THE SYNOD AND THE FLOOR OF HELL

Well, it appears the Synod on Synodality is over. And while the final session was a monthlong meeting (this month), the whole process took three years and caused a serious ruckus in the Catholic Church (the Church) from all sides. 

However, in the end, at least as the New York Times reports, Francis has "kicked the can down the road."

...progressives who had high hopes that the meeting would create real momentum for change said the final document had failed to move the institution at all. Before the meeting, a variety of sensitive topics were on the table, including the blessing of same-sex unions, reaching out to L.G.B.T.Q.+ Catholics and the possibility of allowing married men to become priests. Those basically vanished.

The only major issue which seemed to remain alive in the final document was the increased role of women in the workings of the Church, but even this is far short of what progressives were shouting for: a female diaconate. 

Instead, the document said that it was urgent for women to have more responsibilities and more say in the workings of the church. When it came to female deacons, though, it said more “theological and pastoral” study was necessary. It suggested that the work of two commissions created by Francis to study the female diaconate be re-examined and the results be presented when the assembly reconvenes next year — “if possible.”

After all the huffing and puffing over the last three years wherein it very much appeared that Pope Francis intended to radically change the very structure of the Church from a monarchal hierarchy (the Kingdom of God) to a "can't we all get along" democracy, Francis pulled the ultimate head-fake.

Fr. James Martin, S.J., the hero of the LGBTQ's who played a major role at the Synod, said it best in saying (in the NY Times article): “I am disappointed, but I’m not surprised.”

Martin is a very smart man. And I suspect he is not surprised for the same reason I am not surprised: Pope Francis, in fact no pope, has the authority to change even the dot on an "i" on matters of defined faith and morals. 

The Synod and the 1960's Birth Control Commission

The whole thing reminds me of a similar scenario played out by Popes John 23 and Paul 6 in the 1960's with their Birth Control Commission. (See here for a more thorough account.)

On Birth Control, the Church's teaching is ancient and clear: NO! 

However, in the 1960's John 23 instituted a commission to look into the matter to see whether or not Catholics might be permitted to contracept with this new thing called "The Pill." John died about a year later and then Paul really did the damage. 

Here's what I mean.

John's original commission consisted of seven clerics - who could pretty much be counted on to say "yah, we looked at it, but no."

When Paul inherited the commission upon John's death, Paul expanded the commission to 72 members and included many lay persons. 

The expansion of the commission, both in numbers and the inclusion of lay persons, was enough to incite all who heard of this to believe that Paul was gearing up to permit chemical contraception (The Pill). 

However, what really got the clergy going in that direction was what Paul said upon his expansion of the commission:

"We say frankly that so far we do not have sufficient reason to consider the norms given by Pope Pius XII on this matter [of contraception] as out of date and therefore as not binding. They must be considered as valid, at least until We feel obliged in conscience to change them." - Paul VI Acta apostolicae sedis (AAS) 56 (1964) 588-59, 1964 address to the special papal commission on the use of contraceptives.

As the foregoing is pope-speak, I highlighted the key words. 

First whenever a pope uses "We," he is speaking magisterially for the whole Church. Had he said "I..," things might have been quite different. But he didn't. He said "We." He then uses "We" again when his says "until We feel obliged...to change them." 

In short, Paul 6 was stating very clearly that he had the authority to change the Church's ancient teaching on contraception, and that he only needed to "feel obliged" to change it. 

An electrifying thrill

As every other major Christian denomination had already permitted contraception (beginning with the Anglican Church in 1930), Paul's announcement sent an electrifying thrill through the Catholic population already caught in the throws of the sexual revolution of the 1960's; and Catholic prelates and clerics everywhere - but especially in the U.S and Europe - began (quietly) counseling Catholic couples that it was okay to contracept because the Church was going to change its teaching soon. 

If anything could cause Paul to "feel obliged" to change Church teaching on contraception, it would be the final vote of the Birth Control Commission he expanded and shepherded; and in 1966, two years after Paul took the reins, his commission voted 65-7...IN FAVOR of lifting the Church's ban on contraception. 

