is to be reminded to everyone. Now, let us be clear here. Communism is not what this is. Communism is determined to destroy all faith. It is been that way and will always be that way.

    Remember, for those that insist they know how Christ will judge the nations in the end. He actually made it pretty clear in Matthew 25:31-46. He will separate the goats from the sheep, and He will say to the sheep, enter into the kingdom of my Father which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For, when I was hungry you fed me…….

    And the “righteous” will ask when did we ever do these things unto You? He will say….Truly I say, each time you did unto the least of my bretheren, you did unto ME.

    Stop with the devils trap about who you think will get into the Kingdom. That is not up to us. Never has been, and never will be. I suggest Carl, if you read this, to hold fast to the traditions and stop speaking out against them, I strongly suggest that.

    • Lawrence

      Good sir you can interpret your way and I can interpret my way. The Fact is a person has to accept Jesus and also live as he would. That said no man is perfect and will make mistakes in his/her lifetime, but if you truly repent and ask for forgiveness you will enter into the Kingdom. The key word there is truly, God does know your heart, but he does not want to just know it he wants to have it.
      Here is what I say after I pray, “Let them see you in me.” That is our job in life to get people to know and live Christ not Mary, not the saints, no one but Jesus. I never said Mary and the saints are not men/woman of God just stop idolizing them.

    • Mark G

      Lets make something clear that is a big confusion among protestants in regards to Catholics praying “to saints.” First of all, there is ONE mediator. No argument there. Christ is the ONE mediator. However, there are many intercessors. Any time YOU pray for someone, you are interceding. Whenever you ask someone to pray for you, you are not praying to that person. You are in fact praying to Christ THROUGH intercessory prayer.

      That brings me to the false notion that protestants accuse Catholics of praying to “dead people.” First of all, those that die in Christ are not dead at all. That is affirmed in several places in scripture. The dead rose out of their graves when Christ died. There are inferences of the Saints and angels making prayers to the throne in the form of incense.

      To deny the Saints are alive is essentially calling Christ a liar. No other way to put it, since all of this is based on the very promises from Christ.

      No, this is our affirmation of Christs words by recognizing a communion with saints. It is too bad that protestants deny themselves these sorts of riches that has been offered freely from a God whose intentions was to establish the Kingdom as a family. Christ refers to God as Father. Followers as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the image and images that are burned on our minds.

      Hence, the whole eternal reason for Jesus to be born through a woman at all. When Christ says to the disciple whom He loves to…BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER, those are eternal words. We cannot sit and say EVERYTHING ELSE Christ said was eternal except for those words. It is one of the last things He says, and one of the last things He gives before He gives up His life. You cannot just say.,….well those words were not eternal. Considering when it is affirmed in Revelation 12:17. The entire chapter refers to the woman that gave birth to Christ. It shows the devil pursuing the woman. It says…..”The devil became enraged and went off to wage war against the REST OF HER OFFSPRING, ALL of those who BEAR WITNESS to Christ and keep His commandments.”

      Combine that with what the Lord says from the cross to the disciple who is BEARING WITNESS and KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS. Those words from Christ are ALSO ETERNAL.

      We can get into how the church is infallible as the Bible is infallible. You see, that is also another confusion. The Bible was written through FALLIBLE men. Through sinners. Do no think that was not intentional either. All of the gospels are infallible and just as the Holy Spirit guides those that wrote the scripture, is the same Holy Spirit that guides the Church which is the pillar of truth. (1st Timothy 3:15)

      If all you see is the sin through the sinners then you might as well only look at the sin of the sinners that wrote the Bible. It is the exact same thing. It is human temptation.

      Again, the reason why the Pope called protestants wounded Christians is because of the denials of all these riches that has been given unto us though Christ.

      We can get into the notion that protestants actually think it is sinful to study saints in the past. They are quick to boast that they themselves are saints. Again, another dangerous road. When we start to boast that WE are saints, well watch out. Saints (true Saints) never boast of such things. In fact during the Last Supper, all of the disciples boasted that they would never betray Christ. Most of them said it to themselves and Peter openly exalted himself when proclaimed he would never betray. (That he was a Saint)

      Only ONE disciple did not do this. One of them leaned on Christs chest and asked if it was him that was going to betray when he asked….”Who is it?” Not coincidentally, it was that disciple that was at the foot of the cross BEARING WITNESS. In fact that was such a poignant moment when he reclined at the table, Peter later asked Christ after the resurrection about that disciple that reclined at the table.

