, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m so excited. I see a lot of fidelity in those guys who are there.

Today your humble blogger turns his humble gaze to an area of the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium that is the biggest success story in this disaster that is the Bergoglian spiritual Jonestown, a.k.a. the Francis bishopric of Rome.

I will begin today with PROOF, and work backwards to the EVIDENCE.

Here is PROOF of the above SUPPOSITION: (see here)


115. Christians too can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned. The result is a dangerous dichotomy, since things can be said there that would be unacceptable in public discourse, and people look to compensate for their own discontent by lashing out at others. It is striking that at times, in claiming to uphold the other commandments, they completely ignore the eighth, which forbids bearing false witness or lying, and ruthlessly vilify others. Here we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6).


[73] Detraction and calumny are acts of terrorism: a bomb is thrown, it explodes and the attacker walks away calm and contented. This is completely different from the nobility of those who speak to others face to face, serenely and frankly, out of genuine concern for their good.

What Francis is referring to in the above paragraph and footnote is what he calls “Copraphagia”. Here’s a post that captures the core issue titled Connecting The Dots On The Coprophagian Papacy…

But what is unsaid in the above, and what would make the above critique of the “internet and various forums of digital communications” consistent, dare I say RATIONAL, would be the KNOWLEDGE on the part of Francis of the IMPLIED INTENT of the given authors.

More generally, in order to assess whether certain forms of communications are “acts of terrorism”, the assessor would need to know (or at least be able to prove) ILL INTENT on the part of the author.

And given that this is the “who am I to judge?” bishopric of Rome, that bar has been set relatively HIGH!

Now, giving Francis the benefit of the doubt, there is a group of communications and internet entities whose INTENT Francis would know. These are obviously people like Frs. Rosica, Martin and Spadaro, i.e. those who sit with him daily at the refectory table at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. The logical inference would be that Francis is speaking to these folks in the above two paragraphs.

On the other side of the “internet and the various forums of digital communication” divide are folks like yours truly, Paul Eddington (aka Mundabor), Louie Verrecchio (aka Catholic), Michael Matt (The Remnant), et al. These folks do not come into contact with either Francis or his entourage, therefore it would be hard for Francis to know the INTENT behind why these people write what it is that they write.

From the critical examination of the literature produced by this latter group, and to the best of this humble blogger’s knowledge, your humble blogger has not run into anything written that could constitute implicit ILL INTENT toward Francis.

Now, this does not mean that harsh (but fair) words have not been written and that edgy words have not been used. Yet is would be a CALUMNY to imply that these words were written with ILL INTENT.

Here is one such example. In a recent post written by Paul Eddington, aka Mundabor, we get this passage: (see here)

Those who, like me, call the man various names (none of which libelous, because all of them very accurate), like “idiot”, “ass”, “boor”, “cretin”, and the like, are merely describing a state of fact, and are alerting their readership about the dangers of, actually, not seeing the facts on the ground because of the reverence due to the office.

The question then becomes, are these types of descriptors harsh, but fair words to use when describing the actions of Francis?

And here is one example of the legitimacy of using a term like “idiot” when speaking about Francis. On three separate occasions, Francis gave an interview or had a talk with a self avowed enemy of the Catholic Church. The self-avowed enemy, one Eugenio Scalfari subsequently related a quote from Francis that suggested that Francis has lost the Faith with respect to at least two Catholic dogmas. (eternal nature of a soul and the existence of hell). After this information appeared in the public domain, Francis did not correct this material heresy attributed to him, nor did he instruct his communications people to correct it. Furthermore, after the first instance, he allowed himself to be “used” in this manner two more times. The last time, the material heresy was even placed inside quotation marks.

Those are the facts.

Now, what to make of the above. If one was to harshly assess Francis’ behavior, one would say that Francis espouses material heresy INTENTIONALLY.

If one was to assess Francis’ behavior in the most beneficial of manners, one would say that Francis has mental issues. One word that describes this sorts of behavior is that it is the behavior of an IDIOT.

Here is the Wikipedia definition:

An idiot, dolt, dullard or (archaically) mome is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Along with the similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin, the word archaically referred to the intellectually disabled, but have all since gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy.

Therefore, any entity on the “internet and the various forums of digital communication” medium designating the person who behaves in such a manner as an IDIOT, is actually being very CHARITABLE.

Concluding, what is key to note in the above is that the part of the “internet and the various forums of digital communication” medium that is criticizing Francis and his actions is very effective. This can be seen by the reference in a document produced under the auspices of a Roman Pontificate.

Next, the harshness, severity and implied ILL INTENT on the part of the “Joy of whatever…” authors, suggest that the criticism is OBJECTIVELY REAL. In fact, it is so representative of OBJECTIVE REALITY that others who were not inclined to critical analysis of a Pontificate, or even a lowly administrative bishopric of Rome, are now writing books doing just this.

The implied intent of the author of this FrancisDocument “The Joy of something or other…” is to intimidate Faithful Catholics and others, not to criticize Francis by labeling them as “terrorists”. A totally asymmetric and UNCHARITABLE assessment of what it is in fact that these individuals are doing.

The most likely reason behind this escalation (from THIS HERE into the form of a full fledged FrancisDocument) of the FrancisIntimidation of Catholic authors critical of Francis and his bishopric of Rome is that their NARRATIVE is becoming the accepted version of REALITY among the Vatican decision makers who not only keep Francis in his current position, but will also be the ones who elect the next Roman Pontiff.

The representation of REALITY that is offered by individuals such as Ross Douthat, Phil Lawler and Henry Sire is a further problem to Francis and Team Francis since it can’t be RECONCILED with their FAKE NARRATIVE. What we are seeing is that the #fakenews media and parts of the “c”atholic #fakenews media are still propping up the FAKE NARRATIVE of Francis and his team, but the middle and upper management are already in the camp of the OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Here is the latest confirmation to have appeared of just this:

Yes, the above appears to be a correct assessment of the situation.. in Occam’s Razor terms.

So all in all, I think this is a correct reading of the situation.

As to the KEY VARIABLE to watch going forward, of more importance than the KIRCHENSTEUER or any other “interim” (in Roman Time) funding sources are the CROWDS in St. Peter’s Square and those coming (or not coming) to the General Audiences. They serve as the proxy for the state of the post-conciliar church in terms of WALLETS IN THE PEWS.

The CROWDS or rather the absence of the CROWDS is the KEY determinant to whether the middle and upper management of the Vatican accepts the Francis FAKENARRATIVE or the Catholic REALITY BASED NARRATIVE.

This will most likely be the foremost thought in the minds of the Cardinal Electors as they are going into the next CONCLAVE.

And this is regardless of who FRANCIS makes a CARDINAL.

This is the correct ordering of the relationship between these two variables.

Epilogue: Even if the post-conciliar church loses the KIRCHENSTEUER (German Church Tax) proceeds, they can be made up through the disposal of property in the short term, but at the end of the day, through the wallets (and new converts) in the pews in the mid and long term. Contingency plans of this nature are already in place in most of the Western dioceses.

But if Cardinals lose the remaining WALLETS in the PEWS, as represented by the CROWDS (or lack there of) in St. Peter’s Square, it is only a question of time until they lose the KIRCHENSTEUER also, and become a Norwegian Blue nailed to the cage.

And this is because the KIRCHENSTEUER or any other interim source of funds, like the human trafficking ObamaFunds flowing into the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, is in fact a function of the number of WALLETS in the PEWS.