Back to Francis and his Synod

And this brings us back to Francis and what will become his infamous "Synod." 

Paul knew he had no authority to change the Church's teaching on birth control the same as Francis knew he had no authority to bless same-sex unions, ordain women, or many of the other things his Synod proposed to do. 

In the end, Paul took the only way out when he penned Humanae Vitae - which upheld constant Church teaching against contraception. 

HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, Paul manufactured a reason for doing so that was never part of the equation. 

Instead of simply reaffirming perennial Church teaching on the matter, Paul claimed that he could not change the teaching because the vote of the commission wasn't unanimous:

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement... (Humanae Vitae, Par. 6)

Thus Paul left the door open to change Church teaching on contraception to a vote - a unanimous vote - when in fact no vote, and no pope, can ever change it.

One might say that the whole idea of a vote on something as deeply doctrinal as the Church's perennial teaching on contraception was the first precursor to the whole idea of "synodality" wherein everything, from the definition of the Trinity to the Real Presence, would come down to a vote. 

Many Catholics lionize Paul 6 for his stance against contraception in Humane Vitae - and indeed Francis canonized him - but the fact is that it was Paul's own words - demonstrated above - which lie at the root of why most Catholic couples still contracept today. 

So if Paul knew that he could NEVER change Church teaching on contraception and Francis knew that he could never ordain women and bless same-sex unions (etc.), why did these guys go through these years-long exercises only to - as the New York Times says - "kick the can down the road" - which is what they both did?

Well, because. 

Because, both men are "children" of their age. And that age began in the 1960's when "caring," or appearing to care, became more important than truth. 

Paul 6 probably was really not expecting his commission to vote as it did, so he probably felt safe in saying what he said. But when the commission did not vote per his expectation, Paul probably had one helluva night with the Holy Spirit beating him about his room. 

In other words, Paul, the very Vicar of Christ on Earth, KNEW he was in serious trouble - so he dashed off Humane Vitae, never wrote another Encyclical, and essentially went into hiding until he died about a decade later, lamenting to the end "the smoke of Satan" that he had let into the Church - though he never blamed himself.

Francis, probably the last pope who is a child of the 60's, seems to have wanted to do the same - in the sense of showing that he "cared" aka "I feel your pain." 

But Francis isn't stupid. He knows he is not far from death's door and that eternity is a very long time. And, like Paul, he also knows that not only does he not have any authority to change Church moral teaching, he also knows that "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." (Attributed to both St. Athanasius and St. John Crysostom)

QUESTIONS (AND AN ANSWER) ABOUT FRANCIS

 Frontpage Magazine published "Is Francis Really the Pope?" (May 2, 2022). 

It appears that the question is more motivated by Francis' "teaching" since taking the Chair of Peter rather than the still questionable events that brought him there. In other words: "Is Francis a bad pope?"

The history of the papacy is fraught with “bad popes.” Most famous were the Borgia and Medici popes, but several hundred years before them, around the turn of the First Millennium, there was what came to be known as “The Iron Age of the Papacy,” during which there were about 24 popes in 94 years because they kept assassinating each other. I’ll post a link to an article I wrote about it in the comments.

The good news about previous “bad popes” is they were too busy stealing, killing, and fornicating to teach anything. Not so Francis who oft appears to be rewriting the Catechism during off-the cuff rants on airplanes; which, other than a formal proclamation “ex cathedra,” would be official heresy and which would probably bring about the end of time since Jesus promised that “the gates of hell would not prevail,” which from one angle means that Jesus would show up before Satan prevailed over the Chair of Peter. 

However, “who am I to judge?” 

As a Christian, I am required to believe that nothing, good or evil, happens without God’s permission (see Book of Job). And if Francis is causing confusion and other not-so-good stuff, then his papacy has lots of biblical precedent where, in dealing with the waywardness of the “chosen people,” God gave said “chosen” the leaders they deserved...and usually asked for. 

In other words, at best Francis is simply a Latin American Jesuit come to the big city, and at worst, he is God’s justice for the millions and millions of Catholics who for decades have long since turned back to the fleshpots of Egypt.