      DO not boast about being a Saint. There are a lot of false teachings, and a lot of the pointing fingers. I would consider researching some things.

      Watch the Journey Home either on youtube or on EWTN. Listen to conversions and the false preconceived notions that have been taught or accused about the Catholic Church. The very Church the Bible itself came from.

  • John McConnell

    JoAnna, you appear to be missing the point entirely. One can be immoral and still remain Catholic – as were the popes you list. But one cannot be a heretic and remain Catholic – as is Frannie the Funky Faith Guy. This is made clear in numerous infallible papal teachings. See for example Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, or Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, which latter states: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      John, that’s not true. If one is baptized Catholic, one always remains a Catholic by virtue of his/her baptism, which leaves an indelible mark on one’s soul. One may be a dissenting Catholic or a non-practicing Catholic, but they are still a Catholic — just as those who are excommunicated are still Catholic. Benedict XVI remarked upon this when he issued a motu propio stating that even baptized Catholics who no longer identify as Catholic are still bound by canon law to observe the Catholic forms of marriage:

      Calling the Holy Father “Frannie the Funky Faith Guy” is very disrespectful, by the way. Dislike the man all you wish but have respect for the papal office.

    • John McConnell


      Thank you for your comment.

      On what authority are you *contradicting* Pope Leo XIII?

      1. Canon 188.4 makes clear a public heretic incurs latae sententiae excommunication – outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church; it bases this on Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559.

      2. By your logic Martin Luther was Catholic after he was anathematized and indeed everyone who is baptized is a Catholic because the pre-Vatican II Church declared sovereignty only over the baptized.

      3. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, #22, 1943: 22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

      In other words, your entire position, JoAnna, is refuted on multiple counts by Pope Paul IV, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XII. Your position is alien to authentic Roman Catholic dogma.

      So again – on what authority are you *contradicting* the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ and His Apostles?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I’m not the one contradicting the Magesterium, unless you believe that Benedict XVI was a heretic too?

      The doctrine has developed since the time of St. Augustine and Leo XIII. No one can remove the mark of baptism indelibly placed on their soul. People can excommunicate themselves from the Church by their actions but they still remain Catholic by virtue of their baptism, even if they are not allowed to partake of the Sacraments.

    • Idjit As Hael

      Yes Benedict XVI was an heretic also, just like his predecessor JPII and Paul VI and John XXIII…
      You truly embody the Vatican II sect typical adherent.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      But it’s really irrelevant as Pope Francis is not a heretic, nor has he promulgated any heretical teachings.

  • AugustineThomas

    *The massive amount of Novus Ordo Heretics have jointly brought “Catholicism”, aka Christendom, to its knees.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Sorry to hear that you feel the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. Are you an atheist now, since you believe Jesus was a liar?

    • AugustineThomas

      I think you’re confused Ms. Wahlund. Would you rather have me an atheist than a critic of the rampant heresy at the huge majority of Novus Ordo Masses?
      Can you explain to me why you support the inferior Mass over the superior one? Do you agree with Pope Francis persecuting the FFI for their orthodoxy, because they threaten his heretical leftist beliefs? Do you believe every pope has been perfect and one is not Catholic unless they say so?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Why bother criticizing any Mass if Jesus was a liar? Doesn’t that mean that He was not God (since God does not lie) and that Catholicism is a sham anyway?

      Can you quote Church teaching (say, a papal encyclical) stating that the Extraordinary Form is superior to the Ordinary Form? I wasn’t aware that was a teaching of the Church. For the record, I’m a both/and Catholic – my personal opinion is that they are both excellent forms of the Mass when celebrated properly and reverently. I don’t think that one is inherently superior than the other.

