Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

My Washington Post Interview on Pope Francis

Cover Image for Today's Pope Francis Story (Courtesy of the Washington Post)
Cover Image for Today’s Pope Francis Story (Courtesy of the Washington Post)

In 2013, I wrote a post on my (now mostly-neglected) personal website entitled, It Doesn’t Take a Rigorist: Why All Catholics Should Be Concerned About Pope Francis. It was the first time I had spoken publicly about my concerns since his election.

I knew I was touching on something important, but I didn’t expect the reaction I got. Within days, I had agreed to interviews with NBC News and the New York Times. Lacking sufficient context, and with some evident bias, I felt that they failed to accurately portray my actual thoughts on the matter, which are far more nuanced. At the same time they were, I believed, essential conversation-starters. People were worried about the papacy, and it seemed the right time to bring those concerns into the open.

I got a lot more media requests in the following days. Radio stations in the US and Europe contacted me to go on air. CNN wanted me on live TV, and I got a similar request from KBS in South Korea. I don’t remember how many requests came in, but I turned them all down. It was never my intention or desire to become notorious for being critical of a Roman Pontiff. As it was, the amount of attention I got earned me more than a little heat. But I did what I set out to do. I helped break the ice. Let’s talk about this thing that’s bothering us like grownups, shall we?

A few months later, I decided I was done focusing so much on the problems of the papacy. It had become clear to me that it was important to people. I had received an enormous uptick in traffic and a lot of private correspondence. But what I was doing was inherently negative, and that didn’t sit well with me. Far better, I thought, to emphasize what’s good and right about the Church. Bad popes come and go, but the Church is eternal. 

And that’s why I started OnePeterFive.

We haven’t shied away from criticism, but it’s not our mainstay. There’s too much of that sort of thing on the Web, and mostly, it creates more heat than light. But with a papal visit to our shores immanent, a calvacade of bad news about papal appointees to the Synod flowing in steadily, and the Synod itself only a little over two weeks away, I decided to relent. When I received an interview request from the Washington Post, I accepted. Today, that interview was published. Here’s an excerpt:

When Steve Skojec heard that Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been elected pope, he got a queasy feeling in the pit of his stomach. He can’t say why, exactly — though he follows Vatican politics closely, he didn’t know much about Francis then. But as he watched the new Catholic leader greet the crowds on his office television in Manassas, Va., he was filled with dread.

“I felt a discontinuity,” he said. “A disruption.”

At first, he didn’t want to make too big a deal of it. Though Skojec blogs regularly about Catholicism at the Web site he founded, OnePeterFive (tag line: Rebuilding Catholic culture. Restoring Catholic tradition.), he mostly avoided the subject. “I wanted to withhold judgement,” he said.

Six months later, he was ready to judge. What really turned Skojec against Francis was the pope’s October 2013 interview in the Jesuit magazine America. Buried in the transcript was a comment, by Francis, that the world’s biggest evils are youth unemployment and loneliness.

“That’s a jarring statement . . . when you’re on the front lines of the culture wars, looking at the death toll of abortion,” Skojec said. “There was definitely a sense that this could be trouble.”

As mainstream media accounts go, it’s a fair treatment. There are some missteps, some trimming of my comments to the point of losing the larger point I was trying to make, and some general errors. I’m not here to nitpick. I think Amanda Erickson, who doesn’t normally cover religion and self-identifies as a Catholic, did a better job than most. It certainly is a far cry from other coverage I’ve seen.

But having been burned before, I recorded our interview (with Erickson’s consent) so I had it for reference. And having read the piece, a number of friends and readers have asked me what was left on the cutting room floor. I reached out to Erickson about publishing the audio, and she agreed. “I wouldn’t mind at all.” She said. “We talked about a lot, it was a rich conversation.”

With that in mind, I’ve turned the audio into a podcast. It’s longish — I have a tendency to talk way too much when asked open-ended questions — but very candid, and, I hope, of interest to others trying to figure out what they think and feel about this papacy.

I’ll no doubt get more flack for this one, but I really don’t care. I was mostly alone in expressing my concerns back in 2013. That’s not the case anymore. I love my Catholic Faith, and these things matter too much not to talk about openly.

48 thoughts on “My Washington Post Interview on Pope Francis”

  1. Steve, you’re doing fantastic work for the Church at a time when charitable honesty and honest charity are more needed than ever. OnePeterFive has made an immense contribution to upholding Catholicism and uplifting Catholics, thanks in large part to your dedication, time, zeal, and courage. Thanks for being here and doing what you do. Ad multos annos!

  2. I listened to the podcast and I’m glad I did. This 70 year old has been in the Church about double the time you have; I’ve lived to see seven popes. Weekly Mass, Confession, the Rosary, and a lot of Catholic reading is as natural to me as breathing (and more important). In a word, I am a completely orthodox Catholic. That said, it warmed my heart to hear your interview. If there is something I really love about Catholicism, it is that one needn’t check his brains at the church door. But that is precisely what I have seen in technicolor since 2013, one stupid explanation for what the pope has said following on another, and bizarre excuses for flat-out puzzling behavior on his part; anything to avoid those perilous words: ”He’s simply wrong!” Even in the face of Francis’ own approval of those who criticize his words and actions, many still strive never to say a disparaging word directed toward the papal throne (well, in that general direction since Francis chooses not to sit there). But not you. What I heard on the podcast is what I would call ”grown-up Catholicism” as versus the ”kindergarten Catholicism” that dominates Catholic media these days. Bravo!

    • Thank you so much. Most Catholics living today have never seen a Church free of the errors of Modernism. In fact, I’d wager none of them have. Everything has changed, and Pastor Aeternus in Vatican I did some damage in terms of the epidemic of papal positivism.

      I like the label “grown-up Catholicism.” I hope I get to continue wearing it.

    • The laity are encouraged to participate in the Church via EMHCs, bringing up the gifts, Lector, Lectrix, ministry this ministry that, Time, Treasure, Talent, making bologna sandwiches for the homeless but the laity are thought hateful and dragging down the office of the Papacy if they oppose the actions of Our Pope and Our Cross who is dragging down the Papacy.

      IANS was born into the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in 1948 and the Church he was born into has simply disappeared and it is invisibilium outside of certain traditional orders and the church has been supplanted by an anthropocentric shadow church that refuses to do its duty and publicly teach the Faith once delivered.

      There is not one – NOT ONE – man reading this crummy rant who has ever heard a single Pope since 1962 speak openly and publicly about the plain and simple truth – that Jesus established His Church for two primary purposes


      and the Holy means to those two ends are Priesthood,Mass, Sacraments, Religious Orders, Purgatory, Prayers, Pilgrimages etc

      and IANS concludes that it is because they are embarrassed that WE have the truth and others don’t they refuse to teach the truth and so we read of endless plans and programs to reduce the Papacy to an office that will not offend those who wish it would cease to exist for we may not proclaim the truth because, ecumenism (The Universal Solvent of Tradition) is suffused with the desire to dialogue about similarities when the truth is the difference twixt us and others is, literally, a matter of Heaven and Hell

      It is though the American Academy of Scientists continuously emphasised just how much humans are like cucumbers because each contains roughly 50%water (Liberals are excluded from this example as they are vegetables) and so, vegetable rights.

      What do our enemies desire of us?

      Exactly what the alien said to the POTUS in “Independence Day.”


      It long past time we stopped trying to please those who desire our death

      • Tiptoeing around the truth hasn’t done anything except embolden the enemies within the Church.

        The public and shameful practice of idolatry by the Roman Pontiff’s is of no concern either, as though it doesn’t exist if you don’t speak about it.