 

PETER THE ROMAN?

From THE SPECTATOR:

Pope Francis is now effectively at war with the Vatican. If he wins, the Catholic Church could fall apart

Damian Thompson

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/pope-francis-is-now-effectively-at-war-with-the-vatican-if-he-wins-the-catholic-church-could-fall-apart/

So having gone down a path that had a dead end to begin with (he cannot change moral teaching), he has two options: 1) admit he never should have gone down the path, 2) admit he can't change the teaching.

However, there is a third, and I admit I didn't think he would do this: PUNT. He's going to give the episcopal conferences the authority to decide for themselves. This gets himself off the hook and (like a good liberal) he gets to say "I tried" so he can stay popular.

The only problem is that if the pope knows he cannot change moral teaching then certainly bishops can't either. He knows this.

I have a feeling the Holy Spirit will intervene soon. Either He will give him the grace to do the right thing - as he did for Paul VI on the eve of his penning Humanae Vitae (Paul VI had been intimating that the teaching on contraception would change), or we will soon have a new pope.

Of course there is a third way: THE END. Make sure you're ready.

Note: This is just a superstition I suppose but how many remember the many allusions to the prophecy of St. Malachi after Ratzinger was elected and chose the name "Benedict." The prophecy was that the next pope after Benedict would be the last one.

You will note that in the prophecy the name of the last pope will be "Peter the Roman." I remember laughing all of this off when I first heard about it back in 2005 when Benedict took his name which connected to "glory of the olive." But now we have Francis, who refuses to call himself anything other than "Bishop of Rome." Peter = Francis. Peter of Rome. Peter the Roman. Hmmm. 

RESPONSE TO: WILL THE POPE INFLUENCE GOP CATHOLICS?

My reply to an op-ed in the Pacific Daily News:

Here's the short course in Catholic morality for anyone who cares: 

The direct and willful killing of an innocent person, born or unborn, is an "intrinsic evil" - meaning always and everywhere evil, no matter the circumstances. Catholics are obliged to completely accept this as a moral fact. There is no compromise and not even the pope can change this. 

In matters of the environment and economic systems and other matters that do not fall in the "intrinsic" or dogma category, while being required to give due consideration to a papal "view" and embrace the more universal aspects of an issue (such as a general concern for the environment and care for the poor), Catholics are NOT obliged to conform to what the pope thinks on these things. 

So whereas the pro-abortion democrats placed themselves outside the church whenever they publicly or privately supported abortion, climate-change rejecting Republicans are in no danger of doing the same and are free to oppose the pope on the matter.

THE POPE AND THE DIVORCEE

A man in Argentina receives a phone call from someone identifying himself as Father Begoglio.

The caller asks to speak with the man's wife.

The call is reportedly in response to the woman's letter to the pope, 6 months earlier, complaining that her parish priest had told her that because she was divorced and remarried, she was sinning by taking communion.

The caller tells her that she is not sinning.

The wife tells her husband of the news. The husband posts the news on Facebook. The "press" reads the man's Facebook page. The story reaches the Italian publication La Stampa. The story is re-reported by the British publication the Telegraph and then out to all the world. 

The story is coincidentally timed with a synod that will soon be discussing the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics. 

So at the root of this, we have nothing more than a posting on a Facebook page by a guy in Argentina.

(The above details recorded here.)

However, HERE'S THE REAL PROBLEM. When the Vatican was approached about the story by the Telegraph, the Vatican spokesman said: "We would neither confirm nor deny that - this was a private telephone call made by the Holy Father and we would not divulge the details." 

And as Fr. Z says in his blog: "Sheesh! ….at least uphold Catholic teaching."

Of course this mad confusion will be blamed on the press. But the press attempted to get the story straight. And the Vatican essentially told them it was none of their business. 

But now let's look at the variables. Here is where the pope would be correct in his advice:

1. The woman's first husband is dead.

2. The woman's first husband was not a baptized Christian.

3. The woman's second husband was not a baptized Christian at the time they were married.

4. None of the above but the woman and her current husband are "living as brother and sister." 

5. There are a multitude of other factors including the complex problems with obtaining an annulment which might necessitate a particular pastoral solution.

However, the larger problem - as this is just one of several now that have cropped up since Francis is in the driver's seat - is captured in an interview with Cardinal Meisner who said:

“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

To this, Fr. Z responds: "From this we can perhaps glean that Pope Francis may not be entirely aware of the havoc (¿lío?) that some of his home-spun, off-the-cuff comments in the mainstream media have caused."

RUSH LIMBAUGH ON POPE FRANCIS' EVANGELII GAUDIUM

From RushLimbaugh.com

"It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)".

"I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine.  But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me.  If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be." (He's pretty darn right about that. BusinessInsider.com has the Catholic Church listed as the 3rd largest landholder in the world, behind only Queen Elizabeth and Saudi Arabia.)

"...somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  (He even gives him the benefit of the doubt that someone else wrote this.)

"Now, as I mentioned before, I'm not Catholic.  I admire it profoundly, and I've been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it.  But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political." (This document went way beyond traditional church social teaching. It specifically battered a singular economic system.)

MY NOTE: I have listened to Rush for 25 years. He has always spoken glowingly of Catholicism to the exclusion of every other religion. His respect for John Paul II and Benedict was profound. Thus I have been praying for his conversion. Guess I'm going to have to keep praying.

Rush is not wrong. This letter from Francis was an erratic attack on the free market economy, which has historically lifted more people out of poverty and feudalism than any other economic system. (We can have this discussion another time.)

But there is hope. The Vatican has since taken down the infamous interview with the atheist. The Pope is reported to have "regretted" the publication of the interview...even though it was proudly published and defend on the Vatican's own website.  It's going to be harder to walk away from this one though.

NOT SURE HOW REPLACING A METAL CHAIR WITH A WOODEN ONE HELPS ANYBODY EAT BETTER

I RECENTLY RECEIVED AN EMAIL WITH THIS PICTURE AND TEXT

This truly a man of God and a pope for the people.
In this photo there are 6 differences

1. Changed the golden throne to a wooden chair ...
something more appropriate for the disciple of a carpenter.

2. Did not want the gold-embroidered red stole,
heir of the Roman Empire, nor the red cape...

3. Uses same old black shoes, not the classic red.

4. Uses a metal cross, not of rubies and diamonds.

5. His papal ring is silver, not gold.

6. Uses the same black pants under the cassock, to remember that he is another priest.

Have you discovered the 7th?

Removed the red carpet ..  He is not interested in fame and applause ...
Every day I like Pope Francis more!

FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE TO THE SENDER

I am not excited about the so-called "simplicity" of our new pope. I do not doubt that Francis is sincere, but to suppose that his show of simplicity makes him any less simple of heart or humble than was Benedict or John Paul II or any of the pontiffs of the modern era, would be an error.

In fact, accepting the "trappings" of the office when one personally prefers a less ostentatious public personna can in fact require an even greater humility - as was the case with Benedict, who several times tried to retire to a parish in Bavaria before succeeding to the chair; AND had the ultimate humility to step aside for the greater good of the Church.

On a personal note, it brings back embarrassing memories of my Loyola days when I practiced - with similar fools  - a  false-poverty marked by pre-faded, mall-purchased jeans, Birkenstocks that cost more than a decent pair of shoes, and a careful, self-conscious, disheveled appearance.

(In my case it was even more ridiculous because I actually was poor - or at least much poorer than my upper middle class friends - so purchasing the poor looking clothing actually made me truly poorer.)

And on a practical note, I am not yet sure how replacing a metal chair with a wooden one helps anyone eat better. I will certainly grant the pope his druthers, but I would question any attempt on our part to make something of it.

RESPONSE TO: "CONFESSIONAL NOT A DRY CLEANER", SAYS POPE

"Confessional not a dry cleaner," says pope - National Catholic Register

The problem is not that we do not want to avail ourselves of this sacrament. The problem is that many priests are so out of practice from having not heard confessions for so many years - or were never properly trained that they simply do not understand the difference between hearing confession and counseling or spiritual direction.

