I know it is too early to speak ill of the dead, but I've been struck by the over-the-top coverage of the death of Pope Francis. I don't remember the media doing this for Benedict XVI, or Pope John Paul, both infinitely better pontiffs.

My suspicion is this publicity is not a sign of a greater enthusiasm for Christianity, but that this Pope was more closely aligned with the secular world than previous Popes - the adulation is not because he was a good Christian, but because he wasn't.

I'm not a Catholic, although I went to Catholic schools so have as deep an understanding of that faith as most of its adherents, and like many Protestants I don't support its worship of saints, various doctrines, including, but not limited to, indulgences, or its history of corruption.

But until this Pope, I've always admired that whatever the rights and wrongs of their position, the church has been prepared to defend it, unlike my own denomination, the Anglicans.

Yet, despite outwardly wearing the robes of Christianity, Francis degraded it from within. As Mark Steyn said this morning:

"On almost all the issues I care about - from free speech to the Falkland Islands, climate change to the Islamisation of Europe - His Holiness was on the other side, and mostly for shallow and meretricious reasons. Given the remorseless decay in the heart of Christendom during these years, his papacy has to be accounted a terrible failure at a time when the Church could least afford it." http://www.steynonline.com/15235/of-pontiffs-and-poseurs.

My grandmother was a stern Methodist. She thought the Pope was the anti-Christ. It's not a position I would agree with in general, but in this specific case I think she was close to the mark. No wonder Vanity Fair is giving him so much coverage.

Worst Pope ever: an interfering old ratbag lefty. Let's hope they get it right with the next one; not that it matters much these days.

Yes, we can't have these lardy-dardy Popes caring about the poor, the weak, the down trodden, the lame, the forgotten. It just wont do, will it Graham, its not Christian when it don't suit your particular political mantra. Of course his biggest "sin" was he cared about people, and he probably never voted for the LNP as well!

The media is only in overdrive because Frank pandered to the queers etc. I'd expect no less from Paul1405 than to praise him !
The next Pope will most likely be a transgender Jamaican woman in a wheel chair !

Graham,

Your problem with Pope Francis isn’t theological - it’s political. Are you saying a “real” Christian Pope should:

- Oppose climate action,
- Push nationalist agendas like the Falklands,
- Be hostile toward Islam,
- And avoid praise from left-leaning media?

That’s not Christianity. That’s culture war conservatism. Francis wasn’t “secular” - he just wasn’t reactionary.

You’re not defending Christianity - you’re gatekeeping it on behalf of a political tribe.

Indy,

Your perfect hate all rolled up in one, black, different, female, disadvantaged. WOW! You've hit the jackpot, like you called me, you can refer to her as a another " concrete jungle bunny".

John Daysh,

All these Trumpsters here, think Donald is god, what else do we need to know?

I’m not a Catholic and I totally reject all the creation myths, legends and rituals associated with the Christian religion. However, when a Pope comes along who reminds his fellow Catholics that their revered spiritual leader apparently cared deeply about the poor, the weak, the down trodden, the lame, the forgotten, and that they should follow his example … he’s got my support.

Is a cat that refuses to kill mice a bad feline?

Is a Pope that refuses to burn witches a bad Christian?

Seems like according to some here, the worst Pope ever was... Jesus!
(no, not that rational previous Pope who in self-preservation-mode joined the Hitlerjugend, then the Nazi-German anti-aircraft forces, unlike this stupid no-good Jesus who for the love of all and their redemption allowed his body to be crucified)

Was Jesus wearing the robes of Christianity?

Paul1405,
What you call JB are not the half-baked academic Woke High rise dwelling CJB I referred to. Your racist interpretation is nothing more than a very opportunistic airing of your racist mentality that is totally irrelevant to our debates.

Rocco Loiacono (‘Pope Francis the Catastrophic’) has the measure of the far-Left Pope Francis as he “balances up the fawning eulogies”.

Francis was:

. Called Machiavelli at the seminary
. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires he was known as a “master of manipulation”.
. He was a virtue signaller “par excellence” - dispensing with his driver and travelling by bus - accompanied by a photographer recording his ‘goodness’.
. His election to Pope was possibly rigged by the secretive ‘St Gallen mafia’ to change the direction of the Church and bring it into the modern world - as though it had to conform to the ‘modern’ world.
. He was no reformer, continuously issuing edicts to cement his authority, and getting rid of heads of religious orders who stuck to religious teachings.
. George Pell wrote of a “‘toxic nightmare’ of the ‘Synod on Synodality’, stating that it was ‘largely irrelevant to the preaching of the gospel and the threat of decline, being more concerned with redistribution of power’”.
. Reforms were “disastrous”, reducing the Curia to a “business” that provided assistance to “clients” as if it was a multinational enterprise, and not a ecclesial body.