    • AugustineThomas

      I’m quite offended that you’re calling Jesus a liar. The fact that heretics at Novus Ordo Masses disobey Christ does not make him a liar. Christ our Lord and the Holy Spirit gave us the perfect Mass, through the work of faithful Catholics through the ages.
      The Novus Ordo Mass is a product of the narcissism of the Sexual Revolution and all the bad Catholics who participated in it and thus is filled with irreverent practices, which is why it is inferior to the Mass of the Saints. (To use one of my favorite Americanisms: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      I’m not calling Jesus a liar; you are. I think that Jesus told the truth when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. You are calling him a liar, because you are insisting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.

      What do you think of my quote from Benedict XVI, above? Is he a heretic too?

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re putting words into my mouth Ms. Wahlund. The Church has always been afflicted with heresy, that doesn’t mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. Did the saints and faithful Catholics who overcame the Arian Heresy also not believe in Jesus because they wanted to rid the Church of heresy?

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      You said, above, “The massive amount of Novus Ordo Heretics have jointly brought “Catholicism”, aka Christendom, to its knees.” That sure sounds like you’re saying that Catholicism has been destroyed by “Novus Ordo Heretics.” I don’t recall any of the Church fathers saying that the Arians brought Christendom to its knees.

    • AugustineThomas

      So to you, being brought to one’s knees and being destroyed completely are the same thing?
      And, yes, many great saints and orthodox Christians believed that the Church has been brought to its knees at several points in its history. The Holy Spirit is what lifts it back to its feet, by destroying heresy when the orthodox come together to rid the Church of it.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Yes, that’s what the idiom means. See here:

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re using a faulty resource.

      bring someone to his / her knees, to force someone into submission or compliance.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      The Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed., is a faulty source? Why do you say that? And where is your definition from, given that you failed to cite your source?

      Could it possibly be that your source is the one that is faulty? Do you think that is within the realm of possibility?

    • AugustineThomas

      Here is another: 1. reduce someone or something to a state of weakness or submission.
      I can’t find your reference. The only dictionary I see giving this faulty definition is “The Free Dictionary”, which seems to have quite a lot of faulty modern definitions. People don’t take language seriously anymore and think whatever they want something to mean, that’s what it means, especially if they put it on a website.
      It seems quite illogical to suggest that I would be destroyed by being brought to my knees. I have been brought to my knees on several occasions and I’m still here!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      You need to actually follow the link. That’s how citations work.

      bring somebody/something to their knees

      to destroy or defeat someone or something Sanctions were imposed in an attempt to bring the country to its knees. The strikes brought the economy to its knees.

      See also: bring, knee

      Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006. Reproduced with permission.

      Given that the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary contains this definition, it can hardly be considered uncommon. You may want to rethink your usage of it, and use either a different idiom with a less problematic meaning or simply use clearer language.

    • AugustineThomas

      You’ve lost it. Destroying someone means to obliterate them, blow them up, put them to death. I’m sorry if you found a few bad dictionary entries (that’s not hard to do these days), but that doesn’t change the fact that “bringing to one’s knees” means to stop someone or something from moving forward by force.

      Anyway, this was a meaningless debate. The point is that Pope Francis is encouraging heretics and persecuting the orthodox (we have yet more proof of that now).

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” – Pope Benedict XVI,

      But I suppose you think he is a heretic too?

    • AugustineThomas

      I think BXVI rightly thinks that it’s better to have heretics near to orthodoxy than further away from it (i.e. that there should be a “beginner’s Mass” or a “Protestant-friendly Mass”). I agree with him. I’m not trying to ban the Novus Ordo Mass. What’s utterly insane is that heretics are trying to ban the Mass of the Saints.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      That’s a very interesting interpretation considering that BXVI said nothing of the kind about the OF in his quote or the letter in its entirety. Can you give me a quote from BXVI where he sais the OF is a “beginner’s mass” or a “Protestant-friendly mass,” or a mass suited only for heretics? Because the beginning of the letter quoted above also has this:

      “In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

      Do you disagree with him in that the OF and EF are a twofold use of the same rite?

    • AugustineThomas

      Of course he’s going to be more diplomatic than me about it. I think they’re equally valid and that the Mass of the Ages is superior. If we receive Christ’s body and blood, we’re participating in the most important miracle in the universe, no matter how much humans mess up the liturgy. I think it’s entirely up to Christ which Masses he blesses with his presence and that he will bless Novus Ordo Masses which are reverently celebrated. That doesn’t change the fact that one is superior and one is inferior.
      (For the record, I think the Byzantine and other rites are as beautiful and perfected as the traditional Latin Rite Mass. Only the Novus Ordo Mass is Protestantized and most often irreverently celebrated.)

