Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

Pope Francis Dead at 88

I have issued some trenchant statements over the years about the late Pope Francis, but for now my watchword is: de mortuis nil nisi bonum.  I will only add that in the wee hours of yesterday's vigil, before I became aware of Francis's passing,  I was re-reading Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 1968 Introduction to Christianity in pursuit of the question lately raised about the meaning of "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) I was once again impressed by the power and penetration of the thinking of the man who later became Pope Benedict XVI. As I was admiring Ratzinger's philosophical and theological 'chops,' I thought disparagingly of the pope now passed.

Our friend Vito Caiati sent me this morning a rather more incisive  take on the late pope.

I would like to share my thoughts on the current reaction to the death of Pope Francis, which I find worrisome and which reminded me of some advice of Montaigne on speaking of the powerful after death.

He writes:

“Among the laws that relate to the dead, it seems to me very sound those by which the actions of princes are to be examined after their decease. They are equals with, if not masters of the laws, and what justice could not inflict upon their heads [persons], it is reason that it should be executed upon their reputations and the estates of their successors—things that we often value above life itself” (Les essais de Montaigne, v.1, c 3 [my translation]).

All over X, yesterday and this morning, the whitewashing of Pope Francis, by his ideological allies and his “conservative” critics alike, continues unabated. Very few voices—most notably that of Archbishop Viganò*—dare to speak the truth, for self-interest and cowardice continue to rule. So, I ask: After twelve years of deceit, heresy, repression, and scandal, must we now also bear this mindless outpouring of fallacious sentiment, much of it nothing but deception, about this malevolent and destructive man? Rather on these days of all days, must we not, if “justice” is to be served, speak the truth about the grave harms he inflicted on the faithful and the Church?  If truth is not told, the current wave of historical eradication, both that purposely propagated by the leftist, doctrinally tainted episcopate installed by Bergoglio and that arising from the unreflective sentimentality of the masses, may well result in the irredeemable upending of the RCC, which is already in a perilous state of decline.   

 Vito

 * https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1914273114587824193

 

Posted

in

, ,

by

Bill Vallicella

Tags:

Comments

21 responses to “Pope Francis Dead at 88”

  1. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    For those interested in longer critical appraisals of Bergoglio’s pontificate, the following are worthy of consideration:
    “De mortuis nisi bonum” – Francis as a Child of His Age” from Messa in latino appearing yesterday as a translation from the Italian in Rorate Caeli (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/04/de-mortuis-nisi-bonum-francis-as-child.html#more).
    Henry Sire, “Francis, an admirer of Peron — and the most culpably heretical pope in history?” (https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/04/francis-an-admirer-of-peron-and-the-most-culpably-heretical-pope-in-history/).
    And Elizabeth Yore and Steve Bannon on Bannon War Room speaking of the resignation of Pope Benedict, the installation of Bergoglio, and his role in promoting, in alliance with the American left (Obama/Biden), mass migration and in betraying the faithful Chinese Catholic Church (https://rumble.com/v6sdsnt-yore-this-colour-revolution-was-for-specific-purpose-to-use-the-catholic-ch.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp).

    Reply
  2. Ben Avatar
    Ben

    Reading these appraisals of Francis, I’m seeing the words of “non-pope”and “anti-pope.” Can someone, who is more in the know about Catholic Church law, direct me to or sketch the case that “Bergoglio the Benighted” was a fraudulent pope. To be clear, this isn’t a defense of him. As a a non-Catholic Christian who is still invested in the most visible Christian in the world being a prime example on behalf of Christianity, I fully agree that he was an incredibly poor and destructive pontiff, but “anti-pope” or a false pope seem a little hyperbolic, no? Out of curiosity, I just don’t know how that can be the case where there can be an illegitimate pope outside of a case where two or more “popes” lay claim to St. Peter’s chair as has happened in the long history of the Catholic Church.