  3. Really enjoyed listening to this. I feel that you communicated the problem pretty nicely.

    I do lately wonder though, is the situation that different from when St. John Paul II was Pope? True that St. John Paul II was solid on teachings on pro-life issues. But he did deviate drastically from what many Catholics would have reasonably held as acceptable, especially in regards to ecumenism and inter-religious matters (and some might say, even liturgical matters). I am sure that many then used (as some still do) those actions to justify their own inaction or action in regards to non-Catholics, and damage was done in the form of religious indifferentism. If one were to ask a faithful Catholic who was in his 30’s around the 1960’s, I am sure they would have been confused and scandalized. Not to say anything in favor or against them, but the entire existence of the SSPX seems to be proof that there were Catholics who were pretty confused and shocked. I believe that the SSPX story seems to say that the Assisi event was the tipping point that lead their founder to perform the consecrations. So for anyone who had the same pre-Vatican II sensibilities on the matters of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, things would have seemed like a shocking betrayal.

    Pope Francis seems to be simply taking another further step along those same lines to the point where even those of us who didn’t think too strongly (or were desensitized/born into it) on ecumenism, inter-religious relations, and liturgy, are now shocked.

    • Francis certainly didn’t get here on his own. The way has been being paved for a long time. But the situation really is different. As I mentioned in the audio, these other popes did some good, some bad. They were all influenced by modernism, but when they were good, they were often great. Pope Francis seems to be the first pope to be completely a product of the post-conciliar era, and of the unfortunate formation that is the hallmark not just of modern seminaries, but of modern Jesuits. It’s qualifiably, quantifiably worse.

      • Well, does being great at certain things excuse gross violations in regards to other things? Some may say that Pope Francis does have his great moments too [mentions of the devil, distributing rosaries to the homeless, his devotion to Mary, and depending on ones scientific position, his words on the environment etc.].

        I feel that it might be a mistake to ignore the damage done as long as there were other great good acts. After all, how can we quantify the damage done from religious indifferentism / desensitization to heresy vs. desensitization to morality?

        From the perspective of Pope Francis, his predecessor who did certain shocking things is now a canonized saint. He probably feels that he is in good company, no?

        • I don’t mean to ignore it. It’s just that it’s already been extensively examined by others who lived through it, and were more aware of what was happening. I can’t say that I have anything to add, and beating that particular horse right now serves no perceivable benefit.

          • I apologize for sounding as if you weren’t doing enough. You have done much more than I have ever done (or probably will) and I did not intend my previous comments to sound that way. Sorry about that.

            Its just that I felt the Popes until now let the truths of the Catholic faith become more or less irrelevant (by ecumenism and other things) and reduced everything to a fight for morals together with everyone. So practically, most Catholics have been brought to the point where they do not see a problem whether one is Protestant or Catholic or even Atheist. In such a context, it isn’t surprising that the Church tries to construct policies which while leaving doctrine intact, adopts a practice which essentially contradicts it. For the average Catholic, they are probably wondering why we aren’t doing what the Protestants are already doing/allowing.

            I guess what I am trying to say is this. Lets say that we win this particular battle for marriage. But the conditions that have been created in the Church are such that the victory means nothing. The faithful have been brought to the point by our prelates that most of the faithful want it. As long as there is demand, there will always be someone who will try to grant it. More importantly, it stops being a victory because nothing would have been done to reverse the condition we are currently in.

          • Right now, we’re on a long, grueling March to such defeat that only God can set it right, and we’ll know it was Him, because nobody else could have done it.

            At this point, the most that you and I can do is call out the mile markers on the road, and remind people that the destination isn’t the one they bought tickets for.

          • Then, remember, if the people in the pews ‘want it’, they are NOT the faithful. They may be sitting in the pews and in buildings that are called Catholic churches, but they are apostates and/or heretics.
            The ‘condition’ that you are in is (hopefully) holding to the Catholic Faith. You happen to be living through a time in the ages of the Church wherein it is under relentless attack from without and, more importantly, from within. I suggest you read (unless you’ve already done so), ‘The Plot Against the Church’ by Maurice Pinay. You should be able to find it online, for free. Keep looking until you find it and then read it. There is also a blog by the same name; Maurice Pinay. It is extremely important information.

