Worst! Pope! Ever!!1!

It’s true, Francis really is — as long as you understand that, as a Catholic, it is our duty and responsibility to read the words of the Holy Father only after they’ve been run through the MSM juicer a couple of times.


JoAnna Wahlund handily shreds “oh Lord, why are we being tormented by this dreadful, careless, foolish pope?” crowd as they rend their garments over what they see reported on MSNBC:

“Pope Reiterates 2,000-year-old Teaching of the Church” doesn’t make money; “Pope Declares that All Atheists Go to Heaven” does. Truth has nothing to do with it, and this type of misrepresentation for personal gain is something that’s been happening as long as the papacy has existed.

She give us a sample of all the times that the words and actions of  Benedict XVI and John Paul II were bizarrely twisted by the media.

And, lest we forget,  it’s not just a matter of misrepresentation.  Wahlund points out that, if you’re really desperate to find a pope who is ruining the Church, you could always fall back on:

  • Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
  • Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
  • Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy
  • Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
  • Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.

Etc.  Wahlund says,

We once had a Pope who was murdered while engaging in the act of adultery – and the Church survived! After that, can anyone honestly believe that the Church will be utterly decimated and destroyed simply because the current pope made statements about atheists that were deliberately misconstrued by the media in order to boost ratings?! If I was the Holy Spirit, I’d be insulted by the implication that my protection of the Truth was considered so weak and ineffective.

Maybe I have a soft spot in my heart for fed-up pregnant writers who imagine how they would feel if they were the Holy Spirit, but I loved the heck out of this piece.  Read the whole thing.  Rock on, JoAnna!

"Can The Jerk have this space now that you're done with it? I mean, it's ..."

I’m moving!
"Wonderful Ideas for newborn baby and their parents also, its good to give them handmade ..."

Welcome, baby! 12 gifts that new ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Susan Windley-Daoust


  • richard

    The Catholic Church will live on to the end regardless of assorted bad Popes of the past. Just know where you stand at all times.

  • Leila Miller

    JoAnna is the queen. I love that girl.

  • The Anti-Monitor

    We once had a Pope who, prior to becoming Pope, publicly denied knowing Jesus three times.

    (Edited for those who did not understand the humor-irony of my original post.)

    (Second edit: wait, now I’m not sure I needed to edit my original comment: “We once had a Pope who publicly denied knowing Jesus three times.” I suppose this turns on the theological question of when, exactly, Peter became Pope: when Jesus granted him the keys to the kingdom? At the Ascension? The Pentecost? I don’t know the theological answer to this. To some degree, I don’t care–I was trying to make a theological funny, but someone took issue with my verbiage.)

    • Strife

      Uhm yeah. He wasn’t exactly “Pope” yet, my friend. And he didn’t build his papacy on his denial.

      If you care to read scripture, you’ll find that Our Resurrected Lord reconciled Peter with “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?” three separate times in order to reconcile the three denials by requiring Peter’s complete loyalty to The Truth.

      This “pope” is not feeding and tending our Lord’s flock – he’s scattering the flock by accepting and tolerating the sins of the unbelievers.

      This will not end well.

      • simchafisher

        I’ll take that bet, my other friend. You may have read scripture, but it doesn’t seem like you’ve read the Pope’s actual words, or you wouldn’t say he accepts and tolerates sin.

        • Strife

          Really? Then explain the false dichotomy he set up between mercy and conviction by his use of the word “obsession”. Or did that wily media invent that word and sentence as well?

        • Strife

          Oh BTW, I’ll be back in a couple of weeks when you have to unravel and skillfully spin this “pope’s” latest statements yet again. You might as well get real comfortable doing this. Because it’s going to be a common occurrence with this guy.

          You can add that to the bet as well.

          • moseynon

            I’ll be back in a couple of weeks when you have to unravel and skillfully spin this “pope’s” latest statements

            Strife, you seem to have picked your username well. I am curious, though. Are you Catholic?

          • Strife

            I’m a cradle Catholic who fell away for 20 years, became a liberal secular atheist/agnostic (I understand the mindset well) slowly came back to the fullness and Truth of the Church and am now saved, being saved, and hoping to be saved.

            And yes, my chosen name is intentional with full understanding and self-awareness. One does not die to themselves and pick up their cross without -strife.

      • The Anti-Monitor

        I’ll defer to simchafisher’s comments, adding only that my hope is that the Pope is sparking dialogue and getting the unbelievers to perk up and pay attention. So far, that seems to be working. Who knows (but God) how many will be walking into a pew because of this man?
        As for Peter: the “You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my chuch” and “here’s the keys” occurs at Matthew 16:13-20. The denials are at 26:69-75. As the church tends to point to Jesus’ appointment of Peter as happening in Matthew 16, I’d say, yes, he was effectively papacized before the denials.
        Of course, I’m not sure it matters, as I wasn’t making an argument about strict chronology. We could argue all day as to whether the papacy was effective at the “rock” scene, the three affirmances, the Ascension, or the Pentecost. My point was that our first Pope was a sinner, and one bad enough that Jesus called him “Satan” to his face. Jesus chose him anyway.

