Above: Pope Mobile in Thailand, 2019.
The following information comes from an article from my esteemed colleague, Michael Haynes at LifeSiteNews, and I have mixed in my brazen and snarky commentary throughout.
Before we continue, we should define a term, the term popesplainer.
What is a popesplainer?
Simply put, popesplainers are most of the talking heads on Catholic YouTube who gaslight you into thinking that Pope Francis doesn’t preach what amounts to at least materially heretical statements.
Relax guys, no one here is “judging the pope” in a formal sense, as that is not up to me.
Also, please don’t pretend that anything is lost in translation, porque el Papa dijo lo que dijo en español, un idioma que hablo con fluidez.
That is Spanish for “the pope said what he said in Spanish, a language I speak fluently.”
Devo dirlo in Italiano? Ou peut-être en Français?
We can get pretty linguistic up in here if we have to.
Haynes wrote:
Pope Francis has once again condemned Catholic efforts of evangelization, stating that “Catholicism is not proselytism,” while adding he has “no explanation” for the drop in vocations in recent decades.
The Pontiff made the comments in an interview he gave to Spanish language news outlet Mundo Negro back in mid-December, which was published on January 13.
He made the statement while fielding a question about the Second Vatican Council, having been asked whether the Church’s “mission” had changed since the Council and if “the Church and the people need another Mission.”
“Thank God, yes,” replied Francis. “Historians say that it takes 100 years for a council to have a complete result, so it is halfway there. So many things have changed in the Church, so many things for the better…”
The 86-year-old Pope referenced what he described as “two interesting signs.” Firstly he stated that the “first imprudent effervescences of the Council have already disappeared,” clarifying that he was referring to “liturgical effervescences.” His second suggestion that the Council was having an effect on the Church was that “anti-conciliar resistances are emerging, resistances that were not seen before, something typical of every process of maturity.”
Let’s pause here for a second.
None of this should shock us at this point, but in essence the pope has said that if you are a traditionalist, then you are immature.
Ah yes, those immature Catholics who think we should not be Modernists, heretics, liberals or most modern day Jesuits — but I repeat myself.
Those immature nincompoops who say things like: “Hey, we should probably heed the words of the Council of Trent and still follow them,” or “it is probably not a good idea to keep doing stuff that caused everyone to leave the Church and go to hell.”
I know, such immaturity on display.
Not only are Trads immature, but the bestest thing to happen at Vatican II had to do with culture and diversity, oh, and trying to convert people is a sin.
Francis welcomed changes which he attributed to the Council, such as an increased “respect for cultures” and the “inculturation of the Gospel” – things which were an “indirect consequence of the Council.”
Highlighting this “evangelization of culture,” Francis expanded by saying that he was talking of “evangelizing, of announcing, and nothing more, with much respect.”
Perhaps we might harken back to those days of pre-Christian paganism, you know, the days of human sacrifice, ritual sex slavery, polygamy, superstition and all that fun stuff.
How much better it would have been if the Spanish missionaries would’ve encountered those Aztecs where they were at in their faith journey, and not tried to convince them to stop cutting out human hearts and eating them while they were still warm.
Or, what a better world it would be if those peace-loving Druids had remained a dominant culture on the Emerald Isle. Sure, they were devil worshippers and some of the most deranged people in history, but I bet with all that murderous aggression they would have put out a heck of a rugby team.
Who can forget the pederasts of Ancient Greece, or the wonderful opportunity for a young woman to be taken as a concubine in the Middle East?
If missionaries would have had Pope Francis’ sage wisdom, those perfect cultures of noble savages could have been left to their devices and eaten as many human hearts as they wanted, and followed things up with a culturally expressive psychedelic ritual orgy.
Wait, did I lose my train of thought? I thought we were talking about pre-Christian societies, not the annual Democrat meeting at Bohemian Grove.
Lets see what else il Pappa had to say.
Consequently, he argued that “proselytism” was the “most serious sin that a missionary can have.”
Therefore, the most serious sin that a missionary can have is proselytism. Catholicism is not proselytism.
Well, isn’t that interesting. Now, the popesplainers will tell you that the pope couldn’t have meant that converting others was a sin, because when Pope Francis uses the word “proselytism” he surely means going and finding pagans and beating them with clubs until they become Christian.
Now, forgive my ignorance and inability to commune with the spirit of Vatican II, but I believe the pope actually means what he says.
Proselytism is defined as to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to your own.
So if Pope Francis is smart enough to read and write, which I am sure he is, then it seems that he said it was the “most serious sin” for a missionary to try and persuade people to become Christian. Which in turn means it is a serious sin, in the eyes of Pope Francis, to convince someone to save their soul.
If we let all those non-Christians go to hell, at least they will have the satisfaction of going there without being proselytized.
One last thing, it is a bit ironic that the popesplainers will undoubtedly go to the ends of the earth to explain that Pope Francis couldn’t have meant what he said, and that you are a big bad mean Rad Trad if you say otherwise.
But who respects the pope more?
The popesplainer who tries to convince you that Pope Francis is too stupid to understand the words that come out of his own mouth, or the so-called Rad Trad who has enough respect for the man to believe he has the use of reason and a command of language and actually knows the meaning of the words he uses?
