Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,246 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 34832

Posts: 379

My Comments: 1394

User Comments: 2546

Photos: 4

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 5

Points: 7156

Last Online: 2 days ago




Pope Francis and his moral responsibilities

Added: Saturday, January 15th 2022 at 12:08pm by tjdonegan


            Pope Francis – as all Pope’s preceding him – is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “he who stands in the place of the Master in His absence.” Now, since Francis stands in Christ’s place while He is away, Francis – as all previous Pope’s - is tasked (i.e., obligated) with “minding-the-store” i.e., clearly i.e., unambiguously – articulating the teaching’s of Jesus Christ1 and the teachings of Christ’s Church (The Roman Catholic Church and providing implicit-guidance2 to denominational Christian Church’s) while occupying the seat-of-Peter3.

1 “God, made man” i.e., “God come to earth” i.e., “God is with us”, i.e., “the 2nd Person of the Triune God” etc.

2 I argue/opine that irrespective of whether denominational Christian Church’s explicitly acknowledge the Church of Rome i.e., the Roman Catholic Church as their origin, each tacitly/implicitly understands such as the fact, and each implicitly takes tenuous (each allowing themselves whatever latitude they deem necessary, so as to satisfy the particular formation of their particular moral consciousness and its compliment theology) guidance from Rome. That is to say, Rome’s understanding of Christian teaching is something of a mooring-line for denominational Christian Church’s. Note that mooring-lines allow the ship (Church) movement… As consequence, denominational Christian Church’s enjoy a certainundefined/unspecified latitude i.e., theological/moral freedom [whether explicitly or only tacitly acknowledged], which allows the typical denominational Christian Minister a moral circumspection and theological confidence… Note: this comment is my speculative opinion… 

3 “…And so I say to you, you are Peter” [i.e., rock], “and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16: 18


If one happens to be unaware of Christ’s teaching, and those teachings of Christ’s Church, then - very likely - one may/would wrongly4 (Francis abuses both the teaching of Jesus’ and those of Christ’s Church i.e., the Catholic Church) come to understand that those teaching’s pretty much reflect the teachings of the American social-political Left; this because Pope Francis (as the “Blind guide” that he seems to be; we wonder whether Francis practice of distorting Church teaching is intentional, or merely resultant from an inveterate sentimentality?) has emphasized – and distorted – ‘straining-out-the-gnat,’ while perversely ‘swallowing-of-the-camel’ i.e., Francis has largely made much of politically-correct etiquette – treating such (the politically-correct) as morally obligatory – as he hasmumbled, de-emphasized and/or perverted core/central moral Church teachings, treating – on occasion even intimating that the insistence of such teachings as orthodoxy (e.g., traditional marriage, traditional-family and natural law morality), as passé bigotry…

4 Pope Francis tends to employ something akin to the magician’s prestidigitation, or slight-of-hand to advance a theological view which connotes a “process god” i.e., a view in which God is identified with the dynamism of the Universe; thus, a god very unlike  the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and very unlike the Lord Jesus Christ. Pope Francis seems to rely upon ambiguous language - couched in popular sentiment – which allows him to make amenable to the common Catholic/Christian the advancement of insidiously corruptions of doctrinal and sociological teachings, papering over inherently contradictoryintimations-of-teachings (these are alluded to – or made reference to – without formally and explicitly promoting such teachings; this allows for casting such reports upon such matters as predicated upon some visceral animus for Francis - or representative of some variety of some bigotry ...  With time, the corrupt – and generally irrational - teaching, as consequence of the moral entropy attending the culture-of-death, is made to acceptable to those dynamic “Catholics/Christians” [seeming a large majority of those that profess Christ] who are animated by the dynamically entropic dominant-worldview. That is to say, Francis is attempting to alter Church teaching – and the Catholic Church - via a campaign of ambiguity. A Pope is supposed to bring clarity to doctrine/teaching, Francis is making unclear what was formerly clear; ambiguity allows the gradual advance of evil.


Of course, Francis is quite popular among sentimental-Catholics5, but those that hold him to the principle of non-contradiction6, understand him as unquestionably antichrist, but are equally uncertain as to whether Francis is merely sentimental i.e., ruled by his passions, or whether Francis is consciously seeking to subvert the Church. 

5 Unprincipled i.e., those that abandon teachings which conflict with their emotions/feelings of reflex i.e., those to be counted upon to abandon the field-of-battle-when-victory-is-in-doubt... A distinction should be drawn between the sentimental-Catholic and the “avowed” Catholic such as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Bob Casey Jr. et al; the former are unprincipled cowards (cowardice is concomitant to their lack of principle…), while the latter are obdurate wolves adorned in fleece ...

6 Contrary predicates may not simultaneously inhere in a subject related to the same aspect of existence e.g., “An entity may not simultaneously exist and not exist;” or again, “an object may not simultaneously be changing and unchanging,” and again, “a biological entity may not simultaneously be alive and dead.” Etc.