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      But there is nothing at all in the text — or in any of his writings — to indicate that he believes that the EF is inherently superior to the OF, as you do.

      You can definitely prefer the EF to the OF. Even if you think that one is inherently superior than the other, that’s your prerogative. But it’s definitely bordering on hubris to claim that it is settled fact or Church doctrine that the EF is “inherently superior” to the OF. Benedict XVI doesn’t think so and he is a huge proponent of the EF.

      I’ve been going to OF masses my entire Catholic life (my confirmation was 11 years ago today!), along with the occasional EF mass. There have been a few OF masses that I thought could stand to have a little *more* reverence, but that weren’t outright irreverent. But then I went to an EF low mass once that, while celebrated perfectly as far as I can tell, was very hard to follow because I was wrangling several small children at the time. I had no clue what was going on (couldn’t follow along in the Missal because of the child wrangling) and the priest was speaking so low I couldn’t hear him. (BTW, if you’re ever in my neck of the woods, check out

    • AugustineThomas

      Perhaps if you go to more than a couple of them, you’ll begin to understand them. The mystery of a language that is not your native tongue can be a great grace. Furthermore, Latin truly makes us a universal and unified church.
      BXVI only celebrated Novus Ordo Masses when he was forced to as pope. That should tell you something. Of course he’s not going to offend Catholics he hopes to bring further up and further in, so to speak, by telling them that they could be going to a better Mass.

      There are plenty of Catholics being accepting towards heretics and apostates. It can’t hurt to have a few of us tell the truth even when it’s painful!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Okay, help me out here. Please provide a quote from BXVI where he says the EF is “Inherently superior” to the OF. Perhaps you can even write him a letter asking for his opinion.

      I’m sure BXVI prefers celebrating the EF. No surprise there. But having a preference and stating as fact that one is inherently superior than the other are not the same thing. I prefer the OF but I don’t think that it is inherently superior to the EF.

      Are you saying that the Holy Father Emeritus sacrificed truth on the altar of non-offensiveness? That’s really strange because he has never shied away from promulgating difficult teachings before, even when they offended people.

  • Ancient Mariner

    The Philippines MSM and high-profile progressive Catholic personalities extensively quoted Pope Francis in order to uphold the Philippines RH Law, which mandated government distribution of contraceptives, including abortifacient ones, for free, and which provided penalties for those who refused to take part in or abet the Law’s provisions. Those Bishops, priests, and laity who voiced opposition were overwhelmed by the media blitz. Their claims that the Holy Father’s words were being taken out of context looked rather feeble under the tsunami of papal quotes. The Philippines Supreme Court finally struck out the Law’s opening to abortion, and reaffirmed conscientious objection rights. But it was devastation on a spiritual scale equivalent to Typhoon Haiyan. Worried Filipino Catholics now expect the push for a Divorce Law to take advantage of this pontificate. And if the upcoming Extraordinary Synod turns out in the way that they fear, they see no hope of resistance to it.

  • Tom

    Good work Joanna.. may our lord’s spirit fill you with his wisdom so that you can share & guide many to light

  • Deanna Clark

    There is a difference between believing that all in Heaven are Catholic…that is they live in truth… and in believing that all in Heaven were practicing Catholics in their temporal life.

    The Holy Spirit leads all to the truth and to a good life. Jesus comes to many people in His many qualities…Counselor, truth, mercy, compassion, beauty, solidarity, magnanimity. God has other names throughout the Bible and Jesus exhausts every path to save the human soul. Heaven is full of surprises!

  • Not your business

    Let’s pray that his (can be an organization) wounds (as a metaphor not literally or physically) will heal after all. Sometimes when people dig pits for each other it is equivalent that they do it against themselves. Many people are looking good for Jesus for money. It is allowed so they can demonstrate themselves to society and how they treat society.

  • Not your business

    Let’s pray that his (can be an organization) wounds (as a metaphor not literally or physically) will heal after all. Sometimes when people dig pits for each other it is equivalent that they do it against themselves. Many people are looking for Jesus for money, wealth and power in order to serve them. It is allowed so they can demonstrate themselves to society and how they treat society.

  • Aage Takvam

    MSM is NOT a place to read, if you are a serious person.

  • Jim M.

    Francis is wonderful because other popes were worse? Sure, JPII and BXVI were controversial, but usually for standing up for orthodox Catholicism in no uncertain terms. Yes, they had some odd moments when orthodox Catholics were confused by what they said or did, but those were few and far between. It is the repeat blunders by this new pope, so many in just a little over a year, that has many wondering. Now, he concelebrates the Mass with a pro-homosexualist activist priest who is arguable already under automatic excommunication. Francis also loves to bash free market economics without balancing his statements with criticisms of statist economics which usually causes even more poverty and general human misery. Dismissing people’s concerns won’t make them go away, not as long as Francis is still pope and we sit upon the edge of our seats awaiting the next bizarro actions or words from our wack-a-doodle pope.

  • Jarl

    Pope Francis is garbage. Totally Jew controlled puppet pope. He should be hanged, honestly.

  • clayton3120 clayton3120

    Amusing article, Joanna. I must say, it does take a bit of stability and intelligence to keep the Church, the Pope, bishops etc. in perspective. Your article made me laugh, and yet instilled a bit of calm in all the noise of the media concerning the pope.

  • hobby fritz

    I think, if anyone has come close to destroying the Catholic Church it would be Benedict. I am not saying he destroyed it because no one mortal has that ability unless we allow it. I am saying that if a pope can just walk away then a portion of the foundation of the church is no longer solid. (If he left because of a mental issue and could not possible do the job then the people should be or should have been told that reason and that would be acceptable but other than that, no matter what kind of burden it becomes, you carry the cross you are given).

  • Jim M.

    Really hard to know what Pope Francis intends to say and do because I really wonder if even Francis knows what is behind his words and actions. Looking for a pattern, a theological current, an agenda may just be pointless. After great men like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Francis just seems like the genial, slightly dotty old uncle whom everyone loves and the rest doesn’t matter. And that is OK. Not every pope needs to be profound and knowledgeable. The Lord bless Pope Francis, as Vicar of Christ he may be God’s sign that we need to laugh more. Since we have been given a clown pope, we need to be grateful and stop griping or arguing about it. On with the show!.

  • action hero

    Interestingly, St. Faustina

    > wrote in her diary that her “worst day of suffering”

    > where she felt as if she was in Gethsemane (where Jesus was

    > betrayed by Judas) was the SAME EXACT DAY POPE FRANCIS WAS

    > BORN. She writes:


    > ” December 17, 1936. I have offered this day for priests. I

    > have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly

    > and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to

    > suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy

    > Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the

    > bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane.”

    I think Sr. Faustina suffered so much bitterness and betrayal
    on that day (12/17/1936) because, unknown to her,the False Prophet
    was born somewhere on that day.

    It is also the day Pope Francis was born.
    What a marvelous coincidence!


  • Pingback: Celebrities Behaving Badly: The Popester Is No Dopester | Kibbitz Corner

  • Howard Payne

    Most of these posts appear to be from closed minds either way.
    What is needed is to talk to each other condescendingly. Our only source of
    truth as scholars say is the New Testament which is a 98% reconstruction
    of the original autographs of the Apostles.
    Even Jerome used it and the LXX to translate his Vulgate. We must
    use it to determine what a text says before we can extrapolate what it means.
    That is the process Paul advised Timothy in 2 Tim 2:15. The Greek word
    for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” is “ortotomunto” = cut it straight.
    The first word means, “Make maximum effort.”

    There is only one verse Romanism claims to use to prove its
    continued existence and that is Matthew 16:18 (Google). If we can show by
    an analysis of Jesus words said that he would build his church on himself as its
    chief cornerstone then, that church should be identified as a fraud and has no
    foundation. Research 61years.
    Second book, “Counterfeit Church” free on request (263 pages).

  • Tionia

    I never rely on headlines but by what Pope Francis’ actual words were. Francis is bringing the Catholic Church and the Catholic Community back to what Jesus Christ taught. People are coming back to the church because of Pope Francis. I know people who have said they would never go back that are now back at home all because of Pope Francis.

    Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

    The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (“Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . “).

  • reader1968

    Such a headline sounds like it was written by a gossip magazine writer. The next headline is “Pope Francis: I was abducted by aliens”

  • Cathy Harrell

    Good job.

  • dpharisee

    I am trusting the HOLY SPIRIT to do the rest of getting into the peoples mindd what the pope really meant. We should not be alarmed. Let the HOLY SPIRIT takes over. The pope is being USED in a most incredible way like no other. Yes he does not speak the language well so he cannot use terms to be understood but so are most of the stories we read in the bible if each of us had to interpret it on our own its hard for anybody to grasp..

  • foundation for truth

    since the beginning of time of catechism , the only thing that has happen for humanity is suffering,humiliating,destruction,trickery,deceit, lies and genocide.Why is this happening? why did this happen? Why did your god made this possible.
    Well the damn truth is that god did not make this happen. this is the work of ignorant human beings to control through power and eventually create one world religion.
    There is a false church that’s planning salvation through peace of the middle east. The manifestation of the end of the world!

    We want our fundamental rights back. We want our souls back. we want peace for all humanity.This is the only way we will ever reach true freedom.
    And it needs to happen NOW.

  • Theodore Plum

    Perhaps it’s time to understand the true tenets of Christianity and accept that Pope Francis is doing nothing more than simply being a Christian. This is not about Catholic dogma but instead about following the teachings of Jesus.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Following the teaches of Jesus to their fullest extent means being Catholic, so I agree with you!

  • nworder

    I have read a bit about the scandalous popes. But if we go back to the NT and imagine say that Peter and Paul had encountered a church leader like one of these popes – surely they would have excommunicated them and kept them out of the church warning fellow christians about them.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Perhaps. But then again, Peter denied Christ 3 times and he went on to lead the Church.

    • nworder

      But Peter repented and was shattered by his failure when he was sifted but only momentarily he quickly returned in a few days.

  • Ray Tapajna

    Pope Francis speaks in the common language of our times. As Catholics, we wonder about some of the connotations. Let us not forget he is a man – a deep common sense and compassionate man. As Catholics we are free to take in what he says and ponder what is behind what he is saying. Perhaps many have more questions than they would like to have about his utterances but we must remember he is not speaking ex cathedra in a solemn way where we must accept what he is saying as doctrine.

    Jacque Maritain, one of the last great philosopher who perhaps will be designated as a doctor of the church in years to come, says God can use any means He wants to save the world. He does not necessarily have to just use the so called Divine Order of Things but perhaps God is waiting for us to get the natural order more in sync with the Divine. Pope John XXlll, opened the windows of the church through Vatican 2 but it seems like we were not ready for it. There was nothing wrong with Vatican 2 but apparently the people were not ready to live the ideal life on earth according to Vatican 2. Human nature has a way of playing games.

    It is obvious, the people need to find ways to clear the path and spread their day of worship into the work week. As an advocate for workers dignity, I explore the latent response of religion and philosophy to the global economy. Free trade economics is a mess where we allow human nature to avoid – doing unto others as you would have them do to you. We are putting the cart before the horse in talking about a world religion. So, I will let Pope Francis sort out the counter points knowing that there is only one true church even though other people of good will can be saved. Cardinal Newman said we must all follow our conscience even if that conscience is ill-informed.

    Was Pope Francis was inspired by another St Francis ? at Ray Tapajna LInkedin Articles or at

  • jacobhalo

    The Muslims will go to hell if they have read the teachings of Jesus and they have refused to believe them.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Judging the state of anyone’s soul is above my pay grade.

  • Julie

    I think when you get such extreme comments, you have to come to the point that nothing you can say will change their mind.

    The media has already misrepresented him as well as this older journalist, who later apologized for doing so.

    It behooves me how people can have so much hate and not want to find the truth about our faith, claiming to be ‘christian’.

  • Chris Blackington

    This article set my mind at ease, and i ended up chastising myself inwardly for taking the media’s word about the pope I have to confess. Peace be with you and God bless you all.

  • Zola Ingram

    Pope Francis is more like Jesus than any recent popes….read the Bible and our Church’s Catholic Social teachings…what’s your problem. You’re the ones trying to destroying the church if Jesus.