Another humiliation of the Papacy…
VATI-LEAKS:
“Pope” Francis flaunts use of Portable Toilet during Milan Visit
[UPDATE: Vatican insider and contributor to Osservatore Romano, Ulrich Nersinger, reports that the whole bathroom incident was planned in advance]
Yes, we all have to take care of business at some point, but there’s a discreet way of doing it and then there’s the Francis way: During his trip to Milan, Italy, today, “Pope” Francis decided to use a portable toilet in front of rolling cameras, presumably to once again demonstrate to the world his great “humility.”
There is video of it here:
Francis is no dummy. He knows that such a thing — in front of reporters and countless people with cell phones that record audio and video — will be front-page news the next day and within seconds all over the internet. One can only imagine the indecent remarks that will accompany the images.
What an utter public humiliation of the Papacy! Not that the man is actually the Pope, but that doesn’t matter in this case — virtually everyone believes him to be, and this is what does all the damage to the Papacy in people’s minds.
The Sebach brand, which is the company that made the portable toilet, will now be able to advertise its product as “the Pope’s toilet”, and comedians all over the world will have a field day cracking jokes about the Papacy and (what they think is) the Catholic Church.
As always, you can thank Frank!
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use
This Marxist has no shame, no sense of decency, and no humility, rightly understood. He does know a thing or two about revolution. Just ask the communists in Argentina.
Objectively, not one of the best articles I’ve read on here, but l can imagine lots of jokes could come of Frankie really being Poop Francis now. Lol.
We will now have many caricatures of the pope caricature!
He always acts on any chance to be base, beastly, never placing the divine, angelic, above all else. Remember the filthy comments about this same subject matter he made earlier, terms most people won’t even say. And what of the media here, so fascinated and enamored with the pretender, that they actually crowd around to snap shots of a man going into a toilet? Disgusting.
Not only terms people wouldnt use, terms most of us never heard of before (and wish we never did). I keep asking myself, why would he even know that word?
Yes, that was also the first time I had heard those terms, and it’s just another example of where this charlatan is coming from. “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” Luke 6:45
Now the semi trads are pissed off that he didnt kneel in front of “the blessed sacrament”. Maybe he knows something they dont about NO sacraments.
Of course it’s not a sin to use a portable toilet, in and of itself. But you missed the point entirely: It IS a sin to humiliate the papacy. The issue isn’t that he used the bathroom — it that’s he used it in front of everyone.
No, I did not miss the point.
To begin with, I deny that Pope Francis humiliated the papacy by his action. Your perception that he did so originates in your subjectivity, and not in the objective facts of the matter.
But beyond this, you impute motives for his action to Francis that you have no way of knowing. It is not as though God has granted you the gift of clearly and distinctly discerning otherwise hidden motives. As such, your post violates Our Lord’s injunction against judging others – a very common failing indeed among Catholic Traditionalists of all stripes.
You’re forgetting something: We’ve had 4 years of “Pope” Francis, and during that time, he has made it all too clear what his motives are and what he is about. I only point out what is objectively manifest, although apparently still not manifest to all. This has nothing to do with rash judgment.
In your blog post, you judged Pope Francis very specifically for his action of using the toilet. You adjudged this particular action to be a sin in a very specific manner. You made no allowance for the likelihood that Pope Francis simply was experiencing an intense physical need to relieve himself, and made use of the available faclities to do so just like any decent and respectable human being in that particular venue would do.
So yes, your blog post has everything to do with rash judgment about another human being’s motives.
Yep, and I stand by that judgment, which was reasonable and not rash. The “Pope” is welcome to redress the objective scandal he caused and in a press release clarify the matter.
The “objective scandal” of the situation exists entirely in your mind. It is a phantasm that, I assume, is substantially driving your imputation of morally condemnable motives to Pope Francis. Nevertheless, your imputation of such motives to Francis remains without moral justification.
In truth, insofar as this particular incident reflects on the public image of the papacy, it does so in the same way as the incident early in Francis’s pontificate when he surprised ordinary cafeteria workers in the Vatican by sitting down to eat a meal with them. In other words, it reflects on the papacy in a positive way, by humanizing it, and lending some degree of credence to the traditional papal claim that the Pope really is just another human being like us who is “The servant of the servants of God.”
All of this is entirely positive and agreeable to Our Lord.
The scandal has been caused independently of the motive. Read the post again. This is going to do so much additional damage to Catholicism and the image of the Papacy, regardless of what he may have intended. We don’t any more “humanizing” of the Papacy because it is not a human institution.
Now you are backpedaling and implicitly conceding that you don’t know what motivated Pope Francis to relieve himself in the way that he did. So please publicly grant him the benefit of your doubt by admitting that you judged him rashly by imputing sin to him for the simple act of using a portable toilet.
And yes, the papacy IS a merely human institution, actually. But if it were divine, it would be much more in the character of God to mold its constitution in accordance with what is suggested by Pope Francis’s gestures of eating at a cafeteria and using the toilet like a common human being than in accordance with the totalitarian dictatorship articulated in Unam Sanctam, Pastor Aeternus, etc.
No, I am not backpedaling at all. The scandal caused was objective. Perhaps you need to review the definition of scandal, which does not require that an act BE evil but only APPEAR evil and presents an occasion for another’s spiritual ruin.
Benefit of the doubt? Not for Francis. He forfeited that privilege many years ago back in Buenos Aires.