For any priest who is reading this, may I humbly suggest that if you feel counseling is needed, to please invite the person - if he or she feels the need - to come and speak with you at another time, but otherwise stick to hearing the confession - unless of course the confessee prefers to talk....but even then, confession may not be the best time for that especially if others are waiting.

Also, may I request that you please do your best to respect the anonymity of the confessee if he or she has chosen to confess anonymously. Sometimes the questions are an infringement on the right to anonymity. I once had a priest who began asking me questions about the size of my family. I answered, and he said "ah-hah"...and then proceeded to take liberties to speak to me personally. I felt violated. I was behind the screen for a reason.

THE FIRST REAL (AND INESCAPABLE) TEST FOR POPE FRANCIS

Marini on Same-Sex Unions: Currying Favor with Pope Francis?

Before I comment, I want to share that in general my respect for individuals as persons and as friends is not influenced by how I feel about issues. As Chesterton said: "we are all in the same boat, and we are all seasick."

Agree with it or not, the Catholic Church simply teaches that the use of sex for anything other than its God-ordained purpose - to be placed at the service of life - is sinful. To what degree it is sinful depends on several factors. But in general homosexual acts are considered by the Catechism to be less sinful than contraceptive acts between married persons: calling homosexual acts only "disordered" and contraceptive acts "evil".

Thus the Church, and this particular Archbishop, can no more call for the legitimization of same-sex unions than it can for cohabitation between opposite sex couples. Neither fulfills the vision of Jesus when in Matthew he says "from the beginning it was not so", and recalls us to God's original order.

The Archbishop is taking liberties with the moral principle "the lesser of two evils" beyond what is intended, and beyond what can be considered moral reasoning. However, the fact that he does is nothing new. Every major heresy in the history of Christianity was started by a priest, bishop, or monk. Ultimately Rome spoke. Given this Pope's unpredictable style...we wait and see.

WHAT TO MAKE OF THE RECENT PAPAL FOOT WASHING

For those of you scratching your heads about the peculiarities of the recent Holy Thursday papal foot-washing ceremony at a Roman juvenile prison, here's a reasonable article by Jimmy Akin. It's essentially an apologia, and Akin, as usual, does a good job. However, I want to point out some issues with Jimmy's apologia. 

St. Catherine of Siena

Akin, in attempting to downplay the significance of the ceremony, notes that the directives in the current missal for the rite, while specifying that it is "men" whose feet are to be washed, the number is not limited to twelve. Akin appears to elaborate this a bit to show that there is some flexibility in the directives. 

However, perhaps the main reason the number twelve is not specified is because the church is assuming that there would be no question. The ceremony occurs during the Mass for Holy Thursday which represents the events of the first Holy Thursday in which both the priesthood and the Eucharist are instituted and the focus is on the Twelve. That there would be twelve who have their feet washed on Holy Thursday should not be a question.

Akin, goes on to note that in John - the only Gospel to note this event - the word "disciples" is used and not "apostles". Akin notes that Jesus had many disciples, giving rise to some question as to just how many feet Jesus washed, and again, posing possible flexibility.  However, at this point, the Twelve were still disciples, not apostles. Disciples means followers, apostles means those who are sent. The Twelve would technically become apostles at the Ascension when there are told to "go and teach all nations". But here, in the upper room, the night before the crucifixion, they are still just followers.

But what is difficult in all this is this sort of preponderance of "gestures" we are suddenly having to grapple with and find reasons for. The pope says he wants to make a point - from everything to paying his hotel bill to doing Holy Thursday at a prison. Fine. But I don't believe that St. Francis hugged lepers and lived in poverty to make a point. Also, St. Francis was not the Pope with a responsibility to the whole church. In fact, as his order grew, St. Francis became extremely conflicted over his increasingly administrative role. In the end, he left (at least physically) the order he started.