Francis stuck his nose into everything political from illegal immigrants, to climate change, to Covid jabs - which, he opined, were a “moral imperative”. He welcomed LGBT activists to the Vatican, jabbering “who am I to judge?” when his answer is in the Bible.

Francis was also a hypocrite on the matter of clerical sexual abuse.

This man was the worst possible Pope at a time when the Catholic Church and Christianity in general is being denigrated by the ignorant and the evil

The politicisation of the churches in the hope that it would make them relevant to the new generations and therefore bolster their waning position and power has been an utter failure.

I'm sure the evangelical mission continues to be paramount in the lower ranks of the various church's clergy, but in most cases the established churches now act as little more than very wealthy and powerful NGO's. The wealth they now luxuriate in and the power they have, such as it is, was derived from an era when churches really did matter.

Of coarse, in places like Africa and Southern America, things are somewhat different and the Vatican still holds significant sway.

However, elsewhere, the churches have lost their significance to the general populace which has seen the rise of any number new-age religious movements, still Christian, still vaguely adhering to the tenets of John 3:16, but not in the slightest connected with or controlled by Canterbury or the Vatican. It is now estimated that there are approximately 450 million Christians who no longer consider themselves part of the establishment churches.

Francis has now obtained his final promotion and moves on. But it seems he's stacked the list of Cardinals to ensure his views will remain those of the establishment Catholic Church. Their church - their call. But I suspect that what remains of the Church in 2200 will look back at this era as the time when they lost all relevance to the majority of Christians.

Trumpster,

Do you think Pope Francis seen your man Donald as the Antichrist? The false messiah who will claim to be a savior, but will reign over a terrible period in human history, upsetting the world, and casting a shadow of darkness over the whole planet! I don't think the Pope liked your man Donald terribly much, maybe he seen him for what he is.

The enemy of my enemy, heh Paul?

It doesn't require much thinking and that's just the way Paul likes it.

"It is now estimated that there are approximately 450 million Christians who no longer consider themselves part of the establishment churches".

Good to hear. The church bureaucracy is now just like any other bureaucracy: to be avoided at all costs.

.

Dear Graham,

.

At least 80% of surveyed U.S. Catholics expressed a favourable opinion of Francis in 10 of 15 polls conducted by the Pew Research Center between 2013, when he became pope, and February 9, 2025. His highest favourability rating was 90% in February 2015.

As of 2025, the number of Catholics worldwide is approximately 1.4 billion. This reflects a growth from about 1.39 billion in 2022 to 1.406 billion in 2023.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 20% of Australians declare themselves to be Catholics.

I guess non-Catholic Australians have their own champions, idols, gurus, or whatever …

.

mhaze,

The Church getting mixed up in politics isn’t some new thing. It’s been happening forever - emperors, kings, revolutions - you name it. The only real difference today is that the Church is speaking up on issues some people don’t want it talking about.

It’s easy to call it "politicisation" when the Church focuses on things like poverty, climate change, or migration. But it’s not politics for its own sake - it’s rooted in basic Gospel values. If anything, Francis was trying to drag the Church back to its actual foundations: caring for the vulnerable, not preserving comfort for the powerful.

You also seem nostalgic for the days when the Church was dripping with wealth and political influence, but that’s part of what alienated people in the first place. Francis understood that. His push wasn't about chasing relevance with trends - it was about credibility through humility. A lot of people found that refreshing, not alienating.

Yeah, millions of Christians have moved outside traditional denominations. But it’s not because the Church cared too much about justice or mercy. It’s because they saw too little of it from the institutions that were supposed to embody it.

If the Church loses ground in the future, it won't be because of Popes like Francis. It'll be because too many people mistook nostalgia for faith.

mhaze,

<<The enemy of my enemy, heh Paul?>> Not at all, who exactly are my enemy, people who promote injustice in this world they are the true enemy. The Catholic Church as an institution, and some individuals within that church, have much to answer for on the score of injustice, Pope Frances failed in some areas, the roll of women within the church for example, but succeeded in others, he did well at highlighting the plight of refugees and the marginalised in society, his condemnation of war was an achievement in itself.

p/s Don't you think the attendance of the Antichrist, Donald Trump, was rather hypocritical?

"You also seem nostalgic for the days when the Church was dripping with wealth and political influence, "

Do I? Where dd I say anything remotely like that? Do you just make this rubbish up or are your comprehension skills truly that bad?

"Francis was trying to drag the Church back to its actual foundations: caring for the vulnerable, not preserving comfort for the powerful."