As a Nestorian heretic, I would not expect you to know or understand the Papacy.
How exactly does using a portable toilet pave the way for another’s spiritual ruin??? Come on, sir, you are really making a mountain out of a molehill here. It is not as though Pope Francis openly bared his penis to urinate in public, for crying out loud! You asserted originally that he was not discreet, but in fact, he WAS discreet, in that he abided by the normal expectations of human decorum in repairing to the privacy of a toilet stall.
As for your dismissal of my understanding of the papacy on the grounds that I am a Nestorian heretic, this is both ad hominem and richly ironic. I think you knew very well yourself even as you were making the assertion that it isn’t true.
The reason for the irony is that I, like you, am deeply versed in Catholic doctrine on the papacy in a way that almost no one who calls themselves Catholic is.
In a very real sense, the whole raison d’etre of your site is to correct and deepen the understanding of what the papacy actually involves on the part of almost everyone who calls themselves Catholic (whether Traditionalist or Novus Ordo), since they are so badly informed.
As for myself, on the other hand, I think you know very well that I have a far better understanding of Catholic teaching on the papacy than virtually everyone who considers themselves Catholic – even though I am a Nestorian “heretic.”
In fact, in my estimation, your website is by far the best in the Catholic blogosphere that I am aware of precisely because you understand so well what the Catholic doctrine on the papacy really involves – unlike virtually all the others. That is why I keep coming back.
What’s an occasion for another’s spiritual ruin is the humiliation of the Papacy. Bared penis? No, but that might be next – don’t give him any ideas, and don’t put it past him.
My comment was ad hominem but not meant to be an argument, so the ad hominem was quite appropriate.
No, your ad hominem attack was not appropriate, and I take issue with it both in a logical and epistemological sense, and on a personal level.
First, I take issue with your suggestion that I do not have a profound understanding of Catholic doctrine on the papacy. That is manifestly false.
Furthermore, I take issue with your assertion that I am a “heretic.” That is a point to be debated, not taken for granted. Who is to say that it isn’t you who is the “heretic” in the issues at dispute between us?
Apart from this, your use of the term “heretic” carries negative connotations that are thoroughly inapplicable to the situation. I love the truth deeply, and your insinuation that I do not is something that you really ought to apologize for.
Sir, you stated that the Papacy is a merely human institution. That disqualifies you right there. On this web site, Catholic dogma as true is taken for granted. If you want to debate Catholic vs. Nestorian issues, you can do that but it won’t be here. Now please move on. I don’t have all day to respond to your comments.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting up with me.
The argument of NOW is that the Holy Father has damaged the dignity of the Papacy.
The fact that the leftist mainstream media is praising it is not necessarily in itself a sign of wrongdoing, but it should raise questions.
If you put his “humanizing” of the Papacy in the context of “who am I to judge” it’s much more of a problem than simply needing to go to the bathroom.
I think we can all understand his motives.
He didn’t use a public toilet.
He used one directly in front of the media.
You’re judging him by calling him judgemental.
When did he use it front of everyone? He went inside a closed door Porta potty. He didn’t whip it out in the street. How nutty can you guts get?
It’s not a huge crisis or anything.
People are tired of the nonsense, is all.
We don’t need any more “humanizing” the papacy or “reaching people where they’re at.”
We’ve had that spirit since 1969 and all its done is spread confusion, anxiety, and empty out the churches.
We need CLARITY!
The Americans have a president who doesn’t mince words. Yet our spiritual leader only speaks directly when he gets involved with leftist causes like climate change and supporting illegal invaders flooding western countries (not my country, thankfully- we will NEVER let foreigners take over!)
!!!!!!!
Oh blessed are the peacemakers. They shall be called the children of God.
Obviously those who can’t let an elderly Pope even relieve himself in peace without turning it to scandal don’t fit the mold.
He now has something else in common with Luther.
Since when is it a sin to urinate or defecate? Isn’t that the way God made human beings to function in this world. Perhaps you are thinking of others on another planet.
Just think of all the priest, bishops and cardinals as well as all the Papal Masters of Ceremonies who partake in the lengthy Papal Masses. They have to restrict their food intake and liquid for 24 hours prior to the Mass. Do you not think there is a mass exodus post the Mass to the nearest restroom or Porta Potty when held out of doors? Think of the poor organist who has to sit there for 2 hours and play when their bladders are bursting. Just one reason there is so much Prostate Cancer amongst Clergy. Holding any bodily fluid for any length of time causes many problems. Let us remember that even you, aging the way you are will find the Prostate a troubling imposition on your daily life.
You have missed the point. Of course it’s not wrong to do one’s business. But for the “Pope” to do it the way he did, is a humiliation of the papacy in people’s minds. There is a protocol to be followed when the “Pope” has to go, and he broke it, as he loves to break protocol on other things as well to demonstrate how wonderfully “humble” he is.
How about members of his entourage? His Papal M.C’s for instance who also made good use of the facilities. These are just mere men and don’t have bladders double the size of other men. Holding it too long causes a multitude of problems. Just as celibacy causes medical problems when the natural secretions are not eliminated one way or another.
You surely could not have asked him to behave in any other manner.
You are acting as if he didn’t use the toilet at all but instead ‘conducted his business’ on a public street.
If you have a legitimate concern about the Pope, let’s hear it. This can’t be the best you’ve got, this is nonsensical.