Monday, April 14, 2014


Roman Catholics are fond of saying what a great leader “Pope Francis” is, and how much “the world” loves him. However, they ought not to forget, “the world” thinks more highly of him for doing “un-popelike things” like saying “who am I to judge?” and for taking part in adolescent activities like “selfies”.

They should keep in mind that most people don’t love him because he is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Jesuit (or Archibishop or Cardinal); they love him because he is a celebrity, who essentially won a papal conclave lottery that gives him a ready-made global stage on which to do his “un-popelike” things.

Bergoglio is an old guy, and he won’t be able to keep this up for long. Roman Catholics should keep in mind what changes if a Ratzinger-like conservative is up next. What happens to all the adoring fans? But more menacingly, they should keep in mind what changes if one of those cardinals who are more liberal than Bergoglio is up next.


  1. I see that a number of Catholic commentators have been quick to credit Francis with an increase in Mass attendance and religious vocations, though I don't see any attempt to provide actual hard data to substantiate that claim. But doesn't the claim itself implicate Francis' two predessessors as being pastorally inept in some sense? He issued an encyclical, but hadn't Benedict XVI and JPII done that too? Isn't the claim that Francis is very effective also a claim that BXVI and JP2 weren't very effective?

    1. I tend to think it's all very superficial.

    2. As do I, though I find the the Catholic media's continual ululation over all things Francis somewhat fascinating.

  2. Good point