  4. I look forward to checking out that interview later, but I do want to thank you for what you do! You are able to reach more people than me and speak more freely than this young priest is able to, so please don’t stop.

    For me, in pondering it in the back of my mind while reading this post, the definitive moment must have been in late July 2013 with his most famous quote: “Who am I to judge?” Basically, I thought to myself that if you want to say something like that, well, then I will just check out on anything you have to say until the next pope. After all, I am seeking the Lord and have goodwill, so who cares what he says?

    People are largely caught off guard after the long papacy on Saint John Paul II and feeling safe under both him and then Benedict XVI, thinking that popes are generally good. Wrong. He is the worst pope in quite some time and two and a half years have set the Church back thirty.

    • Thank you, Father. I agree that he is the worst we’ve had in quite some time, and the setbacks will take many years to repair. I actually discussed this in my larger interview.

      To be honest, I’d written a couple of generally hopeful pieces about him at the time of his election, including one at Catholic Vote, where, in retrospect, I can see that I was telegraphing my initial instinctive concerns:

      There are some things about him that, for me at least, raise questions. His record seems to indicate a lack of interest in liturgical reform, a hallmark of Benedict’s papacy that was valued by so many, myself included. By some accounts, the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in his diocese is imperceptible, which is not comforting to those of us who are attached to the Extraordinary Form and would like to see its availability increased and supported.


      For the first time in over three decades, we have a pope whom we do not know. I suspect that he will surprise us, and his will be a very different papacy in many respects than the last two that came before him, but also familiar.


      History shows us that the man who is elected pope is often very different than the pope who reigns. I have little doubt that this papacy will bring surprises.

      And if Francis is fond of a “God of Surprises,” we see that his pontificate has been a “papacy of surprises.” I believe at this point it’s fair to say that my initial, inexplicable trepidation — which I later discovered was shared by a great many others — has shown itself to be accurate – most especially as has concerned the conduct of the two-part Synod on Marriage and Family, the latter half of which will begin on October 4th, after the pope returns from his visit to America.

      So here we are. And we just have to ride out the storm.

        • I’m already preparing/thinking about my homily for 4th October, the Gospel in the Novus Ordo being our Lord’s words on divorce and that from the beginning marriage has been the inseparable union of one man and one woman. My homily the weekend after the SCOTUS decision was appreciated by many because they were glad they heard one of their priests say SOMETHING about it… and then there were other opinions.

          I was very excited for this latest election because it was only the second I have ever seen, but that faded quickly and the immediate bombardment of “humble this, humble that” quickly put me on alert.

          I began discerning the priesthood again around the death of John Paul II – always a hero of mine in some way growing up. I had heard things in the media of this Ratzinger that made me think that perhaps I wouldn’t want him elected. But I had no idea who he really was other than what I was told. The night he was elected though was the catalyst for me applying for seminary studies.

          The Benedict Effect: a man people flocked to because he was/is the most brilliant pope in centuries, magnetic in a mysterious librarian sort of way, and he spoke of the Truth of the Faith. The audience attendances are dropping month by month when there is nothing definitive or interesting being said.

          • I agree with you, Father, especially re Benedict. I went to one of his general audiences, and then one for Francis two years later–Benedict was special, no doubt. We pray for the Pope, whoever he is, but Papa Ratzinger was one in a hundred.

    • Father J, it is unfortunate that people felt safe under the papacy’s of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They, too, were infected with the heresy of Modernism but both were able to keep it hidden from most Catholics. Francis simply has no desire to hide. “Make a mess!” he cries, and that he has certainly done.

        • That’s a good example of the vague comments – completely devoid of actual content – repeatedly uttered by Pope Francis to which each listener can assign his own interpretation.