Now Pope Francis is obliged to address moral matters which tend to confuse the public. We offer, but a few examples of things Francis ought to address – as a responsibility of his office, and so as to mitigate confusion: 1.) As SCOTUS is presently considering whether to strike down the 1973 Roe vs. Wade (the case which legalized terminating innocent intrauterine humans) the Pope as Pope could – publicly – reflect/assert that overturning the decision would re-establish the abandoned unalienable Rights which the decision tacitly abolished. 2.) Francis could have also indicated that, the same SCOTUS Court should have unanimously rejected Biden’ vaccine-mandate; a mandate which implicitly presupposes the illegitimacy of citizen sovereignty, and Francis should have stated that the perceived tenuousness of citizen sovereignty is a logical consequenceof Roe-vs.-Wade decision. Pope Francis has promoted vaccines (which are experimental because they haven’t been subjected to the normal rigorous testing prescribed by U.S. Food & Drug Agency; thus reducing the global population to the moral status of lab-rats! Pope Francis in advocating vaccines implicitly denies human-beings as sovereign moral agents; thus, Francis tacitly asserts humans haven’t the God given right to act contrary to the dictates of the State! Ruminate – for a moment – how Francis would have comported himself – as Pontiff – during the 1930’s and 1940’s…?). 3.) Pope Francis – as the vicar-of-Christ is ontologically obliged to state that there are but 2 genders i.e., male and female7, and if the behavioral-sciences – (and note Francis is - ostensibly - a “scientist” who ostensibly possesses a degree in chemistry) – seem to be spreading errors regarding such things asgender dysphoria – in their normalizing sundry perversities, Francis could utilize his office to ask “What competency do disciplines (the empirical science disciplines) – professionally bound to 4-Space (i.e., material existence) – possess to address metaphysical considerations8”? And of course is morally obliged to explain – to the world – that the empirical scientist, as scientist - is not competent to speak/argue/suggest regarding anything whatsoever which cannot be empirically measured or may be pointed to or immediately experienced. Additionally, Francis (a duty shared by all people religious, but particularly it is an obligation of the clergy) – has the moral duty – to explain the ubiquitous moral duty (a duty shared by all humans; the neglect of this duty is known as “Sloth9.”) ofall humans to acquire the understanding as to the limitations of understanding (e.g., the limitations of the empirical sciences), so as to avoid being manipulated i.e., moral beings have a obligation for moral sobriety – whereby each human utilized a portion his/her leisure to make an effort to know/understand those things which a free citizen ought to know e.g., the fact of original sin which – if understood – argues humans should be trusted to be untrustworthy!

7 “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Matthew 19-4.

8 For example: “the disposition of the human soul.” Note: even the denial of existence of the human soul is beyond the competency of the empirical sciences … The empirical-sciences cannot address things moral, right/wrong, good/evil and such because their criteria and method place all such things beyond the realm of the science’s measure! Many – implicitly, and/or explicitly – treat only those things which may be measured as meaningful, or as subjects with which society should be concerned, but if the sciences restrict themselves – and hold that society – too –should restrict itself to the concerns to the measurable, then neither the empirical sciences or society may discuss any topic whatsoever, since such discussions are ineluctably laden with metaphysics i.e., with ideas/concepts which transcend empiricalmeasure…

9 Sloth is the Capital Sin that may be defined as: “Not attending to that which one is dispositionally obliged to attend.” Sin (sin is:” turning/rejecting from God”) which renders one susceptible to other sins…


Thomas J. Donegan




User Comments

This P, Francis, was predicted long ago by a Catholic Monsignor, I think, to be the number in the line of popes...  the one who will be the Antichrist! Ref: Bishop Sheen.

Hi, FedUp!

What is unclear is whether Francis understands what it is he is doing, or whether he is bound by having imbibed the perverse dominant (antichrist) worldview...?

Cordially, tjd

In my opinion (Bible's, too, I think!), sin(s) makes one who is "born-again" blind to a fair amount of God's truths.  So I think his actual understanding of where he is in understanding & what he stands for is not at issue...for, simply being blind from sins negates him from being able to operate in/from righteous influence.--Is he in sins(s)? ...is the relevant question. (indeed, he may not even be 'born-again'!)

In my opinion he is (even if he is born-again) in many both smaller and larger sins, and that makes him, at least somewhat blind and inoperative to some or all of God's truths ...and thereby he is puppet to Satan's evil agendas (a "useful idiot" to/for Satan's agendas).

Hi again, FedUp!

The Sacrament of Confirmation - formally instituted at the Council of Trent (1545-63, as were all 7 sacraments) - is not called being "born-again" (I do believe such nomenclature is quite recent; circa 1960's???...), but the Sacrament embodies and completes the giving of the individual's soul over to the Holy Spirit, but each individual retains his/her will to defer/acquiesce to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, or to reject such promptings … Professing Jesus Christ as “Lord-and-Savior” seems to have been anticipated by Christ viz: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” Matthew 15: 8-9 and elsewhere. Irrespective of what an individual professes Jesus – in Matthew 25: 31-40 seems to clearly delineate the conditions of salvation, just as He seems to clearly describe the damned later in the same Chapter 25: 41-46.