    Reply
  3. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Ben,
    You call attention to the great contradiction at the heart of current existential crisis of the RCC. For, on the one hand, The Code of Canon Law states that the pope “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (c. 332), and that “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (333, 3).* On the other hand, in making declarations, including ex cathedra statements, he cannot distort or contradict Scripture or Tradition, “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Vatican 1, 4th Session, Chapter 4**).
    In a noted homily of 7 May 2005, Pope Benedit XVI clearly explained this limitation on papal power:
    “The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism….
    The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church’s pilgrimage. Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God. It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.”*
    Thus, underlying the proper function of this system of papal governance is the assumption that the Chair of Peter would continuously be occupied by orthodox prelates whose acts and words are governed by adherence to the Deposit of Faith. With Francis, who declared his intention “to make a mess,” the system was seriously destabilized through his many dubious pronouncements on faith and morals, his material if not formal heresies, his uncharitable actions towards the faithful, and so on.
    Archbishop Viganò’s use of the term “non-pope” refers to the manner of the election of Bergoglio, which the archbishop considers illegitimate, and “anti-pope”, to the heterodox nature of this rule. I think that the imprecision of this terminology, and I agree there are problems with it, is a reflection of extraordinary nature of the present crisis. The unshakable protector to the faith promised, in particular, by Vatican I, the Ultramontane Papacy, has turned, instead, into its antagonist. The unthinkable is happening and men grasp for understanding.
    Vito

    Reply
  4. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Post Scriptum: I should have mentioned that the crisis matures with Bergoglio but does not originate with him. Rather, its preconditions are of long duration, running back to the pontificates of J XXIII, marked by the illusory presentism of his aggiornamento that so weakened Tradition and that found full expression in Vatican II; Paul VI, characterized by the willful destruction of the traditional liturgy of the Church and the imposition of the Protestant inspired Novus Ordo by papal fiat, among other defective acts; John Paul II, with its admixture of conservative rhetoric and heterodox actions; and so on. But this is another very complex topic that touches on so many ills that they cannot be easily summarized.

    Reply
  5. Bill V Avatar
    Bill V

    Vito and Ben,
    Thank you both for your comments.
    A comparison of Bergoglio to Biden seems apt. Both were entrusted with the maintenance of great institutions, the RCC and the USA, respectively. But both betrayed their trust. Bergoglio was entrusted with the preservation of the depositum fidei which rests on the twin pillars of Scripture and Tradition. Biden took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which is analogous to Scripture and the SCOTUS rulings which, taken together, are the Tradition of the USA. Both ended up traitors and both should have been thrown out of office.
    Now an analogy is not an identity and so the comparison limps in various places. Feel free to point them out!
    It is my considered judgment that the RCC’s traditional claim to be the one, true, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic church, membership in which is a necessary condition of salvation, cannot be reasonably upheld. That is my judgment as a philosopher and I am entitled to it. Bergoglio the Termite, however, was not entitled to accept the papacy and then turn against the very institution that awarded him his lofty perch. That is like a five-star general in the armed forces who decides to go ‘woke’ and become a pacifist. You are free to become a pacifist but not if your profession is the profession of arms. And similarly for Biden who betrayed his oath of office.

    Reply
  6. Ingvar Avatar
    Ingvar

    In 2018, Eugenio Scalfari reported the words that Bergoglio supposedly confided to him about his vision of the afterlife:
    “Sinful souls are not punished: those who repent obtain God’s forgiveness and join the ranks of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, sinful souls simply disappear”.
    This was found here:
    https://x.com/CarloMVigano

    Reply
  7. Ben Avatar
    Ben

    Thanks Vito and Bill. That helps. I’d be interested in what Vigano thinks was illicit about the conclave that produced Francis. Is there an actual process for the RCC to “impeach” and remove a heretical pontiff? Or is it politically unfeasible or it only happened if you could sway a powerful secular lord and his army to have your back, so to speak, in pronouncing judgment against the pope you wanted to remove?

    Reply
  8. Bill V Avatar
    Bill V

    Ben,
    Vito may be able to answer your questions.
    Ingvar,
    I too was struck by the report of Bergoglio’s view of the afterlife. My take is as follows, and I think Vito will agree.
    B’s view is not an unreasonable one if perhaps tweaked a bit: sinful souls, and we all are, will face punishment with few exceptions, but not for all eternity. A change of heart will be possible after death. Those who repent will eventually enjoy the Beatific Vision. Those who do not, and remain in rebellion, will either be annihilated or will remain in a purgatorial state as long as they like, forever if they so choose.
    Take the atheist and mortalist Christopher Hitchens. If Light there is after death, and Hitchens sees it and admits he is wrong, then, after a period of purgation, he will be admitted into the divine fellowship, and may even achieve what the Eastern Orthodox call theosis. But if, filled with Luciferian pride, he continues in a state of rebellion, then he either gets nixxed, or else remains in a hell of his own creation for as long as he likes.
    But the above sketches a philosopher’s theological speculation. No pope qua pope can be allowed to speculate thusly, except in the privacy of his own mind. He is not free to enjoy the privileges and perquistites of the ancietn instituion whilwe betraying it. That’s what (righteously) angers a conservative like me. This is my objection to him: he is refusing to uphold the depositum fidei. He is a fraud and a heretic just as Biden is a fraud and political heretic who refused to uphld and defend the U.S. Constitution.
    Do you agree, Vito?

    Reply
  9. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Ben,
    Today on X, Archbishop Viganò briefly explained his reasons for questioning the legitimacy of the conclave that elected Bergoglio as pope in 2013, the first of which concerns the manipulation of the conclave by forces aligned with the globalist left (https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1915332649138237627) and the second of which concerns Bergoglio’s “flawed acceptance” of the office of Roman Pontif (https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1915333383946699120). These matters have been discussed at greater length by the archbishop and others who support his positions, but it must be said that these are a minority, even within traditional Catholic circles. I think that there is certainly some, if not conclusive evidence for the first claim and convincing evidence for the second.
    There is no formal legal mechanism in Canon Law for the removal of a pope. However, as far back as the time of the late medieval Conciliar Movement, various theories have been put forward by Catholic thinkers, such as Bellarmine and Suárez, on ways in which such a removal might be accomplished, but these are only theories and not law. In “Popes, heresy, and papal heresy,” the Catholic philosopher Edward Feser briefly discusses the complexity of this issue (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/05/popes-heresy-and-papal-heresy.html).
    Vito

    Reply
  10. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Yes, Bill, I agree, and I find your pairing of Bergoglio and Biden to be entirely apt.

    Reply
  11. BV Avatar
    BV

    Do you remember Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian bishop of Newark?
    A bergoglian character: https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2021/09/bishop-john-shelby-spong-1931-2021.html

    Reply
  12. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    Yes, I remember Spong, who was, to use your terminology, an ecclesiastical “termite” par excellence. Along with his imbecilic doctrinal pronouncements, he was celebrated by progressives in the late 60s for having ordained the first publicly declared finocchio as a priest of the Episcopal Church.

    Reply
  13. Joe Odegaard Avatar
    Joe Odegaard

    Kudos for “finocchio.”

    Reply
  14. BV Avatar
    BV

    Francis no friend of the poor. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-4-23-pope-francis-was-no-friend-of-the-poor
    I am tempted to say that he was a leftist first, a Catholic (of sorts) second.

    Reply
  15. BV Avatar
    BV

    Francis on COVID: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/never-forget-pope-francis-on-covid

    Reply
  16. BV Avatar
    BV

    Vito will probably enjoy this one: https://crisismagazine.com/editors-desk/confessions-of-a-catholic-fundamentalist

    Reply
  17. BV Avatar
    BV

    And this one: https://jimbowman.substack.com/p/was-francis-a-liberal-if-not-what

    Reply
  18. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    Even in arranging for his burial, Bergoglio managed to destroy something ancient and beautiful: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-price-of-humility-destruction-of.html
    Vito

    Reply
  19. BV Avatar
    BV

    Vito,
    I can’t believe it! What an effing outrage! The destruction of what is ancient and beautiful is so typical of the filthy Left. This is right in line with the destruction of monuments permitted by Biden and “Tampon Tim” Walz and others during the so-called “Summer of Love” and elsewhen.
    Herewith another point of comparison between the Biden-Harris maladministration and the Begoglian mis-papacy — to coin a word.

    Reply
  20. BV Avatar
    BV

    And the ‘hits’ keep coming: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/francis-the-pope-who-exasperated-good-catholics/

    Reply
  21. Bill V Avatar
    Bill V

    From the last source:
    He undermined the teaching of Jesus on the indissolubility of marriage, for example, and introduced blessings for same-sex couples. He allowed a pagan earth goddess called a Pachamama to be honoured in a Roman church (it was subsequently stolen and thrown in the River Tiber by a man convinced that idolatry was still a sin forbidden by the first of the Ten Commandments). He elevated climate change ideology to religious dogma and handed over control of the Catholic Church in China to the Communists. Francis effectively did away with Hell by promoting the belief that it was empty and that only a ‘cult’ believed otherwise. Consequently, one did not have to be sorry for one’s sins to receive absolution under this pope or to be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion.
    Heterodox opinions were uniformly tolerated among the clergy, with Francis refusing to sanction even Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp when he argued that the euthanasia of the elderly was as morally justifiable as killing an enemy on the battlefield in a just war. But woe to anyone who expressed orthodox opinions too loudly. Francis brutally suppressed the traditional Latin Mass because it was attractive to such Catholics and he removed a succession of bishops from office because they dissented from his agenda. He would also sack any priest who dared to publicly criticise him.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to BV Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *