Worst pope ever?

Worst pope ever?

[A rhetorical question?]

By Matt C. Abbott

The following is a powerful commentary from Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., which speaks for itself:

The question raised in the title line above is, I am afraid, no longer just a way to let off rhetorical steam. The present Holy Father is not of course a libertine or a worldly and irreligious seeker of power and wealth, as were a few notoriously immoral medieval and Renaissance popes (e.g., John XII, Alexander VI or Julius II).

On the contrary, Francis is a man whom no one has accused of failing to live up to his Jesuit’s vow of chastity; and his modest personal lifestyle and concern for the poor are not only well-known to all, but remind us that these virtues are central to Christ’s Gospel.

However, the Church’s greatest and most essential treasure – to be guarded and preserved at all costs – is the revealed deposit of saving truth: Christ’s doctrine, transmitted through Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, and given its primary living expression in the Sacred Liturgy.

The aforesaid ‘bad popes,’ in spite of grave scandals in their personal lives, rarely if ever made public statements that contradicted or undermined Catholic orthodoxy. But Pope Francis has not only done that innumerable times in a seeming effort to accommodate Christian doctrine to the worldly ‘wisdom’ of current secular élites; he is – still worse! – harshly punishing those offering orthodox resistance and filling the Church’s key leadership positions with like-minded prelates who will, he hopes, entrench his revolution permanently.

Since this project is provoking a terrible and unprecedented crisis throughout the Catholic Church, and is set to do her far greater long-term damage than an immoral private papal lifestyle, the question must be raised in deadly seriousness as to whether he is the worst pope in history. Not the worst man to attain the papacy; the worst pope – qua pope. The pope whose governance of the universal Church is the most harmful on record.

This pungent LifeSiteNews ‘A-to-Z’ list of the boldest Bergoglian bombshells, all backed up with hyperlinks to documentary sources – click here to read it – strikes me as an excellent resource to pass on to friends and family whose views have been formed by glowing mainstream media presentations of Francis as a smiling, humble, open-minded pontiff, and who therefore can’t imagine why any Catholic should be troubled by his leadership.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Get AQ Email Updates

5 comments on “Worst pope ever?

  1. But he is unleashing the Pentecostal energy and fuzzy vibes of the modernist spirit of Vatican II (or so one modernist prelate claimed). He’s making sinners, non-Catholics, and anti-Catholic secular progressives feel good about themselves, boosting their self-esteem by going after rigid traditionalists and neo-Pelagian triumphalists for holding to orthodox Catholic doctrine. Hardening them in their anti-Catholic attitudes and neo-Gnostic heresy.

    Let’s face it, Bergoglian modernism reflects Jacobin and anti-Catholic Protestant attitudes and folklore. It’s a cartoon. He’s an anti-Catholic demagogue. Robert Drinan on steroids with a Ricky Ricardo voice and Che Guevara’s politics. It would be hilarious (as a stand-up comedy act) if it were not endangering civilization itself and weakening the Church.

  2. A heart-felt welcome to Fr. Harrison. It’s now time to ask yourself if Francis is unique in this regard, or have other recent popes undermined the faith? You’ve stayed on the periphery of Traditionalism while others saw the errors of Wojtyla and Ratzinger, and more. Now that you’ve seen the problems with Francis, you can’t go back.

  3. We don’t really yet know if this Pope is or is not a libertine. It’s for history or Judgement Day to expose his personal sins. I have always been suspicious of those who advocate sexual freedom and have an outward appearance of chastity. It’s not easy to take a position of public acceptance of illicit sexuality and not be succumbed by it at the same time. Bergoglio’s problematic not because he openly accepts sin, but rather denies avoidance of occasion of sin. If one teaches that to others, then it would logically apply to oneself.If one does not avoud sin, then how hard would it be to fall into it, given our fallen human nature?

  4. Pope Francis does not have concern for the poor as Father wrote. Rather, he has concern for those “in the peripheries” of society, marginalized by their deviance. That is to say single promiscuous welfare
    Mammas, divorcees, feminist career women who don’t want children in the way of their freedoms, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, metrosexuals, and the men and women who make it all happen and entitle them. This is not the real poor and lower to middle income struggling to make ends meet.

  5. Bergoglio is 80 (born in 1936) and entered the Society of Jesus in 1958 after three years in a diocesan seminary. His formation occurred when trends in religious life would have been more “rigid” (to modernists) and considered even scrupulous to some. Like others of this generation, he was in his thirties when the effects of Vatican II began to have a deep impact on religious life. Precisely when he embraced the more radical version of progressive modernism and for what reasons, who knows. Certainly some modernists welcomed a more relaxed and liberal attitude toward controversies of moral theology because of their own difficulty observing and remaining faithful to Catholic moral teachings. His spontaneous interview comments, as well as Amoris laetitia, certainly put him on the leftward side of modernist casuistry, similar to modernists like Hans Küng , Charles Curran, Richard McBrien, Robert Drinan, S.J., and Matthew Fox. The idea that Catholic moral teachings on sexuality and marriage are too “rigid” is not a new one in progressive modernism, but excessive enthusiasm for changing such teachings can be indicative of a personal struggle or crisis (as in the case of Martin Luther).

    Bergoglio’s tendency toward flippancy (“small-minded rules” and “neo-Pelagian triumphalism”) might tend to suggest that his antinomian progressive modernism is more than just a theoretical or intellectual insight from theological study. It could be useful to know more about his childhood, whether he was spanked or punished too severely in school, if his mother was scrupulous or a Jansenist who played punishment games which built up resentment, etc.

Leave a Reply