The Catholic Church - knowing "faith" is conditioned by reason (all other animals - of which we humans are aware - are not bequeathed rationality {Rationality is itself an emanation of God}, and are thus, incapable of faith, faith which presupposes reason a.k.a. rationality when dispassionately employed...) implicitly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas dictum: “Faith highly taxes, but never contradicts, reason,” and thus, the sober Catholic clergy (to include Popes), and theologians concern themselves with the cultural worldview which insidiously may seduce reason leading the individual to unconsciously perverting Christ’s teaching – so as to agree with a perverse age. Pope Francis – more so than any other individual Christian – is tasked with serving Jesus Christ by making clear Christ’s teaching; not allowing such teaching to be bent, twisted, mis-quoted, removed from context by anyone, or any entity (e.g., Governments) that would allow the faithful to be confused, and /or misled. Francis seems to be doing exactly the opposite, and – it is my view – Francis accepts the dominant worldview and this allows Francis – as every other human that consciously, or unconsciously, accepts the ubiquitous worldview – to remake the Triune God into one that agrees with the worldview (and thereby remaking all of reality – to include what is “good” and what is “evil” …) that informs and flatters the individual. Because of this – if I am correct – Francis when ever he is so animated (Francis is moved viscerally rather than by the promptings of reason and the moral principles which attend to reason…). So we argue – again – Jorge Bergoglio (P Francis), worships Jorge Bergoglio, but we do not know that he is conscious of such…? The Holy Spirit, and God’s grace, are only efficacious to the soul which incessantly denies itself because such an individual then lives to realize the Truth; which is what Jesus means by “denying one’s self daily, picking up one’s cross and following Him.

Cordially, tjd

Yes... I was one.  IMO Catholic's (and especially this latest pope!) are in a lotta baloney...  Not everything, but in many points.

The Pope is simply ushering in the new, politically correct, One World Government religion. I knew that from day one, as soon as the media collectively embraced him. They fell all over themselves while praising him. The Catholic church was taken down from within by the perverts and pedophiles in their midst. The church lost any and all credibility by covering for the abuses they committed.

Hi, Nate! 

A historic theological teaching of the Catholic Church (it is implicitly part of the Apostle’s Creed) is that the Church - like Jesus Christ - in that 2 nature's occupy a single entity; Jesus has a Divine nature - as the 2nd person of the Triune God - and a sinless human corruptible (i.e., the body was subject to the laws-of-physics and the human will was capable of sin) nature, both of these natures occupy the single person Jesus-Christ. Similarly the Catholic Church has a temporal body (the physical structures and the individual members – susceptible of every human weakness and of turning-from/betraying God), and the mystical-body of the Church (i.e., the Divine transcendent Communion of Saints and Angels and sundry faithful living Christians united to Jesus Christ via the sacraments). The temporal body of Christ has failed its groom (Jesus Christ is the groom of His bride – the Church) many times during the last 2 millenniums; Francis may be the latest iteration of bad Pope’s (there have been quite a few), or he may be “the-end-of-the-line.” Christ makes the statement: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16: 18. Consequently, the Church – in its mystical-body (it may be quite small) – will endure until Christ returns.

On a now defunct blog (Bestthinking.com), I wrote what I thought would be manifest from Jorge Bergoglio (Francis), and he has fulfilled my expectations, but the much of the Catholic Church has been in awaiting a Francis for more than a generation (the lion-share of Catholics in former Christendom i.e., Europe, USA, et al have been heterodox since the 1960’s and before; in the USA most vote have voted Democrat…). Pope’s John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI were in a situation similar to POTUS Trump; just as he inherited a Government diametrically opposed to his agenda, so to did those Pope’s face a Church structure (hierarchy and many clergy) opposed to their agenda’s. I won’t complete the parallel’s, but will assert he the homosexual’s and homosexual pedophiles in the Church were largely shielded – by well-positioned pervert’s – that those Pope’s – likely – initially trusted. My guess is that the Lavender Mafia was about entrenched as the Deep-State. Francis – like Clinton, Obama, Biden and/or any sociopathic politician – fits perfectly within the existing corrupt entity they are/were to head…

Cordially, tjd


Not being a Catholic, I've never understood the significance of the Pope. Nor do I understand their habit of kneeling at the crucifix which usually stands at the front of the pews. I went to some do they were having at a Catholic church one time and I just sat down in a pew like they do in Protestant churches and I thought several ladies there were going to have a coronary. 

Hi, Amala!

The Pope is "he who stands in the place of the Master (Christ)" until he returns. In Brief: The rituals of the Catholic Mass (the Mass centers upon the reception of the Eucharist i.e., the actual/real presence of God - in Christ's body & blood under the specimens of bread and wine) are a re-enactment of Holy Week wherein Jesu Christ triumphantly enters Jerusalem is put on trial and is crucified. It is on Holy Thursday - the Last Supper - that Jesus institutes the Eucharistic sacrament (e.g., Luke 22: 14-20). 

As to the "...thought several ladies there were going to have a coronary", it seems - to me - many traditional Catholics confuse ritual with the mission Jesus Christ gave to His Church...

Cordially, tjd

Pope gone woke? 

Fuckin' hilarious to be honest.


Post A Comment