Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Interview with Belgian Periodical

Filthy Francis Unloads More Bilge, Shocks Millions using Perverted Imagery


As you read this blog post about Francis’ latest drivel, we ask you to keep before you these holy words of our Blessed Lord: “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” (Lk 6:45).

Today, Dec. 7, 2016, the Belgian Novus Ordo periodical Tertio published yet another interview with the anti-Catholic Modernist Jorge Bergoglio, more commonly known by his stage name, “Pope Francis”. It has been published in English on the Vatican web site. We estimate that this brings the total number of interviews the papal pretender has given, to at least 40. The Bergoglian verbal sewer has been gushing since March of 2013, and no one has yet been able to shut it off.

What difference could the umpteenth interview possibly make at this point? Everyone has become so accustomed to Bergoglio’s near-daily attacks on Catholic Faith and morals as to elicit barely a shrug from people at the news of yet another heretical or erroneous screed, so what could possibly be different this time?

Quite simply, what’s different this time is that Francis has stooped so low as to use imagery of the most sick perversions imaginable in order to make a point. He had done so in an interview before, but not as “Pope” — it was in 2012, when he was the “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires. When we reported on this three years ago (see here), we censored the actual terms he used because the matter is so disgusting and smutty that we did not want to soil our own web site with them nor introduce our readers to these concepts that are so sick that virtually no one even knows about them.

This time, however, we cannot censor the terminology again, because the secular news media has already picked up on Francis’ words and explained the meaning behind them.

Dear reader: If you are faint of heart, please do not continue reading this post. Most of all, do not let your children read it. We are headed into very sick territory.

The terms Francis used are “coprophilia” and “coprophagia”. Most likely, these won’t mean anything to you, and they were unknown to us as well until Francis came on the scene. But now we must tell you what they mean: “Coprophilia” denotes sexual excitement at the sight of feces, and “coprophagia” refers to the eating of such.

Breathe in. Breathe out. If you need a barf bag, you can order some here.

The scandal created by the “Vicar of Christ” using such filthy ideas in an interview — even regardless of the context, to which we shall get in a moment — defies imagination. The damage to souls is enormous and irreparable. Think of the poor children who find out what just came from this man’s mouth, and who will ask their parents tonight: “What’s coprophilia? What’s coprophagia? Can I look it up online?” We can only imagine how many internet searches for these terms will now be run, and what photos, associated web sites, and advertisements will come up. Francis is straight from hell; there is no doubt about it. Again, we recall: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Lk 6:45). Bergoglio has given us a glimpse of his perverted mind.

Now, let’s have a look at the context. What was Francis talking about? Here is a direct quote from the interview:

A thing that can do great damage to the information media is disinformation: that is, faced with any situation, saying only a part of the truth, and not the rest. This is disinformation. Because you, to the listener or the observer, give only half the truth, and therefore it is not possible to make a serious judgement. Disinformation is probably the greatest damage that the media can do, as opinion is guided in one direction, neglecting the other part of the truth. And then, I believe that the media should be very clear, very transparent, and not fall prey – without offence, please – to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal, to communicate ugly things, even though they may be true. And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, it can do great harm.

(“Interview with the Holy Father Francis for the Belgian Catholic weekly, ‘Tertio'”, Dec. 7, 2016)

In other words, Francis used these two disgusting concepts — “coprophilia” and “coprophagia” — as metaphors for indulging in scandalous news stories, whether by spreading them or by listening to them. This, he says, is a “sickness” that does “great harm.”

Indeed, calumny and detraction are grave sins that do great harm. And yes, Francis basically used these two “C words” to condemn them. But this consideration does not redeem their use at all, because it’s beside the point. The point is that Francis nonchalantly refers to concepts that are so disgusting and horrifying in themselves that only the most hardcore perverts would even know what they are (excepting highly trained moral theologians, for obvious reasons), and virtually anyone will be bewildered at their mention, for we are not to entertain such sordid ideas:

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

(Ephesians 5:2-5)

So, the point is simply this: Francis is gratuitously bringing up in a public interview — one that he knows will be read by people of all ages around the globe and talked about in all the news media –, ideas that are exclusively associated with perverted sexual practices of the worst kind. This is an outrage beyond all telling. “And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mk 9:41).

This cannot be defended on the specious grounds that Francis was using these terms in the context of criticizing the evil of gossip. There are other words one can use to make the point that detraction and calumny are sinful. No one needs imagery from the sado-masochist underworld to highlight that. Metaphors can be useful, but they must be modest so as not to offend and bring about a greater evil than the one which one is seeking to redemy. If a proper metaphor cannot be found, none should be used. This isn’t difficult to understand.

To demonstrate that Francis’ unbridled tongue is indeed being picked up by the media, here are a few links from various secular news sources that are reporting on Francis’ “C words”:

Back in 2o13, the valiant anti-perversion crusader Randy Engel penned a scathing rebuke of “Pope” Francis regarding homosexuality and related issues:

Unfortunately, there are more highlights lowlights to cover from Francis’ interview with Tertio: He attacked the Catholic doctrine of the confessional state (which is at least proximate to heresy), insinuated that Catholic “fundamentalists” are terrorists, claimed that his idea for the Year of Mercy was inspired by the Holy Ghost, denied that the Papacy is a monarchy, and renewed his appeal for “tender” clergy who “caress the suffering blood of Jesus”. You can’t make it up!

Here is the Bergoglian claptrap verbatim:

There is a healthy secularism, for instance, the secularism of the State. In general, a secular State is a good thing; it is better than a confessional State, because confessional States finish badly. But secularism is one thing, and laicism is another. Laicism closes the doors to transcendence, to the dual transcendence: both transcendence towards others and, above all, transcendence towards God; or towards what is beyond us. And openness to transcendence is part of the human essence. It is part of man. I am not speaking about religion, I am speaking about openness to transcendence….

…no religion as such can foment war. Because in this case it would be proclaiming a god of destruction, a god of hatred. One cannot wage war in the name of God or in the name of a religious position. War cannot be waged in any religion. And for this reason terrorism and war are not related to religion. Religion is distorted to justify them, this is true. You are witnesses of this, you have experienced it in your homeland. But they are distortions of religion, that do not relate to the essence of the religious fact, which is instead love, unity, respect, dialogue, all these things. … But not in that aspect, or rather, we must be categorical about this, no religion proclaims war for the fact of religion. Religious distortions, yes. For example, all religions have fundamentalist groups.

All of them, we do too. And they destroy, starting from their fundamentalism. But these are small religious groups that have distorted and have “sickened” their religion, and as a result they fight, they wage war, or they cause division in communities, which is a form of war. But these are the fundamentalist groups we have in all religions.

One fine day I said to Msgr. Fisichella, who had come about matters related to his Dicastery, “How I would like to hold a Jubilee, a Jubilee of Mercy”. And he said, “Why not?” And that is how the Year of Mercy began. It is the best assurance that it was not a human idea, but rather that it came from on high. I believe that it was inspired by the Lord.

…The Church is born from the community, it is born from the foundation, it is born from Baptism, and it is organised around a bishop, who brings it together and gives it strength; the bishop who is the successor of the Apostles. This is the Church. But in all the world there are many bishops, many organised Churches, and there is Peter. Therefore either there is a pyramidal Church, in which what Peter says is done, or there is a synodal Church, in which Peter is Peter but he accompanies the Church, he lets her grow, he listens to her, he learns from this reality and goes about harmonising it, discerning what comes from the Church and restoring it to her. The richest experience of all this was that of the last two Synods. There all the bishops of the world were heard, during preparation; all the Churches of the world, the dioceses, worked. All this material was worked on during the first Synod, which gave its results to the Church, and then we returned a second time – the second Synod – to complete all this. And from there Amoris Laetitia emerged. It is interesting to see the rich variety of nuances, typical of the Church. It is unity in diversity. This is synodality.

Do not descend from high to low, but listen to the Churches, harmonise them, discern. And so there is a post-Synodal exhortation, which is Amoris Laetitia, which is the result of two Synods, in which all the Church worked, and which the Pope made his own. It is expressed in a harmonious way. It is interesting that all that it contains [Amoris Laetitia], in the Synod it was approved by more than two thirds of the fathers. And this is a guarantee. A synodal Church means that there is this movement from high to low, high to love. And the same in the dioceses. But there is a Latin phrase, that says that the Churches are always cum Petro et sub Petro. Peter is the guarantor of the unity of the Church. He is the guarantor.

Priests should never be ashamed of having tenderness.

May they caress the suffering blood of Jesus. Today there is a need for a revolution of tenderness in this world that suffers from “cardiosclerosis”.


(“Interview with the Holy Father Francis for the Belgian Catholic weekly, ‘Tertio'”,, Dec. 7, 2016)

There would be so much to say in response to all this, but it has been said many times before, and chances are you have heard it many times before.

Enough for today. Tomorrow will, no doubt, bring its own big news as Francis steamrollers over the last remaining ruins of Christendom.

Share this content now: