Is the Pope Catholic?

I found this article illuminating:

Pope Francis has urged Roman Catholics not to ignore the plight of millions of migrants “driven from their land”, during Christmas Eve Mass.

The pontiff compared them to Mary and Joseph, recounting the Biblical story of how they travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem but found no place to stay.

He has made defence of migrants around the world a major theme of his papacy.

If the Pope is shoehorning the story of Mary and Joseph – a couple who found themselves short of a bed for one night when travelling in their own country to attend a census – into a sermon praising open borders, then it’s a good sign he doesn’t take Christianity very seriously and has little interest in maintaining the Catholic church. This is especially the case since a good portion of the migrants he wishes to welcome are not Christians and likely view him, his words, and his organisation with utter contempt.

Pope Francis, the leader of roughly 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, is himself the grandson of Italian migrants. He said many of today’s refugees were fleeing from leaders who “see no problem in shedding innocent blood”.

If only the masses differed from their leaders, eh? Only every time the leadership changes, often replaced by someone drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens, the result is much the same. It’s almost as if the culture, itself an aggregate of the people, is the problem, isn’t it? Which is why so many of these supposed refugees themselves “see no problem in shedding innocent blood”.

There are more than 22 million refugees worldwide. The latest cross-border influx involves the Rohingya fleeing violence in Myanmar.

Oh yes, we mustn’t forget the Rohingya. Whoever’s doing their PR is lavishing the BBC hacks with lunches somewhere.

The Pope visited Myanmar last month and later met members of the Muslim minority who had sought refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh.

So the Pope saw fit to pander to Muslims but remained utterly silent on the plight of Christians, such as Egypt’s Copts, in Muslim lands. Which religion is he representing, again?

The Pope stressed that faith demanded that foreigners be welcomed everywhere.

The Pope is implying this is some ancient religious tenet, whereas it’s nothing more than a shallow political viewpoint which only came into existence in my lifetime. Those walls around the Vatican and the Swiss guards protecting the entrances are there for a reason, and they’re a lot older than Pope Francis.

At Midnight Mass in Bethlehem, local Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa condemned President Trump’s decision and said Jerusalem could not be a city of peace if people were excluded.

Moving an embassy excludes people, does it? One would have thought an Archbishop of Bethlehem would be clued-up enough on Jerusalem’s history to know which parties in the region have excluded people from it, but this is where we are.

Is it any wonder that Christianity has collapsed across Europe and other advanced nations when the heads of Christian organisations seem to have no confidence in their religion and sound like they’d rather belong to another?

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

11 thoughts on “Is the Pope Catholic?

  1. Old Frankie is a commie and a very bad bloke.

    They really should arrange an accident for him–in the Catholic equivalent of the “The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral”.

  2. No he is a Globalist.

    As for protecting his own kind and of more recent times he was wheeled in by the lefty Colombian Government to urge an angry Colombian nation who didn’t want the marxist FARC’s to be let off scot free for 50 years of murder of Catholics and conservatives nor that they also be allowed to enter politics, to forgive them and to let them enter politics and continue with their destabilisation program. Says it all to me really.

    More pious Catholics would say that it all went bad after Vatican II in the sixties.

    “Leading prayers before a huge crowd in Bogotá, the capital, Pope Francis on Thursday urged Colombians to avoid “the thirst for revenge” and finally accept peace, whose arrival last year ended a half-century of war but left the country bitterly divided.”

  3. His attitude is a Christian one, I’d say. If all Christians practiced their faith in its purest form, the end result would be the last Christian ever gettting kicked to death and his stuff pilfered about AD300.

  4. In short, no. He is a prat of the first water and will wail as his shallow world is brought crashing down by the kicking feet of the immigrants he wants so earnestly to kiss.

    Unless, of course, he is a foot fetishist.

  5. I think I only came to this site this year, following a link from Tim Worstall. It’s been a delight to read such clear headed and considered views so trenchantly expressed – this post is a good example. Many thanks for them.

  6. Of course, the Rohingya.
    Doesn’t anyone ever stop to wonder exactly how appallingly a people have to behave in order to get Buddhists…
    …repeat, Buddhists!!!…
    really pissed off with them?

    As for the Pope, it comes to something when a confirmed anti-religionist type like me is more concerned about the collapse of a religion than the guy notionally in charge of it.

  7. Unless, of course, he is a foot fetishist.

    Well, funny you should say.

    I should probably have used this image in the body of the post. The Pope and his more demented followers probably think this reflects well on him, grovelling at the feet of Africans. Whereas any African would almost certainly see it and go “And there was I thinking the Pope was someone important…” I suspect a lot saw it as a sign Europe was there for the taking, and they’d be right.

  8. As for the Pope, it comes to something when a confirmed anti-religionist type like me is more concerned about the collapse of a religion than the guy notionally in charge of it.

    Indeed, especially when you consider those who practice other certain other religions take it rather more seriously.

  9. Incidentally the new testament appears to be founded on a falsehood. The Romans did not conduct censuses by compelling people to return to the places where they were born. That would cause logistical chaos. They were carried out at the place where they lived just as they do today.

  10. Good God, it’s worse than that. The gospel (only one of the four, mind) that carries the census story makes no claim that Joseph was born in Bethlehem, it claims that he had to return there because his ancestor David came from there, 42 generations earlier. Only a cretin could believe that, and yet people have claimed to believe it for a couple of millenia. Bonkers. The other gospel that carries the absurd Nativity story advances a quite different reason for the couple to be in Bethlehem.

    Still, at least the Christians have a decent idea of where were the key places in their yarns were, unlike the followers of a different Middle Eastern religion.

  11. I used to wonder about all those Mideastern places that the priests banged on about at mass as well, what was it with the olive bushes, donkeys and barren ridges. Especially after been taught that we had been getting on with life quite well as civilized Celts, Slavs, Greeks, Latinos and Germanic cultures six thousand odd years before Christianity even appeared on the scene. Europe isn’t rooted in Christianity but it was the widespread religion that was in place as it expanded to control most of the world just as its decline is similarly in line with the decline of the European cultural dominance.

Comments are closed.