        • Strife

          Oh the unbelievers are most certainly perked up and paying attention. They now believe the Catholic Church has come to their side of the moral fence. In fact, they don’t think belief is necessary for heaven, abortion is no big deal, oh and, I just read a liberal journalist who expressed his new found home in the Catholic Church. In fact, he can’t wait for the first Gay-Marriage to be performed in a Catholic Cathedral! So … you know. Message received. This “pope” is doing a bang-up job so far. Eh?

          And even if Peter WERE papacized (is that even a word?) before his denial – his denial was NOT what his papacy was built upon.

          • The Anti-Monitor

            I didn’t say it was. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from in my posting. I basically said “Christ made Peter the Pope” and “Peter denied Jesus three times.” I said nothing about correlation. If anything, I meant that the Papacy was in spite of the sin. Calm down.

          • Strife

            Oh please. You had ample time to deny the correlation. It was clearly implied. But only NOW do you deny the connection after you have been argued into a rhetorical corner. Please don’t insult the intelligence of this thread.

          • The Anti-Monitor

            You’re seeing what you want to see. For your sake, I went back and modified the original post. But my goodness, do you have anger issues. Look, we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ trying to find the truth together. There’s no need to get angry at me or anyone else. Why not show some loving, charitable correction if you thought me mistaken? “Pardon me, but your statement seems to imply that Peter denied Jesus while he was Pope.”

          • Strife

            Of course you modified it – that’s much easier than admitting your original intent. And you act as though anger is never justified. Was Our Lord joyous when he flung down the moneychangers’ tables in the temple? Was he upbeat and chipper when he called out the evil of the Pharisees? And if this isn’t worthy of anger – then what is? And where is your love and charity for the faithful flock who feel betrayed? Your message to them seems to be -“yeah. well tough.” And no I don’t for one minute think that Peter’s papal primacy was complete until his denial of Our Lord was reconciled. Other sins could wait – but not that one. Because it was the BASIS for reconciliation of all the other sins. And that is the point.

          • The Anti-Monitor

            See, sometimes people are not always as clear in their language as they should be, and sometimes people misread it as a result. I did not intend to say that Peter’s papacy was built upon his sin, but my verbiage wasn’t clear and you took it that way.
            Now, I would be free to conclude that you think God is fat, because you just called him “Our Lard.” But I won’t, because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that it’s a typo.

          • Strife

            Are you intentionally misconstruing a typo with “verbiage”? Or do you really believe that that is a valid example? Your original implication wasn’t a typo – and it was validated by your failure to correct it the first time is was challenged.

            All you’re doing now is attempting to control the damage for the sake of your pride. My how your charitable love doth runneth over.

          • The Anti-Monitor

            I didn’t know I was on a timeclock to correct the original. I’m not sure the original *was* wrong, as theologically, you’ve raised an interesting question in my mind as to when Peter became Pope. If you have a catechetical citation you can point to as to when his Papacy was activated, I’d like to know what it is.
            In the meantime–please let go of this. There are worse things to fume over than this. Were I in here advocating legalization of abortion, I could understand the furor. Over this, I worry that you’ll give yourself a heart attack. Please calm yourself and maybe meditate on the Holy Family or something.

          • Strife

            It’s not a matter of “timeclock” it’s a matter of logical rhetorical succession and progression.

            Do you speak out against abortion? Homosexuality? Gay “marriage”?

            Also – Peter’s primacy was officially activated when Christ told him to feed and tend His sheep in the presence of the other Apostles. That would INCLUDE feeding and tending to those Apostles who were present during that specific passage. I just heard a sermon on this recently. And it makes perfect sense.

            BTW YOU approached ME in here. So if anyone needs to let this go – it would be YOU.

          • The Anti-Monitor

            Sigh. One last post, since you’re implying that I’m a radical liberal: “Do you speak out against abortion? Homosexuality? Gay “marriage”?”
            Yes, no, and yes. “Homosexuality” I’ll qualify by stating that I oppose acting on homosexual desires, but like the church, I recognize that it’s a disorder which needs to be brought in conformity with the moral law and chastity. On abortion in particular, I was active in my college’s pro-life group, a founder my law school’s pro-life group, I give to pro-life organizations, and I’ve prayed outside of clinics–a habit I admittedly need to get back into. Do you really want to get into a game of “show me yours and I’ll show you mine”?
            Relax. Pray. Peace be with you.

          • Strife

            Do you actively and openly voice your moral objections to homosexuality when the occasions present themselves to you?

          • The Anti-Monitor

            Yes, though I admittedly need to get better about that. Do you regularly run around performing public examinations of conscience on people? I am extremely tempted to ask you if you engage in all of the corporal works of mercy mandated by Christ. I won’t–that’s between you and God, so I specifically ask you NOT to answer that question. I don’t want to get into the theological equivalent of pulling our rulers and measuring our genitalia. Relax.

          • Strife

            Who said anything about examinations of consciences? I’m talking about publicly calling out sinful immoral behavior – like Our Lord did and like the Apostles did. You got a problem with that? Or is that “obsessing” as this “pope” put it?