Actually the "actual foundations" of the Roman Church was to further the evangelistic mission around the word of Christ and Paul. All else is and was secondary and a consequence of giving your life to the deity. The church hierarchies in Rome and Canterbury have lost sight of that and that's why millions are flocking to so-called New Age churches.

_____________________________________________________________________

Paul, who doesn't believe in a Christ, somehow believes in an anti-Christ. Double-think lives in the beating heart of the unthinking TDS adherents.

Yes, you do, mhaze. (Note the words "seem.")

You didn’t explicitly say you were nostalgic for wealth and power - but when you frame the Church’s past strength in terms of political influence and luxurious wealth, and then describe its current loss of “significance” as a bad thing, the implication is pretty clear. If that's not what you meant, fine - but that’s how it reads.

As for your point about the "foundations," I don’t disagree that evangelism was central. But spreading the Gospel wasn’t supposed to be detached from living it. Jesus’ ministry was full of calls to care for the poor, the sick, and the outcast. Francis emphasised those things because they are at the core of Christian life - not an optional extra after conversion.

You’re right that millions are turning away from the old institutions. But if you think it’s because the Church spent too much time talking about mercy and justice, and not enough time just preaching John 3:16 in isolation, you’re missing what a lot of disillusioned Christians are actually saying: they want a faith that feels real, not one that sounds like a political platform.

Trumpster you are at it again, lying!

"Paul, who doesn't believe in a Christ, somehow believes in an anti-Christ." Do I? Where dd I say anything remotely like that? Do you just make this rubbish up or are your comprehension skills truly that bad? Plenty of historical, Non-Christian sourced evidence for Christs existence.

I said; Do you think Pope Francis seen your man Donald as the Antichrist? I took that question to be rhetorical and not requiring an answer from YOU! Frances did indeed see Donald as an Antichrist figure, based on his pontifications. When I said; Don't you think the attendance of the Antichrist, Donald Trump, was rather hypocritical? Again somewhat rhetorical. We could have had an Unholy Trinity sitting in the front row, Donald, flanked by Vlad on the right, and Kimmy on the left, all dressed in snappy black uniforms. Remember that prostitute, she said Donald dressed in snappy black pj's.

"You didn’t explicitly say you were nostalgic for wealth and power -"

Oh JD's back to reading between the lines rather than the actual lines again. Its standard JD, make up someone else's views for them and then declare then fools for having such views.

JD SEEMS to be a moron.

"they want a faith that feels real, not one that sounds like a political platform."

Oh so now you agree that its political. Stand by for verbal gymnastics.

If you ever went to some of these 'other' churches, you'd see that what people want is fellowship, and the preaching of the gospel. Although I suspect you'd SEEM to misunderstand it.

_____________________________________________________________________

Paul, You said outright that Trump was the anti-Christ. QED.

Paul SEEMS to be learning from JD. Now everything's 'rhetorical' rather than an opinion.

mhaze,

You keep accusing me of making things up, but all I did was point out the natural reading of your own words.

You talked about the Church’s loss of significance after highlighting its past political influence and wealth. That's not inventing your views - it’s basic comprehension. If that's not what you intended to imply, you’re free to clarify without the tantrum and defensiveness.

As for your "political" point: talking about mercy, justice, or caring for creation isn’t partisan politics - it’s living the Gospel. The only reason it gets labelled "political" now is because some Christians have fused their faith with a particular political tribe, and anything that doesn't match it gets treated as suspect.

And yes, I know people want fellowship and preaching. Nobody said otherwise. But fellowship without compassion is just a club, and preaching without action is just noise.

You can keep sneering if you want, but it doesn't change the facts - or the Gospel.

Trumpster,

Where is your evidence that I; "Paul, who doesn't believe in a Christ, somehow believes in an anti-Christ." That's like me saying; "Trumpster who doesn't believe in the Easter Bunny, somehow believes in the Tooth Fairy.

Given Pope Frances was a strong adherent to scripture, he would have been familiar with the text in Revelation's which refers to the beast, the Antichrist;

"The Antichrist—the "beast" seen coming from the sea (Revelation 13:1)—becomes a worldwide power. The whole world will feel the impact of his rule. He will exercise his authority over tribe, people, language, and nation. No doubt, there will be no law but his law."

Does that describe YOUR MAN DONALD

By the way, mhaze.

It also SEEMS that you think nobody’s allowed to describe how your arguments come across unless they quote you word for word. That’s not how discussion works. Interpretation is part of conversation - and if you don’t like how something reads, you’re free to clarify it, not lash out at people for noticing.

It's no wonder your lack of communication skills leave so much to be desired.

Initially at least, Pope Leo is looking like a carbon copy of Cranky Franky. That should suit those who stupidly believe in change for the sake of change.