          • I’m not sure if you are referring to Iwhite or to me with the “devoid of actual content” remark. Jesus touched and loved people that were shunned and despised–lepers and tax collectors, etc. So how is that different from loving today’s outcasts? Jesus condemned the way things were in the Jewish religion–HIS religion–and the way the current religious leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees) thought because they had no love, looked down on others (“let the one who has no sin throw the first stone”), and glorified the letter of the law over the spirit. How is that different from asking our clergy to think in terms of inclusion and mercy? There are many more “messes” you could find for yourself on any page of the New Testament (involving cliffs and pigs and tables and religious leaders plotting to kill, etc.) I am sad for anyone who is so disdainful of our Roman Catholic Pope. I am stunned that so many posting here seem able to do that and even consider themselves defenders of Catholicism. As for me, I will choose love and mercy over hatred and disdain EVERY time.

          • Love and mercy are absolutely not correlated to love and mercy???? So glad you have such a handle on what Pope Francis intends.

  5. Steve, you were not alone in expressing your concerns back in 2013. Many, many of us have been expressing concerns for the last 50 years, although not by developing websites, but in any other way we could express ourselves, knowing that Christ said “Blessed are your when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matt. 5:11).

    • Among those I knew, and online, I was, again, “mostly” alone. I wasn’t the only one, but the numbers were small, and the ones who stuck their heads above ground were liable to have them shot clean off.

      Fortunately for me, I’m not that easy to put down.

  6. JohnnyCuredents: I have been unable to access the interview for some reason. I will keep trying.
    As a 71 year old I concur with every word you write. The was a time when we would pray earnestly for the Popes intentions. Now we pray, just as earnestly, for the Pope but more importantly for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    I have sais many times before, Confusion is not a gift of the Holy Ghost.

      • Steve: Thank you . I have just finished listening to your interview.
        I must say you have nailed it.
        A comprehensive and balanced summary of the feelings of a growing number of People.
        My feelings are echoed by an earlier correspondent, JohnnyCuredents. Your interview is superb and very engrossing.
        It is very refreshing to hear from one who was raised in the post conciliar era as apposed to some one like myself who had 20 odd years of pre VII experience. I received my grounding in that period and despite having followed all the novelties and having embraced every thing to do with the Post council Church for 40 odd years I was able to eventually see the errors of the last 50 odd years.
        Because of your age you did not have that grounding and your understanding, I can only say, is a gift of Grace.

        Keep up you valuable work
        Rgs and God Bless
        Geoff Kiernan

  7. Steve, I don’t have anything very smart to say but I would like to say that I really enjoy reading OnePeterFive and I enjoyed the podcast. You are critical but respectful and constructive. Greetings from the UK.

  8. That unease you felt was clearly a sign given to you from God as to the evil within Bergoglio. The Biblical false prophet works for Satan. Two horns are the mitre of a bishop and speaking like a dragon should be obvious. Don’t be the ostrich. You will certainly see the external signs within the next year.

    • “Evil” within the head of the Roman Catholic Church? Someone who consistently promotes love and mercy? They tried to throw Jesus off of a cliff when he first began his preaching, and I believe you know how that all turned out. Please check your soul for love and mercy rather than pride yourself. You clearly have plenty of judgement. (Oh, but wait, isn’t judgement reserved for Our Lord?)

        • I am a history teacher, Remnant. Let’s cut the “vagaries.” Are you talking about sex and lies? Because that is NOT what I’m talking about in MY comment. You need to do a lot of reading if you believe that consistently promoting love and mercy is evil. You are talking about a different kind of history. Learn your FAITH is my advice to you: “…upon this rock…” and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Then, maybe, you can relax and go over the history. “Popes do no wrong?” Pope Francis goes to Reconciliation (I’m guessing you prefer “Confession”) and so do I. Clearly distortion and “vague comments” is what this website is about. I don’t believe that any Catholic who is faithful to God gives this website a second thought, but I’m sure this is fodder to nominal “Christians” with evil in their hearts. Even with your off the wall judgements and pompous directives, Remnant, I will pray for you–maybe through gritted teeth, though.

          • Talking only about love and mercy while suppressing sin and the consequences of sin is a grave sin of omission, which clergy go to hell for. Some recent proof: Look up the interview with Fr. Steven Scheier on Mother Angelica and his NDE with intervention of Our Lady let him come back and say so. On top of that, not calling for conversion is another grave sin. You also incorrectly expand the dogma of indefectibility of the Church into a “can do no wrong” error. Synods can, and have, promoted heresies. The current one will result in the same, whether immediately. You are conflating confession with papal infallibility also. I noticed your other muddled and erroneous thinking based on other peoples’ replies to you as well. You do have a great deal to learn about the faith. I am relaxed since Jesus’ peace resides in my heart. At the same time, I am ready to fight for the truth since Francis and his Synod will approve of sin, as you will see.

  9. I agree that it was a good piece. It did feature some of the same annoying labels and tropes that you always see in articles like this, but that’s par for the course. And to me, Ms. Erickson appeared to want to be fair. One sort of irony is that she made you into a kind of hero for making “hard choices”. Now, I think many of your readers do think of you as a hero for your words without knowing (I assume) much about your personal life. But in this case your heroic actions regarding, say, not using birth control are unveiled for the world to see. Again, I think the author was trying to be complimentary. But it’s interesting that that little detail of obedience to Church teaching, or more accurately just living a Christian life, has gone from something all Christians do to something all Catholics do to something that only a few dissident Catholic heroes do. Of course, it’s more than a few. I assume almost every married parishioner of child bearing age at my church is a hero or heroine in that sense. And we are one traditional church out of thousands. The same goes for divorce, obviously, as if staying in a marriage was a “hard choice”. But it’s interesting how these formerly standard things have become rare and “heroic” in just a few generations. Though perhaps we were always heroes and just didn’t know it. 🙂 In any case, sorry to go off on a tangent. Congratulations on the interview!

  10. You did a good job with the interview. One criticism is that we have to, to some extent, avoid culture war words in our presentation to journalists. Their mere mention sends a signal that this is a left/right American political divide issue and the whole thrust of faithfulness to Catholic tradition vs. modernism gets sidelined in an instant. But I can understand that this is a hard balancing act.

    What I find most troubling about this pontificate is the facile defense he gets from Mainstream Catholicism. The utterly transparent excuse making is simply beyond the pale of prudence. Sure, interpret others charitably, but when you find a man prying your back door open with a screwdriver, you don’t assume he’s just testing out his new tools and got a little confused. You can only push charitable interpretation so far before it becomes inexcusable imprudence, stupidity and negligence. The Papal Positivists crossed that bridge into la-la-land a while ago.

    A few weeks ago I got into an argument about the morality of lying over at the Remnant, and it occurs to me now, having turned the matter over in my mind yet again, that it provides a nearly perfect analogical proportion to the modern church. Namely: the teaching of the church of the last few decades stands to Catholic Tradition as a mental reservation stands to saying the truth. That is, it isn’t a strict lie, but rather it says what will not in practice lead to the truth, since it leaves out more than it reveals, and lets the hearer come to his own (false) interpretation without correcting him, all the while being just on this side of the truth so as to not technically be lying and have a cover of deniability.

    • “Arts Entirely New”.

      “It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, BY ARTS ENTIRELY NEW AND FULL OF DECEIT, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very kingdom of Christ. ” – Pope Pius X “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”.

      The arts entirely new and full of deceit is the tactic of the Modernist who, although it seems absurd and constituting something impossible to human thought or conviction, introduces into their writings and statements both orthodox and heterodox views on the same issue. Thus they have the advantage of claiming they aren’t teaching heresy and yet, by leaving the reader with both the truth and the lie to interpret whichever way he so chooses, the damage is done.

  11. Writer James Larson has published numerous articles on another website that shine some light on the disturbing situation within the Church since Vatican II.

    Calling to mind Pope Pius X’s statement in “Pascendi Dominicigregis” (On the Doctrine Of the Modernists) in an article entitled “By Arts Entirely New, that Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies” and Pope Pius X writes:” It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very kingdom of Christ.”, which is a scathing assessment of the dangers already present when he wrote this in 1907, of the influence the Modernist theologians and philosophers (such as Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jacque Maritain) already had in the Church. Some of these men’s errors were condemned by the Vatican rightly for the damage they were, or would do, to the Catholic faith.

    All of the Conciliar popes-Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis-were influenced in some way by the writings of these Modernists.

    Most Catholics have never read the writings of popes (current) or previous to the Council nor care to. If they did, they might be aware of how it came to pass that Francis could be elevated to the Roman Pontiff. If they had, they might understand that it was Benedict XVI who had already set the stage for the subversion of the kingdom of Christ by using the most insidious of tactics of Modernist’s which is the use of contradiction, or paradox (de Lubac and Balthasar’s contributions) in their writings and statements so they appear to be orthodox while holtding a heterodox view on the same issue.

    A disturbing revelation about the mind of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger is cited in this same article which also give us a clue of mind of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. In a series of essays edited by Karl Rahner entitled “The Problem of Infallibility” in 1971, he quotes then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger stating: “I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with Kung (Hans) when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (taught in the schools of Rome) and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend.” In other words, he is rejecting the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, in favor of the modern heretical philosophies of those such as Kung.

    Francis is a son of revolution, both in Argentina and the Church. He is, in my opinion, the crowning effort of the Modernists to put into place those things necessary to subvert the true Catholic faith; those things that none of the previous popes could accomplish.

  12. I haven’t read all the comments yet or listened to the podcast, but I definitely will. I have been nervous about this Pope since the moment he stepped onto the balcony at St. Peter’s. Don’t care for him, what he says or what he does. I turn 69 in Feb and I remember a much different time in the Church

  13. This website frightens me. It seems so unChrist-like. Do followers really believe Jesus would have been concerned with liturgical reforms over human ones? Where is the love……….

    • Midge,

      You are ignoring the many ways Pope Francis contradicts or, at least, undermines the central tents of the faith in his homilies, writings, and too often his offhand (or not) remarks.

      Besides, the human reforms of the 21st century pushed by this pontiff are like human wisdom – they are NOT of God, nor are they biblical in origin or context. They have much more in common with various forms of the progressive political agenda than they do with Church teaching.

      The PRIME purpose of the Church is NOT centered on material well-being, although that is a legitimate but low-level concern in contrast to Her central purpose: to get as many souls into Heaven as possible. Post Vatican II progressives have transformed the Church into a giant social-work agency.

      • I’m so sorry for my ignorance. I actually thought it was the works of mercy that got us IN to heaven: I was hungry and you fed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and in prison and you visited me….Guess I’ll have to update my translation.

        • Midge, just as the gospel teaches us that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead your erroneous belief in WORKS WITHOUT FAITH is also dead. Works of mercy AND PREACHING the gospel are both necessary for salvation. One without the other is will not attain salvation according to the Gospel. Matthew: 4, 23 “He went around all of Gallilee, TEACHING in the synogogues, PROCLAIMING the gospel of the kingdom, AND CURING disease and illness among the people.” Also Jesus said “Man DOES NOT live on bread ALONE but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” St. Jerome said something like “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” So no excuse for your so-called ignorance.

          • John Bilbee, you are right! Faith AND works. Believe in Jesus and follow Him. Love GOD with all your heart , soul, and mind AND love your neighbor as yourself! Who is your neighbor?…..but you know all this, John Bilbee

      • Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned….I don’t know what Bible you read, but love of God and others is the gist of mine. Mercy and love…Jesus was full of those.

  14. What many of us have forgotten is that the devil uses not just bad but also misguided good people to destroy souls. Even if this Pope is in good faith, and probably he is, his vision of the Church’s mission in this world and beyond is both disturbingly one sided and dangerously ambiguous. Cliché it may be, but it is a fact that hell is paved with good intentions. Steve keep up the good, nay the great work you are doing.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...