Some are deriding any criticism or questioning of the new pope's unusual actions. A pope cannot err in teaching faith and morals, but he can err else-wise, and history is full of such examples. While I don't see any reason for true alarm, I do see the need for the laity to be vigilant. After all, it was a humble lay woman from Siena who restored the Church to Rome in the 14th century after 70 years of the popes hiding out in France. It would be good to read the book TRIUMPH by H.W. Crocker if you haven't already. It appears that we we are in for an interesting time, and a strong sense of history will be required.

FRANCIS THE WAR-MONGER

Published in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, March 24, 2013.

Like most, I had no idea who Cardinal Bergoglio was, and still know very little. Of course, it doesn’t really matter. He’s pope. And where he came from and what he did may have much or little to do with where he goes and what he does as pope. The “spirit blows where it will.” (John 3:8)

To be frank, I paid very little attention to the interregnum and the election and am only glancing at the post-election news. I don’t know about you but I am so nauseatingly tired of the media cackle about whether the new pope will open up the church to contraception, same-sex marriage, women priests, etc, etc. etc. (Yawn.)

The pope can do no such thing and he won’t. End of story. So I just stay away from the news and only glance at stories where the new pope himself has spoken - and so far (not that it matters) I like what I hear.

I like that he has already stood up to both secular and religious powers and was willing to pay the price for doing so. During the debate leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina, he called it a "‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God"  and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” Contrast that with the New York bishops who chose to “keep our powder dry” (their own words) - saying next to nothing while same-sex marriage was legalized in their state.

It is also significant that in opposing same-sex marriage he had the pastoral presence of mind to distinguish the civil recognition of same-sex marriage - which legislatively impacts the whole of society, and private homosexual unions, which do not.

He also called adoptions by same-sex couples “discrimination against the child” who deserves both a mother and a father. He has called abortion what it is - murder, and he has demanded “eucharistic coherence” - which would exclude from receiving the eucharist those who live and speak outside the commandments (e.g. pro-abortion politicians). Contrast that with the flat refusal by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington D.C. to deny holy communion to Catholic pro-abortion politicians.

But there are also some things I find disturbing, not about the new pope, but about how he is being rushed to be perceived. Much is being made of his humility, which is comically antithetical. Many are lauding the fact that he “doesn’t act like a pope”. This is dangerous stuff. To say such things is to demean the behavior of his predecessors. So Benedict didn’t take the bus - are we then to consider him less a pope, less humble, less concerned for our salvation?

Upon his being announced as pope, Francis shunned the usual vestments for the occasion appearing only in his papal “whites”. And, rather than uttering an urbi et orbi-like phrase (e.g. John Paul II’s “Be not afraid”), he opted for a quiet “buona sera” (good evening). He also bowed low and asked for the people’s blessing before giving his.

True, these are humble gestures, but the rush to contrast Francis with his immediate predecessor - who opted for a more traditional presentation, even by Catholic commentators, is disconcerting, trite, and even suspicious.

In fact, allowing oneself to be served and reverenced requires an even greater humility. In the new pope’s case, there is no doubt that his gestures are not “gestures”, but manifest signs of who he really is as a priest from the third world. But he is now more than that. And while he is no longer “Jorge” he is NOT just “Francis”, he is PETER.

In truth, if we believe that the Spirit guides the church, especially in the elections of its vicars, then we must accept that, in dignity, no pope trumps another in terms of a socially assigned “wow” factor. We have who we have. Benedicamus Domino and knock off the comparisons.

Then there is his choice of name. “Francis” is perhaps the most dangerous name in all Catholicism because it has oft been usurped to serve the most ridiculous myths  - especially the delusional modern folkloric incarnation of Francis as a medieval tree-hugging, flower sniffing hippie who flitted about the italian countryside preaching to birds and worshiping the sun and moon.

As is the case of most great men, the man is always greater than the myth. And though the new pope calls Francis a “man of peace”, in truth, Francis was a war-monger, a war-monger who waged a fanatical war against sin and every possible occasion of it.

Upon the occasion of his canonization, Pope Gregory IX compared Francis to Samson, who, seizing the jawbone of an ass, “shattered the fetters of a flattering world.” May the first pope to bear his name do likewise.