Chile Rattles Bergoglio…

Chile Rattles Bergoglio…


Today your humble blogger returns to a more ecclesiastical subject matter, in the conventional sense of that term. Today I would like to talk about Chile.

Your humble blogger’s take on the Francis trip to Chile and Peru is that Chile rattled Bergoglio!

The first observation which supports the above HYPOTHESIS comes from the post-trip in-air press conference. Reading through the transcripts provided by Ed Pentin at the National Catholic Register (see here), we observe that references to the part of Francis’ trip pertaining to Peru were nonexistent in his comments.


Before going on, please visit Sandro Magister’s blog HERE for the background info to Francis’ Chile “lio”.

Chile was to such an extent “living in Francis’ head rent free”… using a Rush Limbaugh metaphor, that he even answered a question about Chile that he was not asked. The reason he answered this “question about Chile” in the manner in which he did, is that it wasn’t at all about Chile, but rather about Francis and his bishopric of Rome. And he obviously felt that he MUST address this issue.

The question that wasn’t asked, yet Francis felt that he needed to answer, dealt with something that was the most discussed part of his trip to Chile by the Catholic real news media, i.e. the Catholic blogo-sphere. This question that Francis answered also dealt with the most poignant optic derived from the FrancisTrip to Chile and can be seen here:

So here is that question asked by #fakenews CNN: (emphasis added)

Matilde Burgos, CNN Espanol: (Follow up question about Bishop Barros and about a possible distance between the Pope and the people in Chile)

And here is how Francis answered the later half of the question:

And the other (pertaining to the “possible distance”) from Chile is made up. 

I came from Chile happy, I did not expect that many people in the street. (see here) And they weren’t paying an entry fee. The people were not paid nor taken in collectively. The spontaneity of Chile was very strong, even in Iquique, and I thought it was going to be a little thing. But you saw what it was. In the south, the same and in Santiago, the same. The streets of Santiago spoke for themselves.

In this, I think that the responsibility of the informant is to go to the concrete facts. There was this, and this. The thing about a divided people, I do not know where it comes from, it is the first time I hear of it. Maybe Barros is the cause of this, but placing it in its reality it could be because of this. But my impression of Chile was very strong and rewarding. Then, I would like to go back a moment to what most moved me about Chile, at least a moment.

The question that Francis answered wasn’t about the metaphysical nature of the “distance between him and the people of Chile”, but rather about the physical one.  Specifically, about the lack of bodies in the streets and at FrancisFunctions.

This is quite interesting, if not outright telling, in that Francis is a completely superficial creature. Just like Evita Peron. To him, how many people come to see Francis equals those people’s “closeness” to him. And his initial answer to the question is nothing short of completely bizarre.

Think about the following logical construction: Why would more people come if they were charged an “entry fee”?

A completely irrational answer.

But remember, post-Modernists reject logic. So responding by saying “something” for a post-Modernist is much more attractive than saying “nothing”. The reason being that you can always “reinterpret” that which you said at a later date. Once again, to these folks words have no objective meaning and no common usage.

Don’t believe me?

See here:

Yes, in the post-Modernist delusion world, a papal honor and a “papal slight” can be one and the same.

Back to the story.

The second part of his answer is even more telling. The reasoning goes like this: “The people were not paid nor taken in collectively”.

So Francis figures out his initial claim was irrational and does a quick 180 degree turn, but then goes down the Fidel Castro rabbit hole. The casual way in which Francis throws out an example straight from the Castro playbook about corralling “bodies” into the Plaza de la Revolucion is quite astonishing.

Think about this for a second or two…

He sees himself along the lines of the guy feeding the pigeons.

And then consider this HERE.

There is also a nagging thought after contemplating the above, that Francis is actually signalling to the Chilean bishops that they should have used Fidel’s tactics for lining the streets of Santiago for Francis’ visit.

Why else would he suggest say that?

Concluding, the reason why Francis might not be telling the truth when he said: “I came from Chile happy”, and that turn-out numbers really do matter is that Francis has a “popularity” problem. Or as we say on this blog, the SoapBubblePapacy™ created by the #fakenews media and the “c”atholic #fakenews media is bursting.

Just a reminder, here is the chronicle of one recent occurrence of this bubble burting  phenomenon:

And just as a friendly reminder, the 2016 figures will be the indicative numbers for the Francis Extraordinary Jubilee Year of FrancisMercy. (HERE is a CONTEXT post for your information)

On top of this FrancisDisaster, now we get this:

With the youth, Francis didn’t fare any better:

And in Chile (and Argentina) proper, it looks like Chile is the next South American country where the number of Chileans identifying as Catholics falls below 50% of the population.

Meanwhile back on the Old Continent in his native Vatican City and greater Italy, this:

While lurking in the background is the more powerful than ever … (see here and here and Sandro Magister’s take here)

And finally, I will leave you dear readers off with one question.

Given all of the above, who’s idea was it to have Francis, the bishop of Rome, pick Chile, the country in which he made the biggest FrancisMess, to visit in the first place?

Get AQ Email Updates

One comment on “Chile Rattles Bergoglio…

  1. I’m still wondering over that huge discrepancy between Chilean and Peruvian attendance. I really don’t know enough about the religiosity of either nation to explain the phenomenon and it hardly matters, anyway.

    A critic of extravagant but useless papal PR events, ever since Paulo Sisto’s visit to Yankee Stadium, I’ve never supported mega-event Masses, save in particularly appropriate cases, such as when all the bishops and the cardinal primate of Catholic Portugal offered Mass at the site of the Fatima apparitions as part of consecrating their nation to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. Which act DID draw down a number of miraculous graces for that tiny nation in the 1930s.
    I recall an old CFN article in which the late, great John Vennari detailed his own nightmarish experiences at a JPII WYD happening in Toronto. I also recall B16’s Aussie WYD farce, at which mud-encrusted aborigine performers stole the spotlight.
    Need one say more?

Leave a Reply