            Theological equivalent of measuring genitalia?

            Uhm……. your interior motives must be quite the spiritual Rubik’s Cube.

            Here, you can borrow my user name: Strife. It comes with an innate sense of honesty.

            You’re welcome.

        • The Anti-Monitor

          As an aside, I think it’s neat that Jesus gave Simon the aramaic name of “Kephas,” which is apparently linguisticaly the same as the aramaic of Caiaphas–the high priest and Jewish “Pope” of his day. Think about that–Jesus gave his disciple the name of the high priest. That’s like Jesus going up to one of us and calling us “Obama”–the significance should not have been lost on a Jewish community who knew who Caiaphas was. I don’t think this is a coincidence of names: Peter’s declaration “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16) is verbally identical to Caiaphas’ doubt (“I order you to tell us…whether you are the Christ, the son of the living God?” at 26:63).

  • disqus_Hkjtb7dDLr

    This pope is giving sinners false hope, that they may keep sinning and still go to heaven, without repenting

    • The Anti-Monitor

      The media is giving sinners this false hope by distorting his words. This pope seems to be offering a true hope, in that God loves all and welcomes them regardless of their sins.

      • Strife

        God loves everyone – but few will enter through the narrow gate. Many will knock, but He will say to them “Go away. I never knew you.”

        True Hope comes only in the light of Truth.

  • Strife

    The most deception will come from Angels of Light who will mislead many.

  • Strife

    The most remarkable hypocrisy in all of this: The liberal “catholics” who think that this pope’s mercy and forgiveness toward unbelievers is just the greatest thing since the pill, show absolutely no “mercy” and personal “forgiveness” towards those mean old Traddies and their “obsession” with Truth. So apparently, it’s okay to divide and scatter the Flock for the sake of unrepentant sinners to feel good.

    Great message. It’s the new “truths” of the 21st century!

    • The Anti-Monitor

      You’re being very uncharitable in your approach. I forgive you, but I do wish you’d change your approach and teach with love instead of shout with disdain.

      • Strife

        Uncharitable? Really? How exactly am I being uncharitable? How exactly does one teach with “love” if one is not willing to call out Truth and sin?

        • The Anti-Monitor

          Because your language and style is that of the bully. You use quotation marks (“mercy” and “forgiveness”), implying sarcasm. You use exclamation marks, implying disdain and scorn. You come across as standing at the fiery pulpit of the southern evangelical preacher. I don’t doubt that Jesus used righteous anger; we all know that he condemned the Pharisees and the money changers. We also know that he condemned his own people for their excess of zeal–he called his own Peter “Satan” and chastised him for using the sword.
          How does one teach with love? Perhaps through the Parable of the Prodigal Son, where the father longs for his lost child to come home and welcomes him with open arms when he does. Anger has its place, but so does joy and heart.

          • Strife

            So now you deem the God-given power to pass judgement on the intentions of my heart and the state of my soul. Do tell.

            You’re mistakenly creating a false dichotomy between Christ’s Merciful Love and his zealous condemnation. You misconstrue the two as opposite forces. It’s not an either/or case, but rather a fulfillment of Truth that is and/also in Judgement and Mercy.

            Chew on this:

            Jesus; A Cause of Division.

            “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
            For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’” – Matthew 10:34-36

            ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
            Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
            Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will
            be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your
            righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-20

  • The Anti-Monitor

    I think I need to step out of this discussion for the sake of my soul. I can feel anger, frustration, and a little bit of pride creeping in me, and it’s unhealthy if not sinful. (I may get accused of cowardice for this–if you choose to think so, so be it. I know where I stand.) Do pray for me! Peace out and God bless.

    • Strife

      Go in peace.

  • disqus_Hkjtb7dDLr

    I just hope this pope is not the False Prophet as predicted , as Revelations did more or less predict that the False prophet would have millions following him, and it also seems to align with Saint Malachys predictions, the last Pope, the Beast, God help us if this is true, because if it is, it will be Armgaeddon

    • Strife

      I agree with your overall sentiments. People never seem to question just how exactly the predicted false teachers and Angels of Light will deceive many followers away from the faith.

      The answer of course: is false “love” and “mercy” through an immoral tolerance of sin.

  • disqus_Hkjtb7dDLr

    And it is looking that way War is on the horizon, where the crusaders will once again go to war, against the anti Christ, but this war will be the finish.And by the anti Christ, i do not mean the people who beleive in God, its the ones that don’t

  • disqus_Hkjtb7dDLr

    Gods 10 commandments , i will keep them all, i will do nothing to offend my God, and i know if Armagaedon is approaching that Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel led by our Lord and Saviour Jesus, and the army of Gods angels will be fighting alongside us, we will be victorius, then God will send the saints and blessed martyrs to judge the wicked.

  • disqus_Hkjtb7dDLr

    Strife God has allowed scientist to find the ancient cities of the Bible, such as Soddom and Gomorah, Noahs Ark, etc in a message to mankind, that He will act out His vengeance, once again, if we do not stop sinning, and mankind has strayed from God, there are very few of us left who love God and abide by his Commandments